More on this book
Kindle Notes & Highlights
But there is something even more important, more fundamental, than our family past or our national or ethnic origins. What about the beginning of the human race? Who are we? Were we made with a purpose? Does our existence have meaning beyond our mere lifetimes? These are some of the fundamental questions that nag us as we reflect on life.
The book of Genesis is not properly understood unless it is seen as the first chapter of a five-chapter work we refer to as the Torah, or the Pentateuch.
we should see a special connection between the very beginning of the Bible and its end.
The end brings us back to the beginning.1
Why read the book of Genesis? To understand our origins. To understand who we are, our meaning in life. To comprehend our place in the world, our relationship with other creatures, with other humans and with God himself. To recognize the significance of the rest of redemptive history culminating in the ministry of Jesus Christ.
While we ground our interpretation in what we propose is the meaning of the human author, we also believe that the divine intention can transcend that of the human author.
thinking
One important principle of interpretation is to recognize that not all of our questions can be answered.
The author has a purpose, a message, which he or she is trying to communicate to an audience. We are part of that audience, and through the writing we come into contact with the thought of another.2
“Every culture, even every era in a particular culture, develops distinctive and sometimes intricate codes for telling its stories.”
Indeed, one of the biggest mistakes we can make in interpretation is to read it as if it were written for us today. For instance, later we will criticize those who read Genesis 1—2 as if it was an apologetic against modern scientific understanding of the origins of the world (Darwin), when in actuality it was an apologetic against rival ancient understandings of creation (Enuma Elish).
It is the question of genre, and genre triggers our reading strategy. It makes a world of difference whether we identify Genesis as myth, parable, history, legend or a combination of these and other genres. We expect different things from a parable than we do from a history book.
The important point that comes to the fore through this kind of study is that the Bible is a literature of antiquity and not modernity. This truth will have a great impact on our study.
The book of Genesis is not a history-like story but rather a story-like history.
The God of Genesis is one who reveals himself to his people (theology) in space and time (history) and who chooses to inspire writings that serve as a memorial of those events (literary).
Thus we learn about God not as a force but as a person. God is a person who creates, involves himself with his creation and rescues and judges his human creatures. To find out about God and his relationship with his people, we hear how he acts.
An image is not the same as that which it images; thus it is wrong to think that the phrase “image of God” implies that human beings share in the divine nature. But it does suggest that, just as a statue of a king reflects his image, human beings reflect something of the nature of God. We are not surprised then that the descriptions of God in Genesis and elsewhere in the Bible are often humanlike.
Of the major metaphors used in the Bible to describe God, many of them are relational.
The task of theology is not just to ask questions about the nature and actions of God but also about the quality of God’s relationship with his people. Thus we will explore the human side of the relationship as well. In this regard, one particular metaphor deserves special mention: the covenant. Covenant is a particularly important and pervasive theme in Genesis.
Canon refers to the status of certain books that have been recognized as authoritative by the church through the ages. These books are considered to be the standard of faith and practice for the believing community. The belief is grounded in the fact that these books attest to their own ultimate divine authorship.6 This assertion does not deny that that are a variety of human authors, styles and messages, but the final authority is grounded in an origin with God himself. Thus we legitimately have an expectation that the message of the whole coheres in an organic unity.
Great definition of canon.
Genesis provides the foundation. The rest of the Bible is built on that foundation. In other words, Genesis lays the foundation for the history of God’s redemption of the world. It’s not only the first chapter of the Pentateuch, but it is the first chapter of all the books that narrate God’s ways in the world.
The Old Testament anticipates his coming suffering and glorification.
The Christ event enriches our understanding of the message of the Old Testament. An analogy may help. When we read a good mystery (or see one at the movie theater) for the first time, we may find that opening events and dialogue have a meaning that is not clear until we reach the conclusion. We cannot read a good mystery the same way a second time. There will always be a sense of “Oh yes, now I see the significance of that event.” Or for the Old Testament, “Yes, indeed, this does point to the coming of Christ.”
Question 11. What in Genesis is theologically normative for today?
Question 12. What is my redemptive-historical relationship to the events of Genesis?
Question 13. What can I learn from Genesis about how to think and act in a way pleasing to God?
Here we are introduced to a God who is not a part of his creation (he is transcendent) but is involved with it (immanent). Everything is dependent on God, who created it, and he created it good. Human beings are not the most important thing in the cosmos (God is), but we have a special relationship with him, and that confers dignity on us (image of God).
God intends us to read Genesis both theologically and morally.
Genesis nowhere names an author or describes the process of its
specifically to material found in Genesis, it does connect Moses with the composition of the later books of the Pentateuch, to which Genesis serves as a preamble. We should not be surprised to learn that until the past couple hundred years there was little doubt in the church or synagogue that Moses was the author of Genesis.
Other concrete examples could be given, but the principle is clear. There are indications of post-Mosaic activity in the book of Genesis (and beyond). What is not clear is exactly how extensive the later editing is. We notice the obvious changes, but are these the only ones, or are they the tip of a very big iceberg?
1. The tradition of Moses writing the Pentateuch points to his role as an important, foundational figure in its composition. 2. There most likely was editorial activity after Moses. 3. Sources most likely were available to Moses concerning the events that happened in Genesis.
has held sway among academics who study the Pentateuch. But the past twenty years have witnessed a significant erosion in its popularity. Even those who basically hold to a hypothetical source theory like the documentary hypothesis have great differences among themselves.
The trend away from documentary analysis is attributable to two causes: (1) problems with the method, and (2) newer and more holistic approaches to the text. These two are closely related. The problems have encouraged interpreters toward a holistic reading of the text, and a holistic reading of the text accentuates the problems.
Recent study on Semitic literary style suggests that such repetitions were consciously employed in the literature to achieve a certain effect. Robert Alter’s studies show that these doublets are actually “a purposefully deployed literary convention” that he names “type scenes.” Alter defines a type scene as a commonly repeated narrative pattern in which the author highlights similarities in order to draw the reader’s attention to the connection between the two stories.9
We can easily discern the difference in style between the story-like J and the more list-oriented, formal P. However, is this a difference in authorship or a difference in subject matter? And if we grant a difference of authorship (or more precisely,
the focus of attention has shifted away from source analysis and toward the final form of the text. In addition, many of the theological differences that have been
On the one hand it is clear that Moses did not write all of the Pentateuch, and on the other it is equally clear that the theory known as the documentary hypothesis is flawed.
Moreover, it is clear that there was editing activity after Moses, and much of the material, particularly in Genesis, shows signs of being previously existing sources.
In other words, it seems best to affirm Moses’ central role in the production of Genesis, while ultimately affirming its composite nature.
in the final analysis the authority of the text is not located in Moses but in God himself. Moses’ words aren’t canonical; the finished product, the book as it was when the Old Testament canon came to a close, is.
Indeed, if we are speaking of the original intention of the biblical writer(s), the style of the book leaves little space to argue with the obvious conclusion that the author intended Genesis to be read as a work of history that recounts what has taken place in the far-distant past.
it is impossible for a human being to present the past as a mere collection of uninterpreted facts, nor would this be desirable even if it were possible. History is different from a videotaped representation of the past in that it involves a historian, one who must interpret these events for a contemporary audience.
However, the fact that these events took place is assumed, and not argued. The concern of the text is not to prove the history but rather to impress the reader with the theological significance of these acts. History and theology are closely connected in the biblical text.
Writing history is more like painting, specifically portraiture, than videotaping. V. Philips Long develops this analogy in an intriguing way:
historiography, which may fairly be described as verbal representational art.
Regarding Genesis specifically, scholars were fascinated by the issue of sources (J, E, D, P) rather than in the questions of the shape of the book as it now stands. Indeed, the two impulses work against each other. That is, dissecting a book by its sources discourages readings that look at plot development or characterization.
The voice of the narrator is often the authoritative guide in the story, directing the reader in his or her analysis and response to the events and characters of the story. It has been pointed out that readers react to a third-person narrator with an unconscious submissiveness.
Because Hebrew narrative is restrained rather than wordy, the words used are typically pregnant with significance.
most people today are unaware of the rival creation texts and flood stories of ancient Israel’s neighbors. But the ancient writers and readers of Scripture knew them well. And they likely understood the biblical stories against the background of these texts.
