Book Review: Judges [ZECOT]

Reviewing commentaries is a tricky business – particularly for me as a generalist, and an in-publisher editor of commentaries! I tend to offer my review based on the format and content of the volume, and its utility or otherwise to preachers and pastors. Occasionally I’ll digress into particularly theological or stylistic quirks.

The book of Judges is one of the most dramatic and complex in the Old Testament – and so as I gradually gear up to edit a major commentary (which I don’t have in hand yet), I’ve been trying to dig a little deeper in to the commentaries. I was glad to see that Mark Boda and Mary Conway have written the Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the Old Testament on Judges – I’ve appreciated what I’ve seen from both scholars before (not least Boda’s NSBT on repentance, ‘Return to Me’), and having really appreciated Klink’s ZECNT on John’s Gospel last year, I was excited to get stuck in. Before I did, though, I noticed one small different in the series cover style – the ZECOT is advertised as ‘A Discourse Analysis of the Hebrew Bible’. This small shoutline/subtitle betrays the biggest difference between this commentary and the aforementioned NT version. In principle I agree with the aims of the series – “when we hear the message of Scripture, we gain access to the mind of God” (p. xiv), and it may well be fair to say that “too little attention has been paid to biblical authors as rhetoriticians…” (p. xiii) (this is a fair point – for a New Testament exception, see MacBride’s helpful ‘Catching the Wave’). The problem this creates for me as a reader though (And one that I think might resonate with many users of commentaries) is that the 21 chapter of the book of Judges are divided into 12 ‘Macro Units’ (fair enough), and a total of one hundred and sixteen (Yes, 116) ‘micro units’, some covering as little as two halves of two different verses! Whilst this level of granular analysis has its place, it is fair to say that most pastors will not be preaching 116 sermons on Judges, and in some cases this over-granular approach has the negative affect of breaking up the flow of the text and narrative.

Structurally, the xl pages of front matter include the contents, series preface, abbreviations, and a 15 page (though double columned) page bibliography. Almost 100 pages are taken up with comments on the translation philosophy of the project, and an introduction. The ‘commentary proper’ is just under 800 pages, and is followed by a six page ‘Appendix of Discourse Terminology’, and indices of Scripture, Subject and Author. This is a heavyweight book – in the almost square format that Zondervan Academic often use – and I would imagine were it printed more traditionally it would be significantly longer. The unique format of the micro-units, coupled with the physical shape of the books, does occasionally lead to some odd look pages, and I wonder if perhaps it works better in digital formats. For example, p. 127 is particularly awkward:

Format and structural issues aside, I did appreciate a lot of the content of this commentary. For example, summing up Judges 1:1a-2:5b, Boda and Conway write: “We are therefore exhorted by this passage to keep God as the prime actor in our lives and ministries…” (p.154). This is a vital reminder, demonstrating both the living faith of the authors, and a key learning from the complex book of Judges, in my opinion. . Elsewhere, the authors view of this God is drawn directly from the text; comment on 2:18a-19f [talk about a micro-unit!], we read “YHWH is both just and merciful – he disciplines but is also free to be gracious – and these two characteristics must be held in tension rather than conflated” (p. 179). The theme of tension is one that is apparent throughout the book of Judges; for example “In a sense, the Song of Deborah and Barak, with its strong female judge and hesitant male military leader, is a watershead between good leadership that leads to victory and steadily more flawed leadership that leads to disaster” (p. 262). The authors have a sort of ‘spiral structure’ for the book, sandwiched between two introductions and two conclusions, which is somewhat difficult to explain in a review, but makes sense within the commentary.

As someone who grew up in Sunday School, I always found the story of Gideon interesting – and appreciate how Boda and Conway handle him: “YHWH slowly and patiently prepares the unlikely Gideon for the task that he has set for him: the deliverance of Israel from the Midianites, the elimination of syncretism and apostasy, and the reestablishment of authentic worship” (p. 294). Later, we read that “The Gideon narrative is filled with key theological and practical significance embedded within the broader story and witness of the biblical canon… Faith is a key feature of the Gideon story as this wary character struggles to embrace God’s agenda for him, but deeply embedded within his theological framework were the redemptive stories that had been rehearsed by his ancestors and passed down to him” (p. 407). This latter comment – from ‘Canonical and Theological Significance’, for me helpfully redeemed the discourse analysis slog that preceded it. As the authors note, “God loves to speak to us…” (p. 410), and they regularly capture this, within the wider and denser structure of this commentary.

I hope that this review – which I have intended to keep under 1000 words – has given some sense of the strengths and weaknesses of this commentary. I think it is a faith-filled, and potentially useful example of a ‘discourse analysis’ commentary, yet at the same time that particular model does seem to me to be possibly less than helpful. By breaking the text up in such a granular way, a great number of pages of this commentary didn’t seem particularly useful – yet the work clearly had value, as I was generally very well served (in my devotional time – and, when the time comes, in my work on commentaries and books on Judges) by the authors explanation and theological comment sections. So in my view in spite of the format, this commentary succeeds. But it’s size, length and complexity mean it is probably less helpful to most pastors than I might have imagined.

4/5