43
Journal of the Adventist Theological Society, 12/1 (2001): 43–64.
Article copyright © 2001 by Angel Manuel Rodríguez.
Ancient Near Eastern Parallels to the
Bible and the Question of Revelation
and Inspiration
Angel Manuel Rodríguez
Biblical Research Institute
Archaeological discoveries made in the ancient Near East during the nine[1]teenth and twentieth centuries have revolutionized in many ways the study of
the Scriptures and raised challenging new questions for interpreters. It is now
impossible to study the OT without taking into consideration such findings.
The decipherment of Egyptian hieroglyphics and the ancient Sumerian, Ak[1]kadian, and Canaanite languages give us tools that make it possible to read texts
written before Abram and in some cases texts composed during the lifetime of
biblical writers. This wealth of material is very useful in providing historical
and religious backgrounds for the interpretation of the Bible.
However, these discoveries reveal that there seems to have been a very close
relation between the Israelite religious practices and the religious milieu of the
ancient Near East. Consequently, the question of the uniqueness of the Israelite
religion, as depicted in the OT, has become an extremely important one in
scholarly circles. There are ancient Near Eastern parallels for most of the Israelite
social and religious institutions and for many of its religious ideas. Those simi[1]larities become of critical importance when the question of the revelation and
inspiration of the biblical text is raised.
Types of Similarities
We should expect to find many similarities between Israel and its neigh[1]bors. Linguistic similarities are unavoidable because the Hebrew language is a
Semitic language closely related to other Northwest Semitic languages. For in[1]stance, it is well known that the word }el is used in the Canaanite literature as
the proper name for the highest god, but in the Bible the Hebrew word }el is
often used as a title for the Israelite God. This does not mean that the God of
Israel is to be equated with the Canaanite }el. More interesting is the use of
Journal of the Adventist Theological Society
44
similar phrases or titles to designate particular individuals or their functions.
For instance, in Israel a prophet was at times called a “man of God” (e.g., 1
Kings 17:18, 24). An inscription on a Phoenician seal reads, “Belonging to
Baal-yaton, the man of God, who depends on Melqart.” Melqart was the Baal of
Tyre, and this man was his prophet.1 Naram-Sin, son of Sargon (ca. 2200 BC),
consulted his god and introduced the answer he received by saying, “The shin[1]ing Morning Star spoke from heaven thus, . . .”2 This same title is applied to
Jesus in the NT (Rev 22:16). The Canaanite statement, “You will be numbered
among those who have descended into the earth,” expresses the same concept
found in Ps 88:4: “I am counted among those who go down to the pit.” This
points to a common poetic way of referring to the tomb.
The relation between the gods and humans, particularly the king, is in some
cases very similar to what we find in Israel. When the king was attacked by his
powerful enemies he said:
I lifted up my hands to the lord of h[eave]n and the lord of
heav[en] answered me. [And] the lord of heaven [spoke] to me
[through] seers and through messengers. [And] the lord of heaven
said [to me]: “Fear not for I have [made you] king, [and] I shall
sta[nd] by you and I shall save you from all [these kings who]
have set up siege against you!” [The lord of heaven] spoke thus to
[me, and he put all these kings to flight (?)].3
That sounds like a passage from the OT, but it is not. It was written on a
votive inscription by king Zakkur of Northern Syria and dated to 758 BC. No[1]tice how many of its ideas are also found in the OT. One of the most important
ones is that the god of Zakkur, like Yahweh, gives victory to the king over his
enemies. It is not only that the Israelites and their neighbors share the idea of a
warrior God; they also believe that God intervenes within history and fights on
behalf of his king. Notice also that phrases like “to lift up the hands,” “lord of
heaven,” and the title “seer” are common in the OT. Very important is the use of
the prophetic formula “Fear not,” which is also found in the OT (Deut 20:3-4;
Isa 41:13-14; 43:1-2; Jer 30:10-11).
The need for the king to rely on his god for victory is found in a hymn of
Assurbanipal. He says, “Neither [. . . by] my [might] nor by the might of my
bow, (But) by the st[rength and by the] might of my goddesses, did I cause the
lands [disob]edient to me to submit to the yoke of Assur.”4 The Psalmist
wrote, “I do not trust in my bow, my sword does not bring me victory; but you
1E. Lipinski, “North Semitic Texts,” in Near Eastern Religious Texts Related to the OT, ed.
Walter Beyerlin (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster, 1978), 247. 2 Benjamin R. Forester, Before the Muses: An Anthology of Akkadian Literature, (Bethesda,
MD: CDL Press, 1993), 1:267. 3 Lipinski, “Semitic Texts,” 231.
4 Forester, 2:719.
Rodríguez: Ancient Near Eastern Parallels
45
give us victory over our enemies, you put our adversaries to shame” (44:6-7).
The basic idea is the same in both texts.
According to the OT the erem, or wars of extermination, were ordered by
God against some Canaanite cities. It is now known that pagan deities also or[1]dered this type of war against the enemies of the king.5 It has been argued that
this military practice was integrated into the Israelite religion “because the erem
helped meet its need to bring order and security to a hostile and chaotic envi[1]ronment.”6
5 See Philip D. Stern, The Biblical erem (Atlanta: Scholars, 1991). 6 Ibid., 218. The questions raised by the practice of the erem in the Bible are very complex,
making it difficult to provide quick and comprehensive answers. However, there are several ele[1]ments that we should taken into consideration when seeking possible answers. When addressing
this subject we should take into consideration the teachings of the Scripture concerning God, evil,
human society, and war. Simplistic solutions are to be rejected (e.g., the OT view of God is differ[1]ent from the one of the NT; the biblical writer was using a pagan notion that is of very little value
to us). The following arguments could be helpful when dealing with the problem of the erem in the
OT.
- Time Frame: The biblical text indicates that the extermination of the Canaanites was basi[1]cally limited to the period of the conquest of the land. Several times God reminded the Israelites of
that important fact and their responsibility, saying to them, “When you cross the Jordan into Ca[1]naan . . .” (Num 33:51); “When the Lord . . . brings you into the land you are entering to possess . .
.” (Deut 7:1; 12:1; 18:9). This means that the Lord did not expect the erem to be a permanent char[1]acteristic of Israelite warfare. One gets the distinct impression that once the conquest was over,
the Israelites were only to be involved in self-defense. Therefore, there is no biblical support for
the practice of “holy war” today.
- Morally Justifiable: Those who go to war intend to win at any cost, and this by itself makes
the extermination of the enemy an intrinsic part of warfare. This was clearly the case in the an[1]cient Near East. Interestingly, the Old Testament makes a special effort to demonstrate that God’s
command to destroy the Canaanites was not an arbitrary command, nor was it controlled by the
people’s expansionistic interests. God Himself provided the reason: The Canaanites were sacri[1]ficing their children to their gods, involved in sorcery and witchcraft, and consulting the spirits of
the dead (Deut 18:10-12). Their moral and religious corruption had reached an intolerable level,
beyond grace. This is what the Lord said to Abram hundreds of years before: “In the fourth gen[1]eration your descendants will come back here, for the sin of the Amorites has not yet reached its
full measure” (Gen 15:16). By the time of the conquest their sins reached “full measure.” This
indicates that God does pass judgment on the nations and on their commitment to moral values and
proper religious practices (cf. Gen 18:20-33). God was executing judgment against sin and im[1]penitent sinners in the land of Canaan, and the judgment was final.
