I’m not sure how many people judge a book by the blurbs found on it, but I pray that number dwindles greatly. Because frequently, perhaps more often than not, they are misleading, particularly if they are written by a well-known scholar, author, pastor, etc.
Case in point: a while back Justin Taylor, one of the most popular bloggers in evangelicalism, highlighted a new book put out of IVP, The Roots of the Reformation. The author, G R Evans, is apparently a well respected Cambridge medievalist. Taylor includes in his post 4 endorsements of the book, two of which were particularly glowing:
“G. R. Evans is one of our finest scholars, and she has written a superb book placing the story of the Reformation in the wider context of Christian history. Comprehensive, well researched and readable.”
—Timothy George, general editor, Reformation Commentary on Scripture
“Briskly and breezily, but very efficiently, medievalist Gillian Evans here surveys Western Europe’s changing and clashing views of Christianity from the fourteenth century through the seventeenth century. This large-scale introduction is certainly the best of its kind currently available.”
—J. I. Packer, Regent College
But, a month later and Taylor (admirably) issued a ‘mea culpa‘ for implicitly endorsing this highly-praised book. Why? What changed his mind?
Because an expert on the subject matter of the book in question actually read the book carefully.
Carl Trueman wrote an absolutely devastating review of the book, pointing out numerous (and I mean numerous) embarrassing errors that undermine the credibility of the book, and thus, the author and those who praise it so unreservedly. How devastating is this review? IVP has opted to pull the book off the shelves, revise it (in time for the fall semester, although I wonder if any professor will opt to use it now) and give free ones to those who purchased the 1st edition. You can read their letter here.
Now, I don’t want to overstate the damage done here. No one’s salvation is at stake. There won’t be a generation of scholars who will screw up basic facts about Calvin, Luther and the rest of the reformers. The 2nd edition will fix the errors and the world will move on.
But I have to wonder about the endorsers, particularly the two I quoted. Was Packer right when he said the book is “the best of its kind currently available?” Are the other options so awful that Evans’ book is, in fact, better? I highly doubt it. The better question is: did Packer read the book? Or, perhaps, is Packer qualified to write an endorsement for a book on the Reformation?
Same goes for Timothy George. He said this book is ‘well researched.’ Did George read the book? Is he qualified to make such a claim about the book?
I’m being a bit sarcastic. Both Packer and George are highly qualified scholars. Their credentials speak for themselves. They ought to be able to read a book on the reformation and determine its value for classroom use. But the only real explanation for their high praise is probably the simplest: they didn’t read the book carefully. Trueman can’t be that much better of a scholar to be able to see frequent errors while they are not. If so, they aren’t the scholars we all think they are.
So what’s the point in trusting blurbs for a book? If you can’t trust J I Packer and Timothy George, then who can you trust? I’ve read too many books that received high praise, only to read the book and wonder if the endorsers actually read it. But often times it’s a matter of opinion to a certain degree. In this case, it’s plain and simple. The book had so many errors it has to be pulled off the shelf. This isn’t a matter of opinion, it’s a matter of getting basic facts correct. IVP shouldn’t be the only ones apologizing here.
I’m not the first to note the uselessness (or at least, the limited usefulness) of book blurbs. Nick Norelli makes the same point here. Esteban Vazquez (the only blogger to blog less than me) nail it pretty well here. Or even better, read this.
Anyway, to bring my rant to a close, it’s disappointing to have your suspicions confirmed: sometimes (oftentimes?) endorsers don’t read carefully the book they are endorsing. The quicker we all realize this, the better off we’ll be. But we’ll be even better off if endorsers stop doing it altogether.
One More Book for the Five Books
Posted in Pentateuch, tagged Books, commentaries, John Sailhamer, Pentateuch, The Pentateuch as Narrative on Friday, October 15, 2010| 5 Comments »
Sometime ago, Brian, my fellow infrequent contributor to BBG, offered up a post on five resources to help people understand the Pentateuch in a posted titled “Five Books for the Five Books.” I wholeheartedly agree that the resources he listed are helpful, and would even now agree (I didn’t then, as you can see in his original post) that T D Alexander’s book, From Paradise to Promised Land, is the best book I’ve read on the Pentateuch. The person not interested in source criticism would do well to skip the first 100 pages or so, but otherwise it’s a fantastic overview of what the Pentateuch teaches.
A few years back I picked up a copy of another study on the Pentateuch at a CBD Warehouse Sale. I bought it because I recognized the author’s name from my Exegesis in Genesis class with Duane Garrett (and I’ll explain why he stood out to me a in a minute), and because the sale price was $6.79 (normally priced $24.99). The Pentateuch As Narrative was my first introduction to OT scholar John Sailhamer’s works. It took me a while to sit down and read through it a bit, but I’ve thoroughly enjoyed my time in it. He has since gone on to write another book on the Pentateuch, The Meaning of the Pentateuch, which received a hearty endorsement from John Piper.
I could probably list off a couple dozen other examples (connections between the flood story and purification laws, brilliant!), not all of which are entirely convincing, in my opinion. But the effect of all this is in demonstrating that there is a narrative unity to the Pentateuch. Whatever else one wants to say about the sources behind the Pentateuch (safe to say that Sailhamer is hardly convinced by Documentary Hypothesis advocates), the final form of the text is intended to be seen as a unity.
That is not to say, however, that I always find Sailhamer’s analysis correct. I’ll give one quick example to make my point.
I mentioned earlier that Sailhamer’s name rung a bell with me for a specific reason. In my aforementioned Exegesis in Genesis class, Dr Garrett mentioned Sailhamer’s view of the “days of creation” in Genesis 1. I was quite familiar with the 24-hour view and the indefinite-period-of-time view (or whatever it should be called), and even the framework hypothesis. But I hadn’t heard Sailhamer’s view before.
In a nutshell, Sailhamer argues that the days of creation in Genesis 1 are not referring to the creation of our planet (he does see that in Genesis 1:1, just not what follows). Instead, these days refer to God’s creation/preparation of the “land” (read: Promised Land) for Israel. You can find a more detailed presentation of his argument summarized by Matt Perman (who is actually summarizing Sailhamer’s argument in Genesis Unbound– apparently one book making his point isn’t enough!) at the Desiring God website. One of the alluring features of this view is the use of “land” (eretz, in Hebrew) in Genesis 1 and the rest of the Pentateuch. “The Land” is a common thread in the Pentateuch. God had promised it to Abraham and his descendents (Gen 12:7) and much of the rest of the Pentateuch is centered around the theme of God preparing them to live in the Land.
My reaction, though, is that Sailhamer reads the evidence backwards. While I appreciate the verbal and thematic connections between Genesis 1 and various other places in the Pentateuch (God separating the waters on Day 3 and with the Red Sea), I would argue that the Red Sea account points back to the creation of the world, rooting Israel’s story (the creation of Israel) in God’s total creative power. I’m intrigued, but not convinced (but could be, I suppose).
So The Pentateuch as Narrative would not be my first book to recommend to someone on the first five books of the Bible. From Paradise to Promised Land still holds the #1 slot for me. But I think it’s good for me to have someone throw a few curveballs. That someone is John Sailhamer. He comes to the text with a different set of eyes, picking up on details that I never would have seen. While I may disagree, I’m rarely disappointed.
Read Full Post »