Trent C. Butler, Judges (WBC 8), Thomas Nelson, 2009 review in JETS 53/4

Trent C. Butler, Judges (WBC 8), Thomas Nelson, 2009 review in JETS 53/4

Judges. By Trent Butler. WBC 8. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2009, xcii + 538 pp., $49.99.

Think Adrian Monk—or go back, if you remember him, to Peter Falk’s Columbo on television. Trent Butler likens his work in solving the riddle of Judges to that of a detective. Over the course of his investigation, Butler unravels many enigmas, examines evidence that may help solve a few more, and leaves some to stand as cold cases. This volume stands in the top tier of studies on this knotty book for four reasons: (1) it tackles difficulties in the text honestly and offers plausible solutions; (2) it converses with an extensive sampling of modern literature on Judges; (3) it displays sustained sensitivity to the rhetorical features of the text; and most noteworthy (4) it views the book as accurate historical testimony and gives the textual record the benefit of the doubt instead of presuming it to be a hypothetical reconstruction of dubious historical value.

The translation is Butler’s own. It is lively but not at the expense of transparency, colloquial but not eccentric. His rendering of 5:26, for example, retains the participles ma˙åqâ and ma˙åsâ in his rendering, “shattering, piercing” (p. 115) while most versions

transform them into full verbal clauses. He also preserves the ambiguity in idiomatic expressions, avoiding speculative reductionism. The reader, then, may interpret for himself whether “sustain your heart” (19:8, p. 405) means “refresh yourself ” (niv) or something with more spiritual substance.

Text-critical notes to the translation amount to a veritable textual commentary on Judges. Here Butler is thorough and judicious, focusing mainly on variants involving lxxa and lxxb. The Old Latin version also receives special attention via Niditch’s recent work (S. Niditch, Judges [WJK, 2008]). He even mentions the mysterious apocryphal judge Asemada, known only in the OL at 17:1.

According to Butler, Judges shows that Israel’s covenant disloyalty to Yahweh and to each other brings anarchy and self-destruction. The cycle leading from obedience to apostasy to deliverance deteriorates as the period unfolds. At the core of this degeneracy is failed leadership; in fact, he argues that the judges are mere caricatures of leaders.

Butler discusses the “no king in Israel” refrain in detail and concludes that the writer looks to a true king emulative of Joshua’s earlier leadership. Further, Judges is the rhetorical

and theological foil of the book of Joshua—the anti-Joshua. The people of God have now abandoned their commitment seen at the close of Joshua and are serving Canaanite gods. Notable in Judges is the absence of specific, detailed statements about God. Yet the text makes a significant theological point metonymically. The individual stories are parts representing the whole—that is, the larger message that God’s people desperately need to be one with him if they are to be one with one another.

Also characteristic of the volume is Butler’s repeated affirmation of the accuracy of the Judges narrative in depicting true history. Contrasting his continual assertion in the 1983 WBC volume on Joshua that Deuteronomic redactors had reworked many accounts, he takes nearly every opportunity he finds in Judges to cast doubt on theories that “long-removed historians created material to construct a previously unknown identity for Israel” (p. 58). Such a welcome shift builds upon Provan, Long, and Longman’s verification principle in viewing testimony as real history.

Butler astutely examines literary features in the text as well. He credits the author, not hypothetical “imbecilic editors” (p. lvii), with a dexterous employment of “complex structures . . . literary figures, complicated characterization and plotting, and exquisite use of irony” (p. lvii). As with Joshua, Judges displays a thematic structure anchored by the themes of failure and lack of leadership. The Judges author has sprinkled satire, mirroring, inclusio, chiasm, hendiadys, pun, and other literary devices throughout his work. However Butler wisely cautions against imposing chiastic structure where none is evident (“pan-chiasm,” p. 412). Many of Butler’s insightful appendices in the volume offer fresh approaches to genre analysis and narrative structure as alternatives to hypothetical redaction postulates.

For added value, this work navigates a deft course through many of the traditional difficulties in Judges, including: the book’s provenance (a polemic against Jeroboam’s illicit worship centers in the north); complexities in Deborah’s song (“Commentary on

Judges 5 may be the most difficult task that an interpreter of the OT attempts,” p. 135); the Gideon, Barak, Jephthah, and Samson fiascoes in light of Hebrews 11:32; the Spirit’s “clothing” Gideon; the 300 years of 11:26 (a round number); Jephthah’s daughter (he did sacrifice her out of a lack of trust in Yahweh); the sibbolet/ŝibbolet issue in 12:5– 6; chapters 17–21 as occurring early in the period; and the curious reading in 19:18, among others.

More features that enhance the value of the commentary include: Butler’s attention to key Hebrew words and important syntactical features; his restraint in offering unsubstantiated speculation (p. 297, though he does some on p. 327); welcome restraint in discussing sexual allusions in the text; relevant archaeological and geographical details; a pastoral tone in his summary comments; and a wry sense of humor (such as the “goat parade” in 15:1–3).

The work’s strong points thus outweigh the few areas of concern I have. Some frustrations are due to the cumbersome WBC format. The “Form/Structure/Setting,” “Comment,” and “Explanation” sections, for instance, tend to promote a repetitious style. As a case in point, note that the opening paragraph in the “Form/Structure/Setting” units for 13:1–16:31; 17:18–31; and 19:1–30 are exactly alike except for changing the text reference numbers. Butler occasionally gives too much weight to oral tradition in the composition of Judges, in my opinion. Archaeology has shown that a dominant written tradition existed early in Israel’s history, as suggested by Judges 8:14—which curiously stands without note in his “Comments” section on the verse. Butler seems fairly certain that “separate traditions lie behind” portions of the Abimelech story (p. 233), and that the Samson narratives “incorporate folklore elements” (p. 347). How would he or we know that? I would also like to read more on how he views inspiration and the Spirit’s role in producing the text. And in a related vein, the volume seems a bit thin in defining the role of Judges within the larger framework of OT theology. Is “the basic question of the Old Testament and even biblical theology: who are the people of God?” (p. 33)? My inclination is that he overstates this thesis. Finally, as I read to understand Butler’s views on what the text is saying, it was often difficult to know what his conclusions were, so thorough was his treatment of the relevant literature.

