ASSYRIOLOGY AND BIBLICAL STUDIES: A CENTURY AND A HALF OF TENSION Mark W. Chavalas
What is the reason for these efforts in remote, inhospitable, and dangerous lands? What is the reason for this expensive rooting through rubble many thousands of years old, all the way down to the water table, where no gold and no silver is to be found? What is the reason for the competition among nations to secure excavation rights to these deserted mounds, and the more the better? Moreover, what is the source of the ever-increasing, self-sacrificing interest, on both sides of the Atlantic, allotted to the excavations in Babylonia and Assyria?
To these questions, there is one answer, even if not the whole answer which points to what for the most part is the motive and the goal, namely, the Bible (Delitzsch 1906: 1). So began F. Delitzsch’s famous inaugural lecture for the German Oriental Society entitled, ‘Babel und Bibel’, 13 January 1902, in Berlin.
However, those who believed that the excavations in Mesopotamia had the primary purpose of illuminating the Bible and verifying its historicity were to be disappointed with the remainder of Delitzsch’s first and succeeding lectures, as he spoke from the standpoint of an Assyriologist who attempted to show the primacy and superiority of Babel (Mesopotamia) over the Bible.
The tension between the two disciplines of Assyriology and biblical studies in the past century and a half has often been acute and has never adequately been defined. In fact, any comparative study of issues concerning the two has often been considered a hazardous affair.! Assyriology, of course, is by definition a new discipline, and has often been considered an intruder by biblicists (Kraus 1969: 69-73). On the other hand, the Assyriologist has often had to work under the shadow of the biblicists, who have for the most part considered Assyriology an auxiliary to biblical studies.
They often have had to connect their work for relevance to biblical 1. See the discussion by van der Toorn 1985: 1 -8.22 Mesopotamia and the Bible studies.
Of course, many Assyriologists in the early period maintained a traditional doctrinal orthodoxy. Assyriology remains a subject for specialists; there never has been an assyriological equivalent to Egyptomania, except for the Amorite hypothesis.
The Assyriologist must admit that ironically it was the Bible that helped illuminate the newly found cuneiform documents in the nineteenth century, as it provided transcriptions of five of the names of the Assyrian kings.
2 For some biblical scholars, the impact of Assyriology upon biblical studies has been minimal, an untenable position for those of us who attempt to bridge both fields.
3 When one scrapes away the superficial similarities, however, the two disciplines have thus developed almost wholly independent of each other. In some respects, scholars of the two disciplines are not always properly trained or well suited to do comparative studies.4 Too often scholars have taken ‘in vectorial approach to comparisons, listing various parallel phenomena without making clear their significance (Malul 1990: 32). Although it is certainly legitimate to look for parallels (Veenhof 1995), the methodological criteria for studying Mesopotamia and the Bible have not been adequately articulated.
There needs to be a systematic manner in the approach to the comparative method.
5 Most would agree that the biblical scholar must examine the immediate and wider biblical context before resorting to searching for external evidences from Mesopotamia, and the general context of those external sources also. One must also ask whether or not the phenomenon in question existed outside the stream of the ancient Near Eastern tradition, of which both the biblical and Mesopotamian cultures were a part (Malul 1990: 93-97). On the whole, the biblical scholars have made but superficial use of Assyriological research, mainly because of the high degree of specialization needed to work with its data (Millard 1989: 24). Furthermore, a great number of Assyriologists neither have an interest in biblical studies, nor do they see many obvious and direct connections to the Old Testament, while Old Testament scholars are often too concerned with theological matters to become interested in immersing themselves in technical 2. Also, see the discussion by Tadmor 1985: 262. 3. Notice the lack of attention to ancient Near Eastern matters in some of the major works devoted to the history of Old Testament scholarship; Kraeling 1955; Hahn 1956; Kraus 1956; Greenslade 1963. 4. See the discussion of this issue in regards to biblical scholars studying Ugaritic religion; see Killers 1985. 5. This is one of the themes of Barr 1987.CHAVALAS Assyriology and Biblical Studies 23 matters (in fact, some biblical scholars were drawn to Assyriology because of its comparative lack of theological controversies; this has certainly been the case in Great Britain and North America).
The cuneiform material accessible to the biblical scholar is limited to the relatively few fully edited and annotated texts. At any rate, it is not surprising to see a tension between the two disciplines. In spite of this, it is strongly urged that the two disciplines continue to interact, as long as they retain their own methodology and autonomy (see Tadmor 1985: 266). In this introduction, I will attempt to trace some of the major developments of the relationship between the two fields since the discovery and subsequent decipherment of’Babylonic’ cuneiform in the mid-nineteenth century.
The two disciplines are very different. Assyriology studies a dead civilization. When Xenophon, the Greek general and historian, traversed the boundaries of Assyria at the beginning of the fourth century BCE, he traveled past both Nimrud and Nineveh. Although he noticed both of these cities, he called them by their Greek names, and assumed that the region was part of Media, and that the two cities were destroyed by the Persians. Thus, he was unaware that they were two of the great Assyrian capitals, which had become abandoned mounds in the preceding two centuries.6 The Bible and various Greek sources became powerful factors in keeping alive the memory of Mesopotamian civilization.
Yet it was not simply the interest in biblical studies that drove the Europeans to the Tigris-Euphrates Valley in the early nineteenth century. France and Great Britain were looking for land routes to India and took great efforts to exert their influence on these areas.
Archaeology was thus an unconscious extension of European imperialism. Because of the spiritual connections with the Old Testament, those in the West are the remote descendants of the Mesopotamians.7
Assyriology’s importance to world history is only now being discussed by Assyriologists.8 However, Assyriologists have rarely been able to synthesize their massive data base for the public. Furthermore, biblical scholars have been much 6. Xenophon, Anabasis 1.4.6-12. Other classical period authors, including Herodotus and Ptolemy were better versed about this area. I thank Michael C. Astour for the preceding observation. 7. See Bottero (1992: 15-25) who argues that Assyriology should be at the center of the social sciences, since it contains our cultural ‘family documents’. 8. See, for example, Hallo 1996.24 Mesopotamia and the Bible more prone to search for comparative data than have Assyriologists.9
The two civilizations of Mesopotamia and Israel must be studied independently of each other, while recognizing the intimate relationship of the two (Saggs 1978: 5). Comparisons between the two were often done early on in regards to polemic.10 The two traditions should be seen as two contemporary systems in the ancient Near East, and not necessarily exclusively in context with each other.
Searching for direct comparisons can be methodologically unsound, causing one to omit great amounts of relevant data. Clearly, Mesopotamia and Israel (including Syria) were part of a greater cultural continuum (van der Toorn 1996: 4).
The study of Syro-Mesopotamian civilization has advanced greatly in the past 25 years. Of special import is the renewed interest in Eastern or ‘Mesopotamian’ Syria, where new archeological finds have radically altered our understanding of not only the ancient Near East, but of the Bible as well.
Although there have recently been some brief descriptions of Mesopotamian connections and the Bible,11 there has been no detailed synthesis in English of the Tigris-Euphrates region in regards to the Bible in many years.12
From the beginning, scholars were intrigued by the possibilities of studying the two disciplines, and either emphasized the similarities or stressed differences.13
At the outset of the nineteenth century, the Anglican Church retained supremacy over biblical studies that was not seen in either Germany or France.
Thus, when German and French historical and literary criticism of the Bible began to filter into Great Britain there was a sharp reaction.
These ‘Germanisms’ as they were called (the propensity to view many Old Testament stories as mythical and to de-emphasize the importance of the Old Testament) were considered a threat to the understanding of the divine inspiration of Scripture (Chadwick 1966:628).
There was a fear that the Bible would be ‘polluted’ by being too close to a 9. Sj6berg (1984: 217) found it necessary to st
ate that he comes to the Old Testament with ‘the eyes of an Assyriologist’. 10. E.g. in terms of religion, see Vriezen 1968. 11. E.g. Hoerth, Mattingly and Yamauchi 1994. 12. E.g. Larue 1967; Parrot 1955; 1958. A number of Assyriologists have worked on comparative themes of Mesopotamia and the Bible late in their career; see now von Soden 1985 (this is not in fact a synthesis but a collection of some of von Soden’s previously published works on biblical and assyriological themes) and Bottero 1986- 92; 1993a; and 1994. 13. Talmon 1978a: 332; for a critique of finding comparisons as a modern variation of the long history of the effort to deny Israel any innovation, see Greenspahn 1991.CHAVALAS Assyriology and Biblical Studies 25 pagan tradition (i.e. Mesopotamia). Ironically, the British and French Enlightenment which had been imported to Germany had now returned in an altered form to a country was had previously been cool to biblical criticism. However, the fact that historical criticism was presently being done in Homeric studies made it easier for scholars to be open to the ‘Germanisms’ (Kraeling 1955: 89-97).
However, the first impressions of the cuneiform tablets had little impact on nineteenth-century biblical criticism.
The first major excavations were done by the French, under P.E. Botta, who had knowingly begun working at Nineveh in 1842.14 Of course, the ancient name of the mound was Ninua, a fact which was known by the Medieval Arab geographers and Jewish travelers (e.g. Benjamin of Tudela in the twelfth century AD), but not to the European travelers or, for the most part, the European adventurers (Grayson 1997: 106).
Though Botta soon left Nineveh, he directed his attentions to Khorsabad, where he found the palace of the Assyrian king Sargon II. Ironically, he mistakenly thought he had discovered Nineveh (see Budge 1925: 67). Botta’s discoveries at Khorsabad, though, created an immense interest in Mesopotamian antiquities in Europe.
Although the French government sponsored work on drawing the reliefs that had been brought to Paris, (McCall 1998:198). At any rate, A. de Longperier was able to read the name Sargon, King of Assyria on one of the monuments, identifying him with the same mentioned in Isa. 20.1, the first name of a Mesopotamian king to be read by a modern scholar from outside the biblical text.15 Furthermore, V. Place succeeded Botta at Khorsabad and found more of the layout of the city of Sargon II (Place 1867-70). Soon thereafter the Englishman, A.H. Layard, began work at Nimrud in 1845.16 Like Botta, he also thought he had found Nineveh, and his famous work, Nineveh and its Remains is in fact primarily a discussion of material 14. Botta and Flandin 1849-50; Botta 1843-44. For a recent discussion of the French involvement in the mid-nineteenth century, see Fontan (ed.) 1994. 15. Moorey 1991:8. For French interest in Mesopotamian and biblical connections, seeVigouroux 1877. 16. Layard 1849; 1849-53; 1853. A compendium of Layard’s (and Botta’s) work was done by Bonomi 1852.26 Mesopotamia and the Bible from Nimrud.
Layard found at Nimrud the first dramatic sculptural link to the Old Testament, the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III and the citation concerning Jehu of Israel. This, of course, was not proven until the obelisk was deciphered years later. At this early date there was a general understanding that the Assyrians and Babylonians led away the Israelites and Judahites captive (Sennacherib and Nebuchadnezzar were household names to the European public).17
Layard’s finds were quickly disseminated and became topics for newspapers and popular journals. They impressed British and American societies who were still immersed in Old Testament piety.
They not only hoped that Layard’s investigations would help provide the correct understanding of Scripture, they were convinced that the Bible had been vindicated by his finds, especially since they believed that it confirmed the destruction of the Assyrian cities as foretold by the biblical prophets.
Thus, Layard had to step very carefully as he came to conclusions about the finds and their relevance to the Old Testament, knowing that controversies were brewing back home. But, as long as the texts could not be read with any certainty, nothing could be firmly established.18 Others, however, were more cynical and supposed that if Layard attached biblical importance to his discoveries, he would become more famous and receive the backing of the religious public.I9
Thus, Layard created a sensation with his books, both in Europe and America.20 Many of the responses by theologians about the finds were premature and often irresponsible, as they tried to appeal to religious sensibilities (Kildahl 1959: 2-20).
However, much of the hoopla about theological fears of the budding discipline of Assyriology was soon displaced with Darwin’s revolutionary ideas.
Although both Botta and Layard knew their Bible as well as their classics, neither appeared to be interested in trying to prove the historical 17. Hincks in 1849 had deciphered the names of Esarhaddon and Sennacherib in the Layard’s reliefs (185 Ib: 977); and Grotefend read Shalmaneser (Moorey 1991:10). See Hincks 1851b; 1852; and H.C. Rawlinson found the names of the Israelite and Judahite kings of Jehu and Menahem in the Assyrian annals, e.g., see Rawlinson 1850. Also see Hincks 1853; 1850. 18. See the discussion in Larsen 1996: 155-64. 19. See Saggs 1984: 306; and Bamett 1960. Layard did not hesitate to make biblical correlations, e.g., 18491:75-76. Unfortunately, many of his preliminary ideas were preached from British pulpits, giving rise to widespread ‘logorrhea’, according to Kildahl 1959: 55-59, 147-49. 20. Others quickly followed with works of the same ilk; see Vaux 1855; Bonomi 1869. For Layard’s influence in Britain and the US, see Kildahl 1959.CHAVALAS Assyriology and Biblical Studies 27 veracity of either traditions in regards to Mesopotamia. Of course, the public was interested in the elucidation of the Old Testament, while academics saw in their work an interesting specimen for understanding the evolution of the arts through sculpture and the like (Larsen 1996:68). But the academic world was somewhat slow in incorporating the material uncovered by them. In 1852, now ten years after the first excavations in the Tigris-Euphrates region, J.C. Hoefer published Chaldee, Assyrie, Medie, Babylonie, Mesopotamie, Phenicie, Palmyrene,2] where he collected all of the biblical and classical references to Mesopotamia, as well as descriptions of the area by travelers from medieval times to his present.
Little, however, was discussed about the new finds. In the same year, E. Hincks and H.C. Rawlinson were able to partially decipher Sennacherib’s account of the invasion of Judah, which appears to be remarkably similar to the biblical account in 2 Kgs 18.13-16.22 At last, many thought there was now convincing proof of the connections of Assyria and Israel, and that the Assyrian texts really did contain information that would help explain Old Testament passages. Although there was initial enthusiasm from the religious community, theologians were not able to explain the discrepancies in the two accounts.
