Tag: Apologetics

Echoes of Mark in the Gospel of John

~ Bob Hayton ~ 2 Comments

Many people have wondered why the New Testament includes four different Gospels. The differences can be confusing, and critics argue that they betray a difference of opinion among early Christians about Jesus and His message. Evangelical Christians respond by stressing that each of the Gospels is a separate, unique witness to the authenticity of the account of Jesus Christ’s life and ministry. The very fact that they are written from different perspectives and have different points of emphasis, strengthens their ability to independently testify to the truth of the Christian message.

In analyzing the Gospels, scholars have often claimed that John’s Gospel was written by someone who had no clear knowledge of the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke). The theology in John is more advanced, and must come from a later date in the “evolution” of Christian doctrine. From this scholarly debate has come a fresh look at the literary evidence in the Gospels themselves, and the results have been startling (or encouraging, depending on your perspective). NT scholarship is starting to change its tune on this point, in fact. Even for those of us who aren’t scholars (I include myself here for sure), there are meaty takeaways that can improve our grasp of the interplay between the Gospels – and heighten our appreciation of the revelation of Jesus we find there.

In this post, I want to highlight that the author of the Gospel of John (who I hold is John the Apostle), is not only familiar with the Gospel of Mark, but that he also assumes that many of his readers have read Mark. He even structures His Gospel (John) so that it fills out and explains much that Mark does not include in his Gospel. In short, there are echoes of Mark in John’s Gospel, and John intends His Gospel to differ from Mark’s. As Richard Bauckham puts it, “John is explicitly incomplete in aspects which… the Synoptic Gospels supply.”[1]

Puzzling Statements (John 3:24; 11:2)

What follows here is drawn from a chapter titled “John for Readers of Mark” by Richard Bauckham[2]. In reading Jonathan Pennington’s book Reading the Gospels Wisely, I came across a summary of Bauckham’s thoughts on this, and I have dug up more on the topic from simply following the helpful footnotes for more info.[3]

Two small and seemingly insignificant verses reveal John’s knowledge of Mark. And following their lead, a few other verses throw open the door to how John and Mark dovetail together.

John 3:24 “(For John had not yet been put in prison).”

John 3:24 is an aside, a parenthetical expression that is quite odd. Bauckham himself explains this quite clearly:

To understand the reason for the explanation, we are obliged to postulate implied readers/hearers who know more than the Gospel itself has told them. They seem to be expected already to know that John’s ministry came to an end when he was imprisoned, but even this knowledge is not sufficient to account for the explanation. Whether or not readers/hearers already know that John was imprisoned, they do not need to be told the obvious: that he was not yet imprisoned when he was still baptizing.[4]

Of the few references to John the Baptist’s imprisonment in the Synoptics, the one most likely referred to here is Mark 1:14. The comment in John 3:24 is there to let the reader know that this portion of Jesus’ ministry is taking place in between Mark 1:9-13 (which details Jesus’ baptism and subsequent temptation in the wilderness) and Mark 1:14 (which has Jesus going to Galilee to start his ministry there — right after John is imprisoned). This section in John’s Gospel, begins right after Jesus’ baptism (as hinted at in John 1:30) and continues through John 4:43 (where Jesus goes into Galilee for formal ministry — his time at Cana in John 2 was before his public ministry). So John wants his readers to know that John 1:19-4:43 fits between Mark 1:13 and 1:14.

John 11:2 “It was Mary who anointed the Lord with ointment and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was ill.”

This statement in John 11:2 is similarly puzzling. Why name Mary of Bethany as the one who anointed Jesus one chapter before the story of Jesus’ anointing (by Mary) is told in John (chapter 12)? Readers of Mark (and the other Synoptics) would have known of a woman who anointed Jesus in Bethany. John connects their knowledge of that story with his account by naming the woman here. (She is not named in Mark 14:3-9.) John will go on in chapter 12 to use a different chronology than Mark, putting the anointing before the triumphal entry, rather than after it.