Still, Butler’s Judges is a commendable work and takes its place alongside Block and Younger as indispensible tools in solving the riddles posed by this essential, enigmatic OT voice.

Garnett Reid

Free Will Baptist Bible College, Nashville, TN

BACK TO: ADVANCED OT 'ORTHODOX PROTESTANT'
BACK TO: ADVANCED OT

BACK: TERUG NAAR OVERZICHT

Review van Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, Chapters 18-50 (NICOT), Eerdmans, 1995 in Hebrew Studies 38

Review van Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, Chapters 18-50 (NICOT), Eerdmans, 1995 in Hebrew Studies 38

THE BOOK OF GENESIS, CHAPTERS 18-50. By Victor P. Hamilton. NICOT. Pp. xx + 774. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995. Cloth, $42.00.

Commentaries on Genesis abound. So what does this one have to offer? It has no introduction, which was in volume 1 on Gen 1-17, but it is part of a series whose purpose is defined: "In the Old Testament we read God's word as it was spoken to his people Israel. Today, thousands of years later, we hear in these thirty-nine books his inspired and authoritative message for us." It is therefore as an exposition of the biblical text as holy scripture that the commentary should be assessed.

There is a fresh translation of the Hebrew text which makes use of modern philological    debate and comparative material. For students working with the Hebrew text there is a mine of useful information, although the mine does need a certain amount of quarrying. For example, at the famous crux in Gen 49:10, (Hebrew word), Hamilton sets out the various interpretive options fairly, but he does not advocate any of them, so it is only from his translation, "until he possesses that which belongs to him," that one deduces that he prefers to follow the early versions in presupposing a relative particle (Hebrew word) with preposition , in other words, a Vorlage. With regard to Moriah in Gen 22:2, Hamilton merely notes in passing that the versions interpreted this in terms of the root (Hebrew word) --which, given the usage of (Hebrew word) in verse 14, is surely the most likely construal on the part of the Hebrew narrator, whatever the philological origins--and opts for the suggestion that the name is Hurrian, meaning "land which is the king's," which he then attempts to link with Jerusalem via David's purchase of land from the Jebusite Araunah.

With regard to classic source-critical analysis in terms of J, E, and P, Hamilton usually notes rather briefly the main positions held and makes some sensible, though limited, comments as to the limitations and, occasionally, strengths of such analysis; but such discussions tend to stand alongside of, rather than integrally contribute to, his own interpretation. For example, although he rightly notes that the division of Jacob's dream in Gen 28:10-22 into J and E misses "a progression in Jacob's reaction," he does not, as he might, relate this to Jacob's perception in verses 12-13: first a stairway (or whatever sullam means), then emissaries of God (elohi'm, generic), then Yahweh himself.

Hamilton is perhaps at his weakest in distinguishing between interpretation of the text in its final form and discussion of its possible prehistory and composition; he shows some tendency to conflate the two and so to do insufficient justice to either. For example, with regard to the difficult methodological questions posed by the similar stories in Gen 12:10-20 and Genesis 20, Hamilton says: "Who is to say that an individual, caught in a potentially dangerous situation, is not capable of stooping twice to use other people? Perhaps Abraham has not learned from his previous mistakes. If one views them as two separate events, then the Scriptures are showing that the post-covenant Abraham, for all his spiritual maturation (e.g., Gen 15:6), is still much like the pre-covenant Abraham" (pp. 59f). These are fair interpretative points, but they neither really address the classic "doublet" arguments nor utilize the "type-scene" suggestions of Robert Alter.

The interpretation of Genesis as Christian scripture is evident in regular sections devoted to New Testament appropriation of Old Testament material. However, Christian reflection is not limited to such sections. For example, the discussion of Abraham's behavior in Genesis 20 offers wide-ranging reflections on sanctification, which refer to I Corinthians and Romans as well as Lutheran and Reformed traditions of spirituality. Perhaps Hamilton is at his best in offering suggestive narrative theological insights. On Gen 18:16 he says: "Always the perfect host, Abraham escorts his guests on a portion of their journey. In a literal sense Abraham, like Enoch, 'walked with God"' (p. 17). Or on Gen 28:19: "The story is filled with incidents of transformation. A stone becomes a pillar. A (Hebrew word) becomes Bethel. A man running away from home runs into God" (p. 247).

Yet I was disappointed that Hamilton does not work more fully at probing the issues raised by the text. Genesis 24 is not introduced as the paradigmatic story about guidance that it is. Nor does the relationship between intelligent thought, prayer, signs, and guidance receive any probing. When, in 24:12-14, the servant specifies the signs that are to mark God's guidance, Hamilton only says: "The boldness of the prayer is impressive ... Such is the servant's way of perceiving the will of God. As a method of finding divine guidance it may be compared with Gideon's woolen fleece (Judg 6:36-40) ... Lacking priest, or temple, or prophetic oracle, and hundreds of miles from home, how else shall this servant find the will of God in a strange land?" (pp. 145f). This is fine as far as it goes. But I miss a sense of engagement with the issue that probes it in the kind of way that, say, Calvin did. Calvin was greatly exercised by the servant's behavior as appearing to impose upon God, and so he used the passage to give an exposition of the dynamics of guidance. Whether or not Calvin's interpretation is persuasive is secondary to his sense that the text poses an important issue for the life of faith with which he, as commentator, must grapple. This is surely what a reader today of a commentary on Genesis as holy scripture may reasonably expect to find, yet Hamilton devotes perhaps disproportionate space to other issues.

Overall, therefore, I feel a sense of regret that Hamilton has spent too much time presenting the modem scholarly exegetical debate and too little time either engaging with the giants of moral and theological interpretation from down the ages or producing his own interpretation. What he has done is undoubtedly useful, but it might have been even more interesting had he followed a literary and theological agenda more confidently.

 

Walter R. W. L. Moberly
Abbey House
Durham, England

 

BACK TO: ADVANCED OT 'ORTHODOX PROTESTANT'

BACK TO: Overzicht Commentaren

Review van Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1-17 (NICOT), Eerdmans, 1990 uit Hebrew Studies 32

Review van Victor P. Hamilton,  The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1-17 (NICOT), Eerdmans, 1990 uit Hebrew Studies 32

THE BOOK OF CHAPTERS 1-17. By Victor P. Hamilton. NICOT. Pp. xviii + 522. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990. Cloth, $27.95.

The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1-17 has long been anticipated by those who patiently await each new installment of R. K. Harrison's New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Like the other volumes in this series, Victor Hamilton's commentary represents the best of current evangelical scholarship, with its strong belief in the authority and infallibility of Scripture. Biblical scholars and informed lay persons will find this an excellent resource for the study of Genesis. Hamilton shows a remarkable familiarity with the central issues in the book of Genesis and leaves no doubt that he has searched far and wide for bibliography to fill its pages with learned footnotes. Nevertheless, the book has significant weaknesses.

Hamilton begins with a discussion of several introductory questions. Under the rubric "Structure," he focuses almost entirely on the role and meaning of the "toledoths," which he takes to be colophons providing the key to the book's present shape and meaning. His lengthy discussion ends inconclusively, however, leaving the reader with little understanding of just how this basic structural feature will affect one's reading of the book. Further discussion of the structure of Genesis is limited to a short page and a half of mere snippets of "other indicators of structural design in Genesis" (p. 10). In light of the fact that the following section, dealing with "Composition," attempts to give a refutation of classical and modern forms of literary criticism in favor of the book's unity, one would have expected a fuller discussion of the nature of the book's coherence.

In that following section, Hamilton gives a series of more or less typical conservative (a la Harrison, Cassuto, and others) arguments against the Documentary Hypothesis. Oddly enough, he fails to discuss or even mention Whybray's The Making of the Pentateuch (1987). Because he does not go beyond much of what was already said a generation ago, his arguments are not likely to be convincing to modern critical scholars, nor will his interaction with contemporary scholarship be found satisfactory. For example, he regards the difference between Rolf Rendtorff's view of the composition of Genesis and the classical Documentary Hypothesis as "more cosmetic than substantive" (p. 26). This leaves one with the impression that, for Hamilton, anyone who holds to a non-Mosaic view of the Pentateuch's composition can automatically be classified as adhering to some form of the Documentary Hypothesis. Nor does he offer a solution of his own to address the question of the book's authorship. Evangelicals will find it surprising that, for Hamilton, even the views of fellow evangelicals like K. A. Kitchen and R. K. Harrison are "neither more nor less hypothetical than Wellhausen's  JEP Genesis or Rendtorff's  Uberlieferungen Genesis" (p. 37). For Hamilton, the question of the nature of the composition of Genesis is an "exercise in futility" or an "endless" pursuit "never coming to a knowledge of the truth" (p. 38). Such a conclusion is very inadequate.

Hamilton's preoccupation with literary criticism comes out again in his section on the "theology" of Genesis. Here, the issue is not so much the theology of the book as whether it contains a single theology or multiple theologies. Since he holds that the narrative's theology resides in its repeated "promises," his discussion quickly reduces to the question of whether these promise sections are "original."

Some idea of this book's general approach to Genesis can be gained from a glance at the particular "Problems in Interpretation" singled out for discussion. First is the question of whether the "days" of Genesis are literal twenty-four-hour days or geological ages. This intramural evangelical discussion is of little importance to anyone outside those boundaries. Hamilton's solution-that the term "day" is to be read as a "solar day of 24 hours," but "it [the text?] understands 'day' not as a chronological account of how many hours God invested in his creating project, but as an analogy of God's creative activity" (pp. 55-56) is almost incomprehensible.

The next problem is "Genesis as Myth." Settling on B. Childs' definition of that term, Hamilton concludes that "it is irresponsible and incorrect" to speak of Genesis 1-11 as myth. The last two problems are "The Patriarchs as History" and "The Religion of the Patriarchs." One can quickly see that these topics are those which have long accompanied traditional and evangelical approaches to Genesis. As far as I can tell, however, Hamilton has made no new contribution to them.

A glance at virtually any page of the commentary will show that Hamilton's comments have been guided principally by the secondary literature of Genesis. One gets the distinct impression that this commentary was written not so much by going verse by verse through the book of Genesis as by going article by article through Elenchus Bibliographicus. There is no better example than the first page of the commentary on Gen 1:1-2. To explain his translation of the Torah's first word (een Hebreeuws woord), Hamilton directs us to Gordon's article on "Extensions of Barth's Law of Vocalic Sequence" in Orientalia for "the problems surrounding the vocalization of (een Hebreeuws woord), and (een Hebreeuws woord) (p. 103). It is hard to imagine this as the central question for Gen 1:1. There are other examples. Such a commentary is very different from those that begin with questions that originate out of the text itself.

Hamilton often devotes an inordinate amount of attention to a single issue in a passage, passing over other, sometimes more important points, without comment. In the NICOT series, every important aspect of the text is expected to be given its due attention. Unfortunately, such is not the case in this commentary. Again, as an example, Hamilton's five-and-a-half page discussion of Gen 1:1 is devoted solely to the question of whether (een Hebreeuws woord) is in the absolute or construct state and the verse's relationship to the rest of the chapter.

