Andrews University

Ledesma, Janet

COVID-19 Impact on School Principal Leadership: Lessons Lived and Lessons Learned

Son, Peter Injae

Činčala, Petr

Drumm, Rene D.

Enhancing engagement with the Guide magazine: Insights from quantitative analysis

Campbell, Michael W.

Exploring discrepant doctrinal beliefs: An analysis of Seventh-day Adventists’ perspectives on the Holy Spirit and the Trinity

Hopkins, Gary

McBride, Duane C

Furst, Trevor

The Central Nervous System

Kaiser, Denis

A Search for Identity: The Case of the Seventh-day Adventist Doctrinal Statements about God

Fraser, Jasmine

Creating conditions and Environments for Parent-Child Healing and flourishing through Trauma-Informed Discipleship

Corredera, Vanessa

Happy Nights to Happy Days: Minoritarian Mercutions, Affect, and the Bury Your Gays Trope in Performances of Romeo and Juliet

Pinocchio, one of the world’s best sellers, is the third most translated book after the Bible. This presentation will look at Collodi’s masterpiece and its multiple literary and film adaptations. We will observe how each rewriting informs the author´s own intentions and personal message. Special attention will be given to Del Toro’s Pinocchio and the notion of disobedience as civil engagement

Badenas, Sonia

Pinocchio: Rewritings and Their Lessons

Andrews University Seminary Studies 60 (Spring 2022)120
LXX version could likely correspond to the first draft of the full book (being 
25:13a, according to this view, the ending of the Baruch Scroll mentioned in 
Jer 36), which constitutes a debatable point on its own (49, 248). With such 
a claim for a more primitive LXX Vorlage and the belief that the Masoretic 
Text brings a later expansion to it, one could expect at least a comment on the 
absence of Nebuchadnezzar as Yahweh’s servant in LXX Jer 25:9; 34:6; 50:10, 
in contrast with the Masoretic Text (25:9; 27:6; 43:10). Indeed, someone 
could suggest that the LXX avoided the tension that might be generated with 
the claim of servanthood attached to the king of Babylon. Nevertheless, a 
discussion about strong and impactful differences between the Masoretic Text 
and LXX is simply missing. Not to mention that scholars have documented 
several aspects that would lead one to consider the Masoretic Text of Jeremiah 
to be more reliable than the LXX, as noted in some other commentaries on 
the book of Jeremiah.
As an overall appraisal, I consider Garrett and Pearson’s commentary on 
Jeremiah and Lamentations a useful resource for students and preachers of the 
Bible. Although this commentary could be more consistent in its discussion of 
compositional issues, it excels in organization and visual clarity from a practi-
cal point of view. Different from other works with similar goals, such as The 
Preacher’s Homiletic Commentary Series by James Exell et al. (Baker Books), 
Garrett and Pearson’s work breaks down the exegetical ideas, theological 
focus, preaching ideas, and preaching pointers into different sections instead 
of mixing them into the body of text. It clarifies the preaching strategies for 
each passage in such a way that, in my recollection, I have not seen it in other 
homiletic commentaries.
Berrien Springs, MI           Felippe Ribeiro
 Gehring, René. Die Dreieinigkeit in Bibel und Adventgeschichte. Schriften für 
die Gemeinde. St. Peter am Hart, Austria: Seminar Schloss Bogenhofen, 
2021. 161 pp. Hardcover. EU 17.90.
In the last thirty years, the Seventh-day Adventist Church has seen several 
waves of antitrinitarian revival at the margins of the church, shaking belief in 
the denomination’s fundamental beliefs numbers 2 to 5. While those waves 
came and subsided, in the last decade antitrinitarianism has been making 
strong inroads into many congregations worldwide, gaining in strength. 
Though antitrinitarian publications offer explanations of various biblical 
passages, their explanations often run within the framework of their selective 
and interpretative use of Ellen G. White’s writings, turning a specific type of 
Adventist tradition into the final norm of biblical interpretation. Woodrow 
Whidden, John W. Reeve, and Jerry Moon addressed many of the issues in 
the Bible, church history, Adventist history, and Ellen G. White’s writings 
Book Reviews 121
in their book The Trinity: Understanding God’s Love, His Plan of Salvation, 
and Christian Relationships (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 2002). 
One year later, Moon advanced the academic knowledge of the doctrine of 
the Trinity in Adventist history in two seminal articles (AUSS 41.1 [2003]: 
113–129; AUSS 41.2 [2003]: 275–292). Other scholars subsequently 
explored aspects left unaddressed by Moon. The last decade has nevertheless 
seen less scholarly engagement with the subject, despite the dramatic global 
rise of antitrinitarianism. Besides Ty Gibson’s two recent excellent books 
targeting a popular audience (The Sonship of Christ [Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 
2018]; The Heavenly Trio [Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 2020]), there has been 
a lack of semi-academic resources on the subject for a lay audience. With his 
book Die Dreieinigkeit in Bibel und Adventgeschichte, author René Gehring, 
principal of and lecturer at Bogenhofen Seminary, attempts to fill the gap, 
especially in German-speaking countries.
The book consists of five formal chapters and an informal epilogue. Each 
chapter contains relevant quotations from the OT (ch. 1), NT (ch. 2), and 
the writings of Ellen G. White (ch. 3) and early Adventists (ch. 4), preceded 
or succeeded by brief explanatory comments. By quoting relevant statements, 
Gehring permits readers to see the textual evidence for themselves. Further, 
each formal chapter concludes with a section summarizing the outcome of 
the findings in the chapter.
Chapter 1 addresses the concept of the Trinity in the OT by discuss-
ing the seemingly conflicting evidence for both one God and a plurality of 
divine persons. Then the author turns to passages that describe two divine 
persons and eventually to those passages that refer to three divine persons. 
In addition, one section analyzes passages alluding to the personality of the 
Holy Spirit, and another section focuses on the OT expectation of the future 
incarnation of God as Savior. Observing the terminological and topical 
similarities between Gen 1:1–3 and John 1:1–3, Gehring suggests that the 
logos (word) in John 1 alludes to the phrase “And God said” in Gen 1 (27). In 
the history of interpretation, John 1 has been variously read in the context of 
Gen 1, Prov 8, or Philo’s logos. Some readers may consider Gehring’s linkage 
between the “Word” and “God said” a stretch, particularly because the LXX 
translates Elohim and YHWH as theos and kyrios respectively, not as logos. A 
look into the targumim could nevertheless have helped his case. Since many 
first-century attendees of Jewish synagogues were not fluent in Hebrew, the 
reading of the Hebrew Bible was supplemented with explanations in Aramaic, 
which were preserved in the targumim. John’s readers would have had no 
issue seeing the “Word” in Gen 1 since it was a belief broadly disseminated as 
it is evident from the Aramaic translations of the HB, Tg. Neof. and Fr. Tg. 
P., that ascribe God’s creative action in Gen 1 to the divine “Word” (memra, 
dibbura). John 1:10 presents very close connections to Tg. Onq. Deut 33:27. 
In fact, the targumim contain hundreds of examples of rendering YHWH 
Andrews University Seminary Studies 60 (Spring 2022)122
and Elohim with the Aramaic words memra or dibbura. Of course, John’s 
readers may have had an issue with his revolutionary claim that this “Word” 
became human (John 1:14). John Ronning has convincingly argued for the 
targumic background of John’s logos statements (The Jewish Targums and John’s 
Logos Theology [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2010]).
Chapter 2 turns to the NT evidence for the Trinity by addressing 
various sets of statements, the divinity of Jesus, the divine personality of the 
Holy Spirit, and the existence of three divine persons. Whereas the divinity 
of Jesus is discussed at length (33–56), the individuality and personhood of 
the Holy Spirit are discussed only briefly (57–59). Gehring mentions a few 
triadic references (Matt 3:16–17; Matt 28:19; 1 Cor 12:4-6; 2 Cor 13:13; 
Eph 4:4-6; 1 Pet 1:2; Jude 20–21;) and remarks that the sequence of the 
three persons is varied in these passages. Yet he neglects to mention many 
