MIQRA Institute of Biblical Studies
Reading Scripture, Hearing God
House, P. R. 1, 2 Kings. NAC. Broadman & Holman, 1995 (432 pp.). A resourceful and readable commentary with an extensive and informative introduction and numerous charts and outlines for helpful reference. House stakes out the communicational strategy of the book as he sees it, giving attention to the way Kings is to be understood as historical narrative, theological narrative, and prophetic narrative. In addition to his coverage of genre-related issues, he is also sensitive to the nature of Kings as canonical and theological literature. At times, however, it seems as though these latter features are relegated to the status of the former: everything appears to be placed on a level plane (see the Author’s Preface). His mischaracterization of Childs, for whom canon (not “canon criticism”) was a worldview that encompassed both the Scriptures and the reading community, sheds some light on why his (House’s) commentary “uses positive features [?] of the method to show how an emphasis on 1, 2 Kings’ canonical shape and function helps interpret them” (70, emphasis added). Notwithstanding this complaint, House’s contribution deserves its place on the desk as a well-written resource.
Nelson, R. D. First and Second Kings. Interpretation. John Knox, 1987 (273 pp.). The Interpretation series continues to prove itself a valuable set of commentaries, and Nelson does not disappoint. He is to be applauded for his desire to remain sensitive in his interpretation to the theological contours of the book of Kings, as well as to “the literary impact, the ‘meaning effect,’ that the text of Kings has on its modern readers” (3). He is also to be commended for his effort to “draw the reader into an intimate engagement with the text itself” (3). What remains unclear, however, is how a detailed discussion of the original audience supposedly expected by the book is to be calibrated with Nelson’s interest in the modern reader. This confusion comes to the fore when Nelson writes, “Readers are expected to have access to literature such as the Book of the Acts of Solomon and the Books of the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah/Israel” (7) without reflecting on why it might be that the Old Testament includes one and not the other. This said, there are brilliant moments not to be missed in this commentary. “How the Story Works” (19ff.) is a perspective maintained throughout the book, rendering Nelson’s contribution a valuable one for exposition and preaching.
Provan, I. W. 1 and 2 Kings. NIBC. Hendrickson, 1995 (305 pp.). Provan has written an exceptional introduction which sets out clearly the position from which his commentary will proceed. He treats with great sensitivity the composition of Kings as historiographical literature, as narrative literature, and as didactic literature. It is all three of these to its core. This is not Provan being syncretistic; rather, he has simply understood the way that narrative construes the historiographical data in order to be didactic. In addition, Provan explains–again with great clarity–the hermeneutical significance of an appropriate context for interpreting Kings, that is, the Old and New Testaments as discrete witnesses, each read in light of the other. It is this “Book” which establishes the environment for reading the “book” (1, 14), and four excursuses are attributed to exploring key figures with a view toward their significance within this larger environment. Provan has, in our view, correctly situated the various elements involved in the interpretive task relative to each other: the canonical context established by the Book is not one component alongside others (narrative, history, proclamation), but underlies and shapes the interpretive process in which the book’s aspects are explored at every stage.
Seow, C. L. “1 and 2 Kings.” NIB. Abingdon, 1999 (1193 pp.; 1-295). Seow views Kings as an overtly theological rendition of the history it covers, over against a baldly informative historical account. Not only does he make a genre distinction between a historical narrative and a theological one (6), he also calls attention to the effect of the reader’s own position on the acquisition of the narrative’s intention. Given a story without any real moral (e.g., 1 Kgs 1:41-53), the modern reader reads purely for enjoyment, while the Christian reader is faced with “a peculiar dilemma of faith: Whether to believe that there is divine purpose behind, and despite, such scandalous events in history” (23). Following the NIB format (NIV and NRSV side-by-side, followed by “commentary,” followed by “reflections”), Seow’s commentary proceeds through the various major pericopes of both books specially keyed toward a theological reading. In this way, a book often thought to be generically historical is allowed a prophetic “voice” appropriate to its place among the Prophets, though no one particular prophet dominates that voice.
Wiseman, D. J. 1 and 2 Kings. TOTC. InterVarsity, 1997 (318 pp.). Wiseman’s conception of history in Kings–even its “theological” history–comes from a different angle than Seow’s. It is not always clear in what sense Wiseman uses the term ‘history’. He is clear that Kings taken as a whole contains more than history (16-17), but whether subsequent use of the term without a qualifier such as ‘theological’ or ‘religious’ or ‘sacred’ is intended to refer to a history parsed out and separate from the book’s theological comment on it–a history “in the raw”–is unclear. For Seow, the entire book is theological; for Wiseman, the book is also theological. The author is a “historian” who “records” “history” “for our learning.” But this begs a question about whether that or any “recorded history” has been left untouched by forces at work in its canonical inclusion (cf. Provan 18, n. 17). That said, there is a certain selling point to such an approach: when read alongside the biblical text, a comparison between Wiseman’s more general–and extremely informative–commentary and the text’s more selective decisions about the “history” it “records” brings into relief the agenda of the canonical witness in construing its story as it has.
