Ancient Near Eastern Thought Old Testament

Ancient

Near Eastern Thought

and the

Old Testament

Introducing

the Conceptual World

of the Hebrew Bible

Second Edition

John H. Walton

_Walton_AncientNearEastThoughtOT.indd 3 3/2/18 2:06 PM

John H. Walton, Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament

Published by Baker Academic

a division of Baker Publishing Group

P.O. Box 6287, Grand Rapids, MI 49516-6287

www.bakeracademic.com

Printed in the United States of America

transmitted in any form or by any means—for example, electronic, photocopy, recording—without the

prior written permission of the publisher. The only exception is brief quotations in printed reviews.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Walton, John H., 1952– author.

Title: Ancient Near Eastern thought and the Old Testament : introducing the conceptual world of

the Hebrew Bible / John H. Walton.

Description: 2 [edition]. | Grand Rapids : Baker Publishing Group, 2018. | Includes bibliographical

references and index.

Identiﬁers: LCCN 2017053728 | ISBN 9781540960214 (pbk. : alk. paper)

Subjects: LCSH: Middle Eastern literature—Relation to the Old Testament. | Bible. Old

Testament—Criticism, interpretation, etc. | Bible. Old Testament—Comparative studies. | Bible.

Old Testament—Extra-canonical parallels.

Classiﬁcation: LCC BS1171.3 .W35 2018 | DDC 221.6/7—dc23

LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2017053728

1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.™ Used by permission of Zondervan. All

rights reserved worldwide. www.zondervan.com

Photos 6.5, 6.7, 10.1, and 11.1 appear courtesy of the Israel Museum. Collec-

tion of the Israel Museum, Jerusalem, and courtesy of the Israel Antiquities

Authority, exhibited at the Israel Museum.