other passages that show all kinds of variations, illustrative of the divine 
persons’ mutual involvement in the work of redemption, like in the Epistles 
of Romans and 1 Corinthians, which contain longer triadic structures than 
in the passages he mentioned. Gehring’s brief argument in favor of divine 
coequality (61) would have benefitted from a discussion of the various 
passages that exemplify the reciprocal divine speaking of, glorifying, reveal-
ing, sending, and representing each other.
Chapter 3 discusses the evidence for the concept of the Trinity found in 
Ellen G. White’s writings. The chapter is divided into sections on Jesus, the 
Holy Spirit, and the three divine persons. Gehring provides in chronological 
order one of the largest collections of Ellen G. White’s statements on the three 
heavenly persons, personalities, powers, dignitaries, authorities, beings, and 
so forth in Adventist literature (91–98). The list of quotations is convincing, 
albeit still incomplete. It may be helpful to know that there are more than 
seventy such statements. Since discussions often revolve around the meaning 
of White’s language, it may have been beneficial to attempt to define her use 
of terms such as “personality,” “person,” “personify,” personate,” and so on 
(see D. Kaiser, “The Holy Spirit as a Representative of Christ in Ellen G. 
White’s Writings,” Ellen White Issues Symposium 14 [2021]: 109–125). This 
chapter contains numerous images of relevant portions of Ellen G. White’s 
handwritten and typed letters and manuscripts (88, 90–92, 95–96), yet 
Gehring did not give credit to Tim Poirier’s article “Ellen White Statements: 
What Did She Actually Write?” (Ellen White and Current Issues Symposium 2 
[2006]: 18–40), from which these images were obviously taken. Although 
Poirier’s article is referenced in the section on further readings (159), readers 
should have been given a direct reference to the source of those images.
Chapter 4 outlines the development of the doctrine of God and the 
reception of the concept of the Trinity in the history of the Seventh-day 
Adventist Church. The outline follows closely the five phases from 1846 to 
1980 that Moon observed in his first article in 2003 (cited above). Gehring 
Book Reviews 123
generally provides a good overview of the developments, following closely 
the insights of previous studies on this subject. Due to its succinctness, his 
narrative nevertheless misses some important nuances, of which just a few 
will be noted here. For example, starting in the early 1870s, Adventists gener-
ally seemed to be more relaxed on the topic of the Trinity as is visible in 
their reprinting of non-Adventist articles containing Trinitarian language, the 
1872 Fundamental Principles’ neutral stance on the doctrine of God, Elizer 
Goodrich’s 1876 Trinitarian affirmation, and J. H. Waggoner’s 1879 confid-
ing to James White his impression that the Holy Spirit may be a person. The 
1890s were covered only very briefly, although this decade is rich in develop-
ment on this subject. In addition, the significance of Samuel Spear’s tract is 
not fully described. One may wonder why Adventists reprinted his material 
in tract form although Spear was a Presbyterian. The answer lies in the fact 
that Spear’s version of the doctrine of the Trinity also contained the idea of 
Jesus as a distinct person, as the begotten Son of God, and as subordinate to 
the Father. Therefore, contemporary Adventists perceived in his statements 
quite a bit of common ground, leaving little room for denying the Trinity on 
that argument. Against this background, it is telling that they changed the 
title of the document from its original “The Subordination of Christ” to The 
Bible Doctrine of the Trinity when they published it for an Adventist audience.
Chapter 5 turns to eight common critical questions or objections against 
the doctrine of the Trinity. First, was Jesus “begotten/born”? Second, is Jesus 
inferior to the Father? Third, is the Father “alone true God”? Fourth, are there 
not also humans that are called “gods”? Fifth, is Jesus not omniscient? Sixth, 
is the Holy Spirit only the spirit of Christ/God? Seventh, can a spirit be a 
