This book provided a concise and accurate summary of the bible, emphasizing a narrative backbone connecting the story from start to finish. What would have strengthened the book, in my opinion, are more references and sources apart from the Bible to support 1) the historical accounts and 2)interpretations of scripture that are counter-cultural within both secular and Christian worldviews.
------
A few examples where I found myself wanting a more thorough explanation or external references
On page 14-15, the authors state, “Genesis 1:26-28 has become notorious among some environmentalists who believe this teaching has been used to justify much of the environmental destruction characterizing the modern world. This passage, however, clearly identifies humankind’s vocation of domination not as tyrannical exploitation of nature but as caring stewardship. [...] It is impossible to read this as suggesting that humans are free to do what they like with God's workmanship.”
I think what threw me off was the tone created through the words, "clearly" and "impossible." This tone is directly in contrast to what they stated; not only is it possible to interpret the passage differently, they have stated that this passage is notorious, meaning common or frequent, for people interpreting it contrary to what they believe. For such a strong sentiment, the evidence they provided that it should be read in accordance to their viewpoint felt insufficient. Even if I agreed with their perspective, I do not feel I was given enough of a foundation to explain this interpretation to those who may be skeptical.
On page 10, they state, “In order to understand the Genesis account of creation, we must understand something about the kind of writing it is. Scholars themselves have a hard time describing this, but they agree that the story told in the first chapters of Genesis has been very carefully crafted.” There were no sources provided for the scholars they referenced and at the end of this section, I was unsure what they wanted me to understand about the “kind of writing [Genesis] is.”
Another example is on page 8, “Though some aspects of the creation stories in Genesis 1 and 2 may seem strange to us, we need to remember that they made perfect sense to the people of Israel when they first heard them.” The authors elaborate by stating this account was intended to contrast with other origin stories of the world, specifically those that include multiple gods associated with the fertility of the land, the sun and the moon, and who made humans to be servants. At the end of this section, I was unsure what parts of the creation story they were assuming felt “strange” to modern readers. I was unconvinced that it would have made “perfect sense” to the people of Israel, not because I disagree but because I wasn’t sure why it was assumed that it wouldn’t make sense nor what about the early Israelites’ beliefs or customs would have negated the assumed confusion for modern readers.
On page 15, they state that “we ‘image’ God in his creation as we develop its potential and cultivate its possibilities in agriculture, art, music, commerce, politics, scholarship, family, life, sports, leisure, and so on, in ways that honor God.”
While I believe strongly that our faith impacts many facets of our internal lives as well as greater society, this is an interpretation, albeit well documented, that is not accepted by all Christians; there are some who believed we should be reject or be isolated from many elements of culture or that our primary role should be evangelism above all else. I was disappointed to not see a more thorough explanation or at least reference to the many resources that support this perspective.
Based on the little that I know about these authors, they have done the scholarly work to support their historical narrative and theological perspective. This could mean they intentionally left out references to make the text more accessible or less overwhelming or that they believed their intended audience shared their belief and had a solid foundation to support their beliefs.
Regardless, I would have preferred references or more context for both the concepts with which I agree and towards which I am skeptical.