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

_Walton_AncientNearEastThoughtOT.indd 4 3/2/18 2:06 PM

John H. Walton, Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament

Contents

Special Material vii

Acknowledgments xi

Abbreviations xiii

Part 1 Comparative Studies

1. History and Methods 3

2. Comparative Studies, Scholarship, and Theology 19

Part 2 Literature of the Ancient Near East

3. Summary of the Literature of the Ancient Near East 33

Part 3 Religion

4. The Gods 47

5. Temples and Rituals 73

6. State and Family Religion 97

Part 4 Cosmos

7. Cosmic Geography 131

8. Cosmology and Cosmogony 147

Part 5 People

9. Understanding the Past: Human Origins and Role 173

10. Understanding the Past: Historiography 189

_Walton_AncientNearEastThoughtOT.indd 5 3/2/18 2:06 PM

John H. Walton, Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament

Contents

11. Encountering the Present: Guidance for Life—

Divination and Omens 213

12. Encountering the Present: Context of Life—Cities

and Kingship 253

13. Encountering the Present: Guidelines for Life—Law

and Wisdom 269

14. Pondering the Future on Earth and after Death 293

Concluding Remarks 313

Appendix: Individual Gods 317

Bibliography 327

Scripture Index 343

Foreign Words Index 347

Modern Author Index 349

Ancient Literature Index 355

Subject Index 359

_Walton_AncientNearEastThoughtOT.indd 6 3/2/18 2:06 PM

John H. Walton, Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament

vii

Special Material

Photos

4.1. El ﬁgurine 54

4.2. Baal stele 64

4.3. Head of Shamash 67

5.1. Arad Sanctuary 78

5.2. Façade of Inanna’s temple in Uruk 82

5.3. Sargon’s garden and shrine 86

5.4. Gudea with map on his lap 87

5.5. Egyptian oering 95

6.1. Ear tablet 105

6.2. Ancestral ﬁgurine 106

6.3. Lamashtu amulet 107

6.4. Tukulti-Ninurta I stele 109

6.5. Ashkelon calf 121

6.6. Shabako stone 123

6.7. Taanach cult stand 125

7.1. Shamash sun god 135

7.2. Disk-shaped tablet of the heavens 137

7.3. Babylonian map of the world 138

7.4. Cylinder seal of Etana 140

8.1. Nut, Geb, Shu drawing 150

_Walton_AncientNearEastThoughtOT.indd 7 3/2/18 2:06 PM

John H. Walton, Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament

viii

Special Material

8.2. Ninurta battling chaos beast 154

8.3. Enuma Elish 156

8.4. Gudea cylinder 166

9.1. Khnum fashioning pharaoh on potter’s wheel 175

9.2. Atrahasis tablet 181

9.3. Ba bird 182

10.1. Tel Dan inscription 193

10.2. Shishak and list of defeated kings 196

10.3. Relief of the siege of Lachish 200

10.4. Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III 202

10.5. Sennacherib Prism 203

11.1. Lachish letter 216

11.2. Liver model 231

12.1. Naram-Sin stele 258

13.1. Hammurabi stele 270

14.1. Con Texts 295

14.2. Book of the Dead 296

14.3. Ketef Hinnom 298

14.4. Gilgamesh tablet 310

Tables

10.1. Similar Perspectives on Creation and History in the Ancient

World 198

10.2. Modern, Ancient, and Israelite Perspectives on History and Histori-

ography 208

11.1. Ancient Near Eastern Prophetic Oracles 220

11.2. Israelite Prophetic Oracles 226

11.3. Types of Israelite and Ancient Near Eastern Prophetic Oracles 229

12.1. Royal Rhetoric in the Bible and the Ancient Near East 262

13.1. Legal Remedies 272

13.2. Literary Context of Law in the Pentateuch and the Ancient Near

East 275

14.1. Aspects of Afterlife Belief 312

_Walton_AncientNearEastThoughtOT.indd 8 3/2/18 2:06 PM

John H. Walton, Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament

Comparative Explorations

4.1. Ontology and Theogony in Israel 51

4.2. The Name Yahweh 52

4.3. Yahweh’s Council 56

4.4. Yahweh’s Place in the Cosmos 59

4.5. How Is Yahweh Dierent from the Gods of the Ancient Near

East? 71

5.1. Worthless Idols 76

5.2. The Tower of Babel 80

5.3. The Garden of Eden 84

5.4. Cosmos and Temple in Israel 88

5.5. Temple Functions in Israel 89

5.6. The Role of Ritual 92

6.1. State Religion in Israel 102

6.2. Abraham’s Religion 112

6.3. Commandments 1–4 120

7.1. Biblical Terminology Related to Cosmic Geography 142

