What do you think?
Rate this book
Against the Gods: The Polemical Theology of the Old Testament
Did Moses borrow ideas from his cultural neighbors when he wrote the Pentateuch? Scholars disagree on the relationship between portions of the Old Testament and similar ancient Near Eastern accounts. Following in the footsteps of higher critics, some evangelical scholars now argue that Moses drew significantly from the worldview of his pagan contemporaries. Respected Old Testament scholar John Currid, however, pushes back against this trend by highlighting the highly polemical nature of Moses’ writings. From the Genesis creation account to the story of Israel’s exodus from Egypt, Currid shows how the biblical author’s continually emphasized the futility of paganism in contrast with the unparalleled worldview of the Hebrews. Currid’s penetrating analysis and thoughtful argumentation make this a ground-breaking resource for anyone interested in this ongoing discussion.
160 pages, Kindle Edition
First published August 1, 2013
67 people are currently reading
477 people want to read
About the author
John D. Currid
39 books14 followersDr. Currid has been part of the RTS Faculty for 20 years, serving as both Chair of the Biblical Studies Division in Jackson and Professor of Old Testament in Charlotte. Prior to coming to RTS, he served as Associate Professor of Religion at Grove City College. He is currently an adjunct faculty member at the Jerusalem Center for Biblical Studies in Jerusalem, Israel. Dr. Currid serves as Project Director of the Bethsaida Excavations Project in Israel (1995-present). He lectures and preaches in many countries including Russia, Ukraine, Great Britain, Australia, and Brazil.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 84 reviews
June 11, 2025
Against the Gods offers a concise and accessible introduction to polemical theology in the field of Near Eastern studies, with its application to the Old Testament. Professor Currid guides the reader through the emergence of Near Eastern studies, provides a general definition of polemical theology, and offers examples of its application to various Old Testament passages.
The Birth of Near Eastern Studies
The field of Near Eastern studies is relatively new, beginning in earnest with Napoleon’s invasion of Egypt in 1798 and the archeological discovery of “royal tombs on the west side of the Nile River.” Further establishing the field as an academic discipline with published findings involved ground-breaking archeological discoveries and the slow, painstaking work of making sense of those discoveries. Part of this process entailed translating ancient languages. This, in turn, involved creating dictionaries for these ancient languages. (A process that is still ongoing.) The most linguistically significant archeological discovery resulting from Napoleon’s Egyptian invasion was the discovery of the Rosetta Stone (1799). “Dating to the time of King Ptolemy V (204-180 BC), the Rosetta is inscribed in three scripts: demotic, Greek, and hieroglyphs. The Greek proved to be a translation of the ancient Egyptian language on the stone.” The discovery was a turning point in the translation of ancient Near Eastern archeological discoveries. Once translated, the archeological discoveries were placed in a historical context. It is at this point that comparisons between ancient works of non-Hebrew cultures were compared with specific passages of the Old Testament.
Scholarly Skepticism and the Old Testament
In the heady days of the initial publication of comparisons between ancient works of non-Hebrew culture and those of the Old Testament, a climate of skepticism towards the Old Testament took hold. The similarities between the Old Testament and religious texts of other Near Eastern cultures were said to prove that Old Testament writers borrowed from non-Hebrew religious texts. In doing so, the theory was that Old Testament writers stripped the non-Hebrew texts of offending polytheistic elements and created monotheistic accounts of the same event (or a similar type of event) in the Old Testament. Gradually, acceptance of this theory became an established part of Near Eastern studies, to the point where questioning it became a near-requirement among academics. This theory implies that the Old Testament is no more or less unique than other ancient Near Eastern religious texts.
Polemical Theology and the Old Testament
Unlike the standard framework of understanding the Old Testament in Near Eastern studies, polemical theology begins by understanding the Old Testament on its terms. In the Old Testament, worshiping other gods is abhorrent. Yahweh is unambiguously declared as the one true God. The worship of other gods is a betrayal that robs Yahweh of glory. This idolatrous worship is, at best, a worship of no god at all. At worst, this idolatrous worship is demonic or a sacrifice to demons. Assuming this premise, polemical theology seeks to demonstrate that Old Testament writers intentionally incorporated elements of non-Hebrew religious texts in a conscious effort to undermine the polytheism of other Near Eastern civilizations and reaffirm the unquestioned authority of the one true God of the Old Testament.
The Rod of Moses and Aaron and the Rod of the Egyptians
In Against the Gods, Currid presents several examples of polemical theology applied to the Old Testament. One example is the clear distinction between the royal rod used by the Egyptians and the shepherd’s rod used by Aaron and Moses. In ancient Egypt, the god Osiris “rose to the level of universal deity…He was king of the underworld and conqueror of death, and he embodied the Egyptian conception of kingship.” The Egyptian Pharaohs desired to appropriate the power of Osiris. His power was crystalized in a “crock” or rod, which was placed in the hand of a Pharaoh during his coronation.
The true God of the Old Testament worked through Aaron and Moses’ rod to bring judgment on the Egyptians. The rod is used to turn the waters of the Nile River into blood and to bring the plagues of frogs and gnats on the Egyptians. Most tellingly, in Moses and Aaron’s initial meeting with Pharaoh, the rod of Aaron is turned into a snake, which then swallows the rods of the Egyptian magicians. “The irony of the matter is that the two Hebrew leaders possessed a rod, a highly esteemed Egyptian emblem, to humiliate and defeat the Egyptians. That is to say, the very physical symbol that rendered glory to Egypt, authority to Egypt, power to Egypt, was the very object the Hebrews used to vanquish them.” Additionally, Genesis makes clear that the Egyptians viewed shepherds with disdain. Ironically, God allowed Moses to execute judgment on Egyptians using “a simple shepherd’s crook” and not “a mighty, elaborate scepter of Egyptian royalty.”
The Genesis 1 Creation Account and Other Ancient Near Eastern Creation Accounts
Similarities between ancient non-Hebrew creation accounts and the Genesis creation accounts have led scholars within Near Eastern studies to dismiss the Genesis creation account as a demythologized story, dependent on non-Hebrew religious texts. German scholar Friedrich Delitzsch reflected this self-confident skepticism in Babel and Bibel (1903), in which he accused the Bible of “crass plagiarism” related to the Genesis account. Such skepticism has been elevated to an article of faith in secular academic circles and has, to a lesser extent, even (shamefully) infiltrated evangelical academia. While parallels do exist between the Genesis creation story and non-Hebrew creation accounts, the comparisons become superficial if the Old Testament is read on its own terms.
Two ancient non-Hebrew Near Eastern creation accounts with similarities to the Genesis account are the Enuma Elish (a Mesopotamian text) and an Egyptian creation account. In the Enuma Elish and the Genesis creation narratives, dry land and man are created. In the Egyptian and the Genesis creation accounts, vegetation, as well as fish and birds, are made. Far more significant than the similarities are the differences between Genesis and the other creation accounts.
