Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament: Introducing the Conceptual World of the Hebrew Bible

by John H. Walton

Much of the Old Testament seems strange to contemporary readers. However, as we begin to understand how ancient people viewed the world, the Old Testament becomes more clearly a book that stands within its ancient context as it also speaks against it. John Walton provides here a thoughtful introduction to the conceptual world of the ancient Near East.

Walton surveys the literature of the ancient Near East and introduces the reader to a variety of beliefs about God, religion, and the world. In helpful sidebars, he provides examples of how such studies can bring insight to the interpretation of specific Old Testament passages. Students and pastors who want to deepen their understanding of the Old Testament will find this a helpful and instructive study.

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

368 pages, Paperback

First published November 1, 2006

About the author

John H. Walton (PhD, Hebrew Union College) is professor of Old Testament at Wheaton College Graduate School. He is the author or coauthor of several books, including Chronological and Background Charts of the Old Testament; Ancient Israelite Literature in Its Cultural Context; Covenant: God’s Purpose, God’s Plan; The IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament; and A Survey of the Old Testament.

Librarian Note: There is more than one author in the Goodreads database with this name. See:

John H. Walton, Agriculture
John H. Walton, ceramics.

Reviews

[Nathan Marone]

Usually I structure non-fiction reviews by listing the strengths and weaknesses of the book. Walton's book doesn't contain any glaring faults to my knowledge, unless you want to discredit the philosophy behind the project or you wanted an entirely different book. In light of that, this review will be more general.

Walton's basic premise is that comparative studies should not be used to figure out whether Israel was committing intellectual copyright infringement against its neighbors or not. Nor should comparative studies be used to figure out who came first. Instead Walton asserts that Israel functioned in the same "cognitive environment" as its surrounding nations, and as a result was bound to express itself within that cognitive paradigm. Walton's goal, then, is to survey the cognitive environment of the Ancient Near Eastern world and use it as a backdrop for understanding the Old Testament. The book delineates various subjects (approaches to death and afterlife, how people related to gods, cosmology, etc.) within ANE thought and then offers comparisons between the cognitive environment described and the Biblical record. Walton is fair to recognize that there are similarities and differences when making these comparisons, and that looking at both increases our understanding of the OT. If we focus only on the similarities (the flaw in most skeptical criticism) or focus only on the differences (the flaw in most confessional criticism), then we are missing the broader point that the ANE is the context in which the Bible was both written and understood.

Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament should be thought of as a hermeneutical aid, giving broad context that is often needed when reading the OT. If you are interested in any of the individual subjects Walton considers, this book ought to be seen as a stepping stone. His footnotes and bibliography will point the reader in a number of fruitful directions.

Though Walton has poured a ton of research into this work, he is quick to admit that our understanding of the cognitive environment of the ANE should be held with humility. The information we have to reconstruct that environment is limited in a number of different ways (the literature, for instance, often skews toward the upper classes or kingship) and this means that our conclusions should be drawn with care. I appreciated his attitude in this area.

[Nick · Rating 5 out of 5]

Many say the Bible is still relevant today as the day it was written. I agree with the statement, but with a caveat - the Bible needs to be understood in the environmental and cultural context in which it was written. This book helps one place the Bible in it's original context. A synthesis of multiple fields of study provides the background material to gain a starting point for gaining an understanding of the ancient near east cognitive environment. From this we can begin to identify the similarities and distinctions between ancient near east cultures and that of Israel. This context proves to be exceedingly valuable for Old Testament Biblical studies. This understanding helps prevent the belief that Israeli culture was nothing more than a wholesale adoption of their neighboring nations' culture, e.g. pan Babylonianism, and also assists us from recognizing our own bias of overlaying our cognitive environment onto that of the Bible. This should be a must read for anyone interested in understanding what the Bible truly says.

[Bob Hayton · Rating 4 out of 5]

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. 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.

[Nicholas Meriwether · Rating 5 out of 5]

There are many monographs about niche parts of ANE life, religion, and worldview (that may surprise some). However, none of them does a thorough synthesis like Walton's book does with relation to the cognitive environment of the Old Testament. Walton has such an integrated knowledge of the ANE that he can present the ancient worldview through texts, customs, and archaeology. A phrase and methodology that is worth the price of the book alone is, "embedded, not indebted." The OT authors were breathing the same cultural air as other peoples in the ANE, so we should not be surprised that they think and write in similar ways to their neighbors. "Embedded, not indebted," also avoids a common pitfall of many critical scholars where literary semblance means literary dependence (i.e., Israel just copied similar sounding stuff from their neighbors). Such a jump is not necessary. The similarities help the modern reader avoid anachronism, since this work helps reveal places where we might think differently than ancient peoples. The differences that Walton brings out are insightful: Israel had revelation that set them apart considerably from other ANE peoples. These comparisons are offset in grey boxes focusing on specific biblical interests. The best chapters were those on the gods, city and kingship, and state and family religion. One critique I do have is how his minimalist hermeneutic can affect the way he addresses certain topics that are debated in Old Testament studies, namely law and afterlife. Definitely a worthwhile read for someone interested in Old Testament studies.

[Parker Stilley · Rating 4 out of 5]

As a whole, this is a careful, informed, and surprisingly faith-strengthening guide to reading the Old Testament in its real-world context. What Walton offers here is not all the answers to our difficult questions of biblical interpretation; indeed, I finished this book with more questions than I started with. What he offers is to help the reader begin the journey toward a more faithful reading of Scripture, where one can become untethered from common modern assumptions and start reading it in the conceptual world Israel actually shared with its neighbors.

I would recommend this book especially to pastors like myself who want to interpret the Old Testament responsibly for the sake of conveying it accurately to their people. I’d also recommend it to Christians who feel anxious about apologetic conversations and issues of biblical criticism, because Walton shows that comparative study can be a tool for clarity instead of a threat to faith. In our hands, it can actually serve the church. But when we cower in fear and refuse to engage with it, we leave ourselves defenseless when opponents use the same data to attack the credibility of Scripture.

That is what gripped me most from this work: the idea that ANE cultural comparison is simply a tool—a tool that is neither good nor bad on its own, but invaluable when used with honesty and care. I believe that balanced posture is exactly what we need right now. I hope this kind of work helps Christians read Scripture with open hands on secondary issues without ever loosening our grip on what is biblically clear. That is the posture I want: holding fast with conviction, while also holding tentatively with humility before God.

