Southern Baptist Theology in the Late Twentieth Century
Southwestern Journal of Theology
Volume 54, No. 2 – Spring 2012
Managing Editor: Malcolm B. Yarnell III
By Duane L. Christensen. The Anchor Yale Bible. Volume 24f. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009. 423 + xxxiv pages. Cloth, $65.00.
Christensen’s volume on Nahum highlights many aspects of his work that is unconventional among Old Testament scholarship. In particular Christensen has devoted much of the commentary to the description and explanation of his method of analyzing poetic texts, which he calls “logoprosodic analysis.” This kind of analysis “involves the counting of three distinct elements: (1) morae . . . (2) SAS units . . . and (3) words” (12). Morae are units for measuring a syllable in which “a syllable with a short vowel is one mora; a syllable with a long vowel is two morae” and SAS units refer to the “groupings of words between two successive disjunctive accent marks” (12).
By counting these distinct elements, Christensen uncovers certain numerical patterns that form the basis for his outline of the literary structure of the book. These numerical patterns are then related to letters of the alphabet through forms of gematria. The process results in uncovering coded messages within the text. For instance, Christensen states that originally “Nahum apparently had 559 = 299 + 260 words.” “The number 559 (= 43 × 13) may have been selected for its symbolic value, because 43 (= 17 + 26) is the sum of the two numbers for the divine name and the number 13 is associated with the Hebrew word ’eHaD (‘one’). Yhwh alone is the true God, and he tolerates no rival” (10).
Christensen goes on to associate these numerical patterns and their alphabetic counterparts with musical composition and matrix mathematics. These patterns serve as metaphors that communicate theological truth through matrix arithmetic. Christensen states that “it is not yet clear how this system of thought eventually disappeared within the mainstream of Jewish and Christian thought” (26). Anticipating that contemporary readers may find these patterns and messages hidden or obscure, Christensen writes, “What appears hidden and obscure to modern eyes was not necessarily perceived that way in antiquity, at least in terms of matrix arithmetic and musical metaphor in relation to concepts developed from the tuning of musical instruments” (25).
On the basis of Christensen’s logoprosodic analysis and its relationship to musical composition and matrix arithmetic, Christensen argues that Nahum is a numerical composition that is the “product of a skilled scribal craftsman” (25). As the product of a scribe, the “work was written from the outset, not merely a work written to preserve the spoken words of the prophet” (157). As a result, the historical prophet Nahum fades into the background. Furthermore, Christensen argues that the scribal activity that produced Nahum is part of the larger Book of the Twelve Prophets. Christensen draws the following conclusion from these observations: “The book of Nahum was ultimately written as a numerical composition in the context of the Babylonian Exile or shortly thereafter. . . . In one sense, then, the redactor of that larger work [Book of the Twelve Prophets] became the ‘author’ of the book of Nahum, as we now have it, and the historical prophet was lost within the canonical process itself” (56).
This methodological backdrop sets the stage for Christensen’s comments on Nahum. Many of his comments are devoted to the structural and text-critical issues of Nahum. However, in each section he does provide a short summary of the intended meaning of the text and its theological import. For instance, his discussion of Nahum 1:1–10 consists of two sections: 1) fifty pages devoted to technical matters of structure (and the coded messages revealed by the structure), text-criticism, semantics, accentuation, historical and literary background, and other matters and 2) five pages summarizing the theological import of the passage. The numbers do not tell the entire story, but it should be clear that much of the commentary is devoted to technical matters of structure and discerning the encoded messages, if any, that the structure reveals.
On the one hand, Christensen’s commentary is an important resource for information regarding the structural and textual issues of Nahum. He interacts competently with the different voices in the history of research and provides a helpful resource with 80 pages of bibliography. He consistently applies his methodology to the book. On the other hand, because of the emphasis on poetic structure and his unconventional interpretations of it, many readers will find much of his work inaccessible. I fear that those who come to the commentary in order to find clear explanations of a complex biblical book will find a mysterious, though meticulous, analysis that will itself feel hidden and obscure.
