Old Testament

Joshua E. Williams and Calvin F. Pearson, 1-2 Chronicles (Kerux)

Williams, Joshua E., and Calvin F. Pearson. 1-2 Chronicles. A Commentary for Biblical Preaching and Teaching. Kerux Commentaries. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Kregel Ministry, 2024. 574 pp. Hb. $41.99   Link to Kregel Ministry  

Joshua Williams is associate professor of Old Testament in the School of Theology at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. He served as assistant editor of the Southwestern Journal of Theology from 2007 to 2016. Calvin F. Pearson (PhD, University of Texas at Arlington) is a retired pastor who taught homiletics at Dallas Theological Seminary, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Clamp Divinity School at Anderson University, and Grace School of Theology. He previously contributed to the preaching section for the Kerux volume on Jeremiah (with Duane Garrett, Kregel 2022, reviewed here).

Kerux 1-2 Chronicles

Kregel’s Kerux commentary series blends exegetical commentary with extensive preaching help. This approach is evident in the new volume on 1-2 Chronicles, a book rarely preached in most churches. The authors divide the two books into thirty-five preaching units in three major categories. These preaching units are summarized at the beginning of the commentary (pages 13-31) and repeated in each chapter of the commentary. These summaries include an exegetical idea, a theological focus, a preaching idea, and preaching pointers for each unit.

In the brief twelve-page introduction, Williams acknowledges that the book is anonymous. Despite the tradition that Ezra was the author, he concludes that the evidence points to another author, usually referred to as “the Chronicler” (38). Chronicles is a complex piece of literature that uses Samuel, Kings, and several Psalms. However, in the body of the commentary, Williams is not interested in tracing out what the Chronicler’s sources may have been. He dates the book to the post-exilic period. Since the book shows no signs of Greek influence, it was likely completed in the late Persian period, possibly as late as 350 BC. Williams briefly outlines the historical setting (how Israel came to be in exile and their return). Several generations have passed since the temple was rebuilt, so the Chronicler wants to remind his readers that God did not abandon his covenant people in exile. He wants to remind the community that they still have a responsibility toward YHWH in worship (42). Therefore, 1-2 Chronicles is a “prophetic histography,” a theological history that points to the future and contains a call to action. Like the prophets, the book calls on its readers to worship YHWH properly and exclusively (43).

The commentary centers on four interrelated theological themes: covenant, cult (worship), kingdom, and community (a preacher’s alliteration?) Consistent with the rest of the Old Testament, Israel is in a covenant relationship with YHWH. The covenant promises blessing for the obedient and punishment for the disobedient. The Chronicler ultimately applies this theology of retribution to Israel after the exile. YHWH remembered his covenant and called his people to rebuild his temple in Jerusalem. Jerusalem is the exclusive place to worship YHWH alone, and Moses is the law that sets the standard for evaluating that worship. The king’s primary task is to unify Israel’s worship in the Jerusalem Temple (46). Kings are evaluated by how they treat the temple. So, what sort of a community is Israel now after the exile? The Chronicler addresses this post-exilic identity crisis by showing that all of Israel was and still is God’s covenant people, even the northern tribes.

William’s exposition of the Hebrew text is clear and concise. Given the size of 1-2 chronicles, he necessarily treats paragraphs. He deals with Hebrew technical matters in sidebars or “translation analysis.” Hebrew appears untransliterated. The commentary body is very readable and demonstrates exegetical skill, yet it is still focused on preaching and teaching the text in a church context. Certainly, Williams has utilized the best commentaries, but the main body of the commentary is uncluttered by references to secondary literature.

Pearson’s preaching strategies are rich in illustrations, although they are not as contemporary as other volumes in this series. (There are no Lord of the Rings or MCU analogies!) His goal is to put things in New Testament terms, bridging the gap between the text of chronicles and contemporary culture. The preaching sections conclude with a suggested sermon outline and a few discussion questions to help preachers and teachers.

Most of 1-2 Chronicles is narrative and lends itself to the pulpit. But how does someone preach from 1 Chronicles 1-9? Most pastors would not attempt to preach the genealogies, starting a series on Chronicles with chapter 10. This is perhaps a wise strategy. Williams does not attempt a complete exegesis of the genealogies (it is unnecessary for the most part). Instead, he makes a few general comments and addresses any anomalies. For example, why are there no genealogies for the tribes of Zebulon or Dan? He suggests this may be due to the misidentification of Dan’s genealogy as Benjamin’s in 7:1-12. Benjamin has a lengthy genealogy in 8:1-39. However, there is no textual evidence for this.

The theological focus of the genealogies is that the Lord rules over all the nations and Israel (73). Pearson suggests a preaching strategy from this: “What defines you is God’s choice and expectation” (75). He suggests we need to hear the genealogies, as did the returning exiles: The crisis of the exile did not define Israel. Pearson suggests that only selected verses need to be read. In fact, a few short narratives in the genealogies illustrate the themes of Chronicles. Unsurprisingly, the “Prayer of Jabez” is one of these units (1 Chron 4:9-10). Very practically, he suggests practicing pronouncing names before preaching. He says that if you stumble over a name, it makes that person seem less useful.

This is an excellent strategy for teaching through the first nine chapters of 1-2 Chronicles. What I did not find helpful were the three-quarter-column reproductions of the twelve patriarchs by Spanish artist Francisco de Zurbarán. These are good if you are interested in seventeenth-century clothing styles, but they add nothing to understanding the genealogies in 1 Chronicles 1-9. The space would have been better for a summary chart or an additional detailed exegesis.

A commentary on 1-2 Chronicles can focus on differences from Samuel-Kings, whether historical or theological. Williams does not do this. His focus is solely on Chronicles. He does not use Samuel-Kings to fill out the story and is not interested in how Chronicles used sources (or even if there are sources). For example, who tests David when he takes the census in 2 Samuel 25 and 1 Chronicles 21:1– 22:1? Is it God or Satan? The difference may be theologically significant (see Ralph Klein’s Chronicles commentary in the Herminia series). Although he briefly comments on the differences in the census numbers, Williams does not compare the two stories to explain developments in early Jewish theology. The story is part of the Chronicler’s theme of proper worship centered on the Temple in Jerusalem since the story ultimately explains the location of Solomon’s Temple.

Conclusion: Few pastors or teachers have a good 1-2 Chronicles commentary on their shelf, and few will devote a sermon series or Sunday School class to these neglected books. Williams and Pearson succeed in illuminating the biblical text and providing insights that will enhance the presentation of these books.

For a more detailed exegetical commentary from a conservative perspective, see my review of Eugene Merrill’s contribution to the Kregel Exegetical Library. If you are interested in a detailed academic introduction to Chronicles and the study of the genealogies in chapters 1-9, see Gary Knoppers, I Chronicles 1-9 in the Anchor Bible series (Yale, 2004).

NB: I used YHWH for the name of God since Williams uses it in this commentary. Thanks to Kregel for kindly providing me with a review copy of this book. This did not influence my thoughts regarding the work.

Other volumes reviewed in this series:

NB: Thanks to Kregel for kindly providing me with a review copy of this book. This did not influence my thoughts regarding the work.

 

 

 

Joel Barker and Steven D. West, Numbers (Kerux)

Barker, Joel and Steven D. West. Numbers. A Commentary for Biblical Preaching and Teaching. Kerux Commentaries. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Kregel Ministry, 2023. 477 pp. Hb. $37.99   Link to Kregel Ministry 

Joel Barker serves as Associate Professor of Biblical Studies at Heritage College and Seminary in Cambridge, Ontario. He previously contributed a commentary on Joel in the ZECOT series (Zondervan, 2020).  Steven D. West is Provost and Professor at Heritage College and Seminary in Cambridge, Ontario, and the Lead Pastor of Madoc Baptist Church. His Resurrection, Scripture, and Reformed Apologetics in the McMaster Theological Studies Series.

Kerux Numbers Commentary

Given the Kerux series’s goal of producing an exegetical commentary with extensive preaching helps, a volume on Numbers presents many challenges. Most pastors or teachers would avoid large sections of the Book of Numbers and possibly even consider it “unpreachable.” As Barker observes in the introduction, many scholars see Numbers as an “unorganized hodgepodge” with a wide variety of genres, such as census lists, that do not lend themselves well to preaching.

