Genesis 1-11:26 (review)

Abstract

Hebrew Studies 38 (1997) 108 Reviews notable characters of the Hebrew Bible. One can easily redefme his analysis according to the perspectives of one's own community. Paul L. Schrieber Concordia Seminary St. Louis, MO 63105 GENESIS 1-11:26. By Kenneth A. Matthews. The New American Commentary. pp. 528. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1996. Cloth. Kenneth Matthews' commentary is a work of considerable dedication and industry. It has also succeeded well in fulfilling the aims of the series in which it appears. Its editors have chosen the NIV as the standard text for the series and in their preface state that the authors who write in it all "affinn the divine inspiration, inerrancy, complete truthfulness, and full authority of the Bible." While readers who do not fully share these presuppositions but are committed to the historical-critical method might feel that these aims leave the commentator wrestling with the text with one hand tied behind his back, it must be admitted that Matthews has wrestled manfully and has succeeded in producing an interesting, often infonnative, and sometimes challenging commentary. A lengthy introduction (91 pages) deals with literary structure, Genesis and Canon, the theology of Genesis, history of interpretation, the relationship of these chapters to other ancient literatures, and creation in contemporary interpretation. The many footnotes to this wide-ranging discussion provide evidence, amply illustrated throughout the commentary also, of Matthews' broad knowledge of the secondary literature. Although it is impossible to summarize such a discussion, its flavor might be indicated by a single quotation. In discussing Pentateuchal Criticism, Matthews concludes (p. 81) "that Moses...should be the Genesis compiler agrees with what we know of this early period," a conclusion that is perhaps decisive for almost everything that follows. The commentary divides Genesis 1-11 into six sections: I:1-2:3; 2:44 :26; 5:1-6:8; 6:9-9:29; 10:1-11:9; and 11:10-26. In each case, following a discussion of introductory matters relating to that section, especially structure, the NIV text is set out, often just a few verses at a time, and comment follows each segment of text. In keeping with the emphases of the series, Matthews makes many expository and theological points, and it is a Hebrew Studies 38 (1997) 109 Reviews weakness of layout that a clearer distinction is not made between exegesis and exposition. Although good indices are supplied, especially of scholars and scripture cited, one misses the bibliography lists and well organized textual discussion that have been valuable features of many recent commentaries . It is not that textual problems are entirely ignored, but they are given less priority than they have received in some other commentaries and. together with the somewhat more frequent discussions of vocabulary and grammar. they are scattered throughout the commentary. Citations in footnotes are not entirely consistent. and the lack of bibliographies means that one often has to check backwards and forwards between index and footnotes several times to discover full publication details of some references . Occasionally, adverse comment is passed on the NIV translation; for example. on page 371. we are told regarding Gen 7:1 that "'Found' is a metaphorical translation of... 'saw'... which obscures the contrast to 6:5 and 6:12." Discussion of works such as Atrahasis and the Enuma EUsh as well as Ugaritic literature tends to distance Genesis from the ancient Near Eastern materials rather than to point out any light comparative mythology may shed upon Genesis. Despite that, it is still surprising to discover. in his discussion of Gen 1:6-7, that Matthews accepts the rather loose NIV translation of l1'P' as "expanse," which he understands as the atmosphere, with the "waters above" defined as "atmospheric waters or clouds" (p. 150). Even if the exposition is driven by a particular theological commitment, one can only wonder at Matthews' judgment that 6:7b "underscores God's sorrow at what his special creation (imago Dei) has become. God is not capricious as are the deities that make up the pantheon of pagan invention. His irrevocable action against humanity is the just deserts for so debased a people" (p. 345). More disturbing still is the equanimity with...