What do you think?
Rate this book
Urban Legends
Urban Legends of the Old Testament: 40 Common Misconceptions
Urban Legends of the Old Testament surveys forty of the most commonly misinterpreted passages in the Old Testament. These “urban legends” often arise because interpreters neglect a passage’s context, misuse historical background information, or misunderstand the original language of the text. With a pastoral tone and helpful explanations of where the error originally occurred, authors David A. Croteau and Gary E. Yates tackle legendary biblical misinterpretations of topics like the origin of evil or the purpose of Mosaic food laws, as well as common misconceptions about dinosaurs, or NASA discovering Joshua’s long day. Urban Legends of the Old Testament will help readers avoid missteps in the interpretation of key biblical texts while modeling interpretative techniques that can also be applied to other Old Testament passages.
272 pages, Kindle Edition
Published December 1, 2019
34 people are currently reading
117 people want to read
About the author
David A. Croteau
10 books1 followerDavid A. Croteau (PhD, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary) is professor of New Testament and associate dean at Columbia Biblical Seminary of Columbia International University.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews
May 1, 2021
This is one of the most insightful books on the Bible I’ve read. The authors perform surgery on the misunderstood passages of the Old Testament with the scalpel of cultural and historical context, as well as Hebrew and greek to supplement. It is clear to see the humility and honesty of the authors in their approach to understanding the Old Testament texts in question. While I didn’t agree with everything, most did resonate with me and I learned a lot. Good to read all the way through and as a reference for particular passages. I found some parts hyper-critical in nature, which is why it got knocked down to 4 stars for me.
March 26, 2025
As a preacher-teacher who loves pointing out “urban legends,” I highly appreciate this book. That said, I think many of the “legends” in this book are a little too nit picky snd sometimes just issues with semantics. Overall, this is a good book, though. 3.5 rounded to 4.
August 3, 2023
For proper context, I loved the book “Urban Legends of Church History”, but I found that I was far more interested in certain chapters of that book than others.
In comparison, I think I enjoyed “Urban Legends of the Old Testament” a bit more because my baseline interest in each chapter was a bit higher, on average.
This book has a great variety of passages and interpretations that it explores. It’s safe to say that most readers will find several urban legends in this book that they’ve never heard of before, some they more familiar with, and some that perhaps they have even believed in the past. This was a very enjoyable read!
My favorite chapters/urban legends were:
6 - “The Angel of the Lord Refers to the Preincarnate Jesus”
7 - “Taking the Lord’s Name in Vain Refers to Using God’s Name as a Curse Word”
8 - “The Tabernacle Was an Elaborate Picture of Jesus”
14 - “The Tithe in Ancient Israel Was 10% of Income”
17 - “NASA Found Joshua’s Long Day”
23 - “Psalm 22 Directly Predicts the Crucifixion of Jesus”
26 - “Proper Parenting Guarantees Godly Children”
27 - “Without Vision, People Perish”
32 - “Isaiah 14 Portrays the Fall of Satan”
35 - “God Has Promised You a Bright and Prosperous Future”
37 - “God Intended ‘Ezekiel Bread’ to Be a Health Food”
For my own future notes:
Page 8 - “The plural form 'elohim when used with reference to the singular God of Israel is an example of what is called a plural of majesty or an honorific plural.' Rather than indicating plurality of personhood, the plural of majesty for elohim reflects the abstract quality of deity or is a honorific title for Yahweh emphasizing his special status and supreme authority.*
As Bruce Waltke explains, these kinds of plurals are employed for a singular individual who is "so thoroughly characterized by the qualities of the noun that a plural is used."
The plural elohim is used even for singular foreign gods such as Chemosh (Judg 11:24; 1 Kgs 11:33), Dagon (1 Sam 5:7), or Baal (1 Kgs 18:24) and reflects their status as national deities, not a plurality of personhood. We see a similar use of the plural of majesty when applied to humans. In Judges 19, the plural form of "lord/ master" (adon) is used for the Levite to signify his authority over his servant and concubine (w. 11-12, 26-27). David refers to Saul as "your lord" (plural of 'adon) to convey Saul's authority over Israel's armies (1
Sam 26:15-16). In light of this evidence, we can conclude that the plural ending for elohim in Gen 1:26-28 does not reflect plurality in the Godhead.”
Page 22 - “Although Gen 3:15 provides the initial anticipation of a future salvation for fallen humanity the text is ambiguous regarding the ultimate triumph of the seed of the woman over the serpent seed. Many English versions reflect this idea of triumph with the translation that the seed of the woman would "crush the head of the serpent seed, while the serpent-seed would "bruise" the head of the seed of the woman. The same verb (sup), however, is used to descibe the attack of both seeds against each other. There is not a distinction between "crushing and "bruising,' because both seeds are portrayed as "striking at each other, and the imperfect (iterative) verb forms suggest a continual and ongoing struggle.” Humans striking the heads of serpents and serpents striking at the heels of humans are both potentially lethal blows, but humans appear to have the advantage."
Page 29 provides a comparison of Hagar’s story with Abraham’s and Ishmael’s story with Joseph’s.
Page 38 - “Some historical background of the ancient Near East is helpful in understanding this prohibition. The people of Canaan used the name of their gods to give authority to their statements. They might invoke the name of Baal or Marduk to claim that their prophecies would come to pass. Names of gods were also used for invoking magic spells to try to get the god to do the bidding of the one praying (see Jer 28:2). Knowing that this was common, God gives this command in Exod 20:7, at least in part, to warn the Israelites against using his name (Yahweh) to give authority to their words (when he has not actually given them the words to say) or to try to manipulate him to meet their request.”
Page 40 - “If using the name of God, that is, Yahweh, means to use it in a way in which it is not fully referencing God, then there are some difficult expressions to explain in the Old Testament. Two of the most common ways to refer to God in the Old Testament are by the Hebrew words for "Elohim" and “Yahweh." But several times those words are used as superlatives. For example, a phrase in Gen 23:6 could be literally translated "you are a prince god among us." However, the word for "god" (Elohim) is used as a superlative, hence the translation "You are a mighty prince" (NIV). Yahweh is sometimes abbreviated as "Yah”. A phrase in Jer 2:31 could be translated literally as "land of Yah darkness." Since "Yah" is being used as a superlative, it should be translated as "a land of great darkness" (NIV). The uses of these words for God in the Hebrew Old Testament demonstrate that someone can use "God" in an expression or idiom and not be breaking the Third Commandment.”
Page 46 provides a great comparison table between the Garden of Eden and the Tabernacle.
Pages 46-47 - “The tabernacle served as God's royal dwelling place, and the portability of the tabernacle stressed Yahweh's continual presence with Israel. While it may be natural for Christians to think of how the golden lampstand in the holy place of the tabernacle reminds us that Jesus is "the light of the world" or how the showbread helps us to see that Jesus is "the bread of life," the features and furnishings of the tabernacle likely convey a more basic message about God's presence; the tabernacle was God's home, and the people could look at the tabernacle and see the kinds of things one would expect to see if someone was actually living there. Richard Averbeck explains, "The combination of the daily lighting of the lampstand and associated burning of incense ... plus the bread constantly on the table impresses one that the Lord had truly taken up residence in the tabernacle. If there is a lamp burning, incense burning and bread on the table, then someone is home.”
Page 61 - “From a canonical perspective, the most convincing reason that the food laws were not designed for health reasons is that they are set aside in the New Testament. When Jesus declared that what defiled a man was not food that entered his body but rather the evil thoughts of the heart, he was in effect cleansing all foods and rendering the distinctions between clean and unclean foods obsolete (Mark 7:14-23). Even though the primary point of Peter's vision of the sheet with clean and unclean animals was to teach him that all people were clean, the Lord's command to "kill and eat" the various animals also indicated the abolishment of the Mosaic food laws (Acts 10:9-16). The dietary laws in the Torah, along with circumcision and Sabbath observance, were the key boundary markers distinguishing Jew and Gentile, but maintaining Israel's distinct identity was no longer necessary under the new covenant because Jew and Gentile together now formed the people of God (Gal 3:28; Eph 2:11-21). The key pronouncement of the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 was that Gentiles did not need to adopt a Torah-observant lifestyle in order to belong to God's people. The sacrificial death of Jesus for sin also provided an inward spiritual cleansing that transcended the ceremonial cleanness secured by the Mosaic purity laws (Heb 9:14). If physical health was the primary or even a major concern in the diet and purity laws of the Torah, it is hard to explain why God would remove this protection from his people. As Roy Gane has observed, "If God commanded the Israelites to do something for the sake of their health, it would make sense for us to observe that law for the same reason because their bodies function the same as ours."
Pages 109-110 - “The tests concerning the fleece were not arbitrary requests but related to the Lord demonstrating his sovereign power over Baal. Canaanite mythology taught that Baal was the source of fertility and the rains needed for good crops and harvests. In one Canaanite legend, the weakness of Baal causes the dew to disappear, and Baal even has a daughter who is named "Dew." The signs with the fleece were designed to show that the Lord was more powerful than the gods that the Midianite oppressors and even Gideon's family worshipped. The Lord had already demonstrated his power and control over Bal when Baal did not avenge the destruction of his own altar, but Gideon still needed further confirmation of the Lord's superiority.
If the signs associated with the fleece emboldened Gideon's faith, the Lord's reduction of the size of his army as he prepared to face the Midianite horde presented another challenge. The Lord reduced Israel's army down to three hundred men, and they went to battle with torches, jars, and trumpets so that Israel would know that they had defeated their enemies in the Lord's strength and not in their own. On the very night of the attack on the Midianites, the Lord offers one more confirming sign to Gideon. The Lord commands Gideon to go down to the Midianite camp secretly so that he might overhear the dream of a Midianite soldier foretelling Israel's ultimate victory in battle. This event finally convinces Gideon to trust in the Lord.
The irony of the situation is that Gideon believes the promise of victory when it is conveyed in the dream of a pagan soldier about a loaf of bread rolling through his camp (Josh 7:13-14), but he does not trust this promise when it comes directly from God himself.”
Page 169 - “An interesting parallel to Proverbs 31 is Psalm 112, which begins, "Praise the LORD! Blessed is the man who fears the LORD, who greatly delights in his commandments!" (ESV). Both Prov 31:10-31 and Psalm 112 are acrostic poems: a type of poetry where the first letter of each line is a subsequent letter in the Hebrew alphabet. For the woman in Proverbs 31, this likely indicates the "completeness of wisdom as embodied" in her. Proverbs 31 describes a woman and Psalm 112 describes a man. Both are described as fearing God (Prov 31:30; Ps 112:1). In the conclusions, beauty is contrasted with fearing God (Prov 31:30), and the wicked and righteous are contrasted (Ps 112:9-
10). Both are discussed in terms of their wealth (Prov 31:16, 18; Ps 112:3). The woman's children call her blessed, and his children will be blessed (Prov 31:28; Ps 112:2. Both idealized people show compassion to the poor (Prov 31:20; Ps 112:4-5, 9) and have no fear regarding the future (Prov 31:25; Ps 112:7). This comparison is helpful because the way wisdom is lived out among men and women have significant parallels.”
