Hebrews–James

by Edgar McKnight and Christopher Church

Smyth & Helwys, Macon, 2004. 451 pp. $60.00 (cloth). ISBN 1-57312-085-5.

With the ongoing commitment of religious publishers to biblical commentaries and commentary series, not only is the sheer number of these volumes growing, but so is uncertainty about the proper format and genre of the commentary itself. Diversity in the style of commentaries suggests that the question of how one helps others read has many answers. Publishers are inclined to focus upon the character of the intended audience. The Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary, of which this volume is a part, uses a “multimedia” format to address an exclusively Christian audience that is committed to historical scholarship and comfortable with a complex visual style.

This commentary on Hebrews and James addresses this visual orientation by including pictures that illustrate theological and historical themes. For instance, the language of Christ being seated on the throne of majesty in Hebrews 8:1 invites the inclusion of Jovan Vasilievic’s eighteenth-century painting of Christ on the throne (p. 181). The call to peacemaking in James 3:18 invites the inclusion of a 1978 photograph of Carter, Begin, and Sadat at Camp David (p. 378). In addition, the commentary page is visually busy. Several hundred “sidebars” in the volume include the aforementioned paintings and photographs, descriptions of historical context, word studies, scriptural quotations, charts, outlines, brief notes on the history of interpretation, and discussions of theological themes. An enclosed CD-ROM contains the entire commentary in Adobe format. All of this means that readers are not required or even expected to read the commentary straight through, but are encouraged to wander around in it. The volume has full indexes and the CD-ROM enables quick searches of the entire volume.

McKnight and Church have written two accessible and successful commentaries. Since the series is directed toward a wide audience, academic controversy is given a light touch and potential applications are explored in some detail. Nevertheless, the heart of both commentaries is a careful verse-by-verse analysis that explores the historical meaning of both Hebrews and James. In spite of the standardizing forces at work in commentary series, McKnight’s treatment of Hebrews and Church’s of James are somewhat different in their feel.

McKnight offers a balanced, informed, and rather traditional reading of Hebrews. While he is well-acquainted with the many debates about the origin and provenance of Hebrews, for the most part he avoids taking a definitive stance in these debates, leaving historical contexts imprecise. The author is unknown, although the text itself suggests authorial connections to Paul and a deep knowledge of scripture on the part of the author. The destination is likely to have been Rome, but this is not certain. The dualism that animates much of Hebrews admittedly recalls Plato and Philo without being in the end Platonic. Hebrews’ genre is that of a sermon in the loose sense of the word. Its theology results mostly from a christological reading of Jewish scripture. That christology is neither triumphalist or supersessionist, but is rather a combination of the idealism of the exalted high priest and the paradigmatic suffering and obedience of the crucified one. If there is a governing perspective,  it is that the author has written an eclectic sermon to encourage Christians who are wavering in their faith.

By maintaining a consistent reserve in these debates, McKnight can read the diversity of perspectives and images in Hebrews without trying to systematize them all. The commentary itself reads as understated enrichment. The text is not so much explained as it is given context, primarily that of other scripture. McKnight devotes less exegetical energy to tracking the internal logic of Hebrews than he does to creating a scriptural context in which to read Hebrews. In this sense, McKnight implies a particular understanding of the purpose of his commentary. He is not offering a definitive reading of the text so much as he is offering resources and guidance for readings by other people—people who are not Greek scholars or ancient historians. Thus, McKnight devotes minimal attention to Greek syntax and includes only a handful of word studies. His general references to historical context are never determinative for his reading of Hebrews. He refers to the ancient world not to control the meaning of Hebrews but to enrich the reading. Thus, McKnight envisions non-specialist but energetic readers who will work on the text on their own. His commentary functions as invitation and resource.

Similarly, McKnight connects the text to the modern world mostly by pointing to the theological claims of the text, assuming that his readers will make the connections specific. For instance, in reference to Hebrews 5:1–10, McKnight asserts that “Jesus in his historical experience is a model for us. His faith and obedience are examples for us to follow” (p. 125). He does not state how that model will shape his readers and what precise behavior will result. He expects his readers to decide that for themselves.

In comparison, Church’s reading of James is more aggressive and specific. Church employs John Painter’s configuration of the early Christian mission movement in order to locate the book of James in the centrist camp of the circumcision movement. While the book of James was probably not written by James himself, its theological position is consistent with his. Its theology is not based on Jesus as redeemer, but on Jesus as teacher and judge. Jesus teaches the royal law that, since it is from God, can renew and save.

This royal law is called by many names in James, including the word of truth, the implanted word, and the law of liberty. James assumes that God blesses the world through God’s law and that God will judge humanity according to that law. James offers salvation by collecting the reliable and challenging teachings of Jesus.

This account of the theology of James directs the content of the commentary. More so than McKnight, Church offers a specific reading and a governing interpretation of the text. While he gathers other images from the canon, Church’s primary context for reading the text of James is the text itself. He configures it into an ordered whole, centered around the concept of the royal law.

