The Lost World of Scripture: Ancient Literary Culture and Biblical Authority (Volume 3)

The Lost World Series #3

by John H. Walton, D. Brent Sandy

Readers' Choice Awards Honorable Mention Preaching 's Preacher's Guide to the Best Bible Reference From John H. Walton, author of the bestselling Lost World of Genesis One, and D. Brent Sandy, author of Plowshares and Pruning Hooks, comes a detailed look at the origins of scriptural authority in ancient oral cultures and how they inform our understanding of the Old and New Testaments today. Stemming from questions about scriptural inerrancy, inspiration and oral transmission of ideas, The Lost World of Scripture examines the process by which the Bible has come to be what it is today. From the reasons why specific words were used to convey certain ideas to how oral tradition impacted the transmission of biblical texts, the authors seek to uncover how these issues might affect our current doctrine on the authority of Scripture. "In this book we are exploring ways God chose to reveal his word in light of discoveries about ancient literary culture," write Walton and Sandy. "Our specific objective is to understand better how both the Old and New Testaments were spoken, written and passed on, especially with an eye to possible implications for the Bible?s inspiration and authority." The books in the Lost World Series follow the pattern set by Bible scholar John H. Walton, bringing a fresh, close reading of the Hebrew text and knowledge of ancient Near Eastern literature to an accessible discussion of the biblical topic at hand using a series of logic-based propositions.

Genres: Theology, Religion, Christian, History, Christianity, Nonfiction, Old Testament

320 pages, Paperback

First published November 1, 2013

About the author

John H. Walton (PhD, Hebrew Union College) is professor of Old Testament at Wheaton College Graduate School. He is the author or coauthor of several books, including Chronological and Background Charts of the Old Testament; Ancient Israelite Literature in Its Cultural Context; Covenant: God’s Purpose, God’s Plan; The IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament; and A Survey of the Old Testament.

Librarian Note: There is more than one author in the Goodreads database with this name. See:

John H. Walton, Agriculture
John H. Walton, ceramics.

Reviews

[cristi · Rating 4 out of 5]

“In his dialogue known as the Phaedrus, Plato put in the mouth of Socrates an account of a god in Egypt inventing letters. When the god presented the invention to the king of Egypt, claiming that it would make the Egyptians wiser, the king replied that just the opposite was the case:

For those who learn to use this invention it will result in forgetfulness, for they will no longer need to use their memory. . . . You have discovered a medication not to increase memory but to increase dependence on being reminded. Thus you offer to your students only the appearance of wisdom not true wisdom. For they will read much, but not be taught; they will appear to be knowledgeable, but on the whole they will be ignorant.

(Plato, Phaedrus 275a)”

As inhabitants of the Gutenberg Galaxy, it is hard for us, if not impossible, to imagine how life would have been in an oral culture, as opposed to a textual culture. A world that did not value written texts as much as it did oral texts. Even the concepts of oral texts or oral literature are alien to us. How would that even work? In the oral cultures of the Ancient Near East (ANE) and even of the Greco-Roman world, there were no such concepts as authors and books, intellectual property, or plagiarism. People didn’t need to know how to read, even less how to write, to be able to participate in society. Only a small minority engaged in reading/writing and even as written texts became more prevalent, they were mostly intended to be read and heard and were not seen as replacing the oral traditions that were at their source. We are so far removed from this world that it might as well be in another galaxy.

As strange a world as it might seem, this is the context in which the Bible took shape. When talking about the formation of the Bible we tend to use anachronistic terms like authors and books. The authors of this book ;) want the reader to be aware of this and help the reader understand the actual world of composition of the Bible. The actual players in the ancient literary world were authorities (individuals and institutions that produced information, the foremost authority being the king), tradents (individuals that passed down traditions and produced literary works), and scribes (highly skilled individuals) who, for various reasons, wrote down documents. Having this laid out, a typical sequence of the process of formation of the Hebrew Bible (TaNaK) is as follows: it started with oral traditions, either traditional accounts of events or materials derived from authority figures; the oral traditions were, at some point, recorded in documents by scribes and stored; documents were periodically recopied, updated, revised and even supplemented; in the late stages, documents were compiled in literary works, that were themselves revised and further combined until they reached the form frozen as canon.

But this is not a book about the history of the formation of the canon. The authors want the reader to appreciate the features of the hearing-dominant cultures of ANE and the Greco-Roman world and make them aware of the implications of this reality for the way they view the Bible. Much time is spent then, discussing how concepts of authority and inerrancy are to be understood in light of this.

Textual clues corroborated with knowledge of how documents came to be in a hearing-dominant culture challenge our modern view of authorship when talking about the Bible. This may be seen as posing some problems with the idea of authority of the text. The authors propose that the authority is located, not in an inexistent original autograph but in the authority figure at the fountainhead of the tradition. In other words, it’s of no significance to the question of authority that the Torah wasn’t written down in its entirety by Moses, or that the book of Isaiah contains oracles from later generations. A book is not authoritative because it was written by one author who is known by name, but because it’s connected to an authority figure.

The view of inerrancy held by some faces the most problems. The authors don’t do away with the concept but rather try to reform it, to state its limits. Borrowing terminology from Speech-Act Theory, the authors propose a model that locates both authority and inerrancy in the illocution (intentions) rather than the locution (words, sentences, rhetorical structures, genres) of a communication act. In other words, the message conveyed is inerrant, not the words, genres, or culturally bound ideas that help convey the message.

The Lost World of Scripture is a popular level book, aimed at familiarizing the reader with the world of composition of the Bible and helping them base their view of Scripture on an accurate set of ideas. It carefully guides the reader through the ideas presented so they arrive at the right conclusions. The authors provide a wide list of books for further reading, that go into more detail on the topics discussed than it was possible in the span of this book.

This is the second time I am reading this book, to refresh my memory (proving the words of the king of Egypt) and clarify some ideas. The impact this book will have on the reader will be dependent on the reader's prior knowledge of the subject and on their expectations. What I appreciated the most this time reading was the further-reading recommendations. Upon (not that much) consideration, I subtracted one star from the initial rating.

[Josh · Rating 5 out of 5]

"Inerrancy" is a tricky word. Though (as told by this book) it was coined as a statement of trust in God against the hermeneutic of skepticism employed by scholars bent on discovering new ways of deconstructing religion, today it is often used as a purity check for whether someone is a "real" Christian or not. But as the meaning of the word has changed, so has our knowledge of the past, and specifically about ancient literature. This book takes what we have learned about ancient literature and applies it to what we know about the production of the bible, and then discusses whether "inerrancy" can still be affirmed of the scriptures, and what exactly it means.

Much of this book centers around the idea that the bible was produced in an oral culture, instead of a print culture like ours. Most of the bible was probably composed orally long before it was written down. Written text was not considered superior or more authoritative than oral text; in fact, it was often considered inferior, since some of the passion or clarity would be lost if the author were not there to speak his/her words in person. Even when things were written down, they were written for preservation or other practical purposes, and the written version did not supersede the oral tradition that would continue to be the primary way of communication. Therefore, much of the inerrancy debates over authorship and the importance of exact wording are based off of our (modern Western) idea of "authorship" and the importance of exact wording, and need to be reexamined.

In this book the authors also present the helpful categories of locution, illocution, and paralocution. These roughly correspond to the content and form of the text itself, the intended purpose of the producer, and the response of the hearer/reader. The authors place inerrancy and the authority of scripture at the level of illocution- what is authoritative is the purpose of the speaker. So if the speaker is speaking for the purpose of conveying information, then inerrancy applies in the way many take it to mean today- that the information is factually true. But if the speaker's purpose is to sketch a biographical picture of a person, like the gospels do of Jesus, then inerrancy applies primarily to the picture of Jesus conveyed by the speaker's words, and not necessarily to the minor details. Another example would be to consider in what way a proverb could be "inerrant", since a proverb by definition is a generalization of the way the world works sometimes (but not always). According to this model, "inerrancy" would mean that learning the proverb and pondering it would indeed be useful in making us wise, which is the purpose of the speaker.