Filling Out, Re-Ordering, and Summarizing Mark

From these two examples, you can almost imagine John as he is writing his account of Jesus’ ministry. He feels the need to re-order a story here or there from Mark, and add a name or highlight a detail. He moves the clearing of the Temple (Mark 11:11-25) to the beginning of Jesus’ Judean ministry (John 2:13-22), and gives a new account of Jesus’ trial before Annas (John 18:13-23) not mentioned in Mark, just prior to the trial before Caiaphas (John 18:24). John’s briefer mention of Caiaphas’ trial is due to it already being discussed in detail by Mark (Mark 14:53-65).

At other points John quickly passes over long sections already mentioned by Mark, and fills out what Mark only hints at. John skips the sending of the 12 (which Mark includes), but gives a fuller account of the feeding of the 5,000 – explaining why Jesus and the disciples have to leave in such a hurry (Mark 6:45 compared to John 6:14-16). John also includes the longer discourse about the Bread of Life (John 6:22-71) which follows the miracle. And this is the closest John gets to mentioning the Lord’s Supper (this omission may serve to interpret/stress the significance of the Lord’s Supper).

Next, the second half of Jesus’ ministry in Galilee (Mark 6:54-9:50) “is summarized by John in a single sentence” (in John 7:1a)[5]. Mark 10:1 mentions a ministry in Judah followed by time beyond the Jordan (where Mark 10:1-31 takes place). John follows along by giving us a long description of Jesus’ Judean ministry (John 7:10-10:39) understood as occurring in the gap implied in Mark 10:1, and then devotes just a few verses (John 10:40-42) to describe the beyond-Jordan ministry that Mark already described more fully (Mark 10:1-31).

One more puzzling reference in John may allude to Mark. John 14:31, ends with the curious words “Rise, let us go from here.” But John 15 continues the conversation from John 14. The words “rise, let us go” or literally “get up, let us be going”, are also found in Mark 14:42, “Rise, let us be going; see, my betrayer is at hand.” Bauckham interprets this echo from Mark as a way John emphasizes that Jesus is voluntarily facing his death (mentioned in the verses just prior to 14:31)[6]. John uses these familiar words (to readers of Mark) as a way to call to mind Jesus’ decision to embrace his suffering.

For a fuller look at the arrangement of John in relation to Mark, the following two articles take Bauckham’s argument, expand on it, and provide tables comparing the two accounts side by side:

Historical Corroboration?

There may even be evidence from Church history that supports the treatment above. We have the following testimony of Eusebius, writing in the fourth century, of what Papias wrote (in the early second century) concerning Mark’s Gospel.

Papias gives also in his own work other accounts of the words of the Lord on the authority of Aristion who was mentioned above, and traditions as handed down by the presbyter John; to which we refer those who are fond of learning. But now we must add to the words of his which we have already quoted the tradition which he gives in regard to Mark, the author of the Gospel.

“This also the presbyter said: Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord’s discourses, so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely.” These things are related by Papias concerning Mark.[7]

Concerning this passage (and the brief quote evidently from Papias on Matthew), Richard Bauckham draws this conclusion:

The only reason Papias could have had for thinking that the Gospels of Matthew and Mark both lacked the kind of order to be expected in a work deriving from an eyewitness is that he knew another Gospel, also of eyewitness origin, whose chronological sequence differed significantly from Mark’s and Matthew’s and whose ‘order’ Papias preferred.[8]

The presbyter (or elder) John, that Papias mentions, is sometimes understood as John the Apostle and author of John. In any case, a good argument can be made that Papias prefers the chronological order of John’s Gospel to that of Mark. Bauckham points out how the Muratorian Canon (late second century list of New Testament books with brief commentary) betrays influence by Papias, and so it’s statement that John wrote his Gospel “in order” suggests that Papias indeed did prefer John’s order to the lack of order in Mark and Matthew.[9] Here is the quote from the Muratorian Canon:

For so [John] confesses (himself) not merely an eye and ear witness, but also a writer of all the marvels of the Lord in order.[10]

Even More (Interlocking/Transposing Mark’s Theology)

