|
Journal of Hebrew Scriptures
- Volume 4 (2002-2003) - Review
David W. Cotter, Genesis (Berit Olam: Studies in Hebrew Narrative
and Poetry: Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2003). Pp. xxxviii,
366. ISBN 0-8146-5040-6. $49.95
This commentary on Genesis represents the most recent installment
in the Berit Olam series, which intends to provide a commentary
for laypersons, pastors, and scholars that elucidates the final
form of the Hebrew text, i.e. the Masoretic Text. In particular,
the emphasis is on understanding Genesis as narrative and a literary
unit, rather than addressing historical-critical issues. No rationale
is offered for choosing the Masoretic Text as the basis for the
series, nor is the dating of the so-called “final form” of the
text ever clearly defined. Some may view this as unnecessary,
but the present writer believes it is a position that requires
some defense unless the target audience (which is not the case)
are Jews.
As a literary entity the elements of plot that Cotter investigates
generally fall under the categories exposition, inciting moment,
complication, turning point, and resolution/ conclusion. Cotter also
devotes attention to developing the point of view and aspects of
characterization in the narrative. It is interesting to observe that
though Cotter notes that most literary structures originate in the
mind of the exegete rather than the text (p. xxi), the commentary
abounds in employing chiastic structures as a heuristic device.
Though there are useful discussions of the narrative and aspects
of characterization, one cannot help but be disappointed by the comments
on particular passages. In many places where one would expect an
extended dialogue there is a brief paragraph. For example, the discussion
of the plural “Let us make. . .” in Gen 1:26 receives all of six
sentences. After the reader is told “there is no good and entirely
convincing explanation for the plural,” the paragraph concludes with
the suggestion that God may be “speaking internally in a sort of
deliberative language” (p. 17). Likewise, the infamous “sons of God”
passage in 6:4 is treated in four sentences (p. 53). The Nephilim
are “fallen ones”. When one reads about the incident between Ham
and Noah, “It is not clear what the misdeed is,” but “it is clear
that slavery, servitude, is a result of sin and not intended by God”
(p. 63). Cotter cites Justin Martyr as the only authority to explain
why Canaan is cursed rather than Ham: “For the prophetic Spirit would
not curse that son himself, since he had already been blessed by
God.” Though the discussion of humankind being made in the image
of God is lengthier (pp. 21-22), it consists almost entirely of quotes
from Origen and Gregory of Nyssa. Cotter’s conclusion seems to agree
with Gregory who suggests that the image of God means “that he made
human nature participant in all good.”
The nature of the comments that we have included above exemplifies
why the target audience for this commentary is unclear to the present
reader. The discussion is inadequate for scholars and students. Difficult
issues garner minimal attention and footnotes are noticeably absent.
In addition, the narrative analysis is not consistent. For example,
what is the basis for his assertion that slavery is not intended
by God? The explanation for the curse of Canaan brushes aside any
attempt to treat the text as well as scholarly contributions. Such
comments may pass the layperson unnoticed, but apart from the aversion
to discussing critical issues there is little that commends this
commentary even to the non-specialist. For example, not only is there
little exploration of many interpretive problems, prominent features
of the narrative are neglected. The role and function of the genealogies
is basically ignored and the remaining tension in the narrative between
the role of Judah and Joseph at the end of Genesis is not even mentioned
(pp. 326-327).
Cotter desires to produce a commentary “engaged with the philosophical
realities of our day”. Yet, there is no discussion of the nature
or origin of sin in Gen 3 (p. 31), let alone a more abstract deliberation
about the possibility of establishing a created order with moral
beings without the presence of evil, or the tensions inherent in
ethical decisions in our day. Given Cotter’s fondness for citing
patristic writers, Augustine’s discussion of evil in The City of
God would have been very appropriate at that point in the commentary.
The commentary would be quite readable for a layperson and the narrative
analysis would be informative, but in other ways it is unhelpful
to them. Scholars will be disappointed and there are better examples
of literary studies for students. Thus, it is difficult to recommend
this commentary, because there is no area that it addresses that
would commend it to a particular audience.
R. Timothy McLay, St. Stephen’s University, St. Stephen, NB, Canada
|