As the authors acknowledge in the introduction, writers of a commentary on the Book of Numbers face the challenge of balancing comprehensiveness and readability (44). Each chapter of the commentary covers large sections of text, and it will be challenging to cover everything in a half-hour sermon. Some sections simply do not lend themselves to a verse-by-verse exposition.

Nevertheless, the authors divide the book into forty-one preaching units (summarized on pages 13-40). Each preaching unit includes an exegetical idea, a theological focus, and a preaching idea (one sentence each). Each preaching unit includes two paragraphs of preaching pointers. These forty-one units are divided into four sections:

A Shaping the Community at Sinai (1:1-10:10)

B Travels and Travails in the First Generation (10:11-19:22

B’ Sin and Redemption for the Second Generation (20:1-25:18)

A’ Shaping the Community on the Plains of Moab (26:1-36:13)

In the volume’s introduction, Barker and West argue that Moses is the book’s primary author. For example, in Numbers 33:2, Moses was commanded to write. But Moses was a supervising author, overseeing a collection of legal decisions, etc. The Book of Numbers is, therefore, “essentially Mosaic.” What sections are non-Mosaic? Numbers 12:3 describes Moses as the most humble man ever. Would the humblest man ever write something like that?

The date depends on the date of the Exodus, an issue too complex for this short introduction. Barker declines to say for sure whether the Exodus is early (15th century BC) or late (13th century BC). The context of the Book of Numbers is just after the redemption of god’s people from slavery, during their time in the wilderness (the first word of the book). This commentary does not engage with the documentary hypothesis, nor are they interested in arguing for or against the historicity of any particular tradition found in the book of Numbers. Other commentaries are available that engage in this sort of academic pursuit. The Kerux series aims to help pastors and teachers present the Book of Numbers to their congregations and classrooms, so much of this material is omitted (see, for example, Timothy Ashley’s recent NICOT volume, Eerdmans, 2022, reviewed here).

The body of the commentary is divided into 41 chapters, each about ten pages long. Each chapter is about 75% exegesis and about 25% preaching tips. This means that large sections are often covered in short paragraphs. Exegesis is necessarily brief and focuses on the meaning of words, especially if there is a difference in English translation. Hebrew is not transliterated, and the commentary rarely engages with Hebrew syntax. Major commentaries are cited in-text with additional interaction with secondary sources in footnotes.

Most Hebrew exegesis appears in boxes labeled “translation analysis.” These sidebars address Hebrew lexical issues and occasionally explain Hebrew syntax, especially when this leads to differences in English translations. Barker’s goal here seems to be to give the preacher information to explain different English translations while preaching the passage.

As with other volumes in this series, the commentary is illustrated by frequent sidebars that expand on the text’s historical, cultural, and theological themes. For example, in Numbers 13:32-33, Barker deals with the Nephilim. “This may be a sheer exaggeration,” the people intentionally exaggerate the threat. He discusses Moses’s Cushite wife and suggests that she may be Zipporah (he concludes the question is unresolved).  A sidebar discusses the translation of “bitter water” in Numbers 5:15-28.

After the exegetical section of the chapter, the writers summarize the theological focus of the unit. These observations make canonical connections within the Old Testament and occasionally tie the passage to New Testament themes. They are working with a canonical biblical theology in this section.

Each chapter concludes with preaching and teaching strategies. This section attempts to move from exegesis to a preaching idea that basically describes “what this sermon is about” in a brief, single sentence (Haddon Robinson style). West Then provides some contemporary connections (What does it mean? Is it true? Now what?) This is followed by suggestions for creativity in presentation. These include analogies and illustrations often drawn from contemporary culture. There are the usual suspects (C.S. Lewis, Lord of the Rings, Pilgrim’s Progress), but also a few classic hymns and a few historical documents (The Heidelberg Catechism). Providing illustrations for sermons on the Book of Numbers must be difficult for any writer. How do you preach a sermon on corpse contamination from Numbers 19? Or perhaps the question should be, should you preach on corpse contamination?

