Studien zum Dodekapropheton II

The current volume gathers various essays of the prolific Jörg Jeremias, whose influence in Book of the Twelve scholarship, especially in the German-speaking sphere, is undisputed. This is the second such collection; the first was a companion to Jeremias’s commentaries on Hosea and Amos. The editors intend this collection as a companion to his two recent commentaries: Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, and Micah (ATD 24/3) and Nahum (BKAT 14/5.1). Given this companion status, most essays concern criticism of these books rather than comprehensive interpretation of the canonical text. After introductory material, the volume begins with seven essays discussing foundational questions about prophecy and the aforementioned books. It continues with four essays on Joel, one on Obadiah, three on Jonah, six on Micah, and two on Nahum.There is no explicit thesis due to the nature of the book. One sees, however, several important focal points. Most importantly, Jeremias contends that the Book of the Twelve grew organically with the combination of early forms of Hosea and Amos, both of which were edited in light of each other. In the exilic period, there was an expanded edition (early forms of Hosea, Amos, Micah, and Zephanah). Joel, later Zechariah, and subsequently the rest of the later books were added. These book were all edited in light of the whole at each redactional stage (for a synthesis, see “Neuere Tendenzen der Forschung an den Kleinen Propheten,” esp. pp. 103–4). Jeremias contends that most redactional additions to the Twelve are not haphazard but conscious uses of older texts and traditions, typically inserted to update a prior prophecy for a new historical situation or theological context. In this way, Jeremias continues the work of his mentor, Hans Walter Wolff, and, while rather commonplace today (that is, schriftgelehrte Prophetie, Schriftprophetie), it was certainly a welcome change to the deleterious efforts to recover the “original” prophetic word, whether via Form Criticism or early efforts by scholars such as Bernhard Duhm. Jeremias offers a synthesis that seeks to make sense of difficult portions of the text rather than eliminate them. For example, in “Das Ende Belials,” he argues that the longstanding question concerning Nah 1:11–14 is best solved by reference to conscious, interpretive activity. Verses 11 and 14 were original words of Nahum referring to the fall of Jerusalem. Verses 12 and 13 were added, changing the focus of Yhwh’s former act of judgment to the goal of salvation. (This is a consistent thematic development Jeremias sees in the redaction history of the Twelve.) Further, the use of Belial as a personal name in 2:1 displays a kind of eschatological expectation not known until the Hellenistic period. This conclusion displays another key thesis, namely, that the final redaction of the Book of the Twelve occurred in the Hellenistic period during the wars of the Diadochi. While this thesis might be contested in Anglophonic scholarship, it is quite common on the Continent.Conservative scholars typically shy away from such extensive redaction criticism, but Jeremias’s work must be considered on its merits. Unlike some scholars, Jeremias does not emphasize contradictions between various communities evinced in the text or haphazard editing. Rather, he speaks of texts “responding to” (reagieren) others, a much softer claim. One sees him refer to additions seeking either to apply older traditions to the current community or to reflect a more recent understanding of God (see esp. “Ein neues Gottesbild”). This tenor permits a more congenial reading, albeit different from what conservatives typically offer. Jeremias is also to be commended for laying more emphasis on the written text rather than on its putative oral prehistory. He is one of several (e.g., Reinhard Kratz and James Nogalski) who have brought this welcome change. Finally, Jeremias’s diachronic synthesis is well thought out and plausible. An interesting thought experiment would be a conservative appropriation of it to see what points of tension would arise.There are also some difficulties with Jeremias’s work. First, he confidently moves from literary observations to historical-redactional deduction, rarely considering an alternative, non-redactional counterclaim. One often wonders if his close readings do not create a greater problem amidst the textual ambiguity than is necessary. A comparison of alternatives would greatly improve his argumentation. Second, he utilizes diachronic theological developments as a criterion for redaction history. For example, he sees behind the redaction of Mic 3 the desire to synthesize the messages of Hosea, Amos, and Micah into a single truth by one God (p. 273). This deduction assumes that there was not basic agreement between these prophets historically. It seems that he overemphasizes the uniqueness of each prophet to a fault. Further, it assumes that generalization or synthesis implies historical sequence. Conservatives would typically allow that standards of orthodoxy underly the messages of the prophets at the earliest stage. Nonetheless, there is nothing inherently wrong with the claim that the editing of the Twelve involved harmonization and synthesis, leading to my final critique. Third, Jeremias’s deductions must remain quite tentative. Therefore, the nature of his argumentation does not lead to clear criteria for verification or falsification. How is one to evaluate whether his thesis or that of James Nogalski or Odil Hannes Steck is to be preferred? The speculative nature is the strongest critique to be raised by conservatives.Despite the weaknesses, the collection of essays is well worth the read. One gains a good sense of Jeremias’s thinking and method, and a respondent would do well to understand his arguments in detail before offering an equally detailed rebuttal. Scholars teaching and writing on issues of introduction, or those writing in-depth commentaries will benefit from the essays collected in one place. Unfortunately, the cost of the book is prohibitive, so it will likely be necessary to use a library copy

Aesthetics · Art · Criticism · Linguistics · Literature · Political science · Scholarship · Theology · Biblical Studies and Interpretation · Classics · Historical and Linguistic Studies · History · Law · Philosophy