Ingrid Faro, former Dean of Academic Affairs and Visiting Professor of Old Testament at Northern Seminary and Associate Professor of Old Testament at the Skandinvisk Teologisk Högskola, provides the most in-depth analysis of the lexical family רע published to date. This work emerges out of Faro’s unpublished dissertation, “A Lexical, Exegetical, Conceptual, and Theological Study of Evil in Genesis.” Faro treats רע as a hypernym (most often represented by the gloss “evil” in the book) for a number of categories and uses (including the verbal and adjectival base forms: רעע, רעה). Faro makes a strong case for this approach that will reach beyond previous studies that did not take broader syntactic and syntagmatic relations into account. Further, the shorthand “evil” is provided simply as a placeholder gloss for the lexemes in order to address the broader issues that have been attached to this term. The methodology of the study focuses on a synchronic reading of Genesis that aids in hearing the canonical form of the text and the lexical functions of “evil” within the text as a whole. The elevenfold toledot structure of Genesis is deployed for tracing usage/function, though there does not appear to be any appreciable significance contributed to the project by this particular structural feature.The introduction of the volume briefly describes the methodology and rationale for the study (noted previously). There are then three succeeding parts to the study: “Data,” “Focus,” and “Synthesis.” In part one, “Data,” chapter two of the study takes up occurrences of “evil” and the distribution of forms in narrative and direct discourse and speech act across the book of Genesis. Chapter three broadens the engagement to include the semantic field and range of meaning noting paradigmatic and syntagmatic collocations of רע. This chapter provides detailed charts throughout indicating the types of collocations and offering numerous categories for conceptualizing “evil” in Genesis and its relations to its contexts. Part two (chapter four) addresses two cognitive connections with רע: good and sight. This chapter proposes ways in which “evil” is comparative to “good” and the function of “sight” in relation to both. These are each taken up via multiple lexemes demonstrating the nature of the project to indicate relations of terms such as conceptual rather than simply lexicological. Part three (chapters five and six) ties up the study with tracing the plot conflict through the book of Genesis as a way of noting the manner in which רע functions as a key term for the plot movement (chapter five) and a short conclusion (chapter six). The volume closes out with three excurses and a lengthy appendix providing a chart comparing every usage of רעה/רעע/רע in Genesis with Rahlf’s LXX and the NASB English translation.One of the most significant contributions of this study is found in the details of chapter three in which Faro has helped the reader to note paradigmatic and syntagmatic relations across the book of Genesis rather than a myopic focus on too narrow a lexical examination. As part of the paradigmatic collocations, Faro examines comparative, contrastive, and associate fields. Faro provides a fourfold taxonomy of “evil” in Genesis in comparative collocations: deficient or severely lacking; emotional or relational distress; harm or death to person or property; and moral failure or wickedness (pp. 66–72), Faro also offers fourfold contrastive collocations: good in quality, quantity, appearance; inner or relational well-being; protection of person or property; and moral uprightness, redemptive (pp. 72–76). These eight proposed collocations are further subdivided into two each, noting terms that are in some defining relation to the lexeme. The second half of the chapter charts syntagmatic collocations of the hypernym רע noting prepositional usage, as adjectival modifier and the respective noun/s modified, as verb (noting subject/object), and as subject/object (noting verbs and subject/object). Of special note are several clusters of the internal (knowing and planning) and external (sight, food/eating, hand/touching) sense lexemes in collocation with evil (pp. 88–92).This study breaks fresh ground regarding the analysis of the lexeme/s associated with רע, noting particularly the broader relations of this term to issues of failure in relationships, harm, distress, or trouble. While some may not be persuaded by the particular claims of human responsibility (contrasted with divine responsibility) for “evil,” Faro has offered a cogent argumentation through this study demonstrating that the very thing the characters do (evil/harm) is returned to them (evil/harm) but somehow transformed (redeemed?) in the divine plan. Further, the use of רע in the book of Genesis is a feature that Faro has drawn out in numerous ways as functionally almost in an inclusio fashion from the Garden narrative to the concluding tales of Joseph in noting the ways characters and speeches are addressed by, and themselves address, “evil.” Faro’s examination of collocational relations provides a scholarly standard that would serve future lexical research well to take into account and apply to other lexemes across the canon of Scripture in like fashion. I hope that this study will find some manner of influence among Hebrew lexicons and theological dictionaries going forward.