In the Enuma Elish and some of the Egyptian creation myths, “creation begins from the primordial waters. These waters are preexistent; in other words, they are the eternal matter of all reality.” By contrast, “Genesis 1 denies that there was any physical element in existence prior to God’s creative labors. He simply created the universe ex nihilo (“out of nothing”). “ An additional sharp difference between the Genesis creation account and that of the Enuma Elish can be seen in the status of humanity in creation. In the Enuma Elish story, “the gods created mankind simply to do the labor assigned by the deities.” Whereas in Genesis, “God formed mankind as imago Dei (“image of God”) and thus conferred upon humanity the status of ruler of the earth under the sovereignty of God.” A further distinction between Genesis 1 and Mesopotamian and Egyptian creation accounts is the deification of elements of the created order. In Genesis 1, God creates the “the greater light,” “the lesser light”, and the “the stars.” These are part of creation, not gods themselves. An aspect of “other ancient Near Eastern worldviews” is the belief that those “astral entities” are “deities with god-names.” Along with the deification and preexistence of elements of creation, the Enuma Elish depicts the chaos of preexisting creation as something that deities subdue through battle with one another. The “preexistent primordial waters (personified as the god Nun)…are pictured as chaotic, and they must be overcome and defeated by the gods of order.” By contrast, in Genesis 1, the “water at creation (1:2) is certainly no deity, and it is not God’s foe that needs to be vanquished. It is mere putty in the hands of the Creator.” Finally, similarities between the Genesis 1 creation account and other ancient creation myths in the ancient Near East have led many to regard the Genesis account as a myth. However, as Currid makes clear, other ancient Near Eastern creation accounts take place in the ahistorical realm of the gods and are “legendary stories without determinable basis in fact or history.” By contrast, the Genesis 1 creation account is intended to be taken as fact and “bears all the markings of Hebrew historical narrative.”
Against the Gods is a scholarly and accessible study of the Old Testament that challenges the long-held scholarly consensus in Near Eastern studies. It is beneficial for laypeople (especially evangelicals) who find themselves bewildered by academic attempts to define the Old Testament not on its terms but as one more set of ancient historical myths.
The Birth of Near Eastern Studies
The field of Near Eastern studies is relatively new, beginning in earnest with Napoleon’s invasion of Egypt in 1798 and the archeological discovery of “royal tombs on the west side of the Nile River.” Further establishing the field as an academic discipline with published findings involved ground-breaking archeological discoveries and the slow, painstaking work of making sense of those discoveries. Part of this process entailed translating ancient languages. This, in turn, involved creating dictionaries for these ancient languages. (A process that is still ongoing.) The most linguistically significant archeological discovery resulting from Napoleon’s Egyptian invasion was the discovery of the Rosetta Stone (1799). “Dating to the time of King Ptolemy V (204-180 BC), the Rosetta is inscribed in three scripts: demotic, Greek, and hieroglyphs. The Greek proved to be a translation of the ancient Egyptian language on the stone.” The discovery was a turning point in the translation of ancient Near Eastern archeological discoveries. Once translated, the archeological discoveries were placed in a historical context. It is at this point that comparisons between ancient works of non-Hebrew cultures were compared with specific passages of the Old Testament.
Scholarly Skepticism and the Old Testament
In the heady days of the initial publication of comparisons between ancient works of non-Hebrew culture and those of the Old Testament, a climate of skepticism towards the Old Testament took hold. The similarities between the Old Testament and religious texts of other Near Eastern cultures were said to prove that Old Testament writers borrowed from non-Hebrew religious texts. In doing so, the theory was that Old Testament writers stripped the non-Hebrew texts of offending polytheistic elements and created monotheistic accounts of the same event (or a similar type of event) in the Old Testament. Gradually, acceptance of this theory became an established part of Near Eastern studies, to the point where questioning it became a near-requirement among academics. This theory implies that the Old Testament is no more or less unique than other ancient Near Eastern religious texts.
Polemical Theology and the Old Testament
Unlike the standard framework of understanding the Old Testament in Near Eastern studies, polemical theology begins by understanding the Old Testament on its terms. In the Old Testament, worshiping other gods is abhorrent. Yahweh is unambiguously declared as the one true God. The worship of other gods is a betrayal that robs Yahweh of glory. This idolatrous worship is, at best, a worship of no god at all. At worst, this idolatrous worship is demonic or a sacrifice to demons. Assuming this premise, polemical theology seeks to demonstrate that Old Testament writers intentionally incorporated elements of non-Hebrew religious texts in a conscious effort to undermine the polytheism of other Near Eastern civilizations and reaffirm the unquestioned authority of the one true God of the Old Testament.
The Rod of Moses and Aaron and the Rod of the Egyptians
In Against the Gods, Currid presents several examples of polemical theology applied to the Old Testament. One example is the clear distinction between the royal rod used by the Egyptians and the shepherd’s rod used by Aaron and Moses. In ancient Egypt, the god Osiris “rose to the level of universal deity…He was king of the underworld and conqueror of death, and he embodied the Egyptian conception of kingship.” The Egyptian Pharaohs desired to appropriate the power of Osiris. His power was crystalized in a “crock” or rod, which was placed in the hand of a Pharaoh during his coronation.
The true God of the Old Testament worked through Aaron and Moses’ rod to bring judgment on the Egyptians. The rod is used to turn the waters of the Nile River into blood and to bring the plagues of frogs and gnats on the Egyptians. Most tellingly, in Moses and Aaron’s initial meeting with Pharaoh, the rod of Aaron is turned into a snake, which then swallows the rods of the Egyptian magicians. “The irony of the matter is that the two Hebrew leaders possessed a rod, a highly esteemed Egyptian emblem, to humiliate and defeat the Egyptians. That is to say, the very physical symbol that rendered glory to Egypt, authority to Egypt, power to Egypt, was the very object the Hebrews used to vanquish them.” Additionally, Genesis makes clear that the Egyptians viewed shepherds with disdain. Ironically, God allowed Moses to execute judgment on Egyptians using “a simple shepherd’s crook” and not “a mighty, elaborate scepter of Egyptian royalty.”
The Genesis 1 Creation Account and Other Ancient Near Eastern Creation Accounts
Similarities between ancient non-Hebrew creation accounts and the Genesis creation accounts have led scholars within Near Eastern studies to dismiss the Genesis creation account as a demythologized story, dependent on non-Hebrew religious texts. German scholar Friedrich Delitzsch reflected this self-confident skepticism in Babel and Bibel (1903), in which he accused the Bible of “crass plagiarism” related to the Genesis account. Such skepticism has been elevated to an article of faith in secular academic circles and has, to a lesser extent, even (shamefully) infiltrated evangelical academia. While parallels do exist between the Genesis creation story and non-Hebrew creation accounts, the comparisons become superficial if the Old Testament is read on its own terms.
Two ancient non-Hebrew Near Eastern creation accounts with similarities to the Genesis account are the Enuma Elish (a Mesopotamian text) and an Egyptian creation account. In the Enuma Elish and the Genesis creation narratives, dry land and man are created. In the Egyptian and the Genesis creation accounts, vegetation, as well as fish and birds, are made. Far more significant than the similarities are the differences between Genesis and the other creation accounts.
In the Enuma Elish and some of the Egyptian creation myths, “creation begins from the primordial waters. These waters are preexistent; in other words, they are the eternal matter of all reality.” By contrast, “Genesis 1 denies that there was any physical element in existence prior to God’s creative labors. He simply created the universe ex nihilo (“out of nothing”). “ An additional sharp difference between the Genesis creation account and that of the Enuma Elish can be seen in the status of humanity in creation. In the Enuma Elish story, “the gods created mankind simply to do the labor assigned by the deities.” Whereas in Genesis, “God formed mankind as imago Dei (“image of God”) and thus conferred upon humanity the status of ruler of the earth under the sovereignty of God.” A further distinction between Genesis 1 and Mesopotamian and Egyptian creation accounts is the deification of elements of the created order. In Genesis 1, God creates the “the greater light,” “the lesser light”, and the “the stars.” These are part of creation, not gods themselves. An aspect of “other ancient Near Eastern worldviews” is the belief that those “astral entities” are “deities with god-names.” Along with the deification and preexistence of elements of creation, the Enuma Elish depicts the chaos of preexisting creation as something that deities subdue through battle with one another. The “preexistent primordial waters (personified as the god Nun)…are pictured as chaotic, and they must be overcome and defeated by the gods of order.” By contrast, in Genesis 1, the “water at creation (1:2) is certainly no deity, and it is not God’s foe that needs to be vanquished. It is mere putty in the hands of the Creator.” Finally, similarities between the Genesis 1 creation account and other ancient creation myths in the ancient Near East have led many to regard the Genesis account as a myth. However, as Currid makes clear, other ancient Near Eastern creation accounts take place in the ahistorical realm of the gods and are “legendary stories without determinable basis in fact or history.” By contrast, the Genesis 1 creation account is intended to be taken as fact and “bears all the markings of Hebrew historical narrative.”
Against the Gods is a scholarly and accessible study of the Old Testament that challenges the long-held scholarly consensus in Near Eastern studies. It is beneficial for laypeople (especially evangelicals) who find themselves bewildered by academic attempts to define the Old Testament not on its terms but as one more set of ancient historical myths.
August 7, 2013
Currid’s objective is to show that the idea of polemics (here and here) in literature is not foreign to the Old Testament, it was very common in ANE culture, and the Old Testament writers used it well. It’s purpose is to emphatically demonstrate the distinctions between the worldviews of the Hebrews and the rest of the ANE.
The Chocolate Milk
+ Currid looks at the parallels in the ANE/Bible stories before giving the contrasts. It actually builds suspense because, even though I know he’s going to prove his point, it leads me to try to figure out how he’ll dig himself out of the hole he’s in. [Spoiler: he does].
+ Currid sets out to prove the authenticity of the Bible’s polemics. Just because there are parallels between an ANE myth and the Bible doesn’t mean that both are myths. There’s no reason one cannot be myth and the other true history. Just because TV has “Desperate Housewives” doesn’t mean that newspaper stories of adultery are fake. So even the stories of a “spurned seductress” in ANE myths doesn’t mean there can’t be a true account in Genesis [38, with Joseph and Potiphar's wife].
+ The real highlight of the book was the Polemical Angle at the end of almost every chapter.
+ Currid goes through a number of different small-scale
God’s strong arm (Ex 3:19-20) vs. Pharaoh’s strong arm
“Thus says the Lord” (Ex 5:1) vs. “Thus says Pharaoh”
Yahweh the heavenly rider (Isa 19:1-15; Ps 104:3) vs. Baal
The serpent confrontation (Ex 7:8-13), etc.
and large-scale examples
Creation (Gen 1-2)
The Flood (Gen 7-9)
Joseph (Gen 37:12-36, 39:7-18)
The Birth of the Deliver Moses (Ex 2:1-10)
The Flight of Moses (Ex 2:11-25)
I Am who I Am (Ex 3)
The Rod of Moses (Ex 4:1-5; 7:8-13; 14:19-31)
The Parting of the Red Sea (Ex 14:19-21)
Canaanite parallels
to show his point.
The Spoiled Milk
- This book is short. Not bad, but I felt like Currid spent more time talking about ANE parallels than polemics. And that was the main reason why I bought the book: the polemics.
- I’d rather know the biblical details than the ANE geographical details of where ANE literature was found, how much of it was found, the different kinds of lists found, etc (ex: Atrahasis at Ugarit, p. 53; Hittite Tales, p. 83; information about what the “Walls of the Ruler” is p.91). This is fine, but considering the size of the book, the polemical paragraphs were too short and too few.
- In almost every chapter (meaning over and over) Currid would state the same 3 differences between the ANE account and the biblical account.
At least, these were usually worded differently in each chapter, and there was still the P/A section in the end.
- One big one for me was in Chapter 10 (The Parting of the Waters of the Red Sea). Instead of spelling out the arguments on how God hardened Pharaoh’s heart, Currid doesn’t want to repeat himself and instead points us to the “relevant literature” (an article he wrote in Bible Review [1993]).
I understand there may be page # restrictions, but I don’t want to have to search out a magazine from 20 years ago when I could read it in the book, especially when I can’t seem to find the copy on the internet (for free, at least).
Considering Pharaoh’s hardened heart is a well-known, difficult Bible passage, and seeing how it relates to Egypt literature is very important to understand the meaning, I don’t think anyone would mind if Currid repeated himself here. (And swapped it with a few ANE readings…)
- Unfortunately, the Polemical Angle/Analysis section isn’t as long as I expected it to be. For something to be so central to the book, the P/A section just didn’t have enough depth. Every time I was left wanting. I read more ANE stories of people who’s names I’ll never remember than I did reasons why Moses wrote the polemic in the first place.
- This book was promising, but left me disappointed.
Recommended?
No. Not to most people.
If you’re a teacher who wants to know more about ANE parallels with the Bible, or a student who has a Bible-bashing college history teacher, then sure, this book would be of help.
But most people just won’t want to read this book, especially when there’s more ANE information than polemical detail available.
For most people, just listen to Currid's lectures "Crass Plagiarism" on iTunesU. These three 30-40 min. lectures are very interesting, short, and were the reason I wanted to get this book. You’ll learn a lot from them.
February 13, 2021
Helpful and insightful
Currid makes the argument that the similarity between biblical passages and ANE literature can in part be explained by the use of polemic theology. That is the biblical writers frequently draw on the culture of the surrounding nations to make the case for the superiority of the Hebrew worldview. This is a worthwhile read for teachers and pastors.
Currid makes the argument that the similarity between biblical passages and ANE literature can in part be explained by the use of polemic theology. That is the biblical writers frequently draw on the culture of the surrounding nations to make the case for the superiority of the Hebrew worldview. This is a worthwhile read for teachers and pastors.
January 30, 2024
Currid's main thesis in this book is that interpreters of the Old Testament ought to be more open to the possibility that, when there are parallels between the Hebrew texts and the writings of other near eastern nations, the Israelite authors may have been intending polemic irony to elevate YHWH above the pagan deities. He makes that point well, with several examples which shed fascinating light on how the original readers of, say, Exodus, would have understood certain passages. However, I think he overstates his case in some instances, at times highlighting weak parallels, or stretching to find polemics. Perhaps if he'd allowed himself to write in more detail, he would have made more convincing arguments concerning those examples.
He set out to write a book which was non-scholarly. While it is true that the monograph isn't as technical as it could have been, I still wouldn't describe it as accessible to the average reader. There's still plenty of jargon to be found which would go over some people's heads. The primary result of the effort to reach laymen, I think, was an unfortunate brevity that may have prevented him from making really strong arguments.
All in all, the book is worth reading. It's a short read, at fewer than 150 pages. There's some valuable information about Egyptian and Canaanite religion and practice, which does shed light on some of the language found in the Old Testament. A few very clear examples of polemics do show that such an interpretive angle should be more seriously considered by Hebrew scholars.
