http://www.nbc10.com/news/10851426/detail.html

You'd think they could at least have stopped by for tea.

HT: Karyn

...in the wilderness of comparative studies. John Walton quotes this from Francis Andersen:

Two extremes should be avoided. Nothing is gained by contending so energetically for the uniqueness of Israel's life, especially its religion, as the product of special revelation, that the people of God are cut off from the rest of the world. Some scholars have not been prepared to recognize much affinity between the Old Testament and "pagan" writings and insist on interpreting the Bible solely in terms of itself. At the other extreme, the culture of the ancient Near East is sometimes viewed as if it were uniform from the Persian Gulf to the upper reaches of the Nile. "Comparative" studies of myths and rituals have highlighted similarities between the gods and institutions of the people of the region; and the impression is sometimes given that the Israelites invented nothing on their own but borrowed everything, just as they borrowed the alphabet, from one or other of their neighbours.

Walton begins his book (Ancient Israelite literature in its Cultural Context) by pointing out that even according to the biblical account, Abraham came from Mesopotamia; his descendants lived for centuries in Egypt and they then settled among the Canaanite peoples. Add to that the continual interplay between the nations for trade (seen for example during the building of the temple), at war - in conquest and defeat, during the exile and afterwards, and it is hard to see how anyone could think that the Israelite people developed their culture or religion in utter isolation. Indeed, we know they did not, for the Hebrew language is one of a family of closely related Semitic languages.

So we shouldn't be surprised that there is other ANE literature that tells similar stories and uses similar genres to those familiar from the bible. Indeed, it would be much more surprising if there were not. That's the point about revelation - God uses familiar language and forms to communicate in ways that can be understood by his people, not utterly novel and unfamiliar ways that they can't recognise or understand.

But that is not to say (as many have tried to suggest) that there can be nothing unique about Israelite religion, nor that there is no place for special revelation. The comparative literature is at least as different from the bible as it is similar, even in those passages that have the closest parallels. It's different because of its context in the canon and we can see that it's different because of its effects in history.

Walton ends his book with a brief comparison of Israelite religion with contemporary religious beliefs and practices from Mesopotamia and Egypt. He notes two strikingly unique features of Israelite religion: monotheism and the covenant. Given the fundamental nature of both of these in the OT, it's hard to sustain the belief that Israelite religion was merely a natural evolution of earlier Babylonian (or other ANE) belief systems.