Genesis: History, Fiction, or Neither?: Three Views on the Bible's Earliest Chapters (Counterpoints: Bible and Theology)From Zondervan
Nonetheless, some individuals will certainly seek for the best vendor publication to check out as the initial referral. This is why; this Genesis: History, Fiction, Or Neither?: Three Views On The Bible's Earliest Chapters (Counterpoints: Bible And Theology)From Zondervan is presented to fulfil your need. Some individuals like reading this book Genesis: History, Fiction, Or Neither?: Three Views On The Bible's Earliest Chapters (Counterpoints: Bible And Theology)From Zondervan because of this prominent publication, however some love this because of preferred writer. Or, several additionally like reading this publication Genesis: History, Fiction, Or Neither?: Three Views On The Bible's Earliest Chapters (Counterpoints: Bible And Theology)From Zondervan due to the fact that they truly need to read this book. It can be the one that really enjoy reading.
Genesis: History, Fiction, or Neither?: Three Views on the Bible's Earliest Chapters (Counterpoints: Bible and Theology)From Zondervan
Read Online Ebook Genesis: History, Fiction, or Neither?: Three Views on the Bible's Earliest Chapters (Counterpoints: Bible and Theology)From Zondervan
There is little doubt that in recent years the nature of the Genesis narrative has sparked much debate among Christians. This Counterpoints volume introduces three predominant interpretive genres and their implications for biblical understanding. Each contributor identifies their position on the genre of Genesis 1-11, addressing why it is appropriate to the text, and contributes examples of its application to a variety of passages.
The contributors and views include:
- James K. Hoffmeier: Theological History
- Gordon J. Wenham: Proto-History
- Kenton L. Sparks: Ancient Historiography
General editor and Old Testament scholar Charles Halton explains the importance of genre and provides historical insight in the introduction and helpful summaries of each position in the conclusion. In the reader-friendly Counterpoints format, this book helps readers to reflect on the strengths and weaknesses of each view and draw informed conclusions in this much-debated topic.
Genesis: History, Fiction, or Neither?: Three Views on the Bible's Earliest Chapters (Counterpoints: Bible and Theology)From Zondervan- Amazon Sales Rank: #553206 in Books
- Published on: 2015-05-12
- Released on: 2015-05-12
- Original language: English
- Number of items: 1
- Dimensions: 7.99" h x .47" w x 5.24" l, .0 pounds
- Binding: Paperback
- 176 pages
About the Author
James K. Hoffmeier (PhD, University of Toronto) is professor of Old Testament and Near Eastern archaeology at Trinity International University Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois. He is the author of Ancient Israel in Sinai and Israel in Egypt, and coauthor of Faith, Tradition and History.
Gordon J. Wenham (PhD, University of London) is tutor in Old Testament at Trinity College, Bristol, England, and professor emeritus of Old Testament at the University of Gloucestershire. He is the author or editor of numerous books, including Story as Torah and commentaries on Genesis, Leviticus, and Numbers.
Kenton L. Sparks (Ph.D., University of North Carolina) is professor of biblical studies and interim provost at Eastern University. He is author of several books, including Ancient Texts for the Study of the Hebrew Bible, God's Word in Human Words, and Sacred Word, Broken Word.
Charles Halton (PhD, Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion) is an assistant Professor in Theology at Houston Baptist University. He has contributed to The IVP Dictionary of the Old Testament: Prophets and Reading Akkadian Prayers and Hymns: An Introduction. He is the co-author of The First Female Authors: An Anthology of Women's Writing in Mesopotamia and he maintains a blog at Awilum.com. He resides in Louisville, Kentucky.
Stanley N. Gundry is executive vice president and editor-in-chief for the Zondervan Corporation. He has been an influential figure in the Evangelical Theological Society, serving as president of ETS and on its executive committee, and is adjunct professor of Historical Theology at Grand Rapids Theological Seminary. He is the author of seven books and has written many articles appearing in popular and academic periodicals.
