I am considering Genesis: A Commentary by Bruce Watke. What can you tell me about Bruce Watke or specifically about this commentary. Does he adhere to the documentary hypothesis? What can I expect to find in this commentary?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Waltke
http://www.regentaudio.com/collections/bruce-waltke
http://bestcommentaries.com/book/3492/0310224586-genesis-a-commentary-bruce-k-waltke
Does he adhere to the documentary hypothesis?
I have this book and it looks like he rejects the documentary hypothesis, although he uses quite scholarly approach
https://www.logos.com/product/17273/genesis-a-commentary
I've gone through the book quite quickly, and he has an interesting approach, it is not just a standard commentary.
An example:
God’s Promise regarding the Universal Blessing (12:3)
3. I will bless … I will curse. This constructive “I” speech of God contrasts with the destructive “I” speech of humans (Gen. 3:10–13; 11:3–4). The extent of God’s gracious desire to bless rather than curse is indicated by the grammatical differences of the two phrases in Gen. 12:3. First, the statement is in a form indicating resolve (“I will bless”), intentioned toward plural recipients (“those who bless”). Second, it shifts to a simple statement of fact (“I shall curse”) and a singular recipient (“whoever curses”; see also 27:29; Num. 24:9).those who bless you. This refers to those who through prayer seek to mediate God’s blessing on this agent of blessing, Abraham, and his faithful descendants.19 Until Christ comes, Abraham and his descendants play a representative messianic role and prefigure Christ. The promise does not pertain today to unbelieving, ethnic “Israel” (see Rom. 9:6–8; Gal. 6:15) but to Jesus Christ and his church (see 12:7; 13:16 and notes; Gal. 3:16, 26–29; 6:16).will be blessed. The ambiguous Hebrew form could be reflexive: “will bless themselves by you.” The alternative rendering could mean that people will take Abraham’s blessing as the desired standard for their own blessing. It is sometimes argued that the verbal form in the parallel text of 22:18 must be reflexive, but it too can be passive or reflexive.20 The reflexive, however, could also mean that the nations bless themselves by mediating blessing through their prayers for Abraham. In that sense the meaning is not much different from the passive. In either case, God mediates his blessing to the nations through Abraham (see also Theological Reflections on Book 10, Act 4, Scene 2, “Blessing and Reciprocity”).21
The Journey from Haran to Canaan (12:4–5)
4. left. The first word describing Abraham’s response, hālak, “to go, walk,” matches the first verb of God’s command (12:1).as the LORD had told him. His “walk” is transformed from a migration to faith’s pilgrimage, looking for the heavenly city.Lot went with him.22 Unlike when Terah took Abraham and Lot with him, Lot agrees on his own to go with his uncle in his venture of faith. Abraham is not violating the command to go it alone.Seventy-five. Ten years beyond modern retirement, Abraham begins his new venture. The text blanks the reason for the decreasing life span after the Flood, declining from Arphaxad (438 years, 11:13) to Abraham (175 years, 25:7) to Jacob (147 years, 47:28) to Joseph (110 years, 50:22). By the time of Moses seventy or eighty years is normal (Ps. 90:10).5. He took. The change of verb indicates that Abraham takes responsibility for this entourage. They do not go against their will.they set out … they arrived. The Hebrew verbs yṣʾ, “to go forth,” and bôʾ, “to come, enter,” repeat 11:31. The first migration to Canaan under Terah failed. This one under God succeeds.
Waltke, B. K., & Fredricks, C. J. (2001). Genesis: a commentary (pp. 206–207). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
According to the Logos author page, Bruce Waltke (note the L in his name) taught as professor at many evangelical universities and was once president of ETS. This would probably mean that he is not adhering to the JEPD hypothesis, but rather coming from a conservative point of view.
Using the See Inside functionality on https://www.logos.com/product/17273/genesis-a-commentary (and the same feature on Amazon.com) will give a brief insight into the text of the book. What I saw seems to go along with a view that leans toward Mosaic authorship and a belief that the accounts told of Abraham etc. are factual events.
Looking around there are quite a number of reviews out there - see e.g. http://bestcommentaries.com/book/3492/0310224586-genesis-a-commentary-bruce-k-waltke - I found the text of Beeke's review most striking:
Hebrew and Old Testament expert Bruce Waltke looks at the book of Genesis as a work of theological literature. Thus, he focuses on primary aspects of the story (narrative), including characterization, plot, theme, scene, structure, foreshadowing and irony, and balances these issues with an emphasis on the theology of Genesis which both shapes and is shaped by the narrative. He looks at the ten divine initiatives in salvation history, each delineated by a “toledot” heading (“the account of the line of…”) followed by a transitional linkage. Waltke interprets the text using twelve levels of signification (sounds, syllables, words, phrases, clauses, sentences, frames/speeches, scene parts or incidents, scenes or episodes, acts or phases, sections/cycles, book/composition), and takes the best of form, source, narrative and literary criticism to offer readers one of the best looks at the theological and literary value of Genesis, the book of beginnings.
One thing to be seen (e.g. in some Amazon reviews) is that Waltke does not think Gen 1 claims a 6*24 hours creation, thus he gets bad reviews by Young-Earth-Creatonists for this.
Hope this helps
Waltke is solid. I would recommend his Genesis work!
What can you tell me about Bruce Watke
The first thing I know about him is, his last name has an L in it (Waltke, not Watke).
Second, he is reformed (Anglican), formerly of Westminster Seminary. He resigned from that institution when he began advocating evolution, which he did once he became affiliated with Biologos. He rejects YEC directly (so in my mind, he's gone over to the dark side).
The big question is, what did he believe and when did he believe it? In other words, I don't know if some of his older work is tainted by Darwinian views or not. He was certainly well-respected in reformed circles. But then, contemporary reformed theology is often very comfortable with quite a range of views on the two ends of the theological spectrum (creation and eschatology).
I think Watke's Commentary on Genesis is some of his best work. I do not have it in Logos format, and am very tempted by this offer. But I really don't need to make more book purchases now. Get behind me devil, and push!
I think Watke has much to say worth hearing in this commentary. It is some of his best work. And this recommendation is from a Wesleyan Arminian, while Watke is a Calvinist. I am very open minded that way, you know.
Available Now
Build your biblical library with a new trusted commentary or resource every month. Yours to keep forever.