Church’s preference for a determined reading is even more apparent in how he draws connections to modern life. Church places the imperatives of James specifically and thoroughly into the context of modern racial and social politics. For example, in the “Connections” section on James 1, Church mentions Martin Luther King, Jr., the Memphis sanitation strike, the Alabama tax code, Habitat for Humanity, Koinonia Farm, Albert Schweitzer, John Greenleaf Whittier, HIV, sexual abuse, undocumented aliens, single parents, the elderly poor, and Hebrew slavery in Egypt. The “sidebars” include material from the Children’s Defense Fund, Family-to-Family, Samaritan Ministries, ACORN, and the full text of Whittier’s poem “O Brother Man!” In Church’s reading there is little doubt about the ethical import of the book of James. He brings his readers into the public arena, where they face racial, economic, and social injustice while hearing the call of Jesus’ royal law for peace and righteousness.

Hebrews and James are, of course, different texts that invite different kind of readings. Hebrews, for instance, does not inspire the kind of political reading that James does. Nevertheless, to a great extent, McKnight and Church offer two different options for a commentary. McKnight encourages his readers to do their own reading by offering historical and literary resources and by effacing his own reading. Church, to the contrary, challenges his readers to respond to James’ call for peace and justice by articulating fully his own reading. Both approaches are, of course, traditional and familiar in commentaries. Thus, the two commentaries together effectively pose the question of how one person helps another to read.
Lewis R. Donelson
Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary
Austin, Texas

back to top

I Chronicles 1–9

by Gary N. Knoppers

Anchor Bible. Doubleday, New York, 2003. 514 pp. $49.95 (cloth). ISBN 0-385-46928-4.

I Chronicles 10–29

by Gary N. Knoppers

Anchor Bible. Doubleday, New York, 2004. 531 pp. $49.95 (cloth). ISBN 0-385-51288-0.

Since the groundbreaking work of Sara Japhet and  H. G. M. Williamson in the 1970s, Chronicles has attracted more and more scholarly attention. Gary Knoppers is one of the most productive scholars in this renaissance of Chronicles research, making this work particularly welcome. This two-volume commentary opens with a complete translation of the text, followed by a 137-page introduction and a lengthy bibliography (exhaustive through 2000; understandably sketchy thereafter). The remainder of the first volume covers the genealogies in 1 Chronicles 1–9. The second volume comments on the reign of David.

Knoppers’ work is distinguished by his mastery of text criticism, discussed in depth in his introduction. As he observes, the Dead Sea discoveries have made Septuagint criticism particularly important, since we now know that “at least some of the oldest Greek texts for certain biblical books were translated from a Hebrew text that differed from the textual base of the later rabbinic recension” (pp. 53–54). He therefore urges caution when Chronicles differs from its source texts, “as the alleged change may be due either to the textual tradition preserved by the Chronicler’s Vorlage or to textual corruption”—and not, as some commentators too quickly have concluded, to a purposive change by the Chronicler (pp. 70–71).

Summarizing recent scholarship, Knoppers deals in particular with the relationship between Chronicles and Ezra–Nehemiah. Most critical treatments of Chronicles since the nineteenth century have connected these books in a unified Chronicler’s History. However, the consensus of recent scholarship holds that Chronicles and Ezra–Nehemiah were composed, and should be read, separately. According to Knoppers, the linguistic arguments either way are inconclusive. Further, some points of alleged discontinuity actually point to continuity between these works—the importance of Mosaic Torah and Davidic promises, “the use of genealogy to define community,” and general matters of style, for example (p. 88). Still, Knoppers remains with the consensus, due to what he calls “the most glaring of contrasts” between Chronicles and Ezra–Nehemiah: Chronicles’ view of Israel is inclusive, incorporating the northern tribes, while Ezra–Nehemiah’s view of Israel is exclusive, restricting the true Israel to the southern tribes of Judah and Benjamin.

However, the nearly word-for-word parallels between the conclusion of Chronicles (2 Chronicles 36:22–23) and the opening of Ezra (Ezra 1:1–3a), as well as the existence of 1 Esdras (which parallels 2 Chronicles 35:1–Ezra 10:44 and Nehemiah 8:1–13), show that these works were at least secondarily joined. Indeed, Ezra 1–6 shares so much in language and theme with Chronicles that it would be perverse to deny the connection. Knoppers’ detailed arguments pertaining to the date, text, and composition of Chronicles are largely consistent with a connected Chronicler’s History, composed in stages over time (as proposed by, among others, Freedman, Cross, Blenkinsopp, Schniedewind, and this reviewer). Knoppers’ view of the separate composition of Chronicles and Ezra–Nehemiah hypothesizes a redactor who edited the opening chapters of Ezra in order to combine these works. In any case, in Knoppers’ perspective, Chronicles can be viewed on its own; “its characteristic concerns are no longer being forced into the mold of Ezra–Nehemiah” (p. 100).