Ten years later Rawlinson published a provisional chronology of Assyrian history that provided a datum point for comparing it with biblical history. He also was able to figure out an account of Shalmaneser Ill’s war with Jehu of Israel, which provoked great interest in Great Britain.23
However, even Rawlinson’s brother George, an Anglican clergyman, felt that the investigation of the Assyrian palaces had to be stopped because they came ‘uncomfortably close to the holy text’.24
Henry saw this as ‘downright rot’.25 At any rate, the decipherment of Assyrian cuneiform caused Assyriology to be acknowledged as a legitimate discipline.26 Although there were apparent contradictions in the Assyrian and 21. Paris: Firmin Didot Freres, 1852. 22. See the discussion by Hincks and Rawlinson in Layard 1853: 118-24. 23. His magnum opus was H. Rawlinson 1860-84. 24. Although he came to see the usefulness of Mesopotamian studies on shedding light upon the Old Testament world; see G. Rawlinson 1862: vi; 1859; 1871. 25. British Library 38977,219-24,31 March 1847 (as listed in Larsen 1996:366); but see G. Rawlinson 1885. At any rate, Hincks was more open to stating biblical connections than was Rawlinson: see Hincks 1862a; 1862b. 26. The decipherment became official when Rawlinson, Talbot, Hincks and Oppert (1857) independently translated an inscription of Tiglath Pileser I.28 Mesopotamia and the Bible biblical records, the two disciplines were intertwined, and continued to retain close ties, at least for the time being.
By this time, over 50 personal and place names from the Bible had been identified in the Assyrian records (Layard 1849: 626-28). In fact, the natural link between the two disciplines was recognized by the founding of the Society of Biblical Archaeology in London in 1870. The Society’s goal was to investigate the archeology and history of Assyria, as well as other biblical lands. Arguably, the most sensational find of the early periods was made by George Smith, who had been enthralled with the Bible since he was a youth, and was almost obsessed with knowing more about the historical books of the Old Testament (Smith 1875:9). On 3 December 1872, Smith addressed the Society of Biblical Archaeology and revealed a Babylonian account of the flood story, causing an ecclesiastical and scientific sensation in both Britain and France, even greater than that of Layard’s time.
Public interest in Mesopotamia was renewed. The flood texts were viewed by the public at the British Museum with great interest. Assyriology was now viewed as a sword to pierce the emerging German school of’Higher Criticism’, which was seen to be undermining the authority of the Old Testament.
27 Smith was offered funding to find the missing portion of the tablet back in northern Iraq. Although the Bible had had priority as having the oldest records of humanity, this new-found deluge text clearly delineated a problem.
28 How was there an earlier version of the Holy Text? Did it no longer have chronological priority? Smith refrained from providing his own interpretation. Was this just a later perverted version from a different religious system, or the origin of all flood stories? In retrospect, these issues ultimately caused the public to be wary of the Assyriology, a discipline which was not regarded as being encumbered with the authority of Scripture.
It is at this point that the two disciplines began to drift further apart (Tadmor 1985: 265). Hebrew scholars began to suspect many of the Assyriologist’s translations of texts. Based upon the cumulative effect of Assyriological discoveries and finds in other fields, the British resistance to biblical criticism was weakened (Kraeling 1955: 92). 27. Wiseman 1962: 11; Saggs 1999: 78.
Many of these scholars, such as J. Wellhausen and R. Smith, were Semiticists who were drawn to biblical comparisons with Arabic studies, rather than Assyriology.
8. Smith 1876. B. Denys, in a review of Smith’s work (The Chaldean Account of Genesis [London: Thomas Scott, 1877]), was one of the few who appreciated the seriousness of the issue.CHAVALAS Assyriology and Biblical Studies 29 Smith’s successors in the British Museum continued in his tradition of looking for biblical parallels.
W. Boscawen caused a public excitement by claiming that many of the difficulties in the book of Daniel, including the identity of Darius the Mede, had been cleared up.
29 Another Assyriologist interested in biblical connections was A.H. Sayce, an Anglican priest who was a prolific writer who periodically attempted to prove historical details of the Old Testament from Assyrian and Babylonian sources.30 Sayce identified Nimrod with Gilgamesh, and while others identified from cuneiform sources the kings who fought with Abraham in Genesis 14.
Others who were influenced by Smith were T. Pinches (1902), and indirectly S.R. Driver (1904), C.H.W. Johns (who became interested in Assyriology as a boy by reading the works of G. Smith [see Johns 1914]), A.T. Clay (1915; 1922), and L.W. King.31 We are even told by Wallis Budge that one wealthy banker paid an Assyriologist a retaining fee to look for biblical parallels (Budge 1925: 271).
Many imaginary parallels concerning creation (see Delano 1985), paradise,32 the fall of man, Cain and Abel, and the Tower of Babel were reputedly found.33 At any rate, by the end of the nineteenth century, Sayce was confident to say that the ‘wave of historical skepticism’ was ending before its spirit and principles had influenced popular thought (Sayce 1894b).
American involvement (which was slow in manifesting itself)34 in the Near East stemmed profoundly from its interest in the historical veracity of the Bible and its interest in Semitic studies (see Brown 1888-89; 1909).
In fact, the American Oriental Society was formed in 1842, just about the 29. Boscawen’s best known work was Boscawen 1903. 30. E.g. see Sayce 1885; 1888; 1891; 1894a; 1895; 1907. 31. King 1918. For a study of King’s impact on biblical and Assyriological studies, see Smith 1968. 32. E.g. see Neuman 1876: 66-67. Neuman, an American doctor of divinity, was convinced that ‘disentombing’ the dead past would go far to strengthen the faith of the weak and to dissipate the doubts of others (see Larsen 1992).
33. Observe the full title of Smith’s work; The Chaldean Account of Genesis containing the Description of the Creation, Fall of Man, the Deluge, the Tower of Babel, the Times of the Patriarchs, and Nimrod; Babylonian Fables, and Legends of the Gods; from the Cuneiform Inscriptions (Smith 1876).
34. Kildahl (1959: 194-212) argues that the Americans were too preoccupied with domestic concerns until after the Civil War. There were only a handful of works describing the relationship of the new finds to the Bible; e.g. Davis 1852; Kidder 1851; Ward 1870; Tufton 1874; Merrill 1885.
For an recent overview of American involvement in the Near East, see Kuklick 1996.30 Mesopotamia and the Bible same time as Botta’s excavations. A large number of relics were sent to the US by American missionaries who lived in the Near East. Many of these items ended up in religious institutions, which provided a religious context for their interpretation.
35 Nathaniel Schmidt, a professor at Colgate Divinity School, was actually put on trial for heresy and dismissed, as many of his translations and interpretations of cuneiform texts were considered contrary to Scripture.
36 Many Americans went to Germany to study Assyriology with F. Delitzsch, since there was no chair of Assyriology in either America or Great Britain.
These included Hilprecht (1903),37 F. Brown (the first to teach Akkadian in America),38 G. Barton,39 and M. Jastrow (1914), while W.F. Albright40 and R.W. Rogers (1908) studied with the German P. Haupt in the US41; all wrote of the connections of the two fields. Brown, along with Driver, took issue with Sayce’s uncritical view that Scripture had been confirmed by the findings of archeology (Brown 1896: 67; 35. E.g. Andover Theological Seminary, Episcopal Seminary (Alexandria, VA), and Auburn Theological Seminary; see Merrill 1885.
Other religious schools which taught Akkadian included Baptist Theological Seminary (Newton Centre, MA), Protestant Episcopal Seminary (Philadelphia, PA), and the Summer School of Hebrew (Chicago, IL); see Adler 1887. 36. Schmidt left Colgate for Cornell in 1896, where he was able to flourish under markedly different circumstances; see Bishop 1962:327. Later on during his tenure at Cornell, Schmidt suffered persecution, not because of heretical’ Assyriological views, but because he refused to buy Liberty bonds during World War I (p. 429). 37.
Hilprecht taught Old Testament theology at the University of Erlangen in Germany and came to Philadelphia in 1886 to become the editor of the Sunday School Times (see the discussion in Meade 1974: 35-37.
38. At Union Theological Seminary at New York, beginning in 1880. For his work on bridging the two disciplines, see Brown (1891), where he warned theologians not to discount the factual discoveries made by Assyriology nor to cause these facts to be fit into the corresponding biblical model.
Brown, like W.F, Albright later, eventually devoted more time to Hebrew studies. 39. Barton 1916 was immensely popular and was reprinted many times. 40. It will be remembered that the great orientalist Albright began his career in Assyriology, and was somewhat skeptical of the historicity of the biblical traditions: see Long 1993. His unpublished doctoral dissertation was on the Assyrian flood account (1916a). Many of his early articles were assyriological in nature; e.g. 1915; 1916b. 41. See Meade 1974. Haupt was editor of The Sacred Books of the Old Testament (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1893-1904), where he assembled scholars to do critical editions of Old Testament books.CHAVALAS Assyriology and Biblical Studies 31 Driver 1909; Sayce 1894a).
Brown, however, was a positivist when it came to the historicity of Scripture in its relationship with the Assyrian texts: When an Assyrian statement can be equally well explained in two different ways, we have the right, and are bound, as we should be in all historical study, to take that explanation which harmonizes with a corresponding Biblical statement (Brown 1891: 23).
With the impetus of de Sarzec’s spectacular finds at Tello in the 1880s, the American Oriental Society, Archeological Institute of America, and the Society of Biblical Literature all began lobbying for an American expedition to Babylonia.
A number of scholars (acting on their own, and not as representatives of any of the societies) came together to organize an expedition that would find material that supported contemporary interpretations of the Old Testament (Ward 1886:5).
A team was assembled to dig at Nippur in southern Mesopotamia, headed by the Reverend J. Peters and the German trained Assyriologist H.V. Hilprecht. Though the two did not always see eye to eye, the expeditions (1889-1900) collected thousands of texts which continue to be housed at the University Museum of the University of Pennsylvania and studied by Assyriologists
.42 The French finds at Susa of the Code of Hammurabi about this time also spurred interest in biblical parallels (see Cook 1904). Assyriology was also beginning to flourish in the late nineteenth century in Italy, Scandinavia, and Holland (Budge 1925: 241-44). The Germans also showed an interest in making biblical connections with the Near East by at least 1880.43 E. Schrader published Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament (1885-88), a model of thorough scholarship that helped lead to the founding of the Deutsche Orient Gesellschaft (German Oriental Society) in 1898,44 which led to the German excavations in Babylon and Assur. We are told that ‘every student of Hebrew or of Assyrian consulted it, every Old Testament commentator quoted from it or made reference to it’ (see Rogers 1912: xvii). Thus, it led many to be interested in biblical comparisons. In particular, H. Gunkel attacked the recent arguments of J. Wellhausen for the late dating of 42. See Hilprecht 1908; and Peters 1899. See the recent evaluation of the controversy in Kuklick 1996: 123-40. 43. For German (esp. in Berlin) work in the Near East, see Renger 1979. Schrader published a volume on Israelite prehistory as early as 1863. Also see Delitzsch 1881. 44. One of its purposes was to elucidate the world of the Bible;
see Larsen 1987: 102.32 Mesopotamia and the Bible Genesis 1 by showing close parallels with it and Babylonian mythology,45 while F. Hommel (1897) studied comparative traditions of Israel and Babylonia.46 By the end of the nineteenth century Old Testament scholars still ignored much of the textual material that might have put Babylonian civilization in a good light.
They naively argued for the great superiority of Hebrew monotheism. But the Assyriologists fought back and defended the ethical and spiritual system of Babylonia, and even its ethical superiority. F. Delitzsch47 argued against the high-handed manner with which his subject was viewed by Old Testament scholars.
48 Some argued that many Hebrew ideas actually originated in Mesopotamia and were borrowed by Israel. Much of this is understandable, if one realizes that before this, Assyriology had been seen as less than an auxiliary science of Old Testament and classical antiquity studies (see Zimmern 1889).
The idea of Babylonian primacy was perfected by Delitzsch in 1902-1903.49 In his lectures, he argued that Israel could only be studied in light of Babylonia, and in fact Israelite civilization was derived from Babylonia.
Thus, comparative analysis was ultimately not productive, since Babylonia was the source of Hebrew civilization. He then argued that many Babylonian features were still clung to by the Judeo-Christian religious tradition (by way of the Old Testament).
Thus, in a series of lectures, Assyriology went from an innocent scholarly pursuit to a discipline that had direct relevance to modern religion. Delitzsch also claimed that the divine name Yahweh was found in the Hammurabi code.
50 In the second lecture, Delitzsch argued against the divine inspiration of Scripture, went so far as to say that the Old Testament had dubious relevance for Christianity, and claimed
45. Gunkel 1885. Gunkel took issue with Wellhausen’s isolationist view, as he refused to recognize the influence of Egypt and Mesopotamia upon Israelite literature.
46. Also done by the Dutch; e.g. Eerdmans 1891. 47. Budge (1925:289) tells us that Delitzsch ‘had heard a supernatural voice which assured him that he was to be George Smith’s successor’. One can only assume that it was Enki, the friend of humankind. 48. He also had an antipathy for the Old Testament; see the discussion by Finkelstein 1958: 432. 49. Delitzsch 1902. There have been numerous discussions by Assyriologists and others of Delitzsch’s famous lectures. In the early years, see e.g., Kittel 1903; Hommel 1902; Jensen 1902; and D. Gunkel 1903. For more recent reviews, see e.g., Finkelstein 1958; Reventlow 1983; Ebach 1986: 26-44; Huffinon 1987; Johanning 1988; Lehnmann 1994; and Larsen 1995. 50. Since disproved, see Huffmon 1971.CH AVAL AS Assyriology an d Biblical Studies 33 that Jesus was a Galilean and not even a Semite.51 He also countered that the Old Testament was intellectually inferior to the Babylonian tradition. Predictably, the religious communities in Germany, Great Britain, and the US reacted negatively to his lectures.
H. Gunkel (1904) complained about his naivety in knowledge of biblical interpretation and the history of religion. However, biblical scholars could not argue with him concerning Assyriological matters. Others vehemently argued against the idea of the ethical inferiority of the Old Testament, but primarily from doctrinal rather than strictly academic grounds.52 The third lecture bordered on antiSemitism, as Delitzsch emphasized the non-Semitic roots of Mesopotamian civilization. Delitzsch went so far as to say that, since the Old Testament was entirely superfluous to the Christian church, one should rather read German cultural folk epics. He even advocated replacing the Old Testament with W. Schwaner’s Germanen-Bibel cms heiligen Schriften germanischer Volker, which was a compilation of German folk traditions and theological ideas (Schwaner 1910).