Pages 193-194 - “For many English Bible readers, the name Lucifer in the KJV in Isa 14:12 settles the issue as to whether the fall of Satan is in view in this text. The name Lucifer, however, is not present in the original Hebrew text and entered into the translation of the KJV through the influence of the Latin Vulgate (and the Greek Septuagint less directly). The Hebrew text here reads halel ben sha-har ("morning star, son of the dawn"). The Vulgate translated the word halel ("morning star" or "shining one") with the Latin, lucifer, which means "light bearer”. In the place of "Lucifer, son of the morning" found in the KIV and NKJV, other English translations read "shining morning star" (CSB), "Day Star, son of Dawn" (ESV, "star of the morning, son of the dawn" (NASB), and "morning star, son of the dawn' (NIV). Some of the translations read this title as a proper name; others do not. The name "Lucifer” also does not appear elsewhere in the Bible as a name for Satan. Rather than the fall of Satan, Isa 14:12-15 prophesies the downfall and death of the king of Babylon.”
Page 200 - “The blog mentioned above accuses the modern translations of attempting to soften the actual teaching of Isa 45:7, but the fact that the Hebrew word ra’ah can refer both to moral "evil" and "disaster/calamity" is recognized in all Hebrew lexicons and easily demonstrated from the biblical text. John Oswalt notes that the range of meaning for the Hebrew word ra’ah is similar to that of the English word "bad" in that it can refer to moral evil, misfortune, or that which does not conform to a real or imagined standard.
The Old Testament prophets often made word plays based on the semantic range of raah. On more than one occasion, the Lord commands the people through the prophet Jeremiah to turn from their "evil" (ra’ah) way so that he might relent from bringing upon them the "disaster" (ra’ah) he had planned for them (e.g., Jer 26:3; 36:3, 7). The word play effectively communicated how the Lord's punishments would fit their crimes and justly correspond to the people's actions.”
Page 207 - “The expression "return empty" (shub + regam) appears in another context that helps to illustrate its usage in Isa 55:11. In 2 Sam 1:22, David laments the death of Saul and recalls his valor as a warrior by stating that Saul's sword "did not return empty" In other words, Saul's sword was effective in battle and in accomplishing its purpose of defeating the enemy. God’s promises concerning Israel's restoration and return from exile have the same efficacy, and they will not fail. A contrasting image is found in Jer 14:3, when the nobles of Judah send their servants out to find water in a time of drought, but these servants
"return empty" (shub regam). The Lord's promises never fail in this manner.”
Page 221 - “Isaiah and Jeremiah employed stereotypical destruction language to predict the downfall of Babylon, and these prophecies did need not be fulfilled in exact detail. The prophets in fact employed the same kind of destruction language against Israel, Judah, and Jerusalem (see Jer 9:11, 36:29). To insist on a literal fulfillment of the warning that Judah would become an everlasting ruin (Jer 25:9) would preclude the possibility of the future restoration that was central to the prophet's message Jeremiah 30-33). The fall of the Neo-Babylonian Empire in 539 BC fulfilled the prophecies of Isaiah and Jeremiah concerning Babylon without need of a future rebuilding of the city.”
Page 230 - “lain Duguid has documented how Christians through the centuries have attempted to identify Gog of Magog and his armies with specific nations or figures. Gog of Magog has been identified with the Goths (fourth century), Arabs invading the Holy Land (seventh century), and the Mongol hordes (thirteenth century). In the seventeenth century, Gog was identified with the Turks, the Roman emperor, and even the pope. The purpose of the vision in Ezekiel 38, however, is not to satisfy our curiosity in identifying the major players in the events depicted. Ezekiel prophesied during the time of the Babylonian exile when an invading army had devastated the land of Judah; the vision of Gog of Magog promises a future reversal of the terrible defeat of the present, a time when God would swiftly destroy the nations that invaded the land of his people.”
Page 237 - “The Ninevites included even their animals in the fasting and made them wear sackcloth as well. The inclusion of the Assyrian king among the repentant is also surprising in light of the many hostile responses to the prophets from the kings of Israel and Judah (1 Kgs 13:1-5; 18:17-19; 19:1-22; 22:13-28; 2 Kgs 1; Jer
26:20-23; 36-38). Perhaps the most shocking and scandalous part of the story of Jonah is that the pagan Ninevites had responded better to the preaching of one bad prophet than the people of Israel and Judah had responded to all of the faithful prophets that God had sent to them.”
Page 238 - “Though the Ninevites repentance was unprecedented in many ways even among the people of Israel, their response falls short of a genuine revival and a conversion to faith in the one true God. Jonah 3:5 states that the people of Nineveh "believed in God" (the verb aman + the preposition be). For English readers, this expression may seem to indicate saving faith. However, the Hebrew idiom does not necessarily convey the same idea. The preposition "in" (be) here simply marks the verb's direct object, and so the expression should be translated "believed God" (as in the CSB and many English translations). Rather than the idea that the people of Nineveh trusted in God for their salvation, Jonah 3:5 is simply conveying that they believed the message from God communicated by Jonah that judgment was coming and responded accordingly. In Num 20:12, the Lord tells Moses, after he struck the rock to bring water from it instead of speaking to it, that he would not enter the Promised Land because he had not "believed" ('aman + be) the Lord. The verse is obviously not stating that Moses was lacking a faith commitment to the Lord but rather points to the fact that Moses had disobeyed because he had not believed or trusted that God would do what he had said.”
