1 / 34

Genesis 1-11:26

Genesis 1-11:26. Kenneth Matthews Broadman & Holman Publishers pp.21-181. Your Background?. Formal education (undergrad, graduate) ANE Source criticism (Documentary hypothesis, JEDP). Some Terminology. Torah (Heb) = Law Pentateuch (Grk) = five part book Gen, Exod, Lev, Num, Deut

trent
Télécharger la présentation

Genesis 1-11:26

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Genesis 1-11:26 Kenneth Matthews Broadman & Holman Publishers pp.21-181

  2. Your Background? • Formal education (undergrad, graduate) • ANE • Source criticism (Documentary hypothesis, JEDP) -2-

  3. 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) -3-

  4. 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 -4-

  5. 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 -5-

  6. Genre or Literary Form Adapted from Sidney Greidanus’s The Modern Preacher and the Ancient Text (Eerdmans Pub, 1988)

  7. 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” -7-

  8. Tōldōt -8-

  9. 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 -9-

  10. 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) -10-

  11. (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. -11-

  12. Conclusion • Tōldōtis 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 • Tōldōthistorically joins Israel’s history with the beginnings of the cosmos (41) -12-

  13. 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! -13-

  14. Two Definitions 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)

  15. The Basic Rule A text cannot mean what it never could have meant to its author or his readers. -15-

  16. Theology 1. Patriarchal promises, p.55 • Blessing • Seed • Land -16-

  17. Theology 2. God and His World (60) 3. Human Life (61) 4. Sin (61) 5. Civilization (62) 6. Covenant (62) -17-

  18. Interpreting Genesis • Documentary Hypothesis (J, E, P) • Jewish interpretation -18-

  19. (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 -19-

  20. (3) Christian Interpretation • From the time of Augustine to the Reformers, allegory reigned supreme. • What is “wrong” with allegorical interpretations? (66ff) -20-

  21. (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) -21-

  22. (4) Pentateuchal Criticism • Authorship & date • Sources • Form and tradition history • Revisionist trends • Traditional • Literary readings • Canonical readings -22-

  23. (4) Pentateuchal Criticism Canonical readings • 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) • Sanders: canonical criticism is the natural extension of historical-critical methods -23-

  24. (4) Pentateuchal Criticism Literary readings • Reader response criticism • Deconstruction pp.012f -24-

  25. 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) -25-

  26. Caveat 2. “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) -26-

  27. 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?

  28. Extrabiblical Parallels • Creation and Mankind • Eden • Long-lived Patriarchs • Flood

  29. 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

  30. (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: • What is the proper relationship between Scripture and modern science? And • What is the literary genre of the Genesis description?” (107) Badger: “Matthews is profoundly correct!”

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

  32. “Badger’s Law” tm • “For every argument, there is an equal and opposite argument.” • Seemingly, anyway. • If this is true, what determines your position?

  33. Excursus: Magic

  34. T H E E N D

More Related