In fact, the Israelite Scriptures should no longer be considered as stemming from divine revelation, since they did not stand up to the scrutiny of science and scholarship. Those who continued to believe in the Scriptures were steeped in ignorance and apathy. Moreover, he was explicit in his defense of German nationalism, and the fact that those Germans who studied the tablets and excavated on the mounds of Mesopotamia did it for ‘Germany’s honor’. Most scholars, however, did not argue with his thesis directly. Delitzsch did show that the Babylonians had reached a high level of ethical and spiritual thought.
Although many of his arguments can easily be refuted today (e.g. the Babylonian connections with the (Hebrew Sabbath), they could not be so at the turn of the century because of an imprecise knowledge of Akkadian.
The biblical scholars refused to appreciate Babylonian religion on its own terms and merits (see Finkelstein 1958: 438). The famous German New Testament scholar A. Harnack (1903) said that Delitszch had said nothing new, although the general public was now part of the debate.
The response of the Assyriologists was to be very cautious and circumspect; in fact, most withdrew from the public scene.
Delitzsch, however, was profoundly influential in the field because he trained many German, British, and American Assyriologists, including, R.F. Harper, D.G. Lyon, R.W. Rogers (1912), P. Haupt, C. Bezold, P. Jensen, and H. Zimmern.
51. For this treatment, see Davies 1975. 52. See Skinner 1910; even the Assyriologist Heidel (1946) indirectly hinted at the inferiority of Babylonian religion.
34 Mesopotamia and the Bible Delitzsch’s lectures had an impact not only on Assyriology and biblical studies but on critical theology as well (Larsen 1995:97).
The triumphant view that Assyriology and its discoveries had vindicated the biblical record and its historicity had been permanently marred.
After all, Israel was only a small part of a much larger ancient Near Eastern world that had constant interaction with each other (see Winckler 1906a: 15). Delitzsch made public the views of many Assyriologists, who now espoused to a school of thought called ‘Pan-Babylonianism’, championed by H. Winckler, who argued that all world myths were reflections of Babylonian astral religion which had developed about 3000 BCE.
53 H. Zimmern argued that the Babylonian creation epic was an older version of the New Testament and that the story of Christ’s passion was nothing but a repetition of the ‘myth of Bel-Marduk of Babylon’ , 54 P. Jensen argued that the Mesopotamian myths (Gilgamesh in particular) were the foundation for all world folk tales, including the Bible (Jensen 1890; 1906; 1924).
In fact, the Kaiser himself jumped on the ‘Babel bandwagon’ and argued that Jesus was a non-Jew who actually opposed the message of the Old Testament.
Other German scholars at the turn of the century argued for all cosmology and other items coming from Babylon.55 Delitzsch himself continued to hold to his views (Delitzsch 1920; 1921).
The Pan-Babylonians, however, were considered indiscriminate in their hypotheses, and most of their extreme ideas were rejected by both biblical and Assyriological scholars.
56 Pan-Babylonism did leave its mark to some extent on biblical studies. For example, Old Testament scholars such as H. Gunkel57 and A. Jeremias (1911) began to examine literary types in the Old Testament in the light of Mesopotamian literature.
Babel undBibel, and other issues in 1906b; 1906c; 1907b. 56. E.g. Schmidt 1908 and Kugel 1910. Clay (1890) led the charge to discredit Pan-Babylonism in America. 57. Though Gunkel complained about the extreme methods of Delitzsch, he took advantage of using Mesopotamian literary themes to understand the Old Testament; see Gunkel 1904.CHAVALAS Assyriology and Biblical Studies 35 began to accept the fact that the Bible could be studied in the context of the ancient Near East (see Kittel 1921; Gressman 1924).
Thus, the massive corpus of Assyriological literature began to be used to illuminate the entirety of ancient Near Eastern culture, not just ad hoc Old Testament literary and historical problems.
58 By the 1920s Assyriologists began to de-emphasize the theme of origins, and were now intent to stress the distinctive elements of Mesopotamian civilization.
59 Thus, they attempted to assert their autonomy,60 calling for the study of Mesopotamia for its own sake.61 B. Landsberger argued that any culture is conceptually autonomous (like the great German thinker Johann Herder)62 and would be misunderstood if viewed from the concepts of another culture.63 But Landsberger understood that because of the sheer amount of textual material the Assyriologist has at his/her disposal, they have rarely been afforded the time to reflect upon their discipline and determine its long-term goals.
At any rate, the Assyriologist has left undefined its relationship with biblical studies, let alone its relationship to world history (Wiseman 1962).
Ur The 1920s also saw a flurry of spectacular discoveries in Mesopotamia that appeared to have relevance to the Bible. At the site of Ur (the biblical Ur of the Chaldees), C.L. Woolley, a follower of Sayce (rather than S.R. Driver), was not only convinced he had found the city of Abraham (Woolley 1936), but also believed he had found the biblical flood, which he announced to the world in 1929.
He was contrasted by the Assyriologist S. Langdon, who argued that the flood deposits found at Kish more closely resembled that mentioned in the Gilgamesh epic (Woolley 1930).
These 58. See the discussion by Saggs 1969: 13. 59. Although see Hehn 1913; Stummer 1922; and Bonkamp 1939. 60.
Still, some comparative studies of Israel and Mesopotamia continued: e.g. Ermoni 1910 and Castellino 1940. 61. E.g. Landsberger 1926; even Landsberger (1967) occasionally wrote on biblical comparisons; as did his colleague, Poebel 1932. 62. Even Herder had dreamt of the rediscovery of the ancient Near East for the purposes of understanding the origins of European civilization; see the discussion in Larsen 1987: 96-97. 63. Oppenheim (1977: 21-22) has echoed this concern about scholars who have attempted to connect Assyriological data with the Old Testament in some acceptable way, and others who find haphazard comparisons.
36 Mesopotamia and the Bible ideas have spawned many articles which have discussed the flood’s historicity (or lack thereof).
64 Nuzi The cuneiform texts discovered at the excavations at Nuzi (1925-31) have long been a mine of comparative information for the Old Testament.65 E. Chiera, the first director of the Nuzi excavations had received a Bachelor of Divinity and Master of Theology from Crozer Theological Seminary, and was thus sensitive to these issues. Furthermore, R.H. Pfeiffer, also one of the Nuzi directors, was educated at the Theological School of Geneva and received a Bachelor of Divinity from the University of Geneva in 1915. Very soon after their discovery, there was a flurry of scholarship observing the striking putative parallels to the biblical Patriarchs in the socio-economic and legal spheres.66 The consensus was that the two also must have shared the same chronological proximity. However, in the past generation there has been no consensus as to the relative importance of the Nuzi material for biblical studies, especially with the impetus of the publication of other Nuzi texts.
67 There has been a re-evaluation,68 and some have rejected any Nuzi connections to the Bible altogether.69 However, the academic pendulum has swung back to the middle, with what B. Eichler calls a ‘more sobering and responsible attitude toward the usefulness and importance of the Nuzi tablets and the Bible’ (Eichler 1989:107-19).
Though the Nuzi-biblical parallels cannot solve chronological issues, they are a source of documentation for the socio-economic practices in Mesopotamia, which will help illuminate biblical law and practices (Selman 1983; Eichler 1989: 107-19).
Thus, many have agreed with the rules of comparative method listed by W.M. Clark (1977: 143), although there are still many concerns about biblical 64. See Mallowan 1964; Raikes 1966.
However, there are skeptics (Lenzen 1964) and those who hold to the symbolic meaning of the flood (Kilmer 1972; Carter 1977). 65. View the preliminary statements by S. Smith 1926. 66. E.g. S. Smith 1932; Chiera 1932-33; Ginsberg and Maisler 1933; Mendelsohn 1935; Gordon 1935a; 1935b; 1935c; 1935d; 1936; 1937; 1940; Burrows 1937; 1940; Lewy 1938; 1939; 1940; Speiser 1938; 1940; 1964; 1955; 1967; Albright 1961. 67. See the discussion in Eichler 1989: 112. 68. Beginning with de Vaux 1949; Greenberg 1962; Van Seters 1968; 1969; MulloWeir 1967-68; 1967; and Freedman 1970. 69. Van Seters 1975:65-103; Thompson 1974: 196-297; 1978. Also, see Thompson’s most recent work 1999.CHAVALAS Assyriology and Biblical Studies 37 connections (Morrison 1983).
Other text collections (e.g. from Alalakh and Emar) show that the Nuzi customs may have been common throughout a wide chronological and geographic range, while others have argued that first millennium BCE customs are more relevant for the biblical sphere (or not relevant at all).
70 Ugarit Arguably, over the past 70 years there has been more written concerning the relationship of Ugarit and the Bible than any other single SyroMesopotamian site. The first generation saw a flurry of activity to show numerous parallels with Ugarit and the Bible, both real and imagined, as P. Craigie has noted.
71 There was the usual novelty of studying newly found materials that led to hasty conclusions (Craigie 1979a), but on the whole there was not much excess in comparative studies.
72 There were, however, specific studies that elucidated comparisons between Psalm 29 and selections of Ugaritic poetry,73 although many have seen these connections as more complicated than first supposed (Fensham 1963a; Craigie 1972; 1979b).
Ginsberg (1945) also saw a comparison with Deut. 14.21 and an Ugaritic text that had a line that Virolleaud translated ‘cook a kid in milk’ (Virolleaud 1933), although some have argued that this connection is tenuous (Craigie 1977a).
By the 1960s new developments arose. New mythical and liturgical texts from Ugarit were discovered that initially raised excitement among comparative scholars (see Gray 1978). However, some argued that the connections between the two were ambiguous at best, and problematic (see Smith 1952). M. Dahood argued that the Hebrew language had to be relearned in light of new data from Ugarit.
74 But, over the years, many have claimed that a ‘Pan-Ugaritism’ has 70. Again, see Van Seters 1968; 1975; and Thompson 1974. 71. Albright (1966: 6-7) was at the forefront of this. 72. See Jack 1935; de Vaux 1937; Baumgartner 1938; 1940; 1941; 1947; Dussaud 1937; de Langhe 1945; Patton 1944; Ginsberg 1945; andCoppens 1946. Later surveys include Rainey 1965; Kapelrud 1965; Jacob 1960; Pfeiffer 1962; Gray 1957; 1978; Barker 1976; Mihalic 1981; Gazelles 1985; O’Connor 1987; and Loretz 1990a. 73. Ginsberg (1938) theorized about the idea that Ps. 29 was originally a Phoenican hymn. This was substantiated by Gaster 1946-47; Cross 1950; Freedman 1972. 74. Dahood 1962; 1966-70; 1968; and numerous articles in 1972-81. For a recent critique of Dahood’s comparisons, see Loretz 1972; 1987; 1990b; Talmon 1978b; Schroer 1980; Caquot 1988; Curtis 1994; and Barr 1994.
38 Mesopotamia and the Bible resulted,75 primarily because of the large Claremont project directed by L. Fisher (Fisher et al. 1972-81) and the large amount of works by Dietrich and Loretz.76 The past 30 years has seen a reasoned analysis of comparisons in many areas.
77 Craigie has argued that the literary comparisons of Ugarit and Israel are flawed since the two traditions used different literary forms (Fisher and Knutson 1969; Craigie 1971). Others have argued against the comparative school of Dahood (Stuart 1976). Still, comparative analysis of poetic imagery (e.g. Watson 1976; Cross 1973: 112-44; Craigie 1974; 1978), parallel word pairs (Cassuto 1971: 25-32), and poetic meter continue (Gibson 1978:140; Loretz and Kottsieper 1987). J. Barr (1968) has urged caution for the use of Ugaritic to establish new etymologies for Hebrew. Others have argued a connection of feudalism in Ugarit and in the Bible (see Gray 1952).
There have been many comparisons of Ugaritic and Hebrew religion, most of which emphasized the undeniable contrasts between the two, but later studies have shown a continuity between them.78 Hebrew Poetry and Ugaritic connections have been studied by Albright (1944) and his students.79 At any rate, the recent works on Ugarit and the Bible are numerous
.80 Mori Mari is a prime example of the need of caution of the use of the comparative method, since interesting comparisons can often lead to shallow or extreme conclusions. Both W.F. Albright (1956:256) and A. Parrot, the great excavator of Mari (the son of a Lutheran minister and devout in his own right), succumbed to making direct but ultimately unconvincing connections between the Mari population and the Patriarchs, and the tribe 75. Criticized by de Moor and van der Lugt 1974; Craigie 1977b; Donner 1967; and Held 1974. 76. Ugarit Forschungen and Alter Orient undAltes Testament. 77. For a comparison of the literary relationships, see Craigie 1971; and Healey 1984. 78. Kaiser 1962; Habel 1964; Clifford 1972; Schmidt 1966; Miller 1973; Albright 1968; van der Toorn 1991; L’Heureux 1974; de Moor and Sandars 1991. 79. Cross and Freedman 1948; 1950; Cross 1955; 1968; 1973; Freedman 1976; and Robertson 1972. 80. Curtis 1985; Craigie 1983; Brooke, Curtis and Healey 1994; Pope 1994; and Petersen 1998. A recent ASORPlenary Session in Orlando, Florida (18 November 1998) featured A.R. Millard and D. Pardee speaking on the subject of ‘Ugarit and the Bible’.CHAVALAS Assyriology and Biblical Studies 39 Benjamin, in particular.81 Parrot, however, did revitalize biblical archeology for the French-speaking public in a way not seen since Botta. Since the commencement of the publication of Man texts after World War II, and because of the connection of Man being in the reputed homeland of the patriarchs (Gibson 1962; Mathews 1981; 1986), there have been numerous examples of comparative research in the field of personal names (e.g. Jean 1954), tribal organization (Malamat 1962; 1968), rituals (Speiser 1958), and other various Israelite customs (Gazelles 1967; Malamat 1973). One of the most discussed comparisons are the Man prophetic texts.82 However, E. Noort has argued that the relationship between the two prophetic traditions is ambiguous at best.83 But the Israelite and Mari material need to be seen as two separate corpora, even if similar (Malamat 1989:27-29). He advocates a typological or phenomoenological method. Efforts should be concentrated on examining typical phenomena, seeking out common sets of concepts and practices and institutions.
One must not forget the immense chronological gap between the two corpora. When such similarities are seen in aggregate, they cannot simply be seen as representing common patterns of human nature.84 Proper comparisons also involve the contrasting approach. The very nature of the source material is fundamentally different, as the Mari texts are first hand daily material, while the biblical text has been processed, and composed later than its events (see Malamat 1983).
