Customer Reviews

The New American Commentary: Volume 6 - Judges-Ruth

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

 

 

It isn't simply that I buy everything Daniel Block publishes. I do. But, apart from the fact that he is a fine scholar, a clear-headed exegete and a solid communicator, this commentary is a must-buy for any student of the OT simply because it represents one of the few works out there on Judges. Until recently, Judges suffered from a drought of commentators. The last thorough treatment on Judges was written by Robert Boling for the Anchor series and that was back in 1975.

Block's commentary gives the reader both balanced and well-informed comments on the text's meaning as well as philological notes on the Hebrew (kept conveniently in the footnotes). It delves deeply for the more scholarly concerns, yet can be accessed by an informed layperson. Block's familiarity and usage of secondary sources, which are also listed in the footnotes, are invaluable for further study. While some quite commendable commentaries on Judges have recently appeared since Block's work, none have come close to eclipsing his fine contribution.

This is a particularly fine example of evangelical scholarship which also interacts with both Jewish and liberal scholarship in a significant way to produce a very usable commentary for both the specialist and the informed layman.

His work in the NICOT on Ezekial is heralded by many (Tremper Longman among them) as simply the best OT commentary in print. The constraints in this series might be a bit more restrictive, but Block has managed to produce what is probably the best commentary on Judges available. (Lawson Younger's work in the NIVAC series is good too but the goal of that series is even more modest.)

Block's introductory material is almost worth the price of the book. And the commentary portion, while working verse by verse, includes an awareness of the literary, poetic and narrative concerns. He also shows an awareness of the text-critical issues when appropriate without getting bogged down, he always displays a high view of inspiration, and his footnotes are a wealth of information for the student wishing to go deeper and interact with scholarly sources.

The primary drawback to the commentary is that often after writing a page or two about one particular verse Block often fails to draw some fairly obivious conclusions on what the narrator is actually communicating. For example, he spends nearly 2 pages on the place and person names of 4:2 and suggests various possibilities concerning the issue of how Jabin could oppress the Israelites from Hazor (which had recently been decimated by Joshua), and yet he does not draw any conclusions about the narrator's characterization of Israel's request for the Lord's help being due to political oppression (that is, rather than repentance.)

"No book in the Old Testament offers the modern church as telling a mirror as this book." So ends Daniel Block's New American Commentary on Judges.* One might very well add, "The book is a telling mirror of American society as a whole." Block takes a biblical book describing events that took place 3,000 years ago and shows how relevant they still are through his solid exegesis of the text.

Throughout his commentary, Block reviews and expounds upon the continual decline of Israel after they entered the Promised Land, during the time of the shofetim (traditionally translated "judges," but Block uses the more technically correct term "tribal leaders"). Block traces two main themes of of Judges throughout his commentary. The first is the gradual Canaanization of Israel. In every episode, Israel and her shofetim take on more and more of the characteristics and culture of the surrounding peoples (the Canaanites), which of course is in direct disobedience of God's original command to them to completely and utterly destroy the native peoples. By the end of the book, the only people Israel attempts to destroy in this manner is the tribe of Benjamin--their own brothers and sisters! Block shows that this is the dramatic effect of acquiescence and indeed full acceptance of a sinful culture. The second main theme Block traces throughout the book is God's grace. Israel and her leaders follow and disobey the laws of God in whatever manner is most convenient for them at the moment. Although they cry out to God on multiple occasions, it is always a cry for help and never a cry of repentance. Every judge, save two (Othniel and Deborah), are shown to be poor leaders. And yet God continually saves them from destruction! As Block mentions several times, God is more concerned with redeeming his people than they are!

There are several other important topics that Block tackles in his commentary, not the least of which is the narrator's repeated observation that "there was no king in Israel." For those discussions, I would refer you to the commentary itself, which I felt was a good resource overall. Block provides the reader with the usual discussions of grammar, history and so forth that one expects in a quality commentary. I appreciated, too, how he wove the aforementioned themes together to provide his commentary and the biblical book with a good and memorable flow. On the other hand, I felt his "theological and practical implications" sections were rather weak. I would have liked to have seen some of these implications more drawn out, since Judges is so incredibly apropos to today's culture (and indeed, it was all too easy for this reader to find his own implications). I also must sadly admit that the commentary suffered from bad proofing. I have never seen so many basic grammar and punctuation errors in a published book. (I even found some of the Hebrew transliterations to be incorrect!) All in all, though, these negatives did not detract from the overall quality and value of Block's commentary, and it has become a welcome addition to my personal library.

*Note: The volume also includes a separate commentary on Ruth, which I have not yet read.

Very thorough and helpful dealing with many of the interesting quirks of these books. I believe it to be the best commentary on Judges out there. No commentary can have everything, but this one either has it or points to where else to dig.

Dr. Block's commentary on Judges and Ruth provides the scholar, preacher, and lay student of the Bible with an informative, well-organized, insightful treatment of those books. I've done a bit of looking around for a good commentary on Judges, and so far, this one is the best.

Finding a commentary that possess a balance of depth and clarity can be a rare occurrence. This commentary is one of those rare commentaries. I started a series of sermons from Judges and had to use three other commentaries for the the first sermon before I purchased this commentary. Once I started studying Judges with this book, I found that this commentary brought out the rich meaning of the passage and clarity that was unmatched by the other three commentaries combined. To understand individual passages and the book as a whole, I felt that this was the only book I needed. However, to move into more specific application, I felt it necessary to seek other sources as well. This commentary presents great general application and theological meaning, but for application that can be presented to a church for the purpose of spurning them to act in a certain way (i.e. "This truth is manifested in your life today by..."), you will have to draw your own conclusions or seek other commentaries for extra help. Still, it is an incredible resource that I highly value. Although I wanted more help with application, it still makes application easy to come to because you will understand the passages so well. Praise the Lord!

Very broad, very thourough, very nice to work with, very clear, very relevant for lay people, textually and theologically strong although not dogmatically overstressing. The author dates the book after 721 BC and it is interesting, if not always convincing, how the theodicee questions influence the points of the stories Block examins (e.g. Judges 16). The book is over 760 pages (the figure on this site is not right). dr.Block is indeed to be commended for his achievement.

I've only worked through Block's commentary on Ruth so I'm not in a position to comment on the majority of the book--and the reason most people probably buy his commentary in the first place.

Particularly when contrasted with the work of Frederic Bush (WBC on Ruth and Esther, and easily the best commentary on the book I've read), Block's commentary demonstrates less literary sensitivity. In particular, he hasn't adequately incorporated the insightful works of Trible and Adele Berlin (Poetics of Biblical Narrative).

To take one example, Ruth 1:22 should be understood as a concluding remark by the narrator that subtly calls Naomi's speech of 1:20-21 into question. Specifically, Naomi hasn't returned empty--she has just been the recipient of Ruth's powerful commitment to her. Furthermore, the reality that the barley harvest is starting is a secondary reason to hope--nothing is quite so bad when there is food on the table. So even though God's (in)action in 1:1-5 is open to question and can be legitimately complained about (contra Block, who views Naomi's outcry in 1:20-21 negatively), there is reason to think that God is at work behind the scenes and that there is more reason hope than Naomi has good reason to believe(1:6, 22).

Block's ethical treatment of the book is also a bit questionable--one gets the sense that Naomi was herself a good Baptist (or at least should've been).

He talks about how the marriage to the Moabites should be viewed negatively (pg 628), but this ignores the conclusion to the story--it was through Ruth that David was ultimately born.

Most of his analysis in chapter 3 is dedicated to proving that the narrative has much less sexual tension than is sometimes/often thought to be the case, and his concern is to preserve the honor and righteousness of both Boaz and Ruth.

And Elimelech's leaving Israel in the first place to go to Moab is viewed as a sign of unbelief: "According to the Book of Deuteronomy, if the people would repent, Yahweh would withdraw his anger and lift the famine. It seems, however, that Elimelech designed his own solution instead of calling on God for mercy and repenting of the sins that plagued the nation during the dark days of the judges" (626-27). This strikes me as really inadequate...

Here's an excerpt critiquing Naomi's outcry in 1:20-21. "Unable to see human causation in Israel's famine and in her own trials, the woman the neighbors greet is a bitter old woman. She does indeed ascribe sovereignty to God, but this is a sovereignty without grace, an omnipotent power without compassion, a judicial will without mercy...When the curtain falls, Naomi's bitter outburst in vv. 20-21 overwhelms and overshadows the eloquent pledge of commitment to Naomi by Ruth (vv 16-18). Viewed side by side, there is no doubt that the young woman cuts a more impressively noble figure. In the end the reader/observer is repulsed by Naomi but drawn to her daughter-in-law" (647-48). If we are supposed to be repulsed by Naomi's very legitimate complaint in 1:20-21, we must also be repulsed by the majority of psalms and by Job.

Block's commentary doesn't seem particularly sympathetic to the book, or to Naomi. And his willingness to critique the characters in the absence of clearer signals from the narrator not only distracts the reader from the main issues in the book, but also tends to lead them a bit off course.

Bush also does a much better job highlighting how the book as a whole revolves around Naomi and is told from her perspective...

In conclusion, Bush's commentary is much better, and Campbell's AB commentary on Ruth (though a bit dated) would be my second choice.