BRIAN PECKHAM, History and Prophecy: The Development of Late Judean Literary Traditions (AB Reference Library; New York/London/Toronto: Doubleday, 1993). Pp. xiv + 880. U.S. $35, Canada $45.

Peckham's essay is a magnum opus in every sense of the word. Not to speak of its overall length, there are more than 285 pages of footnotes (2,373notes, by my count), 36 pages of bibliography, and 24 pages of indexes. In the course of this difficult and erudite book P. manages to challenge "critical orthodoxy" at every turn. Both history and prophecy, in this view, were in written form from the beginning, and each was written with a view toward the other. The earliest document was J (late eighth century B.C.E.) followed shortly by Isaiah of Jerusalem (before 681 B.C.E.). Then came the epic "sequel" (most would call this Dtr[l]), Amos, P, E, Hosea, and Micah, all of whom are to be dated before Jeremiah. Also in the seventh century were Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah. During the exile and later came Ezekiel, the deuteronomistic historian, Job, Second Isaiah, Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, Song of Songs, Lamentations, Proverbs, Haggai and Zechariah, Malachi, the first edition of the Psalms, a revision of Jonah, the Chronicler's history, a revision of Proverbs, Ezra and Nehemiah, Ruth, a revision of Malachi, a revision of Haggai and Zechariah, Qoheleth, Esther, Daniel, and, finally, a second-century revision of Daniel. While some of this dating is not controversial, the post-lsaianic placement of Amos and Hosea surely is, and P.'s proposal that all of these works were directly commenting on their predecessors is also bound to raise many eyebrows.

The author asserts, rather than proves, that history and prophecy were written from the beginning. According to him, the epic J had no literary sources but relied on the classics of Greek literature (Homer and Hesiod) and of Assyrian, Babylonian, and Canaanite literature for the outline of its episodes. The fifth episode in J (the story of Joseph) "was modeled on the Canaanite legend of Daniel and on its refraction in the myth of Adonis" (p. 83). Isaiah knew the epic version of the covenant at Sinai but rejected it and its implication that worship was right and nothing else mattered. The original prophecy of Isaiah consisted of six scenes of about sixty-eight verses. Second Isaiah consisted of about two thirds of chaps. 40-55, but also almost all of the memorandum (Isa 6:1-9:6), large parts of the oracles against the foreign nations, and chaps. 36-39. Third Isaiah appears in each of the first eleven chapters, in most of the oracles against the foreign nations, and in ten chapters of 40-55, in addition to the usual final eleven chapters of the book.

Peckham concludes that Isaiah's words caused a furor and that the "sequel" set out to refute them. In the sequel's version of 2 Kings 18-20, Isaiah and the Assyrian ambassadors are proved wrong, while Hezekiah is proved right. The sequel ridicules Hezekiah for relying on Egypt but contradicts what Isaiah said by admitting that Hezekiah really did trust in Yahweh. Although Isaiah accused Jerusalem of making a covenant with Death (the alliance with Egypt is an example of the shortcomings of the Sinai covenant!), the sequel proves that Jerusalem is secure in its covenant with Yahweh and Life. Second Isaiah concentrated on the crucial role that the Davidic dynasty and the likes of Hezekiah would play in the postexilic restoration--despite Isa 55:3!--but this conclusion depends on the prior decision to make the memorandum part of Second Isaiah. Third Isaiah disagreed with the permanence of the Davidic dynasty that was affirmed in the sequel and the work of Second Isaiah, but he depicted a glorious future in Zion, where people would live under the direct hegemony of God. The Chronicler brings all this to a climax by making Hezekiah the culmination of the line of David.

The Book of Amos, in this reconstruction, was a more or less unified narrative poem, written in response to the sequel, though a table shows that about half the material in Amos was added by a later editor. Amos rejected all forms of worship at the central sanctuary and insisted on ordinary justice. Although he wrote ostensibly about Samaria, he really wrote after the fall of Samaria and addressed the people in Judah and Jerusalem. Amos described in great detail how the worship that the covenant prescribed was in inverse proportion to the misery of the poor. While some scholars conclude from the silence of Amos concerning covenant that he lived before the full flowering of the covenant idea, P. finds that Amos, like Isaiah, actually opposed the covenant of Sinai. Amos meant what he said; his editor meant what the tradition allowed. Everything that Isaiah saw took real shape in Amos. Amos hoped that David and Zion would react; Hosea envisioned the time when Israel and the good land would respond.

The deuteronomistic history included most of the Tetrateuch, even Leviticus 8-1 I. The Chronicler completed the Pentateuch by adding the communitarian laws (Leviticus 1-7; 11:46-47; 12:1-27:34). In the reign of Manasseh, the Priestly writer and the Elohist combined to give Judah a law and an incipient constitution. The original "chronicle" of Ezekiel consisted of ten chapters, made up of anywhere from three to six "columns."

The dozens of controversial decisions about dating and authenticity tend to undermine the book's overall intriguing thesis that history and prophecy were constantly interpreting each other in writing. Despite the great length of the book and the great learning displayed, there is much too little demonstration that one author was commenting upon or contradicting his predecessors. Despite the claim of the dust jacket, this book does not read the Bible as literature but rather as a series of written essays whose extent and dating often stand in dramatic contradiction to those assigned to them in the last two centuries of biblical scholarship.

~~~~~~~~

By Ralph W. Klein, Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago, Chicago, IL 60615