Tag Archives: hebrew bible

The Book of Joel: A Prophet Between Calamity and Hope (Review)

Joel book pic

Identifying the historical context of the book of Joel has been a great challenge in the history of interpretation. While many other books in the prophetic corpus contain superscriptions that provide context, Joel offers no such help. As you may imagine, this uncertainty has opened the door to a variety of proposals ranging from a monarchic date of the book to the late postexilic period.

Elie Assis in a recent monograph, The Book of Joel: A Prophet between Calamity and Hope, presents a case for the composition of Joel during the exilic period (587 BCE-538 BCE). During this time of national crisis, the prophet encouraged those left in Judah after the destruction of the temple that their God ultimately had not abandoned them. Through the strategic use of rhetorical devices, Joel encouraged the people to reestablish the covenant and persist in prayer. Thus, the author concludes that the book of Joel, alongside Lamentations, sheds light onto the otherwise vague exilic period.

The book’s 12 chapters are divided into 4 parts. While Part 1 and 4 comprise an extended introduction and conclusion, the central two parts represent Joel’s two major divisions (1:2-2:17 and 2:18-4:17). The author devotes much space to unraveling the relationship between the two sections of Joel.

Assis’ introduction orients the reader to the problem of identifying the historical context of the book. Through a helpful survey of scholarly literature, the author discusses the issues that influence various opinions, such as the state of the Temple and the cult alluded to by the prophet. Joel’s two major concerns, as noted by Assis, are the locust plague of chapters 1-2 and the political salvation after the exile. Assis further discusses  features unique to Joel over against other prophetic books.

Regarding the locusts, the author maintains that Joel employs a double meaning with both literal and metaphorical dimensions. In dealing with a people who thought they had been rejected by their God, Joel uses the imagery of locusts to communicate his ultimate message in familiar terms. Though the Temple lay in ruins, Joel reminds the people that the opportunity for worship and prayer were still available.

While this book has much to commend, I will limited my praise to two points. First, the book contains a form of prose that is both readable and engaging. The author writes clearly, though not always succinctly. The reader is able to easily follow the flow of thought, further aided by frequent summaries and connections to the wider argument. The structure of the chapters also is organized and follows the methodology outlined in the introduction.

Second, the author pays careful attention to the literary features of the text. From the opening pages of the introduction, the reader is able to discern Assis’ concern to listen to the text before formulating conclusions. The book contains a thorough treatment of the Hebrew text of Joel, as well as discussions of ancient literary and rhetorical devices. Furthermore, the author’s handling of the textual data upholds his defense of the unity of Joel, refuting attempts to uncover underlying source documents.

Though there are many more aspects of the book I could commend, I must mention briefly several points that did not meet the standard set by the rest of the book. First, Assis rejects the notion that Joel at any point called the people to repentance. Instead, the prophet exhorted the people to return to God that they may renew a “bond that had been broken” (15). Yet, this point is not altogether clear. Though Assis does deal with the passages that seem to indicate calls for repentance (e.g.. 2:13), his alternative exposition is unpersuasive. Furthermore, if the people were under the judgment of God for their sin, how could a reestablishment of the covenant not involve repentance?

Second, Assis too quickly dismisses the mention of the city walls in 2:7. Historically, this has been a strong argument for either a prexilic (before the destruction of Jerusalem) or postexilic (after the walls had been rebuilt) date. The author says that the destruction of Jerusalem need not imply a severe demolition of the wall, but the work of Ezra would seem to stand against this. Furthermore, the language of the invading army scaling the wall (יַעֲלוּ חוֹמָה) would appear to support a  wall that was undisturbed or rebuilt. Otherwise, the enemies would have no need to gain entry over the wall. Assis would do well to provide stronger support against this reading.

Finally, though well written, the book tends to be a bit repetitive. The author certainly could organize the material in a more succinct format. This becomes less burdensome with the help of good indices (Scripture and Author) at the conclusion of the book, allowing for the quick reference of a particular passage or author.

In conclusion, Assis has presented a good case for an exilic date for the book of Joel. Though I do not embrace his conclusions, I found the book stimulating regarding the book of Joel, exposing weakness of older arguments, and opening up new questions for further research. The degree to which the reader will agree with the argument of the book will be influenced to a great extent by the degree of rhetorical artistry afforded to the prophet Joel. Those more skeptical about the employment of complex rhetorical/psychological devices will doubtlessly remain unpersuaded. Regardless, Assis’ has served Hebrew Bible scholarship with the publication of this work.

