Genesis 1:1-2:4: An Epic Narrative

Correct interpretation of a Biblical text relies substantially upon determining the genre and style of the passage to be interpreted.  With regard to Genesis 1, there is no small amount of debate on the origin, authorship, and style of the text.

Bible Archeology contains an insightful article on three theories of the origin of the book of Genesis which is well worth reading if this topic interests you.

For the purposes Ages of Joy, I will highlight the Clay Tablet theory, which asserts that the bulk of Genesis was developed based on 11 clay tablets that were handed down to Moses.

• Tablet 1: Genesis 1:1 - 2:4. The origins of the cosmos 
• Tablet 2: Genesis 2:5 - 5:2. The origins of mankind 
• Tablet 3: Genesis 5:3 - 6:9a. The histories of Noah 
• Tablet 4: Genesis 6:9b - 10:1. The histories of the sons of Noah 
• Tablet 5: Genesis 10:2 - 11:10a. The histories of Shem 
• Tablet 6: Genesis 11:10b - 11:27a. The histories of Terah 
• Tablet 7: Genesis 11:27b - 25:12. The histories of Ishmael 
• Tablet 8: Genesis 25:13 - 25:19a. The histories of Isaac 
• Tablet 9: Genesis 25:19b - 36:1. The histories of Esau 
• Tablet 10: Genesis 36:2 - 36:9. The histories of Esau 
• Tablet 11: Genesis 36:10 - 37:2. The histories of Jacob

Tablets 2 through 11 are taken as potentially eye-witness accounts inspired by the Holy Spirit.  Tablet 1 was written as a revelation of the Holy Spirit.  Potentially this content came to Abraham through Melchizedek or to Moses through Jephthah.

It is suggested that Tablet 1: Genesis 1:1-2:4 was written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit by Moses (or possibly Abraham) after the style of the Sumerians in order to teach and correct them.

If Moses, in composing Genesis, was not dependent on Near Eastern literature that exhibits parallels to Genesis, neither did he ignore it. But it would seem that, where he deliberately develops the biblical account of an event so as to mirror features of the pagan version, it turns out to be for the polemical purpose of exposing and correcting the world's vain wisdom by the light of revealed theology. The elaboration of this is not possible here, but an illustrative case would be the treatment of the Babylonian epic account of creation, known (from its opening words) as Enuma Elish. Acquaintance with it is evidenced in the Genesis accounts of creation and of Babel-building, but in both passages the epic's world-view is repudiated, even ridiculed, and most effectively so at the points of obvious formal correspondence. (Kline 1970: 80).

An implication of this mode of origin and transmission is that the style of Genesis 1 is therefore to be understood as an Epic Historical Narrative.

Whereas the standard Literary Framework all but dispenses with the chronological nature of Genesis 1 in favor of a topical approach, treating Genesis 1 as an Historical Epic requires a maintenance of its intrinsic sequential flow, albeit allowing for the "flash back" or "temporal recapitulation" common to the Epic style.

Meredith Kline is both an advocate of the Epic view and an advocate of the Literary Framework view.  It will be necessary to study his works in more detail to evaluate the level of support or conflict that could exist between these two views.

Link to detailed chart depicting the structure of Genesis 1:1-2:4

Framework Theory Revisited

Here is something for you to think about. This is a graphical representation of the poetic structure of Genesis 1.