Lau and Nogalski’s commentaries are among the most recent editions now published in the increasingly impressive series edited (now) by Robert L. Hubbard Jr, and Bill T. Arnold. Both volumes represent learned achievements by Biblical scholars deeply involved in the study of the Biblical books about which they write. Although contributing to the same commentary series, there are notable differences between the approaches represented by these two volumes.

Lau’s analysis of Ruth includes literary analysis which shows, he argues, an “artfully structured” work (3) arranged in a chiastic structure. The center of this proposed structure suggests to Lau that 3:1-18, which he labels “Seeking Permanent Security”, is at the center of the structural arrangement of the book.

Lau argues that Ruth is to be considered a “short story” as opposed to a “novella”, with a story-telling technique that he compares to the stories in the Deuteronomic Historian (e.g. Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings), but a further consideration for Lau is that his designation of Ruth as “short story” means that “the short story allows for the historicity of the narrative” (10). Lau further argues that Ruth can be considered “historical” because it attempts to represent the past, is “intentionally referential,” and the “events described have a historical quality”. These comments suggest, early on, the direction that Lau will take. He believes that Ruth derives from early Monarchical Israel, and was a story told to teach about God’s providential care for the family line that will lead to the birth of King David.

This is an interesting argument, and one would have looked for a comparison with traditions such as those reported in Herodotus about the events leading to the preservation of Cyrus at his birth (elements of which sound, of course, like the Snow White tradition!), or the preservation of Ahiqar (a tradition which goes back at least to the 5th Century BCE). However, such a comparison would have further contributed to arguments in favor of the later dating of Ruth. Lau acknowledges that there is a significant scholarly tradition that dates Ruth to the post-exilic period, proposing that Ruth’s sympathy toward a Moabite central character contributed to the polemics against “foreign women” and mixed marriages. The latter have been a major concern in writings like Ezra-Nehemiah which derive, at their earliest, from the central Persian period. In fact, many of the scholarly sources that Lau draws upon to bolster his earlier dating of Ruth are somewhat dated (e.g. Campbell’s 1975 Anchor commentary). Lau’s attempt to date Ruth to pre-exilic traditions, as far back as the early monarchy and even based on real historical figures, is certainly an uphill climb, and this reviewer was not convinced.

In fact, Lau’s interesting central thesis could still stand even with a post-exilic date of the work. Lau’s notion that one of the goals of the story of Ruth was to defend the Davidic monarchy by telling wondrous stories of David’s ancestors, thus showing God’s “providential care” for God’s later chosen king, would make as much sense in a post-exilic work as an older work. Certainly there is evidence for plenty of arguments about the monarchy and its’ legacy in the post-exilic context. Even though I’m not sure about this idea as a central theme of Ruth, it arguably could fit in post-exilic debates and still make an interesting contribution to analysis of post-exilic thematic analysis.

In a work that argues for a historical basis for the story of Ruth, one also would have hoped for a more serious engagement with the realities of trans-Jordanian peoples in the context of Moabite history, for example, to try to see how the story could reflect some of those realities. Yet no serious engagement with the ongoing archaeological on trans-Jordanian peoples was featured. This is unfortunate because the reader would have appreciated knowing how Lau would navigate that material. Finally, while some important works are listed in the bibliography, Lau does not appear to interact significantly with explicitly Feminist analysis of Ruth, even though I think Lau’s voice would have been an interesting contribution to some of the issues raised by intentionally Feminist analysis.

Despite these reservations, Lau’s work on Ruth is careful and helpful, and his literary observations are often well defended (if at times speculative, but that is the nature of literary analysis). Although somewhat more conservative on historical issues than some of the other contributions to the NICOT commentary series, Lau’s work makes a good contribution to studies of Ruth.

James Nogalski is a well-known and widely appreciated contributor to scholarly discussions of “The Twelve”, the set of prophetic books that previous generations often referred to as the “minor” prophets. Indeed, Nogalski has made significant contributions to the importance of studying each of these prophetic books in the context of the other eleven works.

As expected, therefore, Nogalski’s commentary on three of these shorter prophetic books is among the strongest of the NICOT volumes that I have read (and reviewed). Briefly, Nogalski places Joel, Obadiah, and Jonah in the post-exilic period, noting interesting similar and contrasting themes in all three. The book addresses Joel in pp. 17-183; Obadiah in pp. 187-288 (an impressive accomplishment for a biblical book consisting of single chapter of 21 verses!), and Jonah in pp. 291-396.

Nogalski is especially helpful in his summaries of previous scholarship on both issues of “The Twelve,” but also the specific and unique issues in reading each of these three books. Nogalski is clearly in conversation with the important scholarship on these matters, and his ease with engaging the scholarly literature makes this volume a particularly important contribution to the most recent scholarship on these three prophets and how they are to be read in relation to each other. The reader especially benefits from his careful comparison of themes, and even phrases, from these three books and other books of the Bible (including some discussion of New Testament use).

Joel, Nogalski argues, is a book difficult to pin down as a literary work – as the debates about possible stages of composition, and sections of the book, continue. Nevertheless, Nogalski sees common themes in Joel that reflect its place in the “Twelve”, such as: (1) The infertility and fertility of the land, (2) The character of Yahweh (in relation to judgment and restoration), and (3) The Day(s) of Yahweh and how different voices evaluate the meaning of this concept. While I read the entire work with great appreciation of Nogalski’s learned analysis, I would only differ slightly with his suggestion that Joel actually “reverses” the peaceful intentions of Micah 4//Isa. 2 (pp. 41, 166), although contrary arguments can be made, (cf. H. Wolff, “Swords into Plowshares: Misuse of a Word of Prophecy?”, 1992, reprinted in Yoder and Swartley, The Meaning of Peace).

On the other hand, Nogalski does argue that Jonah maintains a strong argument in favor of God’s compassion for foreign peoples, in contrast to Obadiah’s angry screed against Edom’s participation in the destruction of Jerusalem in 586. I also appreciated Nogalski’s comments in relation to Jonah in contrast to Nahum (306) and his conclusions that Jonah represents an important voice against ‘nationalist bigotry’ (my words, but a fair representation of his strong arguments noted in 317-319). Finally, Nogalski does certainly pay attention to important archaeological research in relation to Judean and Israelite interaction with Edom in various time periods (n.b. 206-207). In fact, the selection of Obadiah and Jonah in the same commentary was an inspired choice, as it effectively illustrates some of the fascinating diversity of viewpoints represented in these twelve prophetic voices.

As with the other important work by Nogalski on the Twelve Prophets, I would strongly recommend that this commentary be included in any analysis of these three fascinating prophetic books, whether for historical-critical research, or pastoral preparation for strong teaching and preaching.