Beyond the literary dovetailing described above and the historical pointers that John intended to re-order the Gospel accounts of Mark and Matthew, other testimony to Mark’s presence can be found through observing John’s own theology and points of emphasis. Pennington pointed out what he calls “the interlocking relationship of John and the Synoptics.”[11] This is a broader look at the question, and examines how in John’s theology and inclusion of material he is aware of Mark (and the Synoptics). Pennington draws from D.A. Carson on this point. Carson points out that in “many places… John and the Synoptics represent an interlocking tradition… they mutually reinforce or explain each other, without betraying overt literary dependence…”[12] Carson goes on to list many ways where the Synoptics and John overlap and interlock when it comes to theology and message. Andreas Köstenberger goes further and calls John’s approach a “theological transposition” of the Synoptics. For further study on this, see the resources listed in this note.[13]

Conclusion

I have rambled on and on, but I hope you can now appreciate even more how closely intertwined the Gospels are with one another. A lot of literary crafting is going on here! Readers of John who are unaware of Mark, can still find a coherent account of Jesus’ life and ministry in John. But the pointers are included for those aware of Mark to see how and where John is adding to Mark’s account and providing a fuller picture of the life of Jesus Christ.

Paying close attention to how each Gospel develops vertically (through its own account of Christ’s ministry) and horizontally (through its parallel passages and interlocking/dovetailing with the other Gospel accounts) is important for fully understanding each author’s intent. I also trust that you are better equipped for responding to criticisms directed at the discrepancies between the Gospels. Most of all I hope you can see how the life of Christ and the significance and message of the Gospel transcends any single telling. None of the Gospels alone can contain or explain it, and all four together only scratch the surface, as John himself says:

John 21:25 “Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.”

Footnotes

[1] Richard Bauckham, “The Johannine Jesus and the Synoptic Jesus,” online essay, p. 3 (This essay matches the name of a chapter from Gospel of Glory: Major Themes in Johannine Theology [Baker Academic, 2015]).

[2] Richard Bauckham (editor), “John for Readers of Mark”, The Gospel for All Christians: Rethinking the Gospel Audiences [Eerdmans, 1997], p.  147-172. [Preview available online here].

[3] Jonathan T. Pennington, Reading the Gospels Wisely: A Narrative and Theological Introduction, p. 64-66; also p. 59 note 16 and p. 194 note 12.

[4] Bauckham, “John for Readers of Mark”, 153. This quote is taken from Amazon’s “look inside” preview of the book. I had not yet purchased the book at the time this post was first published.

[5] Ibid, 156.

[6] Bauckham, “The Johannine Jesus and the Synoptic Jesus”, p. 8.

[7] “Eusebius of Caesarea – On Papias – original Greek Text with English translation“, [from Historia Ecclesiastica, 3. 39], paragraphs 14 and 15 accessed 11/13/18.

[8] Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony [Eerdmans, 2006], p. 226. My attention was brought to this by Kyle R. Hughes, “Papias and the Gospels: Analysis and Evaluation of his Testimony in Eusebius’ H.E. 3.39“, accessed 11/13/18.

[9] Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, p. 425, ff. Note also that Bauckham holds that “presbyter John” is a disciple who was an eyewitness follower of Christ and the author of the Gospel of John, but he does not believe he is the Apostle John (son of Zebedee).

[10] The Muratorian Canon, lines 35-37, accessed 11/13/18.

[11] Pennington, Reading the Gospels Wisely, p. 64-65.

[12] D.A. Carson, The Gospel According to John (Pillar New Testament Commentary), [Apollos/Eerdmans: 1991], p. 52, ff.

[13] Andreas Köstenberger, A Theology of John’s Gospel and Letters [Zondervan, 2009], p. 555-563. Also see a fuller treatment (but without the handy tables) in “John’s Transposition Theology:
Retelling the Story of Jesus in a Different Key”, available online here (this is a chapter in Earliest Christian History: History, Literature, and Theology [Mohr/Siebeck: 2012]).

Image created from icons available here and here.

In Theaters, April 24th Only: “Fragments of Truth: Can we trust the Bible?” (by Faithlife Films)

~ Bob Hayton ~ Leave a comment

This week, on Tuesday only, there is a one-day showing of a new documentary exploring the trustworthiness of the Bible. The movie is produced by Faithlife Films, and features Dr. Craig Evans and Dr. Dan Wallace among others. John Rhys-Davies (known for playing Gimli in The Lord of the Rings) is the narrator (he also narrated a documentary on the 400th Anniversary of the King James Bible).

