Minor Prophets, Part 2 (review)

Hebrew Studies 44 (2003) 261 Reviews unless they are "meanings" in 40-55 that comport with "meanings" elsewhere in the canon. In that case, however, the issue is not 40-55 as a distinct body, but individual passages within it related to other passages in the canon. If, on the other hand, "canonical meanings" are ones that arise from considering a passage in the context of 40-55, exclusive of their relationship to any other part of scripture, then the term "canonical" is meaningless, since the canon is no longer the reference point for meaning. His rejection of Williamson's assertion that "Second Isaiah saw himself authorized to open the book sealed by his predecessor" on the grounds that 40-55 "provide no basis for it and never refer even indirectly to the relevant texts in First Isaiah" (p. 49) dismisses too summarily Williamson's seventeen page development of a foundation for this assertion. Similarly, Blenkinsopp's labeling ofWilliamson's claim that 44:26 refers to First Isaiah as unlikely, "since the servant in question predicts the rebuilding of the ruined cities of Judah and the repopulation of Jerusalem, which cannot be true of the original Isaiah" (p. 49), overlooks Williamson's careful distinction between the words of Isaiah of Jerusalem and the repository of oracles in the Isaianic collection known to Deutero-Isaiah. In sum, while Blenkinsopp's decision to interpret 40-55 on their own is defensible, his attempt to invalidate any other approach gives insufficient attention to the observations and arguments their proponents have offered. Moreover, at least one of his counterarguments contradicts his own conclusions . These problems not withstanding, Professor Blenkinsopp has delivered a work in the tradition of the classic commentaries on Deutero-Isaiah, although without feeling constrained by traditional answers. Indeed, his commentary bristles with willingness to rethink accepted solutions and offer distinctive and substantive insights. Ronald L. Troxel University ojWisconsin-Madison Madison. WI 53706 rllroxel@jacstaJj.wisc.edu MINOR PROPHETS, PART 2. By Michael H. Floyd. FOTL 22. Pp. xvii + 651. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2000. Paper, $49.00. This commentary on Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah. Haggai, Zechariah. and Malachi is the eleventh volume to appear in the Forms of Old Testament Literature series edited by Rolf P. Knierim. Gene M. Tucker, and Marvin A. Hebrew Studies 44 (2003) 262 Reviews Sweeney. The aim of the series was to produce a "comprehensive reference work that would enable scholars and students of the Hebrew scriptures to gain from the insights that form critical work had accumulated throughout seven decades and at the same time to participate more effectively in such work themselves" (p. xiii). Floyd's contribution fulfills the requirements of the series's assigned format while providing a detailed close reading of each section of text. This book has limited usefulness as a reference work. Following the format of the FOTL series it includes a glossary of fifty-nine genres and six formulas. These lists contribute to the series's goal of collecting and defining the stereotyped forms of speech and writing in the Hebrew Bible. The items in the glossary , however, are not thoroughly integrated with Floyd's analysis of Nahum through Malachi. The genres may have no listed examples from these six books (e.g., "Dirge," p. 629). Some genres that appear in the glossary, Floyd has considered and ruled out, for example, "Apocalypse" for Zechariah 12-14 (p. 500) and "Covenant Lawsuit" for the book of Malachi as a whole (p. 565). Readers would benefit from the inclusion of indices. Floyd limits his interaction with earlier scholarship to selected form critical studies, as required by the commentary format. The critique reveals Floyd's different method and purpose. For example, in his discussion of the genre of Zechariah 9-11 he rejects Saebo's analysis of the text into original units of speech, subsequent oral and written expansions, and redactors' connective words and formulas (M. Saebo, Sac/rarja 9-14 [WMANT 34; NeukirchenVluyn , 1969]), because the results are speculative and not helpful for understanding the final form of the text (p. 445). Similarly, Floyd disagrees on rhetorical grounds with Hanson's depiction of the structure of Zech 9:110 : I 2 as...