Methodology: An Introductory Essay

John H. Walton

Comparative Studies

For over a century, studies comparing the OT and the ancient Near East have hovered on the fringe of hermeneutics and exegesis. Since these studies were at times exploited by critical scholars for polemical attacks against the biblical text, evangelicals were long inclined to avoid or even vilify them. They viewed the idea that the OT borrowed or adapted ancient Near Eastern ideas or literature as incompatible with Scripture’s inspiration. Even as evangelicals in recent decades have grown more interested in tapping into the gold mine of comparative data, the results have often been considered tangential to the ultimate theological task. The influence from the ancient world has been identified with all that Israel was supposed to reject as they received the revelation from God that would purge their worldview from its pagan characteristics. Comparative studies served only as a foil to the theological interpretation of the text.

Consequently, comparative studies have been viewed as a component of historical-critical analysis at best, and more often as a threat to the uniqueness of the literature of the Bible. In contrast, today more and more biblical scholars are exploring the positive uses of comparative studies. As a result of half a century of the persistent scholarship of Assyriologists, Hittitologists, Egyptologists, and Sumerologists, we are now in a position to add significant nuances to the paradigms for studying the impact of the ancient Near East on the authors and editors of the Hebrew Bible. The end result is a more thorough and comprehensive understanding of the text.

Ever since the discovery of the Babylonian flood and creation accounts, critical scholarship has been attempting to demonstrate that the OT is derivative literature, a disadvantaged step-sister to the dominant cultures of the ancient Near East. These scholars have attempted to reduce the OT to converted mythology, whose dependency exposes its humanity. For confessing orthodoxy, however, there is no room for the conclusion that the OT is man-made theology. If the Flood is simply a human legend invented by people and borrowed into Israelite thinking, if the covenant is merely Israel’s way of expressing their optimism that God has specially favored them through a treaty agreement with them, if the prophets never heard the voice of God but simply mimicked their ancient Near Eastern counterparts, then Christians are greatly to be pitied for having been duped in what would have to be considered the greatest hoax in history. It is no surprise, then, that evangelicals have often rejected the claims of these critical schools of thought.

There is, however, nothing inherently damaging to orthodox theology and beliefs about the Bible if its authors were interacting at various levels with the literature current in the culture. All literature is dependent on the culture in which it arises—it must be, if it intends to communicate effectively. Even when a text engages in polemic and correction of culture, it must be aware of and interact with current thinking and literature.

If we think about the example of creation texts, we realize that if God were to reveal his work of creation in our modern culture, he would have to explain how it related to the Big Bang theory or to evolution. His revelation would focus on the origins of the physical structure of the universe because that is what is important in our cultural perspective. In the ancient world, though, physical structure was relatively insignificant. People at that time were much more interested in the aspect of bringing order out of chaos and the divine exercise of jurisdiction demonstrated in giving everything a role and a purpose. In this context, any account of origins would of necessity have to be presented with these ancient ideas in mind.

The biblical text, in other words, formulated its discussion in relation to the thinking found in the ancient literature. It should be no surprise, then, if areas of similarity are found. This is far different from the contention that Israelite literature is simply derivative mythology. There is a great distance between borrowing from a particular piece of literature (as has been claimed in critical circles) and resonating with the larger culture that has itself been influenced by its literatures. When Americans speak of the philosophy of “eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die,” they are resonating with an idea that has penetrated society rather than borrowing from the writings of Epicurus.

Another area where we must be sensitive to cultural issues is in the way we understand literary genres. It should be no surprise that OT genres need to be compared to genres in the larger culture. Whether we are looking at wisdom literature, hymnic literature, historical literature, or legal literature, we find generous doses of both similarities and differences. Understanding the genre of a piece of literature is necessary if we desire to perceive the author’s intentions. Since perceiving such intentions is essential to our theological interpretation of a text, we recognize that understanding genre contributes to legitimate theological interpretation. Some genres will operate differently in the ancient world than they do in our own culture, so we must become familiar with the mechanics of the genres represented in the ancient Near East.

Where there are similarities, they help us to understand the genre parameters and characteristics as they existed in the ancient mind. What defined historical writing in the ancient world? How close was it to the journalistic approach of today, which relies heavily on eyewitness accounts? How did genealogies function in OT times? Were they compiled for the same purpose that we compile them for?