[Parker Mindel · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good stuff, John!

[bennett · Rating 4 out of 5]

Does a great job of distilling relevant information and summarizing many of the primary sources for ANE comparative studies. That said, on top of its tendency to treat the Hebrew Bible as ideologically homogenous and ignore the dating of the individual texts entirely, it has some notable glosses and omissions that consistently align with the author’s biases: we’re to believe that Job (a book where the central character is afflicted with a Deuteronomistic curse) is actually addressing Mesopotamian beliefs of divine justice; that The Day of Atonement had no relation to the demonic; that the ideology behind Sabbath was unrelated to other ANE beliefs.

These, among a number of other issues avoided here, are topics of debate in current scholarship. It seems that wherever there’s disagreement or ambiguity among scholars, Walton feels comfortable leaving readers ignorant of any position but his own. This type of corner cutting allows him more room to draw contrasts between ancient Israel and its neighbors that are, at best, shaky.

This is generally an informative work, but can be noticeably misleading in places if used as intended, i.e., an introduction to cultural and ideological world of the Hebrew Bible.

[Willemina Barber-Wixtrom · Rating 5 out of 5]

An excellent comparative synthesis on the thought life of the Ancient Near East. It gives a good starting point for many interesting topics and it links to definitive scholarship and primary sources.

I do wonder though if it would benefit from more discussion of Persian thought. I do not know where the current consensus lies, but last I knew the general belief was that the Hebrew Bible reached its final form during a period of Persian cultural dominance. Walton focuses on many cultures, Mesopotamian, Egyptian, Ugaritic, Hittite, and Sumerian, but he offers no investigation of the Persian cognitive environment.

Still, if I was reading a class on Old Testament background, this would be on the short list for course texts

[Chad Mitchell · Rating 3 out of 5]

Very heavy, academic book. I felt the book was about this history of Near Eastern religions with the Old Testament in the periphery of this structure, rather than the other way round. Not great for a simple beginner’s understanding, but fantastic for academic view. Very talented author and some of it for sure went over my head!

[Adriel · Rating 5 out of 5]

What a scholarly work ! I love the sections at the end of each topics which shows the similarities and differences between Israel and other ANE cultures. Truly, Israel is unique ! and it is so in that they were always all about one thing : the proper worship of the Only One deity of Israelm and his holiness. Marvelous !

[Jackson Hyde · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great insight into a culture and mindset that is very far removed from ours. For me, the Old Testament is somewhat inaccessible. It’s clear that the authors had a different way of thinking and understanding the world. John Walton helps bridge that gap by teaching how these people saw the world, God, Gods place and function, and how they were to live. For anyone wanting to understand the Old Testament through a more academic lens this is your shit

[Colin Smith · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is a survey of the thought world of the Ancient Near East (i.e., Mesopotamia and Egypt) utilizing the discoveries from the last few centuries. The purpose of the book is to compare and contrast the ideas and beliefs of these ancient people with those expressed in the pages of the Bible--particularly, the Old Testament. In this way, Walton explores the extent to which the biblical text was influenced by a common Near Eastern worldview, and the extent to which the biblical writers differed.

This is not a book for the casual reader. If you have studied in this area, or you have an active interest in Near Eastern religion, then this book will be well within your reach. If you have no background in either Old Testament studies, or Near Eastern thought, then this book may be tough going for you. It is well researched, and written in an engaging style. I particularly appreciate the fact that Walton is clearly writing from a Christian perspective, but he tries to be fair with the evidence. This is not an apologetic work, and while some of the facts he produces and the conclusions he reaches could indeed be used apologetically, he doesn't go there (and, indeed, some of his conclusions may not sit comfortably with some believers).

Walton's main purpose, as he notes in the introductory chapter, is to redress a balance. While believers have sometimes misused archaeology and data from the period, engaging in "parallelophobia" to ignore similarities between Israel and her Near Eastern neighbors, secular scholars have been guilty of minimizing the major differences, engaging in "parallelomania." Walton attempts to show areas where the Old Testament clearly draws from a common cultural well of ideas (note, he does not accuse either side of "borrowing" from each other), and also where Israel's views parts ways significantly from the rest of the Near East.

The chapters explore views on Gods, Temple, Ritual, Cosmology, Human Origins, Historiography, Cities, Kings, Wisdom, Law, and the Afterlife. He also includes an appendix listing all the major Near Eastern deities with brief descriptions.

For those with an interest in the subject, I highly recommend this book. No knowledge of Near Eastern languages is required; all non-English terms are transliterated with definitions. I would certainly be interested in reading other books by John Walton.

[Jon Chin · Rating 4 out of 5]

John Walton outlines the concept of "cognitive environment" which becomes a helpful way of thinking about how the ANE and ancient Israelites perceived the world around them. There are notably similarities but its as important to compare the differences as the Bible does intend to reveal a theological worldview that is uniquely other than its surrounding cultures and religion while making use of those cultures and religions to sharply contrast and challenge the Israelites.

This is my first book I've read cover-to-cover on ANE thought and so I treated it more of a survey rather than research. As such, there are not many things I noticed that I strictly disagreed since I was not considering the Biblical and Systematic Theological implications, which I'm sure there are many.

Instead I would offer the objectives of the book as given by Walton himself to be the compass/guidelines for students wanting to explore the subject of ANE thought and how it affects evangelical Christians particularly:

"GOALS OF COGNITIVE ENVIRONMENT CRITICISM
I would contend, then, that students should undertake cognitive environment criticism with four goals in mind:
1. Students may study the history of the ancient Near East as a means of recovering knowledge of the events that shaped the lives of people in the ancient world.
2. Students may study archaeology as a means of recovering the lifestyle reflected in the material culture of the ancient world.
3. Students may study the literature of the ancient Near East as a means of penetrating the cognitive environment of the people who inhabited the ancient world that Israel shared.
4. Students may study the language of the ancient Near East as a means of gaining additional insight into the semantics, lexicography, idioms, and metaphors used in Hebrew.

These goals then each contribute to comparative studies and will help us understand the Old Testament better." - Chapter 1, pg 18

There is one problem with the text block that really annoyed me. Every so often there is a "comparative study" article that interjects itself on a new page regardless of the main text's paragraph. Please reserve these things to the end of a section paragraph! Not in the middle! I've found myself having to skip many of the articles in order to finish my train of thought and then go back to the article. Not a seamless reading experience.