A second reason is given for the exterminations of the enemies of the Israelites: If they re[1]mained in the land they would become instruments of corruption for His people (Deut 7:4). A holy
people required a holy place to live in. This erem was God’s attempt to organize a new world
order based on His principles of justice and love; a land in which peace and security would pre[1]vail. Anything that could threaten the divine intention was to be totally rejected.
- Israelites as Assistants: It is the fact that God enlists the Israelites as His instruments in this
type of war that raises moral and ethical concerns. Had He used the forces of nature, very few
would feel that uncomfortable. But He used war. War is an unavoidable characteristic of a fallen,
sinful world. By transforming the twelve tribes of Israel into a nation with political identity and by
declaring Himself to be the King of Israel, God and His people were going to be involved in war[1]fare. Their enemies would be other nations unwilling to recognize God’s moral claim on them and
Journal of the Adventist Theological Society
46
In the ancient Near East the gods acted as judges. The idea that they sat on
thrones to judge is a common one. In a prayer offered before performing a ritual
of divination, the petitioner says, “O Shamash, lord of judgment. . . . come
down to me that you may dine, that you may sit on the throne and render
judgment!”7 The tablet is dated to ca. 2000-1500 BC.
The incomparability of Yahweh, the God of Israel, is emphasized very often
in the OT. Isaiah writes, “To whom will you compare me or count me equal?
To whom will you liken me that we may be compared? . . . I am God, and there
is no other; I am God, and there is none like me. I make known the end from
the beginning” (46:5, 9). In the Song of Moses and Miriam we read, “Who
among the gods is like you, O Lord? Who is like you?” (Exod 15:11). In a
hymn to Gula, goddess of healing, she says, “I am sublime in heaven, I am
queen in the netherworld, among the gods I have no peer, among the goddesses
I have no equal.”8 In the great Hymn to Marduk we read, “Whatever the gods of
all the inhabited world may have done, they cannot be like you, Lord! [ ] of the
depth of knowledge, where is your equal?”9 Once more there are conceptual and
linguistic similarities.10
God’s providential care for the world is expressed in a hymn to the Egyp[1]tian god Re (ca. 1365 BC) in language similar to what we find in the Psalms:
[Re] “who creates the herbs that give life to the cattle, and the fruit trees for
mankind. Who makes that on which the fishes in the river may live, and the
birds under the heaven.”11 Psalm 104:14, 25, 27: “He makes grass grow for the
cattle, and plants for man to cultivate, bringing forth food from the earth. . .
There is the sea, vast and spacious, teeming with creatures beyond number . . .
These all look to you to give them their food at the proper time.” In the famous
Egyptian hymn of Akhenaten to the god Aten (ca. 1365-1348), the king ex[1]claims “How manifold are your works! They are hidden from the face (of man) .
. .”12 The Psalmist also exclaims, “How many are your works! In wisdom you
made them all” (104:24). In spite of cultural differences, humans tend to think
willing to exterminate His people. Through the conquest of the land, the God of the theocracy
trains His people for war in order for them to cooperate with Him in the fulfillment of His divine
intentions for them and for the world (Judges 3:1-2).
We may not understand everything related to this topic, but there is one thing we know,
namely, that God is a loving, kind, and just God. This biblical picture of God should be used in the
discussion of a subject like the one under consideration. He is the One who in an act of love and
justice will exterminate sin and impenitent sinners from our planet in order to create a peaceful
and eternal kingdom. 7 Forester, 1:149.
8 Ibid., 2:494.
9 Ibid., 2:527.
10 In a polytheistic religion the superiority and incomparability of a particular deity should be
interpreted in terms of the sphere over which he or she ruled. For instance, the god or goddess of
war is incomparable in that particular role. 11 Hellmut Brunner, “Egyptian Texts,” in Beyerlin, Near Eastern Religious Texts, 14. 12 Ibid., 18.
Rodríguez: Ancient Near Eastern Parallels
47
and talk to and about God in similar ways because we all seem to share some
basic universal and general perception of the work and nature of God. Therefore
those religious expressions belong to the common human experience of G/god.
We also find stylistic elements that are similar to those found in the OT.
For instance, the OT formula of lament and penitential prayers is also found in
an Akkadian prayer to Ishtar (dated to the middle of the second millennium
BC):
How long , O my Lady, are my enemies to look darkly upon me,
are they to plan evil things against me with lies and deception,
are my persecutors and those who envy me to rejoice over me?
How long, O my Lady . . . ?13
Compare that with Ps 13:1-2:
How long, O Lord, will you forget me for ever?
How long will you hide your face from me? . . .
How long will my enemy triumph over me?
Obviously, this was a common formula of lament used in the ancient Near East
to express an impatient request in the form of a prayer.14
There are many more stylistic similarities between the Israelite literature and
the ancient Near East, but most of the similarities are only formal, not substan[1]tive. In the case of the wisdom literature we find similar forms as well as simi[1]lar teachings. Just a couple of examples. The Egyptian Teachings of Ani, from
the 15th or 14th centuries, contains the following advice:
Be on your guard against a woman from abroad,
whom no one knows in the city.
. . . .
She is a deep water, the extent of which no one knows.
A woman whose husband is far away, says daily to you:
‘I am polished (=pretty)!’ when she has no witnesses.
She waits and sets a trap. A great crime–and death, when it is known.15
We can identify some significant similarities with Prov 7:19-27, but no one
argues that Proverbs was copying from the Egyptian document. What is de[1]scribed in both texts is a common human experience. Closer parallels with
Proverbs are found in the Teachings of Amenemope (ca. 1186-1070 BC). For
instance,
Better is poverty from the hand of God
than riches in the storehouse;
better is bread, when the heart is satisfied,
13 Hartmut Schmokel, “Mesopotamian Texts,” in Beyerlin, Near Eastern Religious Texts,
110-11. 14 See H. Ringgren, “Matay,” in Theological Dictionary of the OT, ed. G. Johannes Botter[1]weck, Helmer Ringgren and Heinz-Josef Fabry (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 9:102. 15 Brunner, 48.
Journal of the Adventist Theological Society
48
than riches with sorrow.16
The content is very similar to what we find in Prov 17:1; and 15:17. Notice
also that this particular type of proverb, called a “better proverb,” is very com[1]mon in the Bible (e.g. Eccl 4). Israel and its neighbors seem to have used the
same or similar literary forms to express their ideas.
Two social institutions deserve brief mention because both of them find
parallels in the ancient Near East, namely kingship and the covenant. Such par[1]allels should not surprise us, because the Israelites requested a king “such as all
the other nations have” (1 Sam 8:5). Yet the Lord adapted and reformulated this
institution on the basis of the covenant He made with Israel. The covenant was a
common legal form in the ancient Near East, though used by the Israelites in a
singular way. Many of the parallels are impressive and indicate that the biblical
writers use expressions, practices, and images that are common in the ancient
Near Eastern cultural context. It is therefore useful for the interpreter to get ac[1]quainted with those customs and practices, because they do help us gain a better
understanding of some biblical passages.