Conclusion. If scholars attempting to write a commentary on the Book of Numbers face challenges, so do preachers and teachers who attempt to work through the wilderness period of Israel’s history. Yet rich traditions in the Book of Numbers resonate with the rest of the Old Testament and even in the gospels and Pauline literature. I hope that a commentary like Barker and West’s will encourage local pastors to teach this often-ignored book of the Old Testament.

Other volumes reviewed in this series:

NB: Thanks to Kregel for kindly providing me with a review copy of this book. This did not influence my thoughts regarding the work.

 

 

John Goldingay, Proverbs (CCF)

Goldingay, John. Proverbs. Commentaries for Christian Formation. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2023. xvi+477 pp. Hb; $39.99   Link to Eerdmans

John Goldingay’s commentary on Proverbs joins N. T. Wright’s Galatians in the Commentaries for Christian Formation series (reviewed here). His commentary intentionally seeks to integrate serving the church through sound theological exegesis to support preaching, teaching, and forming believers in the faith. In the introduction to the series, the editors suggest, “Theology is not the result of exegesis; nor is it one discrete element that is separable from exegesis carried on by other means. Rather, exegesis is itself a way of doing theology” (xiv).

Proverbs, Goldingay

John Goldingay embodies the goals of this series in all his exegetical work, but especially so in this new commentary on Proverbs. This commentary does not deal with Hebrew syntax lexical issues, translation or textual criticism. It is clearly aimed at readers who want to be challenged by reading the proverbs or to prepare to challenge others in the classroom or from the pulpit.

In the brief introduction, Goldingay says Proverbs wants to enable people to learn wisdom for a life lived faithfully and in awe of Yahweh. Wisdom is also practical and will enable people to be smart, shrewd, and skilled. However, people “who refuse to learn wisdom will end up idiots whose lives will not work out well” (3). Gaining wisdom is hard work. Understanding proverbs requires thought and reflection. The book assumes there is an ethical dimension to wisdom. This ethic concerns everyday life. The book of Proverbs also assumes wisdom involves awe for Yahweh. Goldingay defines this as a “submissive acknowledgment of Yahweh.” Notice he does not use the common translation “fear of the Lord” here. He is avoiding the confusion caused by the English meaning of the word, preferring to translate the word as awe.

How did people encounter the Book of Proverbs in ancient Israel? “Books such as this commentary are written for a small group of people who have acquired a taste for reading.” The same is true for the Book of Proverbs in ancient Israel. Most people would encounter the book of proverbs from a teacher who had read it and studied it and is now communicating it to them in some way.

Most commentaries on Proverbs suggest some complicated origin for the book. Goldingay Keeps it simple by dividing the book into three parts: Proverbs A (1:1-9:18), Proverbs B (10:1-22:16), and Proverbs C (22:17-31:31). He starts with the observation that the phrase “verses of Solomon” “hardly seems to imply that Solomon composed the sayings in the book” (9). Maybe Solomon sponsored the collection. Or maybe the proverbs are Solomon’s in the same sense that the Torah is Moses’s or that the Psalms are David’s. Goldingay suggests that a lack of knowledge of the book’s origin does not greatly hold back our understanding of the book. Basing our interpretation of the proverbs on a hypothesis is as likely to lend to misinterpretation. Proverbs are independent of date and provenance. Jeremiah or Paul may have addressed specific contexts, but Proverbs is universal. In fact, he warns against hypothetical theories of the origin of the Book of Proverbs. Any hypothesis is built on limited data in the book itself, and it creates a feedback process. The interpreter finds things that support the hypothesis, whether they are there or not.

Nevertheless, Goldingay briefly outlines his hypothesis for how the Book of Proverbs was collected. Sayings developed independently over centuries. Much of Proverbs B was collected during the monarchic period. Proverbs C was collected during the Second Temple period. Proverbs A was composed in the Second Temple period as an introduction to the book. This process ended at the beginning of the Hellenistic period, but the book was still being adapted in detailed ways until the end of the Roman period (10-11).  He suggests the fall of Jerusalem may have been the event that brought the process of collecting and supplementing the text to an end (13).

Each chapter of the commentary covers about a chapter of proverbs, although it’s not always as neat as that. There are 33 chapters at all. Each chapter has a title which summarizes the contents. The commentary moves through subunits of potentially coherent themes. His comments are entirely on the English translation (provided at the beginning of each section). These are Goldingay’s own translations, and they reflect the sense of the Hebrew well. Given the goals of the commentary, there are no footnotes explaining translation decisions, textual variants, etc. Footnotes interact with various modern commentaries and occasional journal articles or monographs. He sometimes recognizes the contributions of early Christian commentators (Gregory the Great and John Chrysostom, for example) and medieval Jewish exegetes (Rashi and Ibn Ezra, for example).

Conclusion. Goldingay certainly achieves the goals of the series by providing insight into the Book of Proverbs with the goal of forming readers spiritually. Reading John Goldingay is always a delight. His clear and insightful prose will be accessible to laypersons and scholars alike. In fact, this is one of those rare commentaries that is a pleasure to read.

NB: Thanks to Eerdmans for kindly providing me with a review copy of this book. This did not influence my thoughts regarding the work.

Jeffrey J. Niehaus, When Did Eve Sin? The Fall and Biblical Historiography

Niehaus, Jeffrey J. When Did Eve Sin? The Fall and Biblical Historiography. Lexham, 2020. xi+172 pp. Pb. $17.99   Link to Lexham Academic  

Gordon-Conwell Professor of Old Testament since 1982, Jeffrey J. Niehaus’s short monograph on the fall deals with a small detail in Genesis 2-3 as an entry into a larger discussion of how biblical history writing works. When did Eve Sin

The issue is simple. In Genesis 2:17 God’s command to Adam concerning the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil is, “You shall not eat.” In Genesis 3:3b, Eve appears to add the words “neither shall you touch it” to God’s command. Niehaus affirms biblical inerrancy, so this cannot be a contradiction. It is therefore possible Adam or Eve added to God’s command or that Eve accurately reports the original command from God. Most readers have likely heard the explanation that Adam told Eve not to touch the tree, usually in the context of a sermon on legalism (adding to God’s commands, etc.) Niehaus challenges this common interpretation.

Niehaus’s thesis in When Did Eve Sin? is this: biblical history often uses a “laconic third-person omniscient narrator followed by a first-person retelling of the same story with additional details.” “Laconic” here means “using few words” rather than “aloof,” “rude,” or a lack of interest in the topic. As he will demonstrate in chapters 4-5, biblical histography often tells a story twice with slightly different details. These kinds of paired stories (doublets?) are not evidence of two often contradictory traditions, but rather the historiographic style of the Old Testament. One problem for Niehaus is that there is no evidence for this style in other ancient Near Eastern history. In his God at Sinai (Zondervan 1995), he explored what he called the Theophanic Gattung (or type scene). This pattern of reporting a theophany of the invisible and only God is unique among ancient histories because “these things do not happen” in pagan histories. Applied to the problem of this monograph, scholars do not need to use pagan histography to understand a literary genre in the Old Testament.

Chapters 2-3 survey the history of interpretation, including Jewish (Philo, Talmud, Cassuto) and Early Christian (Ambrose, Chrysostom, Augustine) writers. Niehaus includes Reformation writers (Luther, Calvin), Critical Scholarship (Driver, Gunkel, Von Rad, Westermann), and Evangelical Scholarly Tradition (Keil and Delitzsch, Vos, Kline, Ross, Beale, etc.). He concludes that there is a long tradition of interpretation that assumes the woman added to God’s commands, and sometimes Adam added to God’s commands. Only rarely does an interpreter suggest that the woman reported what God said (Chrysostom, Augustine).

Chapters 4-5 Examine the data supporting his view that biblical history often uses a laconic third-person omniscient narrator followed by a first-person retelling of the same story. Much if this is drawn from the Old Testament, but Chapter 5 demonstrates this style with the three versions of Paul’s Damascus Road experience. The first is a third-person omniscient narrator, the second two are Paul’s first-person reports with additional details. Rather than three contradictory stories, Niehaus concludes Luke follows the pattern of Old Testament historiography.

Conclusion: When Did Eve Sin? is a short book (172 pages, but 5×8 size) with a clear and concise thesis. Even did not add to God’s command in Genesis 2:17 when she said, “Neither shall you touch it” in Genesis 3:3b. This monograph contributes to the interpretation of Genesis. But perhaps more important is Niehaus’s suggestion there is no contradiction here because this is the way the Old Testament writes history.

 

NB: Thanks to Lexham Academic for kindly providing me with a review copy of this book. I purchased the Logos edition. This did not influence my thoughts regarding the work.

 

 

Michael B. Shepherd, A Commentary on Jeremiah (Kregel Exegetical Library)

Shepherd, Michael B. A Commentary on The Book of Jeremiah. Kregel Exegetical Library; Grand Rapids, Mich. Kregel, 2023. 928 pp. Hb; $57.99.   Link to Kregel Academic

Michael Shepherd serves as Professor of Biblical Studies at Cedarville University. He has previously published several articles and monographs, including Daniel in the Context of the Hebrew Bible (Peter Lang, 2009), The Twelve Prophets in the New Testament (Peter Lang, 2011), and A Commentary on The Book of the Twelve (Kregel Academic, 2018; reviewed here).

In his introduction to this new volume of the Kregel Exegetical Library, Shepherd explains the justification for yet another major commentary on the book of Jeremiah. First, the base text for this commentary is the Hebrew source behind the old Greek of Jeremiah, not the Masoretic text. Shepherd states there is a growing consensus that the Hebrew behind the old Greek Jeremiah is the earlier edition. This is not a radically new idea, but basing a commentary on a reconstructed Hebrew text behind the Septuagint is unique. Shepherd argues that a single translator produced Old Greek Jeremiah (possibly Ezekiel and the Book of the Twelve). Following Joseph Ziegler’s Göttingen critical edition of the Septuagint and Louis Stuhlman’s 1986 monograph on the prose sections of Jeremiah, Shepherd reconstructs the “Hebrew source behind the Greek” (reproduced on pages 873-909). Throughout the commentary, he refers to the “Hebrew source behind the Greek Jeremiah” (perhaps an abbreviation could have been coined for this hypothetical source).

Jeremiah Commentary

Second, Shepherd’s commentary is on the literature bearing the name of Jeremiah, not an account of his life in times or a study of the oral preaching of Jeremiah. Therefore, there are no reconstructions of the literary prehistory of the book. The commentary does not address the political history of the final years of Judah and Jerusalem. Shepherd says this commentary is “an analysis and exposition of the book’s composition in its final form.” However, by “final form,” he means his reconstructed text, which stands behind the Old Greek of Jeremiah.

Third, Shepherd focuses on the eschatological shaping of Jeremiah in its first edition. He believes this gives the prophecy relevance for future generations of readers. Greek Jeremiah is less focused on the Babylonian invasion and destruction of Jerusalem, so the eschatology of the book is more open-ended. The book was designed to self-interpret and self-apply.

With these three contributions in mind, the introduction deals with the text of Jeremiah (12-18) and the making of the book of Jeremiah (18-25). As is well known, Greek Jeremiah is one-sixth to one-seventh shorter than the Masoretic text. Jeremiah 33: 14-26 and 39: 4-13 are missing from the old Greek. The old Greek is arranged differently than the Masoretic text. Jeremiah exists in two distinctly different editions. The Septuagint and some Dead Sea scroll fragments support the shorter Old Greek. Some Dead Sea Scroll fragments and the Peshitta, Targum Jonathan, and the Latin Vulgate also support a longer proto-Masoretic text. (By proto-Masoretic, Shepherd refers to the consonantal text before adding vowels, accents, and marginal notes.)

Shepherd argues that the Old Greek is the first edition of Jeremiah, while the Masoretic text represents a second edition. The second edition was thoroughly edited and had some theological differences. For example, in the first edition, the “enemy from the north” is not identified. Compare Jeremiah 25: 1-13 in the Septuagint and the Hebrew Bible. In the Masoretic text, the second edition of Jeremiah, the enemy is Babylon. Since the first edition does not identify Babylon as the “enemy from the north,” the seventy-year captivity does not refer to the Babylonian captivity. This allows for the seventy-year period to be symbolic of an open-ended period. Shepherd suggests this is how the number was interpreted in Daniel 9:24-27 (not seventy years, but seventy times seven years). The second edition of Jeremiah (the proto-Masoretic text) historicized the seventy-year period as the Babylonian Captivity. The first edition is an open-ended, potentially eschatological edition read by Daniel and Ezekiel. The second edition is a longer, rearranged, and historicized edition (18).