From everything I have heard and seen about the film, this looks like a good one to go see. Here is its description:

Can we trust the Bible?

Our faith is based on the New Testament—but can we really trust the Bible? Skeptics say no, arguing that the Gospel manuscripts have been doctored to push a theological agenda.

In this new Faithlife original film, Dr. Craig Evans takes this claim head-on, traveling the globe to track down the most ancient New Testament manuscripts. Along the way, he highlights groundbreaking new evidence, demonstrating that the case for the reliability of the New Testament manuscripts is stronger than ever.

Watch the trailer and click here to purchase tickets at a theater near you. Learn more about the film here.

UPDATE: If you go see the movie, you can get a $20 coupon to be used at Logos.com – details here.

“The Riot and the Dance” featuring Dr. Gordon Wilson, directed by N.D. Wilson

~ Bob Hayton ~ Leave a comment

A professionally produced documentary that celebrates God’s creation is coming soon to a theater near you. Monday, March 19, in select theaters, “The Riot and the Dance,” a film featuring Dr. Gordon Wilson, debuts. Wilson is a Christian biology professor and author of a biology textbook with the same name. He is also brother of the well-known Reformed pastor and author, Douglas Wilson, whose son N.D. Wilson directs this film.

I was able to watch a screening of the film and found it quite captivating. The production is first-rate, and it compares favorably to something put out by BBC or National Geographic. But the message is distinctly different. The opening lines of the film come from Geneis 1, in the King James Version — which could perhaps put off viewers who are not already Christian. The film’s repeated theme is of God’s creativity and the role of wonder as we interact with all of God’s creation.

Unlike other Christian documentaries, this film does not try to convince the viewer of creation science. There are a few swipes at evolution, but no detailed argument as to why Dr. Wilson believes it is wrong. Rather, the film is a celebration and revelling in God’s glory as found in creation. This will be attractive to many Christian moviegoers, even if some lament the lack of a point-by-point interaction with naturalistic evolution. (For such viewers, Is Genesis History? would be worth checking out.)

The film begins in the Pacific Northwest — and literally the backyard, so to speak, of Dr. Wilson. From there it moves out to the mountains and the coast, then on to the Sonoran desert in Mexico, and ultimately the jungles of Sri Lanka. The film focuses on snakes repeatedly, and on other smaller creepy-crawlies. Hummingbirds do make an appearance however, as do weaver birds and several other species. Through it all, the enthusiasm of Dr. Wilson for each animal is contagious.

The film clearly stems from a young earth creationist viewpoint, and this shines forth in what may be some of its most controversial points. In one scene he showcases a peaceful seal population as the epitome of the Creator’s intent for creation. The next scene highlights Elephant seals as a negative example of the disorder of Creation. One is God’s intent and the other is what happened due to the Fall. This scene and another point later in the movie seem to be saying that the animals themselves have rebelled against the Creator’s intent. Throughout the film, Dr. Wilson keeps delaying a discussion of how a believer should view snakes. When he finally comes to that, he emphasizes that snakes were cursed by the fall and are an enemy of the seed of the woman. Yet any theologian would point out that it was Satan who was cursed, and it is Satan upon whom Christians tread (see Rom. 16:20). Serpents aren’t the enemy, but the Great Serpent is. Animals don’t (and didn’t) rebel against God, humanity did. The Fall certainly has affected creation with the introduction of sin and the advent of human death. But God created predators and glories in them (Job 38-40).*

The film’s intentional avoidance of addressing evolution head-on weakens its impact. If the amazing creativity of God showcased in the differences between animals speaks to God’s amazing provision for His creation, then what about the fact that 95% of all known species have become extinct? Was God unable to provide for those animals? The creativity highlighted throughout the film can be seen as a support for evolution, by those predisposed to Darwinism.

While the film may not convince skeptics, it certainly will speak movingly to believers. It was refreshing to see the amazing facts of nature presented through the lens of a Bible-believing professor. Christians affirm that it is God who stands behind the beauty of nature and this film directly praises God for that. I can applaud that wholeheartedly, even if my old earth creationism holds me back from a full endorsement of all aspects of this film.