8.1. Functional Order Emphasis in Day One 148

8.2. Hebrew bara

152

8.3. Precosmic Condition and Order 157

8.4. Created Functions—Naming, Separating, Giving Roles 158

8.5. Control Attributes and Destinies 164

8.6. Genesis 1 and Temple Building 167

9.1. Polygenesis and Monogenesis 174

9.2. Archetypal Humanity in Israel and the Ancient Near East 178

9.3. Image of God 184

10.1. Israelite Historiography 205

11.1. Dreams and Dream Interpreters in Israel 216

11.2. Terminology Related to Pronouncements regarding the Future 219

11.3. Prophecy in Israel and the Ancient Near East 226

11.4. Jeremiah 31:33 234

11.5. Joshua 10:12–15 238

11.6. Why Was Deductive Divination Forbidden to Israel? 247

12.1. Jerusalem, the Holy City 256

Special Material

_Walton_AncientNearEastThoughtOT.indd 9 3/2/18 2:06 PM

John H. Walton, Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament

Special Material

12.2. Examples of Kings Claiming Divine Sonship 260

12.3. Messiah 267

13.1. The Literary Context of the Law in the Pentateuch 274

13.2. What Are the Implications of the Fact That the Pentateuch Presents

the Torah as Given by Yahweh? 280

13.3. Obligatory Force in Israel: What Does It Mean to Observe the

Torah? 282

13.4. Israelite Proverbs: What Is Their Debt to the Ancient Near East? 285

14.1. Sheol 302

14.2. 1 Samuel 28 307

_Walton_AncientNearEastThoughtOT.indd 10 3/2/18 2:06 PM

John H. Walton, Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament

Acknowledgments

I would like to acknowledge the important roles played by my student assis-

tants over the years that this book was in process: Caryn Reeder, Liz Klassen,

Melissa Moore, and Alyssa Walker. This book would have been poorer without

their able assistance in editing at various levels. I would also like to thank

JoAnn Scurlock for her careful reading and for her valuable comments and

suggestions. These helped warn me away from possible errors and provided

valuable insights. Nevertheless, the opinions and conclusions expressed here

are my own.

_Walton_AncientNearEastThoughtOT.indd 11 3/2/18 2:06 PM

John H. Walton, Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament

xiii

Abbrevia tions

Biblical

Old Testament

Gen. Genesis

Exod. Exodus

Lev. Leviticus

Num. Numbers

Deut. Deuteronomy

Josh. Joshua

Judg. Judges

Ruth Ruth

1 Sam. 1 Samuel

2 Sam. 2 Samuel

1 Kings 1 Kings

2 Kings 2 Kings

1 Chron. 1 Chronicles

2 Chron. 2 Chronicles

Ezra Ezra

Neh. Nehemiah

Esther Esther

Job Job

Ps(s). Psalms

Prov. Proverbs

Eccles. Ecclesiastes

Song Song of Songs

Isa. Isaiah

Jer. Jeremiah

Lam. Lamentations

Ezek. Ezekiel

Dan. Daniel

Hosea Hosea

Joel Joel

Amos Amos

Obad. Obadiah

Jon. Jonah

Mic. Micah

Nah. Nahum

Hab. Habakkuk

Zeph. Zephaniah

Hag. Haggai

Zech. Zechariah

Mal. Malachi

New Testament

Matt. Matthew

Mark Mark

Luke Luke

John John

Acts Acts of the Apostles

Rom. Romans

1 Cor. 1 Corinthians

2 Cor. 2 Corinthians

Gal. Galatians

Eph. Ephesians

Phil. Philippians

Col. Colossians

1 Thess. 1 Thessalonians

2 Thess. 2 Thessalonians

1 Tim. 1 Timothy

2 Tim. 2 Timothy

Titus Titus

Phlm. Philemon

Heb. Hebrews

James James

1 Pet. 1 Peter

2 Pet. 2 Peter

1 John 1 John

2 John 2 John

3 John 3 John

Jude Jude

Rev. Revelation

General

diss. dissertation

ed(s). editor(s), edited by

Heb. Hebrew

lit. literally

no(s). number(s)

repr. reprint

trans. translated by

vol(s). volume(s)

_Walton_AncientNearEastThoughtOT.indd 13 3/6/18 10:06 AM

John H. Walton, Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament

xiv

Abbreviations

Bibliographic

AAHL J. M. Lindenberger, Ancient Aramaic and Hebrew Letters. SBLWAW 14.

Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003

AB Anchor Bible

ABD Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. D. N. Freedman. 6 vols. New York: Double-

day, 1992

AEL Ancient Egyptian Literature, M. Lichttheim. 3 vols. Berkeley: University of

California Press, 1973–80

AfO Archiv für Orientforschung

AnBib Analecta Biblica

ANET Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, ed. J. B.