In comparison, I think I enjoyed “Urban Legends of the Old Testament” a bit more because my baseline interest in each chapter was a bit higher, on average.
This book has a great variety of passages and interpretations that it explores. It’s safe to say that most readers will find several urban legends in this book that they’ve never heard of before, some they more familiar with, and some that perhaps they have even believed in the past. This was a very enjoyable read!
My favorite chapters/urban legends were:
6 - “The Angel of the Lord Refers to the Preincarnate Jesus”
7 - “Taking the Lord’s Name in Vain Refers to Using God’s Name as a Curse Word”
8 - “The Tabernacle Was an Elaborate Picture of Jesus”
14 - “The Tithe in Ancient Israel Was 10% of Income”
17 - “NASA Found Joshua’s Long Day”
23 - “Psalm 22 Directly Predicts the Crucifixion of Jesus”
26 - “Proper Parenting Guarantees Godly Children”
27 - “Without Vision, People Perish”
32 - “Isaiah 14 Portrays the Fall of Satan”
35 - “God Has Promised You a Bright and Prosperous Future”
37 - “God Intended ‘Ezekiel Bread’ to Be a Health Food”
For my own future notes:
Page 8 - “The plural form 'elohim when used with reference to the singular God of Israel is an example of what is called a plural of majesty or an honorific plural.' Rather than indicating plurality of personhood, the plural of majesty for elohim reflects the abstract quality of deity or is a honorific title for Yahweh emphasizing his special status and supreme authority.*
As Bruce Waltke explains, these kinds of plurals are employed for a singular individual who is "so thoroughly characterized by the qualities of the noun that a plural is used."
The plural elohim is used even for singular foreign gods such as Chemosh (Judg 11:24; 1 Kgs 11:33), Dagon (1 Sam 5:7), or Baal (1 Kgs 18:24) and reflects their status as national deities, not a plurality of personhood. We see a similar use of the plural of majesty when applied to humans. In Judges 19, the plural form of "lord/ master" (adon) is used for the Levite to signify his authority over his servant and concubine (w. 11-12, 26-27). David refers to Saul as "your lord" (plural of 'adon) to convey Saul's authority over Israel's armies (1
Sam 26:15-16). In light of this evidence, we can conclude that the plural ending for elohim in Gen 1:26-28 does not reflect plurality in the Godhead.”
Page 22 - “Although Gen 3:15 provides the initial anticipation of a future salvation for fallen humanity the text is ambiguous regarding the ultimate triumph of the seed of the woman over the serpent seed. Many English versions reflect this idea of triumph with the translation that the seed of the woman would "crush the head of the serpent seed, while the serpent-seed would "bruise" the head of the seed of the woman. The same verb (sup), however, is used to descibe the attack of both seeds against each other. There is not a distinction between "crushing and "bruising,' because both seeds are portrayed as "striking at each other, and the imperfect (iterative) verb forms suggest a continual and ongoing struggle.” Humans striking the heads of serpents and serpents striking at the heels of humans are both potentially lethal blows, but humans appear to have the advantage."
Page 29 provides a comparison of Hagar’s story with Abraham’s and Ishmael’s story with Joseph’s.
Page 38 - “Some historical background of the ancient Near East is helpful in understanding this prohibition. The people of Canaan used the name of their gods to give authority to their statements. They might invoke the name of Baal or Marduk to claim that their prophecies would come to pass. Names of gods were also used for invoking magic spells to try to get the god to do the bidding of the one praying (see Jer 28:2). Knowing that this was common, God gives this command in Exod 20:7, at least in part, to warn the Israelites against using his name (Yahweh) to give authority to their words (when he has not actually given them the words to say) or to try to manipulate him to meet their request.”
Page 40 - “If using the name of God, that is, Yahweh, means to use it in a way in which it is not fully referencing God, then there are some difficult expressions to explain in the Old Testament. Two of the most common ways to refer to God in the Old Testament are by the Hebrew words for "Elohim" and “Yahweh." But several times those words are used as superlatives. For example, a phrase in Gen 23:6 could be literally translated "you are a prince god among us." However, the word for "god" (Elohim) is used as a superlative, hence the translation "You are a mighty prince" (NIV). Yahweh is sometimes abbreviated as "Yah”. A phrase in Jer 2:31 could be translated literally as "land of Yah darkness." Since "Yah" is being used as a superlative, it should be translated as "a land of great darkness" (NIV). The uses of these words for God in the Hebrew Old Testament demonstrate that someone can use "God" in an expression or idiom and not be breaking the Third Commandment.”
Page 46 provides a great comparison table between the Garden of Eden and the Tabernacle.
Pages 46-47 - “The tabernacle served as God's royal dwelling place, and the portability of the tabernacle stressed Yahweh's continual presence with Israel. While it may be natural for Christians to think of how the golden lampstand in the holy place of the tabernacle reminds us that Jesus is "the light of the world" or how the showbread helps us to see that Jesus is "the bread of life," the features and furnishings of the tabernacle likely convey a more basic message about God's presence; the tabernacle was God's home, and the people could look at the tabernacle and see the kinds of things one would expect to see if someone was actually living there. Richard Averbeck explains, "The combination of the daily lighting of the lampstand and associated burning of incense ... plus the bread constantly on the table impresses one that the Lord had truly taken up residence in the tabernacle. If there is a lamp burning, incense burning and bread on the table, then someone is home.”
