Just a follow up.
1. I understand Gen 1-2 to be essentially a response to the various pagan explanations of reality and creation myths. Moses' narrative of Yahweh Elohim's fiat creation and institution of the Sabbath as a refutation of the sort of myths to which the Israelites were exposed. Knowing the pagan background, against which Gen 1-2 was written, adds layers of understanding of the narrative.
2. The genealogies Gen 5, 11, and Matthew 1 follow or reflect the ANE pattern of selective genealogies intended to make a point. The biblical genealogies are selective in ways that reflect their context.
3. Here is a critical review of Kenneth Kitchen's "maximalist" use of the ANE.
K. A. Kitchen and Minimalism By Charles David Isbell
It would be better to read Kitchen himself, but notice the point of contention and the use to which Kenneth puts the ANE background data.
4. One other instance comes to mind. Steve Baugh has done a great deal of work on Asia Minor, in order to understand Paul's background. He has shown that when Paul says "Soter panton anthropon" (Savior of all men) he is actually making a play on an motto etched into the base of statue in Ephesus: To Julius Caesar, Benefactor of All Men." The Ephesians erected the statue to honor Caesar for giving them a lot of what we would call federal money. Paul's point is that, no, it's Christ who is the benefactor of all men. If we didn't know about the statue, we wouldn't understand Paul's language and we would still be arguing about this passage relative to the atonement, when, in fact, read in context, it's not about the atonement at all, but about providence and divine goodness. Paul "borrows" an expression from the statue and uses it to make a point. He does the same thing in Titus 1:12 when he quotes a pagan poet to make a point: Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, and slow bellies." He quotes an epithet to make another point. This is a different sort of borrowing but it is borrowing.
We could also look at the very form of the gospels and epistles themselves. The NT writers did not invent these forms of discourse and expression, but they modified them to suit their needs.
We could also look at the Apocalypse and correlate it to existing literary forms. It might not be too much to say that there are probably few absolutely original literary forms in Scripture. Nearly every literary form in Scripture, whether Proverbs or Psalms, or Prophetic lament, or legal prosecution by a minor prophet, borrowed from existing literary forms in order to express divine truth to people in a given context.
Our problem is that we are somewhat removed from some of these literary forms and we know them primarily from Scripture and that, perhaps, leads us to think that Scripture invented them. If we came to Scripture from within its own historical setting, however, we would see that the literary forms of Scripture are not unique.
rsc