Approaches to the Problem of Similarities
We have briefly touched on some of the significant types of similarities be[1]tween Israel and the ancient Near East nations. Some consider the similarities to
be so serious that they find it difficult to speak of the uniqueness of Israel. Two
main approaches have been developed to deal with the problem.17 There are
those who search for concepts and behaviors that are unique to Israel; like for
instance the biblical idea of monotheism and the relation of Israel to that One
God. Others argue that Israel and its contemporaries shared the same pool of
ideas and behaviors and that distinctiveness is to be found in the way the Israel[1]ites reconfigured or patterned those ideas and behaviors. The role of revelation
and inspiration is hardly ever touched in those discussions.18 The discussions
16 Ibid., 54. 17 On this consult Peter Machinist, “The Question of Distinctiveness in Ancient Israel: An Es[1]say,” in Ah, Assyria . . . : Studies in Assyrian History and Ancient Near Eastern Historiography, ed.
- Cogan and H. Tadmor (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1991), 197-200. 18 An exception is Helmer Ringgren. He argues, in support of the second position, that in the
area of similarities between Israel and its neighbors “The important task of research . . . is to as[1]sess the Israelite use of foreign material and the reinterpretation it underwent in the framework of
Yahwistic religion” [“The Impact of the Ancient Near East on Israelite Tradition,” in Tradition
and Theology in the Old Testament, edited by Douglas A. Knight (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1977),
45]. He raises the question of revelation and argues that in the OT God reveals Himself not only
through His speaking but particularly through His acts in history. “It is conceivable, therefore, that
pieces of Yahweh’s revelation are to be found also among those other peoples, or to put it differ[1]ently, that elements of his revelation found their way into Israel through the faith of those other
nations. If God is able to use the events of history to get across to his people, he might also be able
to use the traditions of the people who took part in these events to make himself and his plans
known to his people. Is it too bold to assume that ‘pagan’ thinking about God could contain sparks
of truth?” (46). That elements of truth may be present among those who were not Israelites is not
Rodríguez: Ancient Near Eastern Parallels
49
are attempts to explain the origin of the Israelite religion from the perspective of
sociology and the development of social institutions. But for those who con[1]sider the OT to be part of the biblical canon, it is impossible not to address the
question of revelation in the context of the similarities between Israel and its
neighbors.
It appears that the problem we confront is the one of developing a method
that would allow us to deal properly with similarities and differences and that
would acknowledge at the same time the specific character of each religion.19
Some scholars have been attempting to develop such methodology. They feel
that the comparative method is indeed one of the most difficult disciplines be[1]cause of its natural tendency to overemphasize similarities and its inherent dan[1]ger of drawing conclusions unwarranted by the evidence. However, there are a
couple of things that the evidence available to us indicates, and we must keep
them in mind when dealing with the issue of similarities. First, we do know
that Israel shared in many ways the ancient Near Eastern culture, but we also
know, secondly, that Israel appears in the history and culture of the ancient Near
East as an independent entity with its own character and identity.20
The uniqueness of Israel in the context of the ancient Near East is not some[1]thing modern scholars are addressing for the first time in the history of the relig[1]ion of the Old Testament. The OT itself testifies to the singularity of the people
of Israel in the ancient world. Peter Machinist lists 433 OT passages in which
the distinctiveness of Israel is mentioned.21 The diversity of the passages indi[1]cates, according to him, that the issue of distinctiveness “seems to have been an
established and not unpopular preoccupation in Israel well before the advent of
the canonical organizers in the sixth century B.C.E.”22 It was because of their
uniqueness that God was to use Israel to bless the nations of the earth (Gen
12:3). Therefore, the use of the comparative method should not ignore the bibli[1]cal emphasis on the singularity of Israel.
Guidelines for the Study of Similarities
In an attempt to set limits to the comparative method, scholars have sug[1]gested some principles to be used by those who study the similarities between
to be denied, but the problem is how to identify the non-Israelite traditions through which God was
revealing Himself to His people. The only control available would be the special revelation that
God Himself gave to the Israelites. Therefore, we are back to the question of what is uniquely
Israelite vis-a-vis the ancient Near East. 19 So Helmer Ringgren, “Israel’s Place Among the Religions of the Ancient Near East,”
Vetus Testamentum Supplement 23 (1972):1. 20 This is acknowledged, perhaps in stronger terms, by Th. C. Vriezen, “The Study of the OT
and the History of Religion,” Vetus Testamentum Supplement 17 (1969):14-15. 21 Machinist, 203-204. Among the passages we find Gen 26:4; 34:14-17; Exod 19:5-6; 22:20;
23:32-33; 34:10; Lev 18:3-4; Deut 4:6-8; 2 Sam 7:22-24. 22 Machinist, 208.
Journal of the Adventist Theological Society
50
Israel and the ancient Near East. We will mention some we have found particu[1]larly useful.
First, it has been considered of utmost importance to examine differences as
well as similarities.23 Otherwise we would easily misinterpret the similarities.
In fact the question of the uniqueness of Israel would not arise if all we had were
similarities. It is because there are differences and a biblical claim to distinctive[1]ness that we have to raise the question of the nature of the similarities or paral[1]lels.
Second, study inter-biblical parallels before comparing the biblical text with
extra-biblical materials.24 If the biblical text provides other passages similar to
the one discussed, it is more important to examine that parallel than to ignore it
and look for ancient Near Eastern parallels to interpret the biblical text. For in[1]stance, the verb kipper (“to make atonement”) is often used in different ritual
passages in the OT. But its Akkadian cognate, kuppuru (“to wipe off, cleanse”)
is also used in different ritual acts. In order to ascertain the meaning of the verb
in the Hebrew Bible, it is necessary to examine its ritual usage in the OT.
Within that context kipper means to perform rites for the removal of sin and
impurity. Sin and impurity are understood as violations of God’s moral and
religious laws and constitute a barrier between God and the sinner that needs to
be removed. This, as we shall see, is different from what we find in the Ak[1]kadian literature.
Third, when dealing with social phenomena it is necessary to study the
function of a particular phenomenon within Israel itself before engaging in com[1]parisons with parallel phenomena in other societies.25 The nature and role of the
king in Israelite society must be carefully analyzed before one decides to com[1]pare this social institution with ancient Near Eastern practices. Such study will
reveal significant differences and will indicate that the Israelite system was in
many ways unique, in spite of similarities with other systems.
Fourth, study the ancient Near Eastern parallel in an attempt to determine
what was the meaning of the idea, behaviour, or institution within its own par[1]ticular setting in life.26 Interpreting a piece of literature or a social and cultic
practice in isolation from its immediate cultural context could result in a distor[1]tion of the evidence. Therefore, it is indispensable to take into consideration all
the evidence available on a particular phenomenon before comparing it with
similar ones in any other culture. Let me give you a modern example. For in[1]stance, terms like “freedom” and “liberty” were used during the cold war in
communist literature as well as in American literature. But in order to under-
23 H. Frankfort, The Problem of Similarity in Ancient Near Eastern Religions (Oxford: Clar[1]endon, 1951), 17. 24 Shemaryahu Talmon, “The ‘Comparative Method’ in Biblical Interpretation—Principles
and Problems,” Vetus Testamentum Supplement 29 (1978):356. 25 Talmon, 356. 26 Vriezen, 13; Ringgren, “Israel’s Place,” 1; Talmon, 356.
