Deuteronomy (review)

Hebrew Studies 36 (1995) 174 Reviews These criticisms, however. are offered as a means for putting this commentary in a scholarly context. They should not detract from the conclusion that Milgrom has presented the English reading public with a major and nuanced work on a pivotal book of the Hebrew Bible. It belongs in the library of anyone interested in Torah. Carl S. Ehrlich HochschulefUr liidische Sludien Heidelberg GERMANY DEUTERONOMY. By Eugene H. Merrill. The New American Bible Commentary. Vol. 4. Pp. 477. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994. Cloth, $27.99. This commentary is a contribution to the New American Commentary Series. which is theologically conservative ("unapologetically confessional and rooted in the evangelical tradition"), based on the New International Version and designed to replace a similar set of commentaries published at the end of the last century. The primary aim of the series is to serve the Christian Church by providing it with a practical resource for biblical interpretation . I consider Merrill's contribution to have achieved this aim. In many ways his commentary follows the standard set by Peter Craigie. who blazed a trail for opponents of the contemporary scholarly consensus almost two decades ago in arguing for the "heterodox" position of an essentially Mosaic authorship-an irony that was certainly not lost on that outstanding biblical scholar. Merrill not only follows Craigie in form and content but also in spirit as he ironically interacts with many scholars who hold quite different perspectives on theological, historical. and exegetical matters. The commentary is generally well organized and well written. There are quite a number of excellent theological insights that reward the reader. In keeping with the aim of the book. the reader is not burdened with a large quantity of secondary sources. Yet it is clear that Merrill does not write in a vacuum either. as he is generally very much aware of significant contributions by scholars to the relevant issues he discusses. A number of scholars who would not share his theological perspective have strongly influenced his understanding of the arrangement of the laws. namely Braulik. Hebrew Studies 36 (1995) 175 Reviews Kaufmann, and Rofe, with their distinctive versions of the view that the sequence of laws in chapters 12-26 is based on the sequence of the decalogue. One of the major strengths of this volume is its clarity and simplicity and the author's unwillingness to engage in polemical dialogue with those who hold quite different views. His reflection on the meaning of Moses' death when the aged leader has undiminished physical capacities is one example of this strength. Instead of focusing attention on the apologetic problem of the authorship of this account, Merrill discusses the meaning of the death: the elderly leader did not fail to enter Canaan because he died; rather he died because he did not enter Canaan. Secondly, in the discussion of the so-called historical credo and Von Rad's view that the Sinai covenant was not an original part of the earliest Israelite experience, Merrill does not get bogged down in the vast quantity of scholarly writing that is devoted to this subject but gets to the heart of the issue: the rhetorical situation of the text determines its content ("the emphasis...is on the deliverance of the one nation from one land (Egypt) to another (Canaan), a fact that requires no mention of Sinai and the covenant"). Merrill also endeavors to understand the final form of the text. Consequently chapter 27 cannot be written off as an extraneous source (a desperate measure?) incompatible with chapter 12 and its stress on the central sanctuary. Following in part the views of A. C. Welch and more recently of Gordon Wenham and Jeffrey Nieuhaus, the author argues that reading "Jerusalem" as the location for the central sanctuary is neither required nor desired. It is rather the result of seeing the text through the spectacles of the dominant paradigm in Deuteronomic interpretation for the last century. But in fact, from the earliest times a central sanctuary-the location of the ark-shifted from place to place. and this never invalidated the erection of altars for special purposes and on special occasions before the ark...