I would be interested in a more in-depth treatment of this model as applied to scripture, since in some areas I don't think I completely understood the authors' arguments. The authors are pretty strong on the idea that inerrancy applies to illocution, and also that the illocution of the author is stable and cannot be added to. This presents a problem when we see a NT biblical author taking the words (locution) of a previous OT author to mean something different than what the author probably meant originally. The authors of this book resolve this problem by saying that though the locution was borrowed, the illocution of the NT biblical author is authorized in its own right by the Holy Spirit. Thus the NT author is not claiming (and does not have to claim) that his illocution in using an OT prophesy is the same as the illocution of the quoted OT author. To me this seems a little disjointed, since for any reader the meaning and authority of the NT text would certainly be bolstered by the already-established OT text. That is, most readers would not naturally separate the two texts as being independently authorized, but would immediately make the connection in their mind that the authority of the two are interconnected (perhaps by the purpose of God). So to me it seems that there is more to be said here.

If it takes a whole book to qualify what the word "inerrancy", then is it still a useful word? If a majority of people in the Christian world read this book and agreed upon a definition, then maybe it would be. But I personally have stopped using the word since I think for most people it still implies a perspective on the bible that makes it something it is not. But whether the church continues to use the word or not, the book provides some well-supported suggestions on how we ought to think about what the bible is, and how it conveys authority. I would definitely recommend this book to anyone wanting to get their feet wet in learning about the ancient context of the bible.

[Greg Williams · Rating 4 out of 5]

I was impressed with John Walton's books on the Genesis creation accounts. So I decided to read this book on biblical authority that he co-authored with Brent Sandy. Like with his books on the creation accounts, the authors take a close look at the literary culture in the Ancient Near East and then use that to evaluate the traditional way that evangelicals approach biblical authority and inerrancy. Also like Walton's creation account books, this book is structured as a set of propositions that build on one another as the authors make their arguments.

In the American evangelical world, we have often rooted our ideas about biblical authority and inerrancy in our modern culture, which is primarily a "print culture". As such, we've tended to think of a biblical author who wrote a book under the guidance of God. But biblical culture didn't really have a concept of authors and books. Instead, it was an oral culture where authoritative stories and texts were passed down orally. By New Testament times, written books were more common but most people were illiterate. When Paul wrote a letter to a church, he often had co-authors and another person who actually wrote it down. When it was sent to a church, most of the people in that church would not have been able to read it. Instead, it was read to them out loud. Another interesting thing is that, in New Testament times and later, believers did not think that written texts were in any way more accurate or preferable to the oral texts that had been passed down. For the most part, the written Scriptures that we have all have their origin in oral texts that had been passed down (sometimes for many generations) until they were written down at a later point in time.

This book discusses the implications of this for our notions of biblical authority and inerrancy. In many ways, we approach the Scriptures in an anachronistic way because we can't really fathom a non-literary world where hearing was the primary way of getting information and memorization was the primary way of retaining it. As believers, we get worried when we find variants in different accounts of the same event in the Bible. But that would not have been a problem in the ancient world where exact wording was not something that was expected of biblical narratives and messages. The important thing is the intent or the message that is being told by the narratives, the poetry, the prophecy, and the teaching. So we need to judge the Scriptures according to the standards of the world in which they were written, not according to our modern standards.

The bottom line is that God has spoken through people in the past and that spoken message was passed on until it was eventually written down and accepted as canonical. God oversaw this whole process and has seen to it that His message has been faithfully transmitted to us. The biblical message is authoritative because God inspired it. The biblical message is "inerrant" in the sense that the message has not been distorted along the way. The fact that we find variants between biblical manuscripts does not mean the message is "errant", because exact wording is not required to preserve and communicate the message.

I think one weak point in the book is that it doesn't discuss how communities of faith decided that a particular narrative or message was from God and therefore authoritative. Maybe that's because we don't really know. We see instances in the New Testament where Old Testament scripture is interpreted in a new way that is different from the intention of that scripture. We accept this new interpretation as inspired because it's authoritative. So what if someone (or some community) today comes up with a new interpretation of a scripture passage that differs from the original intent? How would we judge whether this new interpretation was inspired and authoritative? The authors pretty much punt on this one. I get the impression that they believe that divine inspiration stopped when the New Testament canon was agreed upon. But I find that a little hard to swallow. I, for one, believe that the truth in the Scripture runs deeper than we can fathom and that, with the help of the Holy Spirit, God may open our eyes to new truths through it. But the authors don't really acknowledge that as a possibility. I realize that it might require another book to adequately discuss and explore that. But I would have appreciated it if the authors had at least touched on the possibility of new authoritative revelation from God.

Bottom line for me:
As someone who has struggled with the idea of biblical inerrancy, I found this book to be immensely helpful in thinking through what the real issues are. I would highly recommend it to anyone that struggles with what Biblical inerrancy actually means.

[Author Hicks · Rating 4 out of 5]

Another great piece by Walton (and Sandy) that does a great job of challenging misconceptions about “inerrancy” and the “authority” of scripture. What is inerrancy? Authority? Does it even still make sense to use these terms? If we think we understand what some dudes meant by these terms 1600 years ago, odds are we probably don’t—or at least—not as well as we’re inclined to think. If you want to help yourself understand what the Bible is and isn’t, or address common misconceptions about what Biblical authority necessitates and what it doesn’t, you should read this book.

[Craig Hurst · Rating 4 out of 5]

Everyone loves a good story of discovery. Whether it is in the pages of a good book or watching Indiana Jones on the big screen, people love to be drawn into the discovery of lost artifacts, and even more so, lost worlds. The field of archeology, and its attending fields, has unearthed artifacts, buried tombs, treasures and entire villages and cities that give us a glimpse into the lives and ways of the people and civilizations of the ancient past. It many ways, we are discovering things and worlds that have been lost and are very different than ours.

Among these discoveries are the ancient writings of the various people groups. We have found much, but there is more to discover and even much more that we will probably never find. The discovery of various writings from ancient times provides us with a wealth of information for how people thought and lived in the past. They are a window into the culture. More so, for Christians, they are a window, not only into Scripture itself, but how others viewed Scripture and its role in the life of the early Christians.

There is no doubt that modern readers of the Bible have to fight reading their own world into the world of the Bible when it comes to the task of interpretation. Unfortunately, there are many readers of Scripture, Christians included, who do this without knowing it. The world in which the Bible was born is lost to them and they don’t realize it.

In an effort to bring the reader of Scripture into the world in which it was born, Wheaton professors John Walton (Old Testament) and D. Brent Sandy (New Testament) have teamed up to write The Lost World of Scripture: Ancient Literary Culture and Biblical Authority. The purpose of the book is to present as clearly as possible, given what we know about the ancient world, a picture of the function and authority that oral traditions and written texts had in ancient societies. The authors want readers of Scripture to appreciate the fact that, while modern cultures, especially Western and European cultures, are text dominant (and therefore have a high literacy rate), ancient cultures were oral and hearing dominant (and therefore had a low literacy rate). “Understanding the oral and manuscript galaxy of the biblical world – before the watershed of print culture – is essential for grasping how the Bible was written” (11). It is this lost world of oral and hearing dominance in which Scripture was born.