For those looking to learn more, I encourage you to watch the film on March 19. Check out the film’s website, and see this interview with Dr. Wilson.

Update: The film is available to purchase on Amazon.

 

*I refer interested readers to 40 Questions About Creation and Evolution, by Kenneth Keathley and Mark Rooker (Kregel, 2014), chapter 26 “Was There Animal Death Before the Fall?” and chapter 27 “What Effect Did the Fall Have on Creation?” I agree with their conclusion that young earth creationists “seem to be dogmatic about a position [that the Fall introduced death and corruption into the world – even changing natural laws] which, upon closer examination, appears to be more speculative than they have been willing to admit,” p. 269-270. See my review of that book here.

Book Briefs: “Leaving Mormonism: Why Four Scholars Changed Their Minds”

~ Bob Hayton ~ 3 Comments

What is the biggest threat to biblical Christianity in America today? Many different answers could be given to that question. Some would say secular humanism or the new atheism. Others worry about the encroachment of Islam, or the modern rebirth of paganism or alternate spirituality. For many decades a strong case could be made that the truest answer is the growth of Mormonism, and its aggressive recruitment of evangelicals.

Mormonism from the outside looks benign from an evangelical perspective. Today’s “culture-warrior” atheists see it as a threat, but the wholesome family image and moralism that Mormonism projects is attractive to evangelicals. In fact, some evangelical scholars are dialoguing with Mormonism and taking the approach that Mormons are simply misunderstood and really share too many similarities with evangelicals to be shunned (as they have been by the evangelical Church for almost 200 years now).

The scholars who contributed to Leaving Mormonism: Why Four Scholars Changed Their Minds (Kregel, 2017) beg to differ. Each tells a personal tale of their time spent within Mormonism (some as converts, one as a descendant of an honored Mormon family line) and how they came to understand Mormonism as antithetical to the Gospel that evangelical Christianity offers.

The book is unique in that it is not a sanitized, detached treatment of Mormonism. Neither is it a dialogue between Christians and Mormons: it is part-personal testimony, and part-scholarly critique. And since four different authors share their stories, it gives a unique perspective on the whole “Mormon question.”

The authors heavily tout their work by stressing the fact that all four authors have earned doctorates. And while I’m sure that is a good thing, the result can be hard for the not-so-learned reader! The book at times is heady and scholarly to a fault. It also comes across as uneven. One of the authors is much less dogmatic about Christian faith than his peers, and I almost felt that his inclusion was merely because he has a doctorate! (Although I suspect his perspective is shared in an effort to show that even those with questions can still keep on believing in God and also not be Mormon. Sadly, many who leave Mormonism abandon theism altogether.) Another author lets out that she is a member at a Church of Christ church, which led me to wonder what her view of baptism and its role in conversion really is (some Church of Christ denominations emphasize baptismal regeneration which is rejected by most evangelicals).

These quibbles aside, the book makes for riveting reading, and provides an immersion into the eerie world of Mormonism, for the uninitiated. Anyone who has left one denomination for another, or who might still be healing from time spent in a spiritually abusive church, will particularly benefit from this book. Mormons and those exploring Mormonism are encouraged to read it.

The book is packed full of Mormon history and doctrinal oddities. It also stresses the important role of an accepting and welcoming evangelical Church body for those leaving Mormonism. Those who have Mormon family members, or anyone who attempts to reach out to Mormons will greatly benefit from this work and the discussion of what steps led to the conversions of these former Mormons.

I highly recommend this book for anyone interested in (or troubled by) Mormonism.

Book Blurbs:

“This is truly a great book. In fact, I have never seen anything like it. Miller and Wilder have brought together a team of very knowledgeable ex-Mormon scholars to share from various perspectives why they could no longer stay Mormons. And while many who leave Mormonism simply fall off the grid, the good news presented by author after author is that there is an intellectually and spiritually vibrant alternative: moving from Mormonism to historical Evangelical Christianity. The book is fair, irenic, and inviting. This is now the first place to go for anyone who wants an honest, serious critique of Mormonism, along with an alternative to consider. I give it my top recommendation.” ~ J. P. Moreland, Ph.D., Distinguished Professor of Philosophy, Talbot School of Theology, Biola University

