• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
You are here: Home / 5* INFO / from pdf Ancient Near Eastern Parallels to the Bible and the Question of Revelation 5* for INFO and 10* for total bulllshit

from pdf Ancient Near Eastern Parallels to the Bible and the Question of Revelation 5* for INFO and 10* for total bulllshit

10 October 2021 by Red Johnson

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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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

  1. 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,

  1. 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,

  1. 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;

  1. 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-

  1. 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

  1. 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

  1. 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:

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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).

  1. 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.

[email protected]

Filed Under: 5* INFO

Primary Sidebar

Categories

  • "The Influence of the Mystery Religions on Christianity" (2)
  • “A land without a people for a people without a land” (4)
  • 5* BULLSHIT (10)
  • 5* INFO (505)
  • A Brief History of Humankind (1)
  • A Historical List Of Ancient Texts That Predate The Bible (5)
  • A Moral Argument Against Absolute Authority of the Torah (4)
  • AA NEW-TGP (10)
  • AAA TGP 1 RED CURCUMCUSION (3)
  • AAA TGP 2 YELLOW – EXODUS (6)
  • ABSOLUTE BULSHIT 5* (1)
  • Academia. (28)
  • An Incomplete History (3)
  • Ancient 'outlaw temple' discovered in Israel (9)
    • 18-19th CENTURY AUTHORS BIBLICAL CRITICISM (8)
      • Chilperic Edwards (1)
  • ANCIENT HISTORY (10)
  • Ancient Israel: A Brief History (1)
  • Ancient Mesopotamian underworld (3)
  • Ancient Near Eastern Parallels to the Bible and the Question of Revelation 5* for INFO and 10* for total bulllshit (1)
  • Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament (1)
  • Ancient Sumerian Origins of the Easter Story (1)
  • and Readmission of the Jews (1)
  • ANTI ZIONISM (1)
  • Anti-Zionism (1)
  • Antisemitism (1)
  • Arno C. Gaebelein (1)
  • ATHEIST BIBLE (1)
  • AUTHORS (110)
    • Alison Weir (5)
    • Assmann_Jan (1)
    • Benjamin Freedman (1)
    • Bible Myths and their Parallels in other Religions, by T. W. Doane (4)
    • Donald Morgan (1)
    • Donald Morgan (8)
    • DOUGLAS REED (1)
    • Dr Michael David Magee (9)
    • GEORGE SMITH (14)
    • GEORGE SMITH (5)
    • Irving Finkel (3)
    • JOSEPH CAMPBELL (3)
    • Joshua J. Mark (8)
    • Journalist H.L. Mencken's Account of the Scopes Trial (1)
    • Leonard W. King (1)
    • Nahum Sokolow LEADING ZIONIST OFFICIAL AND DIPLOMAT1859 – 1936 (2)
    • REV. A. H. SAYCE (1)
    • RICHARD FREIDMAN (1)
    • Robert G. Ingersoll (6)
    • STANLEY WILKIN (5)
    • Stephen Sizer (3)
    • The 10 Worst Old Testament Verses by Dan Barker (1)
    • The Chaldean Account of Genesis – George Smith (2)