Page 61 - “From a canonical perspective, the most convincing reason that the food laws were not designed for health reasons is that they are set aside in the New Testament. When Jesus declared that what defiled a man was not food that entered his body but rather the evil thoughts of the heart, he was in effect cleansing all foods and rendering the distinctions between clean and unclean foods obsolete (Mark 7:14-23). Even though the primary point of Peter's vision of the sheet with clean and unclean animals was to teach him that all people were clean, the Lord's command to "kill and eat" the various animals also indicated the abolishment of the Mosaic food laws (Acts 10:9-16). The dietary laws in the Torah, along with circumcision and Sabbath observance, were the key boundary markers distinguishing Jew and Gentile, but maintaining Israel's distinct identity was no longer necessary under the new covenant because Jew and Gentile together now formed the people of God (Gal 3:28; Eph 2:11-21). The key pronouncement of the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 was that Gentiles did not need to adopt a Torah-observant lifestyle in order to belong to God's people. The sacrificial death of Jesus for sin also provided an inward spiritual cleansing that transcended the ceremonial cleanness secured by the Mosaic purity laws (Heb 9:14). If physical health was the primary or even a major concern in the diet and purity laws of the Torah, it is hard to explain why God would remove this protection from his people. As Roy Gane has observed, "If God commanded the Israelites to do something for the sake of their health, it would make sense for us to observe that law for the same reason because their bodies function the same as ours."
Pages 109-110 - “The tests concerning the fleece were not arbitrary requests but related to the Lord demonstrating his sovereign power over Baal. Canaanite mythology taught that Baal was the source of fertility and the rains needed for good crops and harvests. In one Canaanite legend, the weakness of Baal causes the dew to disappear, and Baal even has a daughter who is named "Dew." The signs with the fleece were designed to show that the Lord was more powerful than the gods that the Midianite oppressors and even Gideon's family worshipped. The Lord had already demonstrated his power and control over Bal when Baal did not avenge the destruction of his own altar, but Gideon still needed further confirmation of the Lord's superiority.
If the signs associated with the fleece emboldened Gideon's faith, the Lord's reduction of the size of his army as he prepared to face the Midianite horde presented another challenge. The Lord reduced Israel's army down to three hundred men, and they went to battle with torches, jars, and trumpets so that Israel would know that they had defeated their enemies in the Lord's strength and not in their own. On the very night of the attack on the Midianites, the Lord offers one more confirming sign to Gideon. The Lord commands Gideon to go down to the Midianite camp secretly so that he might overhear the dream of a Midianite soldier foretelling Israel's ultimate victory in battle. This event finally convinces Gideon to trust in the Lord.
The irony of the situation is that Gideon believes the promise of victory when it is conveyed in the dream of a pagan soldier about a loaf of bread rolling through his camp (Josh 7:13-14), but he does not trust this promise when it comes directly from God himself.”
Page 169 - “An interesting parallel to Proverbs 31 is Psalm 112, which begins, "Praise the LORD! Blessed is the man who fears the LORD, who greatly delights in his commandments!" (ESV). Both Prov 31:10-31 and Psalm 112 are acrostic poems: a type of poetry where the first letter of each line is a subsequent letter in the Hebrew alphabet. For the woman in Proverbs 31, this likely indicates the "completeness of wisdom as embodied" in her. Proverbs 31 describes a woman and Psalm 112 describes a man. Both are described as fearing God (Prov 31:30; Ps 112:1). In the conclusions, beauty is contrasted with fearing God (Prov 31:30), and the wicked and righteous are contrasted (Ps 112:9-
10). Both are discussed in terms of their wealth (Prov 31:16, 18; Ps 112:3). The woman's children call her blessed, and his children will be blessed (Prov 31:28; Ps 112:2. Both idealized people show compassion to the poor (Prov 31:20; Ps 112:4-5, 9) and have no fear regarding the future (Prov 31:25; Ps 112:7). This comparison is helpful because the way wisdom is lived out among men and women have significant parallels.”
Pages 193-194 - “For many English Bible readers, the name Lucifer in the KJV in Isa 14:12 settles the issue as to whether the fall of Satan is in view in this text. The name Lucifer, however, is not present in the original Hebrew text and entered into the translation of the KJV through the influence of the Latin Vulgate (and the Greek Septuagint less directly). The Hebrew text here reads halel ben sha-har ("morning star, son of the dawn"). The Vulgate translated the word halel ("morning star" or "shining one") with the Latin, lucifer, which means "light bearer”. In the place of "Lucifer, son of the morning" found in the KIV and NKJV, other English translations read "shining morning star" (CSB), "Day Star, son of Dawn" (ESV, "star of the morning, son of the dawn" (NASB), and "morning star, son of the dawn' (NIV). Some of the translations read this title as a proper name; others do not. The name "Lucifer” also does not appear elsewhere in the Bible as a name for Satan. Rather than the fall of Satan, Isa 14:12-15 prophesies the downfall and death of the king of Babylon.”
Page 200 - “The blog mentioned above accuses the modern translations of attempting to soften the actual teaching of Isa 45:7, but the fact that the Hebrew word ra’ah can refer both to moral "evil" and "disaster/calamity" is recognized in all Hebrew lexicons and easily demonstrated from the biblical text. John Oswalt notes that the range of meaning for the Hebrew word ra’ah is similar to that of the English word "bad" in that it can refer to moral evil, misfortune, or that which does not conform to a real or imagined standard.
