Category Archives: Review

John Sandys-Wunsch put thirty years of work into his What Have They Done to the Bible?—A History of Modern Biblical Interpretation (Liturgical Press, 2005). Covering the development of modern Biblical studies from the Renaissance through the nineteenth century, he’s provided overviews of the approaches to the Bible of various persons throughout those centuries, some longer, some shorter, but all very helpful. The book is not at all polemical, as might be read into the title question, but rather is a fine, succinct history of scholarship. One is able, with this book, to view the development of professional scholarship itself, and to be reminded of the once central role of Biblical studies in both the academy and society. Sandys-Wunsch also displays a fine sense of humor on occasion. His familiarity with the pre-nineteenth century scholarship is particularly valuable, as these formative ages are typically ignored in other survey coverage in favor of late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries scholars whose works are considered more directly foundational. Indeed, Sandys-Wunsch states candidly, “To save reviewers trouble, let it be admitted outright that the author is not as familiar with the work of nineteenth-century scholars as with that of earlier authors. There are many more studies of biblical interpretation in this period than in the earlier ones” (p. 283, n. 3). This book should be required reading for every introductory course on Biblical scholarship. It’s thoroughly annotated, with a bibliography separated by chapter/period, and several useful indices (Subjects, Pre-1900 Names, Post-1900 Names, Scripture). The style is straightforward, eminently readable, and while avoiding technical jargon, still manages also to skillfully avoid misrepresentation or oversimplification of complex subjects. Consider it highly recommended.

I’ve just finished reading The Trial of Job by they very busy Father Patrick Reardon, pastor of All Saints Antiochian Orthodox Church in Chicago, Senior Editor of Touchstone: A Journal of Mere Christianity, author of Touchstone’s online “Daily Reflections with Patrick Henry Reardon,” contributor to the Touchstone blog “Mere Comments”, and author of Christ in the Psalms and Christ in His Saints. After all my reading of the book of Job, and especially all the reading about the book of Job, I can honestly say that this is the best book that I have ever read on Job.

This is not a detailed commentary, as the subtitle clarifies: Orthodox Christian Reflections on The Book of Job. This is a small book. Nine pages of introduction open onto the body of the text, giving roughly a page and a half to each chapter of Job, ending with page 104. Father Reardon does refer to both the Hebrew and Greek trextual traditions of Job on occasion, but not in an overly simplified or incorrect manner, as is the case of so many short works such as this. Regardless, these parsimoniously proferred pages pack a punch. Father Reardon has managed for me what numerous other scrupulously, eruditically detailed academic commentators have all and always failed at: a clearer picture of the book of Job itself, its structure, its characters, and the overall message(s) of the book.

I don’t wish to give it all away in going into details, but will share perhaps the most strikingly useful suggestion that Father Reardon makes regarding the characters of Job’s three would-be comforters. Each presents a form of ancient Near Eastern wisdom in his responses to Job, and each is of lesser value than its predecessor. First, Eliphaz the Temanite, (re)presents a wisdom born in personal spiritual experience. Second, Bildad the Shuhite (re)presents a wisdom with its basis in tradition, passed down through the ages. Third, Zophar the Naamathite (re)presents a wisdom which is simply unmeditated bias. “That is the line of declination: real vision, accepted teaching, blind prejudice” (p. 26).

I recommend this little book for anyone who is puzzled or daunted by the Book of Job. My copy was sent to me gratis upon subscribing to Touchstone, which is, of course, a fine magazine.

Well, I got one. Now that Chris Heard is famous, no doubt he’ll roll his eyes behind his oversized sunglasses, and over his soy iced mochaccino no whip with a splash of crème de menthe. Yet, I jest, with such serious work ahead of us.

Chris was entirely spot on, of course, in his review of the preview materials for this new Bible. And that’s good for Chris, and for those of us who share his opinion, but it’s bad for readers of this Zondervan NIV Archaeological Study Bible. Here’s why.

