The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate
by John H. Walton
List Price:
Our Price: $8.43
You Save: $7.57 (47%)
Availability: Usually ships in 24 hours
Buy Used: from $6.02 (click here)
Category: Book
See more book details and other editions
Book Summary Information
Author: John H. WaltonEdition: Paperback
Audio: English (Unknown); English (Original Language); English (Published)
Published: 2009-05-22
ISBN: 0830837043
Number of pages: 192
Publisher: IVP Academic
Book Reviews of The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate
Book Review: Allows for Simple Complexity in the Origins Debate
Summary: 5 Stars
Your first question is most likely, why did I ask for this book? Well, to be honest, while I was reading James McGrath's book, The Only True God, he mentioned a connection between monotheism and the act of Creation. While I am always, at some level, a literal creationist, I find the idea of mixing science and theology a bit troubling. The Bible is the word of God and has the charge to reveal to us those things about God which we cannot discern from nature (Romans 1.20; 2nd Timothy 3.15-16).
Frankly, I think that merely accepting the Six Day principle of Genesis 1 causes us to miss some of the deeper theology which God intended as He instructed Moses to write Genesis 1. Already, we know that Genesis 1.26 holds key theological ideas in later Christological debates. Moreover, if we briefly examine the idea that things came from things, we can build upon that precept for many biblical things - such as marriage. Even in the first few verses, we approach doctrinal lines which we see completed, or rather expanded, in the New Testament, such as the Spirit and the Water (John 3).
I hope that this review can be turned into a dialogue. At the end of the review, you will find other reviews and discussions on this book.
The book is easily readable and set up according to short propositions, or arguments. In Proposition 1, we find a quote which stands out, and is the key to the entire book:
Through the entire Bible, there is not a single instance in which God revealed to Israel a science beyond their own culture. No passage offers a scientific perspective that was not common to the Old World science of antiquity.
It is here that the argument for the book is made - that Genesis 1 was given not in our context, nor in a 21st century scientific context, but in a context which the Israelites under the tutelage of Moses would have understood. The author moves to remind the audience of this, almost to a fault where in a reader may give up in attempting to understand the bible at all. I understand what Walton is attempting to say, but he should have spent some time in giving a rejoinder to say that by careful study we can understand the cultural contexts of the Bible.
Proposition 2 opens up discussing the meaning of ontology, or existence. He briefly summarizes ancient texts in relation to his argument that the ancient cultures saw creation stories as explaining function above all. He builds the case that existence is not measured by materialization but functionalization.
In his third proposition, the author examines the `literal' understanding of the Hebrew word (bara) which is translated as `create.' He is right in forcing any ready to forget the many nuances of the English word and attempt to gain an understanding of the Hebrew. He attempts to remain as literal to the text as possible without `an attempt to accommodate modern science or to neutralize the biblical text.' For the author, `the truest meaning of a text is found in what the author and hearers would have thought.'
The author moves bara, perhaps unintentionally, into the realm of the principle of creation ex nihilo and monotheism, at least for those interested in later debates in Church History. By applying a materialization to bara in Genesis 1, creation ex nihilo is not only assumed, but demanded; however, if one applies a functionalization to bara, then the matter is politely laid to rest and the discussion is no longer needed. The author draws a distinction between the account in Genesis and the ultimate creation.
By the end of the third proposition, Walton begins to finally tackle the text itself. His use of Genesis 1.1 should be read in light of the JPS translation. In the end, however, he removes any hope of a `gap theory' between Genesis 1.1 and 1.2, remaining as literal as possible.
Proposition 4 expands upon points made in the previous discussion by noting that Genesis 1.1 does not lend itself easily to a creation ex nihilo principle because it is obvious that certain material creations already existed. Walton does not fail to remind the reader that we have to interpret the text in the terms of the author, so he briefly explains a proposed understanding of the Hebrew words found in Genesis 1.2, bohu and tohu detailing the need to translate these words removed from the material translations. If we compare these words to other uses in Hebrew, we find that tohu means unproductive, which fits into the scheme of the author - that the seven days account concerns functionalization over materialization.
Has the author lost his wind? That is my question while reading the first two-thirds of Proposition 5. His writing style changes in this section, becoming more looser. While he repeatedly reminds the reader that his view is that creation is functional over material, he dashes ahead to the end of the first day, working his way backwards to create his thesis. While his thesis is acceptable, his manner of delivery makes it almost unpalatable, until the end. His ability to connect the first three days and the events immediately following the Great Deluge through the functions of life secures his argument.
In contrast to the previous proposition, Proposition 6 moves into the realm of living creation and the measurement of time which is important to those living creatures. His writing style is only slightly less looser than in the previous section, depending upon an allegory to carry his point. His moves to direct the reader to see the creation on Days 4-6 as installing functionaries - assigning functions to pre-existing things; however, he looses the reader when he begins to see the great sea creatures and the birds as being cosmic. That is, unless he understands the seas and the air of Day 5 as those things around us, and not those things metaphorically around us.
In this section the author also continues to note the similarities with the Near Eastern creation accounts, but also drives up the essential differences. He skips the theology of verse 26, which is something that could have bogged him down and side tracked him. Further, he manages to ignore almost completely the creation of Adam. Calling the first man and woman archetypes will not sit well with even those who might agree somewhat with him by demand that death came by Adam.
Proposition 7 is rather short, and unsupported. This chapter, while making a large assumption which will impact (unpack?) and explain the rest of the thesis, contains only four short endnotes - and a condescension concerning what we should know. Of course, everyone in the ancient world knew everything - but where is the proof of the assumption concerning the Sabbath and the Temple? The author attempts, rather weakly, an explanation of the Sabbath day, using only a few other biblical passages. Calling this an interpretative key, he promises that this will help us move forward. If this was the key to the entire Creation account - interpreted to his thesis - then he should have given us more support.
Much to the delight of this reader, the author returns to well written material in Proposition 8. In my opinion, this section should either be melded with the previous section, or transposed. In this proposition, the author manages to build a sound case for the Temple motif in the Creation account as well as bringing in the Garden of Eden into the mix. Further, he connects this singular thought system through the tabernacle to the Temple, showing a well developed and understood system (by the ancient Israelites) which can be used to measure Genesis 1. He builds the case for an understanding of the Temple in cosmic fashion (Heaven is my throne...).
If you take Proposition 8 before 7, 7 makes much more sense. If you can see that the Temple, cosmic and other wise, is the dwelling place of God, then you can attempt to (re)define rest. Once you do this, then the seventh day in creation, and indeed, the eight, becomes a clear example of what God's rest truly was. It is not merely a break, but an assumption of power, and really, of function inside the cosmic, or heavenly, Temple.
The author is picking up steam in Proposition 9. First, he is adamant about being literal to the context, which is apparent when at the end of the section, he easily deals with the attempt to take `the nature of days' by some who try to re-imagine the days to mean ages or epochs. He is steadily behind the fact that yom in Hebrew means a literal day, but he insists that we must take the creation account as an inaugural ceremonial in which the High King was installed in the Temple. He gives for examples the seven years which it took Solomon to build his temple, and then returns to the previous description of ontological existence, in which something did not exist until it was used, or in the case of Solomon's temple, filled with the Glory of God.
Walton's view here makes sense - the material world pre-existed, but at some point in time, God established His Temple, and it was at this time that functions and functionaries were assigned their roles (priesthood). Further, it was when God rested that the whole earth was filled with His glory. Unlike the Near Eastern accounts, with functions directed towards God, and functionaries becoming smaller deities, there is but one God in Genesis, and everything was centered on humanity.
The author, surprisingly, is able to remain constantly literal in context, bringing to the reader's attention a different view.
Note, we are entering the second part of the book which seems to be a prolonged defense of the first part.
Walton moves to restate his previous chapters in Proposition 10. His notable statement here reads:
Viewing Genesis 1 as an account of functional origins of the cosmos as temple does not in any way suggest or imply that God was uninvolved in material origins -it only contends that Genesis 1 is not that story.
The author does an admirable job in remaining literal and concerning with the theological implications, attempting to answer in measured terms the objections which he will surely receive. Specifically he answers Colossians 1.16-17; Hebrews 1.2; 11.3; and the all important Romans 5.12. He makes a good case in understanding the relationship of the Tree of Life to the immortality of the body which supports his thesis.
