Zephaniah: A Commentary
By Marvin A. Sweeney
Hermeneia. Fortress, Minneapolis, 2003. 227 pp. $ 47.00(cloth). ISBN 0800660498
In recent years we have witnessed resurgent interests in the prophetic books, especially the Book of the Twelve in the form of commentary. Among the Twelve the book of Zephaniah has been somewhat neglected. This will no longer be the case. Marvin Sweeney, one of the major scholars pushing the research of prophetic studies forward, has written a very well-organized and -argued commentary on the book of Zephaniah.
As a part of Hermeneia series, the commentary offers a wealth of insightful information and interpretations on the text of Zephaniah. Among many special features, this commentary broadens the horizon of readers’ perspective on the text by providing the reader with the illuminating interpretation of the various textual traditions such as the MT, LXX, Scrolls from the Judean Wilderness, Targum, Peshitta, Vulgate and Old Latin Texts. These textual traditions are treated here as independent literary works, highlighting the different aspects of the meaning of Prophecy of Zephaniah. These diverse textual traditions presented in their own socio-historical settings are highly effective and make a welcome contribution to the study of prophetic literature.
At a macro-structural level, Sweeney rejects the traditional tripartite division of the book of Zephaniah (judgment oracles against Jerusalem and Judah, judgment oracles against the nations, and salvation oracles of Jerusalem/Judah and the world). Instead, he views the book of Zephaniah as “the presentation of Zephaniah’s parenetic speech to Jerusalem/Judah in which the prophet calls on the audience to seek YHWH”(9). Thus, the book of Zephaniah is divided into two halves under the main heading, Seek YHWH: (a) Announcement of the Day of YHWH (1:2-18) and (b) Avoid punishment on the Day of YHWH (2:1-3:20). Underlying this assertion is Sweeney’s claim that Hosea, Amos, Micah, and Zephaniah, the four minor books whose superscriptions are formulated in a similar fashion, implying a common editor, were probably produced in the Josianic era to support the King’s reform program. Sweeney thus reads the book of Zephaniah as a prophetic call for a national repentance and a renewed commitment to YHWH, as a “parenetic speech." For Sweeney, this macro-structural view of the composition of the book of Zephaniah forms the aegis of the text under which all the micro units are to be viewed.
The gem of this commentary lies particularly in Sweeney's judicious examination, "formal analysis," of the texture of the text. Unlike traditional form critics, however, Sweeney’s “formal analysis” is grounded in a thorough investigation of various linguistic issues of syntax, semantics and such. A clear example of this is evident in his treatment of 2:1-4. His "formal-linguistic" reading of the unit enables him to argue that the conjunctive ki at the start of v.4 is to be read as the leading causal clause, motivating the prophet’s call for repentance. Another example is his treatment of hoy in 2:5 and 3:1. However, in the latter case, one may dispute his delimitation of the unit (3:1-4) on the same formal-syntactical ground.
Sweeney's interpretation of the socio-historical setting of 3:14-20 does not make a very strong case. He reads this portion of the text as a product of the Josianic era, a kind of exhortative address to Jerusalem under the Assyrian oppression, reassuring the Israelites of future restoration (esp. 193-96). Whether this socio-historical reading of the unit can persuade many skeptics who see the unit as a later expansion in the (post-) exilic period is a moot question. Nevertheless, Sweeney’s thorough analysis of the book of Zephaniah as a literary product during King Josiah’s rule offers a convincing alternative reading. Sweeney's reading of the text also implicitly explores, it seems to me, the subtle difference between the production of the book and the reception and appropriation of the produced text.
In sum, the valuable contribution of Sweeney's commentary lies in his hermeneutical strategy, in his synchronic and diachronic reading, of the text of Zephaniah within the Twelve Prophets. To him, the sequence ‘synchrony-diachrony,’ and not vice versa , is crucial, reflecting the influence of “concept analysis school” pioneered by R. P. Knierim. Of course the connection is not so evident in the commentary since all of the materials in the book of Zephaniah is to be located in the time of Josiah's rule. Reading the book of Zephaniah as a part of the Twelve Prophets and observing it being located between Habakkuk and Haggai, compels him to read the book “in relation to the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem, Judah, and the First Temple and the exile of the Judean population in the early sixth century BCE”(2), rather than in relation to Josiah’s religious and political reform.
The book will, no doubt, encourage a plethora of responses, some in agreement and others not. Sweeney's careful and cautious handling of the text, nevertheless, is a welcome addition to the prestigious Hermeneia series, and for a long time it will serve as a standard commentary for the seasoned scholars and the pastors alike. We are deeply indebted to him for that.
DANIEL HOJOON RYOU
CHEONAN UNIVERSITY
SEOUL, KOREA
By Marvin A. Sweeney
Hermeneia. Fortress, Minneapolis, 2003. 227 pp. $ 47.00(cloth). ISBN 0800660498
In recent years we have witnessed resurgent interests in the prophetic books, especially the Book of the Twelve in the form of commentary. Among the Twelve the book of Zephaniah has been somewhat neglected. This will no longer be the case. Marvin Sweeney, one of the major scholars pushing the research of prophetic studies forward, has written a very well-organized and -argued commentary on the book of Zephaniah.
As a part of Hermeneia series, the commentary offers a wealth of insightful information and interpretations on the text of Zephaniah. Among many special features, this commentary broadens the horizon of readers’ perspective on the text by providing the reader with the illuminating interpretation of the various textual traditions such as the MT, LXX, Scrolls from the Judean Wilderness, Targum, Peshitta, Vulgate and Old Latin Texts. These textual traditions are treated here as independent literary works, highlighting the different aspects of the meaning of Prophecy of Zephaniah. These diverse textual traditions presented in their own socio-historical settings are highly effective and make a welcome contribution to the study of prophetic literature.
At a macro-structural level, Sweeney rejects the traditional tripartite division of the book of Zephaniah (judgment oracles against Jerusalem and Judah, judgment oracles against the nations, and salvation oracles of Jerusalem/Judah and the world). Instead, he views the book of Zephaniah as “the presentation of Zephaniah’s parenetic speech to Jerusalem/Judah in which the prophet calls on the audience to seek YHWH”(9). Thus, the book of Zephaniah is divided into two halves under the main heading, Seek YHWH: (a) Announcement of the Day of YHWH (1:2-18) and (b) Avoid punishment on the Day of YHWH (2:1-3:20). Underlying this assertion is Sweeney’s claim that Hosea, Amos, Micah, and Zephaniah, the four minor books whose superscriptions are formulated in a similar fashion, implying a common editor, were probably produced in the Josianic era to support the King’s reform program. Sweeney thus reads the book of Zephaniah as a prophetic call for a national repentance and a renewed commitment to YHWH, as a “parenetic speech." For Sweeney, this macro-structural view of the composition of the book of Zephaniah forms the aegis of the text under which all the micro units are to be viewed.
The gem of this commentary lies particularly in Sweeney's judicious examination, "formal analysis," of the texture of the text. Unlike traditional form critics, however, Sweeney’s “formal analysis” is grounded in a thorough investigation of various linguistic issues of syntax, semantics and such. A clear example of this is evident in his treatment of 2:1-4. His "formal-linguistic" reading of the unit enables him to argue that the conjunctive ki at the start of v.4 is to be read as the leading causal clause, motivating the prophet’s call for repentance. Another example is his treatment of hoy in 2:5 and 3:1. However, in the latter case, one may dispute his delimitation of the unit (3:1-4) on the same formal-syntactical ground.
Sweeney's interpretation of the socio-historical setting of 3:14-20 does not make a very strong case. He reads this portion of the text as a product of the Josianic era, a kind of exhortative address to Jerusalem under the Assyrian oppression, reassuring the Israelites of future restoration (esp. 193-96). Whether this socio-historical reading of the unit can persuade many skeptics who see the unit as a later expansion in the (post-) exilic period is a moot question. Nevertheless, Sweeney’s thorough analysis of the book of Zephaniah as a literary product during King Josiah’s rule offers a convincing alternative reading. Sweeney's reading of the text also implicitly explores, it seems to me, the subtle difference between the production of the book and the reception and appropriation of the produced text.
In sum, the valuable contribution of Sweeney's commentary lies in his hermeneutical strategy, in his synchronic and diachronic reading, of the text of Zephaniah within the Twelve Prophets. To him, the sequence ‘synchrony-diachrony,’ and not vice versa , is crucial, reflecting the influence of “concept analysis school” pioneered by R. P. Knierim. Of course the connection is not so evident in the commentary since all of the materials in the book of Zephaniah is to be located in the time of Josiah's rule. Reading the book of Zephaniah as a part of the Twelve Prophets and observing it being located between Habakkuk and Haggai, compels him to read the book “in relation to the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem, Judah, and the First Temple and the exile of the Judean population in the early sixth century BCE”(2), rather than in relation to Josiah’s religious and political reform.
The book will, no doubt, encourage a plethora of responses, some in agreement and others not. Sweeney's careful and cautious handling of the text, nevertheless, is a welcome addition to the prestigious Hermeneia series, and for a long time it will serve as a standard commentary for the seasoned scholars and the pastors alike. We are deeply indebted to him for that.
DANIEL HOJOON RYOU
CHEONAN UNIVERSITY
SEOUL, KOREA