Overview

The book is divided into four parts. For those familiar with Walton’s The Lost World of Genesis One, the same proposition pattern is used for the chapter structure. Through the proposition structure, the authors systematically bring the reader through the thought process ancients had about the role and authority of oral traditions and written texts so that modern readers of Scripture might more accurately understand what Biblical authority is and, specifically, what the inerrancy of Scripture does and does not and can and cannot mean.

Part One lays the ground work in understanding the composition of texts in the Old Testament and how information was communicated orally. “If we are to understand more fully the development of biblical literature and our view of its authority, we need to adjust or thinking about how information was disseminated and traditions transmitted in the ancient world.” (18) Here the authors address the nature of authority in an oral and hearing dominant culture. “Authority,” it is said, “was not connected to a document but to the person of authority behind the document when that person was known, or to the tradition itself.” (27) The oral transmission of information was primary and thus carried through people. Written texts were not unimportant but only carried authority in so far as the person behind the information had authority. One of the key concepts discussed here is speech-act theory which examines how communication is carried and meaning is intended through locutions (words and genres) which embody illocutions (the intention to do something with locutions such as a blessing) with a perlocution view to seeing a response from the audience (like obeying). (41) Important to the author’s argument is the distinct role each part plays in the communicative act of meaning and expressing authority. God’s authority and the inerrancy of the text, it is argued, are located in its illucutions (42, 44, 45). On the other hand, inspiration takes place at the locution level. (44) Why is this distinction important? It is said that

"Even though people in Israel believed there were waters above the earth held back by a solid sky, or that cognitive processes took place in the heart or kidneys, the illocution of the texts is not affirming those beliefs as revealed truth. Culture-specific aspects of an illocution do not have a universal perlocution (eating pork, circumcision, head covering). Culture-specific aspects of the perlocution need to be translated to an appropriate contemporary perlocution." (45)

Walton and Sandy are trying to help us make a separation between those things which are culture-specific and authoritative truth that God is communicating by His Spirit through the human authors of Scripture. Admittedly, part one will be the most difficult section of the book for readers to grasp especially if they are not familiar with speech-act theory.

While I appreciate, and even agree with much of, what the authors are trying to prevent in Biblical interpretation, I do have some reservations and concerns with some of their conclusions. Two examples will suffice. First, while I do not dispute the value of speech-act theory and its distinguishing between words, affirmations and expectations upon the readers, it feels that the different parts have been so separated so as to ignore the fluid and wedded relationship they share. Yes, words have meaning in a context and contexts are where authors intentions are, but this belief is not to be held at the expense of the value of words and phrases. Words are not just inspired but certain words are given through which meaning and affirmations are to be conveyed. Second, and in conjunction with the first concern, is with how the authors view the role of textual criticism. In analyzing the nature of textual criticism, that is, finding the accurate wording of the originally inspired manuscripts of Scripture, Walton and Sandy conclude that, since we do not have the originals with which to compare our best Hebrew and Greek texts, we cannot know what the originals were and “it does not matter” according to their model. (67) Therefore, it does no good to say the originals were inspired if we do not have them. In my estimation, and that of many, this conclusion will not do and unnecessary. It may be so that oral dominant cultures viewed texts differently than moderns do, but this is not a basis upon which to overly devalue determining the wording of the originals. Just because we have “little confidence” in the exact wording of a few places in Scripture is not a warrant to say the whole task is irrelevant. Why let uncertainties over a very small part of the text drive our understanding of the rest of the text and not vice versa?

Part Two deals with the same issues of composition and communication but for the New Testament. The hearing and oral dominance of the ANE world continues into the NT world, though there is a shift to more use of texts around 700 B.C. (79). With the Greeks and Romans paving the way for text it is clear the orality still dominated texts as they were written primarily for oral use and memorization (85). Even philosophers bemoaned the use of text as they felt it would undermine oral lectures and created a lazy mind (104).

Moving to the NT era, we see a noticeable shift to more dependence on texts, most notably within Christianity. Many myths are dispelled concerning a correspondence between illiteracy in reading with intelligence and even education. The ministry of Jesus is examined through the lens of His oral communication to people who were oral and hearing centered (Proposition 8). The authors deduce that Jesus was educated and could read despite his meager background as a carpenter in Galilee (119). There is a good discussion of Jesus as the logos (word) of God and how this is to inform our understanding of most of the texts that speak of “the word of the Lord” in both testaments (Prop. 9). Some Christians will have minor disagreements with some of their conclusions here but generally they make good arguments for their case. This moves into Proposition 10 which deals with how Jesus would have thought of the transmission of His own words.

Proposition 11 and 13 address how variants within oral tradition were handled. Since they were common within secular oral tradition it is believed that they were accepted within the oral tradition of Jesus words and sayings. This is why many NT scholars, when referring to the words of Jesus in the Gospels, refer to them as containing the ipsissima vox (voice) of Jesus’ words and not the ipsissma verba (exact words) (149). This may come as a shock to many readers of red letters Bibles which have the words of Jesus in red so they can be found and easily distinguished from the rest of the text. The result is that what we have in the Gospels is not the exact words of Jesus, word for word as He said them in the moment, but we do have the essential words He spoke and can be confident that the Gospels are reliable in that regard. Oral tradition had acceptable ranges of variation in the retelling of stories and the words of Jesus would have fared no better.

Part Three tackles the Biblical world of literary genres. Here the nature of modern historiography and ancient myth telling are compared as well as the implications this has for the authority of Scripture. One of the points the authors try to make is that when the writers of the OT recounted and wrote about events in the past, they did so with varying purposes in mind. This explains some of the differences between the same accounts in Kings and Chronicles as well as the Gospels in the NT. The varying accounts of the same events do not mean that the writers thought truthfulness about the events was unimportant, but they had different standards of retelling events and they had agendas in doing so. Here again the authors make use of the locution and illocution distinction which leads them to make a number of confusing and concerning statements regarding the written text of Scripture. For instance, in the discussion of the role law had within ANE cultures and Israel they make the following conclusion:

"Nothing from ancient Near East suggests that any society had a normative written set of laws that contained a comprehensive legal code for that society. From the discussion of hearing-dominant cultures in the early chapters of this book, it is easy to see why that is the case. Written documents did not hold position of authority in a hearing-dominant context. There is no reason to think that there was a comprehensive, written, authoritative document containing the legislation for Israelite society." (219)

This statement, and other like it, is confusing to say the least. It leads one to ask what does one make of the Pentateuch if it is not viewed as a written document containing Israelite legal code. If readers are familiar with Walton’s previous work on ANE literature and culture then this statement is not surprising. For all of the valuable information Walton has uncovered, he has tunnel vision when he uses the comparisons between ANE cultures and Israel at the expense, and almost complete ignorance of, the differences. It is precisely that Israel had a written legal code as extensive as they did, regardless of how long after it was verbally given, that makes them unique among ANE peoples. This is the phenomenon of Scripture!

Conclusion

So what about inerrancy and authority? How does the oral and hearing-dominant culture of the OT and NT shape our understanding of the authority and inerrancy of the written text of Scripture – God’s word. For the authors, inerrancy is useful as long as it is properly defined. While it could die the death of a thousand qualifications, its basic meaning – without error – is true of Scripture. But Walton and Sandy are wary of the future of the term inerrancy. Not because they believe the Bible has errors but because “the term inerrancy may no longer be clear enough, strong enough or nuanced enough to carry the weight with which it has been traditionally been encumbered” (275). Time will tell in this regard but I think inerrancy still has a future and books like Five Views on Inerrancy show not only its value but necessity.

For the authority of Scripture, the authors do believe Scripture is authoritative for Christians over any other possible book. It is our standard of faith, rule and practice, they would say. It has authority because it is in written form what God said verbally. What I am not sure of is whether or not they see Scripture, since it is the words of God, as having a self-understanding of its own authority. What does God say to us about His word in His word? Further, Scripture is our only access to the oral tradition of the OT and NT. It is now the Christians only authority to God’s spoken word. This is not something the authors touch on and needs to be explored.

