After I had caused all my family and relations to go up into the ship, I caused the game of the field, the beasts of the field, and all the craftsmen to go into it.
That’s Noah speaking about the flood, right? Not so fast. It’s actually a guy named Utnapishtim from the Epic of Gilgamesh. This epic is ancient Babylonian literature. In this story Utnapishtim tells the story of the flood to Gilgamesh. Though it does have differences from the biblical account it is strikingly familiar—too strikingly familiar, according to some.
The flood story is not the only biblical story that also appears in modified forms in other ancient literature. To someone just stumbling upon this information it can be a stumbling block to their faith. It seems as if the Old Testament writers simply borrowed ideas from their pagan neighbors, created their own god, and tried to make him sound unique.
There is another option, according to Old Testament scholar, John D. Currid, in his book Against the Gods. Currid believes that “the biblical writers employ such borrowing for the purpose of taunting”. Yes, these sound similar to other familiar ancient literature—and it sounds familiar because the Israelites were showing how Yahweh is greater than the gods in these stories.
It is not the author’s intention to write exhaustively on the topic. In fact such a topic would be impossible. Instead, Currid’s “hope is to advance the debate a little, stir up some thoughts, and perhaps make some progress in the discussion.” The book is not written to scholars knee deep in the mire of ancient Near-Eastern studies. Against the Gods is an introductory piece intended to spur further study.
It is here that I am confused at how to review the book. The book seems, at least to me, to be marketed towards those that are trying to settle this issue. The back cover—the place where you look to see what the book is about—reads thus, “Currid aims to outline the precise relationship between the biblical worldview and that of Israel’s neighbor”. A word like “precise” sounds as if the author intends to answer this controversial question for those struggling through it.
Yet, when one reads through the prologue Currid seems more interested in “pushing things forward to stimulate conversation”. That’s hardly saying that he’ll give a precise outline of the relationship.
This is why I’m having difficulty reviewing the work. If I judge it based upon how it was marketed the book left me wanting. In fact it raised more questions than it answered. Currid introduced difficult questions that I am still not sure how to answer. Honestly, some of the connections between the Old Testament and Near Eastern literature is unsettling. If it was meant to assist the average Joe in answering this controversial question it doesn’t do it.
However, I believe Currid’s intentions are actually to introduce readers to the prospect of polemical theology. It’s as if the author is putting a pebble in the shoe of those talking about this issue. He’s saying to us, “Have you considered this?” And here, I think the book shines. If it’s supposed to introduce me to Near Eastern studies, to give a framework for thinking through it (polemical theology, and to spur me on to further study, then it accomplishes its goal.
Reading through the first chapter on the history of ancient Near Eastern studies made me want to grab a shovel and start digging up my backyard—you know just in case I might discover some ancient artifact. After reading this book I want to do more study of Near Eastern literature. But I’m also unsettled. I have questions unanswered, and I believe that was Currid’s point.
In this case don’t judge the book by it’s cover and you’ll be just fine. It’s not going to answer this difficult question, and it isn’t meant to.
You can purchase Against the Gods here.