person? Eighth, is the trinitarian baptismal formula (Matt 28:19) authen-
tic? To explain why Matt 28:19 does not appear in NT manuscripts until 
the fourth century, he asserts that those manuscripts were mostly written in 
the form of scrolls, with the beginning and end of a document frequently 
breaking, which could explain the lack of papyri containing the end of the 
Gospel of Matthew (148). It appears that he conflates the construction of 
OT manuscripts with that of NT manuscripts, most of which are codices. 
While non-Christian texts continued to use scrolls well into the fourth and 
fifth centuries, early Christians favored the form of codices. Considering 
the canonical process, codices lent themselves to the gradual compilation of 
“originally separate compositions” (J. K. Elliott, “Manuscripts, the Codex, 
and the Canon,” JSNT 19.63 [1997]: 111). Even though Gehring’s specific 
argument is unconvincing, textual studies on the papyri of the Gospel of 
Matthew have shown no evidence for “wild” variants and lots of evidence for 
a careful transmission of the text (Barbara Aland, “Das Zeugnis der frühen 
Papyri für den Text der Evangelien: Diskutiert am Matthäusevangelium,” in 
The Four Gospels 1992, ed. F. Van Segbroeck et al. [Leuven: Leuven Univer-
sity Press, 1992], 325–335; Kyoung Shik Min, Die früheste Überlieferung des 
Andrews University Seminary Studies 60 (Spring 2022)124
Matthäusevangeliums (bis zum 3./4. Jh): Edition und Untersuchung, ANTF 34 
[Berlin: De Gruyter, 2005]), suggesting that the baptismal formula of Matt 
28:19 is authentic. Gehring’s discussion of early Christian writings since at 
least the early second century AD, including writings of the Arian Eusebius 
of Caesarea, corroborates that conclusion (149–151).
Rather than breaking new ground in academic research, the primary 
contribution of Gehring’s book lies in synthesizing information from other 
publications and in making that information available in a succinct and lucid 
form. Succinctness always comes with shortcomings, some of which I have 
pointed out above for the benefit of readers and for improvements in a future 
edition of the book.
Andrews University                                                                  Denis Kaiser 
 Greenberg, James. A. A New Look at Atonement in Leviticus: The Meaning and 
Purpose of Kipper Revisited. University Park, PA: Eisenbrauns, 2019. xii + 
212 pp. Hardcover. USD 112.95.
Greenberg is an adjunct professor of Old Testament and ANE culture at 
Denver Seminary in Littleton, Colorado, USA. His research, and that of 
others, indicates a growing scholarly interest in a better understanding of 
atonement in the HB. Throughout his book, he extensively interacts with 
established scholars such as Jacob Milgrom, Nobuyoshi Kiuchi, Baruch A. 
Levine, Roy E. Gane, Jonathan Klawans, and Yitzhak Feder. Through this 
interaction, he affirms some and challenges others on their views of atone-
ment and surrounding topics. Greenberg’s ultimate goal is to establish his 
theory of atonement.
A crucial difference between a prevailing theory of atonement where the 
sins of the ancient Israelites (as portrayed in the Pentateuch) defile the sanctu-
ary and are subsequently removed from it on the Day Atonement—commonly 
labeled as the pollution-and-purge view—and Greenberg’s theory is in the fact 
that he understands the Hebrew word ִֹּ֚כְֶּפר (kiper) as a process rather than as 
an act by which sins are removed from the offerer or the sanctuary. Following 
mainstream scholarship on the topic since the beginning of the nineteenth 
century, Greenberg also dismisses the theory of substitutionary atonement 
without evaluating it (3). He suggests that discovering the modus operandi of 
sacrifice relies on establishing the meaning of ִֹּ֚כְֶּפר (kiper) in connection to the 
purpose of the sanctuary rituals as a whole. Scholars have proposed multiple 
interpretations for the purpose of sacrifice using various sources.
Greenberg correctly recognizes that the meaning for ִֹּ֚כְֶּפר (kiper) should 
not be sought by adopting the meanings of corresponding verbs in various 
ANE languages. The interpretation of ִֹּ֚כְֶּפר was primarily informed by 
multiple geographically, culturally, theologically, and linguistically different 


English

Die Dreieinigkeit in Bibel und Adventgeschichte  [review] / Gehring, René.

Janković, Slaviša

Andrews University Seminary Studies 60 (Spring 2022)124
Matthäusevangeliums (bis zum 3./4. Jh): Edition und Untersuchung, ANTF 34 
[Berlin: De Gruyter, 2005]), suggesting that the baptismal formula of Matt 
28:19 is authentic. Gehring’s discussion of early Christian writings since at 
least the early second century AD, including writings of the Arian Eusebius 
of Caesarea, corroborates that conclusion (149–151).
Rather than breaking new ground in academic research, the primary 
contribution of Gehring’s book lies in synthesizing information from other 
publications and in making that information available in a succinct and lucid 
form. Succinctness always comes with shortcomings, some of which I have 
pointed out above for the benefit of readers and for improvements in a future 
edition of the book.
Andrews University                                                                  Denis Kaiser 
 Greenberg, James. A. A New Look at Atonement in Leviticus: The Meaning and 
Purpose of Kipper Revisited. University Park, PA: Eisenbrauns, 2019. xii + 
212 pp. Hardcover. USD 112.95.
Greenberg is an adjunct professor of Old Testament and ANE culture at 
Denver Seminary in Littleton, Colorado, USA. His research, and that of 
others, indicates a growing scholarly interest in a better understanding of 
atonement in the HB. Throughout his book, he extensively interacts with 
established scholars such as Jacob Milgrom, Nobuyoshi Kiuchi, Baruch A. 
Levine, Roy E. Gane, Jonathan Klawans, and Yitzhak Feder. Through this 
interaction, he affirms some and challenges others on their views of atone-
ment and surrounding topics. Greenberg’s ultimate goal is to establish his 
theory of atonement.
A crucial difference between a prevailing theory of atonement where the 
sins of the ancient Israelites (as portrayed in the Pentateuch) defile the sanctu-
ary and are subsequently removed from it on the Day Atonement—commonly 
labeled as the pollution-and-purge view—and Greenberg’s theory is in the fact 
that he understands the Hebrew word ִֹּ֚כְֶּפר (kiper) as a process rather than as 
an act by which sins are removed from the offerer or the sanctuary. Following 
mainstream scholarship on the topic since the beginning of the nineteenth 
century, Greenberg also dismisses the theory of substitutionary atonement 
without evaluating it (3). He suggests that discovering the modus operandi of 
sacrifice relies on establishing the meaning of ִֹּ֚כְֶּפר (kiper) in connection to the 
purpose of the sanctuary rituals as a whole. Scholars have proposed multiple 
interpretations for the purpose of sacrifice using various sources.
Greenberg correctly recognizes that the meaning for ִֹּ֚כְֶּפר (kiper) should 
not be sought by adopting the meanings of corresponding verbs in various 
ANE languages. The interpretation of ִֹּ֚כְֶּפר was primarily informed by 
multiple geographically, culturally, theologically, and linguistically different 
Book Reviews 125
and distant sources that led to opposing views. To gather insights to establish 
the modus operandi of the Israelite sacrifice, Greenberg has developed a text-
immanent strategy by which he examines biblical passages not considered 
central to the study of sacrifice. This strategy does not exclude any input from 
extrabiblical sources but uses them only to confirm rather than to inform 
his interpretation. It helps to determine more precise contextual meanings 
attached to the biblical ִֹּ֚כְֶּפר (kiper). Greenberg acknowledges—along with 
other scholars—that the key goal of the sacrifice is to repair an interrupted 
relationship between God and the offerer (1–2). Hence, in sacrificial contexts, 
 kiper) refers to the process that reestablishes the relationship, interrupted) ִֹּ֚כְֶּפר
by the effects of sin or bodily impurity, between individuals and God (106, 
190–191). This process happened each day and yearly on the Day of Atone-
ment. During the daily rituals, ִֹּ֚כְֶּפר (kiper) reestablished a relationship and 
removed the effects of unintentional sin or bodily impurity that ruptured this 
relationship (106). In the yearly ritual of the Day of Atonement, ִֹּ֚כְֶּפר (kiper) 
removed the effects of rebellious sin and guilt from the people who were 
otherwise experiencing favorable judgment on that day (187, 191).
Greenberg’s understanding of ִֹּ֚כְֶּפר (kiper) as a process, with its effects 
based on ritual variables and context, opens the way for detecting various 
meanings contained in ִֹּ֚כְֶּפר (kiper), such as “to remove (impurity)” (Lev 
14:33–57), “to reconcile (relationship),” (Lev 4–5:26), and others. He argues 
that this method could be applied to non-sacrificial contexts with produc-
tive results. Such a method, in Greenberg’s opinion, even produces the same 
positive results when it is applied to other ancient Near Eastern texts.
Greenberg claims that “the act of forgiveness does not remove Yhwh’s 
punishment, because there is no punishment for an unintentional sinner” 
(28). This claim reveals conceptual lapses in the presuppositions employed 
in Greenberg’s work. It is more in line with Scriptures to argue for the neces-
sity of liability for each act of breaking God’s commandments—that is, sin. 
The fact that an individual has sinned unintentionally does not negate one’s 
responsibility for it. An individual within ancient Israel would not need to 
undergo the painful and expensive experience of losing property—the princi-
pal elements of sacrifice, such as an animal or an amount of flour—had they 
not sinned. The fact that the offerer must go through a sacrificial process 
should be seen as a form of disciplinary experience through which God’s 
mercy, in the form of forgiveness, is granted to the offerer.
Greenberg claims that sins—by their nature—are to be divided into two 
categories: unintentional and rebellious. Sins committed unintentionally are 
converted into intentional ones once the sinner becomes conscious that they 
have sinned and offer an appropriate sacrifice. However, the study of the 
semantic ranges of the verbs denoting the act of sinning, and the adverbial use 
of the nominal derivative ה ג�  ,bishgagah) in Lev 4 as well as in Lev 5:1–13) ִָּֽבׁשג�
suggest that intentional and unintentional sinning is implied in both of these 
Andrews University Seminary Studies 60 (Spring 2022)126
chapters, not just the later one. Accordingly, not all intentional sins are rebel-
lious and deserving of capital punishment. A separate class of intentional sins 
that deserve capital punishment is usually labeled ה מ� ד ר�  .byad ramah) sins) בי�
Even though the Pentateuch depicted some specific sins in this class, any sin 
can be classified as such. Namely, a sinner who commits unintentional sin—
commonly forgivable via sacrifice—can choose not to follow God’s solution 
for it and suffer capital punishment. The distinct characteristic of this class of 
sin is a display of attitude entailing a personal affront against God and rebel-
lion against his personality, his authority, and his covenant. Intent or absence 
of it is not a determinative factor for the availability of forgiveness, but the 
attitude of the sinner is. This conceptual lapse may have led Greenberg to 
propose that ִֹּ֚כְֶּפר (kiper) is not based on a ransom but rather “somehow 
creates a protective connection between Yhwh and the offerer” (51).
Furthermore, there is no English word that encompasses the complex 
semantic and conceptual range of the Hebrew ִֹּ֚כְֶּפר (kiper). The English word 
atonement covers most of the meanings implied. The concept of ransom 
remains the closest to the underlying mechanism of atonement—namely, the 
fact that human beings are constantly compromised by sinfulness and guilt 
for committing sins, which necessitates ransom. Ransom delivers a guilty 
party from the punishment for their sins and is the purpose of ִֹּ֚כְֶּפר (kiper), a 
prerequisite for a safe relationship between God and sinful humans.
It is unclear whether Greenberg bases his conclusions on certain concepts 
on the P—referred to as Priestly Torah or Source or School legislator—or on 
the entire HB. A clear example of this is his treatment of the burnt offering 
(45–48). The crucial difference between a burnt offering and a sin offering 
is that the legislation of the former does not state that the offerer sinned 
and therefore should offer a sacrifice, while the latter does (Lev 1 and 4). 
This in itself, along with the fact that the burnt offering was not a manda-
tory sacrifice, clearly hints toward the similar conclusion Greenberg reached; 
burnt offerings facilitate a safe relationship between a sinful offerer and God. 
The main reason for ִֹּ֚כְֶּפר (kiper) and the ultimate result of the burnt offering 
lies in the fact that human lives in a sinful state. The one who offers a burnt 
offering did not sin/break God’s commandment but is sinful and in need 
of ִֹּ֚כְֶּפר (kiper). It is hermeneutically more compelling to find the meaning 
of the texts by studying the text itself or its immediate context rather than 
extracting that meaning from other texts of different genres and contexts. 
The account in 2 Sam 24 that largely informs Greenberg’s understanding 
of the burnt offering is a unique sacrifice and does not follow the typical 
sacrificial procedure.
In Greenberg’s view, sacrifices “incentivize an unintentional sinner to 
come forward so that their sin may not become rebellious” (51). However, 
such a role of sacrifice is in sharp contrast with the sins envisioned in Lev 
4–5:13. It is recognition that they have sinned—the experience of guilt—that 
Book Reviews 127
causes sinners to deal with their sin. Sacrifice may play an incentivizing role 
for the sinner, but the starting point is the sinner’s recognition of their sin.
Greenberg’s book is relatively short compared to other works on the 
topic. His writing style and train of thought are clear. However, he has not 
conducted an in-depth analysis of the crucial texts that have informed his 
theory of ִֹּ֚כְֶּפר (kiper) but relied on the research of other scholars. His work is 
more theological in its scope than exegetical. He offers fresh nuances of ִֹּ֚כְֶּפר 
(kiper), but his perspective also lends itself to certain questions, as discussed 
above. Despite the different nuances Greenberg has proposed on ִֹּ֚כְֶּפר (kiper) 
and the surrounding concepts, I consider his work a valuable addition to the 
scholarly dialogue on the topic.
Middle East University                                           Slaviša Janković
 Gzella, Holger. Aramaic: A History of the First World Language. Grand Rapids, 
MI: Eerdmans, 2021. xii + 371. Hardback. USD 70.00.
Though it may be hard to believe, there was a time when it was commonly 
held that Targum was the name of a famous rabbi who lived in Jerusalem. 
We have come a long way from that time because nowadays many readers 
of the Bible are likely to have heard that Jesus talked and taught in Aramaic 
and that, in addition to Hebrew and Greek, this is an original language of 
the Bible. Those who study religion at a deeper level have probably come 
across such terms as Aramaicist or Arameology. All this makes one wonder if 
it is still possible to say that Aramaic is a neglected field in biblical studies or 
religion in general.
The purpose of the book is “to free Aramaic from an ancillary role in 
the shadow of the Hebrew Bible and to unveil its contribution to the forma-
tion and exchange of ideas, customs, and traditions in the entire Near East” 
(ix). The author of this book, Holger Gzella, is a leading Aramaicist whose 
present work is of immense importance, matching the studies previously 
done by Klaus Beyer, E. Y. Kutscher, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, and several other 
foremost specialists in the field of Aramaic. Gzella previously taught Hebrew 
and Aramaic at Leiden University but is now a professor of Old Testament 
in Munich, Germany. To convince his readers that “Aramaic is everywhere,” 
Gzella begins his book with a long list of Aramaic-related names (Daniel, 
Jesus), expressions (feet of clay, the writing on the wall), terms (Kaddish, 
tannur), phrases (talitha kum), and even movies (The Passion of the Christ), 
with which even nonspecialists are familiar.
The author rightly claims that one’s acquaintance with Aramaic’s complex 
background can be of benefit to specialists in Jewish, Arabic, and the whole 
spectrum of Christian textual studies. Alongside abundant linguistic informa-
tion covering lexicography, orthography, phonology, morphology, and syntax, 


A New Look at Atonement in Leviticus: The Meaning and Purpose of Kipper Revisited   [review] / Greenberg, James. A.

Andrews University

Not a member yet

COVID-19 Impact on School Principal Leadership: Lessons Lived and Lessons Learned

Enhancing engagement with the Guide magazine: Insights from quantitative analysis

Exploring discrepant doctrinal beliefs: An analysis of Seventh-day Adventists’ perspectives on the Holy Spirit and the Trinity

The Central Nervous System

A Search for Identity: The Case of the Seventh-day Adventist Doctrinal Statements about God

Creating conditions and Environments for Parent-Child Healing and flourishing through Trauma-Informed Discipleship

Happy Nights to Happy Days: Minoritarian Mercutions, Affect, and the Bury Your Gays Trope in Performances of Romeo and Juliet

Pinocchio: Rewritings and Their Lessons

Die Dreieinigkeit in Bibel und Adventgeschichte [review] / Gehring, René.

A New Look at Atonement in Leviticus: The Meaning and Purpose of Kipper Revisited [review] / Greenberg, James. A.

14,703

34,116