The Lost World of Scripture is a mixed bag for me. Readers will be captivated by the historical explanation of how oral tradition worked and the mindset of people in these cultures. The book is far from disengaging. They do a good job of contrasting the value and place of written texts within hearing and text-dominant cultures and how modern notions of accuracy do not line up with ancient notions. The authors recognize that they are making possible scenarios and conclusions based on their research but they seem to be more dogmatic in their theological conclusions about the inerrancy and authority of Scripture then is warranted. As mentioned previously, what is missing is a discussion on the phenomenon of Scripture as the written revelation of God to man. While much, if not most, of the OT was given orally first, most of the NT was not (see the letters of Paul). Why is it that we have so much writing from Christianity as opposed to other religions of their time? Why did Christians write their oral tradition down as much as they did?

The Lost World of Scripture is an intriguing book but needs to be read carefully and with discernment.

NOTE: I received this book for free from IVP and was under no obligation to provide a favorable review. The thoughts and words expressed are my own.

[Thomas · Rating 4 out of 5]

Review: This book has a lot in common with Denis Lamoureux's Evolutionary Creation, but without the focus on evolution. They both approach the Old Testament by recognizing that God is accommodating scripture to the culture and worldview of people living in the Ancient Near East. Our task is to discern the cultural package from the eternal contents, and this is not easily done without careful study. Lamoureux calls this the Message/Incident principle, and Walton refers to Locution/Illocution/Perlocution. Depending on whether a reader is more familiar with science or with scripture, either Lamoureux's or Walton's book would be more appropriate for them.

In this book, I found Part 1 to be the most stimulating. I'm glad that the book addressed the oral culture of the New Testament, too, but the writing was not as lively. Ultimately, it's fascinating to know that written Scripture is not essential to the Judeo-Christian faith. Oral Scripture-- in the hearts and minds of its adherents-- is the source of God's revelation, and Scripture was slowly written long afterwards. The unusual phrasings and occasional inconsistencies are reflective of oral culture and transmission, and that those people had very different values and expectations than we do. Ironically, both liberals and conservatives tend to read Scripture through a modern lens, and both distort the message in doing so.

Notes:

Introduction
p11 Transition from print to digital culture is comparable to the transition from oral to literary culture. It changes how we think, access information, and perceive reality.

Part 1
p19Writing locates authority in a text and its reader instead of in a tradition and its community. Authority in ancient, oral culture was different than today. Lest one think that writing is superior, remember that if you question them, they always say only one and the same thing (Plato's Phaedres). In an orally transmitted culture, you can ask for clarification.

p24 How do you know that a text was originally composed orally? Includes repetition within a passage, use of formulas and formula patterns, and conventionalized patterns of content.
In the ancient world, there were no "books" and no "authors". Instead, there were authorities, documents, and scribes. "Tradents" are authorities that are involved in the perpetuation of traditions.

p27 Let's not forget that much of what we know about modern science is given to us by Tradents, too. We certainly don't do the original experiments ourselves!

p31 In an oral culture, documents do not carry the authority, the community and tradition does. Documents are occasionally updated to reflect the changes in language and oral tradition. The locus of authority is the community itself.

p32 The Old Testament Hebrew language that we have is not what Abraham spoke, nor even what Moses spoke. The text was modified over time to reflect the contemporary culture.
What kinds of changes were made?
1. updated language and place names
2. Explanatory glosses (no such thing as marginal notations in an oral culture)
3. Added sections (such as the death of Moses)
4. Updated formulations (legal interpretations)
5. Revised to address a new audience in relevant ways

p38 The canonical status of particular texts developed much later than the content of the text itself. Texts only became authoritative once literary culture began to thrive.

p43 Every successful act of communication requires some degree of accommodation to bridge the gap between speaker and listener.

p49 In God's revelation to Israel, he was not focused on giving them precise information about cosmology or natural history. His message was more important.
p50 The only relevant causes were divine causes and human causes. There wasn't a separate category for "natural causes".

p60 Moses is best understood as the "authority" and "tradent" of the Pentateuch, not the "author". The written text came together over many centuries within the oral culture and tradition that he presided over.

Part 2
p91 A speaker has to adjust to his listener. Oral speech is adaptive to its listeners. Written language is not. A written text can become stale, outdated, sperseded, damaged, or lost completely.

p95 Oral cultures house their central convictions in fundamental narratives that are repeated over and over again. Narratives and repetition are central to oral culture.

p101 Thucydides is well known for admitting that he used historical imagination in reconstructing speeches and placing them in the mouths of statesmen and generals. In doing so, he conveyed real history through a literary medium.

p111 Isn't it curious that Jesus never wrote anything down? He didn't write the gospels, and he didn't write any theology. Jesus preached few sermons yet told frequent stories. His audience was non-literate and oral. Jesus'communication was truth telling at the highest level, even though his parables weren't "literal".

p121 The Logos/Word referred to oral communication, not written texts.

p128 The Bible is not what Western, modern Christians might expect or even wish from God. The Bible is some of the best literature ever written in the history of the human race. But it is not a newspaper telling you exactly what happened yesterday. And it is not a science textbook telling you how everything is physically constructed. And that's good, because newspapers and textbooks go out-of-date almost as soon as they are published!

p149 The Gospels preserve the voice of Jesus, not necessarily his exact words. He didn't speak Greek anyway!

p176 Even the New Testament writers were not really "authors" in the modern sense. They were responsible for transmitting the oral traditions. Based on their knowledge of the oral texts of their community, they crafted written versions that would have been fully recognizable to (and probably subject to the approval of) the community.

p178 Modern presupposition: Print culture assumes that if oral culture did not preserve someone's exact words, then what that person said cannot be known accurately.

p186 Jesus' message was radical; his method of communicating was routine. The importance of his message did not requre that it be written down, either by him or his disciples. Although he left behind only oral texts, his message was no less authoritative. He affirmed the divine source of his speech and the permanence of his words. Authority did not begin in the written text.

p196 Preserving exact wording was not necessary in the minds of New Testament authors when they quoted from the Old Testament. Differences in wording and details did not put truth at risk.

Part 3
"All the world came to Egypt to buy grain from Joseph." What kind of historical claim is being made here?

Our understanding of "myth" and "history" are both modern concepts that map poorly onto ancient texts.

Because of the composition conventions of ancient authors, it is very difficult and potentially destructive to try to precisely reconstruct historical events from the text. We can affirm that the Bible is dealing with real events in the real past, but that does not necessarily mean that we can reconstruct the past like a photograph.

The widespread work on the hypothetical document referred to as Q is largely based on a literary assumption.

Part 4
The Bible primarily relates truth through narratives of human experience and through poetic language that transcend the normal boundaries of expression. What has been written with imagination must also be read with imagination (the creative side of your brain must be engaged, not just your logical, systematic side; otherwise, you make it into a lifeless, sterile text).

When we press the Bible into tasks that are not within its purview, we are violating its authority by trying to extract a word from God and presenting our conclusion as God's Word, when in reality he has said no such thing.

Epilogue
Inspired truth was communicated and preserved without the necessity of exact wording. Speeches, for example, were reconstructed after the fact.

God often works through processes that we would label as "natural".

The authority behind a book is more important than identifying someone as the sole or direct author. Later material could be added and later editors could have a role in the compositional history of a canonical book.

The Bible used numbers rhetorically within the range of the conventions of the ancient world.

[Zachary Nance · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great study and really important look at the differences and authority rooted in orality and textuality.

