Matthew A. Thomas’ study represents a meticulous examination of the syntactical usage and narrative import of the toledot formula within the Pentateuch. Thomas begins his study with some cursory comments concerning source criticism, linguistics, and genealogical formulae which are useful if wanting. A wider, more thorough engagement with these topics would better situate the study’s conclusions within the larger discussions as well as better acquainting the reader with the relevant material. The bulk of the study and its strongest force is in its syntactical observations and narrative interpretations. These not only provide compelling points for broader application and further study but reimagine the narrative force of the toledot formula as a heading and locus of election (123). Thomas’ conclusions on the toledot usage in Numbers is questionable in my estimation, though his conclusions for Genesis are robust and compelling. Although containing substantial areas wanting expansion, Thomas’ work is a careful, insightful, and useful addition to Pentateuchal studies. Particularly for Genesis, it represents fresh observations that will be a required point of engagement for future studies and commentaries on genealogical functions within narrative.

G. K. Beale’s study of Danielic usage in apocalyptic literature represents a thorough examination of the material with a unique emphasis on structural as well as thematic elements (314). Utilizing consistent structure and clearly delineated methodologies, Beale provides an excellent evaluation of the studied passages. Although eager to defend his observation of Danielic emphasis over other influential texts (273), Beale nevertheless does not fail to comment on the relative merit of a given allusion or connection. This not only adds credibility to his argument but more clearly articulates the nuances of the thesis and delineates the avenues for further study. This volume is particularly useful in Logos because of the sheer quantity of biblical references present throughout. It also serves fairly well as a reference because of its clear structure and plentiful references to other sections within the work. Unfortunately there is an abnormally high quantity of typos and errors which will hopefully continue to be patched out. Unfortunately, due to the constraints of the project and its place in the development of Beale’s thought (it was originally published in 1984), a fuller discussion of Revelation is lacking, though it was formative to his later, more developed studies of Revelation. The comparison with gospel apocalyptic material and ensuing discussion of possible dependence was brief and over-dependent on other studies, and a discussion of the development and use of relevant sources (e.g. John’s use of LXX and Θ, though note brief comments on pp. 311–312) would have benefited the study. I would recommend The Use of Daniel in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature and in the Revelation of St. John to anyone studying the apocalyptic genre or Revelation intertextuality, though for more general treatments of Revelation or Jewish apocalyptic literature the relevant modern commentaries and theologies will engage this study to sufficient effect.

John W. Rogerson's theology of the Old Testament represents an anthropological (174) exploration of the Old Testament themes of communication for a modern audience (1). Although he presents several novel and useful observations (e.g. the observation that the Noetic creation account is realistic and the Edenic creation account is idyllic) and the provided original translations are fresh and adequately sourced, the work's identification as a theology, a study of God, is misapplied. The work more closely serves as a literary anthropology (and an inadequate and historically convoluted one at that). The work, while original, fails to engage adequately with related scholarly material (e.g. his overdependence on Westermann's Genesis commentary). This is especially so regarding biblical matters, though this is likely due in part to the redirection and shortening of the final work from it's original intention as confessed in the introduction. He also convolutes his goals and approach at several points. He claims a historical approach is unpursuable, yet proposes hypothetical historical situations later in the same chapter (98–99). Elsewhere he lays out his approach as taking the final form of a text to examine how it functions as it is read, yet he frequently prefers underlying sources in his interpretation (cf. 77–78). Rogerson sets out to create an Old Testament theology for the modern world, but then concludes with apologetic intent. It seems that this apologetic intent is a later importation that complicates his contemporary theology by prioritizing modern rather than theological values and conflating his perceived audience. Brueggemann shares many of Rogerson's convictions, but I find Brueggemann's works to be superior implementations of their shared perspective to the fields of Scripture and theology. Thus I can only recommend this work to those who are dedicated to the application of modern anthropology to the Old Testament and wish to add this to other voices within the conversation with which they are already engaged.