Abstract
This is the fifth volume edited by Menken and Moyise in the series The New Testament and the Scriptures of Israel. Previous volumes have assessed the use of the following scriptural texts in the New Testament: Psalms (2004); Isaiah (2005); Deuteronomy (2007); and the Minor Prophets (2012). Tackling Genesis creates different analytical problems, as well as presenting fresh exegetical opportunity. The foundational nature of its account of human origins means that many of its stories were not only widespread, but had been repackaged in various textual forms and hence could circulate without reference to their original literary contexts. Therefore, reference to a character or an incident first known from the Genesis story does not necessarily mean that the New Testament author is citing or alluding to Genesis directly. Admittedly this problem is not totally unique to Genesis, but it probably occurs to a greater degree in relation to this foundational text.
After the editorial introduction the book comprises ten chapters. The first, by Jacques van Ruiten, treats some of the issues mentioned above by looking at the ways in which Genesis was appropriated and repackaged in certain Second Temple Jewish texts. He considers the adaptability of the text in terms of it being rewritten in works such as Jubilees and the Genesis Apocryphon. He also considers the ways in which biblical figures are ‘recycled’ in various apocalypses or testamentary literature of the period. The second, and subsequent chapters focus on New Testament texts. Ahearne-Kroll considers Mark’s Gospel. He notes that there are only two direct quotations, Gen 1.27 in Mk 10.6 and Gen 2.24 in Mk 10.7. In addition he points to major allusions to Genesis in the text of Mark. The first example is the use of Gen 22 (the Aqedah) in Mk 1.11; 9.7; 12.6, and perhaps 14.36 (see pp. 27-30). The first case is connected, according to Ahearne-Kroll, by the terminology ‘beloved son’. While he acknowledges that Ps 2.7 is taken as the main referent, he considers LXX Gen 22.2, 12, and 16 to be likely referents as well. Here one must pause and consider whether this is probable. Obviously a text can have multiple intertextual referents. There have been other possibly echoes detected here with texts such as Jer 31:20 and Isa 42.1, to mention just two. Given that Ps 2.7 already contains the term ‘son’, what weight can be given to the suggestion that the phrase ‘beloved son’ is interwoven with the language of the Psalm? Ahearne-Kroll appeals to the sacrificial overtones later in the gospel story. However Mark does not appear to exploit such overtones at this stage in his gospel. There is indeed a danger of loading the baptism story with sacrificial overtones when these are not intended, and thereby distorting the christological emphasis Mark is wishing to communicate. Next Brown looks at Genesis in Matthew. She sees Gen 38.8 clearly cited in Mt 22.24, whereas Ahearne-Kroll refutes that the parallel passage in Mk 12.18-19 cites, or even alludes to Gen 38.8. This discrepancy highlights the subjectivity involved in determining citations and allusions. In chapter six David Lincicum brings readers back to firmer ground treating the use of Genesis in the undisputed Pauline letters. He comes to the conclusion that ‘Paul has read and listened to Genesis intently, pondering not simply individual verses or pithy phrases, but its narrative elements in particular’ (p. 116). Aageson treats the deutero-Pauline letters. In relation to Colossians he picks up only the phrase ‘according to the image of the one who created him’ (Col 3.10) as an echo of LXX Gen 1.26-27 ‘and God made man, according to the image of God he made him.’ There is obviously a connection here, and it appears that the author of Colossians intended to evoke the creation story. Aagerson, however, does not reference the works of Fee, Beale, and most surprisingly Beetham’s monograph Echoes of Scripture in the Letter of Paul to the Colossians (Brill, 2008). The remaining essays, Docherty on Hebrews (pp. 130-146), Allen on James, 1&2 Peter and Jude (pp. 147-165), and Moyise on Revelation (pp. 166-179) are all much stronger.
In the end this collection is very much a mixed bag. There is little here that clarifies broader methodological questions, although the first chapter reveals some of the complexifying factors. Some of the individual contributions will repay careful interaction.