[Joel Wentz · Rating 4 out of 5]

There is a LOT to pull from this book, and the claims the co-authors are making are not insignificant. These claims are remarkably well-argued, though, which makes it an indispensable read. John Walton contributes the chapters on Old Testament composition, and while I did enjoy these (I particularly love some of Walton's other work on Genesis), I was extremely impressed by newcomer Brent Sandy's chapters on the New Testament texts.

I've always heard pastors/teachers say things like, "these stories would have been spoken and passed around orally for years before they were actually written down", but never before have I actually approached understanding WHAT THAT MEANS for our modern interpretation! This book goes to remarkable lengths to explain what a culture of orality would look like, and how our modern culture of textuality compares to it. Most importantly, the authors draw implications of this contrast for biblical interpretation and application. Issues like inerrancy, modern science, and ethics/legislation are all unpacked in incredibly helpful ways. One brief word of caution: the early chapters delve into some abstract speech-act theory (terms are used like locution, illocution, and perlocution). These can be difficult to read, but truly do lay an essential foundation for understanding the arguments laid out in the rest of the chapters. Push through these, and you are truly in store for a perspective-changing look at the bible. Highly, highly recommended!!

[William · Rating 4 out of 5]

Walton and Sandy give a helpful and detailed look into the oral-dominant world in which the Bible originated and shows how many Christians, both through critical scholarship and fundamentalist apologetics, have anachronistically imposed our modern/Western text-dominant modes of thought onto it. It's difficult for people of a text-dominant culture to put ourselves into the mindset of an oral-dominant culture, but Walton and Sandy are very helpful in this regard. Through the use of Speech-Act Theory language of illocution, locution, and perlocution they work through the implications of Scripture being a product of oral-dominant culture in terms of authority and inerrancy. Their conclusions regarding authority are excellent. Their conclusions regarding inerrancy are very good, but may be little bit too conservative on one or two points. Chicago Statement inerrancy is the standard of today's evangelical world and Walton and Sandy do their best to work with and defend that definition of inerrancy while showing where it needs to be reformed or, at least, better nuanced. This is where the book falls somewhat short. There are other better and more historical models of inerrancy. The Chicago Statement, as this book makes painfully obvious, is horribly anachronistic. Walton and Sandy only make it work by bending it and finding the loopholes that, I think, most evangelicals and nearly all fundamentalists would reject.

[Aaron White · Rating 5 out of 5]

Was tempted to rate lower - because I still have so many questions. Way more than when I started. But, I suppose that is how this thing works. "We are misinformed readers when we use the Bible for purposes that exceed its intents."
This was a fantastic book that radically moved my understanding of scripture. Many of these things were floating around in the back of my mind, but this analysis provided all the scholarly work and insight that I was sorely lacking, and will certainly help to elevate my discourse on this subject in the future.
It is challenging for evangelicals, but in a good, positive - continuing to build our knowledge of scripture - way. Scripture is not undermined in this book, but re-positioned and given a new kind of authority - and, can change the way we read it.

[John Martindale · Rating 4 out of 5]

Inerrancy is a modern dogma that I think has died the death of a thousand qualifications. Evangelicals made inerrancy a litmus test, and it seems Walton desires to remain in the club and affirm the Chicago statement on inerrancy. But I think Walton must be a little inconsistent, for in the other Lost World Books, he argues that we should not try and make the bible answer modern questions—avoiding the eisegesis that is so common today.
Inerrancy is an assumption that was shaped by the forges of Modernism and a reaction to the Enlightenment. Christians needed the bible to be the objective, literal, absolute, clear, timeless arbitrator of all that is True and Good, and this is not what the bible was, but as evangelicals needed the bible to be this, they decided it MUST be this and ever since have sought to force the texts to conform.
For Walton to defend inerrancy and then go on to explain the lost world of scripture, can be likened to if in the Lost World of Genesis One, he began his book by claiming Genesis MUST be about science, but then expounded on the functional rather than the material explanation (in other words, Genesis One is not science) and in the end, insisted that we must, therefore, redefine science, since Genesis One must be science. This is what Walton has done in this book. He asserts the bible is “inerrant”, but then goes into depth about its orality (radically different standards of "perfection") and messy realities of its composition that they were fine with (which I think is likely alien to what the signers of the Chicago statement meant). Walton tries to suggest that we redefine inerrancy to be the antithesis of what many understand inerrancy to be.

To rework an analogy that Walton makes, it is like the formulators of inerrancy thought artistic perfection was according to the Renaissance ideals, Walton then points out that the bible is far more like Picasso. If judged according to classical ideals, Picasso is far from perfect, but in light of what Picasso was aiming for, Picasso is without error. Those who think Inerrancy is more like Da Vinci or Michelangelo will not be pleased with Picasso’s type of infallibility! Yet, since the reality of the matter, is the bible is NOT at all like the evangelicals thought it must be, I suppose, if subtly, evangelicals could come around and redefine their conception of perfection to be more in accordance with the messy reality, all will be better. If it happened, what was initially meant by inerrancy would be inverted. For my own part, I’d say just say good riddance to Inerrancy and wrestle with how and in what way this collection of text rooted in oral traditions continues to be authoritative for us today.

Okay, I wrote the above before getting to Proposition 21, where he more directly addresses Inerrancy, points out the limits of the concept (how are the psalms and proverbs and parables understood as in error or not?) and even suggests that maybe the word is passed the point of its usefulness. But he likes it to distinguish himself from the higher critics.

On another note, I was thinking about the way Walton uses Speech Act Theory to wiggle out of the problem of error. The locutions are culturally conditioned (and from our standards errant), while the illocutions are inerrant. This is a genius move--but is it unfalsifiable? What I mean is every time the locution is in error, we can think up an illocution that is not. The locution is explicit and the illocution is implicit, and thus subject to interpretation. The only truly authoritative part, is ironically, the part that can only be inferred from the locution in its context.

For Walton, we'd have the locution: God creates a solid vault that holds up the water and in this dome, God places the greater and the lesser lights to rule day and night.
Now while the people of that day believed this, we today know this is not true, so we say its illocution is something more generally true (God orders, keeps chaos at bay, etc...). Leading to the perlocution of worship, trust, and reliance on God. But who is to say?
What if the original illocution was, in fact, the answer as to why all that blue water in the sky does not inundate us? It is because God holds back those blue waters in the sky with a crystal-like firmament. If the illocution is an explanation for why the waters are separated, then both the locution and the illocution are in error. But if someone's axiom is that the illocutions cannot error, regardless of how improbable it is, an inerrant illocution can be concocted. One's commitment to inerrancy would mean nothing could falsify the belief.

I do find this distinction between the words and the intended purpose of these words, helpful and practical. I will use this when teaching students who assume inerrancy, as I can dream up an "inerrant" illocution for every errant locution that we come across, and pretend that other possible (and maybe more likely) errant illocutions are not on the table. This is better than the Allegorical Method which seems so improbable to use moderns. Speech Act theory portrays a reality, that can readily be demonstrated, it provides some wiggle room.

Christians will differ with what locutions can pass into the inerrant illocutions. Walton is compelled more than I am to consider Joshua, for example, to be somewhat historical, and to attribute evil to God when the text does so (while jettisoning morality and calling evil good). I would be quicker to look for non-toxic illocutions.

[Matthew Crowe · Rating 4 out of 5]

Walton and Sandy’s book is a reexamination of the evangelical doctrines of inerrancy and biblical authority in light of current research in ancient literary production. Specifically, their objective is “to understand better how both the Old and New Testaments were spoken, written, and passed on, especially with an eye to possible implications for the Bible’s inspiration and authority” (9). This wide scope limits the depth of the book so that each of its twenty-four chapters rarely receive more than fifteen pages of attention. However, the authors acknowledge this limitation as a consequence of tackling such an immense subject. Walton and Sandy direct their arguments to believers with a high view of Scripture: “This book is not intended for outsiders; that is, it’s not an apologetic defense of biblical authority” (10). In fact, the book assumes a belief in the Bible as “God’s self-disclosure” (12) and that the Holy Spirit was involved in all aspects of the Bible’s production and preservation.

The twenty-four chapters of this book are put forward as propositions (twenty-one propositions with three summarizing sections). Part One, consisting of propositions one through four, treats composition and communication in the OT world as well as lays the foundation for the rest of the book by arguing that ancient Near Eastern societies were hearing dominant (proposition one), expansions and revisions of texts were possible (proposition two), texts can communicate only as well as they accommodate to the intended hearers and/or readers (proposition three), and that the Bible contains no new scientific revelation (proposition four). Of these four propositions, chapter three is the most significant for the argument of the book as it introduces concepts of speech-act theory (locution, illocution, and perlocution) that are cited constantly throughout the book.

Part Two (propositions five through thirteen) treats composition and communication in the NT. The fundamental arguments in this section are that the world of Jesus and the early church was predominantly oral, textual variants occurred even in the oral teaching of Jesus, and that precise wording is not significant to transmit truth. Part Three (propositions fourteen through seventeen) deal with literary genres of the Bible, arguing that we must read Scripture in light of what the authors intended to communicate, being careful not to expect these ancient readers to share our modern methods of communication. Literary genre, then, is a major indication of the intent of the author. Part Four (propositions eighteen through twenty-one) is a series of affirmations from the authors regarding their views of Scripture’s authority and inerrancy. A final chapter titled “Faithful Conclusions for Virtuous Readers” tidies up the theological mayhem with lists of things safe to believe, things not safe to believe, and things safe to ask.

Walton and Sandy want their work to contribute to a “robust doctrine of biblical authority” (309) among evangelical Christians (“robust” is used at least six times in their book). I would like to offer a “robust” critique of their arguments. The authors succeed in bringing decades of scholarly work in ancient literacy into an accessible format for all readers. They explain the abstract concepts of speech-act theory in a way that most will understand and they slowly and progressively apply these concepts to the Bible. For example, many readers will benefit from learning the difference between the Bible’s locution and illocution of Old World Science in Gen 1. No student of Scripture would not appreciate the clarity that a discussion of biblical genre (propositions fourteen through seventeen) will bring to their understanding of Scripture. In one way, then, this book popularizes academic research for an evangelical audience.

The fundamental problem of this book, however, is that it runs the risk of letting the background of ancient literary production control the foreground of Scripture itself, a fact they plainly admit, saying, “oral and communal culture is more than background to supplement our understanding of ancient texts; it is foreground” (185). Previous discussions about inerrancy and authority have treated the Bible as if it were an absolutely unique literary composition. Walton and Sandy bring valuable information from recent scholarship for their evangelical peers to consider. However, the pendulum swings too far in the opposite direction from those previous discussion. They are careful to say that the Bible is not a book “just like any other book” (303). However, the lion’s share of their arguments leads one to consider otherwise. Their thesis contradicts the notion that the Bible is a unique book like no other. Yes, the authors confess their belief that the Bible is God’s self-disclosure. Yes, the authors suggest the Bible is similar to its contemporary texts primarily in its language, method, hearing-dominant culture, and transmission, not the “illocution” of its content. However, Judaism and Christianity have always been distinguished from other religions as being revealed religions. It is not enough to say that the Bible is different only in its source. The vast amount of early manuscripts are a witness to the value that early Christians (or Second Temple Jews, such as the Qumran community) placed on the written Scriptures. In short, Walton and Sandy are overreaching in their conclusions.

One example of reaching too far is in their contrast of oral culture, manuscript culture, and print culture in proposition thirteen. “Handwritten texts were essentially oral texts that had been inscribed in writing. They were ancillary, not primary; surrogates, not principals; derivative, not superlative” (178). The dominance of oral culture within early Christianity, and even the ancient world as a whole, may have had more to do with the source of the oral tradition (in this case, the apostolic witness) and less to do with the medium itself. Papias clearly preferred the “living word” (i.e., oral testimony from eyewitnesses), yet he is the primary source for patristic traditions regarding the composition of Matthew and Mark. Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, and even the composers of the Didache, were all clearly familiar and reliant on the written testimony of Scripture. All of these (with the possible exception of the Didache) were within a generation of those who walked with the first generation of Christians. In other words, an oral culture did not require that written texts were inherently inferior. Orality was important only to the degree that it was connected with eyewitnesses. It seems that Walton and Sandy put too much stress on the medium of orality and not enough stress on the unique testimony of the eyewitnesses, which were what gave the oral texts their significance. Certainly, “we must not fall into the trap of thinking about the New Testament in terms of our modern, text-dominant culture” (98), nor should we fall into the trap of thinking about the New Testament only in terms of modern, critical scholarship.

Another overstatement by the authors is diluting the significance of authors and autographs in the ancient world. They are correct in arguing that ancient notions of authorship are different than modern notions of authorship. However, they overstate their case when they argue that “the authority behind a book is more important than identifying someone as the sole or direct author” (298). If the early church did not see the “sole and direct author” as significant, “recognizing written forms to have equal authority” (298), why did the early church so quickly and universally associate the canonical Gospels with Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John? Regarding the autographs of NT documents, it is possible that “secretaries may have made multiple copies of certain of Paul’s letters” (250), such as Galatians, but Paul’s directive for the churches of Colossae and Laodicea to exchange the letters he sent to them (Col 4:16) suggests that the churches bore the weight of preserving the text. Further, the fact that Paul’s corpus was collected and distributed early and widely enough for Peter and his recipients to be familiar with it (2 Pet 3:16) speaks volumes about the early church’s view of the written word.

Walton and Sandy briefly mention the work of Kelber and Rodriguez, arguing that the frequency of “oral performances” of early Christian texts left a stability within the oral tradition that did not depend on a “script” or a “transcript” (130-32). Strangely, however, they do not mention how this same evidence causes a problem for their arguments about textual variants in the NT in proposition thirteen. The authors admit that “out of all the variants, very few make any significant doctrinal difference” (173), which they state, rather oddly, after treating the two most significant textual variants (Mark 16 and John 8) as if variants of their size occur regularly in the NT. Nevertheless, their argument for a solid oral tradition imprinted by frequent oral performances should contribute to the discussion of textual variants, but they do not make the connection. Recent scholarship of ancient social memory, which is closely connected to the work of Kelber and Rodriguez, helps validate the reliability of the NT text. A oral-dominant culture reinforces its social memory through the aforementioned oral performances which would then reinforce a strong connection between the oral tradition and the written documents. If this connection were made, Walton and Sandy would not need to undervalue the significance of textual manuscripts. As it is, however, the authors avoid the problem of textual variants altogether by arguing that precise wording is not necessary to communicate truth.

Some of Walton and Sandy’s arguments are based on assumptions. For example, they say, “Regarding the New Testament, Jesus spoke in Aramaic” (296). The notion that Jesus spoke Aramaic and that the writers of the canonical Gospels translated his oral teaching into Greek is helpful to Walton and Sandy’s argument that “inspired truth was communicated and preserved without the necessity of exact wording,” which means that “the true essence of his words were remembered” (296), but not his exact words. While this has been the scholarly consensus within the academy, it is no less an assumption and is not without challengers. At other times the authors beg the question with statements like, “When the New Testament speakers refer to the work of Isaiah, they are referring to the literary documents in their time that have been subsumed under the authority of the prophet” (65). The academic consensus may support multiple sources for Isaiah but this is far from being an established fact.

In proposition nine, Walton and Sandy present a good case for the early Christians having an aural relationship with the Hebrew Scriptures and an oral focus in their own proclamation of the gospel. The authors argue that the word logos primarily referred to that which “was spoken orally and heard aurally” (122), which leads to their conclusion that the phrase “word of God” in the NT refers primarily to “the oral forms of the text behind the written forms” (126). However, this does not require that the written texts were somehow secondary to the oral teaching. In fact, proclaiming the “word of God” could be the oral reading of the written texts of Scripture, something to which Timothy was to give attention (1 Tim 4:13).

The book concludes with a list of questions that are “safe to ask.” Another question could be added to this list: is it safe to ask if our pursuit of a “robust” doctrine of biblical authority is seeking to accommodate critical scholarship? Walton and Sandy seem to take a mediating position between traditional evangelical arguments for inerrancy and the conclusions of critical scholarship. For instance, they suggest that books in the ancient Near East did not have authors so much as they had “communities” that produced them. There was an authority behind the text, the authors say, who produced the oral teaching that was later recorded by scribes who could alter it to some degree. In this model, then, “the existence and role of Moses are both heartily affirmed and remain central in the preserved tradition” (65). They “reject the skepticism of critical scholarship” (65) but readers are left wondering if they have been drawn into dialogue with this skepticism or asked merely to shake hands with it. Until hard evidence is produced that demonstrates this process took place in the production of the Bible, the hypothesis remains speculative.

While Walton and Sandy present a fascinating view into the world of ancient literary production which helps students of the Bible better understand the Scriptures and the world of our forefathers, their conclusions are overreaching. Nevertheless, this book is a valuable contribution to the discussion of inerrancy. Whether one agrees or disagrees with its conclusions, he will need to engage this book as the inerrancy debate continues into the future. Ministers and lay people may benefit from this book but it will be especially helpful for college students studying Scripture.

[Wesley Morgan · Rating 3 out of 5]

The main message of this book is one that I think everyone, whatever their belief about the Bible, should understand: that scripture was primarily transmitted orally for many years, decades, or centuries before it was written down. While our modern perspective sees that as a lack of accuracy or authority, that's not how the ancient world would view it. To them, history and literature were passed down vocally. Written copies were just a byproduct.

Now, I think for most people, that paragraph I just wrote is probably enough. This book took way too many pages to make the same points over and over again. Walton usually does a good job of writing readable books with lots of analogies. But this one spent a lot of time with complex terms like "illocution."

There were some major points I really liked, such as the idea that the Book of (Prophet) may have been originally spoken by (Prophet), but that his disciples could have added things as they passed it down. The ancient world would not have seen anything wrong with that. This book also made me realize that different manuscripts or gospels could have different wordings, so we shouldn't dissect individual phrases as much as the overall message.

That being said, my mine issue with the book's conclusion is their assertion that the entire process of transmitting scripture was inspired, so what we have must be "inerrant." While they talk about how that word means different things to everyone, I don't know why they aren't willing to accept the possibility that, somewhere along the way, important teachings were lost or modified. That's probably the main difference between Latter-day Saints and Evangelicals. I'm grateful I read this, but I would be interested to hear the perspective of someone who believes scripture can be inspired and imperfect.

[Joel Liebert · Rating 3 out of 5]

I think there’s a lot of good here, so I overall have a positive impression of it. Walton’s arguments were well researched and well articulated, so I found them convincing, though little of it was new or groundbreaking material to me at this point.

I found it annoying how he tied everything to inerrancy - specifically explaining why traditional views of inerrancy aren’t adequate when evaluating ancient texts, and how all apparent errors are compatible with inerrancy - only to essentially dispose of the concept of inerrancy at the end. I actually agree with his thought, that inerrancy is a loaded term and generally unhelpful when considering the Bible, but 300 pages discussing it were tiresome. However, I suppose the time spent on it would be useful for someone married to a traditional view of inerrancy as it may take even longer than that for them to divorce themselves of it. I just think we would all be a lot better off if we disposed of the term entirely and stopped trying to defend or reconcile any error or contradiction in Scripture and instead sought to learn from them.

I’m definitely uncomfortable with a few assumptions he’s unwilling to challenge, namely that historical figures such as Moses and Abraham must have truly existed, and that the Bible cannot contradict itself. These assertions seem to be made in the same spirit of assertions that the earth must be young and evolution must be false - that is, they are assumed apart from evidence, and then all Scripture is made to submit to their authority. It sets the entire belief system up to fail if one simply doubts the existence of Moses or can’t reconcile in their heads that authors born hundreds of years apart may have, in their limited knowledge, written contradictory claims about God.

Still, it’s a good book, and most evangelicals would be better off for reading it.

[Connor Haskins · Rating 5 out of 5]

Walton writes a refreshingly honest and insightful take on how to approach inerrancy and what pieces of historical literary context need to be taken into account. He offers straightforward ways to approach elements of the Bible that can be difficult to square.

Although it stays in a somewhat safe hypothetical realm at times, the practical groundwork for how to think about inerrancy and Scripture is laid clearly and in a useful, accessible way. It's a book that should help inform and illuminate almost any other work on inerrancy, especially considering the important clarifications on how written texts functioned in the ancient world.

The sections on genre, science, the Old Testament, and example explanations about how different sections of scripture might have been written/compiled were especially helpful.

[Tori B · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book had so many interesting propositions surrounding a prominent oral culture and how it shapes our understanding of the written Scriptures. There was a lot to chew on and consider regarding inerrancy. Would recommend for those troubled by Gospel textual variants, the historicity of the Old Testament, and other common challenges in biblical scholarship and source criticism. It informed my perspective on several issues I’ve been deliberating over for a while, and the authors straddled the line between open-mindedness and adherence to orthodox biblical interpretation well :) at least to me~

[Erin Henry · Rating 5 out of 5]

Such a helpful book! Make sure you write down the definitions of locution and illocution (exact words vs meaning of the author) to reference for the whole book! The book helped me better understand how to read and trust Scripture. The most important new framework was to think of a more oral tradition culture vs written culture like we live in now.

[Jared Stacy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fantastic 👏🏼 — Dr. Walton & Dr. Sandy unpack recent scholarship on oral cultures and how ancient orality impacts our understanding of Biblical authority. What makes this fascinating scholarship is their brilliant integration of speech-act theory with hermeneutics. 👏🏼

[Jeff · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a fairly dense treatment of how the production of literature in the ancient world, with particular focus on the role of orality, figures in our understanding of the Bible’s authority and what is referred to as inerrancy.

[Marissa]

I don’t think I can rate a book I only read 2/3 of (the assigned portions for my class). But I will say, as a reminder to myself, that this book was quite painful to read. Doesn’t mean it didn’t have good insight, it was just difficult. Godspeed.

[Andy Gore · Rating 5 out of 5]

A really thought provoking and helpful exploration of the Bible within the ancient world.

[Steve · Rating 4 out of 5]

Difficult but good

[David]

This is a book which will challenge an Evangelical's preconceived ideas. It certainly has mine. The authors make a convincing case for the contents of the Bible having been first proclaimed orally, not in written form, by drawing on Ancient Near Eastern, Greek and Roman customs. This has implications for the way in which we observe how a message is maintained and transmitted. The stories themselves (locutions) are less important than the message the speaker / author desired his aural audience to understand from the story (illocution) and the expected outcomes he expected by those listening to the stories (perlocution). The message, whether oral or written, received its authority from the spiritual listening community, eventually to be canonized. If a storyteller got too far off, the community would correct him. Since they considered the faithful transmission of the story's essence more important than exact words in repeating it, a different view of inerrancy is required, which explains variation in the different textual traditions we have. It also allows for the accumulation to an author's message by his disciples / followers who continued in the same mode of thought and whose words were added to those of the main author as being his authoritative words. Although foreign to our way of thinking, this was common in the ancient world. The book has implications for preaching as well, as the authors make the point that in an illiterate world stories were important as they could be remembered easily and transmitted to others from memory more easily. Living in a biblically illiterate world, do they have a higher use in sermons? The emphasis that ancient authors placed on illocution and perlocution over locution may be useful in crafting sermons today. The final chapter contains a discussion of what the authors consider safe positions to hold while still adhering to an inerrant and inspired biblical text, what positions they consider not holdable, and those still in question.

[Leandro Dutra · Rating 5 out of 5]

A very, very challenging book, not only for its primary intended readers (conservative Christians) but also for any Liberals who may be humble enough to learn from fundamentalists.

I mentioned fundamentalism in the original sense: this is primary a book for fundamentalists adhering to Biblical inerrancy but wanting a better definition of it, and understanding of the Bible, based on Scripture’s original cultural context, including the role of orality in the genesis of texts and in their transmission. Incidentally, the author’s argument ends up supporting a Reformed emphasis they did not even mention: that the faithful preaching of the Word of God is itself God’s word for man.

I wish I could give it 4,75 stars, or five stars for contents and four for presentation. The format of a series of propositions instead of chapters seems didatic but odd, and the initial chapters (I really will not call them ‘propositions’) are presented against the Evangelical grain, even if they actually intend to serve Evangelicals, and thus may loose quite a few readers who will loose heart before they reach the end of the book, even if it is a much needed reading for everyone wanting to improve beyond the very basic level of exegesis as presented, for instance, in Fee & Stuart’s _Reading the Bible for all its Worth_.

Essentially, the authors propose we differentiate between roles or aspects of the same inspired Scriptural texts: locution (words used by the authors, in their original cultural context); illocution (meaning or communication intended, and only fully exposed by understanding locution in its cultural context); and perlocution (response hoped in readers or hearers). But the implications are multifold, and much beyond the scope of such a puny review as mine.

Essential.

[Shaun Lee · Rating 4 out of 5]

The two or three months took to finish this book is a relatively long time (I usually read books in a single sitting). If reading a popular level book is like wading along the seashore, going through this book was like going deep sea diving. The immense depth of content often left me amazed as I realised how naive my presuppositions were and how so far removed I am from the context of the world that Scripture was written in.

Walton and Sandy have indeed done a fine job in "not to deconstruct inerrancy but to put on surer footing by carefully accounting for the worldview of the biblical world, which is different from the worldview of modern Western culture" (p303). In contrast to my snobbish attitude of how written was superior to oral communication, I have a new found appreciation for the latter. The brilliant final chapter summary was like a scoop of refreshing ice cream, an exhilarating reward to the persistent readers who had fought hard to journey through the dense jungle of the book - it helped to remind me of what I had read through and saw how they all fit together.

While the more scholarly reviewers probably give it a no-brainer 5 stars, I found that the book would reach a much larger audience if it weighed in at 200 (rather than 300 pages). That would mean the omission or shortening of much of the book, and maybe a new version of the book could be released to cater to a larger audience. While brevity is a luxury when we deal with such an important topic, I struggled to retain interest in the content, especially at the beginning and towards the end.

I received this book from InterVarsity Press for the purposes of providing an unbiased review. All views are my own.

[Reinhardt · Rating 5 out of 5]

Well worth the time.

Approaches scripture with a high view of its authority but makes use of speech-act theory to help clarify where the authority lies. (Speech act theory breaks down text into locution, what is said, illocution, what is intended -bless, promise, command -, and perlocution, the intended response). Walton lodge authority of scripture in the illocution-a reasonable approach.

He also writes extensively on the orality of scripture. All scripture was first given and transmitted orally. It is hard for us who have been born into a print culture to see the implications of this orality. Orality introduces variation while keeping the core stable. The form of transmission also extended into early manuscript and reduction. Another key element of oral culture is the lack of authors. Rather than authors, there are authorities. Authorities like Moses or Isaiah passed on communication that was taken to have authority and the followers who understood the mind of the authority where free to update and build on the work of the authority. This accumulation of "text" seems to have occurred especially in the Old Testament.

I am not doing justice to the orderly case he makes in the book. The book is laid out as a series of 21 related propositions. It's not as dry as it sounds. It is well written in an easy style accessible to an average reader.

He closes with a call that we become competent readers of the locutions of the Bible and ethical hearers of the illocutions and virtuous agents of the perlocutions of the Bible.

I highly recommend the book together with his Lost World of Genesis One.

[David Carlson · Rating 3 out of 5]

I was very much intrigued by Walton's "THe Lost World of Genesis 1" which says in short that the chapters of Genesis 1-3 are more about the purposes or functions of the material universe than their origin. I am not sure I buy it all, but was very supported that a great deal, maybe the majority of the purpose of those chapters were to help us see our relationship to the world in which we live, and the purpose for humanity. This work deals with the nature of scripture that arose from an oral culture. How does that effect our view of the origin and the truthfulness of scripture?

One big issue is "original autographs" which Walton suggests is not an accuarate way to view the origin of the text, which began as an oral text first. You have to read this in detail in the book, but it creates a talking point for sure.

I met the author at a lecture in Madison and asked if there had been much reaction. He said, not as yet. I am curious to see how that goes.

I am really taking my time with this, and did not get very far on my retreat week. This book is not so much seminal, but a window into the thinking of evangelical scholarship on the origin of scritpure. It is all quite a bit distant from the old Chicago Statement on Inerrancy.

I asked an OT scholar who gave a preliminary opinion. he said that all that Walton said about speech act theory could also be true of written texts. This fits my feeling that Walton takes a good idea and then takes it too far.

[Ruth · Rating 3 out of 5]

The world was oral for a very long time. Even when some could read and write, it was not common among regular people.

[James Chappell · Rating 5 out of 5]

An Important Message for Fundamentalists on Both Sides

That so many today read the bible and take each and every word literally, whether to hold it high or tear it down, is a huge problem in today's literary-based culture. The literary paradigm from which we view the bible would have been alien to those who lived in the times that the Old and New Testament were transmitted. Walton's third book in his Lost World Series shows how the nature of the oral culture in effect allows the bible to withstand claims of errancy leveled at it by modern skeptics by making a more realistic definition of inerrancy.

This is by no means the deepest book on the subjects. Bauckham's 'Jesus and the Eyewitnesses' was more scholarly, but it was also narrower in scope. Walton takes a step back and looks at every imaginable aspect of the oral culture and contrasts it to our modern perception of the bible inerrancy, particularly the form it takes in the Chicago Statement, and shows plainly and simply that we, in particular fundamentalists, need to remove our cultural blinders, come down from our lofty perches, and try to see the world as it was in ages past.

This is a work that lies between popular level and scholarly text level, meaning it is quite heavy yet not too conversational in tone. I'm excited to see where Walton goes next.

[Dick Davies · Rating 5 out of 5]

This took a long time to read properly, and I made a lot of notes. It was a very thought-provoking book. I was attracted to it because I have some knowledge of culture that is primarily or exclusively based around oral communication, (I work for a cross-cultural mission agency).

My reaction on hearing of it was to have a "doh" forehead-slapping moment! I have thought a lot about how oral based cultures work, but not about the fact that our literate (and post-literate) cultures are essentially foreign in that particular sense to the culture of the people originating the books of the Bible.

It is a bold book, coming as it does from the evangelical wing of the Church. Because it challenges our assumptions in particular about what "inerrancy" is all about, (a touchstone doctrine for Evangelicals). It does this with sensitivity and quite enough rigour (for me at least). It is even-handed, in that it also challenges some of the more extreme liberal critical approaches to the Bible text.

Like all good theology (in my opinion), it comes to conclusions about how we should live, as well as how we should approach the Bible.