Advertisements

2 Comments

Filed under Joel

T. Michael Law on Roger Beckwith’s Book on Canon

In response to many questions and comments regarding Roger Beckwith’s book, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church, T. Michael Law has offered some thoughts. While many scholars prize Beckwith’s book as the definitive work on the Canon of the Hebrew Bible, Law states that the book is replete with errors both in Beckwith’s interpretation of the evidence, as well as his methodology. Law says that “you don’t need Jesus reading BHS for your faith to survive.”

This is sure to keep the conversation going. I highly recommend reading Law’s post (find it here). If anyone cares to respond to Law, let me know so I can make sure to post a link.

Leave a comment

Filed under canon

A Few Helpful Resources on the Text of the Hebrew Bible/LXX

In my review of T. Michael Law’s book  When God Spoke Greek: The Septuagint and the Making of the Christian Bible (see here), I posed a couple of questions that, in my humble opinion, would increase the value of the book as an introductory work. I have been asked what other resources I would recommend alongside Law’s book to provide a “fuller perspective.”

Again, these simply are my suggestions as a reader. Certainly one book cannot do everything, but I know what is helpful to me when I explore unfamiliar territory. The resources below are in relation to the specific points of my review. All but the fourth resource(s) are found in Law’s “Further Reading” section on pages 201-12, which itself is worth the cost of the book.

I confess at the outset that Law is the expert here. He is in a far better position to give book recommendations in Septuagint studies. Nonetheless, here are a few sources that may provide a more balanced perspective.

1. Robert Hanhart, “Introduction,” in The Septuagint as Christian Scripture: Its Prehistory and the Problem of Its Canon, by Martin Hengel (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004), 1–17.

Comment: Interestingly, Hanhart presents a different perspective than Hengel on the problems in the history of the text of the LXX. In fact, it was for this divergent view that he was asked by Hengel to write the introduction. Though his remarks are brief, readers can hear another take on the problem.

2. Nora David et al., eds., The Hebrew Bible in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Forschungen Zur Religion Und Literatur Des Alten Und Neuen Testaments 239 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012).

Comment: Though a more technical work, this book consists of 4 parts assessing the impact of the Dead Sea Scrolls on the study of the Hebrew Bible. Part 1 is further subdivided into five essays labeled “General Studies” and four essays as “Case Studies.” The “General Studies” section represents two views: one emphasizing textual plurality in early Judaism, and the other articulating a greater degree of continuity with the later Masoretic Text. The existence of the volume is evidence that the conversation is slightly more nuanced than one may be led to believe by Law’s book.

3. Lee Martin McDonald and James A. Sanders, eds., The Canon Debate (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002).

Comment: This book incorporates 32 essays addressing a range of issues in both Hebrew Bible and New Testament scholarship. While many contributors of “The Old/First Testament Canon” section would side with Law, I appreciate their attempt to clarify terms and concepts. Understanding what an author means by “canon” or “Bible,” even if one disagrees, opens the door to a clearer discussion.

4. Peter J. Gentry, “The Septuagint and the Text of the Old Testament,” Bulletin for Biblical Research 16, no. 2 (2006): 193–218. See also Peter J. Gentry, “The Text of the Old Testament,” JETS 52, no. 1 (March 2009): 19–45.

Comment: These two articles, written from an evangelical perspective, stand at the other end of the spectrum. Gentry is a specialist in the Septuagint, and here assesses the value of the LXX, as well as methodological considerations for its study.

15 Comments

Filed under OT Resources, Septuagint

Review of When God Spoke Greek (Blog Tour)

when-God-spoke-greek

This is the second stop of a blog tour on T. Michael Law’s book When God Spoke Greek: The Septuagint and the Making of the Christian Bible (see here). Thanks to Oxford University Press for providing a review copy, as well as to Brian LePort for organizing the tour. Due to the nature of this project, this review will be confined to chapters three and four of the book.

Introduction

I remember traveling to Colorado as a young boy for a family ski trip. The beauty and majesty of the Rocky Mountain ridgeline left me breathless. One thing that I found striking was how distance changed my perception of the great mountains. The further away I was from the snowcapped peaks, the fewer mountains there seemed to be. Yet the closer I came to the mountains the clearer I saw that what appeared to be one massive rock formation was in fact a multitude of smaller mountains. Perspective changes everything.

When one looks at study of the Hebrew Bible, a similar reality is apparent. From a wide-angled perspective, the Hebrew Bible appears to be a uniform collection of canonical books, but upon closer inspection the complexities of the discussion come to the fore. One area in particular is the formation of what would later emerge as the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament canon itself. Interestingly, while everyone looks at the same evidence, interpretations differ, and in some cases are contradictory.

This paradox becomes clear when one approaches these two chapters of Law’s book. While many may  have preconceived notions about the place and purpose of the Septuagint, Law offers what may be to some an alternative perspective. This review will first detail the contents of each chapters. Secondly, several questions will be posed to further the discussion of how the book may better serve its readers.

Chapter 3

Chapter three asks the question “was there a Bible before the Bible?” In short, Law says no. To support this answer Law presents evidence of textual diversity/plurality from the early witnesses. The result of this situation is a Judaism without strict textual boundaries until the close of the Hebrew canon in the 2nd century CE.

Law surveys the forms of Hebrew Scripture attested by Hebrew manuscripts, the Septuagint (LXX), Dead Sea Scrolls, and Samaritan Pentateuch (S.P.), each with underlying Hebrew texts from which they were translated/edited. Each of these traditions, says Law, testifies to variant literary editions (ie. textual traditions).  In light of these manuscripts, especially those from the Judean Desert, Law contends that scholars are forced to abandon older assumptions about the homogenous nature of the textual transmission of the Hebrew Bible.

Law cites the varied manuscript evidence from Qumran and surrounding sites, as well as many examples of significant differences among the other textual traditions. Though contradictions and inconsistencies are of great concern to modern readers, Law states, peoples of the ancient world had no such concern (31).

It must be noted that the “textual diversity” found at Qumran is absent from surrounding sites (aligning instead with the Masoretic tradition). Though Law tips his hat to this phenomenon, he discounts its interpretive value. He reasons that the quantity of manuscripts outside Qumran (25 total) is not a large enough sample from which to draw meaningful conclusions.

Law also acknowledges the careful scribal practices of the Masoretes in the medieval period, frequently alluded to by more conservative scholars, but argues that it is illegitimate to project these scribal tendencies upon the earlier textual data. While the Masoretic Text (MT) does indeed evidence an ancient tradition, Law states that it consists of only one such tradition. The reality of the textual climate prior to the 2nd century CE was “characterized by plurality, not uniformity” (22). To disagree with this reality is to put the proverbial buggy of one’s formulated conclusions, so to speak, before the horse of the textual data.

Chapter 4

Chapter four turns the corner to the Septuagint as a translation. Law reminds the reader that the translators of LXX did not invent the art of translation, but contributed to a well-established practice in the ancient world. Yet the LXX is not  just another work of antiquity. Rather, the innovation of the LXX was to bring the work of translation to the realm of formal religion, a feat not previously undertaken (35).

As to the origins of the Greek translation, Law retains a tentative posture in light of the circumstantial evidence. He postulates a 2nd century BCE date for the latest Greek Pentateuch could have been composed based on linguistic features of the text and citations by later authors. The text itself betrays an Egyptian origin, most likely Alexandria.

Law discusses the Letter of Aristeas, which is a 2nd century BCE legend regarding the origin of the Septuagint. While certainty eludes scholars, one purpose of the narrative that Law presents is to affirm the authority of the Septuagint by rewriting the story of the Exodus (36). The resultant translation as told in the Letter of Aristeas is not simply a new edition of Torah, but rather “a new revelation” (37).

An analysis of the internal components of the LXX leads Law to conclude that the translators of the Greek Pentateuch were “moderately educated, Hellenized Jews in Alexandria” (40). Yet, this position too is held tentatively. Sure footing, Law states, is found not in hypothetical reconstructions of the Septuagint’s origins, but rather in the early reception of the text (42).

Comments and Questions 

This summary should provide readers with an overview of Law’s argument. The book itself is well written. It is as readable as it is scholarly. As any author can affirm, transferring the complexities of academic discussions to a more popular audience is no easy task. But Law presents his argument in a fresh and engaging way. Though I am left with several lingering questions, I can concur with the 21st century philosopher (formerly known as) Jay-Z that while the book may have 99 problems (not really), Law’s presentation ain’t one.

