RECENSIONES J.C. DE MOOR (ed.) Synchronic or Diachronic? A Debate on Method in Old Testament Exegesis. (Oudtestamentische Studiën, 34.) Leiden – New York – Köln, Brill, 1995. (16≈24,5), VIII-255 p. ISBN 90-04- 10342-2. This volume contains the papers read at the ninth joint meeting of the “Oudtes- tamentische Werkgezelschap in Nederland en in België” and the “British Society for old Testament Study” in August 1994. J. Barr opens the collection with a highly theoretical paper on the synchronic, the diachronic, and the historical. In the following contribution W. Beuken applies the theory to Is 28. In a mildly destructive mood, R.P. Carroll confronts Jer 23,22 with 25,3-7, and 25,9; 27,6 with 51,34. The title idby given to Nebuchadnezzar in 25,9 and 27,6 is hardly compatible with his description as a brutal beast in 51,34. In the summary in 25,3-7 Jeremiah appears to put himself on one line withe the prophets he severely condemned in 23,22. Diachrony allows to explain these discrepancies, synchrony does not. D. Clines presents a workshop on synchronic, diachronic, and beyond. M. Dijkstra offers a synchronic reading of the Bileam story and discovers in it a help to date the text. J. Hoftijzer gives some linguistic remarks to the topic. He searches for indicators that certain text parts were not written by the same author or at least not by one author at a particular moment in his life and argues that a distinction of idiolects is possible on the basis of interchangeable grammatical constructions and/or lexematic semantic elements. P.M. Joyce offers an excellent survey of recent scholarship in the field of Ezekiel studies. He detects a growing scepticism about the diachronic task. One of the examples referred to is Ez 17,22-24. Here, as more generally, Joyce finds it difficult to decide what really does constitute evidence of secondary addition. It is often assumed that this more optimistic passage can not be from the hand of Ezekiel because it is inconsistent with the prophet’s own theology. Joyce rightly notices that the danger of built-in assumptions dictating results is evident, espe- cially where theology is involved. Different criteria are to be used side by side. I am convinced that the passage in question offers a good test case. The vocabulary and style at the beginning of the section are clearly conceived as parallel with the vocabulary and style of the first part of the parable at the beginning of the chap- ter. On the other hand, there are remarkable differences, not only on the level of contents or theology, but also in matters of style and terminology. In contrast with the parable at the beginning, the final section in v. 22 confuses symbol and symbolized. An example may illustrate this. Whereas in the opening parable the eagle, symbolizing the Assyrian king, plucks off a twig of the tree, symbolizing Israel, in v. 22 the actors are the Lord himself, without the interference of a symbol, and the tree symbolizing Israel. We leave Ezekiel and turn to the other contributions in the volume. Using Gen 15 and the “land” in the deuteronomistic tradition as a testcase, E. Noort defends the historical and theological necessity of a diachronic approach. In his introductory remarks he draws attention to some developments inside the field of historical-critical exegesis: (1) the automatism of dating by absolute chronology has disappeared, (2) within historical-critical exegesis the support of classical source criticism is crumbling, (3) in classical historical-criti- cal exegesis the student was trained to look for discrepancies, antitheses, and 436 RECENSIONES changes of the subject; synchronic analysis showed the possibility of unity despite these signals of disunity, (4) the new emphasis is on redaction criticism. The aim is no longer to reach the original words of the prophet or of the original author, but to understand why and how texts were put together into their canoni- cal shape. J.W. Rogerson re-examines some aspects of De Wette’s work in the light of the more recent discussions of literary theory. Reading Nahum, K. Spronk tries to demonstrate that the diachronic analysis clearly benefits from an elaborate synchronic analysis which gives the text to prove its coherence. E. Talstra offers synchronic and diachronic observations on Deut 9–10 and pleads in favour of an order or hierarchy of the methods applied and of the data observed, indicating their power of argument. J.W. Williamson views synchronic and diachronic in Isaian perspective, starting from the observation that it is now commonplace to read studies of verbal, thematic and structural links between the major parts of the book which used to treated in complete isolation from each other. Finally, E.J. van Wolde studies Gen 24 in diachronic and synchronic perspectives. In general the contributions to the present work are of a high scholarly quality. They all deal with the same topic and are ordered alphabetically according to the names of the authors. One may regret the lack of a more systematic approach. Some repetitions could not be avoided. Most of the participants plead against an exclusive use of either the diachronic or the synchronic methods. The volume should be recommended reading for students in biblical exegesis. It will also offer food for thought for trained scholars. Indexes of authors and biblical pas- sages enhance its usefulness. J. LUST Walter DIETRICH – Martin A. KLOPFENSTEIN (ed.) Ein Gott allein? JHWH-Verehrung und biblischer Monotheismus im Kontext der israelitischen und altorientalischen Religionsgeschichte. (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis, 139.) Freiburg (Schweiz), Universitätsverlag; Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994. (16≈23,5), 603 p. ISBN 3-7278-0962-0; 3-525-53774-3. FS 125; DM 125; ÖS 1138. The present volume contains the proceedings of a symposium held in Bern in 1993. In a way it is an updating of an earlier and less voluminous publication entitled: Monotheismus im Alten Israel und seiner Umwelt (Freiburg, 1980), which was the result of a symposium in Zürich, organised by a different institu- tion. In his introduction to the theme W. Dietrich addresses some general questions concerning the origins and relevance of monotheism in Israel. A first series of papers then deals with basic themes concerned with monotheism in its historical framework, and monotheism in the context of the history of religions. The authors are: F. Stolz, A. Michaels, N.P. Lemche, and R. Albertz. A second series is devoted to more specific topics in the realm of archaeology and epigra- phy. Ze’ev Meshel (all too) briefly discusses two aspects of the finds at Kuntillet ‘Agrud: the names of the gods mentioned in the inscriptions, and the palpable influence of the Northern Kingdom on the site. W. Dever seeks to reconcile the differing textual and artifactual data concerning Israel’s religion. A. Lemaire presents a very helpful survey of the meagre, but important, epigraphic evidence related to gods and goddesses in Syro-Palestine around 1000-500 B.C. Finally, T. Mettinger finds a West-Semitic context for the Israelite phenomenon of ani- conism. A third series of essays confronts YHWH with the gods of Canaan. J. Day and M.S. Smith offer a general survey of the relationship which existed in ancient Israel between YHWH and the other gods. Three other papers focus on the relationship with particular gods or goddesses: Asherah (J.M. Hadley), the RECENSIONES 437 Sun god (O. Keel and C. Uehlinger), Baalsamem (H. Niehr). A fourth series of contributions searches for traces of a developing monotheism in Israel. In this context V. Fritz studies five compounds used as a divine name in the pre-priestly stories of the patriarchs: jly la, iar la, çiba iela la, larwi iela la, la-hb la. A. de Pury returns to Hos 12 and finds there a conflict between tribal Jacob tradi- tions and prophetic traditions promoting pure Yahwism (see 12,13 and 14 respec- tively). In a more encompassing study of Hosea J. Jeremias makes similar observa- tions. Hosea is not the first protagonist of the Yahweh-alone movement defending pure Yahwism against the threat of a polytheistic Baal religion in the regions sur- rounding Israel. In the Book of Hosea, and even more so in Jeremiah and in Dtr, the name Baal does not represent one of many gods, it is an abstract notion stand- ing for Israel’s wrong religious attitude towards God in which Yahweh is reduced to an object. The name Baal is opposed to the name Yahweh which stands for a correct religious attitude in which God’s electing and redeeming interventions are basic. Jeremias’ well balanced views open new perspectives for the history of Israel’s religion. W. Dietrich reflects on the prophetic movement in the eighth and seventh centuries, an opposition party fighting the ruling power structures of their times. It opposed syncretism and despotism imposed by their national rulers, as well as the imperialism of the Assyrian invaders. O. Loretz focuses on the first commandment and the prohibition of images. The explicit formulation of the belief in one God and the prohibition to make an image of this God are to be dated in the exilic or post-exilic times. The concluding section opens with two papers on monotheism and the feminine figure Sophia. M.Klopfenstein explores the theme from a feministic point of view. B. Lang offers food for thought com- paring Christology and Sophia traditions against the background of a certain “duotheism”. A third and last paper deals with monotheism and angelology (K. Koch). The collected papers offer a valuable contribution to the study of the history of Israel’s religion.