Where to Download Genesis: History, Fiction, or Neither?: Three Views on the Bible's Earliest Chapters (Counterpoints: Bible and Theology)From Zondervan
Most helpful customer reviews
26 of 32 people found the following review helpful. A Good Introduction (But With a Missing Perspective) By Tim Challies I don’t think there is any part of the Bible that is more disputed than the opening chapters of Genesis. It is not only the meaning of these verses that is the subject of endless debate, but their very nature. What is their genre? Are Genesis 1-11 meant to be understood as history? As fiction? Or are they something else altogether? This is the subject of a fasinating new “Counterpoints” book from Zondervan.The format of the “Counterpoints” series is well-known to most of us: A number of authors present their understanding of a controversial passage or subject, and then interact with one another. In Genesis: History, Fiction, or Neither, each of the authors is asked to respond to four elements: identify the genre of Genesis 1-11; explain why they believe this is the genre; explore the implications of this genre designation for biblical interpretation; and apply their approach to three specific passages: the story of the Nephilim, Noah and the ark, and the Tower of Babel. James Hoffmeier defends Genesis as history and theology, Gordon Wenham defends Genesis as proto-history, and Kenton Sparks insists it is ancient historiography. While the terms may be intimidating, each viewpoint can be simply summarized.Hoffmeier admits that there are various literary genres on display in Genesis, but says that “the general tenor of the book, and Gen 1-11 in particular, is intended to be thought of as describing real events.” He understands the geographical precision of the author, as well as the framing of the book into various family histories, as clues that Genesis is meant to describe history. This means that an ancient audience would “consider the Nephilim episode, the flood, and Tower of Babel narratives as historical events.” And if they read it that way, so too should we.Wenham largely agrees with Hoffmeier, and also sees history behind the events of Genesis 1-11. However, he describes Genesis as proto-history, “a form of writing that has links to the past but interprets history of the sake of the present.” If history (as a genre of writing) can be compared to a photograph of events, he suggests that Genesis 1-11 is more like an abstract painting in that it intends to convey meaning more than specific facts. If this is true, recovering the message of the text is more important than defining its genre and determining which elements are firmly historical. In his view some of the events may be grounded in history and others may not, but the distinction is a secondary concern.Kenton Sparks takes a much different view and insists that there was no Garden of Eden, no tree of life or tree of knowledge of good and evil, no talking serpent, no worldwide flood or ark, and no Tower of Babel. “Whatever the first chapters of Genesis offer, there is one thing that they certain do not offer, namely, a literal account of events that actually happened prior to and during the early history of humanity.” In this way Genesis 1-11 represents myth or legend. He still believes Genesis is important for what it means to convey, but considers it ridiculous to believe that any of it is grounded in fact (even though the original readers probably did believe it was factual).For a number of reasons I am comfortable setting aside Sparks’ essay as being outside the bounds of Evangelical theology. It quickly becomes clear that he prioritizes scientific discovery over Scripture and that he reads the Bible through an all-too-familiar biblical criticism straight out of the nineteenth-century. The more interesting comparison is between Hoffmeier and Wenham, both of whom are orthodox, godly scholars who have contributed much to our understanding of Scripture and Christian theology. (Preachers and those who closely study the Bible will no doubt recognize Wenham as the author of superior commentaries of Genesis, Leviticus, and Numbers.)My honest assessment of the book ranks Wenham as making the strongest case for his position. This is not to say that I agree with his perspective; I find his description of proto-history uneven and more than a little convenient—it allows him to do an end-around past difficult questions such as a literal Garden of Eden and a worldwide flood. At least in this chapter there seem to be few guidelines as to how we can decide which events are historical and which are not. However, I appreciate his reliance on the Bible and his tone in addressing the other authors.While my view would best be represented by Hoffmeier, I say that only with one major caveat: He believes in an old rather than young earth. Here is a gaping hole in this volume: It contains three views of the Bible’s earliest chapters, but not one of the authors believes in a literal six-day creation. For Wenham and Sparks this is no surprise, but it is disappointing that the scholar defending Genesis as history holds that the earth is ancient and was not created in a literal six-day time period. (It is also odd that this becomes clear only in his response to the author contributors.) While his inclusion does prove that an old-earth view can be reconciled with a historical reading of the early chapters of Genesis, I would have found it much more helpful to have a six-day view represented. I understand that the distinction between young earth and old earth is not the purpose of this volume, yet few six-day adherents would recognize a truly “historical” reading of Genesis 1-11 that sees these events unfolding over millions of years. In that way one major view is not adequately represented.I enjoyed reading Genesis: History, Fiction, or Neither and benefited from the author’s essays and rejoinders (though the editor’s conclusion is both underwhelming and disappointing). It adequately and tersely describes three varied perspectives on the Bible’s most foundational passage, and it provides a mountain of food for thought. Sadly, it is weakened—perhaps not fatally, but certainly significantly—by failing to represent one common and compelling understanding—that Genesis 1-11 should be read both literally and historically as describing real events just as they took place.
8 of 8 people found the following review helpful. a worthy conversation By Rob Gibson This work is accessible and helpful to the lay person and the learned. The Editor provides a well written and masterfully concise introduction and conclusion which are tremendously useful for our study of Gods truth and our practice of love. If only for those aspects, it is worth the purchase.The book is scholarly yet readable and provides helpful insight on foundational texts from godly Christ-followers who disagree.For a short, concise, thoughtful and charitable discussion of Genesis 1-11, this work is very worth your time.
4 of 5 people found the following review helpful. A good but not great book. But still worth reading. By Dustin G. Burlet Three Views on the Bible’s Earliest Chapters tackles one of the thorniest and most contentious topics facing Christians today, namely the genre of Genesis 1–11 and the nature of its historicity. The three contributors differ significantly on the issue itself: James Hoffmeier, professor of Old Testament and Near Eastern archeology at Trinity International University Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois, champions the Genesis as history and theology view; Gordon Wenham, tutor in Old Testament at Trinity College, Bristol, England, and professor emeritus of Old Testament at the University of Gloucestershire, the proto-history position; and Kenton Sparks, professor of biblical studies and vice president for enrollment management at Eastern University, an ancient historiography view. Charles Halton, assistant professor in theology at Houston Baptist University, provides introductory comments and closing remarks.As the latest addition to the ever-expanding and helpful Counterpoints series from Zondervan, this volume provides an accessible introduction to this much-debated subject. Each chapter consists of a brief introduction, the author’s main defense of their position and a concise summary. It is worth noting that each of the contributors was asked to respond to four elements with their essays: 1) identify the genre of Gen 1:1–11; 2) explain why this is the genre of Gen 1–11; 3) explore the implications of this genre designation for biblical interpretation; and 4) 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). Following this is a rejoinder from each of the remaining contributors who raise further questions, offer additional comments and delineate specific points of agreement and contention. The introductory and concluding chapters seek to place the discussion within the greater context of biblical interpretation, church history and pastoral ministry in the broader sense of the term.Hoffmeier contends that the Hebrew term tôlědôt is best rendered as “this is the family history of X,” thus highlighting the text’s historical nature (31). Hoffmeier also believes that “the author of the narrative goes to great lengths to place Eden within the known geography of the ancient Near East, not some made-up mythological, Narnia-like wonderland” (32). Given these two things, Hoffmeier concludes that there is good reason to believe that Genesis 1–11 describes “real events” and that the Christian “committed to Scripture need not commit intellectual suicide by embracing the historicity of the events described in early Genesis, for the text itself is written in such a way to reinforce this view” (58).Wenham responds with general agreement to Hoffmeier, in particular his espousing that the tôlědôt formula betrays the author’s interest in history. However, Wenham is persuaded that “we need a more nuanced characterization of the genre of Genesis” (62). Sparks, on the other hand, has more than minor quibbles with Hoffmeier. The starkest point of contrast concerns “the external evidence which bears on the historicity of Genesis” (72). In other words, Sparks asserts that the “scientific evidence (biological, geological, anthropological, linguistic) makes clear that, in the end, most of Genesis 1–11 simply cannot be accurate history” (72). Sparks also charges Hoffmeier with being circuitous in that he “hints at points that he knows Genesis cannot be straightforward history in every detail” but “meticulously avoids admitting that anything narrated in Genesis did not happen as narrated” (72).In Wenham’s section, though he argues that “the first aim” of the reader should be to gain an emic understanding of the text, i.e. to enter into the thought-world, or cognitive environment, of the author of Genesis, he recognizes that the very title of the volume at hand invites an etic interpretation as well (74–75). Wenham hopes that “by embracing orthodox Christian assumptions,” he will be able to “recover an approach to the text that does it justice in its biblical and theological contexts as the opening chapters of Holy Scriptures” (75). Wenham stresses that Gen 1–11 should not be labeled as myth, i.e. a “fiction, whose basis is in the author’s imagination rather than stimuli from the external world” nor “ordinary history” (87). Rather, Wenham coins the term protohistory, which he likens to as a “portrait of the past” (87). Wenham also contends that the “backbone of Gen 1–11 is an expanded linear genealogy: ten generations from Adam to Noah and ten generations from Noah to Abram” (95). Lastly, Wenham emphasizes that recovering the message of primeval history is more important than defining its genre (95).As is expected, perhaps, Hoffmeier concurs with much of Wenham’s work and though offering little by way of critique and analysis, Hoffmeier does wish that Wenham clarified just what precisely he meant by “orthodox Christian assumptions” though he ventures a guess or two (98). Sparks states that though he prefers Wenham’s approach to Hoffmeier’s for certain reasons (108¬–09) he also affirms that there are difficulties. Chief of which, Sparks asserts, is Wenham’s reticence to make explicit “what stories in Genesis did not happen as narrated” and “how should we read and interpret those parts of the text?” (109). In addition to this, Sparks claims, “irrespective of the label we put on it, Genesis is very much like the ancient myths, legends, and tales. Its authors were trained in and wrote using standard Near Eastern literary conventions (109). Thus, Sparks states that as “valuable” as their texts are as “theological voices” the “early chapters of Genesis do not narrate closely what actually happened in natural and human history” (109).Spark’s position is perhaps the most distinct (and dogmatic?) of the three voices in this volume. Prior to outlining his actual defense, Sparks opines that “time has only widened the breach between science and Genesis” and that the time has come where “it is no longer possible for informed readers to interpret the books of Genesis as straightforward history” (111). For Sparks, there was no Garden of Eden, “nor trees of life and knowledge, nor a serpent that spoke, nor a worldwide flood” (111). Sparks states that “if Genesis is the word of God, as I and other Christians believe, then we must try to understand how God speaks through a narrative that is no longer the literal history that our Christian forebears often assumed it to be” (111). In brief, Sparks postulates that “historical queries have often conflated several closely related issues into one” and highlights that “in the foregoing I have tried to tease out these issues by focusing on three different questions: (1) Did the biblical authors intend at every point to write historically reliable narratives? (2) Did the authors believe that history stood behind their narratives? (3) Did the authors accept as history anything which cannot in fact be historical?” (138). Spark’s answers? (1) No, (2) Yes, but the “authors were not so transfixed with history that this prevented them from reshaping the story to advance their theological message” and (3) Yes, but “we will look as confused in a thousand years as they do now” (139). Sparks concludes by stating that “humanity will not be saved by accurate historical recollections or scientific facts” but only through “the person of Jesus Christ” that Gen 1–11, if read well, “points us to him” (139).Space does not permit a full recapitulation of either Wenham’s or Hoffmeier’s rather extensive (and somewhat strident) defenses against Sparks. Suffice it to say that Hoffmeier does not think much of Spark’s Wissenschaft über alles (i.e. science triumphs over all!) hermeneutic (142) and that Wenham repeatedly emphasizes “the importance of interpreting the final form of the text, not putative earlier versions” with respect to Spark’s discussion of the Anthologist (151).Due to the limited scope and nature of the volume itself, this book cannot be considered a primary source for understanding the representative theories. Be that as it may, one may still profit from consulting the references throughout. Two rather striking omissions, however, may be noted. There is no mention of Child’s Myth and Reality in the Old Testament, a fine piece of work still considered by some to be the best little book on the subject, nor is there any interaction with VanGemeren’s WTJ article “The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1–4.” Though readers may find other examples, I believe these two oversights to be particularly unfortunate. One might also wish for a more exhaustive author index. Finding the text’s references to Barker, Barr, Batto, Brueggemann, Gorny, Iser, Skinner, Walton, or Zimasnky, to name but a few, requires an onerous amount of time. Perhaps also worth noting is the absence of any Young-Earth position.Were these areas addressed, I would not hesitate to give the book five stars. As it stands, it is a good but not a great book. But still worth reading.Minor shortcomings notwithstanding, this volume is a welcome guest to the discussion table. Its sober judgments, clear layout, and strong voice will enable the reader to critically assess the major tenants of contemporary scholarly positions and equip them to be able to positively engage this much-debated topic from an informed perspective. Its primary readers will be laypersons, pastors/ministers, and undergraduate/graduate students.
See all 14 customer reviews... Genesis: History, Fiction, or Neither?: Three Views on the Bible's Earliest Chapters (Counterpoints: Bible and Theology)From ZondervanGenesis: History, Fiction, or Neither?: Three Views on the Bible's Earliest Chapters (Counterpoints: Bible and Theology)From Zondervan PDF
Genesis: History, Fiction, or Neither?: Three Views on the Bible's Earliest Chapters (Counterpoints: Bible and Theology)From Zondervan iBooks
Genesis: History, Fiction, or Neither?: Three Views on the Bible's Earliest Chapters (Counterpoints: Bible and Theology)From Zondervan ePub
Genesis: History, Fiction, or Neither?: Three Views on the Bible's Earliest Chapters (Counterpoints: Bible and Theology)From Zondervan rtf
Genesis: History, Fiction, or Neither?: Three Views on the Bible's Earliest Chapters (Counterpoints: Bible and Theology)From Zondervan AZW
Genesis: History, Fiction, or Neither?: Three Views on the Bible's Earliest Chapters (Counterpoints: Bible and Theology)From Zondervan Kindle
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar