Sepharim 'al ha-miqra’: Books about the Scriptures (Joel)

Baker, D. W. Joel, Obadiah, Malachi. NIVAC. Zondervan, 2006 (341 pp.).  NIVAC does not set itself out to be a strongly academic series (i.e., thorough engagement with a wide bibliography concerning exegetical issues from close readings in the original language). But this is not to say that various commentators have not offered strong contributions. B is one of these, and his treatment here is a wonderful blend of readability and insight. For example, B has a way of drawing out technical points without sounding pedantic, making them accessible to those without a knowledge of Hebrew or the finer points of scholarly discussions about Joel. Sometimes there’s a trade off, and some of the applications tend to be quite general, approaching the status of spiritual platitudes. But at other times B is quite specific and brings out the pressure Joel exerts on Christian readers very nicely and in a penetrating fashion.

Dillard, R. “Hosea, Joel, Amos.” The Minor Prophets, Vol. 1. Baker, 1992 (509 pp.).  More technical overall than Baker above. For example, D includes the Hebrew script in his comments about various terms and literary nuances, and the textual discussion as a whole here (especially the frequent focus on definitions) tends to receive much of the space attributed to application in NIVAC. In fact there are no separate sections for “bridging contexts” or “contemporary significance.” Rather, the occasional “pressure point” is embedded within the exposition and discussion of each passage, which can have the effect of making an application more compelling, since it arises directly from the interpretation. However, this series means to be—and is—clearly more interested in providing a resource for interpretation (which it does well!) than for spiritual formation.

Garrett, D. A. Hosea, Joel. NAC. Broadman and Holman, 1997 (426 pp.).  G includes  a much more extended presentation of the various aspects of scholarly engagement with Joel (e.g. the controversies surrounding its dating and authorship, its mysterious historical setting and the occasion for the book in the first place, the style of the writing, and to what extent it is apocalyptic or eschatological). And this is all before he gets to the theological variables specific to the book: the covenant, the “day of the Lord,” the future of Zion, natural calamity and the will of God, prophecy. This may make it sound as though G’s commentary is even more technical than Dillard’s above, but that is not the case. Where Dillard’s textual commentary is technical, G’s is informative, and that goes for both the front matter and the passage-by-passage interpretation.

Hubbard, D. A. Joel and Amos. TOTC. InterVarsity, 1989 (245 pp.).  At about 7 x 4.75 inches, it’s definitely the most diminutive commentary of the lot. Not a bad thing. But it does have implications for what one is able to do and include in a commentary that shares space with Amos (roughly twice as long as Joel). H’s commentary is, in a word, ‘terse’. After the front matter, it’s just straight ahead, verse-by-verse exposition. The passages aren’t broken down into categories like ‘structure’, ‘comment’, and ‘explanation’ (cf. Stuart below), and there is no application section or the like. There’s not even a translation. There is also very little (almost nothing) in the way of engagement with other scholars or the discussions that surround Joel in professional study. Again, this is not necessarily a criticism (cf. Baker above), but it does tend to produce a commentary that is in some sense imbalanced. (Baker at least rounded out the commentary by providing more than one level of engagement with the material.) It certainly limits the commentary’s capacity to function as a resource, except that H’s work is worth consulting (e.g., for Bible study or sermon preparation, or for paper-writing; his textual engagement is certainly measured!). It’s just that you the reader will have to do more of the other investigative work yourself, since it’s not included here.

Limburg, J. Hosea-Micah. Interpretation. John Knox, 1988 (201 pp.).  We are generally fond of the Interpretation series. It’s a very solid, middle-of-the-road set of commentaries. Not too technical, nor too long, but well-written, readable, and often punctuated by the higher profile scholars known for their attention to the corresponding biblical books. If this one has a shortcoming, it’s that too much was packed into a single volume (six—i.e. half—of the minor Prophets!). This does not prevent L from noting various literary nuances and theological implications (including even some cross-canonical observations). But with the space allotted, such observations cannot be thoroughly substantiated and must function more as suggestions for reflection than as confident conclusions. Certainly worth a look, but probably best alongside more technical treatments (e.g. Dillard or Stuart).

Stuart, D. Hosea-Jonah. WBC. Word, 1987 (587 pp.).  S shares first place with Dillard for the most technical commentary (in this case, the Hebrew is even unpointed—no vowel markings). But this doesn’t mean S’s commentary is necessarily fuller in terms of the actual interpretive discussion. It also reads quite tersely (cf. Hubbard). Probably this is due to the fact that while the engagement of the commentary toward the text is more varied (each passage receives a fresh translation, interaction with textual sources in the “notes,” a discussion of the form/structure/setting of the passage, comments, and on occasion, an excursus, where additional points of interpretation are explored), there is again a great deal packed into a single volume (five of the twelve minor Prophets in this case, just shy of Limburg’s six). So once again, while the range of components in S’s commentary make it very useful for a variety of reading levels (or throughout the development of one’s own interpretive abilities), it will perform best alongside other voices.