Several early responses have been released at this point (see here for example), so I will not rehash these points of critique with which I am in large agreement. Yet I do wish to raise a couple of questions that may allow the book a better servant to its readers.

First, would not the clarity of the book (geared to a more popular audience) benefit from a more careful treatment of terminology? While jarring phrases like “before the Bible, there was no Bible” (19) may have a strong rhetorical effect, they may miscommunicate the fact of the matter. The novice reader may be left with the impression that early Judaism operated as a literary free-for-all, with every, and any, religious text welcomed as equally authoritative. While this may indeed be Law’s intention, this conception blurs the continuity (if any!) between text and canon. Perhaps clarifying what exactly is meant by “Bible,” “canon,” and “scripture,” may better serve readers.

Second, could the reader not be helped by a more balanced presentation of state of Old Testament scholarship? Certainly Law represents a major position regarding textual plurality in ancient Judaism, but it is not the only voice in the conversation. Other scholars have proposed alternative theories to this view, favoring a greater degree of continuity. For example, in opposition to the plurality of literary editions, some scholars have argued for the preservation of a Temple Text, conservatively transmitted. If correct, this theory would offer an answer to the question of continuity with the later MT. While there may have been certain cases of free translations, a stable text was always in transmission. While some of these monographs are found in the “Further Reading” section at the back of the book, brief mention in the chapter may better orient the reader to the conversation.

Lastly, and perhaps most significant, is a question regarding the format of the book: are endnotes really the best option for any book ever? The use of endnotes can be a great challenge to many readers in turning to the back of the book 30 times in chapter three and 26 times in chapter four. I recognize that many of these decisions are outside the control of the author, but this review would be incomplete, as always, without my stereotypical lament of this point.

In conclusion, this book would best serve either students who have knowledge at an introductory level in LXX scholarship, or those who plan to further explore the field. I fear that novice readers may inadvertently be misled if this is the only book on the subject they read. Hopefully, readers will make use of the “Further Reading” section, which is subdivided by subject. The resources included are invaluable for entry into the world of the Septuagint/Hebrew Bible. For those who are familiar with the debate, this book affords an engaging presentation of a major position. Law is to be commended for both of these well-researched and well-written chapters.

16 Comments

Filed under Book Reviews

Malachi: A Handbook on the Hebrew Text

malachi-a-handbook-on-the-hebrew-text

Back in March, I mentioned Duane Garrett’s volume in the Baylor Handbook on the Hebrew Bible series on the text of Amos (see here). The current edition of the Review of Biblical Literature has a review on another monograph in the same series on the text of Malachi (see here). The review is generally positive, noting some of the negative aspects that I alluded to in my post. This looks like it will be another good resource, particularly for beginning Hebrew students.

1 Comment

Filed under Malachi, Uncategorized

Did Amos See a Plumbline?

plumbline

I read  a recent post making some notes on Amos 7:7-17. Although there is much I would care to comment on, one issue in particular caught my attention. As with the author of this particular post, most Bible translations render the Amos 7:7 something like the NASB: “Thus He showed me, and behold, the Lord was standing by a vertical wall with a plumb line in His hand” (An exception appears in the NET Bible). While the idea of a “plumbline,” appearing four times in vv. 7-8, has become a cherished image (not to mention a controlling feature of many sermons!), I want to join those who raise a red flag on this translation.

As many commentators note, the Hebrew noun אֲנָךְ is woefully ambiguous. A host of interpretive renditions and emendations have been put forward, but no degree of consensus has emerged. The widely adopted “plumbline” has its roots in the Akkadian cognate annaku “tin,” which some view as interchangeable with the metal lead. The latter became the standard interpretation following Medieval exegesis. The logic of this interpretation is that the metal lead by metonymy represents a lead weight ie. a plumbline. The idea that this noun represented some type of metallic object is supported by several ancient versions such as the Old Greek and Symmachus (ἀδάμας “steel”?), Theodotion (τηκόμενον “molten”), as well as the Peshitta and Vulgate.