Rodríguez: Ancient Near Eastern Parallels
51
stand the meaning attached to those terms it was necessary to have a clear under[1]standing of the communist and American ideologies. The terms are the same,
but they differ significantly within each culture. The use of the Akkadian verb
kuppuru provides another example. When this verb is interpreted within the
Babylonian understanding of ritual acts one realizes that it is not a significant
parallel to the biblical kipper. In that religion what was wiped off or removed
was not sin but evil in the form of disease produced by demonic powers.
Through magic and incantations the individual sought to be free from his or her
affliction. This is different from what we find in the OT, where God Himself, in
an act of love, forgives sinners and removes their sin.
Fifth, comparisons should be made with religions with which Israel comes
into contact or that belong to its general cultural and geographical context.27
They would probably provide the best and more reliable parallels for analysis
and discussion.
Critical Cases and the Question of Revelation and Inspiration
These guidelines could help students by providing proper parameters within
which one could do comparative studies that will hopefully avoid the “paral[1]lelomania” so common among scholars in the last century and that led many to
conclude that the Israelite religion was heavily influenced by the Babylonian
religion28 or the Ugaritic religion (Canaanite religion). But the guidelines do
not address the relation between similarities and the revelation/inspiration of the
biblical text. We intend to address that question by discussing several of the
most important parallels between Israel and the ancient Near East. Here we will
deal mainly with two specific areas: the law and the cultic practices. We will
examine the nature of the parallels and their implications for the doctrine of
revelation and inspiration.
Israelite Law
We possess today a significant amount of legal materials from the ancient
Near East that could be used for comparative purpose and to better understand
ancient legal practices.29 From the Sumerian culture we have the Laws of Ur-
27 Vriezen, 13. 28 On Pan-Babylonianism see W. G. C. Gwaltney, Jr., “Pan-Babylonianism,” in Dictionary of
Biblical Interpretation, ed. John H. Haynes, (Nashville: Abingdon, 1999), 2:233-34. He writes that
the view that Babylonian culture dominated the ancient Fertile Crescent “arose around 1900
among German cuneiformists, who argued that all ancient cultures and religions with an astral
mythology sprang from a common source: Babylon . . . Among the newly discovered documents
were numerous religio-mythological writings suggesting that the Hebrew Bible reflected the an[1]cient Israelite’s dependence on Babylonian culture, mythology, and religion” (233). He adds that
eventually the theory “faltered because of its extravagant and unsubstantiated claims” (234). See
also H. B. Huffmon, “Babel und Bibel,” Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation, 1:92. 29 The most recent translation of those legal materials is Martha T. Roth, Law Collections
from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor (Atlanta: Scholars, 1997).
Journal of the Adventist Theological Society
52
Namma (from the city of Ur, ca. 2050 BC), the Laws of Lipit-Ishtar, fifth ruler
of the First Dynasty of the city of Isin (ca.1934-1924 BC), and several other
small collections. From the Babylonians we have the Laws of Eshnunna (ca.
1700 BC), prepared by Dadusha, ruler of the kingdom of Eshnunna; the Laws of
Hammurabi (ca. 1750 BC), prepared by Hammurabi, the sixth ruler of the First
Dynasty of Babylon; and a collection of fifteen Neo-Babylonian Laws, dated to
- 700 BC. From Assyria we have the Middle Assyrian Laws (ca. 1076 BC),
and from the Hittite a collection of laws going back to the early Old Period
(1650-1500 BC) which includes laws from the Middle and New Hittite periods
(1500-1180 BC). There is a need for Adventist scholars to examine these laws
and compare them with the biblical ones in order to deal with the issue of simi[1]larities and differences. Here we can only make some general comments.
We must acknowledge that the similarities between these legal materials
and the biblical ones are indisputable. Take, for instance, the structure of the
collections, particularly that of the Law of Hammurabi. It has a prologue in
which the background of the law is given, followed by the collection of laws,
closing with an epilogue.30 The same structure has been identified in the case of
the so called Book of the Covenant in Exod 20-23.31 Casuistic law (case laws;
“if such and such happens, then . . .”) characterizes many of the collections, as
is also the case in the biblical materials. We find in the Bible laws addressed by
God to the Israelites, and often phrased as imperatives, called apodictic laws. It
was believed that such laws were uniquely Israelite, but laws phrased in the
apodictic style have been found among Israelites neighbors.32
If we look at some specific laws we find a number of striking similarities.
Deut 24:7: “If a man is caught kidnapping one of his brother Isra[1]elites and treats him as a slave or sells him, the kidnapper
must die.”
CH 14: “If a man should kidnap the young child of another man,
he shall be killed.”
Mid. Assyrian A30: “If the father who presented the bridal gift so
pleases, he shall take his daughter-in-law (i.e., the wife of his
deceased son) and give her in marriage to his (second) son.”
Deut 25:5-10: “If brothers are living together and one of them
dies without a son, . . . Her husband’s brother shall take her
and marry her and fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to her.”
Lev 18:7, 29: “Do not dishonor your father by having sexual rela[1]tion with your mother. . . . . . Such persons must be cut off
from their people.”
30 W. J. Harrelson, “Law in the OT,” Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, ed. George Ar[1]thur Buttrick (Nashville: Abingdon, 1962), 3:79. 31 Shalom M. Paul, Studies in the Book of the Covenant in the Light of Cuneiform and Biblical
Law (Leiden: Brill, 1970), 36,
32 Samuel Greengus, “Law: Biblical and ANE Law,” Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. David
Noel Freedman (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 4:245.
Rodríguez: Ancient Near Eastern Parallels
53
Hammurabi 157: “If a man, after his father’s death, should lie with
his mother, they shall burn them both.” [In Hittite law it is
not a sin for the son to have sex with her after the death of the
father (HL 190).]
In the area of sexual prohibitions there are many similarities between bibli[1]cal legislation and Hittite, Babylonian, and Assyrian laws. Interestingly, the
biblical text states that the Egyptians and the Canaanites did not practice similar
laws (Lev 18:3, 27-29), but does not say anything about Hittites, Babylonians,
and Assyrians. Nevertheless, it is clear that “the Israelites were neither the first
nor only people to honor such taboo.”33
One more example taken from Hammurabi 199: “If he destroys the eye of a
citizen’s slave, or breaks the bone of citizen’s slave, he shall pay half of the pur[1]chasing price.” Compare it with Exod 21:26: “If a man hits a manservant or
maidservant in the eye and destroys it, he must let the servant go free to com[1]pensate for the eye.”
Samuel Greengus states, “The similarity between the Israelite and pagan
laws is remarkable and unexpected. The language in which the respective laws
were formulated is at times so close that questions have arisen as to the original[1]ity and independence of the Israelite legal traditions.”34
How then should one explain those similarities? What is uniquely Israelite
in the biblical legal materials? A logical conclusion would be that the Israelites
took over their body of legal materials from ancient Near Eastern legal tradi[1]tions. The problem scholars face with that suggested solution is that there is no
way to determine how that happened. One of them has concluded that “at this
stage of knowledge . . . the actual mechanisms of cultural contact and transmis[1]sion still remain elusive.”35
Other scholars have acknowledged the ancient Near Eastern influence on the
Israelite legal tradition but have sought to demonstrate that there are some fun[1]damental conceptual differences which make the Israelite system unique. For
instance, the laws dealing with slaves are much more humanitarian in the Bible
than in any other Near Eastern law. “Ancient Near Eastern law collections deal
mostly with the slaves in relation to an injuring third party, thus emphasizing
the slave’s status as chattel. However, most biblical legislation focuses upon the
relationship of slaves to their own master, thus emphasizing the slaves’ human[1]ity.”36 The clear tendency of the law of slavery in the Bible is “to humanize this
33 Greengus, 246. 34 Harrelson, 534. 35 Greengus, 247. 36 Barry Lee Eichler, “Slavery,” in Harper’s Bible Dictionary, ed. Paul J. Achtemeier (San
Francisco: Harper and Row, 1985), 959. K. A. Kitchen, “Slave,” in Illustrated Bible Dictionary,
- J. E. Douglas (England: InterVarsity, 1980), 3:1464, writes, “Even when the Hebrew law and
custom on slaves shares in the common heritage of the ancient Semitic world, there is this unique
care in God’s name for these people who by status were not people, something absent from the
law of the Babylon and Assyria.”
Journal of the Adventist Theological Society
54
institution” based on the belief that there is one Creator and that all human be[1]ings were made in the image and likeness of God. There was also the fact that
Israel itself was in bondage in Egypt.37
Specific characteristics of the Israelite law have been identified as pointing
to its uniqueness. First, it has been argued that, over against ancient Near East[1]ern law, the Israelites view their law as originating in God Himself; He is con[1]sidered the only legislator in Israel. In Mesopotamia the law was the embodi[1]ment of cosmic truth, and Shamash was its custodian but not its originator. It
was the function of the king to establish justice in his realm, and it was he who
expressed the cosmic truth in the form of law.38 Among the Israelites the law
was conceived as coming directly from God.
Second, in Israel, it is suggested, the law is an expression of God’s will,
and therefore all crimes are considered a sin against Him and cannot be pardoned
by a human agency.39 All aspects of life are directly related, through the law, to
the will of God. No distinction is made in the biblical legal materials between
the moral, civil, and religious spheres of life. They are all considered an expres[1]sion of the will of God.
Third, since it is God who personally gives the law to His people, they are
directly responsible to Him and not to any individual or legislative body.40
Every individual is now personally responsible to maintain justice in the land.
Fourth, biblical law is viewed as upholding the principle of the sacredness
of human life and therefore as rejecting the death penalty for crimes against
property.41 The basic principle is that human life is more valuable than prop[1]erty.
These principles are indeed useful and assist us in perceiving the uniqueness
of the Israelite law within the ancient Near East. But they do not provide an
answer to the question of the historical origin of biblical law. They simply de[1]scribe the way the Israelites conceived of their law and how it was different from
other legal collections. When dealing with the issue of the origin of the biblical
law, the only information we have is the one provided by the biblical text itself.
The text emphasizes the fact that it was God Himself who gave those laws to
the Israelites. In fact, He appeared to them on Mount Sinai and they heard His
voice as He gave them the Decalogue (Exod 19:16-19; 20:1-19). The people
suggested that Moses be their mediator, and the Lord said to him, “Stay here
with me so that I may give you all the commands, decrees and laws you are to
37 Walter Zimmerli, “Slavery in the OT,” in Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible Supplement,
- Keith Crim (Nashville: Abingdon, 1976), 829. 38 Moshe Greenberg, “Some Postulates of Biblical Criminal Law,” in Studies in Bible and
Jewish Religion, ed. Menahem Haran (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1960), 9. 39 Paul, 37; and Greenberg, 12. 40 Paul, 38. 41 Greenberg, 16-18.
Rodríguez: Ancient Near Eastern Parallels
55
teach them to follow in the land I am giving them to possess” (Deut 5:31;
NIV).
To what extent should we take that information at face value? Should we
interpret that emphasis on God as the originator of the law as a literary device
whose purpose was to invest the law with authority? If it was a literary device,
we do not have any precedent for it. First, in the ancient Near East the authority
of the law was not grounded on its divine origin but on the authority of the
king, who was also subjected to it. Second, in the Bible the law is located
within and is part of a historical narrative. The text considers the giving of the
law to Israel to be a historical event that took place on Mount Sinai after the
people left from Egypt. The origin of the people of Israel, the moment at which
the twelve tribes were constituted into a nation, and the giving of the law are
inseparable. The historical moment is the same. Finally, the biblical text makes
a special effort to establish the fact that it was God Himself who gave the law to
His people. The Lord publicly proclaimed the Decalogue, and that event was
witnessed by each Israelite. This is the only way the biblical text explains the
origin of the law, and we should take it very seriously.
For a community of faith that acknowledges the divine origin of the Bible,
solutions that tend to play down the plain meaning of the text become, to say
the least, questionable. By assuming that perspective of faith with respect to the
biblical text, the problem of the unquestionable similarities between biblical law
and ancient Near Eastern law collections is accentuated. In searching for answers
we must attempt to integrate as much as possible the archaeological evidence
and the witness of the biblical text.
Let me suggest a way of dealing with the issue of similarities within the
conceptual context of the Israelite law as a divine revelation. First, some of the
similarities could possibly be explained by the simple fact that humans are so[1]cial beings who seek to live in harmony in a context of social order. This re[1]quires a set of common social values expressed in norms and laws that will
regulate the life of the social group. Social crimes do not vary much from cul[1]ture to culture, and even the possible number of penalties to be inflicted are lim[1]ited and therefore very similar. But since social values may vary, or at least the
hierarchy of value may be different, we should expect to find significant simi[1]larities as well as some differences. Of course, we could also suggest that God,
as Creator, provided for the human race a basic set of values and principles to
regulate human behavior and that some of them have been preserved in all cul[1]tures. That would certainly explain many of the similarities.
Second, we should take into consideration the biblical tradition concerning
Abram. It is a logical deduction to conclude that when he left Ur, in Mesopota[1]mia, Abram left with the legal tradition of that area. He had been a citizen of
that city, was aware of the laws regulating the different aspects of that society,
and he lived by those laws. He was probably well acquainted with at least the
Babylonian civil laws. Travelling throughout Palestine, he became acquainted
Journal of the Adventist Theological Society
56
with the Canaanite and even the Egyptian legal traditions and possibly incorpo[1]rated some of them into his own lifestyle.
Third, we should also take into consideration that according to the biblical
text God made a covenant with Abram and gave him specific legal instructions
(Gen 17). It is true that we do not have a record of that legal material, but it
would have reflected values and principles compatible with the character of God
which were to regulate the life of Abram and his descendants. Obviously this
new legal material did not totally reject every aspect of the legal traditions
known by Abram. Otherwise it would have been almost impossible for Abram
to interact with people outside his household.
Fourth, we must acknowledge that the twelve tribes of Israel did not live in
a legal vacuum before Sinai.42 The legal traditions of their forefathers Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob were part of their legal heritage. Besides, they were acquainted
at least with the Canaanite and Egyptian law systems. While in Egypt the Lord
gave them laws regulating the Passover (Exod 12:1-30) and the consecration of
the firstborn. Moses may have even initiated in Egypt a Sabbath reform (5:4-21;
- 16:4-35). And after the Exodus, and before reaching Sinai, the Lord gave
them some laws whose content is not stated in the text (15:25c-26).
Fifth, God did not uproot Israel from its cultural milieu by giving them a
legal system totally and radically different from that of the surrounding nations.
In order for the Israelites to be effective as God’s instrument in blessing the na[1]tions of the earth, it was necessary for them to be similar and yet different from
those nations. Israel was now a new nation brought into existence by the Lord
in fulfillment to the promises He made to Abraham.
Finally, if we take seriously the biblical witness according to which the Is[1]raelite laws were given to them by the Lord, we would have to conclude that at
Sinai God gave Israel more than a peculiar legal frame of reference based on
unique principles of social and religious values. He gave them also a legal
system that incorporated some of their legal heritage from the ancient Near
East that was compatible with the covenant He made with them as well as new
legal demands.
43 According to the biblical text the Israelite legal system was
42 W. J. Harrelson writes, “Legal and social customs reflected in the book of Genesis have
appeared in a new light as a result of the recovery of compatible materials from the second mil[1]lennium BC found in NW Mesopotamia. . . .
“These indications of a common legal and social tradition between the ancestors of the Isra[1]elites and the peoples of NW Mesopotamia make clear that the period prior to Exodus was not
without its laws and community regulations. The ancestors of the Israelites are not to be understood
as wandering nomads without any sort of legal tradition apart from that which is suited to tribal life
among such nomads. It is highly probable that in the pre-Mosaic era the tribal groups from which
the community of Israel was to be formed had, therefore, a fairly well-developed system of legal
procedures based on customs widely prevalent in the ancient Near East” (3:78). 43 It is generally acknowledged that the covenant God made with Israel uses the same liter[1]ary form employed in the ancient Near Eastern covenants. K. A. Kitchen comment, “At least there
can be little doubt that the early Hebrews thus used a set form which was common all over the
Rodríguez: Ancient Near Eastern Parallels
57
given to the people by God Himself. It did not come into existence through a
long historical process that reached its climax after the exile from Babylon.
Some of the common legal traditions were modified by the Lord, making them
more humane and adapting them to the spirit and intention of the covenant He
made with the Israelites. The final product was indeed unique to Israel. That
probably was what Moses had in mind when he said to the people: “See, I have
taught you decrees and laws as the Lord my God commanded me. . . . Observe
them carefully, for this will show your wisdom and understanding to the na[1]tions, who will hear about all these decrees and say, ‘Surely this great nation is
a wise and understanding people.’ What other nation is so great as to have their
gods near them the way the Lord our God is near us whenever we pray to him?
And what other nation is so great as to have such righteous decrees and laws as
this body of laws I am setting before you today?” (Deut 4:5-8).
Cultus: Sanctuary/Temple Services
We should expect to find some similarities between the Israelite cultus and an[1]cient Near Eastern cultic practices. Belief in the existence of divine beings leads
to worship, a worship place and system, and leaders or mediators of worship.
Temples were very common in the ancient world, and we even know about sac[1]rificial altars with four horns, like the one in the Israelite sanctuary. Evidence
from Canaan shows that burnt sacrifices and peace offerings were offered to the
deities.44 Those two sacrifices were very common in the Israelite sanctu[1]ary/temple services. This suggests that the two languages “draw on a common
heritage of sacrificial terms which have developed differently on each side.”45 In
fact, however, when we place the particular terminology within the broad relig[1]ious context of each religion, the differences are significant. The sacrificial sys[1]tem in the ancient Near East seemed to have had the fundamental purpose of
feeding the gods or providing for their needs, while in the Bible that particular
motivation is absent and rejected (Ps 50). Sacrifices were offered as an expres[1]sion of devotion to God, joy and gratitude, and to make atonement for the re[1]pentant sinner. Since sacrifice has basically been a universal religious practice of
humans beings, one could postulate a common origin for it and suggest that its
real intent and meaning is preserved in the Scripture through divine revelation
and inspiration.
Ancient Near East and used it in a unique way–to express the relation between a people and its
sovereign God, their real Great King, something which was far beyond any merely political rela[1]tionship between human rulers and other states” [Ancient Orient and the Old Testament (Chicago:
InterVarsity, 1966), 102]. 44 John Gray, The Legacy of Canaan: The Ras Shamra Texts and Their Relevance to the OT
(Leiden: Brill, 1965), 192; Baruch A. Levine, In the Presence of the Lord (Leiden: Brill, 1974), 8-
- 45 Ringgren, 33.
Journal of the Adventist Theological Society
58
In the Israelite cultus humans are described as being in constant need of
cleansing before approaching God, suggesting that humans are by nature unclean
and sinners. A similar idea is found in an old Akkadian invocation addressed to
an anonymous god: “Who is there who has not sinned against his god, who has
constantly obeyed the commandments? Every man who lives is sinful.”46 Gene[1]sis 8:21 says, “Every inclination of his [man’s] heart is evil from childhood.”
Apparently leprosy was viewed in both Israel and Assyria as something that
prevented one from having access to the temple and from social interaction. In a
vassal-treaty, dated to ca. 680 BC, during the time of Esahardon, we find the
following curse: “May Sin, the light of heaven and earth, cover you with lep[1]rosy and so prevent you going in to god and kings; (then) wander like a wild
ass or gazelle through the fields!”47
Hittite texts indicate that the concept of holiness was known to them. “It is
used, for example, if something is to be described as belonging exclusively to a
deity, primarily its divine nature, and then perhaps the territory of a hostile city
which has been destroyed and dedicated to a god, and which is not to be built
again (like Jericho). It is also used of temples, cultic utensils, priests, sacrifices,
festivals.”48 This is somewhat similar to what we have in the OT, with the im[1]portant difference that in the biblical cultus the concept of holiness plays a much
more important role and is not just a cultic concept but carries a definite ethical
content.
There are several parallels that deserve closer attention. The first one has to
do with the building of the Israelite sanctuary. According to Exod 25:8-9, God
showed Moses the model to be used in the construction of the tabernacle. The
earthly was to be patterned after the heavenly; that is to say, the earthly sanctu[1]ary is a symbol of a transcendental reality. This idea belongs to the phenome[1]nology of temples in the ancient Near East and in other parts of the world.
Gudea, ruler of Sumer, had a dream in which was revealed to him the plan, in[1]scribed on a tablet, for the temple for Ningursu, a warrior and fertility god.49
The Babylonian creation account ascribes the construction of the temple of Mar[1]duk, the Esagila, in Babylon to the gods at the time of creation: “A likeness on
earth of what he [Marduk] has wrought in heaven.”50 In Egypt we find a similar
idea in that historical temples were conceived as having had their mythological
origin at the moment of creation. “That is to say, the actual physical sanctuary
is conceived to be an extension and continuity of a mythical prototype. Not
46 Schmokel, 108. 47 Ibid., 130. 48 Cord Kühne, “Hittite Texts,” in Beyerlin, Near Eastern Religious Texts, 180 n. i. 49 See John Lundquist, “What is a Temple? A Preliminary Typology,” in The Quest for the
Kingdom of God, ed. H. F. Huffmon, F. A. Spina, and A. R. W. Green (Winona Lake, IN: Eisen[1]braun, 1983), 211; and Jeremy Black and Anthony Green, God, Demons and Symbols of Ancient
Mesopotamia: An Illustrated Dictionary (Austin: U of Texas P, 1995), 138. 50 E. A. Speiser, “Akkadian Myths and Epics: The Creation Epic,” in Ancient Near Eastern
Texts Relating to the OT, ed. James A. Pritchard (Princeton: Princeton UP, 1969), 68-69.
Rodríguez: Ancient Near Eastern Parallels
59
only this, but the gods may specify the actual ground area of the sacred precinct
and furnish the dimensions of the temple and its enclosure. For example, the
temple of Re at Heliopolis was believed to have been planned by the god Thoth,
the divine scribe and inventor of writing.”51
As pointed out already, this is found not only in the ancient Near East but
also in other places of the world. In the building of an ancient Japanese shrine to
the sun goddess, Amateraru, she herself “gave the oracle that determined the
original wood structure, which has been regularly replaced as an exact replica.”52
Hindu temples are considered to be the visual expression of the cosmic force
which creates innumerable forms; “it is a static model of the cosmos” or a mani[1]festation of it.53 In other words, the temple models or expresses a transcendental
reality that belongs to the divine world. Even in Confucianism, in China, the
temple is considered to be not just a building but is “symbolic of the perfect
and rational order designed by Confucian morality.54
The idea that specific instructions for the building of earthly temples were
given by the gods to humans and that therefore the building itself was a reflec[1]tion of a transcendental reality seems to belong to the human religious con[1]sciousness and transcends cultural and regional boundaries. From that perspec[1]tive it would be right to say that a temple is a part of our world “which shares
most fully in the heavenly realm and must be fit for the god’s presence. It is, as
it were, a little piece of heaven on earth, or at least it corresponds to the heav[1]enly original as an earthly replica, a mirror of its model or a microcosm of the
cosmos as a whole.”55
Since the understanding of a temple as a manifestation of a transcendental
heavenly reality appears to belong to those intuitive religious ideas which are
part of the human religious consciousness, it should not be argued that Israel
took the idea from the religions of the ancient Near East. According to the bibli[1]cal text this idea was incorporated into the Israelite religion at a particular time
and through a divine revelation. Hence, the basic correctness of the universal
conviction is reaffirmed and at the same time divested from mythological asso[1]ciations and from any other conceptual aberration. In the process the biblical text
establishes on solid ground the reality of a heavenly counterpart to the earthly
dwelling of God and validates or legitimizes the significance of the earthly.56
51 Nahum Sarna, Exploring Exodus: The Heritage of Biblical Israel (New York: Schoken,
1986), 202; H. Frankfort, Kingship and the Gods (Chicago: University P, 1978), 269-71. 52 Harold W. Turner, From Temple to Meeting House: The Phenomenology and Theology of
Places of Worship (Netherlands: Mouton, 1979), 28. 53 Michael W. Meister, “Temple: Hindu Temples,” in The Encyclopedia of Religion, ed. Mir[1]cea Eliade (New York: Macmillan, 1987), 13:368, 373. 54 Nancy Shatzman Steinhardt, “Temple: Confucian Temple Compounds,” in The Encyclo[1]pedia of Religion, 13:382. 55 Turner, 26. 56 A word would be in order concerning the architectural similarities between the Israelite
temple and other ancient Near Eastern temples. It could hardly be denied that the architecture of
Journal of the Adventist Theological Society
60
Another parallel that deserves attention is the ritual of the scapegoat in Lev
- Once the cleansing of the sanctuary is finished, the sin and uncleanness of
the Israelites are placed on the goat for Azazel and sent to the wilderness. Sev[1]eral ritual texts describing a similar rite have been found among the Hittites and
Babylonians. This type of ritual is usually called an “elimination rite” whose
purpose is to eliminate or remove from the community or the individual certain
type of evil (impurity, pestilence, an infection, etc.). A few examples will illus[1]trate the point.
The Hittite ritual of Pulisa prescribed a ritual to be performed when the
king and his army, returning from war, were afflicted by a plague. The king was
to select a man, a woman, a bull, and a ewe from the land of the enemy for the
ritual. They were presented to the god or goddess who caused the plague. The
king or his appointee, representing the army, transferred the plague to the vic[1]tims, who were not only transporters of the evil but substitutes for the king and
his army. The king prayed, “You, male God, be appeased with t[his de]corated
man. But to the king, the [leaders], the ar[my, and the] land of Hatti, tur[n
yourself fa]ithfully. [ ] But let this prisoner b[ear] the plague and carry (it) ba[ck
into the land of the enemy.”]57
It was believed that one of the local deities sent the evil, and the purpose of
the ritual was to return it to the land of the enemy, to the place it came from.
The idea of the transfer of a collective evil to a place outside the camp is present
in Lev 16, but not the idea of appeasing a deity. This is understandable because
in the Israelite religion there is only one God. Azazel, as a demonic figure, does
not need to be appeased but defeated. The goat for Azazel is not a substitute for
the temple of Solomon includes a number of architectural elements common at that time. Law[1]rence T. Geraty examined the available archaeological evidence and concluded that “while the
Jerusalem temple fits into a definite cultural context, at the same time there are significant and
crucial differences that made Solomon’s temple unique. Perhaps the most important distinction was
in the way the temple functioned in Israelite theology; it was not God’s palace where His human
servants supplied His physical needs, but it was the bearer of His name, and thus the focus of re[1]ligious attention to which prayer was directed. The Jerusalem temple was an accommodation to the
needs of His people. God guided its builders (1 Chr 28:11-12; et al), not in a cultural vacuum but
among the current options, to choose an arrangement that already had some meaning but one
which could be modified to teach Israel how and why she was different from her neighbors”
[“The Jerusalem Temple of the Hebrew Bible in its Ancient Near Eastern Context,” in The Sanc[1]tuary and the Atonement, edited by Arnold V. Wallenkampf and W. Richard Lesher (Washington,
DC: Review and Herald, 1981), 59]. The basic structure of Solomon’s temple was the same as the
Mosaic tabernacle, and there is not an exact parallel to any of them. The one that comes closest is
the general plan of the Tell Tainat temple in Northern Syria (it is a tripartite house). Concerning it
Geraty wrote, “Tainat’s inner holy of holies is not square; its raised platform does not extend over
the entire area of the room; and its columns are definitely within the portico (whereas Solomon’s
may or may not be). Furthermore, inasmuch as it dates to the 9th cent B.C., one cannot prove that it
was not influenced by Solomon’s temple, a logical assumption given Solomon’s fame and influ[1]ence” (55). 57 David P. Wright, The Disposal of Impurity: Elimination Rites in the Bible and in the Hittite
and Mesopotamian Literature (Atlanta: Scholars, 1987), 46.
Rodríguez: Ancient Near Eastern Parallels
61
the high priest precisely because the idea of appeasement is absent from the text.
Yes, there are some similarities, but when the ritual is placed within the concep[1]tual context of each religion the differences are significant.
In another case a person is sick, and in order to remove the “evil sickness” a
bowstring is attached to the hand and foot of the individual, then removed from
him and attached to a mouse. The person in charge of the rite says, “‘I have
taken away from you evil and I have put it on the mouse. Let this mouse take it
to the high mountains, to the deep valleys (and) the distant ways.’ She lets the
mouse go (saying): ‘Alawaimi, drive this (mouse) forth, and I will give to you a
goat to eat.’”58 The mouse is not a substitute but, like the biblical scapegoat, a
means of transport used to remove the evil from the person by sending it away.
The best example from Babylon is found in the ritual for the purification of
the temple. The officiating priest takes the carcass of a ram and “wipes the tem[1]ple with the carcass of the ram. He recites the incantation for exorcizing the
temple. He purifies the whole cella including its surrounding areas and then
takes down the censer. The mashmashushu takes up the carcass of that ram and
goes to the river, He sets his face westward and throws the carcass of that ram
into the river.”59 As in Lev 16 the context deals with the purification of the
temple/sanctuary. In the process of cleansing it the evil is transferred to a dead
animal whose carcass is thrown into the river. So, we have the ideas of cleans[1]ing the temple and transfer and removal of evil from it. But the similarities are
mainly superficial.
In the Babylonian religion what contaminated the temples was not the sin
or impurity of the people but demons. These demons posited a threat to the
deity, and it was necessary once a year to remove them from the temple. This
was done through the carcass of the ram. The demons got attached to the flesh
of the animal and were returned to the underworld from where they came. In
Babylonian mythology demons dwelt in the underworld and had access to the
world of the living through rivers. By throwing the carcass into the river they
were sent back to their place of origin. In Israel the temple was cleansed from
the sin and uncleanness of the people and not from the threatening presence of
demons. However, in both cases there is a removal of evil and its return to its
place of origin.
It is obvious that God was employing a common ritual practice from the
ancient Near East to convey a truth that was not expressed through the per[1]formance of the ritual itself in any other religion. In other words, God selected
a ritual practice and invested it with a particular meaning that was foreign to
- God was mediating new knowledge using structures of knowledge already
present. He condescended to use what was available to the Israelites in order
58 Ibid., 57. 59 Ibid., 64.
Journal of the Adventist Theological Society
62
to lead them beyond their cognitive limitations into a better understanding of
His plan for them.
Conclusions
It is simply impossible to deny that there are significant parallels between
the OT and ancient Near Eastern social institutions and religious and cultic prac[1]tices. However, we must not exaggerate those similarities and then conclude that
when the prophets were preserving for us the content of the Scriptures they were
simply victims of their social and religious environment. The testimony of the
Scripture itself is that God Himself was using that which was accessible to the
prophets within their own cultural milieu to convey a special message to His
people. Obviously, God did not remove the prophets from their own cultural
context. God used common religious, cultic, and legal language but invested it
with the meaning and message He wanted to communicate to His people. There[1]fore, it is important, in the study of the language, to give priority to the biblical
text itself and then explore possible parallels.
Some of the parallels between Israel and ancient Near Eastern practices and
beliefs suggest the possibility of a common origin. Each religion expressed
what was originally one basic practice or belief in a peculiar way introducing
significant differences but preserving some similarities. In those cases, through
divine revelation the practices or beliefs were divested of their pagan distor[1]tions in order to use them as a proper vehicle to communicate the divine mes[1]sage.
Our study of ancient Near Eastern practices and their possible relationship
to the biblical text suggests that in the OT God, through His work of revelation
and inspiration, dealt with ancient pagan practices in different ways and that He
used them for different purposes. Among the ways God dealt with them we find
the following ones:
- Rejection and Condemnation of Pagan Ideas: A large number of ancient
Near Eastern practices were rejected by God in the OT. For instance, consulting
the spirit of the dead was a common religious act, but in Israel God rejected it
(Deut 18:10-11). We do not know the extent of the practice of child sacrifice in
Canaan, but the God of Israel opposed it as a most serious sin, an offence
against Himself resulting in the extermination of the individual (Lev 20:1). The
list could be lengthened, but that is not necessary. It is clear that the prophets
and the people of Israel were to some extent informed about the religion of the
surrounding nations, and God Himself rejected most of their religious convic[1]tions.
- Polemics Against Pagan Ideas: At times it was not sufficient for the
Lord to forbid His people to follow the practices of the Canaanites. He used the
prophets to engage in a polemic attack against some of the religious practices
and beliefs of the neighbours of the Israelites. God gave a specific command
against the worship of images, but since the temptation was too strong for His
Rodríguez: Ancient Near Eastern Parallels
63
people, He showed in a polemic tone the absurdity of worshipping idols. Isaiah
46:6-7 provides a good example:
Some pour gold from their bags
and weigh out silver in the scales;
they hire a goldsmith to make it into a god,
and they bow down and worship it.
They lift it to their shoulders and carry it;
they set it up in its place, and there it stands.
From that spot it cannot move.
Though one cries out to it, it does not answer;
it cannot save him from troubles. (Cf. 44:9-20)
We can illustrate the same point by analyzing Hosea’s attack against the
Canaanite fertility cult. God revealed Himself through the prophet as the one
who sent the rain, fertilized the land, and blessed His people. Israel is described
as a woman who said, “‘I will go after my lovers, who give my food and my
water, my wool and my linen, my oil and my drink.’. . . She has not acknowl[1]edged that I was the one who gave her the grain, the new wine and oil, who
lavished on her the silver and gold—which they used for Baal” (2:5, 8). Yah[1]weh, and not Baal, is the One who out of His covenant love blesses the land,
the animals, and His people. Therefore, there is no need for the people of Israel
to practice fertility rituals.
- Adaptation of Social Practices: We have already seen that God did not
reject everything from the surrounding cultures. Sometimes He took a religious,
cultic or legal regulation or practice and redefined or re-configured it in order
to communicate, in a reliable way, His will to His people, or in order simply
to adapt it to the theocracy. One of the best examples is kingship in Israel.
While in Egypt the king was divine and in most of the ancient Near East he was
placed very close to the divine or divinized after death, in Israel the king was the
Servant of the Lord, a vassal of Yahweh, the true king of Israel. The ancient
Near Eastern concept of the king was taken over, but it was redefined in order to
make it compatible with the Israelite faith. In fact, with respect to Israel it
would be better to talk about a monarchical theocracy than about a monarchy.
God never surrendered His claim and authority as King of Israel. In some other
cases God tolerated social evil practices but through legislation made them more
humane (e.g., polygamy, divorce, slavery).
- Incorporation of Different Materials and Literary Techniques: At times
God selected practices from the ancient Near East that were compatible with
the values and principles of the covenant relationship He established with Is[1]rael. In Proverbs we have a collection of proverbs that may have been written by
a non-Israelite, but the biblical writer, under the inspiration of the Spirit, incor[1]porated them into the book (Prov 30:1-33; cf. 31:1-9). Literary techniques and
forms used in Canaanite literature were also used by the prophets to express
the message the Lord gave them.
Journal of the Adventist Theological Society
64
By carefully studying each particular parallel we can determine which one of
the previous four reactions to ancient Near Eastern practices is present in the
biblical text. The meaning of a biblical text is, then, determined by its own
biblical context because it is only there that we are informed about the way
God used the ancient Near Eastern background. By acknowledging that God
was directly involved in the process of rejecting, polemicizing, adapting, re[1]formulating, and incorporating some of the cultural, religious, cultic, and le[1]gal practices of the ancient Near East, we can honor the divine nature of Scrip[1]ture and justify the need to submit to its authority.
Angel Manuel Rodriguez is an Associate Director of the Biblical Research Institute.