As with Ugarit, there are many current studies on the relationship of Mari and the Bible.85 Alalakh When Woolley began working at Alalakh in 1937, he was interested in finding evidence of cultural connections between Syria and the eastern Mediterranean area.86
Though not directly related to the Bible, the Alalakh 81. Parrot 1950; 1954; 1962; 1967. Mari had been a site of major concern for biblical scholars soon after the commencement of the excavations; see Bea 1940. 82. Among the more recent are: Schult 1966; Huffrnon 1968; Buss 1969; Moran 1969; Ross 1970; Craghan 1975; Ellermeier 1977; Schmitt 1982; Sasson 1983; Malamat 1987; Parker 1993; and Barstad 1993. 83. Noort 1977; and the review by Sasson 1980. 84. On the comparative approach, see Gelb 1980; Millard 1983; and Lemaire 1985. 85. See the ‘Table ronde sur Mari et la Bible’, in RA 92.1-2 (1998) and 93.1 (1999); and Malamat 1998. 86. The excavations were from 1937-39 and 1946-^9; see Woolley 1955, and a more popular account, Woolley 1953
.40 Mesopotamia and the Bible material has been considered to shed light on the greater Syro-Palestinian context of the Bible (see Tsevat 1958).
The ubiquitous Habiru have also been found there, but are viewed as an important mercenary class in the Alalakh texts. This term, of course, has been compared to the biblical term Hebrew on many occasions.87 Moreover, some Assyriologists have argued that the biographical inscription of Idrimi appears to anticipate the biographical stories of Joseph and David (Oppenheim 1955; Buccellati 1962), and has even been compared to the Jepthah story in Judges 11,88 At any rate, the Alalakh material has been considered a valuable source of comparative (and contrastive) material (see Wiseman 1967). Like Nuzi, the customs (e.g. marriage contracts) at Alalakh have been compared to the Patriarchal periods, although it is admitted that the parallels from Alalakh are less clear (Hess 1994:204).
Certainly, the connection of Alalakh hupsu (‘poor’) with Hebrew hopsi (‘poor’) is vague at best (Hess 1994: 208- 209). As with Nuzi, J. Van Seters has rejected the Alalakh comparisons with the Patriarchal narratives (Van Seters 1975:100-103). R. Hess in this volume argues that the cumulative weight of comparisons with the Bible shows a common cultural milieu for both. He argues that we need to view Alalakh comparisons on a case by case basis (Hess 1994: 199-215).
Ebla No Syro-Mesopotamian site in recent memory has appealed to the religious sensibilities of those interested in biblical studies more than Tell Mardikh/Ebla.89 The Italians under, P. Matthiae, labored there for over 12 years before they uncovered a large cache of cuneiform tablets in the room of a palace (1974-76).90 The epigrapher G. Pettinato (1980) called the script used there ‘proto-Canaanite’, a potential ancestor to biblical Hebrew.
For the next five years many exceptional and unsubstantiated claims were made about the significance of the Ebla texts and their relationship to the Bible, many of which came from those who had nevej seen the texts, or were not familiar with cuneiform.
Nonetheless, there was also much 87. There are numerous studies concerning the Habiru; Bottero 1954; Greenberg 1955; Loretz 1984a; and Na’aman 1986. 88. Greenstein and Marcus 1976:76-77. At any rate, the Alalakh material has been considered a valuable source of comparative (and contrastive) material. 89. For an overview of the controversies of Ebla and the Bible to 1979, see Bermant and Weitzman 1979. 90. General works on Ebla include, Matthiae 1981; and Pettinato 1981.CHAVALAS Assyriology and Biblical Studies 41 speculation among the scholarly world (Pettinato 1976; 1980; Freedman 1978). D.N. Freedman made his conclusions about the earlier historical context for the biblical patriarchs based upon unpublished Ebla tablets, which were preliminarily read by M. Dahood and Pettinato.91 Dahood made many preliminary statements concerning the connection between Ugaritic forms and Eblaite (e.g. the fact that Ebla sheds light on the Minor Prophets).
92 The present consensus is that Ebla has no bearing on the Minor Prophets, the historical accuracy of the biblical Patriarchs, Yahweh worship, or Sodom and Gomorrah (see Merrill 1983). Many of these preliminary analyses came into the popular press as truth, and thus great amounts of misinformation leaked to the public.93 The second epigrapher, A. Archi spent some effort in refuting many of the premises of Dahood and Pettinato, ignoring most of the sensationalism, primarily from the American press (Archi 1979; 1981). He argued that the supposed evidence for Yahweh at Ebla was questionable and ambiguous, and that the kings of Ebla were not anointed like the kings of Israel (contra Pettinato 1977), the function of Eblaite judges does not appear to be like that of Israel, there is no Genesis creation story (Pettinato 1977:231 -32), and Ebla place names do not easily correspond to the Bible names or the ‘cities of the plain’.94 The Eblaite connections with the Hebrew language are unclear.95 The excitement concerning the Ebla material has somewhat died down. In Pettinato’s more recent works there is still a discussion concerning biblical connections, primarily in the field of geography (Pettinato 1991: 179-80; Hallo 1992). The trend has been to exhibit the fact that Ebla has an importance all of its own as an incipient Old Syrian civilization at the advent of urbanism. Thus, in the past 15 years, only a miniscule amount of effort has been put to comparisons of Ebla and the Bible, compared to the large amount of work on the civilization of Ebla itself. This is preferable.96 91. Dahood and Pettinato 1982 (a large bibliography of newspaper and popular articles was compiled by M. O’Connor: 331-35); Dahood 1978; 1979; 1981a; 1982; 1984; and 1987. 92. Dahood 1983a; and Shea 1983. Greenfield (1988) argues that a little restraint would have stopped some of these extraordinary theories. 93. With the help of H. Shanks, editor of BARev. 94. Echoed by Biggs 1980. 95. Dahood 1978: 81-112. For a reasoned view of Ebla in its Palestinian context, see Vigano and Pardee 1984. 96. See for language, Dahood 1982; 1984; Miiller 1984; Baldacci 1987; Althann 1983. For religion, see Dahood 1981b; 1983b; Muller 1981; and Loretz 1984b.42 Mesopotamia and the Bible Emar Although it has not had the publicity of either Ebla, Man, or for that matter Ugarit, the texts of Emar may shed more light on biblical customs than do the other textual corpora. Emar is physically closer to Israel than any of the others. Emar was fated to be in the background of the Ebla controversies of the late 1970s and 1980s. The construction of the Tabqa Dam in Syria caused the Middle Euphrates site of Emar to be regarded as a salvage project, commenced by a French team in 1972 (see Margueron 1995). Six seasons of work were sandwiched into five years (1972-76; see Pitard 1996: 14). Nearly 2000 texts were found, most of which were published a decade later by D. Arnaud (1985-86). Thus, the excitement surrounding the other textual corpora has been slow in coming with Emar. The research concerning Emar and biblical studies has thus far been reasoned and tentative (see, e.g., Arnaud 1979; 1981; Tsukimoto 1989; Fleming 1995). This, however, in light of past experience, is likely to change. Emar was evidently not ever a great kingdom in its own right. The site of Imar was mentioned in both the Ebla and Man archives, and later became a Hittite protectorate in the Late Bronze Age. The relationship of Emar to biblical studies is, as D. Fleming says in this volume, most striking in the religious sphere. The concept of anointing is found at Emar, as the NIN.DINGER priestess is anointed on the first day of the festival (Fleming 1992). The Emar festivals have various requirements that may be compared to the Levitical regulations (Fleming 1995: 144), and the elements of the biblical festival system have some correspondence to the zukru calendar (Fleming 1995: 144; and his essay in this volume, see below). Emar also has the prophetic office ofnabu, already well known at Man (Fleming 1995: 145). Others have argued that the Emar inheritance texts bear a resemblance to the Nuzi material, and thus to Genesis 31 (see Huehnergard 1985), while still others claim that Emar ‘provides an empirical model for the Mesopotamian textual tradition, exemplifying the possibilities of transmission to Iron Age Israel’ (Hoskisson 1991:21-32).
B. Schmidt has recognized connections concerning the care of the dead at Emar and Israel (Schmidt 1992). Fleming concludes that Emar’s mixed urban and small-town Syrian communal life offers a closer social comparison for Israel that even Ugarit (Fleming 1995: 147). At any rate, Emar’s indigenous ritual texts represent a unique source of understanding ancient Syrian religions, with texts that are distinct from the Ugaritic corpus.CHAVALAS Assyriology and Biblical Studies 43 Synthesis The tendency in the last 30 years has been to overemphasize the importance of new discoveries to the Old Testament, and then when the flaws become obvious, approach comparative data from the standpoint of skepticism, causing many to completely ignore comparative material altogether (Roberts 1985:96).
Scholars have had difficulty between ‘paralellomania’ and isolating the culture in question. The comparative method has been attacked as a form of’pseudorthodoxzy’.97 One scholar who has attempted the middle ground between the comparative and contrastive methods is W.W. Hallo, who espouses a contextual method, which emphasizes both similarities (comparative) and differences (contrastive), also looking for diachronic and synchronic variations.98 Hallo’s goal, ‘is not to find the key to every biblical phenomenon in some ancient Near Eastern precedent, but rather to silhouette the biblical text against its wider literary and cultural environment’ (Hallo 1991: 24). Thus, we must not succumb either to ‘parallelomania’99 or to ‘parallellophobia’.100 Since World War II there has been an explosion of comparative studies of Israel and Mesopotamia from scholars of both fields. There have been a number of collections of primary source materials from the ancient Near East and their relationships to the Bible.101 The primary English volumes were compiled by J. Pritchard and others.102 Other works include general studies (Miiller 1991), literature,103 pictoral studies (Keel 1974; 1977; 97. M. Smith 1969 and even advocating a ‘contrasting’ method; Hallo 1977 but see the caveat by Roberts 1976. 98. Apparently first coined by Parker (1979-80) who emphasizes both simi larities (comparative) and differences (contrastive), also looking for diachronic and synchronic variations (Hallo 1980). Hallo has led four National Endowment for the Humanities Summer Seminars which have had this as its primary theme: SIC 1; SIC 2; SIC 3; SIC 4. See the review of S7C 1 by Pardee 1985; also see van der loom 1985. 99. Sandmel (1962) describes it as ‘that extravagance among scholars which first overdoes Hie supposed similarity in passages and then proceeds to describe source and derivation as if implying literary connection flowing in an inevitable or predetermined direction’, p. 1. 100. See the discussion of Ratner and Zuckerman 1986. 101. Since the publication of Winckler 1892; Gressman 1909; and Galling 1950. 102. Since 1945, see, DOTT; ANET; Beyerlin 1978; COS; and Matthews and Benjamin 1997. 103. Lambert 1954; Kramer 1959; Lowenstam 1980; Soil 1988; Walton 1989; and Gordon and Rendsberg 1997.44 Mesopotamia and the Bible 1978), women (Frymer-Kensky 1989; 1992; van derToorn 1994), sacrifice (Hallo 1987), religion,104 prophecy (H. Weippert 1985; Millard 1985), cosmology (Heidel 1946; 1951; Lambert 1965; Saggs 1978), law,105 treaties,106 hymns and psalms,107 wisdom,108 death and the afterlife (Lewis 1989; Tropper 1989; 1994), genealogies (Malamat 1968; Wilson 1977), and historical literature (Speiser 1957; Albrektson 1967; Younger 1990; and various contributions in FTH). Many have viewed the past century and a half of relations of Mesopotamia and the Bible to be cyclical in nature.109 Typically, there was a furor because of the announcement of a rumor that a large archive was found that had the potential of verifying the biblical text. Often, unverified statements were made by conservative Old Testament scholars who were concerned about the historicity of the text (which is not to say that the subject of historicity has no place in biblical studies). Of course, the publication of a selected portion of an archive causes excitement because of the supposed biblical parallels. However, the publication of a larger corpus permits the more precise contexts for many of these parallels, but the Assyriologist then shows the uniqueness of the area in question. The philologist begins to show that the linguistic parallels are superficial. It often takes time for the biblical scholar interested in parallels to appreciate the Assyriologist’s contributions. J. Sasson has promoted some goals that should be set forth before making biblical connections; what are the 104. de Fraine 1954; Draffkorn 1957; de Jonge 1959; Moran 1965; Gamper 1966; Weippert 1972; McKay 1973; Cogan 1974; Wright 1987; Gammie and Perdue 1990; Dietrich and Loretz 1992; Bottero 1993b; and van der Toorn 1997. 105. Szlechter 1954; Mendenhall 1954; Greenberg 1960; Yaron 1970; Paul 1970; Lambert 1972; Boecker 1980; van der Toorn 1985; Westbrook 1985; and Epstein 1986. 106. Other than Mendenhall (1955), most biblical scholars have either ignored or paid scant attention to Wiseman’s publication of the vassal treaties of Esarhaddon (Wiseman 1958). Mendenhall wrote before their discovery. This is in spite of the fact that Assyriologists have shown stark similarities between the treaties and Deut. 28 (Borger 1961; and Frankena 1965). See Fensham 1962; 1963b; Killers 1964; 1969; Weinfeld 1970; 1973; and McCarthy 1978. 107. A few works were devoted to this before World War II, e.g., Driver 1926; and Widengren 1936. More recent works include Dalglish 1962; Hallo 1968; Gerstenberger 1971; and Ferris 1992. 108. Noth and Winton Thomas 1955; Gray 1970; Cooper 1971; Sasson 1973; Waltke 1979; and Weinfeld 1988. 109. Sasson 1980: 128-30. Much of the remainder of the paragraph comes from Sasson, and Greenspahn 1991: 6.CHAVALAS Assyriology and Biblical Studies 45 differences in contexts? Are the texts in question the same literary genre? Is etymological kinship always useful in helping to make comparisons (Sasson 1980: 129)? I end this survey with an admonition from a prominent Assyriologist: We shall always have with us the third- and fourth-hand popularizers who will pound and mash significant additions to the fund of knowledge into an amorphous and misleading pabulum for the consumption of the semiliterate. The field of biblical history and archeology has had more than its fair share of treatment. But it is quite another thing for reputed scholars in the field to lend their own prestige and authority to similar endeavors… I believe that the first responsibility of such scholars after the requirements of their own researches is to inform the truly literate portion of the general public… of the very substantial gains made in recent decades toward our understanding of the Bible, and the world of which it was a part. And this must be done in a way that can inspire the confidence of the educated lay public in the methods and critical standards of biblical scholarship (Finkelstein 1958: 349). BIBLIOGRAPHY Adler, C. 1887 Albrektson, B. 1967 Albright, W.F. 1915 1916a 1916b 1944 1956 1961 1966 1968 Althann, R. 1983 Archi, A. 1979 1981 Arnaud, D. 1979 ‘Review of Les Langues perdues de la perse et de I’Assyrie’, Andover Review 8: 44. History and the Gods (Lund: C. W.K. Gleerup). ‘The Conclusion of Esarhaddon’s Broken Prism’, JAOS 35: 391-93. ‘The Assyrian Deluge Epic’ (PhD dissertation, The Johns Hopkins University). ‘The Eighth Campaign of Sargon’, JAOS36: 226-32. ‘The Oracles of Balaam, JBL 63: 207-33. The Archaeology of Palestine (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books). ‘Abram the Hebrew: A New Archaeological Interpretation’, BASOR 163: 36-54. New Horizons in Biblical Research (London: Oxford University Press). Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan (Garden City, NY: Doubleday). ‘Psalms 58,10 in the Light of Ebla’, Bib 64: 123-25. ‘The Epigraphic Evidence from Ebla and the Old Testament’, Bib 60: 556- 66. ‘Further Concerning Ebla and the Bible’, BA 44: 145-54. ‘Meskene-Emar et 1’Ancien Testament’, RHR 116-19.46 Mesopotamia and the Bible 1981 ‘La religion a Emar’, Le Monde de la Bible 20: 34. 1985-86 Recherches au pays d’Astata: Emar VI (Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations). Baldacci, M. 1987 Barker, K. 1976 Barnett, R. 1960 ‘Canning and Cuneiform: A Century of Assyriology’, The Museum Journal 60.8: 192-200. Barr, J. 1968 ‘The Eblaite PN ish-ta-mar dda-gan and Micah 6,16a’, AO 5: 144-46. ‘The Value of Ugaritic for Old Testament Studies’, BSac 133: 119-30. 1987 1994 Barstad, H. 1993 Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press). Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2nd edn). ‘Philology and Exegesis: Some General Remarks, with Illustrations from Job 3’, in C. Brekelmans (ed.), Questions disputees d’Ancien Testament (Leuven: Leuven University Press): 39-61. ‘No Prophets? Recent Developments in Biblical Prophetic Research and Ancient Near Eastern Prophecy’, JSOT 57: 39-60. Barton, G. 1916 Archeology and the Bible (Philadelphia: American Sunday-School Union). Baumgartner, W. 1938 ‘Ras Shamra Mythologie und biblische Theolgie’, TLZ 63: 153-56. 1940 ‘Ras Schamra und das Alte Testament’, TRu 12: 163-88. 1941 ‘Ras Schamra und das Alte Testament’, TRu 13: 1-20, 85-102. 1947 ‘Ugaritische Probleme und ihre Tragwiete fur das Alte Testament’, 7Z3: 81- 100. Bea, A. 1940 ‘Die Texte von Mari und das Alte Testament’, Bib 21:188-96. Bermant, C., and M. Weitzman 1979 Ebla: A Revelation in Archeology (New York: Times Books). Beyerlin, W. (ed.) 1978 Near Eastern Religious Texts Relating to the Old Testament (trans. J. Bowden; Philadelphia: Westminster Press). Biggs, R. 1980 Bishop, M. 1962 Boecker, H. 1980 Bonkamp, B. 1939 ‘The Ebla Tablets: an Interim Perspective’, BA 43: 76-87. A History of Cornell (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press). Law and the Administration of Justice in the Old Testament and Ancient East (London: SPCK; trans. ofRecht und Gesetz im Altes Testament und in altes Orient, 1976). Die Bibel im Lichte der Keilschriftforschung (Recklinghausen: G.W. Wisarius).CHAVALAS Assyriology and Biblical Studies 47 Bonomi, J. 1852 1869 Borger, R. 1961 Boscawen, W. 1903 Nineveh and its Palaces: The Discoveries ofBotta and Layard, Applied to the Elucidating of Holy Writ (London: Office of the Illustrated London Library). Nineveh and its Palaces: The Discoveries ofBotta and Layard, applied to the Elucidation of Holy Writ (London: Bell & Daldy, 2nd edn). ‘Zu den Asarhaddon-Vertragen aus Nimrud’, ZA 54: 173-%. The First of Empires: Babylon and the Bible in the Light of Latest Research (London: Harper). Botta, P.E. 1843-44 Lettres sur ses decouvertes a Nineve (Paris: Imprimerie Royale). Botta, P.E., and M.E. Flandin 1849-50 Monument de Ninive (5 vols.; Paris: Imprimerie Nationale). Bottero, J. 1954 Le probleme des Habiru (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale). 1986-92 Naissance de Dieu: La Bible et I’historien (Paris: Gallimard). 1992 Mesopotamia: Writing, Reasoning, and the Gods (trans. Z. Bahrani and M. van de Mieroop; Chicago: University of Chicago Press). 1993a Initiation a I ‘Orient ancient: De Sumer a la Bible (Paris: Gallimard). 1993b ‘Le modele babylonien de la Genese biblique’, L ‘Histoire 164: 14-22. 1994 Babylone et la Bible: entriens avec Helene Monsacre (Paris: Hachette). Brooke, G.J., A.H.W. Curtis and J.F. Healey (eds.) 1994 UB. Brown, F. 1888-89 1891 1896 1909 Buccellati, G. 1962 Budge, E.A. 1925 Burrows, M. 1937 1940 Buss, M. 1969 Caquot, A. 1988 Carter, E. 1977 ‘Semitic Studies in the Theological Seminary’, Hebraica 5: 86-88. Assyriology: Its Use and Abuse in Old Testament Study (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons). ‘Old Testament Problems’, JBL 15: 67. ‘Semitic Studies in America’, Johns Hopkins University Circular 3:240-59. ‘La “camera” di David e quella di Idrimi, re di Alalah’, BeO 4: 95-99. The Rise and Progress of Assyriology (London: Martin Hopkinson & Co., Ltd). The Complaint of Laban’s Daughters’, JAOS 57: 259-76. ‘The Ancient Oriental Background of the Hebrew Levirate Marriage’, BASOR11: 1-15. ‘Mari Prophecy and Hosea’, JBL 88: 338. ‘PsaumeLXXII 16’, VT38: 214-18. ‘The Babylonian Story of the Flood: An Archaeological Interpretation’, Bibliotheca Mesopotamia 1: 9-15.48 Mesopotamia and the Bible Cassuto, U. 1971 Castellino, G. 1940 Gazelles, H. 1967 1985 Chadwick, O. 1966 Chiera, E. 1932-33 Clark, W.M. 1977 Clay, A.T. 1890 1915 1922 Clifford, R. 1972 Cogan, M. 1974 Cook, S.A. 1904 Cooper, J. 1971 Coppens, J. 1946 Craghan, J. 1975 Craigie, P.C. 1971 1972 1974 1977a The Goddess Anath: Canaanite Epics of the Patriarchal Age (Jerusalem: Magnes Press). Le lamentazioni indiviuali e gli inni in Babilonia e in Israele (Torino: Societa Editrice Internazionale). ‘Mari et 1’ancien Testament’, La civilisation de Mari (RAI 15; Liege: G. Miegiers): 73-90. ‘Ugarit et la Bible’, BAT 1985: 244-47. The Victorian Church (London: A. & C. Black). ‘Habiru and Hebrews’, American Journal of Semitic Languages 49:115-24. ‘The Patriarchal Traditions’, in J. Hayes and J.M. Miller (eds.), Israelite and Judean History (Philadelphia: Westminster Press): 120-48. Amurru: The Home of the Northern Semites: A Study Showing that the Religion and Culture of Israel were not of Babylonian Origin (Philadelphia: Sunday School Times). Light on the Old Testament from Babylon (Philadelphia: The Sunday School Times Co., 4th edn). A Hebrew Deluge Story in Cuneiform and Other Epic Fragments in the Pierpont Morgan Library (YOS, 3/V; New Haven: Yale University Press). The Cosmic Mountain in Canaan and the Old Testament (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press). Imperialism and Religion: Assyria, Judah, and Israel in the Eighth and Seventh Centuries B.C.E. (Missoula: Scholars Press). The Laws of Moses and the Code of Hammurabi (New York: Macmillan, 1904). New Cuneiform Parallels to the Song of Songs’, JBL 90: 157-62. ‘Les paralleles du Psautier avec les textes de Ras Shamra-Ougarit’, Bulletin d’histoire et d’exegesis de ATI 8: 113-42. ‘Mari and its Prophets: The Contributions of Mari to the Understanding of Biblical Prophecy’, BTB 5: 32-55. “The Poetry of Ugarit and Israel’, TynBul 22: 3-31. ‘Psalm XXIX in the Hebrew Poetic Tradition’, FT 22: 143-51. “The Comparison of Hebrew Poetry: Psalm 104 in the Light of Egyptian and Ugaritic Poetry’, Semitics 4: 10-21. ‘Deuteronomy and Ugaritic Studies’, TynBul 28: 155-69.CHAVALAS Assyriology and Biblical Studies 49 1977b ‘Three Ugaritic notes on the Song of Deborah’, JSOT2: 33-49. 1978 ‘Deborah and Anat, A Study of Poetic Imagery (Judges 5)’, ZA W 90: 374- 81. 1979a ‘Ugarit and the Bible: Progress and Regress in 50 Years of Literary Study’, in G.D. Young (ed.), Ugarit in Retrospect: Fifty Years of Ugarit and Ugaritic (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns): 99-111. 1979b ‘Parallel Word Pairs in Ugaritic Poetry: A Critical Evaluation of their Relevance for Psalm 29’, UF 11: 135-40. 1983 Ugarit and the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans). Cross, P.M. 1950 ‘Notes on a Canaanite Psalm in the Old Testament’, BASOR 117:19-21. 1955 ‘The Song of Miriam’, JNES 14: 237-50. 1968 ‘Song of the Sea and Canaanite Myth’, JTS 5: 1-25. 1973 Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic (Cambridge: Harvard University Press). Cross, P.M., and D.N. Freedman 1948 ‘The Blessing of Moses’, JBL 67: 191-210. 1950 Studies in Ancient Yahwistic Poetry (Missoula: Scholars Press). Curtis, A.H.W. 1985 Ugarit: Ras Shamra (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans). 1994 The Psalms since Dahood’, UB: 1-10. Dahood, M. 1962 ‘Ugaritic Studies and the Bible’, Gregorianum 43: 55-79. 1989 Ugaritic-Hebrew Philology: Marginal Notes on Recent Publications (Rome: Biblical Institute Press). 1966-70 The Psalms (3 vols.; Garden City, NY: Doubleday). 1968 Ugaritic and the Bible (Paris: Desclee de Brouwer). 1975-81 in L. Fisher, et al., RSP, 1975-81. 1978 ‘Ebla: Ugarit, and the Old Testament’, in J.A. Emerton (ed.), Congress Volume: Gottingen, /977(VTSup, 29; Leiden: EJ. Brill): 81-112. 1979 ‘The Ebla Tablets and Old Testament Theology’, Theology Digest 27: 303- 11. 198 la ‘Ebla, Ugarit, and the Bible’, in G. Pettinato, The Archives of Ebla: An Empire Inscribed on Clay (Garden City, NY: Doubleday): 81-121. 1981b ‘The God JA at Ebla’, JBL 100: 607-608. 1982 ‘Eblaite and Biblical Hebrew’, CBQ 44: 1-24. 1983a ‘The Minor Prophets and Ebla’, in Studies Freedman: 41-61. 1983b ‘The Divine Designation in Eblaite and the Old Testament’, AION43: 193-99. 1984 ‘Hebrew Hapax Legomena in Eblaite’, in L. Cagni (ed.), // bilinguisimo a Ebla (Naples: Istituo Universitario Orientale): 439-70. 1987 ‘ Love and Death at Ebla and their Biblical Reflections’, Studies Pope: 93-99. Dahood, M., and G. Pettinato 1982 Dalglish, E. 1962 ‘Ebla and the Old Testament’, in T. Ishida (ed.), Studies in the Period of David and Solomon and Other Essays (Winona Lake, IN: Eiseubrauns): 309- 35 (bibliography by M. O’Connor, pp. 331-35). Psalm Fifty-One in the Light of Ancient Near Eastern Patternism (Leiden: E.J. Brill).50 Mesopotamia and the Bible Davies, A.T. 1975 Davis, A. 1852 Delano, J. 1985 Delitzsch, F. 1881 ‘The Aryan Christ: A Motif in Christian Anti-Semitism’ Journal of Ecumenical Studies 12: 569-79. Lecture on the Remarkable Discoveries Lately made in the East: as those of Nineveh, Persia, etc. (Buffalo: Phiriney). ‘The “Exegesis” of Enuma Elish and Genesis 1—1875-1975: A Study in Interpretation’ (PhD dissertation, Marquette University). Wo Lag das Parodies? eine biblisch-assyriologisch Studie (Leipzig: J.C.Hinrichs). 1902 Babel und Bibel (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs; trans. Babel and Bible [Chicago: The Open Court Publishing Co.]). 1906 Babel and Bible: Three Lectures on the Significance of Assyriological Research for Religion, Embodying the Most Important Criticisms and the Author’s Replies (Chicago: The Open Court Publishing Co.). 1920 Die Grosse Tauschung, I (Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt). 1921 Die Grosse Tauschung, II (Wurttemberg: Karl Rohm in Lorch). Dietrich, M., and O. Loretz 1992 ‘Jawhe und seine Aschera’: Anthropomorphes Kultbild in Mesopotamien, Ugarit und Israel. Das biblische Bildverbot (Munster: Ugarit-Verlag). Donner, H. 1967 ‘Ugaritismen in der Psalmenforschung’, ZAW79: 322-50. Draffkorn, A. 1957 ‘Ilani-Elohim’, JBL 76: 341-49. Driver, G.R. 1926 Driver, S.R. 1904 1909 Dussaud, R. 1937 Ebach, J. 1986 ‘The Psalms in the Light of Babylonian Research’, in D.C. Simpson (ed.), The Psalmists (Oxford: Oxford University Press): 109-73. The Book of Genesis (London: Metheun). Modern Research as Illustrating the Bible (London: Oxford University Press). Les decouvertes de Ras Shamra (Ugarit) et I’Ancien Testament (Paris: P. Geuthner; revised 1941). ‘Babel und Bibel oder: Das “Heidenische im Alten Testament”‘, in R. Farber and R. Schleisier (eds.), Die Restauration der Cotter: Antike Religion und Neo-Paganismus (Wurzburg: Konigshausen & Neumann): 26-44. Eerdmans, B.D. 1891 Melekdienst en vereringvan hemellischamen in Israel’s Assyrische periode (Leiden: Eduard Ijdo). Eichler, B. 1989 ‘Nuzi and the Bible: A Retrospective’, in Studies Sjoberg: 107-19. Ellermeier, F. 1977 Prophetie in Mart und Israel (GSttingen: Norten-Hardenberg; 2nd edn).CHAVALAS Assyriology and Biblical Studies 51 Epstein, L. 1986 Ermoni, N. 1910 Fensham, F.C. 1962 1963a 1963b Ferris, P.W. 1992 Finkelstien, J.J. 1958 SocialJustice in the Ancient Near East and the People of the Bible (London: SCM Press; trans, of La justice sociale dans le Proche-Orient ancient et le peuple de la Bible). La Bible et I’assyriologie (Paris: Bloud, 1910). ‘Malediction and Benediction in Ancient Near Eastern Vassal Treaties and the Old Testament’, ZAW14: 1-9. ‘Psalm 29 and Ugarit’, Studies on the Psalms (Potchefstroom: Pro Rege): 84-99. ‘Common Trends in Curses of the Near Eastern Treaties and Kudurru Inscriptions Compared with Maledictions of Amos and Isaiah’, ZAW15: 155-75. The Genre of Communal Lament in the Bible and the Ancient Near East (Atlanta: Scholars Press). ‘Bible and Babel: A Comparative Study of the Hebrew and Babylonian Religious Spirit’, Commentary 26: 431-44. Fisher, L., and F.B. Knutson 1969 ‘An Enthronement Ritual at Ugarit’, JNES 28: 157-67. Fisher, L., and S. Rummel (eds.) 1975-81 Fleming, D. 1992 1995 Fontan, E. (ed.) 1994 Fraine, J. de 1954 Frankena, H. 1965 RSP. The Installation of the Baal’s High Priestess at Emar: A Window on Syrian Religion (Atlanta: Scholars Press). ‘More Help from Syria: Introducing Emar to Biblical Study’, BA 58:139-47. De Khorsabad a Paris: le decouvertes des Assyriens (Paris: Reunion des Mus6es Nationaux). L ‘aspect religieux de la royaute Israelite: L ‘institution monarchique dans I’Ancien Testament et dans les textes mesopotamiens (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute). ‘The Vassal-Treaties of Esarhaddon and the Dating of Deuteronomy’, OTS 14: 122-54. Freedman, D.N. 1970 1972 1976 1978 ‘A New Approach to the Nuzi Sisterhood Contract’, JANESCU2: 77-85. ‘Psalm XXIX in the Hebrew Poetic Tradition’, VT22: 144-45. ‘Divine Names and Titles in Early Hebrew Poetry’, Studies Wright: 55-102. ‘The Real Story of the Ebla Tablets: Ebla and the Cities of the Plain’, BA 41: 143-64. Frymer-Kensky, T. 1992 In the Wake of the Goddesses: Women, Culture, and the Biblical Transformation of Pagan Myth (New York: Fawcett Columbine).52 Mesopotamia and the Bible 1989 ‘The Ideology of Gender in the Bible and the Ancient Near East’, Studies Sjoberg: 185-91. Galling, K. 1950 Textbuch zur Geschichte Israels (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr). Gammie, J., and L. Perdue (eds.) 1990 The Sage in Israel and the Ancient Near East (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns). Gamper, A. 1966 Gott als Richter in Mesopotamien undin Alten Testament: zum Verstdndnis einer Gebsbirte (Innsbruck: UniversitStsverlag Wagner). Gaster, T. 1946-47 ‘Psalm 29’, JQR 37: 55-65. Gelb, I.J. 1980 ‘Comparative Method in the Study of the Society and Economy of the Ancient Near East’, Rocznik Orientalistyczny 41: 29-36. Gerstenberger, E. 1971 Der bittende Mensch: Bittritual und Klageleid des Einzelnen im alten Testament (Heidelberg: Habil-Schrift). Gibson, J.C.L. 1962 ‘Light from Mari on the Patriarchs’, JSS 8: 44-62. 1978 Canaanite Myths and Legends (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 2nd edn). Ginsberg, H. 1938 ‘A Phoenician Hymn in the Psalter’, Atti delXIXCongresso Internazionale degli Orientalisti, 23-29 Settembre, 1935 (Rome: G. Bardi): 472-76. Ginsberg, H., and B. Maisler 1933 ‘Semitized Hurrians in Syria and Palestine’, JPOS 13: 243-67. Ginsberg, J. 1945 ‘Ugaritic Studies and the Bible’, BA 8: 41-58. Gordon, C.H. 1935a ‘A New Akkadian Parallel to Deuteronomy 25.1-12’, JPOS 15: 29-34. 1935b ‘ ‘Mm in its Reputed Meaning of Rulers, Judges’, JBL 54: 139-44. 1935c ‘Fratriarchy in the Old Testament’, JBL 54: 223-31. 1935d ‘Parallels nouziens aux lois et coutumes de 1’Ancien Testament’, RB 44: 34-41. 1936 ‘An Akkadian Parallel to Deuteronomy 21.Iff’, RA 33: 1-6. 1937 ‘The Story of Jacob and Laban in the Light of the Nuzi Tablets’, BASOR 66: 25-27. 1940 ‘Biblical Customs and the Nuzi Tablets’, BA 3: 1 -12. Gordon, C.H., and G. Rendsberg 1997 The Bible and the Ancient Near East (New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 4th edn). Gray, J. 1952 ‘Feudalism in Ugarit and Early Israel’, ZA W64: 49-55. 1957 The Legacy of Canaan (VTSup, 5; Leiden: E.J. Brill; 2nd rev. edn 1965). 1970 ‘The Book of Job in the Context of Ancient Near Eastern Literature’, ZAW 82:251-69. 1978 ‘Canaanite Religion and Old Testament Study in the Light of New Alphabetic Texts from Ras Shamra’, Ugaritica 1: 79-108.CHAVALAS Assyriology and Biblical Studies 53 Grayson, A.K. 1997 Greenberg, M. 1955 1960 1962 Greenfield, J. 1988 ‘The Resurrection of Ashur: A History of Assyrian Studies’, Assyria 1995: 105-14. The Hab/pint (New Haven: American Oriental Society). ‘Some Postulates of Biblical Criminal Law’, Studies Kaufmanir. 5-28. ‘Another Look at Rachel’s Theft of the Teraphim’, JBL 81: 239-48. ‘Review of Studies Freedman’, BASOR 262: 93-94. Greenslade, S. (ed.) 1963 Greenspahn, F. 1991 The Cambridge History of the Bible. III. The West from the Reformation to the Present Day (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). ‘Introduction’, in F. Greenspahn (ed.), Essential Papers on Israel and the Ancient Near East (New York: New York University Press): 7-8. Greenstein, E., and D. Marcus 1976 The Akkadian Inscription of Idrimi’, JANESCU 8: 76-77. Gressman, H. 1924 ‘Die Aufgabender alttestamentlichen Forschung’, ZAW42: 1-33. Gressman, H. (ed.) 1909 Gunkel, D. 1903 Gunkel, H. 1885 1904 Habel, N. 1964 Hahn, H. 1956 Hallo, W.W. 1968 1977 1980 1987 1991 1992 1996 Altorientalische Texte undBilder zum Alien Testament (2 vols.; Berlin: W. de Gruyter; 2nd edn 1926). ‘Babylonische und biblische Urgeschichte’, Die Christliche Welt 17:121-34. Schopfung und Chaos in Urzeit und Endzeit: eine religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung iiber Gen. 1 und AP Joh. 12 (G6ttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht). Israel and Babylon: The Influence of Babylon on the Religion of Israel (Philadelphia: J. McVey; trans, of Israel und Babylon: der Einfuss Babylonien aufdie israelitische Religion, 1903). Yahweh versus Baal (New York: Brookman Associates). The Old Testament in Modern Research (London: SCM Press). ‘Individual Prayer in Sumerian: The Continuity of a Tradition’, JAOS 88: 71-89. ‘New Moons and Sabbaths’, HUCA 48: 1-2. ‘Biblical History in its Near Eastern Setting: The Contextual Approach’, SIC 1: 1-26. ‘The Origins of the Sacrificial Cult: New Evidence from Mesopotamia and Israel’, in Studies Cross: 3-13. The Book of the People (Atlanta: Scholars Press). ‘Ebrium at Ebla1 , Eblaitica 3: 139-50. Origins: The Ancient Near Eastern Background of Some Modern Western Institution (Leiden: E.J. Brill).54 Mesopotamia and the Bible Harnack, A. 1903 Healey, J. 1984 Hehn, J. 1913 Heidel, A. 1946 1951 Held, M. 1974 Hess, R.S. 1994 Hillers, D. 1964 1969 1985 Hilprecht, H.V. 1903 1908 Hincks, E. 1850 1851 1851 1852 1853 1862a 1862b Hoefer, J.C. 1852 Letter to the Preussiche Jahrbuch on the German Emperor’s Criticism of Prof. Delitzsch’s Lectures on Babel und Bibel (London: Williams & Norgate). ‘The Immortality of the King: Ugarit and the Psalms’, Or 53: 245-54. Die biblische und die babylonische Gottesidee (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs). The Gilgamesh Epic and Old Testament Parallels (Chicago: University of Chicago Press). The Babylonian Genesis (Chicago: University of Chicago Press). ‘Hebrew Ma’gal: A Study in Lexical Parallelism’, JANESCU6: 107-14. ‘ Alalakh Studies and the Bible: Obstacle or Contribution?’, in Studies King: 199-215. Treaty-Curses and the Old Testament Prophets (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute). Covenant: The History of a Biblical Idea (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press). ‘Analyzing the Abominable: Our Understanding of Canaanite Religion’, JQR 75: 253-69. Explorations in Bible Lands (Philadelphia: A.J. Holman). The So-Called Peters-Hilprecht Controversy (Philadelphia: A.J. Holman, 1908). On the Khorsabad Inscriptions (Dublin: H. Gill). ‘Assyrian Antiquities’, The Athenaeum 1246: 977. ‘Nimrud Obelisk’, The Athenaeum 1251: 1384-85. ‘Nimrud Inscriptions’, The Athenaeum 1262: 26. in Layard, Discoveries in the Ruins of Nineveh and Babylon (London: J. Murray): 139. ‘Bible, History, and the Rawlinson Canon’, The Athenaeum 1810: 20-22. ‘Bible, History, and the Rawlinson Canon’, The Athenaeum 1813: 115-16. Chaldee, Assyrie, Medie, Babylonie, Mesopotamie, Phenicie, Palmyrene (Paris: Firmin Didot Freres). Hoerth, A., G. Mattingly, and E. Yamauchi (eds.) 1994 POTW. Hommel, F. 1897 The Ancient Hebrew Traditions as Illustrated by the Monuments: A Protest Against the Modern School of Old Testament Criticism (New York: E. & J.B. Young, trans, from German). 1902 Die altorientalischen Denkmdler und das Alte Testament: eine Erwiderung aufProf.Fr. Delitzsch ‘s ‘Babel und Bibel’ (Berlin: Deutsche Orient Mission).CHAVALAS Assyriology and Biblical Studies 55 Hoskisson, P. 1991 Huehnergard, J. 1985 Huffmon, H. 1968 1971 1987 Jack, J.W. 1935 Jacob, E. 1960 Jastrow, M. 1914 Jean,C. 1954 Jensen, P. 1890 1902 1906 1924 Jeremias, A. 1903 1904 1906 1911 Johanning, K. 1988 Johns, C.H.W. 1914 Jonge, H. de 1959 Kaiser, O. 1962 ‘Emar as an Empirical Model of the Transmission of the Canon’, SIC 4: 21-32. ‘Biblical Notes on Some New Akkadian Texts from Emar (Syria)’, CBQ 47: 428-34. ‘Prophecy in the Mari Letters’, BA 31: 101-24. ‘ Yahweh and Mari’, in Studies Albright: 283-90. ‘Babel und Bibel: The Encounter Between Babylon and the Bible’, in M. O ‘Connor and D.N. Freedman (eds.), The Backgrounds for the Bible (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns): 125-36. The Ras Shamra Tablets: Their Bearing on the Old Testament (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark). Ras Shamra-Ugaritet I’Ancien Testament (Neuchatel: Delechaux & Niestle). Hebrew and Babylonian Traditions: The Haskell Lectures Delivered at Oberlin College in 1913 (London: T. Fisher Unwin). ‘Les noms propres de personnes dans les lettres de Mari et dans les plus anciens textes du Pentateuque’, in La Bible et I’orient: 121-28. Assyrische-babylonische Mythen undEpen (Berlin: Reuther & Reichard). ‘Babel und Bible’, Die Christliche Welt 16: 487-94. Das Gilgamesch-Epos in der Weltliteratur (Strassburg: K.J. Trubner). Gilgamesch-Epos, jiidische Nationalsagen, llias und Odysee (Leipzig: E. Pfeiffer). Kampfe urn Babel und Bibel: ein Wort zur Verstandigung und Abwehr (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs). Die Panbabylonisten der alte Orient und die aegyptische Religion (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs). Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs). The Old Testament in the Light of the Ancient East (London: Williams & Norgate; trans, of Das Alte Testament im Lichte des Alten Orients). Der Babel-Bibei-Streit: Eineforschungsgeschichtliche Studie (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang). The Relations between the Laws of Babylonia and the Law of the Hebrew Peoples (London: H. Milford). Demonische ziekten in Babylon edde Bijbel (Leiden: E.J. Brill). Die mythische Bedeutung des Meeres in Aegypten, Ugarit und Israel (Berlin: Alfred TOpelmann).56 Mesopotamia and the Bible Kapelrud, A. 1965 Keel, O. 1974 1977 1978 Kidder, D. 1851 Kildahl, P. 1959 Kilmer, A. 1972 King, L.W. 1918 Kittel, R. 1903 1921 Kraeling, E. 1955 Kramer, S.N. 1959 Kraus, H. 1956 1969 Kugel, F. 1910 Kuklick, B. 1996 L’Heureux, C. 1974 Lambert, M. 1954 Lambert, W. 1965 1972 The Ras Shamra Discoveries and the Old Testament (Oxford: Basil Blackwell). Wirkmdchtige Siegeszeichen im Alten Testament (GQttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht). Jahwe-Visionen undSiegelkunst (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht). The Symbolism of the Biblical World (New York: Seabury). Nineveh and the River Tigris (New York: Lane & Scott). ‘British and American Reactions to Layard’s Discoveries in Assyria (1845- 1860)’ (PhD dissertation, University of Minnesota). ‘The Mesopotamian Concept of Overpopulation and its Solution as Reflected in the Mythology’, Or 41: 160-77. Legends of Babylon and Egypt in Relation to Hebrew Tradition (London: H. Milford). Die babylonischen Ausgrabungen und die biblische Urgeschichte (Leipzig: A. Deichert). ‘Die Zukunft der alttestamentlichen Wissenschaft’, ZAW39: 84-99. The Old Testament since the Reformation (London: Lutterworth Press). ‘Sumerian Literature and the Bible’, AnBib 12: 185-204. Geschichte der historisch-kritischen Erforschung des Alten Testaments (Neukirchen: Erziehungsverein). Geschichte der historisch-kritischen Erforschung des Alten Testaments (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2nd edn). Im Bennkreis Babels: Panbabylonische Konstruktionen und Religionsgeschichtliche Tatsachen (Miinster: Verlag der Aschendorfschen Buchhandlung). Puritans in Babylon: The Ancient Near East and American Intellectual Life 1880-1930 (Princeton: Princeton University Press). ‘The Ugaritic and Biblical Rephaim’, HTR 67: 265-74. ‘De quelques themes litteraires en Sumerien et dans la Bible, in La Bible et I’orient: 4-15. ‘A New Look at the Babylonian Background of Genesis’, JTS 16: 287-300. ‘Destiny and Divine Intervention in Babylon and Israel’, OTS 17: 65-72.CHAVALAS Assyriology and Biblical Studies 57 /Landsberger, B. 1926 1967 Langhe, R. de 1945 Larsen, M. 1987 1992 1995 1996 Larue, G. 1967 Layard, A.H. 1849 1849-53 1853 Lehnmann, R.G. 1994 Lemaire, A. 1985 Lenzen,H. 1964 Lewis, T.J. 1989 Lewy, J, 1938 1939 1940 Long, B. 1993 Loretz, O. 1972 1984a 1984b ‘Die Eigenbegrifflichkeit der babylonischen Welt’, Islamica 2: 355-72. Reprinted and translated as The Conceptual Autonomy of the Babylonian World (MaMbu: Undena, 1976). ‘Akkadisch-Hebraisch Wortgleichungen’, VTSup 17: 176-204. Les textes de Ras Shamra-Ugarit et leurs rapports avec le milieu biblique de I’Ancien Testament (2 vols.; Louvain: Bibliotheque de 1’universite). ‘Orientalism and the Ancient Near East’, Culture and History 2: 96-102. ‘Seeing Mesopotamia’, Culture and History 11:116-20. ‘The “Babel/Bible” Controversy and its Aftermath’, CANE 1: 95-106. The Conquest of Assyria: Excavations in an Antique Land (London: Routledge). Babylon and the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House). Nineveh and its Remains (London: J. Murray). The Monuments of Nineveh (London: J. Murray). Discoveries in the Ruins of Nineveh and Babylon (London: J. Murray). Friedrich Delitzsch und der Babel-Bibel Streit (Freiberg: Universitatsverlag). ‘Mari et la Bible et le monde nord-ouest semitique’, MARI4: 549-58. ‘Zur Flutschicht in Ur1 , BaM3: 52-64. Cults of the Dead in Ancient Israel and Ugarit (Atlanta: Scholars Press). ‘Influences hurrites sur Israel’, Revue des etudes semitiques: 49-75. ‘Habiru and Hebrews’, HUCA 14: 587-623. ‘A New Parallel between Habiru and Hebrews’, HUCA 15: 47-58. ‘Mythic Troupe in the Autobiography of William Foxwell Albright’, BA 56: 36-45. ‘Die Ugaritistik in der Psalmeninterpretation. Zum Abschluss des Kommentars von M. Dahood’, UF4: 167-69. Habiru-Hebraer: eine sozio-linquistische Studie iiber die Herkunft des Getiliziums ‘Ibri vom Appellativum Habiru (Berlin: W. de Gruyter). ‘Hebraer in Ebla? Eine Fehlanziege zu ‘ibri “Hebraer” und dem “Hebraer Abram” (Gen 14,13)’, in P. Fronzaroli (ed.), Studies on the Language of Ebla (Florence: Istituto de Linguistica e di Lingue Orientali): 253-79. ‘Textologie des Zephanja-buches. Bemerkungen 10 als Parallelen zu Ps. 29, 10’, ZAW99: 219-28. Ugarit und die Bibel: Kanaanaische Cotter und Religion im Alien Testament (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft). 1987 1990A58 Mesopotamia and the Bible 1990b ‘KTU 1.101.1 -30 und 1.2 IV kanaanaischer Literatur in Psalm 6’, UF 22: 195-220. Loretz, O., and I. Kottsieper 1987 Colometry in Ugaritic and Biblical Poetry: Introduction, Illustrations and Topical Bibliography (UBL, 5; Altenberge: CIS-Verlag). Lowenstam, S. (ed.) 1980 Comparative Studies in Biblical and Ancient Oriental Literatures (Neuckirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag). Malamat, A. 1962 1968 1973 1983 1987 1989 1998 Mallowan, M. 1964 Malul, M. 1990 ‘Man and the Bible: Some Patterns of Tribal Organization and Institutions’, 7^0582:143-50. ‘King Lists of the Old Babylonian Period and Biblical Genealogies’, JAOS 88: 163-73. Mori and the Bible: A Collection of Essays (Jerusalem: Jerusalem University Press). ‘The Proto-History of Israel: A Study in Method’, in Studies Freedman: 303-13. ‘A Forerunner of Biblical Prophecy: The Man Documents’, in Studies Cross: 33-52. Mori and the Early Israelite Experience (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Mari and the Bible (Leiden: E.J. Brill). ‘Noah’s Flood Reconsidered’, Iraq 26: 62-82. The Comparative Method in Ancient Near Eastern and Legal Studies (AOAT, 227; Kevelaer: Verlag Butzon & Bercker). Margueron, J.-C1. 1995 ‘Emar: The Capital of AStata in the Fourteenth Century B.C.E.’, BA 58: 126- 38. Mathews, V.H. 1981 ‘Pastoralists and Patriarchs’, BA 44: 215-18. 1986 “The Walls of Gerar’, BA 49: 118-26. Matthews, V.H., and D. Benjamin 1997 Old Testament Parallels: Laws and Stories from the Ancient Near East (New York: Paulist Press, 2nd edn). Matthiae, P. 1981 McCall, H. 1998 Ebla: An Empire Rediscovered (Garden City, NY: Doubleday). ‘Rediscovery and Aftermath’, in S. Dalley (ed.), The Legacy of Mesopotamia (Oxford: Oxford University Press): 181-98. McCarthy, D. 1978 Treaty and Covenant (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute). McKay, J. 1973 Meade, C. 1974 Religion inJudah under the Assyrians 732-609 B.C. (London: SCM Press). Road to Babylon: Development of U.S. Assyriology (Leiden: E.J. Brill).CHAVALAS Assyriology and Biblical Studies 59 Mendelsohn, I. 1935 Mendenhall G. 1954 1955 Merrill, E. 1983 Merrill, S. 1885 Mihalic, I. 1981 Millard, A.R. 1983 1985 1989 Miller, P.D., Jr 1973 ‘The Conditional Sale into Slavery of Free-born Daughters in Nuzi and the Law of Ex. 21.7-11’, J/JOS 55: 190-95. ‘Ancient Oriental and Biblical Law’, BA 17: 26-46. Law and Covenant in Israel and the Ancient Near East (Pittsburgh: Biblical Colloquium). ‘Ebla and Biblical Historical Inerrancy’, BSac 140: 302-21. ‘Assyrian and Babylonian Monuments’, BSac 32: 320-49. ‘Ugarit and the Bible (a Question still unanswered)’, UF 13: 147-50. ‘Methods of Studying the Patriarchal Narratives as Ancient Texts’, in A.R. Millard and D.J. Wiseman (eds.), Essays on the Patriarchal Narratives (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns): 43-92. ‘La prophetie et Pecriture: Israel, Aram, Assyrie’, RHR 202: 125-45. ‘Mesopotamia and the Bible’, Aram 1: 1-24. The Divine Warrior in Early Israel (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press). Moor, J.C. de, and P. van der Lugt 1974 “The Spectre of Pan-Ugaritism’, BO 31: 3-26. Moor, J.C., de, and P. Sandars 1991 Moorey, P. 1991 Moran, W. 1965 1969 Morrison, M.A. 1983 ‘An Ugaritic Expiation Ritual and its Old Testament Parallels’, t/F23:283- 300. A Century of Biblical Archeology (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press). ‘The Ancient Near Eastern Background of the Love of God in Deuteronomy’, CBQ 25: 77-87. ‘New Evidence from Mari on the History of Prophecy’, Bib 50: 15-56. ‘The Jacob and Laban Narrative in Light of Ancient Near Eastern Sources’, BA46: 155-64. Mtiller, H.-P. 1981 1984 ‘Gab es in Ebla einem Gottesnamen Ja?’, ZA 70: 70-92. ‘Ebla und das althebrSische Verbalsystem’, Bib 65: 145-67. Muller, H.-P. (ed.) 1991 Babylonien und Israel: historische, religiose und sprachliche Beziehungen (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft). Mullo-Weir, C.J. 1967-68 ‘The Alleged Human Wife-Sister Motif in Genesis’, Transactions of the Glasgow University Oriental Society 22: 14-25. 1967 ‘Nuzi’, AOTS: 73-86.60 Mesopotamia and the Bible Na’aman, N. 1986 Neuman, J. 1876 Noort, E. 1977 ‘Habiru and Hebrews: The Transfer of a Social Term to the Literary Sphere’, JNES 45: 211-88. The Thrones and Palaces of Babylon and Nineveh (New York: Harper & Bros). Untersuchungen zum Gottesbescheid in Man: Die ‘Mariprophetes’ in der alttestamentlichen Forschung (Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker). Noth, M., and D. Winton Thomas (eds.) 1955 Wisdom in Israel and the Ancient Near East (Leiden: E.J. Brill). O’Connor, M. 1987 ‘Ugarit and the Bible’, in M. O’Connor and D.N. Freedman (eds.), Backgrounds for the Bible (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns): 151-64. Oppenheim, A.L. 1955 ‘Review of S. Smith, The Statue of Idrimi (London: British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara)’, JNES 15: 199-200. 1977 Ancient Mesopotamia: Portrait of a Dead Civilization (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2nd edn). Pardee, D. 1985 ‘Review of SIC 1’, JNES 44: 220-22. Parker, S.B. 1979-80 ‘Some Methodological Principles in Ugaritic Philology’, Maarav 2: 7-41. 1993 ‘Official Attitudes toward Prophecy at Man and in Israel’, KT43: 50-68. Parrot, A. 1950 1954 1955 1958 1962 1967 Patton, J.H. 1944 Paul, S. 1970 Peters, J. 1899 ‘Les tablettes de Mari et PAncien Testament’, RHR 30: 1-11. ‘Mari et 1’Ancient Testament’, in La Bible et I’orient: 117-20. Nineveh and the Old Testament (London: SCM Press). Babylon and the Old Testament (London: SCM Press). Abraham and his Times (Philadelphia: Fortress Press; trans. W.J. Farley). ‘Mari’, ,4073: 136-44. Canaanite Parallels in the Book of Psalms (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press). Studies in the Book of the Covenant in the Light of Cuneiform Law (Leiden: E.J. Brill). Nippur, or Excavations and Adventures on the Euphrates (2 vols.; New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons). Petersen, A.R. 1998 The Royal God: Enthronement Festivals in Ancient Israel and Ugarit? (CIS, 5; JSOTSup, 259; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press). Pettinato, G. 1976 1977 1980 The Royal Archives of Tell-Mardikh/Ebla’, BA 39: 44-52. ‘Gli archivi reali di Tell-Mardikh-Ebla: riflessioni e prospettive’, RivB 25: 231-35. ‘Ebla and the Bible’, BA 43: 203-16.CHAVALAS Assyriology and Biblical Studies 61 1981 1991 Pfeiffer, C. 1962 Pinches, T. 1902 The Archives of Ebla: An Empire Inscribed on Clay (Garden City, NY: Doubleday). Ebla: A New Look at History (Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press; trans, from Italian, 1986). Ras Shamra and the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House). The Old Testament in the Light of the Historical Records and Legends of Assyria and Babylonia (London: SPCK). Pitard, W. 1996 ‘The Archaeology of Emar’, in Emar: \ 3-23. Place, V. 1867-70 Ninive et I’Assyrie, avec des essais de restauration par Felix Thomas (3 vols.; Paris: Imprimerie Imperiale). Poebel, A. 1932 Das appositionell bestimmte der I. Pers. Sing, im den Westsemitisch Inschriften undim Alien Testament (Chicago: University of Chicago Press). Probative Pontificating in Ugaritic and Biblical Literature: Collected Essays (UBL, 10; Munster: Ugarit-Verlag). Bel, the Christ of Ancient Times (Chicago: The Open Court Publishing Co.). ‘The Physical Evidence for Noah’s Flood’, Iraq 28: 52-63. Pope, M. 1994 Radau, H. 1908 Raikes, R. 1966 Rainey, A. 1965 ‘The Kingdom of Ugarit’, BA 28: 102-25. Ratner, R., and B. Zuckerman 1986 ‘A Kid in Milk…? New Photographs of KTU 1.23, Line 14’, HUCA 57: 15-60. Rawlinson, G. 1859 Historical Evidences of the Truth of the Scripture Records (London: John Murray). The Five Great Monarchies of the Ancient Eastern World (New York: Dodd, Mead, & Co.). The Alleged Historical Difficulties of the Old and New Testaments (London: Harper & Bros.). Egypt and Babylon: From Scripture and Profane Sources (London: Hodder & Stoughton). 1862 1871 1885 Rawlinson, H.C. 1850 ‘On the Inscriptions of Babylonia and Assyria’, JRAS 12: 401-83. 1860-84 Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia (5 vols.; London: R.E. Bower). Rawlinson, H.C., W.H.F. Talbot, E. Hincks, and J. Oppert 1857 Inscription ofTiglath Pileser I, King of Assyria (London: Royal Asiatic Society). Renger, J. 1979 ‘Die Geschichte der Altorientalisk und der vorderasiatischen Archaologie in Berlin von 1875-1945’, in W. Arenhovel and C. Schreiber (eds.), Berlin und die Antike (Berlin: Deutsches Orient Archaologiches Institut): 151-92.62 Mesopotamia and the Bible Reventlow, H.G. 1983 Roberts, J.J.M. 1976 1985 Robertson, D. 1972 Rogers, R.W. 1908 1912 Ross, J. 1970 Saggs, H.W.F. 1969 1978 1984 1999 Sandmel, S. 1962 Sasson, J. 1973 1980 1983 Sayce, A.H. 1885 1888 1891 1894a 1894b 1895 1907 Schmidt, B. 1992 Hauptprobleme der alttestamentlichen Theologie im 20. Jahrhundert (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1983; trans, as Problems of Biblical Theology in the Twentieth Century, 1985). ‘Myth vs. History’, CBQ 38: 1-13. “The Ancient Near Eastern Environment’, in D. Knight and G. Tucker (eds.), The Hebrew Bible and its Modern Interpreters (Philadelphia: Fortress Press): 89-96. Linguistic Evidence in Dating Early Hebrew Poetry (Missoula: Scholars Press). The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria, Especially in its Relations to Israel (New York: Eaton & Mains). Cuneiform Parallels to the Old Testament (New York: Eaton & Mains). ‘Prophecy in Hamath, Israel, and Mari’, HTR 63: 1-28. Assyriology and the Study of the Old Testament (Cardiff: University of Wales Press). The Encounter with the Divine in Mesopotamia and Israel (London: The Athlone Press). The Might that was Assyria (London: Sidgwick & Jackson). ‘Assyriology and Biblical Studies’, Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation (Nashville: Abingdon Press): 69-78. ‘Parallelomania’.yfiLSl: 1-13. ‘A Further Cuneiform Parallel to the Song of Songs’, ZAW85: 359-60. ‘Two Recent Works on Man’, AfO 27: 127-35. ‘Man Dreams’, JAOS 73: 283-93. The Witness of the Monuments to the Old Testament Scriptures (London: Religious Tract Society). Fresh Light from the Ancient Monuments: A Sketch of the Most Striking Confirmations of the Bible (London: Religious Tract Society). The Races of the Old Testament (London: The Religious Tract Society). The Higher Criticism and the Verdict of the Monuments (London: SPCK). “The Archaeological Witness to the Literary Activity of the Mosaic Age’, in R.V. French, Lex Mosaica, or the Law of Moses and the Higher Criticism (London: Eyre & Spottiswoode): 1-17. The Bible and the Monuments: The Primitive Hebrew Records in the Light of Modern Research (London: Eyre & Spottiswoode). The Archaeology of the Cuneiform Inscriptions (London: SPCK). “The Gods and the Dead of the Domestic Cult at Emar’, in Emar: 141-63.CHAVALAS Assyriology and Biblical Studies 63 1994 Schmidt P.W. 1908 Schmidt, W. 1966 Schmitt, A. 1982 Schrader, E. 1863 1885-88 Schroer, S. 1980 Schult, H. 1966 Schwaner, W. 1910 Selman, M.J. 1983 Shea, W. 1983 Sjoberg, A. 1984 Skinner, J. 1910 Smith, C.C. 1968 Smith, G. 1875 1876 Smith, M. 1952 1969 Smith, S. 1926 1932 Israel’s Beneficent Dead: Ancestor Cult and Necromancy in Ancient Israelite Religion and Tradition (FAT, 11; Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr). ‘Panbabylonismus und ethnologischer Elementargedanke’, Mitteilungen der anthropologischen Gesellschaft in Wien 38: 73-9. Konigtum Gottes in Ugarit und Israel (Berlin: Alfred Topelmann, 2nd edn). Prophetischer Gottesbescheid in Mari und Israel: Eine Strukturunstersuchung (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer Verlag). Studien zur Kritik und Erklarung der biblischen Urgeschichte (Zurich: Verlag von Meyer & Zeller). Die Keilinschriften unddas Alte Testament (London: Williams & Norgate, trans, as The Cuneiform Inscriptions and the Old Testament). ‘Psalm 65-Zeugnis eines integrativen JHWH Glaubens?’, UF22: 285-301. ‘Vier weitere Mari-Briefe “Prophetischen Inhalts”‘, ZDPF82: 228-32. Germanen-Bibel aus heiligen Schriften germanischer Volker (Schlachtensee: Volkerzieher Verlag, 3rd edn). ‘Comparative Customs and the Patriarchal Age’, A.R. Millard, and D.J. Wiseman (eds.), Essays on the Patriarchal Narratives (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns): 91-139. ‘Two Palestinian Segments from the Eblaite Geographical Atlas’, in Studies Freedman: 589-612 ‘Eve and the Chameleon’, in Studies Ahlstrom: 217-25. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark). ‘The Impact of Assyriology upon Old Testament Study, with Special Reference to the Publications of Leonard William King’ (PhD dissertation, University of Chicago). Assyrian Discoveries (London: S. Low, Marston, Low & Searle). The Chaldean Account of Genesis (London: S. Low, Marston, Searle & Rivington). ‘The Common Theology of the Ancient Near East’, JBL 71: 49-50. “The Present State of Old Testament Studies, JBL 88: 19-35. in C. Gadd, ‘Tablets from Kirkuk’, RA 23: 127. ‘What were the Teraphim?’, JTS 33: 33-36.64 Mesopotamia and the Bible Soden, W. von 1985 Soil, W. 1988 Speiser, E.A. 1938 1940 1955 1957 1958 1964 1967 Bibel und alter Orient: altorientalische Beitrage zum Alten Testament (Berlin: W. de Gruyter). ‘Babylonian and Biblical Acrostics’, Bib 69: 305-23. ‘The Nuzi Tablets Solve a Puzzle in the Books of Samuel’, BASOR 72: 15- 17. ‘Of Shoes and Shekels: (I Samuel 12.3,13.21)’, BASOR 17: 15-20. ‘I Know not the Day of my Death’, JBL 74: 252-56. ‘The Biblical Idea of History in its Common Near Eastern Setting’, IEJ1: 201-16. ‘Census and Ritual Expiation in Mari and Israel’, BASOR 149: 17-25. Genesis (AB; Garden City, NY: Doubleday). ‘The Wife-Sister Motif in the Partriarchal Narratives’, in J.J. Finkelstein and M. Greenberg (eds.), Oriental and Biblical Studies (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press): 62-82. Stuart, D. 1976 Stummer, F. 1922 Szlechter, F. 1954 Tadmor, H. 1985 Talmon, S. 1978a 1978b Thompson, T.L. 1974 1978 1999 Toorn, K. van der Studies in Early Hebrew Meter (Missoula: Scholars Press). Sumerisch-akkadische Parallelen zum Aujbau alttestamentlicher Psalmen (Paderborn: F. Schoningh). ‘Le prat dans 1’Ancien Testament et dans les codes Mesopotamiens d’avant Hammourabi’, in La Bible et I’orient: 16-25. ‘Nineveh, Calah, and Israel’, BAT: 253-64. ‘The Comparative Method’, J.A. Emerton (ed.), Congress Volume: Gottingen, 1977 (VTSup, 29; Leiden: E.J. Brill): 320-56. ‘On the Emendation of Biblical Texts on the Basis of Hebrew parallels’, El 14: 117-24 (in Hebrew). The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives (BZAW, 133; Berlin: W. de Gruyter). ‘A New Attempt to Date the Patriarchal Narratives’, JAOS 98: 76-84. The Bible in History: How Writers Create a Past (London: Jonathan Cape). 1985 Sin and Sanction in Israel and Mesopotamia: A Comparative Study (Assen: Van Gorcum). 1991 ‘Funerary Rituals and Beatific Afterlife in Ugaritic Texts and in the Bible’, BO 48: 40-66. 1994 From her Cradle to her Grave: The Role of Religion in the Life of the Israelite and Babylonian Woman (The Biblical Seminar, 23; Sheffield: JSOT Press). 1996 Family Religion in Babylonia, Syria, and Israel: Continuity and Change in the Forms of Religious Life (Leiden: E.J. Brill).CHAVALAS Assyriology and Biblical Studies 65 Toorn, K. van der (ed.) 1997 The Image and the Book: Iconic Cults, Aniconism, and the Rise of Book Religion in Israel and the Ancient Near East (Leuven: Peeters). Tropper, J. 1989 Nekromantie, Totenbefragung in alten Orient und im Alien Testament (Kevelaer. Verlag Butzon & Bercker). Tsevat, M. 1958 ‘Alalakhiana’, HUCA 29: 109-43. Tsukimoto, A. 1989 ‘ Emar and the Old Testament: Preliminary Remarks’, AJBI15: 3-24. Tufton, O. 1874 ‘Progress and Result of Cuneiform Decipherment’, Baptist Quarterly 8: 191-208. Van Seters, J. 1968 ‘The Problem of Childlessness in Near Eastern Law and the Patriarchs of Israel’, 75187:401-408. 1969 ‘Jacob’s Marriages and Ancient Near Eastern Customs: A Reexamination’, HTR 62: 387-95. 1975 Abraham in History and Tradition (New Haven: Yale University Press). Vaux, R. de 1937 ‘Les textes de Ras Shamra et 1’Ancien Testament’, RB 46: 526-55. 1949 ‘Les patriarchies Hebreux et les decouvertes modernes’, RB 56: 34-35. Vaux, W. 1855 Veenhof, K.H. 1995 ‘Seeing the Face of God: The Use of Akkadian Parallels’, Akkadica 94.5: 33-37. Vigano, L., and D. Pardee 1984 ‘Literary Sources for the History of Palestine and Syria: The Ebla Tablets’, BA 47: 6-16. Vigouroux, F. 1877 La Bible et le decouvertes modernes en Egypte et en Assyrie (Paris: Berche et Tralin). Virolleaud, C.V. 1933 ‘Lanaissance des deux gracieux et beaux: poemephenicien de Ras Shamra’, Syria 14: 128-51. Vriezen, C. 1968 ‘The Study of the Old Testament and the History of Religion’, VTSup 17: 1-24. Waltke, B. 1979 ‘The Book of Proverbs and Ancient Wisdom Literature’, BSac 136: 221-38. Walton, J. 1989 Ancient Israelite Literature in its Cultural Context (Grand Rapids: Zondervan). Ward, W.H. 1870 ‘Assyrian Studies-Textbooks’, BSac 27: 184-91. 1886 Report on the Wolfe Expedition to Babylonia, 1884-5 (Boston: Archeological Institute of America). Nineveh andPersepolis (London: Arthur Hall, Virtue & Co.).66 Mesopotamia and the Bible Watson, W.G.E. 1976 Weinfeld, M. 1970 1973 1988 Weippert, H. 1985 Weippert, M. 1972 Westbrook, R. 1985 Widengren, G. 1936 Wilson, R. 1977 Winckler, H. 1892 1901 1905 1906a 1906b 1906c 1907a 1907b Wiseman, DJ. 1958 1962 1967 Woolley, C.L. 1930 1936 1953 “The Pivot Pattern in Hebrew, Ugaritic, and Akkadian Poetry’, ZAW8B: 239-53. ‘The Covenant of Grant in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East’, JAOS90: 184-203. ‘Covenant Terminology in the Ancient Near East and its Influence in the West’, .//40S 93: 190-99. ‘Job and its Mesopotamian Parallels’, in W. Claassen (ed.), Text and Context (JSOTSup, 48; Sheffield: JSOT Press): 217-26. Beitrage zur prophetischen Bildsprache in Israel and Assyrien (Freiburg: G6ttingen). ‘”Heiliger Krieg” in Israel und Assyrien’, ZAWS4: 469-93. ‘Biblical and Cuneiform Law Codes’, RB 92: 247-64. The Accadian and Hebrew Songs of Lamentation as Religious Documents (Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell). Genealogy and History in the Biblical World (New Haven: Yale University Press). Keilschriftliches Textbuch zum Alten Testament (Leipzig: E. Pfeiffer). Himmels-und Weltenbild der Babylonier als Gntndlageder Weltanschaung und Mythologie oiler Volker (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs). ‘Die Weltanshaung des Alten Orients’, Ex Oriente Lux 1: 1-50. ‘Der alte Orient und die Bibel’, Ex Oriente Lux 2: 15. Die babylonische Weltschopfimg (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs). Der A he Orient und de Bible uebst einemanhang Babel und Bibel-Bibel und Babel (Leipzig: E. Pfeiffer). Die babylonische Geisteskultur in ihren Beziehungen zur Kulturentwicklung der Menscheit (Leipzig: Quelle & Meyer). Die jungsten Kampfer wider den Pmnhabylonismus (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs). ‘The Vassal Treaties of Esarhaddon’, Iraq 20: 1-99. The Expansion of Assyrian Studies: An Inaugural Lecture Delivered on 27 February, 1962 (London: School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London). ‘Alalakh’, AOTS: 119-35. “The Biblical Deluge: An Ascertained Fact’, Illustrated London News 8 February. Abraham: Recent Discoveries and Hebrew Origins (London: Faber & Faber). Forgotten Kingdom (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books).CHAVALAS Assyriology and Biblical Studies 67 1955 Wright, D.P. 1987 Yaron, R. 1970 Younger, K.L. 1990 Zimmem, H. 1889 1901 1906-18 1910 Alalakh: An Account of the Excavations at TellAtchana in the Hatay, 1937- 49 (London: Society of Antiquaries). The Disposal of Impurity: Elimination Rites in the Bible and in Hittite and Mesopotamian Literature (Atlanta: Scholars Press). ‘Middle Assyrian Law Codes and the Bible’, Bib 51: 77-85. ,Jr Ancient Conquest Accounts: A Study in Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical History Writing (JSOTSup, 98; Sheffield: JSOT Press). Die Assyriologie als Hilfswissenschqftjur das Studium den Alten Testaments und des klassischen Altertums (Konigsberg: W. Koln). Biblische und babylonische Urgeschichete (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, trans. The Babylonian and Hebrew Genesis, London: David Nutt, 1901). Zum babylonischen Neujahrsfest(2 vols.; Leipzig). Zum Streit um die ‘Christusmythe’: Das babylonische Material in seinen Hauptpunkten dargestellt (Berlin: Reuther & Reichard)