Genesis 1-11:26

Genesis 1-11:26

Kenneth MatthewsBroadman & Holman

Publishers

pp.21-181

Your Background?

• Formal education (undergrad, graduate)• ANE• Source criticism (Documentary hypothesis, JEDP)

Steve Badger , Feb. 2008 -2-

Some Terminology

• Torah (Heb) = Law• Pentateuch (Grk) = five part book– Gen, Exod, Lev, Num, Deut

• Originally, one book• Tanakh: Law, Prophets, Writings• Structural marker: tōldōt (account, generations)


Matthew’s Bias RE: Genesis

• One mind shaped the book: Moses• Author/compiler• Not an “autonomous book,” but part of

the Pentateuch• Thus, our understanding of Genesis should

be informed by the rest of the Pentateuch


First Things First

• What is the first thing a reader must do in order to read and understand Genesis (or any other written text)?

• Switch to “Forms of Biblical Literature” PPT• Then take the quiz


Genre or Literary Form

Adapted from Sidney Greidanus’s The Modern Preacher and the Ancient Text (Eerdmans Pub,

1988)

2. Literary Genesis (25)

• Compared to a stained-glass window (25)• Collected & arranged by the author/compiler• Producing a “coherent, unified story…”• The content of Gen 1—11 (“primeval

history”) distinguishes it from Gen 12—50 (“patriarchal stories”)

• Tōldōt (account, generations)– Most prominent literary device– The book’s “framing device”


Tōldōt

Section Event, passageI Creation of heaven & earth, 1:1—2:3 (no tōldōt needed)II The tōldōt of earth’s family, 2:4—4:26III The tōldōt of Adam’s line, 5:1—6:8IV The tōldōt of Noah, 6:9—9:29V The tōldōt of Shem, Ham, Japheth, 10:1—11:9VI The tōldōt of Shem, 11:10—26


ANE Parallels

• Similarities between 1-11 & Babylonian myths• A guest speaker will compare & contrast these• “The primary pitfall is that the analysis does

not give sufficient weight to the tōldōt device…the most noticeable redactional feature….” (31)

• Tōldōt should be seen as evidence of pre-Genesis sources that have been…modified


How does tōldōt function?

• To introduce the following section?• As referring to what preceded?– Matthews argues for both, citing usage

outside Genesis (in Numbers & in Ruth)

• Tōldōt binds the preceding section to the next section (34)


(2) Contents

Matthews sees tōldōt as a “hinge device”• 1:1—2:3, no previous material, not needed• 2:4—4:26, (see p.35)• 5:1—6:8, (see p.36)• 6:9—9:29, (see p.36)• 10:1—11:9, (see p.37)• 11:10-26, (see p.37)• Etc. etc. etc.


Conclusion

• Tōldōt is a “hinge device” linking preceding material to the next section (41)

• The genealogies are the strongest indicator that written sources were used in the writing of Genesis…

• BUT, the genealogies are not preserved entirely

• Tōldōt historically joins Israel’s history with the beginnings of the cosmos (41)


Oops!

• The next two slides are out of order, but I was too lazy to find where they belong, and then put them there.

• But I like these two thoughts so much that I did not want to delete them.

• Don’t write this poorly on your papers!


Exegesis: careful, systematic study of the Scripture to discover what the text meant to the original recipients

Hermeneutics: the task of hearing the same meaning as the original readers heard; seeking the contemporary relevance of ancient texts

(The latter includes the former)

Two DefinitionsTwo Definitions

The Basic RuleThe Basic Rule

A text cannot mean what it never could have meant to its author or his readers.


Theology

1. Patriarchal promises, p.55• Blessing• Seed• Land


Theology

2. God and His World (60)3. Human Life (61)4. Sin (61)5. Civilization (62)6. Covenant (62)


Interpreting Genesis

• Documentary Hypothesis (J, E, P)• Jewish interpretation


(2) Jewish Interpretation

• Peshat– Interpretation based on the historical context of

the passage and the normal grammatical meaning of the Hebrew

• Midrash – Interpreted the passage without regard for the

historical context of the passage or the normal grammatical meaning of the Hebrew

– The text contains several “hidden” meanings


(3) Christian Interpretation

• From the time of Augustine to the Reformers, allegory reigned supreme.

• What is “wrong” with allegorical interpretations? (66ff)


(4) Pentateuchal Criticism

• In the mid-1500s, John Calvin moved interpreters away from allegorization

• In the late 1800s, Wellhausen and others moved to “scientific” interpretation (71f)



• Authorship & date• Sources• Form and tradition history• Revisionist trends• Traditional• Literary readings• Canonical readings



Canonical readings1. Childs : • “the proper stance of the critic toward the Bible: a

person of faith in the community who views the text as ‘Scripture’” • “interpretation begins with the final form of the

canon; approaching the text as ‘Scripture’ provides the referential orientation of historic Israel” (85)

2. Sanders: canonical criticism is the natural extension of historical-critical methods



Literary readings– Reader response

criticism– Deconstruction


pp.012f

Matthew’s Conclusions (85)

• “Although modernity has focused on the preliterary stages of Genesis, the rich precritical history of interpretation found that the canonical shape of the book was edifying for synagogue and church.” (85)

• “…Attention to the holistic nature of the biblical text will persist, but the old atomizing methods…are still very much alive and remain standard in most universities and many mainline denominational seminaries.” (85)


Caveat2. “Numerous and sometimes quite striking alleged agreement do not guarantee that the nonbiblical text is a true parallel that can serve as a window for interpreting the Hebrew passage.” (86)

Who borrowed from whom?3. “Many alleged parallels result from extracting a superficial similarity without due regard for the context of the pagan or biblical text.” (86)


Matthew’s Conclusion

• “There is no myth comparable to the literary composition of Genesis 1-11.” (88)

• Instead, “biblical Genesis shows a rejection of pagan ideas.”

• Ancient magic?

Extrabiblical Parallels

1. Creation and Mankind2. Eden3. Long-lived Patriarchs4. Flood

7. Creation & Contemporary Interpretation

• Two models: Creationism & Naturalism• Creationism: YEC/scientific creationism• Naturalism: atheistic or scientific naturalism• The ‘singularity particle’ and the ‘bag bing’• Abiogenesis or spontaneous generation• Macroevolution

(2) Problems in Interpretation

“So mammoth and complex is the discussion that we can only briefly refer to what we believe are the two central problems that underlie diverse interpretations of biblical creation:1.What is the proper relationship between Scripture and modern science? And2.What is the literary genre of the Genesis description?” (107)Badger: “Matthews is profoundly correct!”

Matthews’ Commentary

• I’m assuming you have read pp.112-181 • We may invoke portions of this later

“Badger’s Law” TM

• “For every argument, there is an equal and opposite argument.”

• Seemingly, anyway.• If this is true, what determines

your position?

Excursus: Magic

T H E E N D

Documents

Genesis 1-11:26