The Minor Prophets: An Exegetical and Expository Commentary, volume 1: Hosea, Joel, and Amos (review)

Hebrew Studies 35 (1994) 183 Reviews this is perhaps the most extraordinary feature of this commentary, its failure to interact with or even acknowledge views with which Levine disagrees. As a mere European, I looked in vain for any mention of modem German or British commentaries or monographs on Leviticus. But then I realized we were not the only ones deliberately ignored. The most prolific author of all on this area, Jacob Milgrom, is mentioned, I think, in only one footnote. In short, this commentary needs to be used with discretion. Caveat emptor. G.J. Wenham Cheltenham and Gloucester College ofHigher Education Cheltenham. ENGlAND THE MINOR PROPHETS: AN EXEGETICAL AND EXPOSITORY COMMENTARY, VOLUME 1: HOSEA, JOEL, AND AMOS. Thomas Edward McComiskey, ed. Pp. x + 509. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992. Cloth, $34.95. The first in a three-volume series, this commentary follows the tradition of Keil and Delitzsch, pairing close attention to the Hebrew text with Christian evangelical hermeneutics. After a brief introduction explaining format, the volume divides into discrete commentaries. Within each, the author's translation of a pericope is printed in a parallel column with the NRSV; a split page then divides exegetical from expository comments. The exegetical section contains philological, historical and other notes, giving significant words in Hebrew, and English translations in parentheses. The expository comments include further discussion and more confessional application. Here, Hebrew words are transliterated. While each commentary bears distinctive characteristics, all are informed by evangelical understandings. Each considers the Protestant canon as a unity and the character of God as unchangeable, such that the New Testament can inform the Old. Presupposing Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, the authors trace Pentateuchal quotes in the prophetic books. Their translations attempt to follow the MT as closely as possible, consulting the Versions though rarely emending in favor of them and consciously avoiding the inclusive language of the NRSV. Thomas McComiskey, Professor of Old Testament Exegesis and Biblical Theology at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, authors the Hosea commentary . He follows a short introduction on background matters with an Hebrew Studies 35 (1994) 184 Reviews outline of the book and a fairly limited bibliography. His exegetical comments offer some linguistic help, although he relies heavily on the authority of Gesenius-Kautzsch-Cowley (GKC). Infrequent references to secondary literature are usually to Andersen and Freedman. In his treatment of Hosea 1-3, McComiskey rejects a purely allegorical reading of the prophet's marriage and instead explicates Hosea's biography. Based on a literal reading of 1:2, he contends that Gomer had children previous to her marriage to Hosea, such that chap. 2 addresses both these adopted children and those born to Hosea. These marital woes resurface in chap. 3 (where Hosea redeems this same "brazen woman," p. 50) and throughout the book. The entire book of Hosea, including passages directed to Judah, is treated as a unity, since hope was an integral part of the prophetic message. For McComiskey, this hope extends into the present: the prophet announced punishment only to his own time while articulating promises that hold for all people. Consequently, Hosea's words can be seen as predicting later events: for example, 3:5 accurately describes our day in which Israel has no king, no longer practices idolatry, and no longer observes the levitical institution of sacrifices (p. 54). The book of Joel is treated by Raymond Bryan Dillard, Professor of Old Testament Language and Literature at Westminster Theological Seminary. Dillard's introduction is more extensive and helpful than McComiskey's, explaining clearly various arguments for the date ofJoel, its literary structure and its unity. His bibliography also is more inclusive and more integrated into his discussions. According to Dillard, the book of Joel is a postexilic document reflecting on a devastating locust plague. For the prophet, "the locust plague as the manifestation of divine wrath is viewed as a harbinger of the yet greater and more dreadful day of Yahweh" (p. 266). Non-conventional secondary literature on crops and insects aids Dillard in translating the vocabulary and mood of this crisis. Dillard's comments on Joel contain less confessional application, though he does deal with 3:1-2's relevance to the Pentecost...