    • THE CHURCH OF TRUTH (3)
      • The Bible Is Wrong About Moses (2)
    • The Greatest Lie Ever Told" by historian W H Uffington. (1)
    • THOMAS SHOEMAKER (4)
    • Walter Reinhold Warttig Mattfeld (15)
    • WHITNEY WEBB (2)
    • Ze’ev Herzog (2)
  • Babel and Bible (3)
    • William Jennings Bryan – Woodrow WIlson – SCOPES TRIAL (2)
  • BABYLONIAN RELIGION (9)
  • Babylonian tablet shows how Noah's ark could have been constructed (1)
  • BALFOUR DECLARATION (15)
    • The Ambition of Mr. House (1)
  • BANKSTERS AND WARMONGERS (3)
  • Baron Edmond de Rothschild & Palestine (2)
  • BIBLE AND MESOPOTAMIA (15)
  • BIBLE AND MESOPOTAMIA FACTS AND DETAILS (1)
  • BIBLE AND MESOPTMNIA (10)
  • Bible Atrocities (1)
  • Bible Is Fiction (1)
  • Bible is Fiction: A Collection Of Evidence (1)
  • BibleMythsandTheirParallelsinOtherReligions (7)
  • Biblical archaeology (32)
  • Biblical Assyria and Other Anxieties in the British Empire (1)
  • Biblical Contradictions (3)
  • Biblical Understanding & 19th-century CE Archaeology (4)
  • BRITTIANICA INFO – HISTORY OF JUDASIM AND MORE (1)
  • BULLSHIT NONSENSE GOOD FOR INFO – The Top Ten Attacks Against the Bible’s Historical Reliability — And How to Answer Them (6)
  • Canaanite and origins of Ancient Israel (6)
  • Charles Taze Russell (1)
  • Chart of All The Supernatural Events Recorded in the Bible (1)
  • Christian Fundamentalism (83)
  • CHRISTIAN ZIONISM/EVANGELICALS (92)
  • Christianity and its unashamed plagiarism (1)
  • Churchill (6)
    • Churchill (5)
    • the Jews and Israel – Part 1 (2)
  • CHURCHILL AND ROTHSCHILDS (5)
  • Circumcision (3)
  • Circumcision: History, Scope, and Aim: Part I (1)
  • COL HOUSE (1)
  • CONSPIRACY TRUTHS – Establishing The Zionist State of Israel (1)
  • CONSPIRACY TRUTHS – Genocide in Palestine (1)
  • CONSPIRACY TRUTHS – Rothschild Zionism (2)
  • COPPER/METAL (GOD) (2)
  • COPYCAT – JEWISH SABBATH NOT ORIGINAL – COPIED FROM THE SUMERIANS (2)
  • Darwin, Evolution, and Faith (3)
  • Deadly logic of "absolute anti-Zionism" (1)
  • DID MOSES EXIST? (2)
  • Did the Jews invent God? (1)
  • Did YHWH have a female consort? (1)
  • Difference Between Science and Scientism (2)
  • Do we have extra-biblical evidence for the origins of the Israelites? 5*info (1)
  • DO YOU KNOW WHY YOU BELIEVE WHAT YOU BELIEVE? (1)
  • DODGY INFO (6)
  • Domination by Deception (2)
  • Doré Bible (1)
  • Early Egyptology and the Hebrew Sojourn/Exodus Tradition (1)
  • Eden's Serpent: Its Mesopotamian Origins (3)
  • EDNUND DE ROTHSCHILD (2)
  • Egyptian paper claims Jewish Temple was never in Jerusalem (1)
  • EL AND YAHWEH (1)
  • EPIC OF GILIMESH (2)
  • Errant or Inerrant? That is the Question. (2)
  • Ezekiel’s Bizarre Siege Drama (1)
  • fake jews (1)
  • FEDERAL RESERVE (1)
  • FEDERAL RESERVE its creation under Woodrow Wilson (5)
  • FESTIVALS AND CALENDARS IN MESOPOTAMIA (2)
  • First World War Hidden History (1)
  • FORGOTTEN BOOKS (4)
  • General Jan Christian Smuts – A True Friend Of Zion (4)
  • Genesis (8)
  • Germans (1)
  • Greek and Old Testament Mythology (1)
  • Haaretz (12)