Proposition 11 is an argument that the author remains literal in context and accepts the plain reading of the text. He drives home the separation between his thesis and others, such as framework and concordist approaches, arguing that a thesis such as the one postulated in the book allows for the author and the audience to come shining forth. In comparison to several of the theories on interpretation, Walton's theory is rather sound, preventing those interpretations which much change based on the scientific notion of the day. Proposition 12 spends a considerable amount of time detailing the various interpretations on Genesis 1 and showing how they stand in contrast to Walton's thesis. Jumping ahead to Propisiton 15, the author shows the inability of Intelligent Design to remain scientific and theological, focusing on the fact what while science provides the mechanisms, theology provides the purpose. Again, we are reminded that for the author, function (purpose) is the correct interpretation of Genesis 1.
In this third part, Walton describes the implications for his thesis.
Proposition 13 explores the levels of thought, scientific and theological. In this section, the author attempts to distinguish the purpose of science and the purpose of God, and does so, again, with a mundane allegory. While it serves the purpose well, his mixing of these metaphors with deeper thoughts often lends itself more to humor than theological assessment of the situation. With that said, I believe the author's point of the nature of science and the purpose of Genesis is correct, and that his thesis, if viewed in this light, provides not merely a soundness but a theological constant that is missing from differing views of Genesis 1.
As a follow-up, Walton describes the short line between God's role as Creator and Sustainer - which he points out that a deistic view of science (latter) and an extreme Creationist would have (former). In Proposition 14 the author essentially creates a logical argument on the continued creation centered on the author's thesis, using Moltmann as a starting point.
As we move into the final sections, the author begins to rehearse the common objections that will be leveled against him. In Proposition 16 the author begins to tackle the allowance for evolutionary science as an origins with purpose model. He handles well what he sees as three objections to the use of evolutionary science - at least he does for two of the three of them. The weakness of of his thesis comes through in discussing the very literal need for a very literal Adam and Eve.
In Proposition 17, Walton states that the theology is stronger, rather than weaker, if his position is upheld. While some of this proposition's premise is correct - that indeed, the idea of the Eight Day Creator provides for us a continuing view that God is active in our daily lives, the author does not go far enough. He writes that his view of the Sabbath would be stronger, he fails to bring in the New Testament of Sabbath (cf. Hebrews) which would have sealed his point. Several of his subjections experience this weakness - not a detriment to his thesis, but definitely to this proposition.
The final proposition deals expressly with the idea that a purposed view of creation need not be taught in the classroom. Remember, for the author's premise, Genesis 1 concerns function/purpose, not the mechanisms/how. For the author, as proposed in Proposition 18, only empirical science should be taught in the class rooms. I quite agree.
The book ends with a summary and a group of questions which I assume the author knows he will be asked frequently.
The premise of the author is an interesting one, but it is new. Inherently, humanity rejects things that are new. It has yet to be tested, and verified. The author knows this. While it holds great theological promise, the issue remains that at no time in theological history do we find such a view. The premise seeks to reinterpret Genesis 1 in light of Ancient Near Eastern culture and myths. While it is promising, it generally only borrows some of the myths. The author quickly points out that while in these myths, creation serves the needs of the gods, the Creation in Genesis 1 is centered to humanity.
While the entire thesis is interesting, to say the least, the author's theory has problems. First, it is difficult to understand how this view will be widely accepted - except by those who are having trouble creating cohesion between a literal biblical worldview and modern science - or at the very least, easily accepted. As the author notes, it is new. Further, while he attempts to answer questions of Genesis 2 and the use of Adam in the New Testament, he doesn't do it fully. There are lingering questions as the need of a very real Adam and Eve. Something that I do not think the author answers adequately. Further, his explanation of the use of firmament as weather control is the weakest point in his argument.
On the other hand, his strengths center on Proposition 8, in which he details the use of the Temple in his motif. By far, it is this notion that provides a foundation for believability for his argument. His entire thesis, as a whole, allows for the complexities of Creation to shine forth, and allows sincere believers to find the beauty that emerged from the chaos, of which we still see the chards which remain.
I have identified three areas of weakness in which I see that the author's argument has -
* Is new, and thus, because of the virtue of never having been tried before, it is untrustworthy.
