If you have lost touch with the Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture series published by Baker Academic, they are two years into publishing commentary volumes on books from the Old Testament. In 2024 the volumes of Wisdom and Ezekiel were published, followed by a commentary on Sirach which was released last year. This spring we welcomed the Genesis volume of the CCSS from the pen of Dr. Mary Healy, one of the series editors. Weighing in at almost 450 pages, this work falls in line with the rest of the series as a great first (or only) commentary on the book, written in an engaging style which is welcoming to the beginner, but with enough meat for someone ready for an intermediate resource.
For those who have not spent time in one of these volumes, they contain the full biblical text of the book. (The New Testament releases in the CCSS contained the NAB text, whereas the Old Testament releases use the RSV-2CE.) Commentary appears in paragraph form, with Biblical text appearing in bold. If you appreciate the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible notes, you will surely feel at home with the tone and tenor of the commentaries. They do not read the book in isolation from the rest of the canon, nor do they comment on the book in mode separate from Christian faith.
Many sections feature a Reflection and Application heading, followed by one or more paragraphs of accessible insight for modern readers. One example provides the biblical background for the Church’s stance on surrogacy, placed after Sarah gives Abraham her servant Hagar.
Readers familiar with the New Testament volumes will remember the Biblical Background boxes, providing historical background on things like polygamy, the concept of the elect in the Scriptures, and parallel flood stories from other cultures. The Living Tradition boxes are back too. In these, we get selections of patristic commentaries on the text. The Fathers were at their most audacious commenting on the Old Testament, and so these boxes caught my interest even more than they did in the New Testament commentaries.
The Old Testament volumes also contain boxes labeled In the Light of Christ, which contain typological interpretations of the text, as well as tips on how to read the sometimes lurid and violent stories of Genesis as a Christian. (Genesis is actually one of the books the Rule of Saint Benedict says ought not be read in the monks cells before bed.)
The format of the Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture series, with the commentary appearing in paragraph form while the chapter and verse number is only listed a few times a page, favors a reader who will work through the entire book. Skimming is difficult in this format. If you are looking for comments on a single verse, you will be able to quickly find the section of pages where this verse is commented upon, but you will need to hunt out the information you need in the midst of a paragraph. These books were certainly meant to be read cover to cover, rather than pulled off the shelf to be referenced. If you have ever looked into a volume of the Anchor Bible Commentary or the Sacra Pagina series, you know how easy it is to find comments on a particular verse, but you also know that this format can be much harder on the eyes and mind if you are trying to read an entire commentary. There are certainly costs and benefits to each format. I can say that I was able to devour this commentary over about a week and a half, usually while my five month old daughter was napping on my chest.
As one can imagine, writing on Genesis requires one to comment on texts that have been the scene of much controversy in the last two centuries: the Creation, the Flood, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, and some of the most infamous sins of the Bible. Dr. Healy’s commentary mainly could be described as intelligently defending the text. In one example, in line with some evangelical scholars, she calls into question the common claim that domesticated camels are an anachronism in the text. There is a text box on Creation and evolution that walks the line, but probably is enough to leave both traditionalists and proponents of theistic evolution less than satisfied.
On the whole I think this is a great resource that comes from the center of the Church. Whether you are an enthusiast for academic Biblical commentaries or will not have a NABRE in your house because of the critical notes, you will find lots in Dr. Healy’s book. It strikes me that I do not hear the first reading commented on enough at Mass. I hope that this work, which seems to be one of the pillars of the whole series, will be helpful to those who teach and preach in the Church.
Baker Academic was kind enough to send me a copy of this book, and also connected me with Dr. Mary Healy so I could ask her some questions and share the conversation with you fine readers.
Q&A with Dr. Mary Healy
(Questions are in italics and Dr. Healy’s answers are in normal text)
Thank you so much for taking part in this conversation! Your commentary on Genesis is the fourth Old Testament commentary released as part of the Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture. I understand you have been part of this project since its inception and wrote the volumes for Mark and Hebrews. How has it been to serve as editor and writer on such an important and much needed project?