First let me say the good I can say about this Bible. The presentation is beautiful. It has definitely benefitted from modern advances in printing technology. Every page has some color on it, a kind of faint sepia background and header at the very least. The paper (thin but opaque) and printing are of such excellent quality that the full-color photos are crisp on the pages and do not bleed through. The maps are the only glossy pages, with all the rest of the paper being non-glossy, which is what makes the quality of the printing so striking. It very likely heralds a new direction in Bible presentation. They’ve also chosen the single-column presentation of the NIV text, which is quite nice, despite the choice of a slightly cramped font. There are numerous short and some longer excerpts from other ancient literatures scattered throughout, which is quite nice, though the potential for such was insufficiently explored. There are numerous high-quality photographs of artifacts and so on scattered in roughly 500 inserts throughout the entire Bible (which they call “articles”).

Now to the basket of prunes . . . .

Continue reading “Zondervan Archaeological Study Bible”

I was just browsing through the Anchor Bible Dictionary (Doubleday, 1992) and ran across the article “Siddim, Valley of” (vol 6, pp 15-16) written by Michael Astour. It starts off nicely, giving a variety of translations and finally coming to the conclusion that śiddîm, from śādad, means “furrows,” so (yawn) the name means “Valley of Furrows.” Astour then asks, “Why did the author of Genesis 14 give such a name to the place of defeat of the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah?” His answer is interesting. He goes off on a wild tangent about the “Chedorlaomer Texts” (which, by the way, are almost entirely questionable in the readings thereof), Babylonian astronomy (!), and the “implication” in the biblical text (?) of the submergence of Sodom and Gomorrah by the Dead Sea. What the…?!

You know, yeah, of course, it must be something like that, because nobody ever heard of a valley with furrows in it….

The third volume of Eisenbraun’s Colllected Essays of Nadav Na’aman is now available: Ancient Israel’s History and Historiography – The First Temple Period. Cool-o-rama!

Professor Na’aman, for those who may not know, comes at biblical studies from the direction of Assyriology, like Tadmor, Malamat, Hallo, and a number of others. Their work in biblical studies, like their Assyriological work, is meticulous, detailed, and full of important comparative studies which are far more illustrative of what we should and should not expect of ancient writing than are those studies based solely upon biblical literature and theorizing therefrom. Hallo, indeed, is a major proponent of what has been alternately called the Contextual or Comparative Method or Approach, in which both similarities and dissimilarities are noted as important. See his detailed definition and explanation of this method, either in his essay included in Scripture in Context III (Edwin Mellen Press, 1990), or his slightly reworked version of this article as a chapter in his slim volume Book of the People (Scholars Press, 1991); the introduction to Context of Scripture I: Canonical Compositions from the Biblical World (Brill, 1997) also includes a short description of the method, but mentions the Scripture in Context III article as the definitive statement. I personally find the work of Assyriologists, specifically the aforementioned, in biblical studies to be consistently of the highest caliber methodologically. Their comparative work with the biblical and the cuneiform materials, the largest body of surviving ancient written material, is extremely important for biblical studies in showing us what was possible, what was likely, and what was done, and also what was not done, what was unlikely, and perhaps even some of what was impossible, in ancient writings. The importance, similarly, of the bibical materials for an understanding of the cuneiform materials is also coming to be better recognized, perhaps finally laying to rest the estimable Benno Landsberger’s misbegotten, if well-intentioned Eigenbegrifflichkeit (Islamica 2 [1926]: 355-72; trans. “The Conceptual Autonomy of the Babylonian World.” Undena, 1976), yet still avoiding the excesses of the old parallelomania, so delightfully monickered and pinned to the mat by Samuel Sandmel (JBL 81 [1962]: 1-13). And with a collection of Na’aman’s articles specifically relating to Israelite history and historiography in the First Temple, pre-exilic period, I’m sure we’ll find some really great stuff in the midst of the collection. I’m certain I’ll find it as hard to put down as the first two volumes, and will undoubtedly learn much from it. In this case, I think the whole-hearted recommendation of a book I haven’t even read yet isn’t even remotely preposterous.