What do you think?
Rate this book
Genesis 1-11: Tales of the Earliest World
This book invites readers to reconsider what they think they know about the opening chapters of the Book of Genesis, from the creation of the world, through the Garden of Eden, Cain and Abel, the Flood, and the Tower of Babel, to the introduction of Abraham. Edwin M. Good offers a new translation of and literary commentary on these chapters, approaching the material as an ancient Hebrew book. Rather than analyzing the chapters in light of any specific religious position, he is interested in what the stories say and how they work as stories, indications in them of their origins as orally performed and transmitted, and how they do and do not connect with one another. Everyone, from those intimately familiar with Genesis to those who have never read it before, will find something new in Genesis 1-11: Tales of the Earliest World .
140 pages, Paperback
First published August 29, 2011
1 person is currently reading
12 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
February 1, 2019
As someone who know next to nothing about Biblical studies, I find this translation with commentaries / essays extremely helpful, somewhat funny (lame dad-jokes kind of funny, but that’s adorable in itself...), and thought-provoking.
The Hebrew Bible is so foreign, so strange to me, without the contexts and comments, it’s hard to pick up any sort of interesting points from a seemingly random list of names, or genealogy. This book definitely made me want to read more of the Hebrew Bible, in fact I’m now anxious that I will have to read on without his notes on syntax, puns, word roots, rhyme scheme, prose/poetry structure, ambiguity, translation considerations, etc etc.
The Hebrew Bible is so foreign, so strange to me, without the contexts and comments, it’s hard to pick up any sort of interesting points from a seemingly random list of names, or genealogy. This book definitely made me want to read more of the Hebrew Bible, in fact I’m now anxious that I will have to read on without his notes on syntax, puns, word roots, rhyme scheme, prose/poetry structure, ambiguity, translation considerations, etc etc.
October 16, 2023
As the section of the Bible being considered is familiar to many of us, the book would have us read it with “fresh eyes.” An aim of the author is to “read it with as much attention as I can” and to persuade his readers to do the same. He is successful in this regard. His system of offering his own translation of the text and then commenting on it effectively helps the reader to consider the text section by section. He succeeds in prompting the reader’s reflection because some of his translation is not what we are used to, and especially because his observations and conclusions differ from what many of us commonly understand. The translation he presents is not altogether alien, of course. Some of the names are transliterated more closely than in common English translations in order to show their linguistic features. "Elohim” is used instead of “God” in order to show that the word “Elohim” is plural. Similarly, “Eve” is translated “Chavah” because of the wordplay which appears in the original Hebrew. This wordplay is then explained.
This book purports to discuss the text from a literary perspective rather than a theological perspective. While the author is aware that the snake in chapter 3 is commonly considered to be Satan, he helpfully points out that this is a theological conclusion, and not one demanded by the text. The original readers of Genesis did not have the Christian concept of Satan. Similarly, Mr. Good insists that it was the “wind” of God and not his “spirit” which swept across the waters in Genesis 1:2. He calls the translation as “spirit” a product of later “Trinitarian theology.” He further states that the author of Genesis and his readers did not have a concept of monotheism, nor did they understand God to be omnipotent or omniscient. These concepts were developed later; we do well to be able to read Genesis in the way it would have been understood by its original audience.
A strength of the book is the depth of its discussion of the Hebrew text. It points out that the “lightgivers” in Genesis 1:16ff are called this because, while Hebrew has words for “sun” and “moon”, these terms considered by the surrounding nations to be the names of deities. Calling them “sun” and “moon” might have been references to these gods rather than the heavenly bodies. The book further points out that the lesser “lightgiver” could rule the night because the ancients did not know that the moon does not produce its own light. Mr. Good points out that the word commonly translated “ark” is also used for the vessel in which baby Moses was placed, and that the wood used in the ark, “gopher wood,” is unknown. The wood translated “gopher” resembles word for “cypress” but not closely enough to satisfy the author.
A weakness in Good’s view of Genesis is that it has little tolerance for omission or ambiguity. For example, it takes issue with Cain’s complaint that whoever finds him may kill him, when at this point in the narrative there are only three known people on earth. Good thus does not account for the possibility that there may have been others alive at this time whose births were not recorded. Similarly, he points out that God’s rejection of Cain’s sacrifice seems unfair. He does not consider that information which may seem needed by us was simply not recorded; it may have been understood differently by the original audience.
Mr. Good may also have a deficient understanding of some aspects of the Hebrew text. He refers to the tempter in the garden as “only a snake and not the devil,” although other commentators have described the Hebrew word as being more akin to a dragon, sea monster, or behemoth. He is either not aware of this aspect of the word or chooses not to comment on it. In the account of the tower of Babel he considers the word “migdol” to designate a defensive structure rather than a temple. Other scholars insist that the word applies to a ziggurat, if not specifically the temple of Marduk.
The book is organized well, however and is easy to read. Its conversational tone is achieved without being overly wordy. The book succeeds in its objective of spurring further reflection on familiar material, even though some of the author’s objections to traditional interpretations may not be warranted.
This book purports to discuss the text from a literary perspective rather than a theological perspective. While the author is aware that the snake in chapter 3 is commonly considered to be Satan, he helpfully points out that this is a theological conclusion, and not one demanded by the text. The original readers of Genesis did not have the Christian concept of Satan. Similarly, Mr. Good insists that it was the “wind” of God and not his “spirit” which swept across the waters in Genesis 1:2. He calls the translation as “spirit” a product of later “Trinitarian theology.” He further states that the author of Genesis and his readers did not have a concept of monotheism, nor did they understand God to be omnipotent or omniscient. These concepts were developed later; we do well to be able to read Genesis in the way it would have been understood by its original audience.
A strength of the book is the depth of its discussion of the Hebrew text. It points out that the “lightgivers” in Genesis 1:16ff are called this because, while Hebrew has words for “sun” and “moon”, these terms considered by the surrounding nations to be the names of deities. Calling them “sun” and “moon” might have been references to these gods rather than the heavenly bodies. The book further points out that the lesser “lightgiver” could rule the night because the ancients did not know that the moon does not produce its own light. Mr. Good points out that the word commonly translated “ark” is also used for the vessel in which baby Moses was placed, and that the wood used in the ark, “gopher wood,” is unknown. The wood translated “gopher” resembles word for “cypress” but not closely enough to satisfy the author.
A weakness in Good’s view of Genesis is that it has little tolerance for omission or ambiguity. For example, it takes issue with Cain’s complaint that whoever finds him may kill him, when at this point in the narrative there are only three known people on earth. Good thus does not account for the possibility that there may have been others alive at this time whose births were not recorded. Similarly, he points out that God’s rejection of Cain’s sacrifice seems unfair. He does not consider that information which may seem needed by us was simply not recorded; it may have been understood differently by the original audience.
Mr. Good may also have a deficient understanding of some aspects of the Hebrew text. He refers to the tempter in the garden as “only a snake and not the devil,” although other commentators have described the Hebrew word as being more akin to a dragon, sea monster, or behemoth. He is either not aware of this aspect of the word or chooses not to comment on it. In the account of the tower of Babel he considers the word “migdol” to designate a defensive structure rather than a temple. Other scholars insist that the word applies to a ziggurat, if not specifically the temple of Marduk.
The book is organized well, however and is easy to read. Its conversational tone is achieved without being overly wordy. The book succeeds in its objective of spurring further reflection on familiar material, even though some of the author’s objections to traditional interpretations may not be warranted.
March 15, 2024
I'm giving this book a four, not because I greatly agreed with all of the conclusions but because it was a real joy to read, as you might expect of a work from a professor emeritus at an institution like Stanford.
A quippy, sharp discussion of Genesis (with interesting translation included) that will make you smirk and yet contemplate the questions and comments.
Interesting and informative, though not exactly what I was looking for in terms of 'answers'.
A quippy, sharp discussion of Genesis (with interesting translation included) that will make you smirk and yet contemplate the questions and comments.
Interesting and informative, though not exactly what I was looking for in terms of 'answers'.
June 17, 2014
This book actually probably deserves four stars, but for me, coming from a liberal Jewish tradition where I've studied these chapters every year for the past 20 years, at least, there wasn't much new information, although some of his translations, and his explanations for his choices, were quite interesting. However, I would highly recommend it as a fresh new perspective for someone who doesn't have that background.
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews