Customer Reviews

Introduction to the Old Testament Poetic Books

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Mr. Bullock's book is a perfect addition for any student of the Bible. His work is thorough and fair. He considers numerous opinions about authorship, canonicty and interpretation presenting them competently and without bias, then explains his reasons for his perspective, which usually lands in the evangelical camp. He also does fine work presenting cognate literature from other ancient cultures. This book can be used as a college textbook or even in seminaries and graduate schools. For new students, it will take some work, but that work will be well rewarded. Any reader will gain insight into the five books of the Bible - Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs and Job - covered in depth in this fine work.

[An evangelical perspective:]

In terms of theology, argumentation, and factual accuracy, this book is generally very sound. The most important consideration is theology, and though Bullock never explicitly affirms certain fundamentals like the authority of Scripture or the existence of God, he clearly presupposes them. For example, he is quick to point out, as any orthodox reader would hope, that the theme of Proverbs is, in fact, that "the fear of the Lord is the beginning wisdom" (174) and that Job supports, as expected, the truth of justice of God (128).

He maintains a cautious and evenhanded tone in his discussion of contentious hermeneutical issues, ultimately weighing in on the side of exegetical conservatism, but not without giving a fair turn to contrasting viewpoints. In his discussion of interpretive methods for the Song of Songs, for instance, he does not dismiss the mythological method out-of-hand, but considers it thoroughly before labeling it as overly speculative (253).

Unfortunately, Bullock makes several confusing and poorly supported interpretive choices on smaller issues. For instance, his position on the contrasting natures of the theology of wisdom (ancient versus modern) is unnecessarily dichotomous. Is the idea of a sovereign God (60) really just an ancient concern? Is a focus on mortality (74) really just a modern one?

In his discussion of Job, Bullock makes what appears to be a fallacious argument regarding its structure: "the literary unity of Job should be assumed so that the message of the book as a whole may be determined" (97). But if the book has no literary unity, maybe it has no coherent message. Later he writes, "the wholistic [sic] approach takes precedence for the sake of literary integrity" (97). Again, this presupposes literary integrity in order to prove literary integrity.

Later, Bullock is strangely hesitant to disregard the allegorical interpretive method of the Song of Songs:

"To abandon the allegorical method altogether...might constitute one of the many exegetical manipulations of the Western mind.... Although our attitude toward the method may legitimately be one of caution, modern biblical hermeneutics should give no place to exegetical snobbery, nor are we in a position to look down upon the absorbing and passionate love for God that has characterized the saints of Israel and the church [sic] who had fed upon the allegorical meaning of this book" (249).'

That Bullock feels that acknowledging the error of the allegorical method would somehow cause us to "look down upon the... love for God that has characterized the saints of Israel" is bizarre. A passionate saint's interpretive mistake does not invalidate his love for God.

Bullock also shows a strange hesitance about the message of Song of Songs. Quoting another scholar (favorably), he explains, "Thus Ginsburg concluded that the purpose of the book is not to celebrate love, even though that be worthy of canonicity, `but to record an example of virtue, which is still more worthy of a place in the sacred canon'" (255). This is dangerous ground: not only does it draw a very speculative conclusion about the book's purposes, but it also elevates one theme (an example of virtue) over another (a celebration of love) arbitrarily. Later, Bullock sheepishly admits that "In the context of a commitment toward marital fidelity between a man and a woman, contemplating the marital sexual relationship has a certain legitimacy" (257). This qualified concession is inappropriately cautious. Canonical legitimacy is complete legitimacy.

A much larger, and much more pervasive, problem in the book is its disorganization. Bullock makes liberal use of subtitles, which is helpful, but the contents do not always match the label. Consider the subsection on Ecclesiastes 1:12-18, titled "The First Test" (227). The majority of text under this heading does not concern "the first test," as expected, but is a discussion of the authorship of Ecclesiastes--the third such discussion in the chapter, no less.

In the same chapter, Bullock suggests one structure for Ecclesiastes in a chart in the introduction (213), but then uses a different structure in his expository analysis (226)--one that has different heading titles, more detail, and a different number of sections. He does the same thing for the Song of Songs. In his first structural chart, the book's acts have two scenes each (260). In his expository analysis, the scene breaks are completely absent from the discussion, and other breaks (of different sizes) are suggested in their places (265).

Sometimes the meanings of single paragraphs are unclear. In chapter two he writes,

"The modern view that... faith is at best only a catalyst in a process is detrimental to the well-being of mankind. The psalmists knew that faith itself was the process. God was both transcendent over and immanent in the lives of men and women" (76).'

The paragraph then dissolves into a discussion of the complementary meanings of transcendence and immanence. The purpose of this sudden new direction is unclear. It has no apparent relationship to the original discussion of the benefit of faith and perhaps suggests sloppy editing. The rest of the section is similarly meandering.

In spite of all these deficiencies, the most incessant and distracting is the deficient writing style. The text is littered with problems from passive voice, overblown language (130), syntactic expletives, inverted syntax, redundancy (e.g. "fundamental nature," "underlying basis," 174), word choice (e.g. "perspective, though wide and deep," 216, and the nonsensical "a liberal touch," 119), technical errors beyond the scope of this review, and overall problems with smoothness and readability. These are compounded by Bullock's aggressive overuse of his thesaurus, making inflated substitutions like "cognizant" (141, 160, 215, 272) "obviate" (219, 263), "interfaces" (87), and "preponderately" (148, 265) for the simpler and equally meaningful "aware," "remove," "connects," and "mostly."

Bullock's general disorganization and amateurish writing style ultimately hamstring his sound theology and undoubtedly sincere efforts. The book is useful, but so frustrating to read that it has little to recommend it. Perhaps a future edition will better highlight its strengths.

I read this book as an assigned text for a seminary course on the Old Testament poetic books. I had previously read David Howard's complementary "Introduction to the OT Historical Books" (part of the same series as Bullock's poetic intro) for another course, and I really appreciated Howard's work. So, I expected Bullock's work to be comparable.

Frankly, I was disappointed. I found Bullock's writing style to be rather cumbersome and bland. Whereas Howard's writing was engaging and accessible, I found myself struggling to stay on track with Bullock. I also found his use of first-person plural pronouns to be strange. He frequently mentioned that "we" were making a particular conclusion or "we" were subscribing to a particular interpretation. Who is that "we?" Is he making decisions on behalf of me, the reader? Is he speaking on behalf of a group of nameless co-authors? Or is he presuming to speak for the entire evangelical community? In any case, the use of "we" was always odd and often annoying.

These quibbles aside, Bullock's work is still substantial and helpful. He does a decent job of pulling together the various historical and contemporary scholarly positions for each of the poetic books. Of particular note was his approach to the various approaches taken to deal with the Song of Songs, in which he refused (to my surprise) to completely ignore the allegorical method which has a rich history but has been basically cast aside by modern scholars. In each chapter, I found his interaction with different methodologies and theological perspectives to be gracious, while maintaining a robust evangelical base.

Ultimately, I am glad to have read Bullock's book, as it offered a lot of helpful information about the OT books of Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs. I just wish it had been a better reading experience. I recommend the book for its substantive content, but I would love to find a more accessible comparable work.

Bullock's Introduction has now become a classic work in the field of the biblical Prophets. It covers each book of the Old Testament prophets in a thorough and consistent mannor. The author provides a wealth of background material and addresses problematic questions or texts as they relate to each prophet. Outlines for each book are provided as well as a brief summary of the message and key theological points. The book is written from an evangelical perspective, certainly a strength, as it pays careful attention to the biblical text and the intent of the prophet. This is an excellent introduction and summary to the prophets and highly recommended for any who want to further their knowledge about the prophets and recent areas of discussion.

Great Text Book, If You Can Afford It, I Advise You To Go Ahead And Get It!!! Very Benificial and Helpful. Its Easy Reading Too!!!