III. The Unity of the Book of the Twelve

statutes and ordinances,” we have strong encouragement to pay attention to links with the Torah.8

But the links are not all backward. The Christian interpreter will want to ask in what sense the prophets proclaim Christ, and the answer will most often be in a typological sense. The forward links relate to God’s history with his people, to the exposition of his design for creation, and to the reality of guilt and reconciliation. These issues are embodied in God’s central selfrevelation in Jesus Christ, and the full significance of the prophetic word is therefore discerned in the light of Jesus Christ. For those like myself who accept the truth of the New Testament, the link to the second part of the Christian two-part canon is not one among many one could make but is as firm and important a link (forward) as the (backward) link to Torah.

Is there a specific contribution made by the Minor Prophets to the canon? Many of the same motifs and themes are found in Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel. But none of these gives us the idea of a succession of prophets like the Book of the Twelve. The prophets in the narrative corpus of the Bible fulfill such a variety of functions that one does not get the same sense from them of a prophetic tradition exhorting and encouraging the people of God across the centuries. The similarities of themes dealt with in the Minor Prophets create a sense of unity across the ages, but the particularities of each of the books testify to a dynamic vitality and the fact that the prophetic word is spoken into specific situations.

III. THE UNITY OF THE BOOK OF THE TWELVE

Many scholars have come to believe that the Minor Prophets constitute in some sense a single literary entity. They claim that such a unity is suggested by the traditional designation “the Book of the Twelve” and by the scribal tradition of copying the Twelve on a single scroll. These conventions indeed indicate that the writings of the Minor Prophets were thought to belong together. Certainly, each writing associated with a minor prophet is on its own too short to count as a book in the full sense.9 It is no surprise, therefore, that these writings were collected together and that early counts of

8. It seems to me reasonable to assume that the Torah contains a substantial amount of early material to which the prophets could refer back. In particular, I am persuaded of the largely preexilic origin of the priestly material and accept the existence of an early Deuteronomic core. Were these sources dated later, the relationship would take on a more typological nature. In other words, as portrayed in the prophetic books, the prophets based their proclamation on a tradition of the type now contained in the Torah. 9. By way of illustration, the Minor Prophets comprise 180 cols. in the Cairo Codex (see “Excursus: Ancient and Medieval Manuscripts” immediately below). Even if they are taken

the books in the Hebrew canon were given as twenty-two (the number of letters of the Hebrew alphabet) or twenty-four (the number of letters of the Greek alphabet).10 In a sense, it is uncontroversial to speak of the Book of the Twelve as a unit that comprises all the Minor Prophets. What is debatable is whether the individual writings therein belong together as chapters of a carefully constructed book that develops an argument or whether they form an anthology—a more or less loose collection of writings that share similar themes and motifs.11 The canonical text does not include a separate superscription for the Book of the Twelve, and while the headings used for the different collections are sufficiently similar to invite comparison, they are not in my view similar enough to suggest a single origin.

EXCURSUS: ANCIENT AND MEDIEVAL MANUSCRIPTS

The Minor Prophets have been transmitted as a unit for a long time (e.g., in 8ḤevXIIgr), but the manuscript evidence does not tell us in which sense the Twelve formed a canon of shorter prophetic writings. A unified composition would be put on one scroll for literary reasons; an anthology could be put on one scroll for pragmatic reasons, and maybe also to suggest a historical succession of prophets.12 Philippe Guillaume argues that there are substantially fewer manuscripts of the Twelve at Qumran than usually assumed and that none of the manuscripts transmitting the complete collection of the Twelve is earlier than the first century BC, the date of 8ḤevXIIgr.13 He concludes:

together, the only other book in the codex to be shorter is Judges (110 cols.). Zechariah, the most substantial minor prophet, fits into 39 cols.; the rest average at fewer than 13 cols. 10. 1–2 Samuel, 1–2 Kings, 1–2 Chronicles, and Ezra-Nehemiah are counted one book each. The lower count also associates Ruth with Judges and Lamentations with Jeremiah. 11. Cf. David Willgren, The Formation of the “Book” of Psalms: Reconsidering the Transmission and Canonization of Psalmody in Light of Material Culture and the Poetics of Anthologies, FAT 2/88 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016), for a study that raises similar questions about the book of Psalms, concluding that the book is an anthology. Willgren’s comments on the Book of the Twelve are cautious (see pp. 46–47, 51–52, 54, 75, 77, 79) but point in the same direction. 12. For discussion, see Barry A. Jones, The Formation of the Book of the Twelve: A Study in Text and Canon, SBLDS 149 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995); Odil Hannes Steck, “Zur Abfolge Maleachi–Jona in 4Q76 (4QXIIa),” ZAW 108 (1996): 249–53; Russell Earl Fuller, “The Form and Formation of the Book of the Twelve,” in Forming Prophetic Literature: Essays on Isaiah and the Twelve in Honor of John D. W. Watts, ed. James W. Watts and Paul R. House, JSOTSup 235 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996), 86–101; and the essays listed below in n. 14. 13. Note that, e.g., in MurXII, three empty lines (five before and after Obadiah because the change of book coincides with a change of column) separate the individual writings.

“Nothing supports claims that the XII formed a collection before their translation in Greek.”14 In fact, the twelve writings are still treated as separate books in Codex Sinaiticus (fourth century AD), with the individual minor prophets being given book titles and having the column in which each book ends left blank, just like the major prophets.

The Leningrad Codex (AD 1008), the oldest complete manuscript of the Hebrew Bible in Hebrew, concludes biblical books with the record of a verse count. It does so for each of the Minor Prophets, albeit usually in a slightly abbreviated form.15 The Aleppo Codex (AD tenth century), even older but no longer preserved in full,16 also offers a verse count for each of the Minor Prophets, but only in short form, the number being signified by Hebrew letters. Medieval codices give verse counts sometimes for individual books within the Twelve but sometimes only for the Book of the Twelve. The St. Petersburg Codex of the Latter Prophets (AD 916) offers a verse count for the Book of the Twelve only.17 It does, however, leave three empty lines between the individual writings.18

According to the production notes at the end of the book, the Cairo Codex of the Prophets was created “at the end of the year 827, after the destruction of the second temple” (= AD 895), although carbon dating indicates that it is

See Josef M. Oesch, Petucha und Setuma: Untersuchungen zu einer überlieferten Gliederung im hebräischen Text des Alten Testament, OBO 27 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht; Fribourg: Presses Universitaires, 1979), 286. 14. Philippe Guillaume, “A Reconsideration of Manuscripts Classified as Scrolls of the Twelve Minor Prophets (XII),” JHebS 7 (2007): art. 16, doi:10.5508/jhs.2007.v7.a16. See also his article “The Unlikely Malachi-Jonah Sequence (4QXIIa),” JHebS 6 (2006): art. 15, doi:10.5508/jhs.2006.v6.a15, which counters Jones’s proposal (n. 12). Cf. Mika S. Pajunen and Hanne von Weissenberg, “The Book of Malachi, Manuscript 4Q76 (4QXIIa), and the Formation of the ‘Book of the Twelve’,” JBL 135 (2015): 731–51, who conclude that in its present state “4Q76 attests only to the books of Malachi and Jonah” (738). Christophe L. Nihan (“Remarques sur la question de l’«unité» des XII,” in The Book of the Twelve—One Book or Many? Metz Conference Proceedings, 5–7 November 2015, ed. Elena di Pede and Danatella Scaiola, FAT 2/91 [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016], 145–65) highlights the fluidity of textual traditions and of the sequencing of books (147–56). 15. Elsewhere, the phrase “the count of the verses” usually precedes the number in Hebrew words and is found in the Twelve with Obadiah and Nahum. Hosea, Amos, and Zechariah only have the actual verse count. Joel, Jonah, Micah, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, and Malachi each conclude with the number followed by “verses.” 16. Of the original 491 pages of the Aleppo Codex, 196 have been lost, including three pages from Amos 8:13 to Mic 5:1 (including the books of Obadiah and Jonah) and four pages from the end of Zephaniah to Zech 9:17 (including Haggai). 17. Cf. Christian D. Ginsburg, Introduction to the Massoretico-Critical Edition of the Hebrew Bible (London: Trinitarian Bible Society, 1897; repr., Jerusalem: Ktav, 1966), 95. 18. An image of the Hosea-Joel transition in the St. Petersburg Codex of the Latter Prophets is at https://www.alamy.com/ (Image ID: EAJXRY); see https://bit.ly/2DanOOS.

not earlier than the eleventh century.19 While not the oldest known surviving Hebrew manuscript that contains the entire text of the Nevi’im (Former and Latter Prophets), it belongs to roughly the same period as the Aleppo and Leningrad Codices. One of its interesting features is the use of bqšw ʾt-yhwh kl (“seek YHWH everyone,” from Zeph 2:3) or dršw yhwh bhmṣʾw (“seek YHWH while he may be found,” from Isa 55:6) at the end of each book.20 In between Joshua and Judges (text damaged), Judges and Samuel, Samuel and Kings, and so on, this inscription is part of a whole column that marks the break between books. The individual minor prophets, except for Habakkuk, are separated by the inscription but by no additional space or artwork. So again, the individual minor prophets are treated as distinct entities but not as full-scale books. A verse count is offered for the Book of the Twelve and not for individual parts thereof. Whether the lack of an inscription between Nahum and Habakkuk is an oversight or meant as an invitation to read them together as one is difficult to determine. Nahum-Habakkuk form a good unit, but it seems unlikely that the scribes of this codex thought of eleven rather than twelve minor prophetic books.

Apart from such questions of designation, there are two main lines of argument to support the idea that this collection of prophetic writings is designed to be read as a complete literary work. One focuses on interconnections within the Book of the Twelve and the other on discerning an overarching plot or global structure. Some connections between neighboring books are impressive and may indicate an attempt to stitch consecutive books together.21 But others are less persuasive and suggest that no such attempt of stitching books together was carried through the whole corpus.22 Indeed, Franz Delitzsch, who appears to have been the first to observe these keyword connections, thought that they were the reason for the sequence in which the already completed books were arranged rather than the product of redactional work specifically designed to stitch the books together.23 In

19. Cf. Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 3rd ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2011), 45–46. 20. The line from Isaiah concludes Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Hosea, Micah, and Malachi; the other books conclude with the line from Zephaniah. Only Habakkuk is not given a concluding inscription. 21. Hos 14:1(2) // Joel 2:12; Joel 3:16 (4:16) // Amos 1:2; Amos 9:12 // Obad 19; Obad 1 // Jonah (a messenger sent to the nations); Jonah 4:2 // Mic 7:18–19 // Nah 1:2–3; Nah 1:1 // Hab 1:1 (same genre designation); Hab 2:20 // Zeph 1:7. 22. E.g., the link between Obad 1 and Jonah is not, strictly speaking, of a literary nature. Jonah 4:2; Mic 7:18–19; and Nah 1:2–3 all reflect Exod 34:6–7, a tradition that is often alluded to in other parts of Scripture. The maśśāʾ designation in Nah 1:1 and Hab 1:1 is of course also found in Zech 9:1; 12:1; Mal 1:1 and outside the Book of the Twelve. 23. Franz Delitzsch, “Wann weissagte Obadja?” Zeitschrift für die gesamte lutherische

the light of the varying quality of these links, this view has something to be said for it. But even if the links were redactional, this is not sufficient evidence for substantial editorial work with the aim of creating a larger literary unit. As regards additional literary and thematic connections between the books, similar links can be seen with books outside the Twelve, especially to the book of Isaiah.24 Such links could be either the unintentional result of a common tradition or the product of an intentional cross-referencing that invites reading the canonical books as a theologically coherent whole, rather than editorial work seeking to establish a strong literary-rhetorical unit.

The search for keyword connections as well as the attempt to trace a storyline through the collection are at first sight hampered by the fact that the sequence of the Minor Prophets varies in different traditions. But a case has been made for purposeful ordering of each major tradition.25 Indeed, it has been suggested that the different sequences of LXX and MT reflect the fact that “the Book of the Twelve as a whole might address two very different hermeneutical agendas that originated ultimately in different historical periods.”26 Alas, we do not have evidence from antiquity to confirm that readers perceived these differing agendas. Nogalski examines two examples that he believes demonstrate that in some instances the Book of the Twelve was read as a corpus in its own right even in antiquity: Sirach and Jerome.27 (He explicitly disclaims that this was necessarily the dominant reading.) But the first example cannot serve to substantiate the presence of a specific hermeneutical agenda that relates to the order in which the prophetic writings appear in the corpus, while the second only attests to a belief that the order of the writings was determined by chronology.