“This unique volume is not only written by former ‘insiders,’ who were all in their respective ways committed, but also by a group of deep thinkers who have taken the time to investigate and compare truth claims. Their histories, experiences, and education are all brought to bear on whether or not Mormon teaching is true, accurate, and reliable. As a resource to individuals, churches, or study groups, who will have to read carefully and thoroughly, this is a great tool…. I believe it deserves to be widely read, especially by those impacted or influenced by LDS teachings. It makes the Gospel clear by its amazing contrast. May that grace touch many as a result of this work.” ~ Stuart McAllister, D. D., Ravi Zacharias International Ministries

“‘Leaving Mormonism’ today all too often means rejecting Christianity entirely in the mistaken belief that if Mormonism isn’t true then no form of Christian faith is true. In Leaving Mormonism, four Christian scholars, each of whom also happens to be a former Mormon, show that faith in Jesus Christ as he is revealed in the Bible is intellectually and spiritually viable for disillusioned Latter-day Saints. The authors combine their authentic personal stories with scholarly analysis of critical issues and are not afraid to point out how evangelicals have sometimes failed to engage Mormons in a constructive manner. There is much for everyone to learn from this book.” ~ Robert M. Bowman Jr., Ph.D., Executive Director, Institute for Religious Research

“Written with compassion, charity, and courage, this will be the go-to book for those interested in Christian-Mormon dialogue for years to come.” ~ Paul M. Gould, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Philosophy and Christian Apologetics, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary

Where to Buy:
Pick up a copy of this book at any of the following online retailers: Amazon, ChristianBook.com, or direct from Kregel Publications.

Disclaimer:
This book was provided by Kregel Publications. The reviewer was under no obligation to offer a positive review.

About Book Briefs: Book Briefs are book notes, or short-form book reviews. They are my informed evaluation of a book, but stop short of being a full-length book review.

“Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament” by John H. Walton

~ Bob Hayton ~ 1 Comment

I just finished poring over John Walton’s masterful book, Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament: Introducing the Conceptual World of the Hebrew Bible. He offers a thorough comparison between Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) thought and literature, and the Bible. His main thesis is that the early Hebrew receivers of the Old Testament text were people of their day. They shared a “common cognitive environment” with that of the Egyptians, Sumerians, Assyrians and Hittites around them. However, they had a key difference. In Walton’s words: “Israel had its covenant with its one God, Yahweh, who spoke through his covenant and the prophets, who were its guardians and champions” (p. 332).

Many conservative Bible students today are leery of these conclusions. They are concerned that the Bible’s uniqueness be preserved and they are wary of modern scholarship’s consensus that there was borrowing from other ANE literature (such as the Flood story in Gilgamesh and elsewhere). Walton speaks to this concern by painstakingly showing what difference the Bible actually communicates against the backdrop of other ANE thought-systems. As an example, take the creation of humanity. In the Bible, people were created not on a whim by indifferent rival deities, but by a loving God. But the fact that people were created in the image of God is important, as that concept was universally understood by the ancients, and often expressed using similar words to what the Hebrew record contains. Walton explains: “Across the ancient world, the image of God did the work of God on the earth” (p. 212). Function and purpose more so than ontology or anthropology is in view.

Other examples of shared ANE ideas include:

  • Cosmology: A fixed earth (on pillars), surrounded by water and high mountains with a hard dome above (the sky) separating the waters above from the waters below. It is through windows or gates in this “firm”-ament, that rain falls to earth. God sits above the dome – in the sphere above the earth. The sun and moon rotate around the earth, and the stars are etched on the bottom of the dome and rotate in cycles.
  • A divine council: Yahweh’s council is not of equal gods clamoring for a vote, He is the Actor; but He is pictured with a council in several passages, likely due to the shared ideas about a divine council. The Bible’s picture of Yahweh’s council speaks directly to ANE thought, offering a contrast in how Yahweh rules.
  • Prophecy and pronouncements of doom or blessing: The prophets of the Bible find numerous parallels in the ancient world – yet true prediction and the central role of the covenant to Israel’s experience, are unique.
  • Teaching through compiling lists of similar subjects: The Bible has much that modern reader find repetitious – but this was a characteristic of ANE literature. Keeping lists of judicial decisions (also referred to as law codes), and other lists of wisdom sayings, etc., was a common teaching tool.
  • Proverbs and wisdom literature: ANE thought abounds with proverbs and wise sayings, many of which are eerily similar to what one finds in the Bible’s book of Proverbs. The book of Job, while often seeming strange to modern readers, is an example of standard genre of literature in the near east: a theodicy. Unlike ANE theodicies, however, the central figure does not ultimately find a capricious god who has no innate claims to being just. Yahweh vindicates his actions, and the reader can see there is a purpose behind Job’s pain.

I am sure to be over-simplifying the matter in some of my examples above. (The book goes into so much more detail on each of these points, and many besides). At times, all of this can be overwhelming. This is a text-book, after all; and as such space is devoted to a detailed description of all the major surviving ANE bodies of literature! But the sidebars (which compare the Bible’s approach on various subjects with ANE thought), the careful arrangement of material, and the extensive index all make the book more useful as a resource, and more accessible to the average Joe.

Many of Walton’s conclusions warrant good hard thinking, and I don’t imagine everyone will follow him on all points. But his approach will change the way you think about certain passages of Scripture. I found many of his insights to be incredibly helpful. His discussion on Joshua 10 and the “sun standing still” highlights the role of apposition (a full moon appearing in the sky before the sun sets) as a “good omen” in ANE thought. He also argues (as he does in The Lost World of Genesis One) that when it comes to creation, the ancients thought in terms of function, name and purpose, rather than on the “substance” or physical/scientific “existence” which is our primary concern. This leads him to notice how the light created in day 1 is called “yom” (normally translated as “day” throughout Genesis 1). He contends the creation of the “stuff” of light (its physical makeup) is likely not in view — instead the creation of time, or periods of time, is what would be important to ANE readers.

Another example is his discussion of Jeremiah 31:33 and the idea of the Torah being “written on the heart.” He points out that what may very well be in view here is the common practice of looking for omens by reading the internal organs of a slaughtered animal — this practice is known as extispicy. Unlike some passages in the OT that have individuals writing something down on their heart (where memory and mnemonic learning is likely implied), in Jeremiah it is Yahweh writing the law on Israel’s heart. The terms used are similar to those used in ANE passages about extispicy. A fuller excerpt may both illustrate Walton’s style and help us understand this particular point:

The revelation that is sought out in extispicy proceedings is for guidance in major decisions and understanding of the intentions and will of deity. If Yahweh were writing the torah on the heart of Israel, he would be providing the same sort of guidance…. how does having the torah written on the heart differ from having it written on stone tablets? If the metaphor is from the world of extispicy, the text indicates that with God’s instructions/law written on the heart of his people, there would be no need for continuing guidance to teach God’s law [editor note: see Jer. 31:34]…. God would be known through his people who would be living out the law faithfully. People with the law written on their heart become a medium of communication [emphasis original]. Writing on the heart replaces not the law, but the teaching of the law. The law on stone had to be taught and could be ignored. The law on the heart represents a medium of modeling, in which case it is not being ignored. In this interpretation of the metaphor, then, the heart is a medium, not a repository. The metaphor would be one of revelation, not of memory. (p. 258)

So in light of the preceding, does the Bible borrow from ANE literature? Is it just another old book that happened to survive? Walton’s answer would be no. He repeatedly points out that it is the “common cognitive environment” that is shared by the Bible and other ANE works of literature. There is no direct borrowing, and the complexities of how different ideas influenced different cultures cannot easily be traced. What is clear is that the OT confronts ANE culture even as it borrows much from that cognitive environment. It traces out clear lines of discontinuity with the culture of its day, yet does not purport to update the thinking of ancients when it comes to science, ontology and sociology. Instead, the Bible reveals Yahweh and His covenant to Israel and calls Israel to live distinctly in their own culture.

This question of ANE influence on the Bible is a point of contention in today’s world. Walton will equip you to face the question dead-on and come away with an even greater appreciation for just what the Bible has to offer. Being aware of what type of literature forms the Old Testament’s cognitive background can help us approach the text with more understanding. I greatly benefited from this book, and recommend it highly to any who teach or preach from the Old Testament.

Where to Buy: