Discipleship
Southwestern Journal of Theology
Volume 50, No. 2 - Spring 2008
Managing Editor: Malcolm B. Yarnell III
By C. John Collins. Phillipsburg: P&R, 2006. 318 pages. Softcover, $17.99.
Passionate discussion is once again taking place regarding the nature of Scripture and what is meant by inerrancy. Much of this discussion has been generated by Peter Enns’s book Inspiration and Incarnation and Greg Beale’s rigorous interaction with some of Enns’s troubling claims. A good portion of the disagreement centers on the extent to which the Old Testament reflects ancient Near Eastern assumptions and how the world picture the Bible generates should be conceived given what modern sci- ence tells us about the universe. John Collins did not intend to engage the Enns-Beale debate, but his book is nevertheless a timely contribution to the discussion.
Collins is uniquely suited to write this volume, having a background in science from Massachusets Institute of Technology. Now a professor of Old Testament at Covenant Seminary in St. Louis, Collins addresses linguistic, literary, historical, and scientific questions in this thorough study of Genesis 1–4. Collins’s first two chapters set out his methodology and rationale, aiming at “ancient literary competence.” The reader is introduced to “A Discourse-Oriented Literary Approach,” which is how Collins de- scribes the method he employs in analyzing the text as well as the criteria he uses to evaluate interpretative options.
Having set forth his methodology, Collins first takes up Genesis 1–4 in its literary context, then discusses the creation week (Gen 1:1–2:3), the garden of Eden (2:4–25), the Fall (3:1–24), and what takes place after Eden (4:1–26). This section of the book is a commentary on the text—not arguing a thesis but discussing the text according to the methodology Col- lins set forth. Interspersed are extra notes on many points of interest, such as the nature of death in Genesis 2:17, the location of Eden, and whether Genesis 3:15 is a protoevangelium. Collins also traces reverberations of these texts through the Old Testament and into the New Testament. Having thoroughly discussed Genesis 1–4, Collins turns to the question of sources, unity, and authorship. He concludes that Genesis 1–11 is a unified composition that fits best with the ancient claim of Mosaic authorship.
Collins then argues in chapter 9 that the communicative purpose of Genesis 1–4 is to set forth the worldview that undergirds the religion of the Pentateuch (244). Chapter 10 takes up historical and scientific issues, and it is here that Collins’s work contributes to the Enns-Beale discus- sion: “the worldview is intended to be normative, while the world picture need not be; by this distinction I, as a modern who accepts contemporary cosmology as part of my world picture, can share a worldview with some ancient whose world picture involved a stationary earth with an orbit- ing sun” (262). At the same time, Collins emphasizes the importance of understanding phenomenological language and suggests that the world picture described in the Bible might not be as different from our own as some, such as Peter Enns and Paul Seely, suggest. Collins argues against the view that “the water under the earth” (Exod. 20:4) refers to a subter- ranean ocean (264), and asserts, “There is no evidence that the ‘expanse’ . . . must be describing a solid canopy as a physical entity; it is enough to take it as if the sky were such” (264, emphasis his). For Collins, “it may well be that some biblical statements reflect a world picture that we cannot share—say, on the size of the earth, or that the moon is a lamp rather than a reflector. But this does not mean that the world picture is part of the message being communicated” (265). These considerations are significant contributions to the ongoing discussion of the relationship between the inerrancy of the Bible and modern science.
This book furthers our understanding of Genesis 1–4 and those wrestling with the relationship between science and the Bible will benefit from what Collins says in this and other volumes. Less satisfactory is Col- lins’ methodology, with particular reference to his appeals to interpretive criteria and discourse analysis. Many of Collins’ conclusions are derived from considerations not set forth in his methodological discussion. For all the focus on the science of interpretation, Collins also practices it as an art. This is not to take issue with the artistic aspects of interpretation, traditional hermeneutics, or with coming to interpretive conclusions based on criteria that are not articulated. It is to insist that interpretation is both a science and an art. That being said, the importance of the subject matter, the quality of Collins’s work, and the timeliness of this contribution make this a valuable volume.