[Luke Wagner · Rating 4 out of 5]

In this book, John Walton gives an overview/synthesis of ancient Near Eastern thought and culture (broadly speaking), showing the importance of understanding the ANE for the study and interpretation of the Old Testament. From the outset, Walton makes a case for the value of comparative studies—that is, the process of “draw[ing] data from different segments of the broader culture (in time and/or space) into juxtaposition with one another in order to assess what might be learned from one to enhance the understanding of another” (7). And Walton is especially interested in defending the objectives and goals of comparative studies to those that would be most inclined to reject the usefulness of (or need for) comparative studies in the task of reading and understanding the Bible. Being already familiar with the area of comparative studies and its usefulness for interpreting the Bible, I did not need much convincing, but it was still helpful to see how Walton presents the idea to those who may be initially suspicious of such an endeavor.

Much of the book is devoted to different themes and topics (e.g., the cosmos, the role and destiny of humanity, religion, etc.), and in each case, Walton gives a general overview of the ideas, beliefs, and assumptions at work in the ANE (at times, stressing differences between Egyptian thinking and Mesopotamian thinking). Walton also usually juxtaposes the commonly held beliefs in the ANE with those of ancient Israel (primarily as expressed in the biblical text, but on occasion Walton looks at what material culture has to say about ancient Israel). When Walton compares Israel to its ancient neighbors, Walton does a good job of drawing attention to both continuity and discontinuity.

All in all, this is a good and helpful book, especially for those who are just beginning to learn about the ANE or about comparative studies. I would’ve appreciated having a book like this in one of my introductory Old Testament courses in college, as I think it would have been immensely helpful and eye opening. Readers who have enjoyed Walton’s other books on understanding the Old Testament within its ancient culture (like those books in his popular “Lost World” series) will definitely enjoy and learn from this important volume.

[Bennett Rogers · Rating 2 out of 5]

In exploring the relationship between the OT and ANE literature and thought, Walton attempts to find a via media between critical and confessional scholarship, but his synthesis will likely please neither camp.

He simply refused to answer questions of historicity and borrowing. Granted, he attempts to evade those questions by claiming that they are more important to them than us, but the questions remain. Were Adam and Eve real people? Was the fall a historical event? Did the flood really happen? Did the Israelites cross the Red Sea on dry land? Did the prophets predict the future? Walton simply refuses to answer the question.

In the end, Walton seems much closer to the critical camp than the confessional, although he refuses to admit it. Consider the following: 1) he consistently refuses to address questions of historicity; 2) he remains silent on the issue of supernaturalism; 3) he speaks in terms of 'evolving' theology as opposed to progressive revelation; 4) he treats the OT as just another ANE religious text; 5) he treats Genesis 1-3 as archetypal myth; 6) he refuses to take the NT's interpretation of OT events into account.

He is also strangely silent on the doctrine of the Trinity, the Messianic hopes of the OT, and the resurrection of the body, even when treating related subjects.

In short, Walton argues the Hebrews did not possess a unique conceptual worldview and stresses their similarities with their pagan neighbors. The worldviews of Christians and naturalists have similarities as well (use reason, believe in the existence of mathematically verifiable natural laws, etc.), but they are radically different when it comes to the big questions of life. Walton over-emphasizes similarities, under-emphasizes differences, and totally neglects the NT's testimony, which if true, would reveal how radically different the Hebrew worldview was from the ANE pagan's. I fear this work will confuse more than edify, and I certainly would not recommend it to a new or young believer.

[Caleb Watson · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a very helpful book which explores the ancient near eastern context, in which the Old Testament was written. Acclaimed OT scholar John Walton exhibits knowledge of the relevant literature to a remarkably far reaching degree. This work explores the ontology, epistemology, theology, historiography, and sociology of the ANE with great clarity.

I disagree with Walton on a couple of issues which crop up in the volume, primarily with regard to his view of material creation in Genesis 1, and his de-emphasis of the role of ontology in the imago dei. Walton opts for a functional view in both cases, which is mostly unobjectionable, but I think he overstates his case. I think that one can benefit from Walton’s contributions here without denying the material and ontological claims of early Genesis.

This book presents material that not only clarifies much of the Old Testament text, but in some cases caused me to see passages in an entirely new way (I am thinking particularly of Walton’s treatment of Joshua 10:12-14). This is definitely a book which I will return to as a reference resource.

[Matthew McConnell · Rating 5 out of 5]

Really good synthesis of what Ancient Near Eastern thought consisted of. Walton touches on all the major categories: the gods, temples/rituals, state and family religion, cosmology, anthropology, historiography, divinations and omens, cities and kingship, law and wisdom, and afterlife. Walton did a good job at adequately highlighting both the similarities and differences between ANE religious practice and Yahwism, showing that while Israel certainly was thoroughly situated in its ANE context, it stood out in some key aspects.

[Luke Kessler · Rating 4 out of 5]

This has some really fascinating concepts as gleaned from the writings of ancient near eastern cultures that were contemporaries of the Hebrew culture of the Old Testament. Thus the name. It was really neat to see where the Old Testament either agreed or disagreed w those extra biblical world views/mindsets. Illuminates alot of Scriptures that I had previously misinterpreted by projecting my modern western mindset onto it. Can be very boring reading, however. But I definitely recommend it if you are interested in better understanding the Old Testament.

[Matt Rozzo · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very informative, and I would give it 5 stars but I will admit that this was a slog to get through. The middle chapters I found most relevant to current discussions today, but all parts of this book help create a new frame of reference for reading the old testament.

[Mike · Rating 5 out of 5]

John H. Walton delivers in this comprehensive study of the cognitive environment of the ancient Near East during the time when the Old Testament was textualized. Warning - spoilers ahead!

The topics he covers in this book are as follows:

Comparative Studies

He takes readers on an overall view of comparative studies: what it is, why it is needed, understanding the dimensions of ancient religious views and practices, and how these ancient people viewed theology. He sums this section up with his ten principles to remember when doing comparative study:

1. Both similarities and differences must be considered.
2. Similarities may suggest a common cultural heritage or cognitive environment rather than borrowing.
3. It is not uncommon to find similarities at the surface but differences at the conceptual level and vice versa.
4. All elements must be understood in their own context as accurately as possible before cross-cultural comparisons are made (i.e., careful background study must precede comparative study).
5. Proximity in time, geography, and spheres of cultural contact all increase the possibility of interaction leading to influence.
6. A case for literary borrowing requires identification of likely channels of transmission.
7. The significance of differences between two pieces of literature is minimized if the works are not the same genre.
8. Similar functions may be performed by different genres in different cultures.
9. When literary or cultural elements are borrowed they may in turn be transformed into something quite different by those who borrowed them.
10. A single culture will rarely be monolithic, either in a contemporary cross-section or in consideration of a passage of time.

Comparative Studies, Scholarship, and Theology

Here Walton addresses the devotional aspect of approaching scripture and the challenges that comparative study present. For example, the lack of physical evidence of the Exodus has posed a challenge to theologians over the years. The similarity between the wisdom literature of Proverbs and older Egyptian wisdom literature lends scholars to see a borrowing of these ideas, which to many confessional theologians “takes away” from the uniqueness of the Biblical text.

The Literature of the Ancient Near East

Walton covers a load of ancient texts, from the myths of the ANE, to the law collections, to hymns and prayers, to letters such as the Armana letters, to paint a picture of the world of these peoples in their context. He covers wisdom literature, prophetic oracles, the idea of ex eventu prophecy (particularly the Marduk Prophecy), to archival literature.

Religion

In this section, Walton discusses the Divine Council as we understand it, or the Divine Assembly of the Gods. He covers the place of God in the cosmos, the attributes of the Gods, how they acted as individuals, and as portrayed as gods in conflict. The fact that the ancients viewed the gods as anthropomorphic was discussed. He worked to show ways the Israelites differed from their neighbors in the depiction of Yahweh. I will say that he could have provided more detail regarding how the views of God changed over time, from a polytheistic view of the Gods to a monotheistic one in the 7th century. But other scholars have covered this ground.

Temples and Rituals

In this section I appreciated Walton’s work on how the Israelites viewed idols. He writes:

Several passages in the prophets castigate the images of the foreign nations, including the ideology surrounding their manufacture and use. Most notable in this regard are Isaiah 44:9–20 and Jeremiah 10:2–16. The depiction that they offer is a polemical caricature, therefore making it difficult to assess whether the prophets are engaging in hyperbole or whether there may be true misunderstanding of the ideology. Comparative study would seek to understand what the Israelite prophets believed about what their neighbors were doing when they made and worshiped idols, and whether their perception squared with how their neighbors actually thought. In addition, for the exegete, knowledge of particularly the Assyrian and Babylonian texts can clarify what the prophets are alluding to in their descriptions.

Z. Zevit considers the prophets to have presented a realistic picture of the manufacturing process, though he recognizes that they are engaged in a harangue against the stupidity of the Babylonians. (Z. Zevit, The Religions of Ancient Israel (New York: Continuum, 2001), 524.) The description of the
materials is accurate: a wooden core from special wood that is sculpted, then overlaid with precious metals. Scraps of the wood were then used for cooking a dedicatory meal, and the image was vitalized and then worshiped. Particularly lacking on the procedural level, however, is any reference by the prophets to temple, priesthood, or purifying waters. On the ideological level, the prophets do not acknowledge that there is a continuing distinction between the image and the god who is transubstantiated in the image. As a result, they criticize the idea that true deity could in any way be present in a humanly made image. They do not treat as credible the disclaimers of the craftsmen who ritually and symbolically return the image to the divine realm after its manufacture is complete. The rituals seek to accomplish just that, and the actual discussions found in Assyrian texts show that the Assyrians wrestled with these same issues. While the Mesopotamians attempt to resolve the problems cultically and thus justify the continued use of the image, the prophets see the obstacles as impassable and ridicule the attempts as they flaunt the superiority of Yahweh. M. Dick concludes that the prophets are not ignorant of the ideology reflected in the use of images, but that they distort the ideology in their polemical agenda. He suggests that Israelite religious practice would have been just as vulnerable to distorted polemic.

In the end, however, it is simply the prophetic position that the ritual strategies were incapable of resolving the shortcomings of the ideology. Their parodies are very well informed about the ideology and the rituals that support it, and our understanding of the biblical text is greatly enhanced from a study of the ancient Near Eastern documents and worldview.

We may conclude that the image functioned in the cult as a mediator of the divine presence. It was the means by which humans gained access to the presence of deity. As such it represented the mystical unity of transcendence and immanence, a theophany transubstantiated. Jacobsen therefore sees the functioning image as an act of the deity’s favor: “The image represented a favor granted by the god . .. it was a sign of a benign and friendly attitude on the part of the community in which it stood.” Berlejung provides a useful summary of our study: “A cultic statue was never solely a religious picture, but was always an image imbued with a god, and, as such, it possessed the character of both earthly reality and divine presence.” From deity to people, the image mediated presence and revelation.

From people to deity, the image mediated worship.

To me, this description of idol worship in the ANE was excellent. Putting this in terms that westerners can understand is important, especially as the Hebrew Bible (in my opinion) does not give us the views of those that practiced idol worship at this time. Seeing how they viewed these things is important if we want to see the Hebrew Bible in ways that further our understanding of the text.

Walton covers sacred space, the difference between ziggurats and Egyptian pyramids, and the nature of the temple in Israelite religion.

State and Family Religion

In this section, Walton shows how the state functioned to remind the citizens of the needs of the gods. He then compared this to the practices of the Israelites, who believed in a God that did not have needs. He explained:

In the Old Testament this is, of course, an oxymoron. Yahweh has no needs and therefore the state religion has no underlying rationale that is based on the premise of meeting those needs. There is no image to mediate the care of Yahweh. The rituals respond to requirements rather than to needs. The splendor of the temple honors Yahweh just as the splendor of Marduk’s temple honors Marduk. Sacrifices and the maintenance of sacred space are designed to attract and preserve the deity’s vital presence. Gifts are an expression of gratitude. So much is the same in the rhetoric, yet in the ancient Near East the gods willingly own their neediness and admittedly rely on human support. In Israel every aspect, however traditional, has an alternative rationale. The state religion highlights the needs of the people more than the needs of Yahweh. Reciprocity and mutual dependence have no place in the rhetoric. Whatever obligations Yahweh has to Israel come not because they serve his needs, but because of the covenant agreement. The people serve Yahweh by faithfulness to the covenant expectations.

I liked how this section broke down the commandments in Exodus 20, at least the first 4. Seeing these commands in their context is very helpful. His explanation of divine rest was also insightful.

Cosmos

I always like discussing the ways the ancients viewed the cosmos. For me, this is the easiest way to introduce how reading the Old Testament is like going to a foreign country. If we see how the ancients viewed the cosmos and take away our modern lenses, a whole new world is opened to us in our study of the Hebrew Bible. Walton explains:

What kept the sky suspended above the earth and held back the heavenly waters? What kept the sea from overwhelming the land? What prevented the earth from sinking into the cosmic waters? These were the questions people asked in the ancient world, and the answers they arrived at are embodied in the cosmic geography. Egyptians, Mesopotamians, Canaanites, Hittites, and Israelites all thought of the cosmos in terms of tiers: the earth was in the middle with the heavens above and the netherworld beneath. In general people believed that there was a single continent that was disk-shaped. This continent had high mountains at the edges that held up the sky, which they thought was somewhat solid (whether it was envisioned as a tent or as a more substantial dome). The heavens where deity dwelt were above the sky, and the netherworld was beneath the earth. In some of the Mesopotamian literature the heavens were understood to be made up of three superimposed disks with pavements of various materials. What they observed led them to conclude that the sun and the moon moved in roughly the same spheres and in similar ways.

Cosmic Geography

In this section, Walton worked to express that the ancient Israelites were more interested in functions that the substance of a created thing. Creation existed of naming a thing, separating it out, and giving it a function or a role.

People

This section discussed how the ancients viewed mankind. What kind of stuff are we made of? What is a human being? Do we have souls? How did the Israelites differ from their Egyptian neighbors in their beliefs? What is our role in the cosmos?

Guidance for Life—Divination and Omens

This section dealt with how the ancients viewed prophecy, omens, dreams (and their interpretation), and the use of magic.

Encountering the Present: Context of Life—Cities and Kingship

This section covered how the ancients viewed cities and their rulers. Walton explains that In both Mesopotamia and Egypt it was believed that cities existed before humans. Cities were the creations of the gods and were made for the gods. In Israel there was only one authorized temple in one authorized location (well, at least according to the Deuteronomistic historian, see Deut. 12). Consequently, cities in general did not carry the same role or significance as is found particularly in Mesopotamia. Nevertheless, when we try to understand the status of Jerusalem as the location of the temple and the cult center for the worship of Yahweh, we find quite a bit of continuity with ancient Mesopotamian ideas. In relation to the categories listed above, no indicators suggest that Yahweh’s ordered cosmos found its epitome in Jerusalem, nor was Jerusalem thought of as a primordial city. Nevertheless, Yahweh had made Jerusalem his dwelling place with the result that it was considered thereby to be the control center of the cosmos. Therefore, as Marduk was thought to rule the world from Babylon, Yahweh was understood to rule the world from Jerusalem as temple, city, state, and cosmos all related to Yahweh through Zion.

As to the origin of kingship, Mesopotamian texts reveal that kings were a gift from the gods to men. As the gods sat together in council they decided to provide kingship. “Formerly kingship did not exist in the land, and rule was given to the gods. But the gods grew fond of these people and g[ave them a king. The people] of the land of Kish assembled around him so that he might protect (them).” Walton compares Mesopotamian kingship to Israelite kingship in the following statement:
All of this contrasts with Israelite concepts. The people request kingship, and Yahweh grants it somewhat grudgingly (1 Sam. 8). Deuteronomy 18 presents a negative view of kingship rather than lauding it as the highest form of humanity. In the early chapters of Genesis, kingship is noticeably absent. Archetypal humanity bears the image of God rather than this being a distinctive of the king. Likewise they are charged with subduing and ruling.

I would argue this contention somewhat. In the early chapters of Genesis we do have an elusive king of righteousness, a fellow by the name of Melchizedek. He is presented in positive terms, indeed, Abraham comes to him to pay homage (see Genesis 14). Later in this chapter Walton acknowledges that Yahweh has appointed a king to represent his will to the people. Walton explains:

Many similarities between kingship ideas in Israel and in the rest of the ancient Near East emerge in almost every category considered above. Divine sponsorship is noted in the historical literature and in Psalms. As in the ancient Near East, the Israelite king is the agent of the divine plan, concerned with the will of deity, and representative of divine authority (notice that authority was taken from Saul and would never be taken from David’s son). The king was responsible for justice and accountable to Deity for protecting the vulnerable. The establishment of kingship by covenant agreement is not as prominent in the ancient Near East as in the Hebrew Bible, but the concept is evident in passing remarks, as noted above. Despite this common core, the differences should be clearly noted. Cautious or negative assessment of present kingship is much more common in the biblical literature than in the ancient Near East. No divine origin for human kingship in the mythical realm is conveyed, and the king has less obvious responsibility for the cult.

Here in this last statement I would disagree with Walton. There is divine origin for the kings in the Hebrew Bible, at least mythologically as we read the Psalms. In these texts, the king is a son of God (See Psalm 110 and Psalm 2). In the Psalms, God grants that the king is divine in this sense and that he has authorized him to represent him to the people. I see these as types for the future divine king, Jesus of Nazareth. The Gospel writers would also use the Psalms to present these ideas. To these later exegetes, the Psalms were clearly demonstrating that the kings of antiquity in Israel were divine in the sense that they had become sons of God. The second statement by Walton is also suspect. He writes that the “king has less obvious responsibility for the cult.” I see issue here, because David clearly acts as the high priest in several instances in the Samuel narrative. Also, if the king doesn’t assure that the cult goes well, we all know what happens. This is a central tenant of the entire Hebrew Bible! So I would strongly disagree with this statement. But I do see that oftentimes the king is not associated with the role of an acting high priest. But David opens us up to this possibility. As a reader of the Book of Mormon, I also see this in the reign of Nephi as one who is authorized to be both king and priest.

Encountering the Present: Guidelines for Life—Law and Wisdom

Walton addresses the question, “How did the ancients view life in their world? How are we supposed to live?”

He works to show that the ancients would answer this in the following ways:

Know your proper place within your clan and family and honor the traditions. Conform your behavior to the expectations of society devised to protect and maintain order and security/ Fulfill scrupulously your cultic duty before the local and ancestral gods. Honor god and king as those responsible for administering justice for the good of society. When life becomes miserable, (1) examine your recent behavior for negligence or malfeasance; (2) inquire of the gods for identification of offense; (3) perform incantations with appropriate confessions for purification; (4) recognize that the gods are ultimately inscrutable. Live a life of conformity to custom and tradition augmented by the cultic demand of deity.

Walton then compares these ideas to Israelite society. In Israelite thinking many of the same points would carry importance, but significant differences in orientation are clear. He cites the following:
Know your proper place within your clan and family and honor the traditions as defined in relationship to the fear of Yahweh. Conform your behavior to the expectations of society devised to protect and maintain order and security and to reflect positively your status as a holy nation in covenant with Yahweh. Fulfill scrupulously your cultic duty before Yahweh. Honor Yahweh as the embodiment of justice. When life becomes miserable, (1) examine recent behavior for violations of the covenant; (2) recognize that Yahweh’s purposes are not necessarily transparent, but he is wise. Live a life of obedience to the covenant informed by the demands of holiness, in imitation of your holy God.

Pondering Death and the Afterlife

Walton explores the ways the people of the ANE viewed death and the afterlife. His exploration of Sheol was focused and brief. I think that things are not as simple as they were presented in this chapter, but I also acknowledge that we do not have all the data as far as the Hebrew Bible is concerned.

[Shareen Ghabrial · Rating 2 out of 5]

Organized and detailed, but I also got lost in details.

[Oliver Barton · Rating 4 out of 5]

It's dense but rich if you're interested in the subject material. Quite a niche pickup but really explains the Ancient Near Eastern context for the Bible

[James · Rating 4 out of 5]

Five years ago I had no more than a casual awareness of John Walton and his work. I had the IVP Bible Background Commentary and had liked the way it pointed at the wider context in which the Bible was written. I also had his Genesis commentary (Life Application) and appreciated his nuanced handling of the creation stories.

Over the past five years, my casual awareness of John Walton has grown into a full fledged admiration of the man and his work. I have had this book for a couple of years and have dipped into it several times when I preached sermons on the old testament. Invariably I never found what I was looking for. I wanted something directly relevant to the understanding of particular texts (like his background commentaries). Recently I tried again and when the section I read, didn't give me anything immediately usable, I turned to page 1 and read through this book from cover to cover. There are usable chunks that I will continue to refer back to in sermon preparation, but in a general way, it also gave me a better understanding of the biblical world.Ancient Near East thought on a number of issues and how the people of Israel was both in continuity and dis-continuity with the world around them.

The book is divided into five parts. Part 1 gives an apology for comparative studies with particular attention to it's value for confessional scholarship.

Part 2 gives summaries of a number of different pieces of literature in the Ancient Near East. There is little analysis in this chapter, just classification of different types of literature and a synopsis of individual stories, myths, documents. Personally I think that this material would have made more sense as an appendix.

Parts 3-5 provide the 'meat of the book. Part three discusses Religion: God, temples and rituals, state and family religions. Part four discusses the cosmos: cosmic geography, cosmogony and cosmology. Part five discusses people: human origins, historiography, divination and omens, cities and kingship, law and wisdom, the future and life after death.

There were a number of insights which I found illuminating and will return to. In particular, Walton's discussion of ontology and metaphysics in the Ancient Near East and the Bible was helpful. Also would return to discussions of rituals, and temples in trying to rap my head around ancient practices. I found his discussion of prophecy and omens in the ANE/and the OT illuminating for understanding the nature of Biblical prophecy and its condemnation of certain practices.

Stylistically, this book fails for an inconsistency in style. In the main, Walton discusses the ANE in the body of the text and how it compares with the Bible in grey boxes within each chapter. Except when he doesn't. Sometimes the grey boxes are discussing the ANE and Israel and the Bible are discussed at length in the main body of the text. Makes it difficult for quick reference. This doesn't fault Walton's content, but he could be more systematic in his organisation of the material.

[Tom · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is the kind of book I was looking for to place the Old Testament in the context of the Ancient Near East and its various religions and intellectual environments. It’s a difficult but rewarding read. Most interesting takes for me were how Walton makes the case that 1) because Yahweh was unique in not requiring sustenance from his worshipers, service to Yahweh came to be reflected in how one acted toward others, and especially in how one acted to keep the covenant with Yahweh, which became an internalized morality that was unique in the ANE; 2) that the concepts of man as the image of God and of Israel as raised to a level where it had a relationship with the Creator God were also unique, 3) Israel’s historiography centered on the keeping of the covenant, and had a direction, whereas other civilizations centered on the king and the city and seemed (as I read it) to be stagnant rather than directional.

Some points Walton didn’t draw out. 1) He writes that other ANE cultures saw creation not as forging something from nothing or remaking new things from old, but as separating by naming. In other words, the gods created by naming one thing earth, another water, etc. But the stuff was already there. Walton says he reads Genesis 1 in the same way. I disagree with that only in the sense that the wording of the first phrase suggests a creation from nothing. God said let there be light, and (then) there was light. I.e., the word precedes the naming and the existence. Other parts do reflect Walton’s view (he called the light day and the dark night, e.g., reflect the more common ANE means of creation by naming). But I still think there is something unique here in Genesis 1, even if it had seemed odd to the people of the time.

The other thing Walton doesn’t address is that man is given the task of naming the animals in Genesis. For the context of the ANE, if creation belongs only to the gods, this is an amazing thing for Yahweh to give man the ability to do. This, man’s close relation to God in the beginning, his fashioning at God’s hands, his creation in God’s image, and his relation to God through covenant are all unique to the Old Testament, if Walton is correct, and reflect some of the core of the revelation of Yahweh to Israel.

Another interesting topic dealt with the laws of the ANE. Again, if Walton is correct, much of what we moderns regard as Israel’s “laws” from the OT should be instead viewed more as legal treatise – guidance to those making judgments about the nature of judging, how to arrive at a good judgment, and what sorts of trespasses and equitable decisions are important.

[Leandro Dutra · Rating 5 out of 5]

Granted, one should not indulge in chronological snobbery (apud CS Lewis) and despise three thousand years of Scriptural exegesis because it did not draw on so much information as is available today; on the contrary, the older the interpreter, the nearer he was to a world which, apart from academic information, is now effectively lost to us.

And yet, this book is fundamental. I cannot imagine one sitting down today to exegete the Bible in good faith while willfully ignoring such useful information. How can we presume to try to interpret Scripture while refraining from understanding the very meaning of the cultural references embedded in it? Yes, we can expose it based on the long, useful body of knowledge accumulated by three thousand years of interpreters, first in the Jewish synagogue and now in the Christian church; but we can only honour both the Bible and its interpreters by making at least an effort to try to understand the meanings of words, idiomatic expressions and, ultimately, the cultural context where God first spoke his Word now written down for us in Scripture.

I will not comment on any specific example; the most interesting ones rely on too much contextual information to write down in this review. But it actually sheds light on many obscure passages for which no analogy in Scripture itself increase our understanding significantly. More than illuminating specific passages, it helps us receive the Bible, specially the Old Testament, as its original hearers understood it.

This book does not indulge in speculation, nor it proposes major reinterpretations as do other titles by the same author. Rather it collects much contextual ancient Egyptian, Anatolian, Levant and Middle Eastern information to both point where Scripture draws on its wider context and where it departs from it; it ends up showing how different Yahweh is from the pagan gods, and how different the religion He inspired in the Bible’s human, inspired authors. It is not light reading, nor a running narrative, yet it truly inspires one to gain better Biblical understanding.

[John Dube · Rating 4 out of 5]

In Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament, John Walton introduces the reader to the conceptual world of the Old Testament and to comparative studies. Walton’s methodology in this volume follows that of W. W. Hallo’s, “who promoted a balanced approach called the ‘contextual approach,’ which seeks to identify and discuss both similarities and differences that can be observed between the Bible and the texts from the ancient Near East” (18). Under this methodology the student is not trying to “find the key to every biblical phenomenon in some ancient Near Eastern precedent, but rather to silhouette the biblical text against its wider literary and cultural environment.” (18).

With this methodology affirmed, Walton defines comparative studies as a branch of cultural studies that “attempts to draw data from different segments of the broader culture (in time and/or space) into juxtaposition with one another in order to assess what might be learned from one to enhance the understanding of another” (18). For the confessional exegete of the Bible, of which this reviewer is, the challenge of this type of cultural study has always been to what degree does one “enhance the understanding of another.” Thankfully, Walton’s approach to comparative studies is not to address who borrowed from whom, but to demonstrate the “common ground across the cognitive environment of the cultures of the ancient world.” It is this “common ground” that Walton unearths in this volume.

The volume is divided into five parts: (1) comparative studies, (2) literature of the ANE, (3) religion, (4) cosmos, and (5) people. In part 1 Walton outlines the methodology and history of comparative studies, as addressed above. Part 2 contains a 41-page summary of the literature of the ANE. Most readers will skim these pages, but will be thankful for their inclusion as a reference.

Under the heading religion, part 3 of the volume addresses the gods, temples and rituals, and state and family religion of the ANE. Walton begins by addressing the ontology of the gods, “In the ancient world something came into existence when it was separated out as a distinct entity, given a function, and given a name” (88). This point underlies much of what proceeds in this book, for it is the function of deity that has preeminence in the conceptual world of the ANE. And, it is on this topic that Walton applies his first “Comparative Exploration.” These are sections in which Walton seeks to draw out and apply the conceptual world of the ANE to the Hebrew Bible. For example, Walton argues that Moses is not seeking the actual name of God in Exodus 3:13, but that Moses’ question “concerns which identify of the deity is pertinent to the mission on which he is being sent” (92). Therefore, Exodus 3 is less about Moses acquiring the right moniker to take to Israel and more about Moses (and Israel) understanding “a function that they had not as yet experienced” (93). After addressing ontology, Walton moves on to the temple rituals and state and family religions. Here Walton demonstrates from the temple practices of the ANE and a lexical study on the Hebrew word tower that “the tower of Babel was not built for people to go up, but for the god to come down” (121). Of particular interest in these chapters are the Comparative Exploration segments on the Garden of Eden (124-25), the religion of Abraham (131-32), and commandments 1-4 (155-60).

Cosmic geography, cosmology and cosmogony are addressed in part 4. “Cosmic geography concerns how people envision the shape and structure of the world around them” (165). Walton explains the prevailing view of the ANE: “all thought of the cosmos in terms of tiers: the earth was in the middle with the heavens above and the netherworld beneath. In general people believed that there was a single continent that was disk-shaped” (166). Further, the author proposes that the Hebrew term for “sky” (raqi’a) fits within the conceptual understanding of the day (169). In this way, the Hebrew mind¬—Walton suggests—believed the sky was something solid. In addressing cosmology and cosmogony, the author draws on his earlier point that the ontology of the ANE is “function-oriented” (180). As a result of this observation Walton explores the Hebrew account of creation in pp. 181-184. Through comparative and lexical studies he suggests that the creation account is not about the universe coming into existence out-of-nothing, but is “meant to assign roles and functions” (See the Comparative Exploration on pp. 190-91 for and explanation of how the creation narrative assigns the “roles and functions.”) There is no doubt that this position opens the door to a world created by any means (e.g., Naturalistic Evolution, Directed Evolution, Old-Earth Creationism, etc.).

The final section of the book—part 5—addresses the people of the ANE. Subjects in this section include human origins and role, historiography, and the guidance (divination and omens), context (cities and kingship), and guidelines for life (law and wisdom). The section ends with a chapter explaining the conceptual thought of the future and death in the ANE. Regarding human origins, Walton argues that Adam and Eve are archetypal based on the understanding of human origins in Mesopotamia. He doesn’t suggest they are not real humans, but that their function in the Hebrew Bible is archetypal. Similar to his position on Genesis 1 the text is less concerned with the literal “creation” and more concerned with what these “created” elements represent. (For those interested in a detailed defense of Walton’s position on Adam and Eve see, Four Views on the Historical Adam, Zondervan, 2013). Walton continues the study of anthropology by addressing the human composition, the image of God in man, and man’s roles. Walton concludes regarding the image of God in man that “people are in the image of God in that they embody his qualities and do his work. They are symbols of his presence and act on his behalf as his representatives.” The ANE “perspective on history” (218), or historiography, is taken up next. In this section Walton casts speculation on the historical veracity of the Hebrew Bible, affirming E. A. Speiser’s position on historiography (226). Walton suggests, “The events [of the Hebrew Bible] were shaped to give fullest articulation of outcome and the patterns that can be identified in a series of outcomes. The events were reported not as an eyewitness would have seen them, but as part of the interpretation of that outcome” (227). Finally, Readers will find the comparative exploration related to Jeremiah 31:33 (257-58) and Joshua 10:12-15 (262-63) in these chapters very thought provoking.

John Walton’s Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament is a unique and important work. The book moves from the technical aspects of the ANE to the text of the Hebrew Bible with fluidity. The content may seem pedantic at times, but the reader is easily pulled back in with the “Comparative Exploration” sections. While it is true that the average Christian reader may disagree with many of Walton’s conclusions, that reader will no doubt benefit from a clearer view of the conceptual world of the Hebrew Bible.

[Charlie · Rating 5 out of 5]

Extremely lucid and accessible given the subject matter.

[Jeremy Caylor · Rating 5 out of 5]

I read Walton’s book for my Biblical Backgrounds course. I am signing off on “completing” this book because I finished the majority of it alongside the readings for the class. There were some chapters we did not go through, however, at some point I think I will go back. Walton does a superb job of addressing the Christian’s need to understand, at least to some degree, that first, the Bible was written to us (as in western, scientifically oriented, American, 21st Century Christians), and second, that the narratives that make up “the Bible” were written and recorded in a context that is culturally, politically, sociologically, economically, ethnically, linguistically, and essentially every other “ally” you could name. These two things are central to understanding the words on the pages that make up the stories that make up the Bible because it is simple a matter of fact. We do a disservice or potentially a great dishonor to the Word of God if we do not take these things into consideration when opening up the pages of Scripture.

Walton goes through the ancient near eastern thought to reveal to us how Israel was not “trying to be like their neighbors”, they were in fact simply like their neighbors. It was not a trying to be as much as a they just were because that was the world in which Israel existed in. His worked sparked a fresh wonder for the beauty of God and how He works IN and THROUGH a particular culture but that the WORD and TRUTH of God is eternal, timeless, unbound by culture and language, and is for every person at all times. BUT, what Walton helps the Christian understand, and the non-Christian who maybe skeptical of certain aspects of the Old Testament in particular since this is what Walton is writing on, is that the Bible does in fact, whether or not we care to learn more about this, take place in a certain culture that is almost entirely different than our own.

One thing I am taking away from Walton’s work is a deeper humility in my relationship to Scripture. He has helped me tear a layer of cultural pride off of my heart that has in many ways blocked my capacity to truly understand what is being communicated in the Old Testament. I want to continue to understand the world that the Israelites lived in so I can more richly understand what is on these pages that we call “The Word of God”.

Now, it is NOT needed at all to know the background of the Ancient Near East to have a relationship with God and experience new life through Christ. To know this context is a gift that we ought to be deeply thankful for and since it is a gift, we ought to take advantage of the ability to explore what the world was like in the times the Bible was recorded so we can experience the fullness of the Word of God.

[Jay Vellacott · Rating 1 out of 5]

This book was required reading for my 400 level Old Testament Backgrounds class, which is a required class in my residential biblical studies degree at Liberty University.

If this book presented itself purely as a history of the ancient near East, it would be worth a five-star rating I am sure. However, it claims to provide the reader further insights on the Old Testament. If this is what it tries to do it does a very poor job indeed.

The entire premise of the book is mostly based on conjecture. Very faint almost indiscernible similarities between ancient near Eastern ideas and Old Testament ideas do not mean that either were affected by the other. This is at best a guess.

Yes I understand that God frequently uses known constructs to reveal new truths, but the evidence that the Old Testament is founding itself on these previous constructs is sparse.

If the Bible was inspired by the Holy Spirit, then the Bible's ideas did not evolve like other human ideas and literature. There's nothing about the Bible that requires it to be based on known ANE theological constructs. God is free to do this if He wishes to. But the author of this book seemingly assumes this basis without even bothering to answer the predicted objections of those who may disagree.

The unreliability of this false premise distracted me throughout my entirety of this book, because the it constantly threw into question why I needed to read this book to understand the worldview Old Testament.

Old Testament Backgrounds classes should primarily focus themselves on the study of geography, history, and cultural practices that are SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED IN THE BIBLICAL TEXT, rather than being an in-depth analysis of Ancient Near Eastern ideas that might be sort of vaguely alluded to here and there.

I still admittedly am still very lacking in the area of actual OT backgrounds study, and the time I spent reading this unhelpful book could have been spent digging more into that instead.

Someone that is quite knowledgeable in the area of Old Testament backgrounds should feel free to reply to this review and put me in my place if they feel that they would be ble to do so effectively. I would welcome the sharpening.

[Curby Graham · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very impressed with this work and it really filled in some gaps in understanding how the Jews of the Old Testament saw the world - in some ways similar and in other ways very differently from that of the pagan cultures they interacted with. Walton points out the following points of continuity and discontinuity between Israel and the rest of the Ancient Near East.

Ontology - Israel held similar views to that of the rest of the ANE - existence was perceived in terms of order and function which were in turned determined by deity. The difference for Israel is that Yahweh had ultimate and ongoing responsibility for the system from the outside. ANE gods were operating from the inside and were part of creation - not distinct from it.

Epistemology - Israel was heavily influence by the conviction that God had spoken. ANE cultures did believe in divine communication - but Israel's unique convictions are represented in the communication of the covenant to Abraham, Moses, the Prophets.

Anthropology - Israel, like other ANE cultures - saw humanity as come from divine action. Unlike the rest of the ANE - humanity was the crowning achievement of creation and that human dignity was a byproduct of a relationship to Yahweh.

Historiography - in Israel this was driven by the covenant, not by the king. In the ANE the drive was to legitimize the king where in Israel it was often more negative toward the king and focuse on divine faithfulness to the covenant.

Sociology - in terms of major forces in society that dictated how life was to be lived - Israel found common ground in the way very similar traditions and customs shaped daily life. What differed was the notion that life was centered around the goal of imitating God and the development of an interior as opposed to exterior morality.

Theology - Several major distinctives between Israel and the rest of the ANE: God is one. Worship of God is aniconic. God had made a covenant with a distinct people. God worke from outside the cosmos. God had no needs. God had spoken in ways and to an extent not evident in other ANE cultures.

An absolute must-have work for anyone doing serious Old Testament study.