A couple days ago I mentioned a book that I had just discovered entitled Two Sides of a Coin: Juxtaposing Views on Interpreting the Book of the Twelve / the Twelve Prophetic Books. Though I haven’t had a chance to get my hands on it yet, I have found some helpful reviews (The Journal of Hebrew Scriptures and Review of Biblical Literature).
Tag Archives: james nogalski
Those familiar with the study of the Twelve have seen the central role of reconstructing the formation of the corpus in critical scholarship. The question of how these books came together has received a fair amount of attention in both monographs and scholarly journals, but further dialogue, of course, has always welcomed.
My attention was recently drawn to a forthcoming book entitled Perspectives on the Formation of the Book of the Twelve, eds. Rainer Albertz, James D. Nogalski, and Jakob Wöhrle. This book includes contributions from various scholars, utilizing various methodologies, to further explore the development of the Book of the Twelve in its final form. A good review of the book has written by Matthew V. Moss (read it here).
As Moss notes, the book assumes the reader’s familiarity with the current discussion of the formation of the Twelve. For those seeking an introduction to the subject, I recommend Reading and Hearing the Book of the Twelve, eds. James D. Nogalski and Marvin A. Sweeney. Though this work was published nearly thirteen years ago, much of the material discussed continues to serve as the foundation for the contemporary discussion.
(HT: Brian Renshaw)
Beth Stovell of St. Thomas University has written a review of the first volume of James D. Nogalski’s recent commentary on the Book of the Twelve (Hosea-Jonah). While it is certainly not plausible to provide a full critique of such a massive work (488+ pages), Stovell makes some helpful introductory comments. You can read the review here.
At the last annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, I attended a panel discussion reviewing Nogalski’s commentary. While some of the panelists raised sound critiques regarding both content and methodology, others proved to be not so helpful. Indeed, one panelist spent the lion’s share of his review chanting for more Wellhausen and less application in Nogalski’s approach. Text-critical issues aside, such a response obviously misses the target audience of the publishers. And though I diverge from Nogalski on many significant issues, his approach provides many rich insights, especially on the front of intertextual links between the books of the Twelve.
For those unfamiliar, Nogalski has set himself apart for his research on the Twelve. Although many, including myself, reject some of his conclusions, I cannot say that I have not benefited greatly from some of his insights. And though the question of the unity of the twelve is one of perpetual debate, Nogalski remains at the forefront of the conversation. Those interested in the Book of the Twelve will find this work provocative, for good or ill.