Nogalski observes that Sirach’s summary in 49:10 picks up the significant

Theologie und Kirche 12 (1851): 91–102. Delitzsch did not consider the second option in this essay, which is really concerned with the dating of the ministry of the prophet Obadiah. 24. See, e.g., Erich Bosshard-Nepustil, Rezeptionen von Jesaia 1–39 im Zwölfprophetenbuch: Untersuchungen zur literarischen Verbindung von Prophetenbüchern in babylonischer und persischer Zeit, OBO 154 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht; Fribourg: Presses Universitaires, 1997); Gerlinde Baumann, “Connected by Marriage, Adultery, and Violence: The Prophetic Marriage Metaphor in the Book of the Twelve and in the Major Prophets,” in Society of Biblical Literature 1999 Seminar Papers, SBLSP 38 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 1999), 552–69. 25. For the MT, see Paul R. House, The Unity of the Twelve, JSOTSup 77 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1990). For LXX and MT, see Marvin A. Sweeney, “The Place and Function of Joel in the Book of the Twelve,” in Society of Biblical Literature 1999 Seminar Papers, 570–95. Jones (Formation) argues that the original order of books within the collection is that of 4QXIIa, of which the LXX is a close variation. 26. Sweeney, “Place and Function,” 595. 27. James D. Nogalski, “The Book of the Twelve Is Not a Hypothesis,” in di Pede and Scaiola, Book of the Twelve, 37–59.

role hope plays in this corpus, even if more passages are devoted to judgment, and argues that Sirach’s commitment to throne and altar influenced the specific example cited from the collection in 49:11–12 (referencing Zerubbabel and Jeshua son of Jozadak). This means that we are not able to deduce from Sirach 49:10–12 what sequence the prophetic writings followed in the Book of the Twelve accessible to Sirach and his readers or whether the sequence mattered to him. The longer prophetic books offer Sirach the opportunity to identify some of the experiences of the prophets Isaiah (Sir 48:20–25), Jeremiah (Sir 49:6–7), and Ezekiel (Sir 49:8), alongside key features of the writings attributed to them, but the same cannot be said for his summary of the Book of the Twelve. The summary of the Twelve is serviceable, but it could equally describe the major prophetic books, which also offer hope for the temple and Zion, especially to readers who are looking for it. Thus, the summary would not need to be changed if Hosea, Joel, or Malachi were missing—or indeed Nahum, Habakkuk, or Zephaniah. In other words, the reference in Sirach demonstrates the existence of the corpus, but it does not prove that Sirach considered this corpus a literary unit with a specific argument rather than an anthology of smaller writings attributed to individual prophets whose message was similar to that of the prophets who left behind more substantial works.

As for Nogalski’s comments on Jerome, which focus on Jerome’s treatment of Jonah, Nogalski is right to note that in his preface to the Vulgate, Jerome says that the Book of the Twelve is one book and establishes the principle that those writings that are undated should be placed in the same period as the last one mentioned, following the order in the Hebrew text. (Jerome does not offer an explanation for the different order in the Christian tradition of which he was a part.) But Nogalski fails to take into account that Jerome wrote commentaries on the individual prophetic writings and did not do so in their presumed chronological or any canonical order. Nahum was the first book on which Jerome commented (AD 392–393), once he apparently decided to offer commentaries on each of the twelve,28 followed by Micah, Zephaniah, Haggai, and Habakkuk in short order, and then, having been interrupted by the Origenist controversy, Jonah and Obadiah (AD 396) and a decade later Zechariah, Malachi, Hosea, Joel, and Amos (AD 406). Jerome’s exegesis of the historical sense is based on the presumed historical setting of each individual prophet. He does not ask what the historical sense of Jonah (or Nahum, Habakkuk, or Zephaniah) was in a Persian period

28. In his commentary on Obadiah, Jerome makes reference to an earlier allegorical reading of the book offered in his youth of which he is now ashamed; see Commentaries on the Twelve Prophets, ed. Thomas P. Scheck, vol. 1, Ancient Christian Texts (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2016), 276–77.

“Book of the Twelve.” Nogalski believes that “Jerome’s placement of Jonah as contemporary with Hosea, Amos, and Isaiah reflects his application of the reading strategy of the Twelve in the MT sequence.”29 This may well be so, in line with the principle expressed in the preface to the Vulgate of the Twelve. But the eighth-century setting can be inferred from 2 Kgs 14:23–25, which Jerome cites, without reference to the preceding date in the Book of the Twelve (Amos 1:1), and Jerome makes no reference to the presumed “reading strategy” in his introduction to Jonah, nor even in his introduction to Obadiah, the also-undated book preceding Jonah in the Hebrew text. In fact, as is typical for Jerome, he appeals to “the Hebrews” who “say that this is the man who, under Ahab, the king of Samaria and the very wicked Jezebel, fed in caves the one hundred prophets who did not bend their knees to Baal.”30 Not only is there no appeal to Amos 1:1, but the implied setting is in fact earlier than Amos’s by some seven decades. What this demonstrates is that there was considerable interest at the time in dating these prophetic figures and that people were clutching at any “evidence” that might help with this. Using the last-mentioned date within the anthology to date an otherwise undated prophet seems to have been one of the strategies adopted, possibly as a last resort (as it was overridden in the case of Obadiah by the link with a figure named Obadiah in Ahab’s time). This seems to have happened with dates given for Nahum.

Nahum, whose announcement of the fall of Nineveh sounds definitive, must obviously have prophesied later than Jonah, whose announcement of Nineveh’s destruction was either postponed or annulled by repentance. But how much later? Nogalski observes that both the author or emender of Tob 14:3–4 (some texts read “Jonah,” others “Nahum”)31 and Josephus (Jewish Antiquities 9.239–42) place Nahum in the eighth century. He links this with the principle that an undated prophet is to be dated with reference to the last dated prophet mentioned in the (Hebrew) Book of the Twelve, in this case Mic 1:1.32 This may have been the reasoning, but it is less clear that the specific dating played a significant role in the theological reflection around Nineveh. Jonah’s chronological priority was a given, as noted above, and specific attempts to correlate Jonah and Nahum were surely prompted by historical and theological interests that would have been present even if the two writings had not been transmitted within the same scroll. It is notewor-

29. Nogalski, “Not a Hypothesis,” 51. 30. Jerome, Twelve, 277–78. Cf. 1 Kgs 18:3–4. 31. Tobit, who had been deported by the Assyrians, assembles his sons to instruct them with words that include, “I believe the word of God that Jonah/Nahum spoke about Nineveh, that all these things will take place and overtake Assyria and Nineveh.” 32. Nogalski, “Not a Hypothesis,” 52.

thy that Josephus places Nahum in the reign of Jotham (Ant. 9.236–38),33 the first mentioned king in Mic 1:1, rather than that of Hezekiah, the last mentioned, thus bringing Nahum as close to Jonah as possible. This was perhaps to suggest that Nineveh’s repentance was very short-lived. Other than using the sequence of writings to help determine a prophet’s chronology, there is little evidence that anyone in antiquity read the Book of the Twelve as a single literary unit in a way that noticeably influenced the interpretation of the individual prophetic writings therein.

It is to be expected that the debate around how to read the Book of the Twelve will continue for a little while longer. Useful presentations with opposing views can be found in the compilations of essays edited by James D. Nogalski and Marvin A. Sweeney;34 by Ehud Ben Zvi and James D. Nogalski;35 by Rainer Albertz, James D. Nogalski, and Jakob Wöhrle;36 by Elena di Pede and Danatella Scaiola;37 and by Heiko Wenzel.38 In my view, the Book of the Twelve is not the result of extensive reshaping of the individual writings, although it seems that some thought went into arranging them in a certain order. Thus, the order Micah-Nahum-Habakkuk-Zephaniah in MT highlights similarities between Micah and Nahum and between Nahum and Habakkuk,39 encouraging readers to read these prophetic writings alongside

33. See Ant. 9.239, although later Nahum is said to have prophesied 115 years before the fall of Nineveh (9.242), which would place him firmly in the reign of Ahaz according to modern reconstructions of the chronology. 34. James D. Nogalski and Marvin A. Sweeney, eds., Reading and Hearing the Book of the Twelve, SBL SymS 15 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000). 35. Ehud Ben Zvi and James D. Nogalski, eds., Two Sides of a Coin: Juxtaposing Views on Interpreting the Book of the Twelve/the Twelve Prophetic Books, Analecta Gorgiana 201 (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2009). 36. Rainer Albertz, James D. Nogalski, and Jakob Wöhrle, eds., Perspectives on the Formation of the Book of the Twelve: Methodological Foundations—Redactional Processes—Historical Insights, BZAW 433 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2012). 37. Di Pede and Scaiola, Book of the Twelve. 38. Heiko Wenzel, ed., The Book of the Twelve: An Anthology of Prophetic Books or the Result of Complex Redactional Processes?, Osnabrücker Studien zur Jüdischen und Christlichen Bibel 4 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2018). See also two literature reviews: Ida Willi-Plein, “Das Zwölfprophetenbuch,” TRu 64 (1999): 351–95; Paul L. Redditt, “Recent Research on the Book of the Twelve as One Book,” CurBR 9 (2001): 47–80. Some issues for interpretation with special reference to Hosea and Amos are outlined in Jörg Jeremias, “Neuere Tendenzen der Forschung an den Kleinen Propheten,” in Perspectives in the Study of the Old Testament and Early Judaism: A Symposium in Honour of Adam S. van der Woude on the Occasion of His 70th Birthday, ed. Florentino García Martínez and Edward Noort, VTSup 73 (Leiden: Brill, 1998), 122–36. 39. Cf. Klaas Spronk, “Synchronic and Diachronic Approaches to the Book of Nahum,” in Synchronic or Diachronic? A Debate on Method in Old Testament Exegesis, ed. Johannes C. Moor (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 185.

each other. (The LXX sequence ensures that Jonah and Nahum are read together.) Such similarities could easily have arisen as a result of prophets being influenced by each other and by a common liturgical tradition (esp. Exod 34:6–7).40 This view has been shaped by basic methodological preferences (on which I side with Ben Zvi more often than Nogalski) and was confirmed by my examination of specific issues, such as references to Torah within the Book of the Twelve and the relationship of Habakkuk to its co-texts,41 as well as my supervision of an MTh in which my student Simon Wakeling made a strong, but in my view not ultimately persuasive, case for reading the Book of the Twelve as a cohesive, single entity.42

I do not exclude the possibility that the book of Malachi was written specifically to conclude the Book of the Twelve, nor that significant redactional work reshaped the book of Hosea to serve as an introduction to the collection, nor that either of these things are true for the book of Joel. It need not be denied that we can learn things by studying the Book of the Twelve as a whole, and it may well be profitable to notice connections within this prophetic collection especially—and perhaps not just because a theological interpretation needs to consider individual biblical books in the context of the canon as a whole (including the New Testament). But I see no evidence for significant editorial work in Nahum, Habakkuk, or Zephaniah to encourage reading them as chapters of a larger whole, and I want to affirm the individual integrity of these prophetic books as means of communication.43 The collection that we designate the Book of the Twelve is neither the small-

40. Developing a proposal by Raymond C. VanLeeuwen (“Scribal Wisdom and Theodicy in the Book of the Twelve,” in In Search of Wisdom: Essays in Memory of John G. Gammie, ed. Leo G. Perdue, Bernard Brandon Scott, and William Johnston Wiseman [Philadelphia: Westminster John Knox Press, 1993], 31–34), Wakeling (“The Minor Prophets as a Unity Developing Theodicy,” Ecclesia Reformanda 2 [2010]: 124–53) argues that citations of and allusions to Exod 34:6–7 give coherence to the Book of the Twelve. Cf. Jakob Wöhrle, “A Prophetic Reflection on Divine Forgiveness: The Integration of the Book of Jonah into the Book of the Twelve,” JHebS 9 (2009): art. 7, doi:10.5508/jhs.2009.v9.a7; “So Many Cross-References! Methodological Reflections on the Problem of Intertextual Relationships and Their Significance for Redaction Critical Analysis,” in Albertz, Nogalski, and Wöhrle, Perspectives on the Formation, 3–20; Donatella Scaiola, “The Twelve, One or Many Books? A Theological Proposal,” in di Pede and Scaiola, Book of the Twelve, 180–93, esp. 190–93. 41. Thomas Renz, “Torah in the Minor Prophets,” in Reading the Law: Studies in Honour of Gordon J. Wenham, ed. J. Gordon McConville and Karl Möller, LHBOTS 461 (London: T&T Clark, 2007), 73–94; “Habakkuk and Its Co-Texts,” in Wenzel, Book of the Twelve, 13–36. 42. An essay based on the thesis was later published as Wakeling, “Minor Prophets” (see n. 40). 43. Note the illuminating research into the nature of anthologies in antiquity by Martin Beck, “Das Dodekapropheton als Anthologie,” ZAW 118 (2006): 558–81.