  • HAARETZPAPER (14)
    • For You Were (Not) Slaves in Egypt: The Ancient Memories Behind the Exodus Myth (1)
    • How the Jews Invented God (2)
  • Hammurabi's Code (3)
  • HENRY FROWDE (1)
  • High priest (4)
  • HISTORY – NINEVAH (1)
  • HISTORY BEGINS AT SUMER (9)
  • History of Israel (2)
  • HOLOCAUST EXPLIANED (1)
  • HOW DID GOD GET STARTED (Great article on the origns of how faith was invented) 5*+++ (2)
  • How Did God Get Started? (2)
  • How did we get the New Covenant teaching? (1)
  • How the Serpent Became Satan (2)
  • HUMANIST THINKING (2)
  • Humanists (1)
  • If the Messiah Isn't Here Yet, Does Israel Belong to the Jews? 5+++INFO (1)
  • Imagined_Beginnings (1)
  • Influence of Anthony Ashley-Cooper's Religious Thought – VII Lord Shaftesbury – on British Political Zionism. (1)
  • Influence of Gilgamesh on the Bible (1)
  • Is a Long-Dismissed Forgery Actually the Oldest Known Biblical Manuscript? (2)
  • Is Genesis merely a rip-off of other ANE lit? (7)
  • Is the Bible "Inerrant" or "Errant"? (1)
  • Is the Bible a True Story? (1)
  • Israel and the Palestinians: a history of conflict in 8 key episodes (4)
  • Israel deliberately forgets its history (4)
  • Israel Has No Right To Exist (11)
    • Why Israel can’t be a ‘Jewish State’ (3)
  • Israel’s Exodus (1)
  • Israelite History in the Context of the Ancient Near East (1)
  • January – March 2007 DANCING AROUND THE GOLDEN CALF – PART 5 (1)
  • Jerusalem: The Not-so-eternal Capital of the Jewish People (1)
  • Jewish God Yahweh Originated in Canaanite Vulcan, Says New Theory (1)
  • John Nelson Darby (10)
  • JUDAISM – REDDIT (2)
  • Khazars (1)
  • King Solomon's Tablet of Stone (2)
  • Legal Codes in the Ancient World (1)
  • LEGENDS OF BABYLON AND EGYPT IN RELATION TO HEBREW TRADITION (1)
  • Light on the Old Testament from the Ancient Near East (8)
  • LORD SHAFTSBURY (1)
  • Louis D. Brandeis: Zionist Leader (2)
  • Man or Biblical Myth: The Archaeological Evidence (1)
  • Manna Is Real and Not So Heavenly (2)
  • MARI AND THE BIBLICAL AMORITES (MAN) (1)
  • Maximilien Robespierre FRENCH REV (1)
  • Menasseh Ben Israel (2)
  • Mesopotamian Priests and Priestesses (1)
  • Monopolizing Knowledge by Ian Hutchinson (2)
  • MOSES AND THE EXODUS (8)
  • Nineveh (1)
  • NOAH'S ARK -THE FLOOD (5)
  • OLD TESTAMENT/TORAH STORYTELLING (13)
  • Oldest Ancient Civilizations (5)
  • OLIVER CROMWELL – CHARLES 1ST – JEWS RETURNING TO THE UK (7)
  • ON THE RELIABILITY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT (1)
  • ORIGINAL SIN (10)
  • Origins of Christian Zionism: Lord Shaftesbury and Evangelical Support for a Jewish Homeland' (2)
  • Origins Of The Hebrew Bible (91)
  • Origins of the Holy Bible via Archaeology (6)
  • OUT OF EGYPT OUT OF CAANAN (1)
  • OWLCATION (1)
  • Oxford Movement was also criticised for being both secretive and collusive. (1)
  • Pan-Babylonianism (5)
  • Pawns in the Game – William Guy Carr (1)
  • PDF (52)
  • Peoples of the Bible: The Legend of the Amorites (1)
  • Philosemitism in the British Isles is the basis of the Jewish state (1)
  • Plagiarism of the bible (27)
  • President Kennedy, The Fed And Executive Order 111 From APFN By Cedric X (2)
  • PRIESTHOODS OF THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST (1)
  • Probable Source of Aspects of Biblical and Homeric Literature (1)
  • Process of copying the Old Testament by Jewish Scribes (1)
  • Proof that religion is a man-made device and why it is outdated (2)
  • Pul, King (Tiglath-Pileser III) of Assyria (1)
  • Religion on Trial (4)
  • RESEARCHGATE (2)
  • ROGER GAHOLOCAUST DENIAL IN THE ARAB MEDIA (1)
  • ROTHSCHILD (33)
  • Rothschild & Russian Revolution (3)
  • Rothschild clients (1)
  • Rothschild Family History (6)
  • Rothschild Zionism (6)
  • ROTHSCHILDS BANKSTERS AND WARMONGERS (7)
  • ROTHSCHILDS TIMELINE (3)
  • SACRIFICES IN MESOPOTAMIA AND ISRAEL (4)
  • Samuel Untermeyer (24)
  • SCIENTIFIC ERRORS IN THE BIBLE (2)
  • SCOFIELD (41)
  • Scopes "Monkey" Trial (1925) (2)
  • SCRIBED (1)
  • Secular Web Kiosk (20)
  • Self-Fulfilling Prophecy (1)
  • SHAKESPEARE (1)
  • SMUTTS – A Reevaluation of the Balfour Declaration (1)
  • Sumerian and Babylonian Psalms (2)
  • Sumerian King List still puzzles historians after more than a century of research (1)
  • Sumerian Polytheism, Sin and a Great Flood (2)
  • Sumerian religion/COPYCAT Hebrews (17)
  • Sumerians (11)
  • Sykes-Picot and the Zionists (2)
  • TGP – ARK OF THE COVENANT (1)
  • TGP -THE GREAT PRETENDER (7)
  • Thales Idea of natural and super natural. (2)
  • THE ANTINOMIES OF CHRISTIAN ZIONISM (1)
  • The Ark of the Covenant in its Egyptian Context (1)
  • The Atheist Atrocities Fallacy – Hitler, Stalin & Pol Pot (1)
  • The Balfour Declaration: Enduring colonial criminality (3)
  • THE BASIC LAWS OF HUMAN STUPIDITY (1)
  • The Bible and Belief in Victorian Britain (1)
  • The Development of Zionism Until the Founding of the State of Israel (1)
  • THE DIVINE SERPENT (2)
  • The entire bible is rife with historical errors … 5*INFO (TAKEN FROM QUORA) (1)
  • THE ETHNIC CLEANSING OF PALESTINE (5)
  • The Evolution-Creationism Controversy: A Chronology (1)
  • The Exodus Debunked: Chronology (1)
  • The Federal Reserve's Role During WWII (1)
  • The Fool Says in His Heart, “There is no God (1)
  • THE GILGMESH EPIC AND OLD TESTAMENT (3)
  • The Great Flood: Comparison (2)
    • The Great Flood (1)
  • The Impossible Voyage of Noah’s Ark (2)
  • THE INCREDIBLE SCOFIELD AND HIS BOOK By JOSEPH M. CANFIELD 5*INFO (2)
  • The Invention of God (1)
  • The Invention of the Land of Israel by Shlomo Sand (1)
  • The Jewish concept of God as their tribal protector, who would save them from being conquered or exiled, had to undergo revision. (2)
  • the Jews and Israel – Part 1 (1)
  • The Kuzari Principle (4)
  • THE LAWS OF HAMMURABI AND THE COVENANT CODE: (5)
  • The Myth of Abraham (1)
  • THE MYTH OF MOSES AND SINAI (16)
  • THE MYTH OF SIN (1)
  • The national revelation at Sinai never happened (11)
  • The Old Testament and Its Authors (1)
  • The Origins of Judaism (14)
  • The Politics of the Exodus Myth (1)
  • The Problem of the Bible: Inaccuracies, contradictions, fallacies, scientific issues and more. (1)
  • The Reformation (1)
  • The Reformation, Cromwell, the Commonwealth, and Readmission of the Jews (1)
  • The roots of the creation story: An atheist's take on the Bible (1)
  • The Sabbath (4)
  • The Scopes Monkey Trial, 80 Years Later CLARENCE DARROW (2)
  • The Sephardi Aristocracy in Jerusalem-500 Years after the Expulsion from Spain (1)
  • The Serpent in the Garden of Eden (4)
  • The Sumerian Flood Story (2)
  • THE SUMERIAN HOAX: IS PSEUDO-SCIENCE TURNING WESTERN OCCULTISM INTO A RELIGION FOR DUMMIES? PROBABLY 5* BULLSHIT HOWEVER THER ARE SOME INTERESTING POINTS! (1)
  • The Three-Story Universe (1)
  • The Torah is True – Even if It’s Not Fact (1)
  • The World before 1000 BCE (3)
  • THE_GILGAMESH_EPIC_AND_OLD_TESTAMENT_PAR.pdf"] (1)
  • The_Rise_of_Monotheism_in_Ancient_Israel. (1)
  • The-Ethnic-Cleansing-of-Palestine (1)
  • Theodor Herzl (5)
  • There Was Pastor Russell: A Neglected Chapter of Zionism (1)
  • THIS IS MY REPLY TO THE SERIOUS BS THAT ASSAILS STHE XTIAN MIND!!5*INFO BIG TIME LOL (2)
  • Torah based on Mesopotamian (and other) sources (1)
  • TOTAL BULLSHIT – JUDAISM (18)
  • TRIOLOGY (3)
  • Ugaritic Texts (1)
  • url links (1)
  • VATICAN BANK (1)
  • VICTORIANS: RELIGION (1)
  • Walter Rothschild and the Balfour Declaration (2)
  • Was Adam the First Human? (1)
  • Was Passover Originally An Ancient Canaanite Ritual Festival Meant To Stop The Winter Rain From Ruining Spring Crops? (1)
  • Were Hebrews Ever Slaves in Ancient Egypt? Yes (1)
  • Western Civilizations (1)
  • What is sin? (1)
  • What is the circle of the earth in Isaiah 40:22? (1)
  • When Biblically Inspired Pseudoscience (1)
  • Who invented the idea that man made God? (1)
  • Why Did God Plagiarise the Bible (6)
  • Why Everything You Think You Know About Christian Zionism Is Wrong (1)
  • Why Moses’s brother worshipped a golden calf (1)
  • Why No Truly Ancient Bible Writings Have Been Found (1)
  • Why the Arabs Rejected Zionism, and Why It Matters .The Original "No": (2)
  • Why was the Gilgamesh flood tablet such a sensation? (2)
  • WIKIPEDIA (18)
  • WIKIWAND (1)
  • William E. Blackstone (1)
  • William Gladstone Prime Minister (2)
  • Woodrow Wilson (18)
  • World of Humanism ATHIEST ARTICES (1)
  • WORLD WAR 1 – THE GREAT WAR (2)
  • World War I (1)
  • World War One (3)
  • Yahweh (14)
  • Year 6000 Wikipedia – last date the jewish messiah can be revealed? (1)
  • You’ve Seen on Elohim, You’ve Seen Them All? (1)
  • YOUTUBE (2)
  • ZIONISM (100)
    • 1903) (1)
    • Lovers of Zion: A History of Christian Zionism (2)
    • Zionist Congress: The Uganda Proposal (August 26 (1)
  • ZIONISM — THE HIDDEN TIRANNY (4)
  • Zionism in the Age of the Dictators (3)
  • Zoroastrian /Judaism (12)
    • TIMELINE JEWISH (7)

Recent Posts

  • Egyptian paper claims Jewish Temple was never in Jerusalem
  • BIBLE AND MESOPOTAMIA FACTS AND DETAILS 5*+++
  • Ezekiel’s Bizarre Siege Drama 5*info
  • Process of copying the Old Testament by Jewish Scribes 5*info not helpful at all
  • THE ANTINOMIES OF CHRISTIAN ZIONISM pdf 5* info

© 2022 Science & Sensibility