Bock falls down badly on a couple of points. First, there is this:
The fact that we have genealogical listings in Genesis and 1 Chronicles suggests we are in the same kind of reality and genre whether we are discussing Israel or the period before. These listings go back to Adam.
To say that the presence of a genealogy in two pieces of literature mean that those two pieces are therefore the same genre is just wishful thinking, as well as dead wrong. Compare the genealogies of Gen. 5 and 1 Chronicles and tell me what they have in common stylistically.
Next, there is this:
The archetypes in these chapters are firsts, not fictions. This is often how archetypes work. The cross has the archetype in the Passover. Redemption has an archetype in the Exodus and in the original Creation as it moves into new creation. Archetypes come with historical prototypes.
Notice the subtle shift from the qualified statement "This is often how archetypes work" to the unqualified assertion "Archetypes come with historical prototypes." In any case, Bock seems to be completely unaware that there is such a thing as a literary archetype -- a recurrent symbol or motif in literature, art, or mythology. The only literary interpreters with a "rule" that archetypes must have historical prototypes are NT scholars committed to the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy.