Full PDF Package
John Walton, Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament: Introducing the Conceptual World of the Hebrew Bible

Alan Lenzi
Top 3%6471 Views7 Pages
1 File ▾
Full PDF Package
Original PDF
Summary
Related
This review was published by RBL
©
2007 by the Society of Biblical Literature. For more information on obtaining asubscription to RBL, please visit http://www.bookreviews.org/subscribe.asp.
RBL 10/2007
Walton, John
Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the OldTestament: Introducing the Conceptual Worldof the Hebrew Bible
Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2006. Pp.368, Paperback, $24.99, ISBN 0801027500.Alan LenziUniversity of the PacificStockton, CA 95211
Comparative studies abound in our field. Discussions of the “Bible and,” focusing on aparticular theme or text from the ancient Near Eastern or Mediterranean world, arecommonplace. What is unusual is a one-volume, comprehensive treatment of how theHebrew Bible participates in and differs from the cultures of the ancient Near East.Drawing from a wide array of scholarship on the textual remains of the ancient Near East(archaeology rarely factors into his discussions), John Walton’s new volume offers justsuch a rare synthesis. His analysis demonstrates many conceptual similarities between theHebrew Bible and its ancient Near Eastern neighbors and locates the Bible’s uniqueness incovenantal theology and its portrayal of Yahweh’s divine nature. Ultimately, Waltonbelieves, Yahweh, unlike all other ancient Near Eastern deities, desired a relationship withhis people and revealed to them—in the Hebrew Bible—not just his will but also hischaracter.Walton is very well informed in both primary and secondary literature, writes clearly, andoffers several interesting comparative suggestions throughout the book. As a work ofsynthetic presentation, the book is primarily geared toward students and the interestedpublic. But given its narrow theological orientation and problematic methodology, this


This review was published by RBL
©
2007 by the Society of Biblical Literature. For more information on obtaining asubscription to RBL, please visit http://www.bookreviews.org/subscribe.asp.
book, unfortunately, cannot be recommended for the university classroom or for librarypurchase.Walton divides his work into five thematically oriented parts: comparative studies(chapters 1–2), literature of the ancient Near East (chapter 3), religion (chapters 4–6),cosmos (chapters 7–8), and people (chapters 9–14).Part 1 contains the methodologically foundational chapters “History and Method” and“Comparative Studies, Scholarship, and Theology.” Because these chapters orient theentire volume and are seriously flawed, they will receive more substantial comment below.Part 2 offers thumbnail summaries of a generous selection of texts (arranged according togenre) from Egypt, Mesopotamia, Anatolia, and the Levant, and provides references toaccessible translations. Alongside the works usually included in such lists, Walton includeslesser known texts like Shurpu as well as some notes about various ancient Near Easternarchives (e.g., Emar, Mari, and Ebla).Parts 3, 4, and 5 form the heart of the book (chapters 4–14). In each of the constituentchapters Walton provides descriptions of various aspects of the ancient Near Eastern“cognitive environment” (Walton’s term for “worldview,” used to refer to concepts orbeliefs shared by all or some of the ancient Near Eastern cultures as well as those that aredistinctive to each). His treatment shows sensitivity to the differences in the individualcultures, often treating Egypt separately from Mesopotamia and/or the Hittites.
1
Partthree (87–161) presents ancient Near Eastern concepts of ontology and deity, the role oftemples and rituals, and the ideas of state and family religion. Part 4 covers cosmicgeography and cosmology/cosmogony (165–99). Part 5, the longest in the book (203–329), treats human origins and the role of humanity in the universe, historiography,divination and omens, the ideology of cities and kingship, the concepts of law andwisdom, and finally death and the afterlife. Walton commendably roots his syntheses andgeneralizations in frequent references to and quotations from primary documents.Throughout these chapters Walton uses gray-shaded text boxes called “ComparativeExplorations” to take up a point from the main text and compare it with the HebrewBible. These occur about every three or four pages and vary in length from less than oneto several pages. In chapter one, for example, there is a comparative discussion of“ontology and theogony in Israel,” (91) “Yahweh’s council” (94–95), and a particularly
1
One suspects Jan Assmann’s
The Mind of Egypt: History and Meaning in the Time of the Pharaohs
(trans.Andrew Jenkins; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2003) has influenced the title of Walton’s book andits “cognitive environment” theme. (Seehttp://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/2004/2004-06-51.html for a reviewof Assmann in
Bryn Mawr Classical Review
.)


This review was published by RBL
©
2007 by the Society of Biblical Literature. For more information on obtaining asubscription to RBL, please visit http://www.bookreviews.org/subscribe.asp.
interesting box on “How is Yahweh different from the gods of the ancient Near East?”(110), among others. Walton offers many useful comparative interpretations and severalprovocative suggestions. Concerning the latter, for example, Walton reads Jer 31:33 inlight of Mesopotamian divinatory notions of the gods writing their will on the exta of ananimal (257–58); the notion of divine writing from this perspective, Walton suggests,changes the human heart in Jeremiah into a medium of revelation that can inform othersabout Yahweh. He also presents a celestial divinatory background for understanding thestopping of the sun and moon in Josh 10:12–15, which he interprets not as an account ofan astronomical miracle but as a report of the manifestation of an unfavorable omen(262–63)—if only Galileo had known Enuma Anu Enlil!But Walton’s comparisons are sometimes controversial or even entirely unacceptable. Forexample, according to Walton, Mesopotamia had exteriorized ethics (actions) while theHebrew Bible developed interiorized morality (right and wrong) (152–54 [main text]); thegods of the ancient Near East acted on whim at times but Yahweh never did so (despiteappearances, 141); the ancient Near Eastern gods existed in the cosmos, Yahweh above it(98 and 195, n. 2); ancient Near Eastern ritual was the result of common sense andexperimentation, the Hebrew Bible’s came from revelation (142, 137 [main text]);ancient Near Eastern law and wisdom attempted social control whereas the Hebrew Bibleinstilled a value system (singular; 299). There are indeed many distinctive ideas in theHebrew Bible and these should provoke interpretation and explanation. But Walton’sattempts often seem overly influenced by his theological predisposition to distinguish theHebrew Bible from its historical matrix. In the following treatment of Walton’s openingtwo chapters, one will see that this evaluation also applies to the methodologicalfoundations of the book.Walton’s first chapter (15–28) looks at the history and method of comparing biblicalmaterials to the ancient Near East. His brief overview of the history of comparative studies(15–18) highlights the well-known fact that critical polemics and confessional apologeticshave steered the intellectual enterprise of comparison from the very beginning. Althoughapparently wanting to offer an alternative to this impasse, Walton explicitly returns tothis intellectual dichotomy throughout the remainder of the book, very clearly takes a side(see below), and thereby perpetuates the dichotomy that he wants to bridge. This is thebook’s most problematic aspect.The rest of the chapter (18–28) treats “methodology,” but most of its text is devoted to justifying comparative study and only alludes to principles of comparison
inter alia
.Walton effectively demonstrates that biblical authors were fully ensconced in the ancientNear Eastern “cognitive environment” and must be read in light of that environment ifone wants to appreciate their significance in ancient times and avoid imposing one’s own

This review was published by RBL
©
2007 by the Society of Biblical Literature. For more information on obtaining asubscription to RBL, please visit http://www.bookreviews.org/subscribe.asp.
modern worldview on them. (The latter idea comes up several times and will requirefurther comment.) But given the fact that the section’s concern is establishing amethodology for comparison, one wonders why he concludes with only a very briefenumeration of ten general principles of comparison (e.g., “both similarities anddifferences must be considered”; “careful background study must precede comparativestudy”; “similar functions may be performed by different genres in different cultures”)without further explanation. These implicitly inform Walton’s comparative practice inchapters four to fourteen—and thus give the reader a view of his principles in practice, buta more explicit and sophisticated methodological discussion is needed.Chapter 2, “Comparative Studies, Scholarship, and Theology,” is the most revealingchapter methodologically. Walton begins with an elaboration upon the critical vs.confessional dichotomy introduced in the opening pages. The author shows howcomparative studies have posed challenges to both critical and confessional scholars, havemet resistance from each, and have been employed by both for polemical purposes. Hethen presents what seems to be a mediating position, what he calls the “integrated role” ofcomparative studies, to which he assigns three aspects: 1) critical analysis, which “serves toprovide a wide range of information by which we can understand in more advanced waysthe history and literature of the biblical world”; 2) defense of the biblical text, which evennon-confessional scholars can contribute to; and 3) exegesis, about which Walton warns,“if we do not bring the information from the ancient cognitive environment to bear onthe text, we will automatically impose the parameters of our modern worldview, thusrisking serious distortion of meaning.”The chapter concludes with a flow chart illustrating “Roles for Comparative Study” (40).According to this chart, general cultural studies inform comparative studies. Comparativestudies flow into critical analysis, where one engages in historical reconstruction andliterary comparison. Positive assessment of the biblical text leads to exegesis or maycontribute to apologetic purposes. Negative assessment in the critical analysis stage shuntsthe information to apologetics, which goes on the offensive to prove the Bible true or onthe defensive to deflect criticism. In other words, critical analysis in Walton’s “integratedrole” of comparative studies
never
offers a “negative” assessment of the Bible (“Negative”is defined, one surmises, as anything that may detract from the fundamental truth[s] ofthe Bible.) If one compares this chart to the conclusion of the earlier section called“Challenges to Confessional Scholarship,”
2
one will see that Walton’s mediating positionis really nothing but a slightly disguised confessional one. Thus, there are two reasons to
2
“Scholars engaged in this work use their research to challenge the conclusions of critical scholarship andin the process to authenticate the biblical text. Such studies intend to exonerate the Old Testament anddefend against spurious attacks on its integrity” (36).


This review was published by RBL
©
2007 by the Society of Biblical Literature. For more information on obtaining asubscription to RBL, please visit http://www.bookreviews.org/subscribe.asp.
do comparative analysis according to Walton: to understand the “positive” things aboutthe Bible and to defend it against those who would point out its purported “negative”features. For anyone engaged in teaching students to think critically and independently,this view of comparative study and caricature of critical analysis is unacceptable.It is hard to avoid the conclusion that Walton’s integrated comparative method violateshis own principle of
not
imposing one’s modern cognitive environment onto the Bible, awarning he intones throughout the book. But modern imposition on the data is of courseunavoidable not only in one’s descriptions but in one’s very approach to the comparativetask—everyone commits a theoretical imposition. Analysis requires a circumscription of abody of data, a delimitation of context, the formulation of questions from interactionwith the data, and the construction of categories through which to analyze the data. All ofthese come from the interpreter. Walton realizes this tacitly, for example, when talkingabout the analytical difficulty of distinguishing “religion” from “life” in the ancient NearEast (87) and explicitly in his treatment of historiography (217–37, esp. 220). But hisresistance to embrace self-consciously and address in a methodologically explicit mannerthe role of the investigator leaves the reader with a rather naïve impression of thecomparative process: one takes the “givens” and sifts the data through the ancient contextwith a few general rules as guides, all the while trying not to think too much like amodern, in order to gain information about the truth of the Bible. A look at othercomparative enterprises in the humanities will show that this is a woefully inadequateapproach.Two representative ideas in the book, myth and historiography, will demonstrate how thecritical/confessional dichotomy and the resistance to embrace a self-consciouslyconstructive analytical approach to comparison creates problems in the text.Walton defines “myth” as “stories in which the gods are the main characters” that manypeople consider “fanciful and fictional” since they do not believe in the reality of thedeities (43). However, given the fact that some people still believe in the god of theHebrew Bible, “myth,” Walton observes, can present problems. But, as he notes, “it isirrelevant whether the modern reader believes the gods of the Babylonians or the God(
sic
)of Israel exist. The significance and nature of the literature are not dependent on
our
assessment of their reality. These accounts serve as important sources for coming tounderstand the worldviews of the ancients” (44, emphasis original). This is acommendable, middle-path distinction to help ease the problems some readers will havewith “myth.” Moreover, this kind of reflection demonstrates how one’s analyticalcategories can identify with or undermine certain ideological positions. This is allmethodologically and pedagogically solid. There is a problem, unfortunately, becauseWalton causally uses the words “myth” or “mythological” throughout the remainder of
