O Mundo Perdido do Dilúvio: Teologia, Mitologia e o Debate Sobre os Dias que Abalaram a Terra

The Lost World Series #5

by Tremper Longman III, John H. Walton, Stephen O. Moshier (Contributor)

O relato de Gênesis, em nossa era moderna, foi investigado e analisado em busca de respostas científicas, apologéticas e históricas. É um texto que trouxe à tona uma geologia sobre o dilúvio, incitou buscas por restos da arca no Monte Ararate e inspirou uma réplica de tamanho real da arca de Noé em um parque bíblico temático. Alguns chegam ao ponto de afirmar que a veracidade das Escrituras está ligada a uma leitura específica da narrativa do dilúvio. No entanto, estamos realmente entendendo o que estamos lendo? Longman e Walton nos encorajam a tirar o pé do acelerador e a perguntar: o que o autor bíblico poderia estar comunicando para seu público antigo? A reposta para nossa busca de redescobrir o dilúvio bíblico exige que coloquemos de lado nossas suposições culturais e interpretativas e examinemos o texto dentro de seu próprio contexto antigo de linguagem, literatura e estruturas de pensamento.

Genres: Theology, Christian, Biblical Studies, Nonfiction, Old Testament, Christianity, Religion

208 pages, Paperback

First published April 3, 2018

About the author

Tremper Longman III (PhD, Yale University) is the Robert H. Gundry Professor of Biblical Studies at Westmont College in Santa Barbara, California. Before coming to Westmont, he taught at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia for eighteen years. He has authored or coauthored numerous books, including An Introduction to the Old Testament, How to Read Proverbs, and commentaries on Daniel, Ecclesiastes, Proverbs, Jeremiah and Lamentations, and Song of Songs.

Reviews

[MacWithBooksonMountains Marcus · Rating 4 out of 5]

Eloquently written, thoughtful and objective, this is an explanative account of the book of Genesis. The author uses a multi-angled approach that involves a variety of fields of study including mythology, metaphysics, empiricism, theology, history - all to great effect. I especially like his introductory explanation of what “High context communication” is and why is matters so much when applied to the Bible and events described therein.
Pristine and informative, this deserves notice.

[Jacob Aitken · Rating 3 out of 5]

As in all of his Lost World books, we see all of the strengths and weaknesses of John Walton. We might not like many of his conclusions. Some of his argumentation is rather specious, but he has a knack for getting to the heart of the matter. The way he presents his argument--by means of a series of propositions--is about as good as one could possibly find.

I’ll go ahead and answer the main question. Walton and Longman believe a) the text implies a universal flood. However, b) they reject that a universal flood actually happened. They do not seem themselves in rebellion to Scripture, as they understand--and argue that the audience would have understood--Scripture to use hyperbole to teach theological truths. I’ll come back to this in the conclusion.

Part I: Method: Perspectives on Interpretation
Proposition 1: Genesis Is an Ancient Document
Proposition 2: Genesis 1–11 Makes Claims About Real Events
Proposition 3: Genesis Uses Rhetorical Devices
Proposition 4: The Bible Uses Hyperbole to Describe Historical Events
Proposition 5: Genesis Appropriately Presents a Hyperbolic Account of the Flood
Proposition 6: Genesis Depicts the Flood as a Global Event

The first series of propositions remind us that the Bible is written for us, but not to us. Did God intend to teach the science that there is a cosmic ocean above the sky? Our standard response is that such language is poetic. That’s true to an extent. Here is the problem: do we have any reason to believe a pre-Copernican reader would have thought such language was poetic?

Or take another example: do you really think with your intestines? Again, literary metaphors could save us, but I think the language is a bit stronger than mere poetry. We still get “gut feelings” today and we don’t dismiss it as literary theory.

Walton deals with this problem by means of speech-act theory. There is a difference between “locution” and “illocution.” Locution is the meaning. Illocution is the saying of the meaning. God’s truth, the interpretation of the facts given in Genesis 1-11, is the locution. The three-tiered universe is the illocutionary manner.

On one level this is fine. The danger is that we can then apply Occam’s razor to any supernatural stuff we don’t like. Walton’s later language on “mythology” doesn’t help, either. He says ancient man didn’t make a hard and fast distinction between myth and history. I’m not so sure. The NT warns us against following clever fables. And protestations notwithstanding, you cannot rescue “myth” from the connotations of Greekk mythology today. He is on better ground when he refers to such language as “supernatural” or “the invisible realm.”

I give this section a B-. He makes numerous good points about ancient literature, but he hamstrings his project with sloppy epistemology.

Part II: Background: Ancient Near Eastern Texts
Proposition 7: Ancient Mesopotamia Also Has Stories of a Worldwide Flood
Proposition 8: The Biblical Flood Story Shares Similarities and Differences with Ancient Near Eastern Flood Accounts

These two propositions shouldn’t be that controversial. No, Walton does not say that Genesis borrowed from Babylon. Genesis is not indebted to Babylon. Rather, both Genesis and Baylon are embedded in the same cultural river. In any case, to prove x borrowed from y, we should have one dominant ur-text to show the borrowing. We do not have that. Walton and Longman score huge points in this section.

Part III: Text: Understanding the Biblical Text Literarily and Theologically
Proposition 9: A Local Cataclysmic Flood Is Intentionally Described as a Global Flood for Rhetorical Purposes
Proposition 10: The Flood Account Is Part of a Sequence of Sin and Judgment Serving as Backstory for the Covenant
Proposition 11: The Theological History Is Focused on the Issue of Divine Presence, the Establishment of Order, and How Order Is Undermined

I really don’t have that much a problem with these propositions. Walton and Longman argue that the goal is order against nonorder/disorder. I suppose those elements are there, and it certainly echoes the Gen. 1 account, but I don’t think that is actually the main idea here.

