This collection of essays, edited by Kyle Greenwood offers readers historical perspective on how the early chapters of Genesis have been understood. This is no small task, and almost certainly needed to be a group effort. Very few individuals would be qualified to discuss in detail the history of interpretation of a given passage, much less chapters like Genesis 1-2.
In Since The Beginning, which I was able to read thanks to Baker Academic, each of the 10 authors is tasked with addressing four specific interpretive issues. These are relative to the historical era they are highlighting, and are as follows:
- Days of creation
- Cosmology
- Creation and nature of humanity
- Garden of Eden
Each chapter offers a summary statement and suggestions for further reading, making this an excellent resource for an extended study of the history of interpretation.
The book begins with Greenwood’s essay on the Old Testament “reverberations” of Genesis 1-2. Before getting to the chapter on New Testament, there is an essay on Second Temple Jewish readings of Genesis 1-2. After the New Testament chapter, there is an essay on early rabbinic interpretations. This serves as a healthy reminder that when we think of Genesis 1-2 (or any part of the Old Testament), we (meaning Christians) are not the only interested interpreters.
The next five chapters take us through the history of interpretation, starting with the early church fathers in chapter 5. The latter church fathers are covered in chapter 6, while chapters 7 and 8 look at medieval interpretations. There are two so that the Jewish perspective in the middle ages can be included. Chapter 9 then looks at Reformation era readings of Genesis 1-2.
The final two chapters skip ahead historically into more contemporary concerns. First, there is a chapter on the impact that ancient Near East (ANE) discoveries have had on reading these Genesis 1-2. Then, there is a chapter on reading in a post-Darwinian era. One could argue we shouldn’t re-read Genesis 1-2 in light of the rise of Darwinian evolution. However, as one reads the previous chapters, it is rather obvious there is not a monolithic understanding of Genesis 1-2 that was somehow toppled by the science of our day.
On the other hand, one should bear in mind that the history of interpretation doesn’t determine the “right” way to take a given passage. This is part of the tension of being part of a religious tradition that is “reformed and always reforming.” A passage always having been understood a certain way doesn’t mean it has to always be read that way moving forward. The corollary is that a new interpretation is not necessarily wrong.
In a sense then, both the revisionist accounts that want to read Genesis 1-2 in light of ANE comparative studies and evolution as well as young earth creationist readings are “new” readings. There is perhaps more of a precedence for the latter, but it is hardly the standard accepted reading across the history of the church.
Reading Genesis 1-2 in light of science is a very modern approach, regardless of whether one is reading to confirm the young earth creationist account or reconcile the text with Darwinian evolution. I would suggest both of those readings may miss the literal meaning of the text, and an historical survey like this can serve as a good explanation why.