Jonathan A. Goldstein (1929–2004)

By an "Almighty God," Goldstein means a god who is believed to be more powerful than any other force, or combination of forces. The god may be considered to be the only god, or there can be an array of other, but lesser gods. The Israelites and Babylonians were examples of this belief. The chief theological problem of such a religion is the explanation of why the peoples of such gods face adversity and defeat, both as individuals and as a people. Goldstein believes that this is handled by the promise that the troubles are the result of sin on the part of the people, or distraction on the part of the deity. Goldstein suggests that this inspires such people to write histories that show the triumphs of their people, granted by their deity, and that defeats will be followed by greater, permanent triumphs.

The scholarly book is readable, and very detailed as Goldstein marshals his evidence. One of the things that struck me forcibly is how very ancient civilization is. Much of the action takes place so long ago that Goldstein doesn't mark the dates as BC or BCE, because that can be assumed.… (altro)

This book shows both the strengths and the weaknesses of the Anchor Bible.

The strength is that this is an incredibly detailed commentary on I Maccabees and on the whole Maccabean period (and Goldstein adds even more in the volume on II Maccabees). Together they supply one of the most substantial, if not the most substantial, analysis of the period, including the text of the books, the chronology, the historical background, and more.

The weakness is that Goldstein has a number of highly unusual hypotheses about the Maccabean period and about our authors. He has reconstructed some of the history of the period, and his ideas naturally influence this book.

This is, of course, a perfectly valid thing to do; Goldstein's ideas a provocative, and some may well be right, and all scholarship of the Maccabean period should take them into account. But... in a mainline Bible commentary? The new ideas would be much better in journal articles or specialty publications, not taking over a commentary. (If they are widely accepted, then they go in the commentaries.) Because the Anchor Bible volumes are (mostly) monographs, there is always the danger of someone with an unusual viewpoint being assigned a volume and running with it. As happened here.

Even with that caveat, this is a very good book. All that immense detail is incredibly useful, for the historian even more than the theologian. (Although II Maccabees in particular has a very strong theological bent.) Just be sure to check a few other histories of the period.… (altro)