Proposition 12: The “Sons of God” Episode Is Not Only a Prelude to the Flood; It Is the Narrative Sequel to Cain and Abel

He goes through the option of who the Sons of God are. He dismisses the Sethite thesis since there is no evidence for it. Another option identifies them as super-kings who took many women in marriage. While that was true of Gilgamesh, the Bible doesn’t say that, either.

Proposition 13: The Tower of Babel (Genesis 11:1-9) Is an Appropriate Conclusion to the Primeval Narrative

Part IV: The World: Thinking About Evidence for the Flood
Proposition 14: The Flood Story Has a Real Event Behind It
Proposition 15: Geology Does Not Support a Worldwide Flood (Steve Moshier)
Proposition 16: Flood Stories from Around the World Do Not Prove a Worldwide Flood
Proposition 17: “Science Can Purify Our Religion; Religion Can Purify Science from Idolatry and False Absolutes”

These are the most controversial propositions. I’ll be honest, the geological section was a bit too sciency for me. I was familiar with Walton’s claim that if a universal flood happened, where would the water drain off to? He writes,

If the sea level rose for 150 days until it covered the tops of the mountains, and the sea level rose 16, 946 ft to the top of Ararat, then it was logically 16, 946ft across the earth. This requires about 630 million cubic miles of additional water weighing 3,000,000,000,000,000,000 tons. Here is the problem: the oceans had to triple in volume in 150 days and then shrink quickly back to normal. Where did the 630 million cubic miles of water go? There is no ocean to drain to because the oceans are already filled.

If you hold a worldwide flood, there is a way to salvage it. The main problem is where did the water go in so short a time? The solution is cosmic geography. The ancient world understood (as in Genesis 1) that were the Great Deeps (tahom). It’s real but you can’t dig there to find it. God probably opened the Great Deep at the end of the flood. Granted, that’s speculation but it makes the best sense of the problem.

Conclusion

I think they make numerous good points on the difficulties in a universal flood. These cannot simply be dismissed. I think their epistemology, however, is fatally flawed. Let’s grant both (a) and (b) mentioned in the introduction to this review. If we reject a global flood and the audience understood that to be the case, then it’s hard to see how they can maintain that the Bible is teaching a global flood. God (and/or the human prophets) spoke in a way to be understood. If the audience would have understood, for all practical purposes, that the flood was local, then Walton and Longman cannot seriously claim the text teaches it was global.

[Bob · Rating 4 out of 5]

Summary: An argument for why Genesis portrays what was a local cataclysmic flood as a global flood, considering both Ancient Near East backgrounds and the theological purpose of the narrative.

John Walton, with co-authors in several instances, has published a series of "Lost World" books in recent years. Previously, I have reviewed The Lost World of Genesis One (here) and The Lost World of Adam and Eve (here). In each of these books Walton uses a combination of careful exegesis and study of Ancient Near East backgrounds to propose readings of the biblical passages to propose a reading faithful to a commitment to the trustworthiness of scripture and yet not in conflict with science. In this work, Walton and Tremper Longman III team up to pursue a similar study of the flood accounts in Genesis 6-9. The challenge in these texts is that they clearly teach a universal flood, a fact that Walton and Longman affirm, at variance with the geological evidence that would accompany such a flood. Other commentators either try to argue that the text actually indicates a local flood or they contend for a "flood geology" which has failed to gain acceptance among geologists. These authors both admit that the text actually affirms a universal flood and yet accept the lack of evidence for such a flood in the geological record and include a contribution from a Christian geologist (Stephen O. Moshier), who affirms the lack of evidence for a global flood. As in other Walton books, the argument is framed around a set of propositions that may be the best way to summarize the book:

Part I: Method: Perspectives on Interpretation
Proposition 1: Genesis Is an Ancient Document
Proposition 2: Genesis 1–11 Makes Claims About Real Events
Proposition 3: Genesis Uses Rhetorical Devices
Proposition 4: The Bible Uses Hyperbole to Describe Historical Events
Proposition 5: Genesis Appropriately Presents a Hyperbolic Account of the Flood
Proposition 6: Genesis Depicts the Flood as a Global Event

Part II: Background: Ancient Near Eastern Texts
Proposition 7: Ancient Mesopotamia Also Has Stories of a Worldwide Flood
Proposition 8: The Biblical Flood Story Shares Similarities and Differences with Ancient Near Eastern Flood Accounts

Part III: Text: Understanding the Biblical Text Literarily and Theologically
Proposition 9: A Local Cataclysmic Flood Is Intentionally Described as a Global Flood for Rhetorical Purposes
Proposition 10: The Flood Account Is Part of a Sequence of Sin and Judgment Serving as Backstory for the Covenant
Proposition 11: The Theological History Is Focused on the Issue of Divine Presence, the Establishment of Order, and How Order Is Undermined
Proposition 12: The “Sons of God” Episode Is Not Only a Prelude to the Flood; It Is the Narrative Sequel to Cain and Abel
Proposition 13: The Tower of Babel (Genesis 11:1-9) Is an Appropriate Conclusion to the Primeval Narrative

Part IV: The World: Thinking About Evidence for the Flood
Proposition 14: The Flood Story Has a Real Event Behind It
Proposition 15: Geology Does Not Support a Worldwide Flood (Steve Moshier)
Proposition 16: Flood Stories from Around the World Do Not Prove a Worldwide Flood
Proposition 17: “Science Can Purify Our Religion; Religion Can Purify Science from Idolatry and False Absolutes”

Several things are key to their argument here. One is an argument that Genesis 1-11 reflect historical events, and that the flood story is rooted in a real event. Second is that hyperbole in Biblical narrative has a number of precedents. Third and perhaps most significant is that there are a number of hyperbolic elements in Genesis 6-9, from the size of the ark (the dimensions of which do not seem structurally possible with the materials used) to the depths of the waters, and they would argue, the extent of the flood, and that these elements are in the narrative because they serve a theological purpose, namely to show the dis-ordering and re-ordering work of God in judgment, laying the groundwork for God's covenant with Abraham.

While Walton argues that he is not reconciling the Bible and science, but rather offering a better rendering of what the text actually says in these works, I would like him to address the question of why it takes incongruities between science (or archaeology) and scripture to bring such readings to light. He does this in part by observing the "two books" idea of revelation, and that each speaks to, and purifies, the other. But I wonder if interpreters might have reached the author's proposal for reading the flood narratives apart from or before the geological evidence. I also find the argument suspect that the writers clearly wrote of a global flood, but engaged in intentional hyperbole in so doing. It would be easier for me to believe they intended a global flood simply because their "world" as they knew it was utterly flooded.

What Walton and Longman show is that their reading fits well within the total context of Genesis 1-11, a crucial point in favor of that reading. They also provide a reading that doesn't necessitate pitting scripture against science nor coming up with an "alternative science" that comports with scripture. They argue that these accounts are rooted in real, historical events and do not ask us to gloss over portions of the text. While their engagement with geology demonstrates that it is not possible to ignore or dismiss science, and in fact science ought to be listened to as part of God's "two books," the real advance comes through trying to understand the Genesis narratives on their own terms, in their cultural and historic context and the theological purpose intended by their writer. This leads to an even more startling possibility: what if, in more carefully listening to both science and scripture on their own terms, we might in the end come to a better harmony between the two?

____________________________

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received a complimentary review copy of this book from the publisher in exchange for an honest review. The opinions I have expressed are my own.

[Jared Greer · Rating 4 out of 5]

Following the typical pattern of Walton's "Lost World" books, this work presents and attempts to substantiate a series of propositions regarding a complex biblical text—and then offers an interpretation that accounts for these propositions. This series entry focuses on Genesis 1-11, and specifically homes in on the flood and Babel narratives in chapters 6-11. The authors' propositions are divided into four sections which cover interpretive methodologies, ancient Near Eastern backgrounds, literary and theological analyses, and scientific/geological considerations.

In the end, Walton and Longman conclude that the flood narrative likely belongs in the category of "theological history"; while the narrative recounts a real historical event, the author of the narrative is more concerned with theological verity than historical accuracy. This means that the author of the narrative likely used hyperbole and other modes of figurative expression in order to better convey real theological truths. Thus, while the biblical narrative describes the flood as global, this is likely hyperbolic and intended to demonstrate something theological, like the universal nature of God's judgment. In reality, the flood—though certainly catastrophic—was probably only local or regional, not global. This kind of hyperbolic literature would not have been out of place in the cultural river of the ancient Near East.

In support of this interpretation, the best geological and scientific data (God's other source of revelation, cf. Rom. 1) strongly indicates that a worldwide flood never occurred. Nevertheless, Walton and Longman completely affirm biblical inerrancy, and suggest that the Bible perfectly communicates what it intends to communicate. Thus, it is suggested that when the testimony of creation seems to be in conflict with biblical teaching, we should simply re-evaluate our interpretive lenses. Because creative revelation and biblical revelation both come from God, they can never be in conflict when interpreted correctly. Scientific discovery has taught us that the sky is not a literal firmament holding back a sea; that the earth is not the center of the universe; that the earth is not flat; and that the earth revolves around the sun rather than the sun around the earth. In all such instances, we've simply adjusted our biblical-interpretive lenses accordingly—rather than discarding scriptural authority altogether. Walton and Longman suggest that we do the same with the flood narrative.

In conclusion, Walton and Longman believe that the flood narrative is theological through and through; and it is concerned not only with God's judgment against sin, but with God's overarching desire to restore order within a disordered creation. This divine desire to restore order is further demonstrated in the Abrahamic covenant, the Mosaic covenant, the Davidic covenant, and the new covenant in Christ. As can be expected from Walton and Longman, careful research and robust scholarship is on full display throughout this book. While Walton's work can sometimes focus disproportionately on ANE context for interpretation (understandably, given his expertise), I felt that this book offered a better balance than his other works. My only wish is that the authors spent more time exegeting the text itself. Methodology, literary analysis, theological analysis, and scientific inquiry are all important to this topic of study—but it seems that too little time was allotted for analyzing the details of the text itself.

“The Lost World of the Flood” is an academic but accessible read. It offers Christians helpful tools and methods for faithful and honest interpretation of difficult ancient texts; and it offers indispensable insight to those who have trouble reconciling the grandiose nature of ancient biblical stories with modern scientific data. At times, the authors drift away from their primary focus—and, as I mentioned above, I wish there was more commentary and exegesis on the text itself; but all in all, I imagine I will still recommend this book to many due to its accessibility, astounding scholarship, scientific integrity, and commitment to biblical authority.

[Luke Wagner · Rating 3 out of 5]

In this book, John Walton and Tremper Longman III tackle the flood controversy. Both authors would describe themselves as evangelical Christians, who accept wholeheartedly the inspiration and inerrancy of the biblical text. Yet, they do not argue that there was a global flood, but rather, that in the “far distant past,” there was “a devastating flood [that] killed many people,” but that it is impossible “to date the event, locate the event, or reconstruct the event in our own terms” (85). For the authors, this “is not a problem because the event itself … is not what is inspired. What is inspired and thus the vehicle of God’s revelation is the literary-theological explanation that is given by the biblical author” (85). Thus, according to Walton and Longman, the “local flood”—which is a real historical event that happened at some point in the distant past—is “described rhetorically as a worldwide flood [in Genesis 6–9] to make a theological point”; by maintaining this stance, the authors hope to honor “both the biblical text when read in its literary and cultural context as well as the geological evidence (or lack thereof)” (93).

I appreciate the goal and spirit of this book, and Walton and Longman have done as good a job as anyone trying to carve out a “middle” way in this controversy. And I agree that the main purpose of the biblical account of the flood is theological in nature (scientific accuracy and historical precision seem to be less important). The book’s chapters could have been longer at some points, as it would have been helpful to flesh out or explain more thoroughly some of the points the authors make. The chapter contributed by geologist Stephen O. Moshier was interesting, but was not nearly as reader-friendly (in my opinion) as the other chapters (but that’s likely because I am more familiar with the field of biblical studies than I am with geology). Undoubtedly, this book will probably create more controversy than actually end it, but I’m sure it will be helpful for many readers who do not want to put Christianity and science against each other.

[Lindsay Lemus · Rating 2 out of 5]

Okay, I've had time to sit on this, pray on it, and although I respect some things this author talked about, his stance is too much rooted in the Ancient Near East text which is pagan and not the Word of God. We should compare to the Bible not compare the Bible to other things. He believes and tries to prove the flood was local and not worldwide and that the whole of Genesis was written in literary hyperbole. My question is, why would God have the authors of any book to be rhetorical or hyperbole and not literal. God has absolutely no reason to NOT be literal in His Word. He is merciful in all His ways and I firmly believe He wouldn't make up things just to get His point across and make it hard to understand His Word. I am a believer that our God speaks in literal terms even with the parables Jesus speaks about. Yes, those stories did not have real people who did those things but are still meant to be taken literally because they mean literal situations that happen or can happen. This author/scholar, unfortunately, is giving gnostic interpretations that aren't biblical, in my opinion. The only thing I found I agreed with was that the Bible isn't written about us but about God for us to see His love and glory.
I have an open mind when reading different points of view in the doctrines and interpretations of the Bible stories because I understand our western eyes and minds have a hard time seeing it in the eastern mind of who were the authors and original audiences to the biblical events but I personally would not recommend this book, series, or author as biblically sound.

[Catherine Ensley · Rating 3 out of 5]

I read this book with great anticipation for gleaning numerous insights on the culture of the ANE (Ancient Near East) in general and the ancient Israelites in particular. I did gain a few insights, but overall, the book was astonishingly repetitive, which means that there isn't nearly as much in it as I had hoped. The authors could've shortened it by at least 50% and probably more, had they removed the repetitions.

As to the flood itself, they believe a large flood happened, which was written about in numerous ANE sources, including the Bible.

They do not believe the flood covered the entire earth. They believe the Biblical authors were using hyperbole to describe this big flood. That the flood did not cover the earth is not the point of the Biblical narrative, they argue. So even if it did not cover the world, that doesn't make the story less true.

The important point is the inspired reaction to the flood by the author of the book of Genesis, which helped to shape the ancient Israelites' view of God, a view that was much different from other ANE cultures. For example, whereas other ANE cultures were polytheistic, the ancient Israelites believed in one God.

I received this book free from NetGalley in exchange for an honest review.

[James Hold · Rating 3 out of 5]

Basically a magazine article puffed up to book length. Nothing here to challenge anyone's theology, provided they take a common sense approach to such things. You can find much better (and less boring) stuff on the INSPIRING PHILOSOPHY channel on YouTube.

[Liam · Rating 3 out of 5]

Couldn’t get on board with a lot of Walton’s perspectives, and didn’t fully understand his point of view on many of them. But this definitely did make me think.

[Joel Wentz · Rating 4 out of 5]

A strong entry in the 'Lost World' series by Walton (more accessible and enjoyable to read than 'scripture' or 'conquest,' but 'Genesis One' is still probably the best). If you've been reading these books - and you really should be! - then you know what to expect: short chapters organized into a logical series of propositions that build towards an overall argument, with the occasional highly technical foray into ancient languages and comparative literature; and 'flood' doesn't break the mold, which is a great thing!

Overall, Longman and Walton put forward a very thoughtful argument considering the theological-rhetorical reasons the biblical flood is intentionally written as global-cataclysmic, and furthermore, why this shouldn't cause Christians any consternation with the geological evidence that doesn't square with an historical, global flood (they actually go a step further and argue that we need to take that evidence seriously, for the sake of our witness). Interestingly, they also contend that this reading should fit within a thoughtful doctrine of inerrancy. In all of this, there are some really eye-opening discussions comparing Genesis to other ancient accounts of the time, as well as some material about the broader narrative thrust of the so-called primeval history in Genesis 1-11, and I put down the book with a much more nuanced appreciation for what the entirety of Genesis 1-11 is all about.

[Brandon · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is an incredible and mind blowing perspective on interpreting Genesis and the Bible. I've been lost for a long time trying to read my own cultural perspective into Genesis. Question's such as is it myth or science are completely culturally inappropriate when it comes to proper exegete of the texts role and function.

[Michael Philliber · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Biblical deluge story is an episode in Scripture that generates plenty of friction. It brings questions to the surface for those who believe it is authentic, and raises the ire of those who are certain it is fictional. Not long ago Tremper Longman III, Distinguished Scholar of Biblical Studies at Westmont College in Santa Barbara, California, and John H. Walton, professor of Old Testament at Wheaton College and Graduate School, added their contribution with a 192 page softback, “The Lost World of the Flood: Mythology, Theology, and the Deluge Debate”. The volume also includes a chapter on geological data by Stephen O. Moshier, professor of geology and chair of the geology and environmental science department at Wheaton College, and director of the Black Hills Science Station. This volume is the fifth installment to IVP Academic’s “The Lost World” series.

The emphasis within “The Lost World of the Flood” is quickly made clear: the authors hold to the flood account as a genuine space-and-time event that employs worldwide language to communicate a theological message. This is what the authors are denominating as theological history. Actual events that happened in the real past, recounted and interpreted by Bible authors to tell theological truths. But according to Longman and Walton, the use of worldwide language does not necessitate that the flood story was actually global. Rather, the language is hyperbolic, such as when I say to my friend, “Man! You weigh a ton!” Unless my friend is the Hulk, then the excessive language communicates fact without precise accuracy. In other words, the Biblical account utilizes worldwide language to describe a seriously traumatic, but regional flood, to make a theological point. A large percentage of the chapters simply add detail and color to this main emphasis.

Other chapters pick up further tidbits that either feed into the Deluge story, or come after it. For example, who were the sons of God and the daughters of man? There is also a discussion about the literary placement of the Tower of Babel incident in Genesis 1-11. And then there is an important treatment on the theological flow of the first eleven chapters of Genesis. But the majority of the material is devoted to the Flood itself, the form in which the tale is recounted, and the purpose of the story.

I immediately noticed a change in attitude and approach in this volume. There was a pronounced humility and charitableness toward those who may not agree with the authors’ assessments, something I didn’t find in previous installments in “The Lost World” series. “If the readers deem that information useful and beneficial, we are gratified. But for readers who cannot accept our findings, believing that the Scripture makes claims that require other conclusions, we hope that at least we have shown how our particular interpretation is the result of faithful interpretation” (viii). Further, Longman and Walton took great pains to emphasize that they hold to the Scriptures as God’s Word, which speaks truly, and to which they want to submit themselves and their lives.
Beyond the fact that I disagree with the authors’ premise that the flood was a traumatic, but regional flood, rather than a worldwide deluge, I had one other chief dissent. Several times in the book Longman and Walton declare that God did not inspire the events, only the Biblical interpretations of the events. “Events are not inspired; interpretations of events are inspired” (23), and “Methodologically, we have noted that events are not authoritative; interpretation of events by the biblical authors is what carries authority” (177). This sentiment is unsatisfying and causes some head-scratching. How can you have the one without the other? If the authoritative interpretation by the inspired writer says these events happened at the direction and decree of God, then that seems to me to indicate the event is also inspired. I’m not sure you can affirm one and disavow the other, without creating internal dissonance. Certainly there are incidents in Scripture that are purely descriptive and not prescriptive, and the rehearsal of the event makes it clear. But once the author merges the description of an affair with the diktat of God, as is happening in Genesis 6-9, it seems fairly clear to me that the authoritative interpretation is telling us the two go hand-in-glove; event and interpretation are inspired and authoritative.

“The Lost World of the Flood” was easier for me to read than the other volumes in “The Lost World” series. I found the tone in this book much more tolerant. Most of the material stirred my thinking in a way that I disagreed with the conclusions, but felt I was in a safe place to do that. This volume could be valuably used in a group discussion, or as a supplemental textbook in a seminary class. I cautiously recommend the book.

Thanks to IVP Academic for providing, upon my request, the free copy of the book used for this review. The assessments are mine given without restrictions or requirements (as per Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255).

[Barry · Rating 3 out of 5]

A little repetitive, but these guys make a good case

[Joel · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is an excellent book for guiding audiences through the complex narrative material in Genesis 1-11. Walton does well to explain his methodological approaches from the very beginning, such as viewing the materials through a rhetorical framework that utilises hyperbole.
He explains that these elements make sense as they are a shared part of the “cultural river” from which these Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) cultures emerge.
.
Walton argues that whilst there is no evidence for a global deluge, it is most likely that there is still an historical flooding event (or events) behind the shaping of the different ANE deluge stories. He continues to remind the reader that the event/events are not the part that is authoritative or inspired, but rather it is the theological message which carries this weight (i.e. the significance lies in the theological meaning rather than the historicity).
Furthermore Walton separates the Hebrew story from neighbouring ones by claiming that “[the Hebrew] God gives them revelation that transcends the culture, but he speaks to them within the culture.” (86)
.
In the third part of the book Walton proposes that the flood story functions as “part of a sequence of sin and judgment serving as a backstory for the Covenant.”
Along with this he identifies a threefold pattern of “non-order”, “order”, and “disorder,” which is used to shape the cyclical progressions from divine creating activity to human rebellion.
Just as Eden was a sacred space of order (from non-order) which the first humans brought disorder into (via a chaos agent). The flood event was purposed to bring about order again from the waters of non-order (chaos). After this there was a repeating of some of the elements of creation, although God’s presence did not rest with creation as it did in Eden. Thus the Tower of Babel in ch11 is seen as a continuation of the problem, wherein the construction of a ziggurat is attempted in order to bring the presence of God back among humans (that is, humans attempting to reverse the judgment against their disorder), and the result is that God removes the order of their communications resulting in non-order.
Walton then makes interesting connections to Jacob’s Ladder in Gen 28 and Pentecost episode in Acts 2.
.
This book is an excellent example of an esteemed biblical scholar writing for the popular audience with an aim to dispel unhelpful thinking and to help educate about ancient genres of literature. I highly recommend it for anyone interested in these types of pre-history.
.
In closing, here is an explanation from the author that I believe is an insightful summary of this work:
“As an illustration, we would not expect to be able to look at Van Gogh’s Starry Night in order to reconstruct aspects such as which part of the sky it shows, which hemisphere, and what time of night, and match it to a shot from the Hubble telescope. Though the starry sky is real, Van Gogh offers an artistic representation. Literary descriptions are likewise artistic. In a similar way, then, we would not expect to be able to take a rhetorically shaped account of an ancient flood tradition and reconstruct it in modern hydrological-geological terms. Our inability to do so is not because it is false but because it is culturally situated literary art using rhetorical conventions.” (177)

[Gideon Yutzy · Rating 4 out of 5]

The authors hold that while anyone can find the basic message of God's love through their own reading of Scripture, outside input is needed for effective, robust interpretation of Scripture.

In the case of the flood story, that outside input is a knowledge of the literature and history of the ancient Near East. Longman and Walton believe the flood is based on an actual event but that hyperbole is used to make the main theological point (God is reordering his relationship with the world after they had turned after violence and pride). There is much evidence that the story is hyperbolic. For instance, the boat could not have been as large as described (even modern wooden boats are seaworthy at that size); fossils and rocks do not concur with a worldwide flood; Ancient Near Eastern literature employed hyperbole routinely and would have been natural for Genesis to do as well.

Though they destroy modern fundamentalists such as Ken Ham (in my opinion), they do so respectfully and with the obvious desire to bring clarity to those who were stunted (and even led astray) by the grammatical-historical view of the flood story. A nice alternative to Rob Bell's What is the Bible, which tends to evince a Hollywood, Rescue-the-Bible flavour or Pete Enns, who has some good things to say but can come across as a little curmudgeonly.

[Chad Ryan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Longman & Walton present an almost middle-of-the-road position between the two dominant evangelical positions on the flood (a worldwide flood or a local flood). The premise in short: the Noahic flood is presented rhetorically as worldwide, w/ its historical referent (most likely) being a local/regional flood.

I gave this book 4 stars b/c it is generally very thought-provoking. I would recommend it to anyone wanting to think deeply about the flood--and for those not familiar w/ the Lost World series, this will get them to think deeply about Scripture in general. I'll also add that the work that Walton (and Longman, here) do in the Lost World series is incredibly important (and courageous) work for the evangelical church.

But here's my beef: The book spends most of its pages deconstructing the dominant positions, but gives little airtime to constructing a positive interpretation of the details of the flood account. (Perhaps I need to consult their respective Genesis commentaries for that.) The biggest disappointment of the book is its almost stubborn refusal to say anything about the historical details which actually can be gleaned from the flood account, aside from the fact that a cataclysmic flood happened sometime, somewhere. Though they insist upon a historical flood event--according to my recollection--I don't think they deal at all w/ the details concerning Noah, the ark, or the animals. Sure, they would say Noah was a historical person. But did he build a boat? And were there animals on it? These are significant lacunae, in my opinion. If they were addressed well, it could have greatly strengthened the book's overall case.

[Cari · Rating 4 out of 5]

The authors believe that the Bible is the God-inspired word and is infallible. This book compares Genesis 1-11 with other Ancient Near East literature. It relates these chapters to the culture in which they were written. I enjoyed the comparative lit approach and learned a lot that helped me to understand the Bible as a whole. God is a God of order. Disorder is in our lives bc of sin. It's our job to complete God's act of creating order as His representatives here on earth. The presentation is a little dry, but it is an academic work. I feel like I should read it again to get more understanding of the material.

[Wesley Morgan · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book was a little less substantial than the others in the series, but I still enjoyed it. I liked the explanation of why a global flood would be impossible, for geological reasons. I also like the discussion of genre and context in the Bible.

Sometimes the authors seemed like they were splitting hairs. They contend that the flood account in the Bible DOES describe a global event, it that it is hyperbolic language, possibly based on a local flood. For some reason, it is important to them that Genesis is describing a worldwide flood, even though that’s not what happened.

Unlike the other books, I also couldn’t see a lot of connections of this story to other ancient stories. I especially wasn’t sure what they were saying about the Nephilim and Tower of Babel. Honestly, I would love a whole book about those.

So, I don’t think I learned a lot about the flood’s meaning spiritually, though I appreciate the discussion about faith and science and how they purify each other.

[Nick Barrett · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book was amazing. I love the approach of propositions that build on one other towards a logical conclusion. It really made me think, and I truly consider this view of the flood (more specifically of Genesis 1-11) as the proper view. I would encourage any Christian to pick this up and read it with an open mind, knowing that it is not a salvation issue.

[Andrew · Rating 5 out of 5]

What if we were to view the Flood narrative in Genesis through the eyes of a reader from the Ancient Near East (ANE)? More to the point, what was the cultural river the writer of this account was floating in? What were the values, the conventions, the beliefs, the worldview he was working with? And what difference does that make to how we read the book?

Those are some of the questions John Walton seeks to answer, now joined in this fifth “Lost World” volume with Old Testament scholar Tremper Longman. One of the primary questions for interpretation is, What did the original writer intend to communicate? Walton and Longman bring this question front and center.

As is noted in the other books in the series, God accommodates his communication to the writer, and the writer to the reader. The message is not in terms of modern science but of the ANE. For example, they write, the ancient audience “would not have viewed the cosmos as a machine but as a kingdom, and God communicated to them about the world in those terms.” (Proposition 1). So we shouldn’t look for mechanistic explanations in the text.

Is the Flood narrative completely fictitious, then? No, the authors suggest there was a real event behind the story that was told for theological (rather than primarily for historical or scientific) purposes. First, some similar narratives in other ANE literature (Sumerian, Babylonian, Assyrian) confirm this idea. Second, geological research suggests that a violent flood “burst through the Bosporus in 5600 BC” turning a fresh water lake into the Black Sea. Though we cannot be sure this particular flood is the one mentioned in Genesis 6-9, Walton and Longman say this type of event could have inspired the biblical account. Third, Genesis itself suggests there was a real story behind the narrative.

What the account doesn’t intend to communicate, however, is that the physical flood was worldwide. The biblical writer used hyperbole (global language), as was customary in the day and in many other places in the Bible, to characterize a regional flood that had universal implications. Military victories, for example, are characterize as utterly destroying the enemy, even though in later chapters or books we find survivors.

Hyperbole was used to communicate how important or significant the event was. We might say, “The whole city turned out for the Cubs World Series victory parade.” This was not true, but no one would mistake this statement for an intentional or unintentional lie. It is a way for us to express the widespread significance of the event. Historical accuracy is not primarily in view though there was a real event behind the statement.

The universal theological truths being communicated in the Flood account are the pervasiveness of human sin, God’s determination to judge sin, and his desire to restore order after a period of nonorder represented by watery chaos (echoing what happened in Genesis 1).

The authors include a “guest” chapter by geologist Stephen O. Moshier to summarize the lack of evidence for a worldwide flood. And since the text does not require that we understand it that way, we can focus on what the text does say.

[Phil Aud · Rating 3 out of 5]

I am grateful for Walton’s Lost World series. I have enjoyed both The Lost World of Genesis 1 (which I reviewed here) and The Lost World of Adam and Eve (which I reviewed here). Walton has broken ground in helping us understand the book of Genesis through an Ancient Near Eastern lens.

Of the three books that I’ve read, this was my least favorite. If you’ve read any of the series, beware that the first quarter of this book is mainly a regurgitation of his defense for his method. I suppose this can’t be helped and is, in fact, helpful to the new reader. While it is unfortunate that this much time needs to be spent explaining/defending his method, it is indicative of the time in which we live. If you do not need to be convinced, it is a bit tiresome.

While the book is informative in some senses, I felt the majority of the book sought to describe what the flood was not rather than what it was. Perhaps the point was to debunk a literalist reading. If so, mission accomplished (though many would not agree regardless of how strong the argument). This was my main disappointment; I was looking for more insight, less deconstruction. Ironically, the most insight that I gained from this book had to do with the “‘Sons of God’ Episode” in Genesis 6 (Proposition 12) and The Tower of Babel (Proposition 13). Otherwise, most of the time is spent dealing with the Flood not being a literal but rather a hyperbolic “worldwide” event, and some rather bland comparisons with other ANE documents which I normally find fascinating.

I am a fan of Walton, just not a big fan of this book. I will go to it occasionally if looking for a few facts but otherwise, I’ll be looking for new sources of insight.

[Avery Amstutz · Rating 4 out of 5]

It’s Walton. If you have read any other of his books in this series then skip the first few chapters where he talks about hermeneutic and methodology. If you haven’t ever read Walton I’d start with TLW of Genesis 1 or TLW of Adam and Eve. They do better at explaining Johns hermeneutical approach.

This is the most helpful thing Walton has to offer. He gives us ways of engaging not only with ancient near-eastern texts in respectful and accurate ways, but also any text written from a different cultural context.

If you have to teach Sunday school on Noah, this book should be in your back pocket.

Honestly no one should be teaching ancient pre-Hebrew texts without a working understanding of what Walton offers. (Hot take, I’m sorry.)

[Andrew Trotter · Rating 5 out of 5]

Definitely challenged my thinking and what I had learned growing up. I don’t think I would shave been as receptive to their interpretation if I hadn’t used many of their commentary before and trusted their work. Really good stuff.

[✨Arline✨ · Rating 5 out of 5]

Highly recommend. I learned a ton about geology, theology and probably other —ologies. Very interesting book.

[J.L. Neyhart · Rating 3 out of 5]

John H. Walton is an Old Testament scholar and professor at Wheaton College. He was a professor at Moody Bible Institute for 20 years. He specializes in the Ancient Near Eastern backgrounds of the Old Testament, especially Genesis and its creation account,

Longman is Distinguished Scholar of Biblical Studies at Westmont College in Santa Barbara, California, where he was the Robert H. Gundry Professor of Biblical Studies for nineteen years before his retirement in 2017.[citation needed] He earned his B.A. from Ohio Wesleyan University, his M.Div. from Westminster Theological Seminary, and his M.Phil. and Ph.D. from Yale University.

From what I can tell, these two men are incredibly smart and have spent their lives studying the Bible, and both have spent many, many years teaching at Evangelical Christian Colleges. So while much of their scholarship is good and helpful, they still try to fit their scholarship into the box of "inerrancy".

Walton and Longman believe that the biblical text implies a universal flood. They accept the science that shows that a universal flood actually happened. They explain that sometimes used hyperbole to teach theological truths.

Part I: Method: Perspectives on Interpretation - We must remember the Bible is written for us, but not to us. Genesis shouldn't be read as a science textbook. They point out that ancient man didn’t make the same strong distinction between myth and history that modern readers do.

Proposition 1: Genesis Is an Ancient Document
Proposition 2: Genesis 1–11 Makes Claims About Real Events
Proposition 3: Genesis Uses Rhetorical Devices
Proposition 4: The Bible Uses Hyperbole to Describe Historical Events
Proposition 5: Genesis Appropriately Presents a Hyperbolic Account of the Flood
Proposition 6: Genesis Depicts the Flood as a Global Event

Part II: Background: Ancient Near Eastern Texts
Proposition 7: Ancient Mesopotamia Also Has Stories of a Worldwide Flood
Proposition 8: The Biblical Flood Story Shares Similarities and Differences with Ancient Near Eastern Flood Accounts

Part III: Text: Understanding the Biblical Text Literarily and Theologically
Proposition 9: A Local Cataclysmic Flood Is Intentionally Described as a Global Flood for Rhetorical Purposes
Proposition 10: The Flood Account Is Part of a Sequence of Sin and Judgment Serving as Backstory for the Covenant
Proposition 11: The Theological History Is Focused on the Issue of Divine Presence, the Establishment of Order, and How Order Is Undermined
Proposition 12: The “Sons of God” Episode Is Not Only a Prelude to the Flood; It Is the Narrative Sequel to Cain and Abel
Proposition 13: The Tower of Babel (Genesis 11:1-9) Is an Appropriate Conclusion to the Primeval Narrative

Part IV: The World: Thinking About Evidence for the Flood
Proposition 14: The Flood Story Has a Real Event Behind It
Proposition 15: Geology Does Not Support a Worldwide Flood (Steve Moshier)
Proposition 16: Flood Stories from Around the World Do Not Prove a Worldwide Flood
Proposition 17: “Science Can Purify Our Religion; Religion Can Purify Science from Idolatry and False Absolutes”

[Shawn Durham · Rating 5 out of 5]

The Lost World of the Flood”, by John Walton & Tremper Longman III was one of the most interesting & unique books I have ever read.
•
Throughout the book, the authors interpreted the flood narrative, while also looking at others ancient near east (ANE) flood narratives, such as the Gilgamesh epic.
•
The authors noted that “events are not authoritative; interpretations of events by the biblical authors is what carries authority” (page 177).
•
What I found unique about this book was the position that the authors take regarding the flood, that it was a local flood presented as a world wide flood through the use of hyperbole. The author notes how that other Biblical authors use the same “universal” language to describe things that are not actually universal. The main example given is the book of Joshua, where we read that the Israelite army totally decimated the Canaanite’s on 3 separate occasions. Obviously, the authors state, the universal language in Joshua is not literal, for you cannot completely wipe out the same civilization on 3 separate occasions. The other gives modern hyperbolic examples where we do the same thing (the Patriots destroyed the Bengals). Obviously we do not actually believe that the Pats destroyed/murdered every member of the Bengals franchise, but its hyperbolic language to describe a massive destruction.
•
There were times when this book was a bit repetitive, but overall, it was a very interesting book. •
•
What I enjoyed most about this book, is that the authors interpreted the event of the flood, not with a 21st century mindset, but with an ancient mindset, one that the original audience would have had.
•
•
Follow my Instagram @theology.quotes

[James Uscroft · Rating 1 out of 5]

How does a Christian reconcile the fact that the Bible *Must* be the unquestioned and unquestionable word of God with the reality that the foundational myths on which it is based are unscientific, bronze-age bunk which were dismissed as such by Bible Believing Christians before Darwin was even born?

Though many Apologetics have been offered over the centuries, in the age of so-called "Scientific Creationism" and most Christians literally just ignoring 95% of their book, it's rare to see one which actually attempts to square the circle of admitting that it's scientifically false while simultaneously asserting that it must somehow still be theologically true. But while I thought that it would be worth a giggle to listen to this car-crash of an attempt, this book takes far too long to basically conclude that "No, the flood was local. However, it was global in its themes, scope and impact as God used the catastrophe to set the stage for his covenant with Abraham by confirming his hatred of sin and ultimate plan to impose order on the world. Meaning that yes, even though he didn't literally kill everyone, God still deliberately drowned hundreds, thousands, or maybe even tens of thousands of people, including countless babies and young child, merely so that the story could be used thousands of years later as a narrative device in his book. But stop demanding that God explain his actions to you, because it's we who have to explain ourselves to God."

...Seriously, if I weren't already an Atheist, then this train wreck of an Apologetic might have been enough to push me over the edge!

[Jonathan · Rating 4 out of 5]

7/10

“The Bible was written to us, not for us.”

“If science is correct and contradicts the Bible, all that does is lead us to a better interpretation of the Bible.” A textual analysis that leads us to understand the intent of the authors, as they write accounts for ancient audiences, rather than modern ones. We must therefore alter our perspectives to fit theirs, rather than force their accounts to fit our perspectives.

Walton of course spends time with the Babylonian flood accounts, noting the similarities and differences, and the cultural milieu shared by both civilizations, leading to similarities in the accounts. From there he delves into the Babel story. Throughout the book however, I would say his main argument is for a local, rather than global flood. He proves that the narrative allows for this, but in my opinion the narrative does not actually show that the narrative favors this theory.

To the ANE (Ancient near east) the theme of order vs Chaos would have been important, rather than direct historical narrative.

I love that he mentions the divine counsel, if only in passing.
Eden is reversed on the cross, and Babel is reversed at Pentecost. This is a new perspective, and one I'll think about more in future.

[Aaron White · Rating 4 out of 5]

This series of books has greatly shaped my understanding of the Old Testament world and thinking. This particular book really brought together the Genesis narrative as a whole and linked it to itself, the rest of the Old Testament and the new covenant in the New Testament. I found this portion of the most satisfying as links were proposed that I had never seen before, especially as most of the time, these things are presented as stories that are somewhat independent of each other and usually hazy in the timeline.
Conclusions of the purpose and understanding of Genesis 1-11 were very helpful and they provided a great framework for interpreting this biblical literature.
Answers to flood geologists were also helpful.
Regardless of how far you travel with them down this road, their overall understandings of how scripture works and how the ancient near east people thought are invaluable.
The (few) jabs at those who disagree were not helpful.

[Nathan · Rating 5 out of 5]

This work deserve five stars not because I agree with every one of the authors’ propositions (I remain unconvinced about their skepticism of the size and viability of the ark), but because the book is highly successful in what it intends to do.

The positions are clearly laid out in a series of (often building and interdependent) propositions, which are easy to follow and occasionally concisely summarized. The authors are fair minded and never throw punches at their opposition, even when they staunchly disagree. There’s a lot worth considering here.

“If asked, Was the flood global? our answer would be, Yes, it is global in its impact and significance, yet we have no reason to think that its physical scope and range was global. Since the Bible uses the rhetoric of hyperbole to describe the flood, it does not claim that the flood was universal in its physical scope and range; it rather portrays it in universalistic terms for rhetorical effect.”