It’s been a great privilege and blessing… and far more work than I ever thought possible. My colleague Peter Williamson and I have been working on this series for more than 20 years now, collaborating with an outstanding group of authors as well as our new co-editor Mark Giszczak. Because the series is a genre of commentary that has been virtually absent from the Catholic world (though very common in the Protestant world), we have needed to coach many of our authors to explain the biblical text in a way that is well-researched yet accessible, that demonstrates a robust hermeneutic of faith, and that is sensitive to the spiritual and pastoral implications of the biblical text for readers. The feedback we’ve received from readers, both clergy and lay people, has made it all more than worthwhile.
The New Testament volumes of the Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture contained text from the New American Bible, whereas for the Old Testament the series has moved to the second Catholic edition of the RSV. As one of the editors, what went into making that change?
There were two primary reasons. First, we knew the US bishops were planning to issue a revised edition of the NABRE, both Old and New Testaments, so the edition used for our first few volumes would quickly become obsolete. (Since then, the bishops’ plans changed and the new edition will contain only a revised NT.) Secondly, the RSV-2CE is much more consistent in translating Hebrew terms with the same English terms, though certainly not as consistent as it could be. We didn’t want our commentaries to be taken up with constantly needing to show how two or more different words in the English are actually the same word in Hebrew.
While the RSV-2CE text is present in full, you are not shy about proposing alternate translations from time to time; whether it be a more fitting rendering from the ESV or NABRE or even one of your own. How frequently do the writers in this series delve into the original language text in the process of writing?
Our hope is that all our authors read the entire book they’re commenting on in the original language. As for providing alternate translations for a particular word or phrase, that is left mostly up to the discretion of each author, but we do encourage them to do it from time to time, so readers get a sense of how supple the Hebrew language is and how the same word or phrase can sometimes be translated in wildly different ways. And sometimes a particular rendering brings a flash of insight into the meaning of the text.
I have a great love for the NABRE as a translation, but I have wondered for years how the very beginning of Genesis will sound when the 2011 Old Testament finds its way into the American Lectionary. In your commentary you give a strong defense of the traditional renderings of the first two verses of the Sacred Scriptures. Can you summarize for our readers your best argument why “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” is preferable to “In the beginning, when…” and why “Spirit of God” is to be preferred over “a mighty wind”?
Sure. As I mention in my commentary, there are strong reasons to take Genesis 1:1 as a complete sentence, not just a dependent clause. If it is only a dependent clause (“In the beginning, when…”), then Genesis is affirming only that God organized chaotic matter that already existed. Yet throughout the Bible the verb “create” (Hebrew bara) has only God as its subject, and God is never said to “create” from preexisting material. Ancient translations and interpreters all take Genesis 1:1 as a full sentence, including the Gospel of John, which echoes Genesis in its opening line, “In the beginning was the Word.”
As for “a mighty wind” (ruach Elohim in Hebrew) that rendering takes the word Elohim (literally, “God”) as merely expressing a superlative, as it does in a few biblical texts such as Gen 23:6; Jon 3:3. But that is not likely the intent of Genesis 1, since elsewhere in the chapter Elohim clearly refers to God. And in the next occurrence of the phrase, Exodus 31:3, Bezalel is filled with “the Spirit of God” who empowers him to build the tabernacle; in Genesis God is the divine artisan who builds the cosmos as a great tabernacle. There are other more detailed arguments that could be given; for instance, grammatically, even though the Hebrew phrase “In the beginning” lacks an article, words of time can sometimes used in an absolute sense without the article (e.g., Prov 8:32; Isa 46:10).
Commenting on Genesis is not for the faint of heart! This book is often a battleground between faith and the scientific method, but also faith and the modern practice of history as a social science. You had to touch on evolution, the historicity of the Flood, competing proposed dates of the domestication of the camel, and the identity of the Middle Kingdom Pharaoh who employed Joseph. What would you tell someone who thinks that modern science and history have disproved large chunks of the Genesis narrative?
This is a big question that cannot be answered briefly! But in general, wherever there is an apparent discrepancy between what we think science shows—keeping in mind that “science” is far less monolithic than is often claimed—and what we think the biblical text means, we are either misreading the Bible or misreading the scientific evidence, or both.
Regarding history, we have to keep in mind that the Bible (including Genesis) includes a wide variety of literary genres (poetry, prophecy, prayer, and so on), not all of which are intended to relate historical facts. Even when ancient writers did recount events, they were less concerned with factual precision in the modern sense and more concerned with what the events they described revealed about God (or the gods) and man.
You are a bit more open to what I might call a pre-critical interpretation of aspects of Genesis than many scholars. You do not dismiss the long lifespans of the patriarchal age out of hand, for instance. You even propose a few explanations for Jacob’s use of those partially de-barked tree branches to raise up speckled and splotched livestock for himself that do not involve dismissal of the story as based on magical thinking. What advice would you give a reader who finds it difficult to follow you down this “pre-critical” path?
I would not call this type of inquiry pre-critical, since there are plenty of modern biblical scholars who similarly look for various plausible explanations of what the text says within its ancient cultural milieu. Sometimes we are too quick to dismiss ancient writers as superstitious or credulous, when there is in fact a rational basis for what they claim. To dismiss as impossible any interpretations that do not fit our own experience of the world would in fact be insufficiently “critical.” Similarly, to dismiss out of hand any account of miracles or other interventions of God in the world is to import one’s own bias into the text.
To the great delight of the writers on this blog, you don’t spend very much time at all speculating which section was written by J or E or P or D. Is the 20th century mania for cutting up books and theorizing sources over? Are there any insights from source criticism that are useful to the intelligent and educated reader of the Scriptures?
It is by no means over, but today such theories are usually proposed in a more sober and cautious way than they were in the past. In my own approach, I found that the theological richness, coherence and depth of the text of Genesis can be brought out without making use of the Documentary Hypothesis (J, E, P, D). Yes, there are indeed insights from source criticism, but the problem is that they are based on hypotheses and therefore will always remain tentative and subject to revision.
Your commentary is very strong on showing that Genesis often follows a laconic “show, don’t tell” method of moral instruction. In the Abraham cycle, we see the patriarch bring Lot along with him on his journey, go to Egypt, and have a child with Hagar. Each of these events births its own consequences, some instant and some that will echo through the centuries. We see the same dynamic, I think, with the stories about David from the books of Samuel and Kings. Where else in the Scriptures might the novice reader not realize the Bible is teaching them through cause and effect, and not direct words of exhortation?
This restraint is characteristic of biblical writing, and it applies throughout most of the Old Testament historical books and even the Gospels. For instance, the Gospels pronounce no moral judgment on Herod Antipas for his vile act of beheading John the Baptist, but the reader can easily infer that judgment from the fifth commandment and the whole of Scripture.
I love to study the Bible, and spend more time with Genesis than many books, but I never once made the connection that when Rebecca arrives, Isaac is pacing around at the site of Hagar’s rescue. I also never realized how much Abraham overpaid for the plot of land that became the burial site of the Patriarchs. What resources would help the average reader of the Scriptures get properly acquainted with the geographical and cultural background to properly interpret these ancient stories?
Of course, it’s no surprise that I recommend the Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture! It’s for reasons like this that we created the series. Other books like the Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary, Behind the Scenes of the Old Testament, The World of the New Testament, and similar books can also be really helpful.
Studying the Bible is a professional matter for you in a way that it is not for most of the readers of this blog. Tell us about what personal time with the Bible you have. Do you pray with Scripture? What translations and resources do you find helpful to use?
Absolutely! If I did not pray with Scripture and listen to the voice of God through it, I would have nothing worthwhile to offer. I spend time every morning in the Word, sometimes reading the readings for daily Mass, sometimes going through a particular book or following a theme. My favorite translations are the RSV2CE and the ESV, but I often look at the NABRE as well. But of course, whenever there’s a question or a curious turn of phrase, I prefer looking at the original Hebrew and Greek.