The Old Testament prophets often made word plays based on the semantic range of raah. On more than one occasion, the Lord commands the people through the prophet Jeremiah to turn from their "evil" (ra’ah) way so that he might relent from bringing upon them the "disaster" (ra’ah) he had planned for them (e.g., Jer 26:3; 36:3, 7). The word play effectively communicated how the Lord's punishments would fit their crimes and justly correspond to the people's actions.”
Page 207 - “The expression "return empty" (shub + regam) appears in another context that helps to illustrate its usage in Isa 55:11. In 2 Sam 1:22, David laments the death of Saul and recalls his valor as a warrior by stating that Saul's sword "did not return empty" In other words, Saul's sword was effective in battle and in accomplishing its purpose of defeating the enemy. God’s promises concerning Israel's restoration and return from exile have the same efficacy, and they will not fail. A contrasting image is found in Jer 14:3, when the nobles of Judah send their servants out to find water in a time of drought, but these servants
"return empty" (shub regam). The Lord's promises never fail in this manner.”
Page 221 - “Isaiah and Jeremiah employed stereotypical destruction language to predict the downfall of Babylon, and these prophecies did need not be fulfilled in exact detail. The prophets in fact employed the same kind of destruction language against Israel, Judah, and Jerusalem (see Jer 9:11, 36:29). To insist on a literal fulfillment of the warning that Judah would become an everlasting ruin (Jer 25:9) would preclude the possibility of the future restoration that was central to the prophet's message Jeremiah 30-33). The fall of the Neo-Babylonian Empire in 539 BC fulfilled the prophecies of Isaiah and Jeremiah concerning Babylon without need of a future rebuilding of the city.”
Page 230 - “lain Duguid has documented how Christians through the centuries have attempted to identify Gog of Magog and his armies with specific nations or figures. Gog of Magog has been identified with the Goths (fourth century), Arabs invading the Holy Land (seventh century), and the Mongol hordes (thirteenth century). In the seventeenth century, Gog was identified with the Turks, the Roman emperor, and even the pope. The purpose of the vision in Ezekiel 38, however, is not to satisfy our curiosity in identifying the major players in the events depicted. Ezekiel prophesied during the time of the Babylonian exile when an invading army had devastated the land of Judah; the vision of Gog of Magog promises a future reversal of the terrible defeat of the present, a time when God would swiftly destroy the nations that invaded the land of his people.”
Page 237 - “The Ninevites included even their animals in the fasting and made them wear sackcloth as well. The inclusion of the Assyrian king among the repentant is also surprising in light of the many hostile responses to the prophets from the kings of Israel and Judah (1 Kgs 13:1-5; 18:17-19; 19:1-22; 22:13-28; 2 Kgs 1; Jer
26:20-23; 36-38). Perhaps the most shocking and scandalous part of the story of Jonah is that the pagan Ninevites had responded better to the preaching of one bad prophet than the people of Israel and Judah had responded to all of the faithful prophets that God had sent to them.”
Page 238 - “Though the Ninevites repentance was unprecedented in many ways even among the people of Israel, their response falls short of a genuine revival and a conversion to faith in the one true God. Jonah 3:5 states that the people of Nineveh "believed in God" (the verb aman + the preposition be). For English readers, this expression may seem to indicate saving faith. However, the Hebrew idiom does not necessarily convey the same idea. The preposition "in" (be) here simply marks the verb's direct object, and so the expression should be translated "believed God" (as in the CSB and many English translations). Rather than the idea that the people of Nineveh trusted in God for their salvation, Jonah 3:5 is simply conveying that they believed the message from God communicated by Jonah that judgment was coming and responded accordingly. In Num 20:12, the Lord tells Moses, after he struck the rock to bring water from it instead of speaking to it, that he would not enter the Promised Land because he had not "believed" ('aman + be) the Lord. The verse is obviously not stating that Moses was lacking a faith commitment to the Lord but rather points to the fact that Moses had disobeyed because he had not believed or trusted that God would do what he had said.”
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
June 5, 2020
As a pastor and public theologian, one of my pet peeves in Christian culture is the moralistic way in which the Old Testament is often taught. Whether in children’s Sunday School classes or from the pulpit, I’ve seen improper leaps over exegesis to make Old Testament figures full of conflict and nuance more two-dimensional than their flannelgraph counterparts. Or, I’ve seen churches and pastors try very hard to give proper cultural context but fall victim to sourceless stories and unverified myths. Urban Legends of the Old Testament by David Croteau and Gary Yates seeks to take a look at forty of the most common misconceptions in and about the Old Testament.
This book follows up Croteau’s solo work Urban Legends of the New Testament. As a NT scholar (he’s an NT and Greek prof at Columbia), this was right in his wheelhouse. For this Old Testament counterpart, he brings in Gary Yates, a professor of Old Testament at Liberty University School of Divinity.
Despite this (and despite being published by an academic imprint), Urban Legends of the Old Testament is a very readable and accessible book. Each misconception is covered in about six to seven pages and follows a fairly clear structure of:
Explaining the “legendary teaching” in one paragraph.
Countering the legend in one paragraph.
Exegeting the passage in five or so pages.
Providing application in one paragraph.
The misconceptions are listed in order as they appear in Scripture (Genesis–Malachi), allowing readers to make their way through the Old Testament page by page and be challenged by responses to common, popular-level interpretations.
The “legends” range from widely known to obscure (at least in my own experience), from trivial to important, and from patently false to a potentially valid interpretation. Here’s some randomized examples:
Radical Islam has Inherited Ishmael’s Violent Spirit (Genesis 16:12)
The Angel of the LORD Refers to the Pre-Incarnate Jesus (Genesis 18:1-13)
The Old Testament Law is Divided into Three Parts (Deuteronomy 6:1)
NASA Found Joshua’s Long Day (Joshua 10:12-15)
Without Vision, People Perish (Proverbs 29:18)
Song of Songs is a Biblical Model for Dating and Marriage (Song of Songs 3:6-5:1)
God Has Promised You a Bright and Prosperous Future (Jeremiah 29:11)
The problem comes when potentially valid interpretations—interpretations that are debated at the academic level—are given the same treatment as interpretations that are only discussed in emails that begin FWD: FWD: FWD: fwd: fwd: DID YOU KNOW??!?. Let me give you three examples:
True Urban Legend | Urban Legends of the Old Testament
Only a few of the entries in this book are true urban legends. The most prominent is that NASA found Joshua’s long day. There’s no exegesis involved here. The issue is not with the ancient text but with a present assertion. (And that may be waning…I hadn’t heard this promoted seriously since the 1990s. Snopes has an article debunking this written in 2000.) With ridiculousness of the claim debunked, Croteau and Yates can then move to modern science and the ancient text to view possible explanations. That’s an urban legend.
Popular Level Misinterpretation | Urban Legends of the Old Testament
The majority of the entries are really about popular level misinterpretations or misappropriations of Scripture. Croteau and Yates discuss Gideon’s “putting out the fleece” to determine the will of God and the popular-level misinterpretation that reads this as a positive thing Gideon does that we should emulate. However, the purpose of the text is to show that it is Gideon’s lack of faith that leads him to ask for a sign. God’s will had been made perfectly clear in the text. This entry is able to talk about the fallacy of reducing the OT narrative and its players into morality tales.
Another example in the book is Proverbs 29:18, “without vision, the people perish.” I once listened a very prominent evangelical megachurch pastor preach a whole series (and write a book, and release a small group study) on this misinterpretation of this proverb. Croteau and Yates rightfully discuss the necessity of vision casting but carefully walk through the verse to explain why that’s not the focus of the verse. They interpret it “Social harmony and restraint cannot be achieved without the exhortations of the prophets and the teaching of the law.”
Debated Interpretation | Urban Legends of the Old Testament
While the first two types of entries are appropriate for this book, there were a couple that I felt had enough academic background that the phrase “urban legend” seemed inappropriate, particularly when placing them on the same level as “NASA finds Joshua’s lost day.” The best—maybe only—example of this (others from different denominations or traditions may disagree) is their assertion that the belief that Angel of the LORD is Jesus is a legend.
They have a whole section recognizing that the terms “Angel of the Lord” and “Yahweh” are used interchangeably in Scripture. They even quote Douglas Stuart, writing in the Exodus volume of the New American Commentary series that the burning bush being referenced as the Angel of the Lord is strong evidence that they are the same. Ultimately, they determine that there are enough distinguishing markers that they do not feel comfortable with that assertion.
But there’s a wide difference from calling a popular email forward an urban legend and calling a belief cited and believed by many scholars an urban legend. I’m okay with its inclusion, but there needed to be some recognition of a level of difference between obvious falsities and times the authors think that certain exegetical decisions are unwarranted.
Conclusion
Overall, Urban Legends of the Old Testament was a worthwhile read. It gives me easy access to debunk some of the common myths my congregants have had ingrained into their belief system. The structural breakdown is simple and easy to follow. The explanations are clear and concise—even when they should have been a bit more robust. This is what I would consider an “advanced lay level” book. If you have seminary training, you should have already confronted and corrected these myths in your education. It’s something I’d point to any layperson wanting to get a deeper grasp on the Old Testament.
This book follows up Croteau’s solo work Urban Legends of the New Testament. As a NT scholar (he’s an NT and Greek prof at Columbia), this was right in his wheelhouse. For this Old Testament counterpart, he brings in Gary Yates, a professor of Old Testament at Liberty University School of Divinity.
Despite this (and despite being published by an academic imprint), Urban Legends of the Old Testament is a very readable and accessible book. Each misconception is covered in about six to seven pages and follows a fairly clear structure of:
Explaining the “legendary teaching” in one paragraph.
Countering the legend in one paragraph.
Exegeting the passage in five or so pages.
Providing application in one paragraph.
The misconceptions are listed in order as they appear in Scripture (Genesis–Malachi), allowing readers to make their way through the Old Testament page by page and be challenged by responses to common, popular-level interpretations.
The “legends” range from widely known to obscure (at least in my own experience), from trivial to important, and from patently false to a potentially valid interpretation. Here’s some randomized examples:
Radical Islam has Inherited Ishmael’s Violent Spirit (Genesis 16:12)
The Angel of the LORD Refers to the Pre-Incarnate Jesus (Genesis 18:1-13)
The Old Testament Law is Divided into Three Parts (Deuteronomy 6:1)
NASA Found Joshua’s Long Day (Joshua 10:12-15)
Without Vision, People Perish (Proverbs 29:18)
Song of Songs is a Biblical Model for Dating and Marriage (Song of Songs 3:6-5:1)
God Has Promised You a Bright and Prosperous Future (Jeremiah 29:11)
The problem comes when potentially valid interpretations—interpretations that are debated at the academic level—are given the same treatment as interpretations that are only discussed in emails that begin FWD: FWD: FWD: fwd: fwd: DID YOU KNOW??!?. Let me give you three examples:
True Urban Legend | Urban Legends of the Old Testament
Only a few of the entries in this book are true urban legends. The most prominent is that NASA found Joshua’s long day. There’s no exegesis involved here. The issue is not with the ancient text but with a present assertion. (And that may be waning…I hadn’t heard this promoted seriously since the 1990s. Snopes has an article debunking this written in 2000.) With ridiculousness of the claim debunked, Croteau and Yates can then move to modern science and the ancient text to view possible explanations. That’s an urban legend.
Popular Level Misinterpretation | Urban Legends of the Old Testament
The majority of the entries are really about popular level misinterpretations or misappropriations of Scripture. Croteau and Yates discuss Gideon’s “putting out the fleece” to determine the will of God and the popular-level misinterpretation that reads this as a positive thing Gideon does that we should emulate. However, the purpose of the text is to show that it is Gideon’s lack of faith that leads him to ask for a sign. God’s will had been made perfectly clear in the text. This entry is able to talk about the fallacy of reducing the OT narrative and its players into morality tales.
Another example in the book is Proverbs 29:18, “without vision, the people perish.” I once listened a very prominent evangelical megachurch pastor preach a whole series (and write a book, and release a small group study) on this misinterpretation of this proverb. Croteau and Yates rightfully discuss the necessity of vision casting but carefully walk through the verse to explain why that’s not the focus of the verse. They interpret it “Social harmony and restraint cannot be achieved without the exhortations of the prophets and the teaching of the law.”
Debated Interpretation | Urban Legends of the Old Testament
While the first two types of entries are appropriate for this book, there were a couple that I felt had enough academic background that the phrase “urban legend” seemed inappropriate, particularly when placing them on the same level as “NASA finds Joshua’s lost day.” The best—maybe only—example of this (others from different denominations or traditions may disagree) is their assertion that the belief that Angel of the LORD is Jesus is a legend.
They have a whole section recognizing that the terms “Angel of the Lord” and “Yahweh” are used interchangeably in Scripture. They even quote Douglas Stuart, writing in the Exodus volume of the New American Commentary series that the burning bush being referenced as the Angel of the Lord is strong evidence that they are the same. Ultimately, they determine that there are enough distinguishing markers that they do not feel comfortable with that assertion.
But there’s a wide difference from calling a popular email forward an urban legend and calling a belief cited and believed by many scholars an urban legend. I’m okay with its inclusion, but there needed to be some recognition of a level of difference between obvious falsities and times the authors think that certain exegetical decisions are unwarranted.
Conclusion
Overall, Urban Legends of the Old Testament was a worthwhile read. It gives me easy access to debunk some of the common myths my congregants have had ingrained into their belief system. The structural breakdown is simple and easy to follow. The explanations are clear and concise—even when they should have been a bit more robust. This is what I would consider an “advanced lay level” book. If you have seminary training, you should have already confronted and corrected these myths in your education. It’s something I’d point to any layperson wanting to get a deeper grasp on the Old Testament.
June 27, 2024
I'm torn on this book. Overall, it is well done. Each chapter takes a few pages to unpack and correct a common interpretation of a specific Old Testament passage. However, there are a few instances where the "misconceptions" are not necessarily urban legends or wrong interpretations but simply a different possible interpretation. But this book presents them all as being on the same level. This is especially frustrating when the book clarifies that Psalms 22 is not a prophecy about Jesus' eventual crucifixion but typologically pointing to Christ. Similarly, there is a world of difference between interpreting Isaiah 14 as pointing to Satan's fall and believing NASA has discovered the lost day of Joshua with a supercomputer. One is a valid, although possibly wrong interpretation, the other is a flat-out legend.
I liked the book but did not like how certain "legends" were presented.
I liked the book but did not like how certain "legends" were presented.
March 5, 2020
Really good succinct overview of some of the more popularly held misconceptions in the Old Testament. I have heard many of these preached in Sunday morning sermons and it’s refreshing to get a more exegetical treatment of a lot of these passages that adhere to the culture/context they were written in; instead of the Americanization of all the Hebraic idioms.
April 4, 2020
This book is more of a reference resource rather than a book to read cover to cover. I read about half then only read chapters that particularly interested me the rest of the way. Some of the ‘legends’ are a bit extreme but the interpretation is consistent.
September 6, 2024
Easy read. I had Dr Yates as my Hebrew prof and he was incredible at pointing out texts that I had been raised to believe one thing only to find out it was off base. This book does more of that and hits some key misused passages like Jer 29:11. Well worth the read and to keep on your bookshelf.
February 21, 2025
While I don't agree with all of the arguments and conclusions in this book, it is really helpful in considering many OT passages that are often misunderstood or misinterpreted. Short, but insightful chapters make this book readable and also very helpful.
March 18, 2025
Some of the chapters were very interesting and corrected wrong understanding of passages in the Old Testament, but other “urban legends” are just alternative explanations or differing perspectives on a specific passage.
August 12, 2020
I’m a big Old Testament fan and this book hits 40 misconceptions about the OT. Each misconception is a chapter of about 4-6 pages. Some of the misconceptions are very obscure or interesting, but others are extremely well known and believed (incorrectly) by many. This book is a very easy and attainable read for any person and will probably help them develop a new interest and love for the OT.
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews