Review in: Hebrew Studies Journal
Gevonden op: http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Amos%3a+A+New+Translation+with+Introduction+and+Commentary.-a0209800245
AMOS: A NEW TRANSLATION WITH INTRODUCTION AND COMMENTARY. By Francis I. Anderson
and David Noel Freedman, Anchor Bible 24A. Pp. xlii + 979. New York: Doubleday,
1989. Cloth.
Those familiar with the Anchor Bible are already aware of the format
which the title indicates is to be found here. First, there is a new
translation of the text of Amos. This is accompanied by an introduction and a
very detailed commentary. Each of these will be discussed independently of the
others. Two preliminary matters need to be considered first, however, and these
are found in the introductory word from the general editors.
The series is said to be "aimed at the general reader with no special formal training in biblical studies." If this is truly the aim, then both the series and this particular volume fall far short. Not only is the volume beyond the comprehension of the general reader, much of it is beyond the comprehension of the general seminary graduate. To comprehend the commentary requires a very detailed mastery of biblical studies in general and of Hebrew in particular. Few general readers would have any idea of the significance of most of the problems addressed or the issues investigated in this commentary.
Further, the introductory words from the general editors are still signed by William Foxwell Albright, even though he has been dead many years. It is unfortunate that such a practice is being followed when he obviously had no impact on this particular volume at all. It makes one wonder if general editors of the series are anything more than mere "window dressing.
The series is said to be "aimed at the general reader with no special formal training in biblical studies." If this is truly the aim, then both the series and this particular volume fall far short. Not only is the volume beyond the comprehension of the general reader, much of it is beyond the comprehension of the general seminary graduate. To comprehend the commentary requires a very detailed mastery of biblical studies in general and of Hebrew in particular. Few general readers would have any idea of the significance of most of the problems addressed or the issues investigated in this commentary.
Further, the introductory words from the general editors are still signed by William Foxwell Albright, even though he has been dead many years. It is unfortunate that such a practice is being followed when he obviously had no impact on this particular volume at all. It makes one wonder if general editors of the series are anything more than mere "window dressing.
As to the commentary itself, the new translation of the text of Amos is
as outstanding as one would expect from two such competent scholars as David
Noel Freedman and Francis I. Anderson. It is new, it is refreshing, and it
gives significant aid to any interpreter of Amos who seeks to come to grips
with the contemporary message of this ancient book. Most scholars will probably
prefer some "pet" translation of a phrase here and there, but overall
this is one of the best contemporary translations available. It is well worth
the price of the book for the serious interpreter.
The introduction to the book of Amos is also worthy of superlatives. One seldom picks up a commentary that reads so well that it is difficult to put down. This one achieves that measure. It was so interesting and informative that I did not put it down until the entire section had been read. For anyone who wishes to come to grips with the book, the background, and the issues raised by the study of the book of Amos, I know of no better introduction than this.
The authors state in beginning that the focus of their attention is not so much on literary analysis as upon the text itself. They do this by a thorough textual analysis where they give the MT "prestige but not privilege." Their critique of variants is quite rigorously done without a blind loyalty to the MT in the face of significant evidence. At the same time, they demonstrate a remarkable reluctance to emend the text, being content to exhibit more patience than most scholars with textual difficulties, confessing present ignorance and relying upon future studies to bring enlightenment on difficult passages.
Further, the bibliography is quite well done, and its arrangement in chronological order insofar as the contributions of each scholar are concerned is extremely helpful to the scholar who wishes to pursue the history of Amos studies. For the general reader, a simple alphabetical arrangement would probably have been a far more useful tool.
The authors propose a three-fold division of the book into "The Book of Doom" (1:1-4:13), "The Book of Woes" (5:1-6:14), and "The Book of Visions" (7:1-9:15). This fresh analysis of its organization will prove stimulating to any thoughtful reader who is familiar with previous treatments of the book. The authors give a very detailed analysis of this outline in their introductory material.
The introduction also contains a detailed analysis of the geopolitical terminology of Amos. The intent of this is to determine how Amos distinguished the various meanings of the term "Israel." The authors propose a code system whereby Amos did make such distinctions. Once again, while this study is quite fascinating to the scholar, it appears to be quite excessive for the general reader. Forty-five different references are examined, critiqued, and categorized.
In the authors' study of the unity of the book, they conclude that "there are no compelling reasons against accepting most if not all of the book as possibly, indeed probably ... [from] Amos." Their arguments at this point are based upon both the literary coherence of the text and the analysis of Amos' own personal development which could account for stylistic differences from place to place. They point out the questionable division into prose and poetry of most sections of Amos. Further, they do not question the editorial development of the text without crediting it with massive additions.
Unfortunately, it is in the commentary material itself that the book falls short. Many scholars will seriously question the early date for the ministry of Amos, for the authors place it in the era of 780-770 B.C.E. The style of writing is repetitive to the point of boredom and meanders so in dealing with each verse that this reader had to keep reminding himself exactly what was being discussed. Further, no general reader would ever progress through the mass of technical detail. It is hard enough for the scholar to maintain interest. The commentary takes 743 pages to discuss and interpret 146 verses, and that becomes excessive for anyone but the technical scholar.
The book will be a welcome addition to the literature on Amos for the scholar and for theological libraries, but few pastors will use it much, and I can conceive of almost no lay person using it more than once. It would be quite helpful if the translation could be printed separately, for it would certainly find a much wider readership. Finally, the publishers are to be commended for keeping the price of the book so reasonable.
The introduction to the book of Amos is also worthy of superlatives. One seldom picks up a commentary that reads so well that it is difficult to put down. This one achieves that measure. It was so interesting and informative that I did not put it down until the entire section had been read. For anyone who wishes to come to grips with the book, the background, and the issues raised by the study of the book of Amos, I know of no better introduction than this.
The authors state in beginning that the focus of their attention is not so much on literary analysis as upon the text itself. They do this by a thorough textual analysis where they give the MT "prestige but not privilege." Their critique of variants is quite rigorously done without a blind loyalty to the MT in the face of significant evidence. At the same time, they demonstrate a remarkable reluctance to emend the text, being content to exhibit more patience than most scholars with textual difficulties, confessing present ignorance and relying upon future studies to bring enlightenment on difficult passages.
Further, the bibliography is quite well done, and its arrangement in chronological order insofar as the contributions of each scholar are concerned is extremely helpful to the scholar who wishes to pursue the history of Amos studies. For the general reader, a simple alphabetical arrangement would probably have been a far more useful tool.
The authors propose a three-fold division of the book into "The Book of Doom" (1:1-4:13), "The Book of Woes" (5:1-6:14), and "The Book of Visions" (7:1-9:15). This fresh analysis of its organization will prove stimulating to any thoughtful reader who is familiar with previous treatments of the book. The authors give a very detailed analysis of this outline in their introductory material.
The introduction also contains a detailed analysis of the geopolitical terminology of Amos. The intent of this is to determine how Amos distinguished the various meanings of the term "Israel." The authors propose a code system whereby Amos did make such distinctions. Once again, while this study is quite fascinating to the scholar, it appears to be quite excessive for the general reader. Forty-five different references are examined, critiqued, and categorized.
In the authors' study of the unity of the book, they conclude that "there are no compelling reasons against accepting most if not all of the book as possibly, indeed probably ... [from] Amos." Their arguments at this point are based upon both the literary coherence of the text and the analysis of Amos' own personal development which could account for stylistic differences from place to place. They point out the questionable division into prose and poetry of most sections of Amos. Further, they do not question the editorial development of the text without crediting it with massive additions.
Unfortunately, it is in the commentary material itself that the book falls short. Many scholars will seriously question the early date for the ministry of Amos, for the authors place it in the era of 780-770 B.C.E. The style of writing is repetitive to the point of boredom and meanders so in dealing with each verse that this reader had to keep reminding himself exactly what was being discussed. Further, no general reader would ever progress through the mass of technical detail. It is hard enough for the scholar to maintain interest. The commentary takes 743 pages to discuss and interpret 146 verses, and that becomes excessive for anyone but the technical scholar.
The book will be a welcome addition to the literature on Amos for the scholar and for theological libraries, but few pastors will use it much, and I can conceive of almost no lay person using it more than once. It would be quite helpful if the translation could be printed separately, for it would certainly find a much wider readership. Finally, the publishers are to be commended for keeping the price of the book so reasonable.
Robert L. Cate
Oklahoma State University
Oklahoma State University
Stillwater, OK 74078
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten