Let me share this current email note from my friend, Bob.  The snippet on Niehaus is a tremendous encouragement to me:

“On a related note, I’ve been reading a new book by Jeffrey Niehaus entitled, Ancient Near Eastern Themes in Biblical Theology (Baker Academic, 2008). Like Enns, Niehaus believes that OT scholarship should take seriously and seek to integrate the latest archaeological data in its interpretation of the OT. Niehaus offers several interesting parallels which, if valid (and I confess I need more time to ruminate over some of his suggestions), would bring greater illumination of various OT themes. But what I most appreciate about Niehaus’ approach over that of Enns’ (which presents the evidence as more of problem for inspiration than as a means for improving our understanding of Scripture) is the fact that Niehaus maintains his commitment to the uniqueness and authority of the Scripture as the lens through which we interpret the ANE evidence. Here is a sample of how Niehaus accounts for the parallels:

“First, the Old Testament preserves true and accurate accounts of major events (Creation, the Flood). Extrabiblical sources around the world also preserve the memory of such events in distorted forms.”

“Second, the Old Testament uses literary and legal forms long current in the ancient Near East as vehicles of God’s special revelation. Poetic parallelism and the use of stock word pairs in poetry are examples of the former. Use of the second millennium international treaty form in the Pentateuch, and especially Deuteronomy, and of the ancient Near Eastern covenant lawsuit form in the Prophets are examples of the latter.”

“Third, parallels between the supposed acts of pagan gods and the acts of God appear in the Old Testament and ancient Near East because God allowed concepts that are true of him and his ways to appear in the realm of common grace. The parallel between the temple-pattern revelation to Gudea of Lagash and the similar revelation to Moses, mentioned at the beginning of this chapter is an example.” (29).

 

 

 

“A use of the comparative method that places the biblical narratives among the mythical or legendary donations of the world is flawed, because it assumes that biblical data are capable of such classification. It ignores (or rejects) the Bible’s claims about its own historicity. Once we accept those claims, however, the same comparative method can be turned around and produce valuable results. We can then understand legends and myths by comparison with what God and people actually did according to the biblical account” (15).

So Niehaus takes the ANE parallels seriously, as Enns’ argues interpreters must do. He does not, however, call for a revision of our doctrine of inspiration–one which would allow that God purposely allowed the Scripture writers to affirm (and expect their readers to affirm) accounts as historical that are in fact non-historical, non-factual myth.”

Niehaus has a biblical rudder.  It encourages me, sitting out here in S.E. Idaho on this Lord’s Day afternoon.