---
On my third time reading through this book, I find myself even more irritated with the problems I mentioned in my earlier review. Additionally, two more things have bugged me: (1) He makes the historically sloppy identification of Ugarit as a Canaanite city (it was never considered such by the Canaanites themselves). (2) He's rather uncharitable in the early chapters with John Walton and Bruce Waltke, taking pot shots at them based on small quotations interpreted in the worst light.
The book is still worth reading, and there's still plenty I appreciate (several of these chapters are seriously enlightening), but it's definitely not my favorite -- nor Dr. Currid's best.
He set out to write a book which was non-scholarly. While it is true that the monograph isn't as technical as it could have been, I still wouldn't describe it as accessible to the average reader. There's still plenty of jargon to be found which would go over some people's heads. The primary result of the effort to reach laymen, I think, was an unfortunate brevity that may have prevented him from making really strong arguments.
All in all, the book is worth reading. It's a short read, at fewer than 150 pages. There's some valuable information about Egyptian and Canaanite religion and practice, which does shed light on some of the language found in the Old Testament. A few very clear examples of polemics do show that such an interpretive angle should be more seriously considered by Hebrew scholars.
---
On my third time reading through this book, I find myself even more irritated with the problems I mentioned in my earlier review. Additionally, two more things have bugged me: (1) He makes the historically sloppy identification of Ugarit as a Canaanite city (it was never considered such by the Canaanites themselves). (2) He's rather uncharitable in the early chapters with John Walton and Bruce Waltke, taking pot shots at them based on small quotations interpreted in the worst light.
The book is still worth reading, and there's still plenty I appreciate (several of these chapters are seriously enlightening), but it's definitely not my favorite -- nor Dr. Currid's best.
October 28, 2023
This book is helpful, the information it provides is neat, but the book has a major flaw (in my opinion).
The point of the book is twofold: (1) the similarity between the OT and other Ancient Near East writings does not require us to believe that Judaism simply copied other religions; (2) many OT passages intentionally borrowed from the ANE in order to demonstrate how Yahweh is a better God. This ironic method of turning their own words against them is labeled "Polemical Theology."
The comparisons between OT and ANE are interesting, especially since there are many obscure writings referenced. The polemic angle can prompt worship in how our God is in control, cares for humanity, and gets the last word -- all things polemical theology teaches, all teachings not true of other gods.
However, the whole time I read the book, I had a burning question in my mind. When speaking about narrative parallels, like the flood story, how can there be polemical "borrowing" if the Bible is retelling true events? Wouldn't the Bible narrative rather be the original, and the other stories be the mutations?
After discussing this with friends, we came to our own conlusions about how God orchestrates history, how the stories were still creatively arranged and worded, and how there can still be a polemical lesson. But just from reading the book, I failed to see how point (1) related to point (2), which felt like a plot hole in the thesis to me.
I still think this book was a good read. I learned valuable historical data and I was given an appreciation of the goodness of our God. But I think this book needed a little more clarification or maybe one chapter dedicated to that aspect of the issue. As it stands, I would hesitate to recommend this book as an introduction to the topic, because I feel like I would need to give my own introduction to this introduction. Otherwise, if you can get over this issue, the book does have some real insight on the topic.
The point of the book is twofold: (1) the similarity between the OT and other Ancient Near East writings does not require us to believe that Judaism simply copied other religions; (2) many OT passages intentionally borrowed from the ANE in order to demonstrate how Yahweh is a better God. This ironic method of turning their own words against them is labeled "Polemical Theology."
The comparisons between OT and ANE are interesting, especially since there are many obscure writings referenced. The polemic angle can prompt worship in how our God is in control, cares for humanity, and gets the last word -- all things polemical theology teaches, all teachings not true of other gods.
However, the whole time I read the book, I had a burning question in my mind. When speaking about narrative parallels, like the flood story, how can there be polemical "borrowing" if the Bible is retelling true events? Wouldn't the Bible narrative rather be the original, and the other stories be the mutations?
After discussing this with friends, we came to our own conlusions about how God orchestrates history, how the stories were still creatively arranged and worded, and how there can still be a polemical lesson. But just from reading the book, I failed to see how point (1) related to point (2), which felt like a plot hole in the thesis to me.
I still think this book was a good read. I learned valuable historical data and I was given an appreciation of the goodness of our God. But I think this book needed a little more clarification or maybe one chapter dedicated to that aspect of the issue. As it stands, I would hesitate to recommend this book as an introduction to the topic, because I feel like I would need to give my own introduction to this introduction. Otherwise, if you can get over this issue, the book does have some real insight on the topic.
November 28, 2022
An amazing book! Did the bible borrow from other Ancient Near Eastern mythologies? Well, yes but for a very specific reason... A great book that gives great confidence. Also some really cool insights.
September 23, 2025
A solid introductory book on the relationship between the Old Testament with other ANE texts/stories.
Why are there so many similarities between the OT and ANE stories, such as the Enuma Elish? Many of these stories have too many parallels to be mere coincidence. The common accusation from secular scholars is that the Bible is clearly guilty of plagiarizing these stories, polishing them up, and making them monotheistic.
Dr. Currid rightfully pushes back against this conclusion. He argues that one critical aspect consistently missing in OT studies is the Hebrews’ use of polemical theology in their writing. In each chapter, he takes a different story or motif common to both the OT and other ANE cultures, juxtaposes them, analyzes the similarities, highlights the differences, and shows the polemical angle through which the Word of God argues from.
While most of the other ANE writings examined in this book clearly fall under the genre of myth, the OT texts looked at are clearly written in historical narrative prose. Through the employment of details and motifs of the religions of their surrounding neighbors, YHWH offers a strong critique of the foolishness of false religion and exalts His name as the only One worthy of worship. He alone is sovereign. The repeated phrase in Exodus is “and you shall know that I am the LORD” – both to those being saved (mostly Israelites) and those experiencing His judgment (mostly Egyptians) – judgment upon the Egyptians, but ultimately of their gods, which are really no gods at all.
This polemical angle of interpreting the OT is not the only way to understand the texts, but is a massively important one if we are seeking to let the Bible speak for itself, rather than to impose our own thoughts on it.
Why are there so many similarities between the OT and ANE stories, such as the Enuma Elish? Many of these stories have too many parallels to be mere coincidence. The common accusation from secular scholars is that the Bible is clearly guilty of plagiarizing these stories, polishing them up, and making them monotheistic.
Dr. Currid rightfully pushes back against this conclusion. He argues that one critical aspect consistently missing in OT studies is the Hebrews’ use of polemical theology in their writing. In each chapter, he takes a different story or motif common to both the OT and other ANE cultures, juxtaposes them, analyzes the similarities, highlights the differences, and shows the polemical angle through which the Word of God argues from.
While most of the other ANE writings examined in this book clearly fall under the genre of myth, the OT texts looked at are clearly written in historical narrative prose. Through the employment of details and motifs of the religions of their surrounding neighbors, YHWH offers a strong critique of the foolishness of false religion and exalts His name as the only One worthy of worship. He alone is sovereign. The repeated phrase in Exodus is “and you shall know that I am the LORD” – both to those being saved (mostly Israelites) and those experiencing His judgment (mostly Egyptians) – judgment upon the Egyptians, but ultimately of their gods, which are really no gods at all.
This polemical angle of interpreting the OT is not the only way to understand the texts, but is a massively important one if we are seeking to let the Bible speak for itself, rather than to impose our own thoughts on it.
August 1, 2023
Good and helpful Introduction to Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) studies. Currid, a professor of Reformed Theological Seminary, takes a polemical view of the parallels between Israelite literature and the Babylonian/Egyptian literature. Meaning, whenever there is a parallel it is there for a specific reason and in most cases is used by God to mock and ridicule the colloquial idioms and customs of the day.
For example, in ancient Egypt, hooked rods were used by the magicians and the elite has not only a symbol of wealth, power, and respect, but also to distinguish from other rods of the day - such as Shepherd rods. Of course, in the battle of sorts between Moses and Aaron and their rods vs the rods of the Egyptian priests and magicians, we see that the shepherd rods consume or overcome the royal priestly rods of the Egyptians.
Currid additionally gives nod to the fact that in many cases, despite others like Heiser and Walton that claim the opposite, many of the ANE tribes and nations actually borrow from Israel. One of the examples that Currid gives is the burning bush where God says His name is "I AM THAT I AM" and while that was known to the Israelites, it was also known among the Egyptians who took it (rightly so) as a claim to ultimate deity. They used it for one of their Gods as found in early ANE literature. And yet the great I AM was the one who destroyed Egypt and freed His people. Lots of good to say about this book and maybe a helpful antidote to the ongoing popularity of Michael Heiser's books who seems to goe too far in many ways.
For example, in ancient Egypt, hooked rods were used by the magicians and the elite has not only a symbol of wealth, power, and respect, but also to distinguish from other rods of the day - such as Shepherd rods. Of course, in the battle of sorts between Moses and Aaron and their rods vs the rods of the Egyptian priests and magicians, we see that the shepherd rods consume or overcome the royal priestly rods of the Egyptians.
Currid additionally gives nod to the fact that in many cases, despite others like Heiser and Walton that claim the opposite, many of the ANE tribes and nations actually borrow from Israel. One of the examples that Currid gives is the burning bush where God says His name is "I AM THAT I AM" and while that was known to the Israelites, it was also known among the Egyptians who took it (rightly so) as a claim to ultimate deity. They used it for one of their Gods as found in early ANE literature. And yet the great I AM was the one who destroyed Egypt and freed His people. Lots of good to say about this book and maybe a helpful antidote to the ongoing popularity of Michael Heiser's books who seems to goe too far in many ways.
Read
April 19, 2023Love this book and very accessible. If you want to understand the OT better I'd definitely read this one.
July 28, 2021
"In evangelical Old Testament studies today there appears to be a clear drift away from the position that holds to an original, singular, and unique worldview on the part of the Hebrews...The reality for [John] Walton and others today is that the early accounts of Genesis are 'culturally descriptive rather than revealed truth.'" -page 23
"Polemical theology certainly does not answer every question about the relationship of the Old Testament to ancient Near Eastern literature and life. There is much to that relationship that simply cannot be understood and explained by the use of polemics. At times, however, polemical theology can serve as a solid and reliable interpretive lens by which one can properly see the significance of a parallel. In addition, and of utmost importance, is the truth that the biblical writers often employed polemical theology as an instrument to underscore the uniqueness of the Hebrew worldview in contrast to other Near Eastern conceptions of the universe and how it operates. In this day and age, when considerable numbers of scholars seek to diminish the originality and uniqueness of the Old testament, this is no small thing." -page 141
"Polemical theology certainly does not answer every question about the relationship of the Old Testament to ancient Near Eastern literature and life. There is much to that relationship that simply cannot be understood and explained by the use of polemics. At times, however, polemical theology can serve as a solid and reliable interpretive lens by which one can properly see the significance of a parallel. In addition, and of utmost importance, is the truth that the biblical writers often employed polemical theology as an instrument to underscore the uniqueness of the Hebrew worldview in contrast to other Near Eastern conceptions of the universe and how it operates. In this day and age, when considerable numbers of scholars seek to diminish the originality and uniqueness of the Old testament, this is no small thing." -page 141
August 29, 2017
This was a very enjoyable read. Dr. Currid made a topic that can be very dry an interesting topic. I have grown in more appreciation of Old Testament literature after reading this book. I wish I had read this book in seminary.
December 18, 2021
A solid apologetic for the use of polemics in the Hebrew Scriptures against other ANE religions.
May 25, 2024
Very short, but very good. Currid ably argues that comparing the Israelite Old Testament to the writings of its ancient neighbors doesn't inevitably lead to the conclusion that the former heavily borrowed or evolved from the latter. Instead, he demonstrates that these comparisons highlight the uniqueness of the Hebrew worldview and the ways in which the OT writers intentionally utilized language/concepts from ancient cultures in order to critique the beliefs of those very same cultures. Not every parallel Currid points to is convincing, and some sections definitely felt cut short and left me wanting more. But on the whole, he presents an important alternative perspective to that held by most critical scholars today.
April 14, 2021
A fascinating exploration of similar themes and details in the OT and other ANE texts. Although some scholars believe Israel merely appropriated and sanitized these pagan writings, Currid convincingly argues for a polemical theology that intentionally taunted other religions thus strengthening rather than discrediting Hebrew monotheism.
February 20, 2021
I have complicated feelings about this short little book. I agree with the core thesis of Currid's argument (that the Old Testament writers were intentionally incorporating polemics into the ways they recounted their history, so as to distinguish Yahweh from other gods of the ancient world), but I was deeply frustrated with some of the ways Currid argued. I'll touch on the good and the bad:
The Good:
-The book is super readable and accessible. He condenses quite a bit of scholarship into short chapters that are easy to understand.
-The summaries of ANE texts are quite informative, well-researched, and, again, enjoyable to read. As a quick reference to these ancient stories, it's excellent.
-The "polemical angle" on each chapter is very insightful. It breathes new life into these familiar stories, and makes a compelling case.
The Frustrating:
-The book is short, but somehow repetitive. I appreciate the low page count, but found the repeated arguments that much more frustrating, when those pages could have been devoted to fleshing out other points.
-He very frequently quotes and footnotes himself, which I always find frustrating in academic monographs.
-Currid makes some bold assertions without argument (such as "The Egyptians were not writing history, but the Israelites were recording historical fact."), claims that aren't well substantiated, but also repeated throughout the book.
-Possibly the most frustrating for me is when Currid aims his ire at other evangelical scholars (mostly Enns and Walton). I've read a decent amount of both these guys, and in my mind, Currid is not reading them well. I don't understand why he turned his crosshairs this way (especially towards Walton) when neither of them would take much issue with his core thesis. When Currid is responding to broadly secular/skeptical claims that invalidate the historicity of the OT, I am sympathetic to him, but also confronting people like Walton was simply unnecessary in a book of such short length. It muddied the case, and frankly, made me skeptical of Currid's research since he misrepresented those scholars (in my view). A very frustrating issue that simply should have been edited out of the book entirely.
As a quick summary of ANE scholarship and archeology, this book has some great elements. In fact, I will be keeping it on my shelf for those reasons. But perhaps ironically in a book about polemical theology, Currid's own polemics really tarnish the book for me.
It's too bad, because Currid's core argument is great, and important to consider in our skeptical environment. If Crossway had done a better job of editing, and Currid had targeted his own polemics more professionally, this would have been excellent.
The Good:
-The book is super readable and accessible. He condenses quite a bit of scholarship into short chapters that are easy to understand.
-The summaries of ANE texts are quite informative, well-researched, and, again, enjoyable to read. As a quick reference to these ancient stories, it's excellent.
-The "polemical angle" on each chapter is very insightful. It breathes new life into these familiar stories, and makes a compelling case.
The Frustrating:
-The book is short, but somehow repetitive. I appreciate the low page count, but found the repeated arguments that much more frustrating, when those pages could have been devoted to fleshing out other points.
-He very frequently quotes and footnotes himself, which I always find frustrating in academic monographs.
-Currid makes some bold assertions without argument (such as "The Egyptians were not writing history, but the Israelites were recording historical fact."), claims that aren't well substantiated, but also repeated throughout the book.
-Possibly the most frustrating for me is when Currid aims his ire at other evangelical scholars (mostly Enns and Walton). I've read a decent amount of both these guys, and in my mind, Currid is not reading them well. I don't understand why he turned his crosshairs this way (especially towards Walton) when neither of them would take much issue with his core thesis. When Currid is responding to broadly secular/skeptical claims that invalidate the historicity of the OT, I am sympathetic to him, but also confronting people like Walton was simply unnecessary in a book of such short length. It muddied the case, and frankly, made me skeptical of Currid's research since he misrepresented those scholars (in my view). A very frustrating issue that simply should have been edited out of the book entirely.
As a quick summary of ANE scholarship and archeology, this book has some great elements. In fact, I will be keeping it on my shelf for those reasons. But perhaps ironically in a book about polemical theology, Currid's own polemics really tarnish the book for me.
It's too bad, because Currid's core argument is great, and important to consider in our skeptical environment. If Crossway had done a better job of editing, and Currid had targeted his own polemics more professionally, this would have been excellent.
September 29, 2013
In our Infowars generation, it is not uncommon to hear that, in regards to the Old Testament, the Hebrews were simply borrowing from contemporary pagan literature of the day - the only difference being that they "judaized" it in various ways. In fact, this is not an uncommon position in biblical studies, especially since the 19th century. I can remember being a younger man when I first heard this accusation, and thinking that, while that sounded a bit strange, I didn't have any rebuttal. Did the Hebrews in fact just borrow from the pagan pantheon of gods by judaizing them with some Yahwist pazazz?
In his book "Against the Gods: the Polemical Theology of the Old Testament," John Currid argues convincingly that, while there was in fact a borrowing of elements in the ancient Near East (ANE), most of it on the Hebrew end of things was operating as a polemic against the pagan neighbors of the Hebrews.
Currid shows this by comparing and contrasting things like the various creation accounts, flood accounts, forms of "exoduses," and more in the various ANE literature and notes how these stories, while similar, still differ substantively in worldview (i.e. contrasting the pagan polytheism with the Hebrew monotheism). I am very grateful that Currid published this book as I found myself marveling at the biblical authors' use of cultural awareness to demolish the pretense of the pagan neighbors.
One of the strengths of this book is that it is written for lay people. This is by no means an easy read, but the chapters are short for a quick shot of biblical studies to the brain. And with the book clocking in right at 140 pages, the reader who otherwise might be overwhelmed by such a task is able to absorb without choking.
However, because this book was written for lay people and not scholars, I wish that Currid would have had some sort of conclusion to tie up the relevance and apologetic concerns that Christian people may face in regards to objections thrown their way. It would've been nice to have some sort of short exhortation from a scholar to remind lay persons the might of the God of the Bible.
Minor quibble aside, this book was excellent and I would recommend for any Christian who has concerns about the usage of the ANE literature in Scripture.
*NOTE: I received a copy of this book from the publisher for the purpose of providing a review.*
In his book "Against the Gods: the Polemical Theology of the Old Testament," John Currid argues convincingly that, while there was in fact a borrowing of elements in the ancient Near East (ANE), most of it on the Hebrew end of things was operating as a polemic against the pagan neighbors of the Hebrews.
Currid shows this by comparing and contrasting things like the various creation accounts, flood accounts, forms of "exoduses," and more in the various ANE literature and notes how these stories, while similar, still differ substantively in worldview (i.e. contrasting the pagan polytheism with the Hebrew monotheism). I am very grateful that Currid published this book as I found myself marveling at the biblical authors' use of cultural awareness to demolish the pretense of the pagan neighbors.
One of the strengths of this book is that it is written for lay people. This is by no means an easy read, but the chapters are short for a quick shot of biblical studies to the brain. And with the book clocking in right at 140 pages, the reader who otherwise might be overwhelmed by such a task is able to absorb without choking.
However, because this book was written for lay people and not scholars, I wish that Currid would have had some sort of conclusion to tie up the relevance and apologetic concerns that Christian people may face in regards to objections thrown their way. It would've been nice to have some sort of short exhortation from a scholar to remind lay persons the might of the God of the Bible.
Minor quibble aside, this book was excellent and I would recommend for any Christian who has concerns about the usage of the ANE literature in Scripture.
*NOTE: I received a copy of this book from the publisher for the purpose of providing a review.*
March 1, 2015
Currid's book is set against the backdrop of an increasing willingness, even among professed evangelicals, to see the Old Testament as dependent on ancient Near Eastern mythology and folklore. This is often done in such a way that the historicity of the biblical accounts are questioned. Currid's book highlights, by way of contrast, that one way the biblical accounts are related to ANE writings is through polemic. I found some of his proposed polemics convincing. For instance, the use of the rod turned serpent by Moses, the parting of the Red Sea, and the drought in Baal-worshipping Israel during Elijah's time, and Yahweh as the true thundering deity all seem to have true polemic elements to them. I wondered if some of the accounts, for instance those alleged to parallel Joseph and Moses, were truly parallel. With the creation and flood stories my inclination is to see shared memory as a more likely cause for parallelism. I think before links between Egyptian and Mesopotamian texts to the biblical text can be firmly established there needs to be a control group study on creation and flood stories from around the world.
February 16, 2019
This book provides an excellent introduction to Polemical Theology in the Old Testament (particularly focused on Genesis and Exodus). For those who wonder how the Old Testament can be reconciled with other Ancient Near Eastern texts, this is the book that will help you begin to think about such things with an eye toward upholding the One God of scripture over all the false gods of this world.
October 27, 2023
As the saying goes, "Everyone is a critic."
Clearly, John Currid knows far more than I do about the Old Testament and Ancient Near-Eastern literature. However, with much grace, I think that this book struggles throughout. I will start with the cons and finish with some pros.
Cons:
I think that Currid's writing seemed to indicate that he was struggling with who his target audience was. There are small ebbs of somewhat scholarly writing that subside with long stretches of accessible reading.
Secondarily, there are sections that are unnecessary in getting to the point that Currid was trying to make throughout such a short volume. For example, he summarizes several stories in the "Westcar Papyrus" that has nothing to do with the point of his chapter of "The Parting of the Waters of the Red Sea" (Pg. 122).
Thirdly, I felt like many of his chapters were unbalanced. He wrote more on explaining ancient Near-Eastern literature with little attention to the solution sections. I should address solutions that are repeated several times throughout the book and become redundant.
Finally, I do believe that some polemics may be a stretch to say by Currid's estimation, and clearly need further research or page length. (Possibly both).
Pro:
First, One could easily see that this volume is well researched from the footnotes to the translation commentary.
Secondly, I think that Currid's work hits his aim of trying to "invigorate people to do further study in the Old Testament and its relationship with ancient Near Eastern culture and thought" (Pg. 10).
In other words, the book is, at the very least, thought-provoking. I would recommend this book to those who would want to start looking into Ancient Near-Eastern literature in comparison to the Old Testament.
TDLR: Thought-provoking work from an Old Testament scholar. There are some glaring issues that I believe drag down the book but might be worth someone's time if they want introductory work on Ancient Near-Eastern literature in light of the Old Testament.
I hope that this work promotes a further study of Polemical use within biblical authorship.
Clearly, John Currid knows far more than I do about the Old Testament and Ancient Near-Eastern literature. However, with much grace, I think that this book struggles throughout. I will start with the cons and finish with some pros.
Cons:
I think that Currid's writing seemed to indicate that he was struggling with who his target audience was. There are small ebbs of somewhat scholarly writing that subside with long stretches of accessible reading.
Secondarily, there are sections that are unnecessary in getting to the point that Currid was trying to make throughout such a short volume. For example, he summarizes several stories in the "Westcar Papyrus" that has nothing to do with the point of his chapter of "The Parting of the Waters of the Red Sea" (Pg. 122).
Thirdly, I felt like many of his chapters were unbalanced. He wrote more on explaining ancient Near-Eastern literature with little attention to the solution sections. I should address solutions that are repeated several times throughout the book and become redundant.
Finally, I do believe that some polemics may be a stretch to say by Currid's estimation, and clearly need further research or page length. (Possibly both).
Pro:
First, One could easily see that this volume is well researched from the footnotes to the translation commentary.
Secondly, I think that Currid's work hits his aim of trying to "invigorate people to do further study in the Old Testament and its relationship with ancient Near Eastern culture and thought" (Pg. 10).
In other words, the book is, at the very least, thought-provoking. I would recommend this book to those who would want to start looking into Ancient Near-Eastern literature in comparison to the Old Testament.
TDLR: Thought-provoking work from an Old Testament scholar. There are some glaring issues that I believe drag down the book but might be worth someone's time if they want introductory work on Ancient Near-Eastern literature in light of the Old Testament.
I hope that this work promotes a further study of Polemical use within biblical authorship.
January 18, 2024
I was very fascinated by this book. It is not the first book I have read on the theology of the ANE and the OT (John Walton's larger book is very good as well), but it is an excellent introduction for lay readers who may often feel uncomfortable with some of the parallels that exist between the OT and the ANE. Honestly, I think this book needed to be longer. Currid has a provocative thesis (that many parallels between the OT and the ANE are polemical in nature), but I did not feel that he took the time to thoroughly argue that thesis. He really just asserts it in the first chapter, and afterward, most of the other chapters are spent explaining ANE texts and showing the parallels followed by a paragraph or two saying, "Maybe this isn't borrowing but actually polemics." With some texts, I agree with Currid that they read very polemically, but I don't think all of the parallels he cites are that clear. Basically, I think he needed to argue his thesis more thoroughly. There are also times when he seems to imply that because an OT text is polemical it is therefore not "mythical" (which Currid defines as not historical), but this does not seem to follow in my mind. It seems completely plausible that an ancient writer could fabricate a story as a polemic against pagan religions. All that to say, I liked the book, I am intrigued and tend to think the thesis is right, but I think it needed more and deeper argumentation (yet I also realize that this book is not for scholars).
October 10, 2013
An understanding of Ancient Near East (ANE) culture, writings, and how that relates to our approach to certain elements of Scripture is a rather fascinating and important field of study. Throughout the years, there have been some scholars who have attempted to use certain similarities between that which is noted in the Old Testament and the writings of the surrounding ancient cultures as proof the biblical authors plagiarized or at least borrowed from those writings. Such a perspective is usually presented by more liberal scholars in their attempt to disprove or at least minimize the importance of Scripture. Others have recognized elements of similarity, noting the reasons for that similar approach, rightly identifying the purpose for using those common cultural and concepts as a means for God to present His polemic against the false beliefs of the cultures that Israel interacted. Dr. John Currid, noted OT and ANE expert, has written a new book called Against the Gods: The Polemical Theology of the Old Testament which demonstrates the fallacies of the scholarly liberal agenda while noting the manner in which God presents Himself as superior to the gods of the ANE cultures.
Many are arguably not familiar with the reality that many ancient cultures across the globe have creation and deluge accounts that bear a striking resemblance to similar accounts noted in Genesis. For example, the Gilgamesh Epic has many similarities to the account of Noah’s flood found in Genesis 6-9. With that said, there are noticeable and important differences. Additionally, the creation accounts of ANE cultures depict their gods doing some type of creation activity. So in all of these accounts, there is a supernatural element to the story. Currid aptly notes in regards to the Genesis account of creation in juxtaposition to other ANE creation myths, “The creation account of Genesis, in contrast, presents God as all-powerful, incomparable, and sovereign. He owes nothing to the agency of another. In addition, creation did not occur as the result of a contest or a struggle between gods, as it did in the Mesopotamian myths.” This is an important statement. While ANE creation myths use concepts related to water in their accounts, in Genesis, God presents Himself as the creator of water. This polemical approach used by God purposefully and intentionally relegates the gods of the surrounding cultures as inferior to the one true Creator God.
Another element used by liberal scholars and bloggers alike to diminish the validity of Scripture has been the popularity of the video called Zeitgeist. In this video, the producers attempt to prove that Jesus is just another offshoot of previously established ancient myths such as the birth of the pagan god Horus. Moses as the deliverer has also been suggested as coming from that same ancient pagan myth. In response to these liberal attempts to suggest Scripture is copying from those ancient myths with its own mythical storyline, Currid states “The story of the birth and life of Moses accentuates the reality of a providential God who is separate from the universe but determines the operation of the universe. Yahweh, therefore, is both transcendent and immanent. To the contrary, the other ancient Near Eastern cosmologies sought to explain the structure and operation of the universe in terms of gods who personified nature. While ancient pagan writers speculatively searched for elements that ordered the universe internally and called them gods, the Hebrew authors presented an external force who created and continually sustained the cosmos.” This is a brilliantly outlined distinction that once again notes the polemical nature of the Old Testament. While the mythical gods of ANE cultures were forms of nature, essentially depictions of cultures who worshiped the creation rather than the Creator, the Old Testament presents God as the supreme deity, the God of the universe who created and sustains everything through His divine sovereignty. Currid makes it clear and rightly so that liberal scholars have clearly overlooked the vast differences between the God of the Bible and the gods of the ANE, differences that are readily apparent and if actually investigated, demonstrate the difference between myth of pagan cultures and the reality provided in Scripture.
These are just two of many subjects that Currid covers in this very excellent introduction to ANE thought and how the believer should approach this issue. As noted at the outset of this review, having a solid understanding of ANE culture, language, and beliefs should be an important aspect of a strong bible study regimen. Currid’s book is a valuable tool for the reader to begin to analyze some of these issues, preparing them quite well for engaging the liberal scholars’ attempts to discredit Scripture or to make it appear as nothing more than a copycat of already established ancient pagan religious beliefs and practices. I also appreciated the fact that Currid mentioned the work of George Mendenhall concerning the ANE covenantal structure, another important field of study especially given the various covenants made between God and His people outlined in Scripture.
Against the Gods is a book that all serious students of Scripture should read. The insights provided by Currid throughout this book are timely, especially in an age seemingly devoted to a continuous assault against the validity of Scripture. Currid makes a concerted effort through the examples provided in this book, to clearly demonstrate in a scholarly yet accessible manner, that God is the one true God and that His Word is truth.
I received this book for free from Crossway Books for this review. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255 : “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”
Many are arguably not familiar with the reality that many ancient cultures across the globe have creation and deluge accounts that bear a striking resemblance to similar accounts noted in Genesis. For example, the Gilgamesh Epic has many similarities to the account of Noah’s flood found in Genesis 6-9. With that said, there are noticeable and important differences. Additionally, the creation accounts of ANE cultures depict their gods doing some type of creation activity. So in all of these accounts, there is a supernatural element to the story. Currid aptly notes in regards to the Genesis account of creation in juxtaposition to other ANE creation myths, “The creation account of Genesis, in contrast, presents God as all-powerful, incomparable, and sovereign. He owes nothing to the agency of another. In addition, creation did not occur as the result of a contest or a struggle between gods, as it did in the Mesopotamian myths.” This is an important statement. While ANE creation myths use concepts related to water in their accounts, in Genesis, God presents Himself as the creator of water. This polemical approach used by God purposefully and intentionally relegates the gods of the surrounding cultures as inferior to the one true Creator God.
Another element used by liberal scholars and bloggers alike to diminish the validity of Scripture has been the popularity of the video called Zeitgeist. In this video, the producers attempt to prove that Jesus is just another offshoot of previously established ancient myths such as the birth of the pagan god Horus. Moses as the deliverer has also been suggested as coming from that same ancient pagan myth. In response to these liberal attempts to suggest Scripture is copying from those ancient myths with its own mythical storyline, Currid states “The story of the birth and life of Moses accentuates the reality of a providential God who is separate from the universe but determines the operation of the universe. Yahweh, therefore, is both transcendent and immanent. To the contrary, the other ancient Near Eastern cosmologies sought to explain the structure and operation of the universe in terms of gods who personified nature. While ancient pagan writers speculatively searched for elements that ordered the universe internally and called them gods, the Hebrew authors presented an external force who created and continually sustained the cosmos.” This is a brilliantly outlined distinction that once again notes the polemical nature of the Old Testament. While the mythical gods of ANE cultures were forms of nature, essentially depictions of cultures who worshiped the creation rather than the Creator, the Old Testament presents God as the supreme deity, the God of the universe who created and sustains everything through His divine sovereignty. Currid makes it clear and rightly so that liberal scholars have clearly overlooked the vast differences between the God of the Bible and the gods of the ANE, differences that are readily apparent and if actually investigated, demonstrate the difference between myth of pagan cultures and the reality provided in Scripture.
These are just two of many subjects that Currid covers in this very excellent introduction to ANE thought and how the believer should approach this issue. As noted at the outset of this review, having a solid understanding of ANE culture, language, and beliefs should be an important aspect of a strong bible study regimen. Currid’s book is a valuable tool for the reader to begin to analyze some of these issues, preparing them quite well for engaging the liberal scholars’ attempts to discredit Scripture or to make it appear as nothing more than a copycat of already established ancient pagan religious beliefs and practices. I also appreciated the fact that Currid mentioned the work of George Mendenhall concerning the ANE covenantal structure, another important field of study especially given the various covenants made between God and His people outlined in Scripture.
Against the Gods is a book that all serious students of Scripture should read. The insights provided by Currid throughout this book are timely, especially in an age seemingly devoted to a continuous assault against the validity of Scripture. Currid makes a concerted effort through the examples provided in this book, to clearly demonstrate in a scholarly yet accessible manner, that God is the one true God and that His Word is truth.
I received this book for free from Crossway Books for this review. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255 : “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”
October 11, 2019
A very good book. It doesn't quite merit a 5-star, but it is an intriguing and well-written discussion of the parallels between the scriptures and the parallel stories and motifs found in other ANE literature and how the scriptures provided a polemic against those and in some cases a reconstitution of true history.
November 25, 2022
I really enjoyed this one! It serves as a great introduction to polemical theology - revealing how Biblical authors used irony to demonstrate how Yahweh is greater than ancient near eastern false gods. It’s very interesting how these authors would occasionally borrow from the secular culture around them to hammer home the point Yahweh supersedes all myths and false beliefs.
May 13, 2024
Currid discusses the similarities between Egyptian, Mesopotamian, Canaanite, and other Ancient Near Eastern religions. But he also highlights the start differences between the literature. He offers something called polemic theology as a solution to some of the literature that is similar to the text of the Hebrew Bible. I appreciate the case he sets forth and this would be a great book to get introduced to the concept of polemic theology and how the biblical authors used it.
April 6, 2025
A helpful little book on the relationship of the Ancient Near Eastern (i.e. Canaanite, Egyptian, etc.) religious context with the God of Israel. It outlines how He--through the authors of the Old Testament--taunted and defeated the gods of pagan nations. The writers were not merely borrowing contemporary stories and myths but exercising polemical theology in their retelling of historical fact.
November 11, 2018
I’ve been using this book as a supplementary commentary as I’ve had opportunity to preach in Exodus. Currid never disappoints. Grab anything he writes.
September 11, 2013
John Currid was a seminary professor of mine. I was delighted to pick up this book and read much of what he had tried to get into our heads during classes nearly 15 years ago. The simple premise of the book is in the subtitle: The polemical theology of the Old Testament. Currid begins by reviewing, briefly, the relatively short history of Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) studies. The rest of the book is chock full of examples of parallels between ANE literature and the Bible. He examines the connections, moving through the Bible's rehearsal of Creation, Noah, Joseph, Moses, the Psalms, etc., and then exposes the discontinuity between the Bible's stories and ANE literature. He then challenges the reigning view that the Bible is simply plagiarizing and cleaning of ANE texts.
"Against the Gods" is a great introduction into the world of ANE/Biblical studies. It is also a good apologetic work. It's perfect for seminarians and pastors, but useful for the studious layman who is looking for help. I recommend the book.
{Full review is here: http://mphilliber.blogspot.com/2013/0...}
"Against the Gods" is a great introduction into the world of ANE/Biblical studies. It is also a good apologetic work. It's perfect for seminarians and pastors, but useful for the studious layman who is looking for help. I recommend the book.
{Full review is here: http://mphilliber.blogspot.com/2013/0...}
July 8, 2014
John Currid's book, Against the Gods, is about how other ancient near eastern works of literature relate to the Bible. This is a very fascinating introductory study to this topic. That is to say, it is a great book to begin with if you are new to the topic like I am. His central thesis is that the Old Testament writers used certain motifs and styles that were similar to other ancient near eastern texts in order to present their radical Monotheism. So their use of these motifs or similarities was not "crass plagiarism" but a creative polemic against pagan religions. It is the LORD who rides on the heaven, not Baal for example. It is the LORD who has the ultimate power over nature, not Egyptian gods like Isis or Osiris. I had a hard time putting this book down!
April 3, 2016
Really great book! One cannot rightfully understand the context of the OT if one is not familiar with the use of polemical theology. It's has greatly changed my perspective in which I read OT passages. My only critique is that because this is a smaller book and an introduction to the topic, it is much shorter than perhaps the reader would like and causes some of the chapters and explanations to be limited in detail, although Currid does a great job at leaving sources and differing opinions throughout the work.
December 30, 2024
Currid provides some rebuttals to critiques that the Old Testament plagiarizes ANE literature. Unfortunately he gives more emphasis to ANE than pre-enlightenment approaches.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 84 reviews