This is a rather curious manifestation of the Bible-as-Literature school. It is intended to rescue the Old Testament from the long list of unread classics. Dancy knows this is a difficult task, for the ‘general educated public’ will find about half of the OT not worth reading, being tedious, incoherent, or obscure. His solution is to select about 30% of the OT and 15% of the Apocrypha, choose a convenient English translation (AV, RSV, REB, NJB, NRSV), and add assorted introductions and brief notes. The notes are a mixture of historical critical comments (often somewhat dated or selective), literary insights, and theological judgements. The tone is generally positive and helpful, although from time to time the author is compelled to point out the inadequacies and infelicities of the text.

I am not averse to this project in principle, and would be extremely pleased if the educated public was intensely interested in reading extensive chunks of the Bible. I just haven’t seen much evidence for it—even well-motivated Christians find it hard to grapple with the OT. I myself would have pruned the selection more drastically and added some pictures to help readers enter imaginatively into the text (which is also Dancy’s hope). The extra space could also be used to explore how different readers have imagined, understood and applied the text (see the superb J.L. Kugel Traditions of the Bible: A Guide to the Bible as It Was at the Start of the Common Era, Harvard University Press, 1998).

I would also tackle, albeit in a highly selective way, those genres that obviously bore the author. My experience is that, with sufficient patience, these often turn out to inspire the most incisive commentary upon the contemporary world. There is a law that I have found fruitful: the more obscure and difficult the text, the broader and more imaginative the introduction. Because the author has applied a strict aesthetic criterion in his selection of a canon within a canon, he has neither the motivation or perseverance to tackle the larger interpretive challenges (contrast the work of Mary Douglas).

There are many good and useful things in this book. However, the author’s limited interests will probably leave unsatisfied those who approach the Bible as more than a great work of literature.

---