The Knoppers-Ristau Volume on Israelite Historiography: A Review of the RBL Review

Fellow bloggers have been having a heyday with RBL reviews that ought never to have passed muster with the powers that be. Alan Lenzi (go here, here, and here; it’s possible, to use one of Charles Halton’s favorite phrases, that Alan goes a wee overboard) and Art Boulet (go here) for example. Note Brooke Lester’s comment. Charles Halton took up examples here and here. I discussed Bruce Waltke’s RBL review of a volume by Michael Fox here; IMO it is a helpful review; Waltke was kind enough to respond in the comments. Relatedly, Doug Magnum discusses a book by Lawrence Schiffman and takes up the insider/ outsider question (here; note comments). If I were an editor of book reviews, I would get a nasty reputation. 9 times out of 10, I would “return to sender” for revisions.

A lot of people, even if they are excellent scholars, have no special talents in the book review department. Perhaps they think their mother’s advice that “if you can’t say something nice, say nothing at all” applies to reviewing the work of one’s peers. Or they come down like a sledgehammer on someone they disagree with. Or they strut their own stuff like a peacock.

The best reviews showcase the positives of the book reviewed and make purpose-driven targeted criticism as appropriate.

That’s exactly what Rainer Kessler does in his RBL review of a volume entitled: Community Identity in Judean Historiography: Biblical and Comparative Perspectives (Gary Knoppers and Kenneth Ristau, eds.; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2009). Go here.

Kessler’s review is worth its weight in gold. He showcases a number of persuasive theses put forward by essayists Kenton Sparks, Katherine Stott, Ehud Ben Zvi, John Kessler, Gary Knoppers, Mark Leuchter, Louis Jonker, Kenneth Ristau, and Mark Boda. Kessler is overwhelmingly critical of two essays only: those by John Van Seters and James Bowick.

9 out of 11 essays with a persuasive conclusion or a point worth remembering is an unusually high batting average. Thanks are due to Knoppers and Ristau for this collection I wouldn’t want to be without. Order here from one of every scholar’s favorite book publishers. Table of contents here: in my view, publishers who put tables of contents online should be rewarded by linking to them in a professional review.

Could Kessler’s review have been improved? Yes, and the RBL peer reviewers of the book review are without excuse. For example, they should not have accepted the following sentence:

To take Israel’s historical memory seriously should indeed be taken into serious consideration.

Back translating into German, I think I get it: Taking Israel’s historical memory [re its nomadic origins] seriously [per Sparks’ proposal] should indeed be taken into serious consideration [is worthy of being treated as a plausible working hypothesis in need of further testing].

And what about the spelling error in Mark Boda’s essay title?

Identity and Empere, Reality and Hope in the Chronicler’s Perspective

Whatever happened to spell-check? Bu that’s what a peer reviewer of book reviewers is supposed to be: a “you’re a mean one, Mr. Grinch.”

Now that I’ve gotten that off my chest, consider Alan Lenzi’s suggestion: review a book yourself. If you are an SBL member, a student for example, it’s a great way to . . . win friends and make enemies. Seriously, it’s a great way to exercise your critical faculties for the benefit of the guild. But remember: the last thing you want to do is write a puff piece. 

Comments

[Alan Lenzi]

Nope, not a bit overboard.

[Colin Toffelmire]

Okay, first of all I completely agree. And secondly, the irony of the "Bu" immediately following your rant about mis-spelling Mark's title was really just too rich.

[Frank]

John, I haven't read any of the reviews you're reviewing here. But I have noticed that the book-review genre is where you're most likely to encounter a lot of the good, the bad, and the ugly. As you know, several How-to and How-not-to pieces have been written for the would be book reviewer. Is it the case that nobody's been listening? Or is it that the review would be in much worse shape if it weren't for those good souls who've been pulling in the opposite direction?

[JohnFH]

Alan, whether overboard or not, I'm happy you are making the critiques you do.

Not the part about people leaving their cultural loyalties behind in the context of SBL - that will never work; you don't leave yours behind either. Those loyalties may be thin or thick; if thick, no matter how fiercely held, they are not necessarily a negative for that reason.

Here's an example: Carleen Gandolfo's "strong reading" of the complaint prayers of the Bible. Engagement with her work is a salutary trial by fire for readers of the text with a different set of strong cultural loyalties with respect to the text and philosophy and theology.

As an agnostic you may claim that you don't have a dog in that fight (I wouldn't be so sure). Relatedly, you may be no more interested in the scholarship of Walter Brueggemann than you are in that of Bruce Waltke, insofar as they seek to write OT theologies for their respective confessional constituencies. You may also find the anti-theology (as it were) of Hector Avalos no less uninteresting. You are going to skip SBL sessions which showcase the confessional or anti-confessional work of these scholars, just as you are going to skip sessions that showcase queer theory or feminist critique of the Bible, though of course you will also make sure you know enough about all the confessional and ideological readings of the Bible that you can introduce them to your students in a history of interpretation sort of way.

All good.

I'm happy if you prefer to read the complaint prayers of the Bible against the background of complaint prayers from Mesopotamia and vice-versa. And if you do, you will have something to teach all kinds of strong contemporary readers of complaint prayers.

SBL will always be a meeting place of people who read the texts as if their life depended on getting them right, of an overlapping set of others who read them as if the fate of the world depended on showing that traditional readings of those texts are utterly wrongheaded, and of still others, like you perhaps, who "have been there, done that," and have since moved on.

The depth of investment biblical scholars often have in a particular understanding of the texts they study is nothing short of amazing, but my best professors of English literature or philosophy were just as fanatical about the particular understanding of the texts they dedicate their lives to. Some of them could even see beyond their passions and appreciate approaches at odds with their own. Never a bad thing, but then, no one is required to be an omnivore of everything on the far-from-vegetarian plate offered at an SBL meeting.

[JohnFH]

Colin,

That typo was extremely well-placed, as I see you agree.

That's my point: we all need proofers - I'm no exception. In fact, it's an infinite regress, in which proofers need proofers who need proofers. Ideally, book reviews and books and blog entries will benefit from having been proofed by fresh eyes such that obvious typos are corrected.

[JohnFH]

Frank,

One thing I think is helpful to people like me who write reviews now and then: what makes for a good review from your perspective? Do you have examples of reviews that were really helpful to you?

[James]

John,

Good post and thanks for the link. But, are we only "one of every scholar’s favorite book publishers"?? Are you two-timing on us? : )

James

[Frank]

John,

You asked and made me think about what I see in what I regard as good reviews. A few responses:

1. Inform. As a student of many different subjects, a generalist, I always appreciate it when a review gives me some orientation and tells me where the new book is situated in the field. What does this book contribute to the larger discussion? Tell me about that. And how does it compare to other books that are similar in their goals?

2. Be clear. Even when writing for specialized journals, reviewers should remember that a big part of their audience is made up of graduate students who don't know enough to get things like inside jokes or obscure references.

3. Give me a taste. I like it when a review let's me read part of the book; a good quote or two, and not just a snippet at which to snipe.

4. Write well. Naturally, I also appreciate it when a reviewer takes the time to write a really fine piece. Some reviews reek of having been cranked out. But then there are others that are so worth reading for their own sake. I know, some scholars just write better than others. But the book-review category shouldn't be seen as the place where, really, it's okay to do less than your best.

[JohnFH]

James,

Since Mohr Siebeck has begun sending me review copies of its stock, yes, I am beginning to two-time. Seriously, though, you guys are the best. I'm working on an essay for an Eisenbrauns volume this very morning.

Frank,

That's very helpful.

[Colin Toffelmire]

John,

You said that proofers need proofers, and you have no idea how true that is. As you know, I work as a copy-editor for book reviews for a journal, and it is not infrequently the case that even after a review has been through me (twice), the book review editor, and the general editor, that the reviewer still finds one or two typos or grammatical problems. It's a tough grind and I'm really growing to appreciate those who do it well.

The other thing that I'd like to say is that in my experience the very best reviews that we get are consistently from grad students. No joke, doctoral students hit it out of the park more often than senior scholars. My guess is, that's because they have so few lines on their CV that every line needs to count. So here's a message for RBL...let grad students review your books! I can only speak from my experience, but I volunteer regularly to review books in RBL, and I know other grad students who do likewise, and there ain't no love for the little person over there...at least not for this little person :).

[JohnFH]

Thanks, Colin.

This thread and a few other threads need to be forwarded and copied to the RBL editors and those who oversee their work. Not because we do not appreciate the many excellent reviews in RBL. It's just that we would like to see the process and criteria revamped in the interests of all.

[Alan Lenzi]

It's not about leaving cultural loyalties behind; it's about leaving religious / transcendental claims that man-handle the text behind. But I'm encouraged by recent events. I think the Bruce Waltke-types who want to be in SBL are on the wane. There will be plenty of religious people in the SBL. That's fine with me; I expect it. But I think there is a trend among these folks toward playing by the Enlightenment rules, like you do most of the time.

"you may claim that you don't have a dog in that fight (I wouldn't be so sure)." I do have a dog in the fight but not a dogma. That's the difference. I don't have a transcendental referent in the fight. Eternity is NOT at stake. Nor is the world. But intellectual integrity and scholarly standards are.

"I'm happy if you prefer to read the complaint prayers of the Bible against the background of complaint prayers from Mesopotamia and vice-versa. And if you do, you will have something to teach all kinds of strong contemporary readers of complaint prayers."

Actually, such an article is in press for JBL even now. It shows how some "strong readers" missed the mark on these prayers (in one respect) for over a hundred years.

[JohnFH]

Alan,

I expect to be reading what you write on such matters for years to come. Thanks for the perspective you bring.