Yet is “plumbline” really what Amos envisioned? Granted, it does fit the context. Yet against this view is the analysis of Landsberger (“Tin and Lead: The Adventures of Two Vocables.” JNES 24 [1965]: 285-96″) and others, who have shown that אֲנָךְ cannot be understood as “lead,” and thus cannot mean plumbline. While one need not except Landsberger’s conclusions that “tin” is the preferred translation, we can agree that the Medieval interpretation itself stands on shaky ground.

I do not in anyway want to overly simply the text-critical problem in this passage, but I do want to voice a caution. Whether a clear alternative will win the votes of scholars is not likely. Indeed, plumbline may be here to stay. Yet, I would be hesitant to make too much of this point.

The focus of the vision is the inevitability of judgment for Israel. Yahweh will no longer pass by the people as he did for the exodus generation (v. 8b). Their guilt was self evident even without a plumbline. The idolatries of the high places and foreign sanctuaries were ripe for judgment and were destined for the same end as their chief patron, the king. Whatever Amos saw, he recognized it as an means of retribution. One that would do its work until Yahweh saw fit to rebuild fallen the booth of David (9:11).

4 Comments

Filed under Amos

A Review of Early Judaism: A Comprehensive Overview

Image

Early Judaism: A Comprehensive Overview. Edited by John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012, xxi + 533 pp., $35.00 paper.

The complexity of Judaism between the conclusion of the events recorded in the Hebrew Bible and the trajectory set after the Bar Kokhba Revolt continues to foster much discussion between various fields of scholarship. For Hebrew Bible/Old Testament scholars, Early Judaism provides insights into questions of the formation of the Hebrew Bible, early interpretive perspectives, and the existential self-perception of Jews both in Palestine and the Diaspora. For New Testament scholars, Early Judaism sets the stage for life and ministry Jesus, reflecting his messianic identity and mission, as well as the emergence of the Christian movement.

The sheer amount of evidence, both literary and otherwise, is enough to occupy one for a lifetime. Students can easily find themselves lost in trying to sort through the available material. Yet, this recent volume published by Eerdmans, derived from the Dictionary of Early Judaism, makes an introduction to this complex world accessible to readers. The primary audience of this book is students with a working knowledge of Old and New Testament, as well as the historian.

Consisting on fifteen essays composed by twenty-one scholars, the volume takes a topical arrangement. In the first chapter, John J. Collins provides an introduction to Judaism in contemporary scholarship. A major issue in the study of early Judaism is what constitutes appropriate labels and terminology. Though no characteristic terminology for the Intertestamental period itself is without difficulty, Collins states “‘Early Judaism’ seems the least problematic label available” (2).

A further contributing issue is the question of what actually constitutes literary evidence of Judaism in this period. Collins overviews the place of rabbinic writings, the Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, and the Dead Sea Scrolls, in the study of early Judaism. He rightly concludes that “the identification of a given text as Jewish depends on the profile of Judaism one is willing to accept” (12). In the course of his survey, Collins rejects the claim, set forward by Jacob Neusner for instance, that it is illegitimate to speak of Judaism in the singular. This view advocates for an understanding of Judaism as a plurality of separate, but equally valid, traditions. But, as Collins notes, an insistence on radical diversity in early Judaism “distorts the data just as much as an essentialist approach that would exclude ostensibly Jewish material that does not conform to a norm” (8). The chapter concludes with a call for further research in the field of early Judaism.

The second chapter, authored by Chris Seeman, Adam Kolman Marshak, traces a detailed chronology of the Jewish people from Alexander to Hadrian. The organization of the material, for the most part, takes its cues from the leadership under which the Jewish people were subject. The chapter hinges on the two major Jewish revolts (Maccabean and Bar Kokhba). In addition to the political leadership, the authors describe the religious climate during this period. The rise of priestly power marked a significant feature in the relationship between political leaders and the Jewish people. The centralization of the synagogue, as well as life in Diaspora, is also addressed.

In the following two chapters, Judaism in both the land of Israel (James C. VanderKam) and the Diaspora (Erich S. Gruen) are taken up. In Israel, facets such as the temple, festivals and institutions, religious groups, and Jewish literature characterized Judaism. Though different emphases of Judaism may be found, VanderKam identifies two commonalities at the core of Jewish religion: monotheism and covenant.