Shepherd states that modern critical analysis has not led to a better understanding of Jeremiah’s book (19). Form criticism and the search for an original Sitz im Leben (Duhm, Mowinckel). “The way the book of Jeremiah presents itself is the way it is intended to be read” (20). He observes the frequent use of phrases like “the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah,” and 25:13 refers to “all that is written in the book.” Jeremiah 45 is the prophet’s message to Baruch and functions as a scribal colophon. In the first edition, this was at the end of the book, followed by an appendix describing the fall of Jerusalem (Jeremiah 52). In the second edition, these two chapters were separated. Concerning authorship and date, Jeremiah’s preaching ministry, as described in the book, dates to 627-587 B. C., although Jeremiah 40-44 indicates he accompanied refugees to Egypt after 587. The scribe Baruch gave the book its final form (the first edition, the Hebrew source behind Greek Jeremiah). Shepherd suggests a post-exilic date for the second edition (re-arranging and historicizing the first edition). Perhaps Ezra added Jeremiah 52 to the book as an appendix (30).

Shepherd begins each exegetical unit by translating the Hebrew source behind Greek Jeremiah. He includes the Masoretic Text in brackets where there are differences. There are also brackets for variations in the LXX, Syriac, Dead Sea Scrolls, Vulgate, Targumim, and other ancient witnesses to the text. He includes the ketiv/qere reading (marginal comments on variant readings in the Masoretic text) when necessary. More extensive comments appear in the footnotes on the translation. Occasionally, he compares his translation to modern English translations in brackets, and sometimes, he includes referents to HALOT or GKC. Since this is not a translation of the Masoretic text, there are sometimes major differences between the commentary’s text and a modern English translation. This makes the translation difficult to read. I would like a complete translation of his reconstructed text for undistracted reading, even if it was in an appendix.

Following the translation of the Hebrew source behind Greek Jeremiah, Shepherd provides a detailed commentary on the Hebrew source. Since a primary goal of the commentary is interpreting the first edition of Jeremiah (the reconstructed Hebrew text), Shepherd’s commentary focuses on vocabulary and variant readings rather than Hebrew syntax and grammatical nuances. All Hebrew appears without transliteration or vowel pointing (since the vowels are part of the later Masoretic text; when he refers to the Masoretic text, he includes the vowels).

He interacts with significant commentaries, both ancient and modern. Rashi, Redak (David Kimhi), and other rabbinic interpreters frequently appear, as do Calvin and (surprisingly) Bullinger (Figures of Speech). Recent commentaries by Holliday and McKane and a wide range of monographs and journal articles frequently appear. The commentary includes a select bibliography but not an author index.

Exegetical units end with a short section on the application of the text, usually no more than a page. Sometimes, Shepherd includes canonical connections and eschatological comments. For example, at the end of the section Jeremiah 21-25, he observes “the convergence of messianic hope with the hope of redemption from the enemy from the north,” but this is not the whole picture of the Messiah, “which awaits Jesus” (Luke 24:25-27; 459).

Conclusion. Some readers will find this commentary frustrating since it is a commentary on a reconstructed text rather than the canonical Jeremiah (the Hebrew Bible). There are occasional differences between Greek Jeremiah and the Hebrew used for English translations. Readers unfamiliar with the differences between Greek and Hebrew Jeremiah may need help navigating the commentary. There are other ways to explain the existence of two versions of Jeremiah. Duane Garrett’s recent Kerux Commentary (reviewed here) and John Goldingay’s NICOT commentary (reviewed here) explain the two versions quite differently.

Nevertheless, Shepherd has contributed a unique commentary on the Book of Jeremiah, which will interest scholars interested in the development of the canonical form of Jeremiah.

 

Review of other commentaries in the Kregel Exegetical Commentary series:

NB: Thanks to Kregel for kindly providing me with a review copy of this book. This did not influence my thoughts regarding the work.