* The use of Sabbath Rest and the Eight Day theology
* The reliance upon the Temple motif with the insistence that Divinity rests in the Temple.
We will explore these three things and leave the discussion open for more.
First, as with any doctrine or interpretation, it must be tested by Scripture. In this case, since the doctrine that God created the world for His purposed is maintained and acknowledged - it is indeed very central to his argument - we must look elsewhere for verification of the interpretation. I would look to Tradition, to either ancient Judaism or to the Church Fathers. (While they are not always the best in interpreting Judaism, they must be included as a link to the Jewish community which produced Romans.) The author provides only creation myths from the Ancient Near East.
The author uses a few Egyptian texts as well as Mesopotamian texts to underscore this interpretation. There can be no denying that the ANE texts are too close for comfort to the Genesis account (this has been explained in different ways), he does show that the texts differ in their goal. While ANE myths center on the gods generally being selfish in their creation, with making things purposed for them, the God of the Hebrew texts constantly creates things which are `good' for humanity. All of creation is for humanity, alone.
The fact that this interpretation cannot be found in history, except by conjecture, is a disability which plagues the entire work. It is not that it cannot be overcome, but as a new interpretation, it quickly becomes a new revelation. As a new revelation it is derived mainly from ANE texts and human reasoning.
Secondly, Walton states that the Sabbath rest, which seemingly has been misunderstood for all these generations, was not merely about rest, but first about letting God have control (because it was on this day which God inhabited the temple) and second about God ending His role as Creator and beginning His role as sustainer. We can actually find this idea in 2nd Enoch, an apocryphal work from around the time of Christ:
And I appointed the eighth day also, that the eighth day should be the first-created after my work, and that [the first seven] revolve in the form of the seventh thousand, and that at the beginning of the eighth thousand there should be a time of not-counting, endless, with neither years nor months nor weeks nor days nor hours. (2EN 33:1-2 OTP)
While I count his idea of the Sabbath as a weak point, the author's assumption that the Eighth Day is important is dead on. We can find many examples of this (although it is never cited) in the early Church writings from Barnabas to Origen, from Justin to Clement.
Finally, in conjunction with the previous point, Walton builds his entire argument around the idea that the Sabbath is the moment which God assumes His habitation in the Cosmic Temple. It is the author's statement that the Sabbath is the time when God inhabited the cosmic temple on the Sabbath which is not only the key to his argument, but a rather weak assertion as well.
I quote from page 146 -
What constitutes rest?
Given the view of Genesis 1 presented in this book, we get a new way to think about the sabbath. If God's rest on the seventh day involved him taking up his presence in his cosmic temple which has been ordered and made functional so that he is now ready to run the cosmos, our sabbath rest can be seen in a different light. (emphasis mine)
The author first wants to assume that his assertion concerning the Sabbath rest is the correct one. Further, Walton wants us to assume that somehow God was not running the cosmos before the first Sabbath. In not considering the rather Jewish understanding of Sabbath in Hebrews, the author would then allow us to assume that the Sabbath rest spoken of in Hebrews would allow us, upon entering into that rest, to become gods.
I would agree with his understanding that the Jerusalem Temple was patterned after heavenly things, but does this add to the author's comments about the Cosmic Temple? While I believe it does, the author fails to materialize biblical support that the Sabbath in Genesis One is to be seen as God assuming His habitation in the Temple. In quoting Psalms 132, the author misses the clear statement that God's dwelling place is in (mystical) Zion, assuming that this points, or rather allows him to point, to the fact that one can understand Sabbath, rest and Temple as meaning the same thing as the author would like for them to mean.
I would like to recommend this book to the reader, both scientific and theological. While I shared with you my view of the weaknesses of John H. Walton's thesis, I would like to take this time to share with you my view of the strengths, and there are many, but I only want to talk about three of them.
* It allows for a theological context to develop free of traditional views
* It allows for the exploration of the purpose of Genesis 1 without the need to explore the scientific ramifications
* It allows for a literal view of the 7 day creation account while attempting to find the author's original context.
While he has certain strong points in his argument, I want to examine the strengths of an argument such as his. Briefly, however, let me state that his idea of functionalization over materialization is a compelling argument, and his greatest strength. Basing it on the Hebrew word for create, the author is able to expand the idea of ontological existence to cover Genesis 1 in a manner which creates a deeper theological context. He allows in his argument the development purposes and functions for each aspect of creation. We can then examine the purpose of the light created in the darkness, or the sea creatures, or even the cosmic seas.
Too often, people examine the bible as a plain sense reading (always the starting point) and forget that God spoke to the author, and it was the author's limitations as a human which caused the words. (Note, the author is inspired, and the Spirit worked through the author, but we must admit that the ineffable beauty of God's ways are not the ways of humanity.) I think of Isaiah 7.14, or the whole host of Psalms, only understood prophetically through Christ. As David wrote Psalm 118, did he see Christ on the Cross? Doubtful, as he was experiencing the pains of separation from God then. Yet, God spoke through the feebleness of human communication to address the salvation offered through the Son.
We daily examine parables to drain from the words of the Lord deep meaning, more so than a simply story about a rebellious child and a caring father could employ. In a simple reading of the Prodigal's Son, when we read that the father ran, we would see an anxious father running to his son, but by delving into the context of the story, the context of the speaker and the audience, we find the great humiliation which the Father had to suffer (running in public was a cultural taboo for men over 30 as they had to show their calf to do so) in order to restore the son to the family.
The same can be said of Hebrew poetry and the prophetic participles found in the Jewish bible. How arrogant are we when we assume that we can read these words so casually, applying our thoughts and our culture to the words of God? Cannot the same be said of Genesis 1? The author's premise that Genesis 1 is about function, purpose and a deeper theology that we have seen normally expressed by some extreme literalist is a great strength which allows for those who desire to delve deeper into the theological meaning of that text.
I once heard a preacher take Genesis 1 and preach about holiness rather than Creation - something that fits into this argument.
Science and Religion are generally at odds, but the author, with his argument, allows a keener separation to occur, where science doesn't have to undermine religious principles. We have civilizations 10,000 years old, which no record could be redacted to show otherwise. I simply cannot believe in evolution, based on the mathematics alone, but we do know that the earth is old, and that the universe is older, much older. Yet, by keeping Genesis 1 as a wholly religious document, we do not have to worry about the latest trend in scientific discovery.
Too often, people like to confuse the Scriptures as science, instead of the beauty of God's communication with humanity. Walton attempts to resurrect the notion that the Scriptures are a purely theological enterprise, meant to draw humanity to God, to be our guild in a life lived to God.
Living and working in Appalachia, I have had the chance to explore the coal mines, some what. In doing so, I have come across fossils in the slate which runs along the coal seam. There is such a thing as kettle bottoms. They are petrified tries generally standing upright so that the miner stands beneath the root system. They find these things surrounded by all levels of cover (mountain). Further, they also find mud seams - parts of the mountain which is still muddy rock. Remember, the Appalachian Mountains are supposedly the oldest mountain chain in the world - and you have evidences of a breadth of time.
Walton has built his premise around a 'literal in context' method which preserves the essential literalism of the text, but seeks the context in which the text was first written. For the author, the purpose of the text is a vital element in finding the context. The strength here is that he allows the text - such as the literal 24 day - to speak plainly. He deals handily with both the young earth creationists and the old earth creationists by doing so. He shows what he believes is the fallibility of the both arguments (along with the Framework theory) by attempting to remain literal.
Walton's strengths in his argument come from a desire, I believe, to remove the tension between science and religious in Genesis 1, and to provide a more secure footing in combating the increasing attempts to remove God from creation. For Walton, it is not what happened, but why, and this is perhaps the true greatest strength.
More The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate reviews:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Summary of The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate
In this astute mix of cultural critique and biblical studies, John H. Walton presents and defends twenty propositions supporting a literary and theological understanding of Genesis 1 within the context of the ancient Near Eastern world and unpacks its implications for our modern scientific understanding of origins. Ideal for students, professors, pastors and lay readers with an interest in the intelligent design controversy and creation-evolution debates, Walton's thoughtful analysis unpacks seldom appreciated aspects of the biblical text and sets Bible-believing scientists free to investigate the question of origins.Reference Books
Book Subjects
- Arts & Photography
- Biographies & Memoirs
- Business & Investing
- Children's Books
- Comics & Graphic Novels
- Computers & Internet
- Cooking, Food & Wine
- Entertainment
- Gay & Lesbian
- Health, Mind & Body
- History
- Home & Garden
- Horror
- Law
- Literature & Fiction
- Mystery & Thrillers
- Nonfiction
- Outdoors & Nature
- Parenting & Families
- Professional & Technical
- Reference
- Religion & Spirituality
- Romance
- Science
- Science Fiction & Fantasy
- Sports
- Teens
- Travel
Most talked about in Reference Books
Jesus I Never Knew, Theby Philip Yancey
Zondervan; Published: 1999-11-01; Audio Cassette; Book
Best price: $14.94
Price in other shops:
The Jesus I Never Knew (Limited Edition)by Philip Yancey
Zondervan; Published: 1999-02; Hardcover; Book
Best price: $2.75
Price in other shops:
How to Read the Bible for It's Worthby Gordon D Fee
HarperCollins Publishers Ltd; Published: 1990-01-01; Paperback; Book
Best price: $2.74
Ephesians (NIV Application Commentary, The)by Klyne Snodgrass
Zondervan; Published: 2008-08-01; CD-ROM; Book
Price in other shops:
Basics of Biblical Greek Workbookby William D. Mounce
Zondervan; Published: 2009-11-17; Paperback; Book
Best price: $12.99
Price in other shops:
The Jewish Study Bible: featuring The Jewish Publication Society TANAKH TranslationOxford University Press, USA; Published: 2003-09; Leather Bound; Book
Price in other shops:
God's Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question--Why We Sufferby Bart D. Ehrman
HarperOne; Published: 2008-02-19; Hardcover; Book
Best price: $2.90
Price in other shops:
God's Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question--Why We Sufferby Bart D. Ehrman
HarperOne; Published: 2009-02-24; Paperback; Book
Best price: $4.00
Price in other shops:
Idioms in the Bible Explained and a Key to the Original Gospelsby George M. Lamsa
Harper; Published: 1985-10-23; Paperback; Book
Best price: $8.51
Price in other shops:
The Sermon on the Mount: The Key to Success in Lifeby Emmet Fox
HarperOne; Published: 1989-09-20; Paperback; Book
Best price: $5.75
Price in other shops:
Similar Books and other products
How God Became King: The Forgotten Story of the Gospelsby N. T. Wright
HarperOne; Published: 2012-03-13; Hardcover; Book
Best price: $15.79
Price in other shops:
Simply Jesus: A New Vision of Who He Was, What He Did, and Why He Mattersby N. T. Wright
HarperOne; Published: 2011-10-25; Hardcover; Book
Best price: $13.68
Price in other shops:
The Old Testament: A Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introductions)by Michael Coogan
Oxford University Press, USA; Published: 2008-03-28; Paperback; Book
Best price: $6.54
Price in other shops:
The Kingdom New Testament: A Contemporary Translationby N. T. Wright
HarperOne; Published: 2011-10-25; Hardcover; Book
Best price: $13.00
Price in other shops:
God and World in the Old Testament: A Relational Theology of Creationby Terence E. Fretheim
Abingdon Press; Published: 2005-07; Paperback; Book
Best price: $20.00
Price in other shops:
Genesis 1-4: A Linguistic, Literary, and Theological Commentaryby C. John Collins
P & R Publishing; Published: 2005-09; Paperback; Book
Best price: $10.99
Price in other shops:
Did Adam and Eve Really Exist?: Who They Were and Why You Should Careby C. John Collins
Crossway Books; Published: 2011-05-04; Paperback; Book
Best price: $9.71
Price in other shops:
Evolution of Adam, The: What the Bible Does and Doesn't Say about Human Originsby Peter Enns
Brazos Press; Published: 2012-01-01; Paperback; Book
Best price: $11.29
Price in other shops:
Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament: Introducing the Conceptual World of the Hebrew Bibleby John H. Walton
Baker Academic; Published: 2006-11-01; Paperback; Book
Best price: $15.79
Price in other shops:
Seven Days That Divide the World: The Beginning According to Genesis and Scienceby John C. Lennox
Zondervan; Published: 2011-08-09; Hardcover; Book
Best price: $10.26
Price in other shops: