Pressler is readable and perceptive about violence, women, and outsiders, but her modern applications often outrun the evidence. In Joshua she treats disputed historical reconstructions too confidently and labels the conquest xenophobic genocide without sufficiently considering ancient victory hyperbole, God’s long-delayed judgment of Canaanite wickedness, Israel’s accountability to the same standard, or the inclusion of Rahab and the Gibeonites—evidence that allegiance rather than ethnicity is decisive. She rightly condemns colonial misuse of Joshua, but later abuse does not determine the text’s original meaning. In Judges she insightfully traces increasing violence and mistreatment of women, yet sometimes blurs narration, divine providence, and moral approval: Jephthah’s vow, Samson’s vengeance, and the atrocities of chapters 19–21 portray Israel’s covenantal collapse, not God endorsing brutality. In Ruth she turns real sexual ambiguity into excessive certainty; “feet” need not mean genitals, Ruth requests marriage and redemption, Boaz follows lawful public procedure, and intercourse is reported only after marriage. Her move from Ruth’s inclusion as a faithful Moabite to contemporary sexual ethics and ordination is therefore a category error, while her claim that Matthew names only Tamar, Rahab, and Ruth overlooks Bathsheba. Pressler does affirm God’s faithfulness and Naomi’s restoration, so she should not simply be accused of maligning God; nevertheless, her treatment sometimes opposes divine love and judgment or judges the biblical theology through modern assumptions. Useful as a provocative supplementary perspective, but insufficiently reliable as a primary commentary.

Edit Review