Book Summary of Genesis: History, Fiction, or Neither?
Emma Perry
OBST 651: Creation, Cosmology and Genesis
October 27, 2024
ii
Contents
Introduction: A Desiccated Finger and the Study of Genre ..................................................... 1
A Different Set of Rules ..................................................................................................... 1
Study of Genre .................................................................................................................... 1
Essay 1: Genesis 1-11 As History and Theology ........................................................................ 2
Essay 2: Genesis 1-11 as Protohistory ......................................................................................... 4
Essay 3: Genesis 1-11 As Ancient Historiography ..................................................................... 6
Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 8
Bibliography .................................................................................................................................. 9
1
Introduction: A Desiccated Finger and the Study of Genre
A Different Set of Rules
Charles Halton, the general editor of the book entitled Genesis: History, Fiction, or
Neither? begins the introduction by talking about Galileo Galilei. Halton explains that Galileo,
once a convicted heretic, was pardoned after his death and moved to a proper burial site near his
father.1 During the transition, an admirer was able to steal a few fingers from the dead man, one
of which is on display today at the Museo Galileo.2 Halton brings up this story to introduce
Galileo’s observations, which caused some Christians to snap to attention and bring up passages
such as 1 Chronicles 16:30.3 Halton explains a different set of rules that Galileo challenged,
“...rules that take into account the complexities of communication such as metaphor, symbolism,
and imagery; and rules that operate at a level higher than the sentence, a sort of macro-syntax.”4
The point Halton is making by telling this story is to emphasize the importance of interpretation
and confidence in one’s convictions.
The Study of Genre
Halton continues the introduction by discussing genre. By taking the time to interpret
scripture, one realizes similarities and differences between the Bible and other historical stories,
such as the Babylonian creation story.5 Halton explains why the use of genre is important in
1 Charles Halton, Genesis: History, Fiction, or Neither? Three Views on the Bible’s Earliest Chapters
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2015), 13.
2 Ibid.
3 Ibid.
4 Ibid., 14.
5 Ibid., 17.
2
looking at multiple passages from different sources, “Comparisons are more meaningful when
they involve texts of the same type, law to law and creation account to creation account.”6
Because genres are consistently multiplying, it is crucial to writers to formulate their texts with
similarities to an existing genre to allow readers an easier time interpreting the words.7 Halton
uses this to transition to the topic of main focus for the remainder of the book, Genesis 1-11.
Halton asked three authors to contribute to this book and asked them to respond to four elements:
• Identify the genre of Genesis 1–11.
• Explain why this is the genre of Genesis 1–11.
• Explore the implications of this genre designation for biblical interpretation.
• Apply their approach to the interpretation of three specific passages: the story of the
Nephilim (6:1–4), Noah and the ark (6:9–9:26), and the Tower of Babel (11:1–9).8
With each of these writers, readers will be able to establish a baseline for understanding Genesis
1-11 from different genres and interpretations.
Essay 1: Genesis 1-11 as History and Theology
This chapter was written by James K. Hoffmeier, who earned his PhD from the
University of Toronto.9 He begins by explaining that one danger to completing a genre analysis
on a large piece of literature, “is in imposing a single literary category on a work that is quite
complex and made up of a variety of types of literature. Then too, one mistake of modern
scholarship is to press onto ancient literature modern literary categories that did not exist in the
6 Ibid.
7 Ibid., 18.
8 Ibid., 20.
9 Ibid., 9.
3
ancient world.”10 Using Hermann Gunkel’s views, Hoffmeier explains that Genesis is a
compilation of sagas, legendary stories, and were shared by word of mouth for a long time before
the words were ever written down.11 He concludes that the genre “legend” is not a correct
analysis for Genesis 1-11. In this essay, Genesis 1-11 is categorized as a myth. Hoffmeier says
that the key with using “myth” for the genre choice is that it, “is concerned with ultimate
realities, not fiction.”12 Myths may not look exactly like historical works, but they can be based
on events that did happen. He gives several reasons to support this conclusion but ultimately
claims that Genesis 1-11 is a myth.13 He concludes this section by explaining that the creation
portion of Genesis allows for “analogical thinking about history and reality.”14 To accurately
examine the specific passage, one must first examine the book of Genesis as a whole. Hoffmeier
breaks down the book into family histories starting with the history of the heavens and the earth
and ending with the history of Jacob.15 Whenever genealogical texts are considered by scholars
they are taken very seriously and not dismissed.16
The next sections of this chapter focus on the last of the four elements the authors were
requested to research. Hoffmeier starts into the study of Genesis 6:1-4 and the story of Nephilim.
Basically, the Nephilim story discusses the progression of human rebellion and makes way for
10 Ibid., 25.
11 Ibid.
12 Ibid., 27.
13 Ibid., 28.
14 Ibid.
15 Ibid., 29.
16 Ibid., 30.
4
the flood story found in Genesis 6:9-9:26.17 The second interpretation discusses the poetic flood
story, which is found in several different stories of the myth genre, such as the Gilgamesh story,
the Sumerian version, and the Babylonia Epic of Atrahasis.18 Returning to the biblical account,
Hoffmeier addressed the idea of structural unity throughout Genesis 1-11 with supporting charts
and graphs that show the parallelisms in the chapters.19 The conclusion of this section ends with
the notion that these are shared experiences for the different groups, “Given the Mesopotamian
origins of Abraham and his ancestors (Gen 10 and 11:10–32), it should not surprise us that the
flood story should be part of the shared memory of the Israelites and the Babylonians.”20 In
reference to the Tower of Babel story in Genesis 11, Hoffmeier says that it explains the
introduction to languages, “Referring to Genesis 11 as an etiological story that explains how
different languages came about does not mean that the story is imaginary. Etiology, then, speaks
more to the function of the story than its literary form.”21 To conclude his essay, Hoffmeier
summarizes his thoughts by reiterating that Genesis 1-11 is primarily of the “myth” genre and
that the stories told are based on real places and event.
Essay 2: Genesis 1-11 as Protohistory
This chapter was written by Gordon J. Wenham, a PhD graduate from the University of
London.22 His opinion of the genre of Genesis is stated in the introductory paragraphs. He claims
17 Ibid., 37.
18 Ibid., 44-47.
19 Ibid., 51.
20 Ibid., 55.
21 Ibid., 55
22 Ibid., 9.
5
that no matter which genre (doctrine, history, fiction, or myth), the first 11 chapters of Genesis
are making very profound statements about God’s character and relationship with man.23 In his
essay, Wenham focuses a large part on the genealogies and their functions, primarily how they
are the “backbone of Genesis.”24 This leads him to conclude the first possible genre is expanded
genealogy.25 Because of this conclusion, he recommends viewing Genesis 1 as an introduction to
the rest of the passage, if not a prologue to the whole Pentateuch.26 He argues against Genesis 1-
11 as a myth and claims instead that it is instead more of an overture.27
After making it clear that Genesis 1 should be viewed in a different light from the rest of
the passage, Wenham establishes the narratives in Genesis 2:4-11:9. Overall, each story, when
viewed individually, has a main function to “explain present experiences by relating to the
past.”28 He then works through each section of the scripture, describing their main points and
connection to the others. More than once, he points out the story of the nature of sin and its
consequences.29 This section is used as a transition into his argument against “myth.”
Wenham starts this section by making clear that he does not agree with many religious
figures and their assumption that any part of scripture should be considered a myth, “By calling
Genesis 1-11 myth is at least unwise, at worst misleading, and as I shall argue, inaccurate.”30
23 Ibid., 73.
24 Ibid., 76.
25 Ibid., 78.
26 Ibid., 79.
27 Ibid.
28 Ibid., 81.
29 Ibid., 82.
30 Ibid., 83.
6
There is a negative connotation that follows the term “myth” in regard to these works being
fictional and should not, for this reason and others, be applied to the Bible passages.31 He
diagnoses these first few chapters as protohistorical since they contain stories that “both illustrate
important social and theological principles, as myths are often alleged to do, yet they also tell of
unique occurrences.”32 In a similar way as our first essay, this author also reviews the
Mesopotamian parallels that use similar stories to establish creation in their own ways.33 This
also supports his claim that the correct genre choice is protohistory. It is proto because it
describes origins and explains how God deals with mankind.34 It is then historical by speaking of
past events and how future readers can learn from them and strengthen their own perspectives.35
The next part of the chapter addresses the last of the four elements mentioned in the introduction.
For each of the three stories, the genre of protohistory can be applied. The important point to
note is that Wenham would rather focus on recovering the messages of Genesis 1-11 instead of
trying to narrow down a specific genre.36
Essay 3: Genesis 1-11 as Ancient Historiography
The third chapter was written by Kenton L. Sparks, a PhD graduate of the University of
North Carolina.37 The introduction names historical figures, such as Augustine and Aquinas, and
31 Ibid.
32 Ibid., 85.
33 Ibid.
34 Ibid., 87.
35 Ibid.
36 Ibid., 95.
37 Ibid., 9.
7
explains their view that scripture should be for everyone, not just the Church.38 This was a new
concept for the early believers, but times have changed. Now, the distance between science and
Genesis has grown. Sparks says that he is interested by evolutionary biology but is not going to
spend much time on the topic, “I mention it at the outset only because this essay, and the volume
in which it appears, is evidence that some Christians are still embroiled in a debate that is
elsewhere finished.”39 He hopes to provide Christians with a new approach to reading scripture
responsibly and understand the genres used.
A significant portion of the essay section on genre is a background on the word itself and
why it can be used effectively if correctly analyzed. It is important to note, Sparks explains, that
there is a major difference between “representation” and “historical representation.”40 In the case
of scripture, for example the flood story, the details written down and the actual event are very
similar, which can be proven through the literary use of a literal flood, a literal boat, and the last
remaining live animals and people are featured.41 He revisits these stories for each of the genres
that he discusses.
Sparks starts to interpret the passages in Genesis and explains that just because this is the
Word of God, the possibilities of genre do not need to be limited to one or two options.42 It is
also human words, so the generic options are as follows:
38 Ibid., 110.
39 Ibid., 111.
40 Ibid., 114.
41 Ibid.
42 Ibid., 115.
8
• Primeval history: Genesis follows a specific, historical flow from creation, genealogy,
then the flood and more genealogy.43
• Genealogy: These are found in Genesis 4, 5, 10, and 11.44
• Myth: These can be represented by the creation story in Genesis 1 and the paradise and
fall story in chapters 2-3.45
• Tale and Legend: Sparks names four episodes that could fit this category: Cain and Abel,
the flood story, the curse of Canaan, and the Tower of Babel.46
Sparks goes on to explain the anthological character of Genesis and lists out all the possible
generic types, “…myth, legend, fable, folktale, novella, history, chronology, etiology, ritual
descriptions, ritual prescriptions, genealogy, king list, oath treaty, and ethical will.”47
Conclusion
The three authors disagree on many points. Hoffmeier believes that although the passage
can be categorized as myth, it is not based on other myths from that time.48 Wenham believes
that Genesis 1-11 is historical, but readers can only see outlines of what events took place.49
Sparks thinks that biblical authors used ancient historiography, but they were not focusing on
precise events in the correct time period.50 Despite their differences, they do agree that Genesis 1-
43 Ibid., 117.
44 Ibid., 118.
45 Ibid., 123.
46 Ibid.,
47 Ibid., 137.
48 Ibid., 155.
49 Ibid.
50 Ibid.
9
11 speaks the truth about God. Their interpretations of this differ, but the main idea is the same.
They again disagree on whether the events in Genesis actually took place, “Hoffmeier says yes,
Wenham says sort of, and Sparks says probably not.”51 Halton shares some of his thoughts on the
importance of genre and historicity in the context of these essays and Genesis 1-11. Even if
Christians differ on their beliefs about these concepts, they can still be united across all time.52
Halton finishes the book with encouragement to other Christians to not let these differences keep
us from debating if the result is still in a place of unity and love.53
51 Ibid., 156.
52 Ibid., 162.
53 Ibid., 162.
10
Bibliography
Halton, Charles. Genesis: History, Fiction, or Neither? Three Views on the Bible’s Earliest
Chapters. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2015.