Knoppers’ major sticking point, the alleged inclusivity of Chronicles toward the northern tribes over against the exclusivity of Ezra–Nehemiah, does not represent an irreconcilable conflict. After all, Chronicles is quite exclusive in its own right (apart from general exclusion of the history of the north in 2 Chronicles, consider 2 Chronicles 11:13–15; 13:8–12; or 25:7). Ezra– Nehemiah can sound a note of inclusivity (see the reference to the twelve tribes in Ezra 16:7).

The insistence that Chronicles be read on its own terms also leads Knoppers to resist assigning Chronicles to the genre of “rewritten Bible” attested at Qumran, since “Chronicles is more than a paraphrase or literary elaboration of the primary history” (p. 134). However, describing Chronicles as rewritten Bible does not mean regarding this work as a mere paraphrase of Genesis–Kings. A consideration of Jubilees, the Temple Scroll, or Josephus’ Antiquities surely demonstrates that rewritten Bible texts have their own clear purpose and integrity. What this genre designation does imply is that Chronicles shares with other exemplars of rewritten Bible faithfulness to its source text, joined to the attempt to unify the tradition on a biblical base. Surely this designation is appropriate, as the most readily distinguishing feature of Chronicles is the degree to which it reproduces large blocks of biblical material. Indeed, Knoppers demonstrates in his own comparisons of Chronicles with source material in Genesis and the Deuteronomistic History that its connections with other parts of the canon should be fully explored.

Knoppers places 1 Chronicles 1–9 in its historical and biblical context through an excursus on genealogies in the ancient world, which emphasizes the creative expression possible in genealogical material. The Israelite tribal genealogies emphasize Judah (treated first: see 1 Chronicles 2:3–4:23), Benjamin (treated last: see 8:1–40), and Levi (given “center stage” in the genealogies: see 5:27–6:66). The list of returnees from exile in 1 Chronicles 9:2–18, which in Knoppers’ view shares a common source with Nehemiah 11:3–19, links the temple liturgy of the Chronicler’s own time with the temple liturgy of David and the tabernacle service of Mosaic Torah, thus asserting continuity with ancient tradition. Since Knoppers is so careful on text-critical matters, his decision to restore Dan to the tribal genealogies (1 Chronicles 7:12) is surprising. Given the absence of Dan, not only from the versions of this passage but from the Levitical town lists in 6:54–81 as well, it is more likely that Dan has been polemically excluded by the Chronicler than that it has fallen out due to scribal error.

In his treatment of David’s reign in 1 Chronicles 10–29, Knoppers compares Chronicles to the annals of ancient Near Eastern kings. He identifies numerous instances of achronological historiography, that is, “deliberately narrating events out of chronological order to make a larger point” (p. 545). Just as the annals of Assyrian kings place their greatest successes at the beginning of their reigns, Chronicles describes the conquest of Jerusalem as the first act of David’s reign (1 Chronicles 11:4–9), places David’s first attempt to bring the Ark to Jerusalem prior to the account of his Philistine wars (13:1–14), and speaks of David consecrating to God the booty of nations he has not yet conquered (18:11). Knoppers rightly rejects the overly simplistic view that Chronicles ignores material critical of the king, such as the story of David and Bathsheba, in order to whitewash David. Rather, the presentation in Chronicles is purposefully shaped to present “David’s reign . . . as Israel’s normative age” (p. 741). Anything that needlessly complicates this aim is ignored—not just anything negative. In the story of the census and its disastrous aftermath (1 Chronicles 21), David’s repentance becomes as normative as his obedience. Knoppers reads the Hebrew satan in 1 Chronicles 21:1 not as the proper name Satan, but simply as “an adversary,” so that David’s census is prompted by a nameless human advisor. Knoppers observes that either translation is possible from the text itself. More adequate justification than he provides is required for this shift from a venerable reading. Sometime in the Persian period, hássatan became the proper name Satan. 1 Chronicles 21 is fraught with supernatural beings and actions: consider the mammoth destroyer with his drawn sword who addresses David through the words of his seer Gad, or the fire from heaven that consumes David’s sacrifice. Why then should the shift from hassatan to Satan not begin here?

Knoppers is a formidable scholar and this is a formidable work, bringing an astonishing depth and breadth of information to bear upon the interpretation of Chronicles. A newcomer to Chronicles scholarship may become lost in the wealth of detail that Knoppers provides. The difficulty of the material is minimized by Knoppers’ lucid style. An excellent index at the end of the second volume makes the commentary more accessible. That Knoppers’ extensive, detailed treatment of 1 Chronicles required publication in two volumes makes it expensive for many pastors’ book budgets. This commentary is an essential addition to any theological library, and deserves to be read beyond the relatively small circle of Chronicles scholars. I hope that many pastors, challenged and stimulated by Knoppers’ fresh treatment of a sadly ignored ancient text, will begin to teach and preach from Chronicles, a book that St. Jerome said holds “the meaning of the whole of sacred history.”

Steven S. Tuell
Pittsburgh Theological Seminary
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

back to top