Genesis 1-11 (Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture)

Rating:
Summary: A fine addition. . .
Review: . . .to the Ancient Christian Commentary series.

I have commented on other volumes in this series, and have not been uncritical when I felt that criticism was necessary. With "Genesis 1-11", the editors made a positive effort to provide "Ancient Christian" thought on this most difficult portion of Scripture. In addition, the decision by the General Editor(s) to divide Genesis into two volumes, using chapters 11 and 12 as the dividing points made a great deal of sense.

All in all, recommended.

Rating:
Summary: A fine addition. . .
Review: . . .to the Ancient Christian Commentary series.

I have commented on other volumes in this series, and have not been uncritical when I felt that criticism was necessary. With "Genesis 1-11", the editors made a positive effort to provide "Ancient Christian" thought on this most difficult portion of Scripture. In addition, the decision by the General Editor(s) to divide Genesis into two volumes, using chapters 11 and 12 as the dividing points made a great deal of sense.

All in all, recommended.

Rating:
Summary: excellent jumping off points
Review: This book provides very helpful starting points for further investigation for all of the audiences the editors target. To me, the prior review boils down to: "wish the editors had included more authors, more context, more critical comment on the ancient commentators and were willing to post caveats about how modern ecumenical and hisorical and critical approaches might make the reader think twice if she/he only knew".

I can't imagine the size of the volumes or the hopelessly ineffective lover of others or of God who would have the time to navel-gaze enough to read the volume (let alone the entire series). Except for the fact that I am an assistant pastor (though also an attorney), I don't believe I qualify for the target audience the previous reviewer suggests would adore this work...nevertheless I do, and the other Volumes in this series.

Rating:
Summary: excellent jumping off points
Review: This book provides very helpful starting points for further investigation for all of the audiences the editors target. To me, the prior review boils down to: "wish the editors had included more authors, more context, more critical comment on the ancient commentators and were willing to post caveats about how modern ecumenical and hisorical and critical approaches might make the reader think twice if she/he only knew".

I can't imagine the size of the volumes or the hopelessly ineffective lover of others or of God who would have the time to navel-gaze enough to read the volume (let alone the entire series). Except for the fact that I am an assistant pastor (though also an attorney), I don't believe I qualify for the target audience the previous reviewer suggests would adore this work...nevertheless I do, and the other Volumes in this series.

Rating:
Summary: Unfullfilled potential
Review: This unique commentary is hard to review. Judging by the general introduction, the editors of this series have many audiences and purposes in mind. I thus have much difficulty choosing which approach I should take. This volume fails in achieving any of these goals, making the task more difficult. I will attempt to use the stated goals of the general introduction and judge the commentary on those terms. However, even this is problematic because they often conflict.

The series has three audiences in mind: lay, pastoral, and academic. The very structure of the commentary ensures most lay readers are going to be left in the dark. General editor Thomas C. Oden wanted to avoid excessive commentary on the patristic writers. This is normally a commendable goal, but the almost total lack of context for the readings makes this work a mere cut and paste job. The overviews are worthless, and introductory material on the issues the commentators were facing would have better served the reader.

On the pastoral level, this commentary will serve well as a homiletic guide - if you are aligned with Evangelical thought. Fundamentalists will find the commentary on Genesis 1-3 in particular to be a godsend. Otherwise, it fails when it comes to the ecumenical intent of the series.

Other than alluding to "the merits of ancient versus modern methods of exegesis" (xxvi), the general editor does not say how academics are supposed to use the series. The selection method generally defeats most academic purposes. Except for making some previously untranslated texts available, this volume is useless for most academic purposes.

The editors of the series placed much stress on "consensual" (i.e., orthodox) readings. This immediately raises the question of whether the consensus is natural or imposed. In this volume, it seems more like the consensus was forced onto the ancient Christians. Finding disagreement, any disagreement, among the authors is the exception rather than the rule. Besides being historically incorrect (even among "orthodox" writers), it does a disservice to lay and academic audiences.

Illustrating the major schools would have been better. If space were a consideration, the editor could have combined some pericopes to eliminate redundant readings and skipped comments that did little more than restate the biblical text. Better yet, make the series a truly ancient Christian commentary by eliminating the strictly orthodox criteria. Give Origin his full due, especially if the editor is going to use a reading calling his thoughts "raving" (53). Let Tertullian comment on what the image of God means. If they are available, try to include heretics like Arius, Nestorius, and Sabellius.

Failing that, the editor could have done better simply by using a greater variety of authors. Louth uses selections from 45 different authors, but fully half the quotations come from Augustine, Ephrem the Syrian, and John Chrysostom. Add Ambrose and Basil the Great, and you have 65% of all the quotations used. Even granting other authors were not as prolific, I am struck with the apparent laziness of the editor here.

Without sharing the disdain for modern biblical criticism of the endorsers, the general editor, and the volume editor, I agree we need to reexamine ancient exegesis. The cantena method the series uses may yet provide the best means of doing this, but this volume is merely an illustration of how not to go about the task.