A final general observation relates to the history of interpretation. Hamilton pays a great deal of attention to ancient Near Eastern parallels and devotes a special section to each chapter's interpretation in the NT, but there is a noticeable lack of attention to the interpretation of the Genesis material in the rest of the Hebrew Bible, not to mention the vast and important resources of later interpretation. Though the LXX and Targumim are cited, there is little if any interaction with them as versions, and Hamilton's attention to Jewish interpretation (other than Cassuto) is nil. Thus in his treatment of Gen 3:15 he discusses the views of Francis Schaeffer, but not Rashi-nor Luther and Calvin for that matter. Given the wealth of fruitful interaction between Jewish and Christian scholars in previous centuries, this is a serious omission. Similarly, though Hamilton discusses the standard English translations of Gen 3:15 (AV, RSV, NAB, NEB, and JB), no mention is made of the Jewish Publication Society translation, even though on some key points it supports Hamilton's own translation.

With major paradigm shifts taking place in biblical studies these days, the prospect of writing a definitive commentary on Genesis can appear quite bleak. Hamilton's commentary fits a very definitive paradigm. For those who accept the virtues of that paradigm, this work will be seen as a major contribution to the study of Genesis.

John Sailhamer
Trinity Evangelical Divinity School

Deerfield, IL 60015

BACK TO: ADVANCED OT 'ORTHODOX PROTESTANT'

BACK TO: Overzicht Commentaren

 

Review van Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 16–50 (WBC 2), Dallas: Word, 1994; in JETS 40/2

Review van Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 16–50 (WBC 2), Dallas: Word, 1994; in JETS 40/2

Genesis 16–50. WBC 2. By Gordon J. Wenham. Dallas: Word, 1994, xxxviii + 517 pp., $27.99.

The second volume of Wenham’s commentary on Genesis in the WBC series happily maintains the level of scholarly erudition readers have discovered when using his first volume. That the second volume covers the last two-thirds of Genesis, while the first covered but the first third, in no way indicates that Wenham has offered us a thinned-down commentary on the last thirty-five chapters of Genesis.

The introductory section includes five brief essays (2 to 5 pages each) on (1) historical setting of the patriarchs, (2) Egyptian background to the Joseph story, (3) chronology of the patriarchs, (4) religion of the patriarchs, and (5) history, theology and the commentator. Throughout this section Wenham presents a convincing list of arguments against the recent trend to treat the patriarchs as entirely fictive/literary personalities.

At the same time, he concedes some of the excesses of indiscriminate and superficial appeal to extra-Biblical sources to shore up the historicity of the patriarchal age. He even sides with the critical commentators, to a degree at least, in his reflections on Exod 6:3, to wit, that the patriarchs knew God only as El Shaddai, and that knowledge of God as Yahweh emerges only in the Mosaic period (p. xxxii). For Wenham the bottom line is that if we have no patriarchs, then the promises of God were never actually spoken to them, and hence the theological heart of Genesis is destroyed (p. xxxviii).

The bulk of the commentary, as one would expect, is analysis of Genesis 16–50. The format is that of the first volume. The author divides these thirty-five chapters into thirty-four units, the shortest being 25:12–18 (Ishmael’s family history), the longest being three-chapter sections from the Joseph story (Genesis 43–45 and Genesis 48–50).

Each unit proceeds with the same sequence of presentation: (1) bibliography, (2) the author’s own translation, (3) grammatical notes on the Hebrew of the unit under discussion, (4) a discussion of form, structure, and setting, (5) comment, usually on each verse, or occasionally a cluster of verses, (6) explanation in which the unit’s meanings, relevance and application are probed. The commentary concludes with an author’s index, a subject index and an index of Biblical texts. I believe these indices could have been improved by the inclusion of a Hebrew word index.

In my judgment Wenham is at his best and most original when he is discussing form, structure and setting. Already in the first volume and in published articles he has demonstrated a great sensitivity and insight in threading his way through the whole maze of arguments advanced by scholars vis-à-vis the source background of a particular passage and then presenting a case for his own position.

As in volume 1, he continues to make a case for the view that the so-called P portions of Genesis 16–50 (and E portions too) are earlier than the J portions, thus radically reversing a time-honored position of OT source-critical studies. For statements on J’s redaction of P (and E), see his comments on pp. 19, 79, 174 and 220. And yet, while Wenham continues to use the letter designations J, E, D and P, it is not clear to me exactly what he means by these, regardless of how he arranges them chronologically. For example, when he consistently cites the authorial/redactional work of J, what J does he have in mind? Wellhausen’s J? Van Seters’ J? Or, is he using J to designate something totally different from what J normally implies when used by Biblical scholars, and if so, what is it?

The bibliographies are up to date and tend to include only articles published since Westermann’s three-volume commentary of 1974–1982. Both in his notes and comments, Wenham avoids excessive footnoting. Thus in any given section there may be forty or fifty listed articles at the head, but in the comments that follow maybe only five or six of these articles will be alluded to.

The notes section will be useful, of course, almost exclusively to the individual who is using this commentary with his/her Hebrew Bible open. For the most part they deal with grammatical issues and cite frequently the standard works of Gesenius and Joüon. At times the notes are a bit too cryptic and could be extended for clarification and significance.

The last section of each unit discussion is called “Explanation.” According to the general editors’ statement at the beginning, the purpose of the explanation (and the comment) is to provide “a clear exposition of the passage’s meaning and its relevance to the ongoing biblical revelation.” At times Wenham succeeds admirably in this task. On a few occasions, however, the explanation section involves essentially a recapitulation of the unit’s contents, already discussed in the translation/comment sections.

To illustrate, while it is certainly correct to speak of Ishmael’s birth as a “diversion” in Genesis’ longer perspective (p. 13), do not God’s promises to Hagar vis-à-vis her child (16:11–12) at least hint that the God of Israel is actively involved in the life and destiny of the unchosen? By the way, throughout Wenham’s discussion of chaps. 16–21, I wonder whether Abraham’s behavior is as exemplary as Wenham would have us believe, and whether Sarah’s is as obnoxious as he would have us believe.

Or again, while Wenham’s discussion of the behavior of Abraham and Isaac in conjunction with the Aqedah incident is salutary (pp. 112–118), does not this text focus more, or at least as much, on God? Is not Genesis 22 as much a test for God as it is for Abraham? And if Isaac is a type of Christ for the NT writers (p. 117), is not also the ram? After all, who died? Similarly, while the famous passage (28:10–22) of Jacob at Bethel says much about Jacob (pp. 225–226), does it say anything about a God who binds himself unconditionally to a deceiver and an exploiter?

All of us, preacher and teacher alike, owe a deep debt of gratitude to Wenham for this concluding volume on Genesis. In my judgment, it is at the top of a number of Genesis commentaries written by authors whose working hypothesis is that all Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for doctrine and growth in righteousness.

Victor P. Hamilton

Asbury College, Wilmore, KY

BACK TO: ADVANCED OT 'ORTHODOX PROTESTANT'

BACK TO: Overzicht Commentaren

Review of: Marvin A. Sweeney, Isaiah 1–39: With an Introduction to Prophetic Literature, in JETS 41/2

Review van Marvin A. Sweeney,  Isaiah 1–39: With an Introduction to Prophetic Literature, in JETS 41/2

Isaiah 1–39: With an Introduction to Prophetic Literature. By Marvin A. Sweeney. The Forms of the Old Testament Literature 16. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996, xx + 547 pp., $45.00 paper.

This volume, the ninth to appear in this series, is one of the best so far. It contains the usual features: extensive bibliographies, a glossary of genres and formulas, and a discussion of the structure, genre, setting and intention of each unit. Also included is a 21-page introduction that discusses form-critical methodology and the genres of prophetic literature.

The introduction is very well written and shows a keen grasp of the issues in form criticism, both past and present. Sweeney argues that the forms of prophetic literature must be examined as well as the forms of prophetic speech, since “the prophetic literature of the Hebrew Bible does not distinguish between the ‘original’ words of the prophets and the later redactors and tradents. . . . The final form of the prophetic book in its entirety must therefore stand as the basis for form-critical exegesis” (p. 11). Sweeney carefully preserves this distinction between oral forms and written forms in the introduction, where each is treated separately.

It must be pointed out that Sweeney is not performing a naïve “literary reading” of the final form. He is fully committed to discussing the history of the compositional process. Moreover, he insists that the sociohistorical setting of each unit must be understood. While the first step—a study of the oral forms and their Sitze im Leben—is necessary, Sweeney believes that it is essential to continue the process by identifying how each layer of composition (including the text as a whole) functioned in its own historical setting.

The study of compositional history is thus very important for Sweeney, for only by distinguishing between earlier and later material can he explain why the later community treasured the original prophetic message as relevant to their situation: “Only by investigating the process by which such later tradents understood, reformulated, and reapplied the earlier words of the prophets can the form critic identify the impetus for the preservation, growth and continued vitality of the prophetic tradition” (p. 12).

Sweeney next includes a large section (pp. 31–62) on the book of Isaiah as a whole. While he believes that chaps. 1–39 contain the earliest material, he does not believe that the book of Isaiah ever existed as three separate “books.” Sweeney not only rejects Duhm’s divisions of Isaiah as a theory of composition but also states that the classic tripartite division does not even correspond to the internal literary structure (pp. 41–42). From a top-down perspective, Sweeney notes that the book is thematically structured into two sections, with a division between chaps. 33 and 34; the first half of the book contains announcements of judgment, whereas the second half proclaims that the judgment has ended. These two sections, which are held together by intertextual links between chaps. 1 and 65–66, can be further subdivided into other sections. This narrative shape can only be discerned at the end of an ascendant formcritical process, since Sweeney’s procedure is to begin with the smallest literary units and work upwards.

Sweeney identifies four compositional stages based on larger groupings of these units: The first goes back to the prophet Isaiah ben Amoz; the second is a Josianic redaction dating to the late 7th century; the third is a late 6th-century exilic redaction; and the fourth stage, resulting in the final form of the book, dates to the late 5th century during the reforms of Ezra and Nehemiah. Sweeney is fairly confident regarding his ability to date these stages, and he depends heavily on references to international politics for reconstructing the Sitz im Leben of each unit. His arguments for dating the layers of tradition are well reasoned, though not all readers will be convinced by his tendency to see the widespread agricultural metaphors in the book as evidence of cultic liturgical activity (pp. 54, 57, 129).

Highlights of the book include frequent demonstrations of how the later community appropriated earlier traditions (pp. 67–69, 357–358, 457–459, 485–487), a brilliant discussion of the form-critical problems in 7:1–25, and an explanation of 9:7–10:14 that shows Sweeney’s remarkable ability to understand the ˘ow of the argument and the function of a unit in its context. Another noteworthy section is his treatment of chap. 38 (pp. 488–505), where he interacts extensively with C. Seitz. One disappointing feature is Sweeney’s tendency to downplay the possibility of eschatological references (e.g. pp. 99, 196–211, 394–396), especially noticeable when he examines chap. 11 only in the context of 7th-century national and religious aspirations (pp. 210–211).

Even for those who may disagree with Sweeney’s views on compositional history, this is an invaluable tool for understanding the compositional strategy of the book of Isaiah. Sweeney’s meticulous work is to be highly commended and will stand the test of time as a first-class exegetical tool.

Michael A. Lyons

Madison, WI

BACK: ADVANCED OT

BACK: NAAR OVERZICHT 

Review of: Ernest Best, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Ephesians (ICC)

Review van: Ernest Best, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Ephesians (ICC), T. & T. Clark, 1998 in JETS 44/2 

A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Ephesians. By Ernest Best. ICC. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1998, xxix + 686 pp., $69.95. 

Once a neglected book, Ephesians now boasts an increasing number of excellent commentaries to guide scholars, teachers, and pastors who wish to understand this rich work. Best’s thorough treatment is among the better ones to emerge. He had a distinguished academic career in Scotland and retired from the divinity faculty of the University of Glasgow. This commentary replaces T. K. Abbott’s original ICC volume on Ephesians and Colossians, first issued in 1897. It contains three sections: an introduction section that covers the usual areas; the commentary itself, in which are embedded six detached notes on major Ephesian topics (the heavenlies, in Christ, the powers, the body of Christ, Israel and the Church, and the Haustafel); and two concluding essays (on the church and moral teaching). Three indexes complete the volume. Best has included a wealth of bibliographic entries; indeed, each section or subsection begins with an impressive list of pertinent resources.

The knotty problem of the authorship of this allegedly Pauline letter receives considerable and tightly reasoned attention. Since Ephesians so uniquely parallels Colossians, Best includes the latter in his assessment of what he sees as the main possible solutions: Paul wrote both letters; someone else wrote both letters; Paul wrote Colossians but not Ephesians; Paul wrote Ephesians but not Colossians; and the two letters were written by two different unknown authors. Next he sketches out the profile Ephesians presents of its author: a male, a Hellenistic Jewish Christian who possessed  complex Greek writing style (often with a liturgical sound to it), and one who consciously specified his name as Paul the apostle. If the writer was not Paul, how can we account for this claim? For Best, the answer is found in the device of pseudonymity. Paradoxically, he allows, “Were Ephesians not by Paul its content might still be true and helpful to believers” (p. 11)—except, of course, in its claim to authorship!

Yet, in fact, Best does his best to defend the notion that pseudonymity need not imply deception, for AE (Best’s convention for referring to the author of Ephesians) was simply writing “to instruct Christians in the new situations in which they were finding themselves in the way Paul would have done had he still been alive” (p. 13). Though admitting that by the third century pseudonymous writings were condemned by Christians, Best argues that this was not necessarily true at this early date. He assesses the possible ways in which Ephesians and Colossians might be related. He evaluates the linguistic phenomena in Ephesians and the hypothesis of a secretary to account for the divergences from Paul’s typical style. He compares the “thought” of Ephesians to that of Paul. He concludes that Ephesians and Colossians were produced by different authors—not Paul—who were part of some Pauline school. They take up Pauline concepts and terms, but extend them in new directions.

His case is well argued and certainly plausible, given his assumptions. I think he too quickly dismisses the ethical issue inherent in the hypothesis of pseudonymity to which I briefly alluded above. Two recent theses in Great Britain suggest that we cannot so easily dismiss the element of deception in pseudonymous writing. See T. L. Wilder, “New Testament Pseudonymity and Deception” (unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Aberdeen, 1998) and Jeremy Duff, “A Reconsideration of Pseudepigraphy in Early Christianity” (unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Oxford University, 1998). Both Wilder and Duff argue that deception is inherent in the genre of writing pseudonymously. What makes Best’s approach more curious is how he proceeds to describe the “picture of Paul” we get from this unknown author as reported in the letter, e.g. Paul is a prisoner, or Paul asks for prayer for himself (p. 42). Yet if this is written several decades after Paul’s death by a member of a Pauline school, it all turns out to be spurious concoctions anyway. Of course Paul was once a prisoner, but he’s dead now. This has the appearance of verisimilitude; but if it is only fiction—as if Paul were really in prison requesting prayer—how can we truly derive any picture of Paul from it? All we can know, in Best’s theory, is what AE wanted his readers to think about Paul, and what they were to imagine Paul would say were he alive between ad 80–90.

Best concludes that Ephesians is not a genuine letter after all, but a homily or sermon written and sent out for wider circulation (like Hebrews, James, and Jude). But since Paul normally wrote letters, AE disguises his homily as a letter, says Best. As to the purpose and occasion of Ephesians, Best considers but rejects, as do most, Goodspeed’s theory as well as those who posit that Ephesians was written to oppose the growing threat of gnosticism. He also rejects the view popularized by F. F. Bruce in his NICNT commentary (1984) that Ephesians expanded or universalized the principal tenets of Colossians (see also Moffatt’s Introduction, 1918). Likewise he dismisses the position of Schnackenburg’s (1982; ET, 1991) and Lincoln’s (1990) commentaries that sees the letter as a response to crises in the congregations. Best’s conclusion is rather more general: the AE seeks to help Christians, who have now entered into a new group—the church—out of their former paganism, to know what is the church’s nature and what conduct is now required of them.

The commentary itself is a model of thoroughness, and Best takes pains not to neglect any crucial exegetical matter. Modern and ancient sources are used with facility and leave readers feeling that Best has carefully considered the entire history of exegesis in assessing the letter’s issues and implications. Though adopting the Nestle-Aland²⁷ critical Greek text, he considers the variant readings in that edition all along the way, though few, as he says, seriously alter the meaning of the text.

A review like this must pick on specific questions or highlight possible problems, but let readers know that my concerns are minuscule compared to the otherwise masterful analysis of this letter. I was disappointed that, while Best correctly and importantly notes concerning 1:4, “Election and predestination in our passages are not related primarily to individual salvation but to God’s purpose,” he does not proceed to tease out the possible corporate implications of these theological constructs within the wider community issues of the church’s identity in Ephesians. At the same time, in his note on “in Christ,” Best articulates the corporate nature of that phrase in its local sense: the church is the body that is “in Christ.” Best fully unpacks his understanding of the corporate nature of the church in Ephesians in Essay I at the end of the commentary (pp. 622–41).

The sealing of the Spirit (1:13) specifies the “mark” that the Spirit leaves on believers at the point of their conversion including, but not limited to, charismatic gifts and the fruit of the Spirit, and indicates to them that they belong to God and are under his protection. Wisely, Best explains AE’s use of the “powers” in 1:21 and elsewhere in a way that combines both their natural and supernatural elements, despite the qualms of many in the West to acknowledge supernatural realities. They are connected to the heavenlies (and the stars) and spirits, and they influence or control the lives of people. Importantly, in the view of AE all such powers are now subject to Christ’s allencompassing dominion, and the church proclaims God’s wisdom (3:10), in Best’s terms, “to facts and observable forces” (p. 179). On the thorny problem of 1:23 Best opts for taking the participle pleroumenou and pleroma (fullness) as passive and the clause in apposition to soma (body): the pleroma is filled by Christ who is himself filled by God. Christ is both the head of the church and fills it as his pleroma (p. 180). And then, what means “head” in this letter? Best concludes his note by including both ruler and source: “Of the occasions when Christ is described as head in Ephesians he is clearly depicted as overlord in 5.23 and 1.22. Probably this holds also for 4.15 even if Christ, and not the head, is to be viewed as the source of the body’s growth and development” (p. 196).

Considering the many possibilities for the “quotation” in 4:8, Best believes that AE was citing part of a Christian hymn whether or not he actually knew it derived from Ps 68:18. Though finding the view of W. H. Harris and others on the descent (4:9) attractive—that it refers to the Spirit’s descent to give gifts at Pentecost—Best finds it, and the patristic view that Christ descended to the underworld, unconvincing. He opts for the simple view that the text refers to Christ’s incarnation in this world. He questions the popular view of 4:11 that the one article governing “shepherds” and “teachers” identifies them as one group, often pastor-teachers. According to Best, they may indeed be two—as there are three other groups: prophets, apostles, evangelists— though obviously closely identified and overlapping in their roles.

As to the Haustafel, Best observes, “Christianity contains an unresolved tension between authority and mutuality or, in the terms of our passage . . . , between mutual subordination and the authority of some” (p. 517). In other words, he says, though all believers are to be mutually submissive, in their differing functions in the household, some must exercise authority over others, and some must submit to others. As AE is certainly addressing Christian readers, submission would be the voluntary response of those who wished to respond “as to the Lord.” Disagreeing with Bedale (JTS 5 [1954] 211–15), Best believes the sense of “head” in 5:23 must be “rule” since headship of the husband is linked to the wife’s subordination.

In Essay II (pp. 642–59) Best analyzes the moral teaching of this letter. In a few words, he is not impressed by what AE has constructed. He finds it lacking in depth, penetration, and focus, compared with other authors of the NT, especially Jesus and Paul. And he finds it very culturally bound with little transfer to modern Christians. In its favor, he admits, is Ephesians’ insistence that all Christians are morally responsible, and all must follow the same standards of conduct. Having studied, written, and taught on Ephesians for many years, I find this section very disappointing and wide of the mark. It left a bad taste in my mouth after having profited so much from Best’s wise insights throughout the volume. I wonder whether his disavowal of Pauline authorship restricted his ability to understand the book’s ethics in the larger understanding of what Paul sought to do towards the conclusion of his career. Notwithstanding, I would recommend this commentary highly. Its judgments are sane and well argued. It is written clearly and well.

William W. Klein

Denver Seminary, Denver, CO

 

BACK: 'Advanced' NT

BACK: NAAR OVERZICHT

Review van David L. Petersen, Zechariah 9–14 and Malachi: A Commentary (OTL), WJK; in JETS 40/2

Review van David L. Petersen, Zechariah 9–14 and Malachi: A Commentary (OTL), WJK; in  JETS 40/2

Zechariah 9–14 and Malachi: A Commentary. By David L. Petersen. OTL. Louisville:

Westminster John Knox, 1995, xxi + 233 pp., $28.00.

This commentary is a sequel to Haggai and Zechariah 1–8: A Commentary (1984) in the same series and by the same author.

The introduction has sections on the three oracles of Zechariah 9–11, Zechariah 12–14, and Malachi; historical context; Persian-period Yahwism; the Persian period, including the international scene, Syria-Palestine, Persian imperial strategies in the Levant and Judahite social and religious structure; Zechariah 9–14; Malachi; and the text. This is then followed by the commentary on the three oracles. There are no indexes.

The strengths of the work are many. Petersen provides up-to-date treatments of the form-critical genres of the three oracles. He delineates the form-critical structure, the traditio-historical issues, the historical background, and the literary-critical perspectives  of the various literary or rhetorical units. On the whole, he does solid exegetical work on the details of each pericope. He introduces archeological evidence where appropriate. The volume is remarkably free of printing errors. Finally, it is an unusually well-written commentary. It was a pleasure to read it because of its enjoyable English style. Petersen is obviously an excellent writer.

But there are also weaknesses. I looked in vain for messianic interpretations or applications. There is virtually no use of the NT, despite the fact that Zech 9:9; 11:13; 12:10; 13:7 are quoted in the NT. The same is true of Mal 1:2; 3:1. Perhaps Petersen does not do canonical exegesis or canonical theology.

Petersen also maintains that in spite of the presence of nations’ names (e.g. in Zech 9:1–7) “there are no . . . readily identifiable historical events that lie behind these texts.” Yet I have attempted to show that there are (see my commentary on Zechariah in the Expositor’s Bible Commentary). He argues that “there is no specific individual, like a Haggai or a Zechariah, to whom the literature [of Zechariah 9–14 and Malachi] may be attributed.” But again I have tried to demonstrate precisely the opposite for Zechariah 9–14. Baldwin and Merrill have done the same for Malachi. In evaluating Lamarche’s hypothesis of the unity of Zechariah 9–14, Petersen observes that the hypothesis is based on the notion that a messianic royal ˜gure is central to the message of those chapters. He then claims that “few scholars today hold this to be the case.” But I suspect that the majority of evangelical scholars do hold it to be the case.

While I feel free to recommend Petersen’s work because of its strengths, it needs to be balanced by such evangelical commentaries as Baldwin’s, Merrill’s, and even my own in the Expositor’s Bible Commentary.

Kenneth L. Barker

Lewisville, TX

Back to: Starting Library OT

Review van Sharon Pace, Ezekiel (SHBC), Smyth & Helwys, 2008 in JETS 53/1

Review van Sharon Pace, Ezekiel (SHBC), Smyth & Helwys, 2008 in JETS 53/1

Daniel. By Sharon Pace. Macon, GA: Smyth and Helwys, 2008, xxiv + 383 pp., $55.00.

The Smyth and Helwys Commentary Series is designed to be “user friendly” and accessible to Bible students at any level. Sharon Pace’s commentary on Daniel in the series is a fine example of a well-written commentary that will appeal to both professional and layman. While there is little interaction with the biblical languages, Pace demonstrates a mastery of recent literature on Daniel and is sensitive to both Jewish and Christian historic interpretations of the book of Daniel. Her conclusions on critical issues are not particularly unique, following Collins (Hermenia) and Goldingay (Word) on most major points. Outside of a handful of specialized studies, conservative scholarship on Daniel such as Miller (Broadman and Holman, 1994) is ignored.

As with other contributions in this series, sidebars illuminate the text of the commentary with further cultural or historical details, such as brief definitions of key terms or explanations of non-biblical books. Sometimes these sidebars take the form of parallel texts from the Hebrew Bible or other literature, such as Josephus, Second Temple period texts (Enoch, 4 Ezra), classic Jewish or Christian exegesis, or modern reflections on Daniel. This feature is particularly valuable when reading Daniel 11, where an encyclopedic knowledge of the Seleucid and Ptolemaic dynasties is helpful. While these sidebars are valuable (and in many cases fascinating), they are supplemental and not necessary for the overall argument of the commentary. In general, the sidebars are remarkable for their variety. For example, in the commentary on Daniel 6, Pace includes several brief excerpts from Talmudic sources and a commentary selection from both Jerome and Calvin. Juxtaposing these different voices alongside the commentary on Daniel creates connections that are otherwise missed. Most critical issues appear in sidebars, usually citing important monographs on Daniel. For example, Yamauchi is cited in a sidebar on the identification of Belshazzar (p. 160), and two articles by Al Wolters appear in a sidebar on the writing on the wall (p. 181). As a result, endnotes are minimal. Pace divides the book into two sections based on genre. She argues that like Esther, Judith, and Tobit, Daniel 1–6 was written in the Persian period and was designed to offer a model for Jews living in the Diaspora. This is clear for Pace because these chapters deal with the problems the Jews faced living under Persian and later Hellenistic overlords. Citing the political situation found in Ezra as an example, one Persian monarch may be supportive of the rebuilding of the Temple, yet the next aggressively against the Jews and their traditions. Chapters 1–6 are therefore not objective history; the Babylonian kings are “ciphers for Persian rulers who govern their subjects with both care and caprice” (p. 7). While the bulk of chapters 1–6 were produced in the Persian period, Dan 2:40–45 is an insertion into the text by a later author who was aware of the marriage alliances of the Ptolemies and Seleucids.

Reflecting the mainstream of contemporary scholarship on Daniel, Pace argues that the apocalyptic section (chaps. 7–12) was written just before the death of Antiochus IV Epiphanes in 164 bc. Because of the format of the commentary, the introduction to Daniel is brief. Typical arguments for and against the late date cannot be seriously weighed. This is an unfortunate shortcoming of the Smyth and Helwys series. However, since this is the working assumption of the commentary, support for the later date is found in appropriate places throughout the commentary. For example, Pace argues that the fourth kingdom of Daniel 2 and 7 is Greece and the goat of Daniel 8 is Antiochus. Likewise, the “anointed prince” of Dan 9:25 is likely Onias III and the final “week” refers to the cessation of worship under Antiochus. Pace is clear that chapters 8 and 9 are nonhistorical, stereotyped depictions of the progress of history up to the time of the writer.

The details of the final vision of the book, however, can be confirmed from descriptions of the Seleucid kingdom found in Josephus and Maccabees. Pace therefore reads Daniel 7–12 alongside texts from 1–2 Maccabees, Josephus, Polybius and other primary sources. These texts are placed in sidebars to illustrate many of the difficult allusions to history in Daniel 11. She interprets all of Dan 11:21–45 as ex eventu prophecy referring to Antiochus IV Epiphanes, although verses 40–45 “turn to general statements about what will happen in the future” (p. 333). This is problematic, however, since Antiochus did not die in the land of Israel in a final battle—a detail Pace acknowledges. In the introduction, she describes these verses as “genuine predictions” with no awareness of the successes of the Maccabean revolt. If the final editor of Daniel had no problem inserting political marriages into Daniel 2, one wonders why this prophecy was not also “updated” to more accurately reflect the way in which Antiochus died.

As with other volumes in this series, each commentary section concludes by making connections between the text and contemporary culture and issues. For example, Pace connects the experience of the fiery furnace to the problem of racism in America via a film based on the short story Shadrach by William Styron. Since the refusal of the three young men to bow to the Babylonian idol is analogous to the civil rights movement in the American south, Pace addresses the contemporary problem of racism. However, some of these connections eventually run far afield from the theological points made by the text of Daniel. Pace illustrates chapter 5 by discussing William Walton’s oratorio Belshazzar’s Feast in order to detail anti-Judaism prejudice in (primarily) nineteenth century biblical scholarship. While her comments on developments within the field of biblical scholarship are excellent, they ultimately are tangential to the themes of the text of Daniel. In the second half of the commentary the “Connections” sections are rather brief, reflecting the difficulty of these chapters.

The commentary is accompanied by a CD-ROM that contains a PDF file of the commentary. However, no extra features (e.g. additional artwork or sidebars) appear in the electronic form of the commentary. This is unfortunate, as the CD-ROM format lends itself to higher resolution images and more appropriate maps that might have been used in a classroom setting. The text is fully searchable and can be copied for use in a wordprocessor, although the electronic version would have been enhanced if the indices were hyperlinked.

Phillip J. Long

Grace Bible College, Grand Rapids, MI

Back to: Starting Library OT

Review Walter Brueggemann, Isaiah 1-39 & 40-66 (Westminster Bible Companion)

Review Walter Brueggemann, Isaiah 1-39 & 40-66 (Westminster Bible Companion)

 

Back to: Starting Library OT