Life in the Diaspora was noticeably different than that in Israel. Yet, as Gruen states, such a life is not foreign to the Jewish people, but rather, “the notion of removal from the homeland is lodged deeply in the mythology of the nation” (95). This chapter covers a variety of topics from extent of the Diaspora to the relation of the Diaspora communities to the homeland. The author argues against the popular notion of a continuing exilic perspective in the mind of Diaspora Jews. Jerusalem, says Gruen, “possessed an irresistible claim on the emotions of Diaspora Jews, forming a critical part of their identity. But home was elsewhere” (115).

In the fifth chapter, Eugene Ulrich examines the literary evidence during this period with a goal of presenting his understanding of the development of what eventuated in the canon of the Hebrew Bible. He identifies two distinct periods in the history of the biblical text: 1) A period of developmental growth and pluriformity; and 2) A period of uniform text tradition since 2nd century C.E. (122). The competing theories of the origin of the text (Urtext, ect.) are briefly described, yet dismissed. Ulrich concludes his chapter by seeking to clarify terminology regarding canon, which he reserves for the final product in the 3rd/4th centuries.

The sixth chapter consists of James L. Kugel’s  exploration of Early Jewish biblical interpretation. Despite the circumstances of exile, “Israel’s ancient writings offered an island of refuge” (154) and eventually took on a prescriptive quality. Kugel outlines several instances of interpretation both by later biblical authors, as well as later Jewish interpreters. Regarding the latter, he lists four assumptions that later interpreters commonly shared in viewing the biblical texts as cryptic, relevant for later audiences, harmonious, and divinely inspired.

The next three chapters (7-9) introduce the reader to the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha (Loren T. Struckenbruck), the Dead Sea Scrolls (Eibert Tigchelaar), and Early Jewish literature written in Greek (Katell Berthelot). Each of these chapters provides background information about the provenance, dating, and value of each respective body of literature for the study of early Judaism.

Two chapters (10-11) give attention to two major sources for Judaism of the time: 1) Philo (Gregory E. Sterling, David T. Runia, Maren R. Niehoff, and Annewies van den Hoek); and 2) Josephus (Steve Mason, James S. McLaren, and John M. G. Barclay). Both chapters chart the life and works of these two men, relating the significance of their massive literary legacies to the subject of early Judaism.

The twelfth chapter (Jürgen K. Zangenberg) examines the archeological data for Judaism during the Second Temple Period. The author adopts a broad definition of “Jewish,” noting the difficulty of identifying a particular artifact (ie. a piece of pottery, letter, ect.) as intrinsically Jewish. More specifically, Zangenberg asks not just whether an object can be identified as Jewish, but “what type of Judaism it might reflect” (322, italics original). He organizes the chapter chronologically and geographically, surveying the available evidence from the period.

The three final chapters of the book (13-15) discuss Early Judaism in relation to three relevant issues: 1) the Jews among the Greeks and Romans (Miriam Pucci Ben Zeev); 2) the relationship of Early Judaism to early Christianity (Daniel C. Harlow); and 3) the relationship of early Judaism to latter Rabbinic Judaism (Lawrence H. Schiffman). These three chapter, asking very different questions, evidence the range of questions involved in the discussion.

A significant strength of the book is the inclusion of supplemental material such as a timeline of the Second Temple Period, 13 maps of various regions, and 71 photographs/figures of locations and artifacts (manuscripts, pottery, ect.). At various points in the book,  authors reference these pictures as visual support for their presentation.

In addition, the volume includes substantial bibliographies at the conclusion of each chapter, providing further resources for the interest reader. These sources provides an invaluable compilation of both primary and secondary literature for further study.

With all the strengths of the book, there exists weaknesses in various chapters. In some instances an author may overstate the evidence, or present their conclusions as the settled consensus of scholarship, without acknowledging other voices in discussion. One example is the chapter authored by Eugene Ulrich on text, ancient versions, and canon. The assumption of the fluidity of the texts of the Hebrew Bible until a very late date, though common, is by no means the only explanation for the evidence. Others, such as Emanuel Tov, have put forward alternative explanations for what appears to be the “standardization” of the text in later centuries. Such alternatives are simply not included in the chapter. Though it is impossible to address every issue in the discussion, such a fundamental point as the dating of the canon should have received wider attention.

Yet for all of its content this book should be found on the shelf of anyone serious about the study of the Hebrew Bible, Judaism, or the New Testament. Indeed, the title “Early Judaism: A Comprehensive Overview” is well earned.

Leave a comment

Filed under Book Reviews, Judaism