Occasionally comparisons within genres reveal close similarities between the biblical and ancient Near Eastern literatures on the level of content. Such similarities do not jeopardize inspiration. Even if the OT had the very same law or the very same proverb that was found in the ancient Near East, inspiration would be involved in the author choosing to incorporate that law or proverb into the canonical collection and to nuance it properly in appropriate context.

Where there are differences, it is still important to understand the ancient Near Eastern genres because the theological points will often be made by means of contrast. The theology behind the book of Job, for example, is built primarily on the distinctives of the ancient Near Eastern view (represented in the arguments of Job’s friends), which was based on an appeasement mentality. The book’s message is accomplished in counterpoint. If we are unaware of the contrasts, we will miss some of the nuances.

In fact, then, we must go beyond the simple identification of similarities and differences to articulate the relationships on a functional level. Similarities could exist because Israel adapted something from ancient Near Eastern culture or literature, or, as previously mentioned, because they simply resonated with the culture. Differences could reflect the Israelites’ rejection of the ancient Near Eastern perspective, or they might emerge in explicit Israelite polemics against the views of their neighbors. In all such cases, the theology of the text may be nuanced by the cultural context.

In light of all of this, it may be logically concluded that without the guidance of comparative studies, we are bound to misinterpret the text at some points. A text is a complex of ideas linked by threads of writing. Each phrase and each word communicates by the ideas and thoughts that they will trigger in the reader or hearer. We can then speak of these underlying ideas as gaps that need to be filled with meaning by the audience. The writer or speaker assumes that those gaps will be filled in particular ways based on the common worldview he shares with his audience. Interpreters have the task of filling in those gaps, and when interpreting authoritative texts, it is theologically essential that we fill them appropriately.

For example, the Tower of Babel is described as being built “with its head in the heavens.” Without the benefit of ancient Near Eastern backgrounds, early interpreters were inclined to provide the theological explanation that the builders were trying to build a structure that would allow them to launch an attack on the heavens. Comparative studies have allowed modern interpreters to recognize that this is an expression used to describe the ziggurats of Mesopotamia, which were intended to serve as a bridge or portal between heavens and earth. Such an understanding leads to an alternative, and arguably more accurate, interpretation of the text. In conclusion, then, as our interpretation of the text requires us to fill in the gaps, we have to be careful to consider the option of filling those gaps from the cultural context before we leap to fill them with theological significance.

As we make this transition in our thinking, we must expand the focus of our comparative studies. Too often in the past, comparative studies have been limited either to individual features (e.g., birds sent out from the ark) or to the literary preservation of traditions (e.g., creation accounts, vassal treaties) and have been conducted with either apologetics (from confessional circles) or polemics (against confessional traditions) in mind. As those interested in the interpretation of the text, we should recognize in addition the importance of comparative studies that focus on conceptual issues, conducted with illumination of the cultural dynamics behind the text in mind.

We can now create a spectrum to define the varieties of differences and similarities that can classify these nuances. The spectrum extends from differences to similarities while the matrix takes account of three categories: individual elements, worldview concepts, and literary preservation. This is represented in the following chart:

Relationships	Elements	Concepts	Literature
Totally ignores and presents different view	Sexual activity of gods	Theogony	Apotropaic rituals
Hazy familiarity leading to caricature and ridicule	Napping gods	Making of idols	Tammuz literature
Accurate knowledge resulting in rejection	Monogenesis/polygenesis	Divine needs	Omen texts
Disagreement resulting in polemics, debate, or contention	Ziggurats	Theomachy; Flood	Cosmology texts
Awareness leading to adaptation or transformation	Circumcision	Kingship ideology; Classical prophecy	Words of the wise; Song of Songs
Conscious imitation or borrowing	Covenant-treaty format	Calf/bull image	Psalm 29
Subconscious shared heritage	Use of lots	Netherworld conditions; temple ideology	Proverbs

In conclusion, there are ten important principles that must be kept in mind when doing comparative studies:

1. Both similarities and differences must be considered.

2. Similarities may suggest a common cultural heritage rather than borrowing.

3. It is common to find similarities at the surface but differences at the conceptual level and vice versa.

4. All elements must be understood in their own context as accurately as possible before crosscultural comparisons are made.

