In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Hebrew Studies 38 (1997) 143 Reviews represented by 4QXIIa. The LXX sequence involved shifting Jonah to another location. Joel, Obadiah, and Jonah were all relocated in the stage reflected in MT. While the tradents of MT based their placement of these three books on opinions about their antiquity, the result of their sequencing was a "recontextualizing" of the eighth-century prophets by the insertion of later materials. Jones' dissertation is well-researched and well-written in spite of some redundancies and several typographical errors. It serves the very useful function of highlighting the significance of LXX and 4QXIIa for discussions about the later stages of the formation of the Book of the Twelve. His reconstruction of that formation is plausible and thought-provoking. While Jones' claim that the original position of Jonah was at the end of the Minor Prophets (as in 4QXIIa) is feasible, the matter is ripe for much more debate . For example, in this reviewer's estimation, Jones does not adequately justify his claim that "the original literary horizon of Mal. 3:22-24 was limited to the book of Malachi" rather than the entire Book of the Twelve (p. 236). Jones often reminds the reader that his text-critical method reduces the subjectivity that typically plagues redaction criticism. His claim is justified where his text-critical conclusions are quite straightforward. At times, however, his analyses (like those of the redaction critic) are dogged by subjectivity, such as when he generalizes about translation technique from a few particulars (p. 96), when he argues that certain variants resided in the Hebrew source text of LXX rather than in the translation itself (pp. 103 and 109), or when he analyzes certain literary connections (or disconnections ) between the Minor Prophets (pp. 206, 211, and 214). In spite of these limitations, Jones' work makes quite a significant contribution to the study of the Book of the Twelve. Robert R. Ellis Hardin-Simmons University Abilene, TX 79606 THE MINOR PROPHETS: AN EXEGETICAL AND EXPOSITORY COMMENTARY. Thomas Edward McComisky, ed. Pp. x + 1510 (in three volumes). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 19921996 . Cloth. These three volumes are a fitting memorial to the life and work of Thomas McComisky. (The third volume had not yet been published when Hebrew Studies 38 (1997) 144 Reviews the volumes for review were received. Thus, the review is based upon the firs\ two volumes.) His many friends are relieved that the work of editing the third volume was completed before his untimely death cut short his further contributions to the world of biblical scholarship. Taken together, this work represents his abiding concern for careful and thorough exegesis of the biblical languages as the necessary foundation to any proper exposition of the text's meaning. The list of contributors is impressive. Both younger and older scholars are represented, as are persons from both North America and Europe. The theological positions seem to be uniformly conservative, evangelical, and reformed (one looks in vain for an Armenian voice). The contributors are J. Baldwin (Jonah), F. F. Bruce (Habakkuk), R. Dillard (Joel), T. Longman (Nahum), T. McComisky (Hosea and Zechariah), A. Motyer (Zephaniah and Haggai), J. Niehaus (Amos and Obadiah), D. Stuart (Malachi), and B. Waltke (Micah). In the introduction, McComisky expresses a concern that the minor prophets be made more accessible to the present. While many compare their message unfavorably with that of the New Testament, McComisky contends that there is a much greater relevance than many might believe. To that end, the purpose of the commentary is to bring "the reader into the structures of language in which these messages found expression" (vol. 1, p. ix). Thus the reader will have a deepened understanding of the problems of the text and how the author of the commentary has grappled with them. Each book has a brief introduction (8-22 pages) addressing such matters as author, date, and composition. Beyond these elemental matters, there is little uniformity in the introductions. There is a certain irony in the fact that Hosea, with all its introductory problems, has only an 8-page introduction , while Nahum, with relatively few thorny issues, has a 22-page introduction. Furthermore, the structure of the introductions varies...

pdf

Share