Joshua: A Commentary (review)

Hebrew Studies 40 (1999) 311 Reviews The use which Levinson makes of Seidel's Law also calls for comment. M. Seidel certainly should be credited with drawing attention to the phenomenon of inverse citation, but his observation that inversely parallel formulations frequently indicate citation does not constitute a "law" for determining original and secondary contexts. It is now widely recognized that authors may make use of repetition and chiasm as a structuring device; therefore, it is not inconceivable that an author may reuse his own lemma in inverse formulation. Moreover, even when it is evident that different authors are involved, the phenomenon of inversion does not by itself indicate which text is "original" and which is citation. Seidel's Law does not settle the question of dependency but only raises it, and the direction of dependency can be resolved only after the diachronic relations between the texts have been established by other means. On the whole, this book contributes a stimulating discussion of many central issues, such as the authority granted to prior texts by generations producing new literature and the reassessment of Deuteronomy's rhetoric in light of its dialectic dialogue with other texts. Levinson's work also indicates directions for further study of literary transformations in other genres outside the legal corpora. Indeed, as he notes in his conclusion, the study of dialectical relationships between texts touches upon all literary genres (p. 156). Cynthia Edenburg The Open University ofIsrael Ramat Aviv, Tel Aviv, Israel cynthia@oumail.openu.ac.il JOSHUA: A COMMENTARY. By Richard D. Nelson. OTL. pp. x + 310. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1997. Cloth $40.00. Richard D. Nelson's work in the Deuteronomistic History is well known to biblical scholars. He has argued in numerous venues his theory of a double redaction of the DtrH. This commentary joins an earlier commentary on Joshua in this series by J. A. Soggin. The contrast between the two volumes is striking, reflecting both the dramatically different contexts out of which each scholar works (Soggin is heavily indebted to AltlNoth; Nelson is heavily indebted to Cross) as well as the movement in biblical studies over the past twenty-five years (Nelson gives far more attention to the literary dynamics of the final canonical form of Joshua; Soggin attends closely to discrete textual units and their historical significance). Hebrew Studies 40 (1999) 312 Reviews Nelson attempts to remain true to the task of the series; he regularly addresses the theological significance of the work. In the introduction, Nelson treats the following topics: the character and relevance of Joshua; Joshua and history; the formation of the book; form criticism; literary analysis; theological themes; the figure of Joshua; the text. Turning to the text, Nelson follows a three part pattern: translation; text critical notes (noting principally variant readings of some significance); general comments followed by specific comments. At the outset, Nelson argues the book clearly reflects a multi-layered tradition and extended literary growth. However, the fmal canonical form of the book reads as a self-contained and coherent whole. Geography provides the primary organizational grid. For Nelson, the detachment of Joshua from the Pentateuch is unfortunate, since the writer of Joshua presumes of his audience a thorough acquaintance with Deuteronomy. Nelson only briefly engages history. He rightly asserts that the book is fundamentally a theological and literary work (with folkloristic elements and strong etiological inclinations). (He considers only selected geographical and boundary lists historically credible sources.) Regarding the relation of archaeology and the biblical text, he simply states that the archaeological record does not confirm Joshua's picture of a large-scale invasion. Joshua's true historical value lies in what it reveals about the social and ideological world of those who told, collected, and redacted these stories. Regarding the formation of the book, Nelson notes the variety (and sometimes disparity) of the materials. Deuteronomistic redaction is evident throughout much of Joshua (although noticeably absent from the description of the land distribution). Significantly, unlike the books of Judges and Kings, evidence is lacking for a second Deuteronomistic redaction with a theological viewpoint different from a first Deuteronomistic edition. The pre-Deuteronomistic version of Joshua details Israelite victories against key cities...