5. Proximity in time, geography, and spheres of cultural contact all increase the possibility of interaction leading to influence.

6. A case for literary borrowing requires identification of likely channels of transmission.

7. The significance of differences between two pieces of literature is minimized if the works are not the same genre.

8. Similar functions may be performed by different genres in different cultures.

9. When literary or cultural elements are borrowed, they may in turn be transformed into something quite different.

10. A single culture will rarely be monolithic, either in a contemporary cross-section or in consideration of a passage of time.1

Successful interpreters must try to understand the cultural background of the ancient Near East just as successful missionaries must learn the culture, language, and worldview of the people they are trying to reach. This is the rationale for us to study the Bible in light of the ancient Near East. What we contend, then, is that comparative studies has three goals in mind:

1. We study the history of the ancient Near East as a means of recovering knowledge of the events that shaped the lives of people in the ancient world.

2. We study archaeology as a means of recovering the lifestyle reflected in the material culture of the ancient world.

3. We study the literature of the ancient Near East as a means of penetrating the heart and soul of the people who inhabited the ancient world that Israel shared.

These goals are at the heart of comparative studies and will help us understand the OT better.

Comparative Studies in the Pentateuch

A wide array of literature from the ancient Near East provides information that is helpful for interpreting the Pentateuch. Ancient Near Eastern mythology reflects ideas about creation.2 Though they provide accounts of creation from Mesopotamia3 and Egypt4 and in the process provide insight into the creator deities and their roles, they also provide important information concerning how the ancients thought about the cosmos.5 Consequently, in addition to talking about cosmic and human origins, we learn about their perspectives on cosmic geography,6 on what is entailed in bringing something into existence (i.e., creation), and what constitutes creative acts.7

The patriarchal narratives can be read against the background of family archives from the ancient Near East that explain customs and legal traditions8 and the religious practice and beliefs of the patriarchs.9 Ritual descriptions can be illuminated by ritual texts available in wide variety.10 Covenant documents can be read in light of treaties between countries.11 Laws can be compared to a variety of law collections from the second millennium. Such comparison can focus on the form12 or content13 of the individual laws, but more importantly expands to a study of the source of law and the literary functions of law collections.14

Historical and archaeological studies can provide background information to help understand the situation in Canaan during the patriarchal period and try to resolve basic questions such as the historical setting of Israel’s slavery in Egypt and the date of the Exodus.15 Of particular importance are all of the archaeological studies that try to bring further understanding to the Egyptian backdrop of these events.16 Geographical studies continue to address issues such as the identification of the body of water that the Israelites crossed and the location of Mount Sinai.17

Sociological studies can comment on the concept of sacred space and the variety of institutions that exist in a society to manage sacred space, from priests to sanctuaries to rituals.18 Additional studies in religion also help us to understand some of the ways that Israel was to be distinct from the people around them. As we learn about the perception of deity and the way that perception is reflected in ancient Near Eastern ideas about pantheons, images, divination, and magic, we can understand more clearly some of what Israel is to guard against.19 This general survey indicates just a few of the ways that comparative and cultural studies will be seen to impact and illuminate our study of the Pentateuch in this volume.

Bibliography on Comparative Studies Methodology

Finkelstein, J. J. “Bible and Babel: A Comparative Study of the Hebrew and Babylonian Religious Spirit.” Pages 355–80 in Essential Papers on Israel and the Ancient Near East, ed. F. E. Greenspahn. New York: New York Univ. Press, 1991.

Hallo, W. W. “New Moons and Sabbaths: A Case Study in the Contrastive Approach.” HUCA 48 (1977): 1–18.

_____. “Biblical History in Its Near Eastern Setting: The Contextual Approach.” Pages 1–26 in Scripture in Context, ed. C. Evans, et al. Pittsburgh: Pickwick, 1980.

_____. “Compare and Contrast: The Contextual Approach to Biblical Literature.” Pages 1–19 in The Bible In Light of Cuneiform Literature: Scripture in Context III, ed. W. W. Hallo, B. Jones, and G. Mattingly. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen, 1990.

Huffmon, H. B. “Babel und Bibel: The Encounter between Babylon and the Bible.” Pages 309–20 in The Bible and Its Traditions, ed. M. P. O’Connor and D. N. Freedman. Ann Arbor: Univ. of Michigan Press, 1983.

Loewenstamm, S. E. “Biblical Studies in the Light of Akkadian Texts.” Pages 256–67 in From Babylon to Canaan. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1992.

Longman, Tremper III. Fictional Akkadian Autobiography. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1991.

Machinist, P. “The Question of Distinctiveness in Ancient Israel.” Pages 420–42 in Essential Papers on Israel and the Ancient Near East, ed. F. E. Greenspahn. New York: New York Univ. Press, 1991.

Malamat, A. “The Proto-History of Israel: A Study in Method.” Pages 303–13 in The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth, ed. C. L. Meyers and M. O’Connor. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns: 1983.

Malul, M. The Comparative Method in Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical Legal Studies, AOAT 227. Kevelaer: Butzon und Bercker; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1990.

Millard, A. R. “Methods of Studying the Patriarchal Narratives As Ancient Texts.” Pages 35–51 in Essays on the Patriarchal Narratives, ed. A. R. Millard and D. J. Wiseman. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1983.

Ringgren, H. “The Impact of the Ancient Near East on the Israelite Tradition.” Pages 31–46 in Tradition and Theology in the Old Testament, ed. D. A. Knight. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1977/1990.

Roberts, J. J. M. “The Ancient Near Eastern Environment.” Pages 3–43 in The Bible and the Ancient Near East. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2002.

_____. “The Bible and the Literature of the Ancient Near East.” Pages 44–58 in The Bible and the Ancient Near East. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2002.

_____. “Myth Versus History: Relaying the Comparative Foundations.” CBQ 38 (1976): 1–13.

Rodriguez, A. M. “Ancient Near Eastern Parallels to the Bible and the Question of Revelation and Inspiration.” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 12 (2001): 43–64.

Saggs, H. W. F. The Encounter with the Divine in Mesopotamia and Israel. London: Athlone, 1978.

Selman, M. J. “Comparative Customs and the Patriarchal Age.” Pages 93–138 in Essays on the Patriarchal Narratives, ed. A. R. Millard and D. J. Wiseman. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1983.

Talmon, S. “The Comparative Method in Biblical Interpretation: Principles and Problems.” VTSup 29 (1977): 320–56.

Tigay, J. “On Evaluating Claims of Literary Borrowing.” Pages 250–55 in The Tablet and the Scroll, ed. M. Cohen et al. Bethesda: CDL, 1993.

Toorn, K. van der. Sin and Sanction in Israel and Mesopotamia. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1985.

Notes

1. J. Walton, “Cultural Background of the Old Testament,” in Foundations for Biblical Interpretation, ed. D. Dockery, K. Mathews, and R. Sloan (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1994), 256. See also J. Tigay, “On Evaluating Claims of Literary Borrowing,” in The Tablet and the Scroll, ed. M. Cohen et al. (Bethesda, MD: CDL, 1993), 250–55.

2. R. J. Clifford, Creation Accounts in the Ancient Near East and the Bible (Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association, 1994); J. H. Walton, Genesis (NIVAC; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001); J. P. Allen, Genesis in Egypt: The Philosophy of Ancient Egyptian Creation Accounts (New Haven, Conn.: Yale Univ. Press, 1988).

3. Such as Enuma Elish (COS 1.111) and Atrahasis (COS 1.130).

4. Such as the Memphite Theology (COS 1.15)

5. W. G. Lambert, “The Cosmology of Sumer and Babylon,” Ancient Cosmologies, ed. C. Blacker and M. Loewe (London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd., 1975), 42–65; D. T. Tsumura, “Genesis and Ancient Near Eastern Stories of Creation and Flood: An Introduction,” I Studied Inscriptions Before the Flood, ed. R. S. Hess and D. T. Tsumura (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1994), 27–57.

6. W. Horowitz, Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1998); I. Cornelius, “The Visual Representation of the World in the Ancient Near East and the Hebrew Bible,” JNSL 20 (1994): 193–218.

7. Walton, Genesis, 70–72.

8. M. J. Selman, “Comparative Customs and the Patriarchal Age,” Essays on the Patriarchal Narratives, ed. A. R. Millard and D. J. Wiseman (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1983), 91–140.

9. Augustine Pagolu, The Religion of the Patriarchs (JSOTSup 277; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998).

10. Access through various articles in CANE, vol. 3. See also D. Pardee, Ritual and Cult at Ugarit (SBLWAW 10; Atlanta: SBL, 2002).

11. D. J. McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant (Rome: Pontifical, 1978); Gary Beckman, Hittite Diplomatic Texts (SBLWAW 7; Atlanta: SBL, 1996); D. W. Baker, “The Mosaic Covenant against its Environment,” ATJ 20 (1988): 9–18.

12. R. A. F. MacKenzie, “The Formal Aspect of Ancient Near Eastern Law,” The Seed of Wisdom, ed. W. S. McCullough (Toronto: Univ. of Toronto Press, 1964), 31–44.

13. W. J. Doorly, The Laws of Yahweh: A Handbook of Biblical Law (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist, 2002), 119–22.

14. M. Roth, Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor (SBLWAW 6; Atlanta: SBL, 1995); S. Paul, Studies in the Book of the Covenant in the Light of Cuneiform and Biblical Law (Leiden: Brill, 1970); A. Phillips, Ancient Israel’s Criminal Law (New York: Schocken, 1970); J. J. Finkelstein, The Ox That Gored (Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1981); H. J. Boecker, Law and the Administration of Justice in the Old Testament and Ancient Near East (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1980); R. Westbrook, ed., Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Law (Leiden: Brill: 2004); D. Patrick, Old Testament Law (Atlanta: John Knox, 1985).

15. J. Hoffmeier, Israel in Egypt (New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1997); J. Currid, Ancient Egypt and the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997); G. Kelm, Escape to Conflict (Fort Worth: IAR, 1991).

16. Manfred Bietak, “Dab’a, Tell Ed-,” in Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt, ed. D. B. Redford (New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 2001), 1:351–54. See also Hoffmeier, Israel in Egypt, and E. S. Frerichs and L. Lesko, Exodus: The Egyptian Evidence (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1997).

17. J. Huddlestun, “Red Sea,” ABD, 5:633–42; I. Beit-Arieh, “The Route Through Sinai—Why Israelites Fleeing Egypt Went South,” Archaeology and the Bible: Early Israel, ed. H. Shanks and D. P. Cole (Washington, D.C.: Biblical Archaeology Society, 1990), 50–59.

18. F. H. Gorman, The Ideology of Ritual (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990); R. Gane, Leviticus and Numbers (NIVAC; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004); J. Milgrom, Leviticus, 3 vols (AB; New York: Doubleday, 1991–2001); J. D. Levenson, “The Temple and the World,” JR 64 (1984): 275–98; J. M. Lundquist, “Temple, Covenant, and Law in Ancient Near East and in the Hebrew Bible,” Israel’s Apostasy and Restoration, ed. A. Gileadi (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988), 293–306; J. M. Lundquist, “What Is a Temple? A Preliminary Typology,” The Quest for the Kingdom of God, ed. H. B. Huffmon, F. A. Spina, and A. R. W. Green (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1983), 205–20.

19. W. W. Hallo, “Cult Statue and Divine Image: A Preliminary Study,” Scripture in Context II, ed. W. W. Hallo, J. C. Moyer, and L. G. Perdue (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1983), 1–18; V. Hurowitz, “Picturing Imageless Deities: Iconography in the Ancient Near East,” BAR 23 (1997): 46–48, 51. T. Jacobsen, “The Graven Image,” Ancient Israelite Religion, ed. P. D. Miller, P. D. Hanson, and S. D. McBride (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), 15–32; J. J. M. Roberts, “Divine Freedom and Cultic Manipulation in Israel and Mesopotamia,” Unity and Diversity, ed. H. Goedicke, and J. J. M. Roberts (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1975), 181–90; M. C. A. Korpel, A Rift in the Clouds: Ugaritic and Hebrew Descriptions of the Divine (UBL 8; Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1990).