Pritchard. 3rd ed. with supplement. Princeton: Princeton University Press,

1969

AOAT Alter Orient und Altes Testament

ARM Archives royales de Mari

ASOR American Schools of Oriental Research

BAR Biblical Archaeology Review

BBR Bulletin for Biblical Research

Bib Biblica

BibOr Biblica et Orientalia

BM B. Foster, Before the Muses. 3rd ed. Bethesda, MD: CDL, 2005

BRev Biblical Review

BSac Bibliotheca Sacra

BWL W. G. Lambert, Babylonian Wisdom Literature. Oxford: Clarendon, 1960

BZAW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

CAD The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of

Chicago, ed. M. T. Roth et al. 21 vols. Chicago: University of Chicago

Press, 1956–2010

CANE Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, ed. J. Sasson. 4 vols. New York:

Scribner’s, 1995

CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly

CBQMS Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series

CC Continental Commentaries

ConBOT Coniectanea Biblica, Old Testament

COS The Context of Scripture, ed. W. W. Hallo and K. L. Younger. 4 vols.

Leiden: Brill, 1997–2016

DDD Dictionary of Demons and Deities, ed. K. van der Toorn. 2nd ed. Leiden:

Brill, 1999

EI Eretz Israel

ESK H. Vanstiphout, Epics of Sumerian Kings. SBLWAW 20. Atlanta: Society

of Biblical Literature, 2003

FAT Forschungen zum Alten Testament

FDD B. R. Foster, From Distant Days. Bethesda, MD: CDL, 1995

HDT G. Beckman, Hittite Diplomatic Texts. SBLWAW 7. Atlanta: Society of

Biblical Literature, 1996

_Walton_AncientNearEastThoughtOT.indd 14 3/2/18 2:06 PM

John H. Walton, Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament

HM H. A. Honer, Hittite Myths. SBLWAW 2. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Lit-

erature, 1990

HSM Harvard Semitic Monographs

HSS Harvard Semitic Studies

HTO T. Jacobsen, The Harps That Once—Sumerian Poetry in Translation.

New Haven: Yale University Press, 1987

HTR Harvard Theological Review

HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual

IEJ Israel Exploration Journal

JANES Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society

JAOS Journal of the American Oriental Society

JBL Journal of Biblical Literature

JCS Journal of Cuneiform Studies

JEOL Jaarbericht van het Vooraziatisch-Egyptisch Gezelschap/Genootschap “Ex

oriente lux”

JETS Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society

JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies

JNSL Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages

JR Journal of Religion

JRitSt Journal of Ritual Studies

JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament

JSOTSup Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplements

KAR Keilschrifttexte aus Assur religiösen Inhalts, ed. E. Ebeling. Leipzig: J. C.

Hinrichs, 1915-23

LABS Letters from Assyrian and Babylonian Scholars, ed. S. Parpola and J.

Reade. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1993

LCMAM M. T. Roth, Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor.

SBLWAW 6. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995

LXX Septuagint

MARI Mari: Annales de recherches interdisciplinaires

MFM S. Dalley, Myths from Mesopotamia. Repr. Oxford: Oxford University

Press, 1991

NICOT New International Commentary on the Old Testament

NIDOTTE New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis,

ed. W. A. VanGemeren. 5 vols. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997

NIV New International Version

NIVAC New International Version Application Commentary

OBO Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis

OEAE Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt, ed. D. B. Redford. 3 vols. New

York: Oxford University Press, 2001

OEANE Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East, ed. E. M. Meyers.

4 vols. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997

Or Orientalia

OTL Old Testament Library

OTP V. H. Matthews and D. J. Benjamin, Old Testament Parallels: Laws and

Stories from the Ancient Near East. 2nd ed. New York: Paulist Press, 1997

OtSt Oudtestamentische Studiën

Abbreviations

_Walton_AncientNearEastThoughtOT.indd 15 3/2/18 2:06 PM

John H. Walton, Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament

xvi

Abbreviations

PPANE M. Nissinen, Prophets and Prophecy in the Ancient Near East. SBLWAW

12. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003

RA Revue d’assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale

RAI Rencontre assyriologique internationale

RANE B. T. Arnold and B. E. Beyer, Readings from the Ancient Near East: Pri-

mary Sources for Old Testament Study. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic,

2002

RB Revue biblique

RIMA Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Assyrian Periods

RIME Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Early Periods

SAA State Archives of Assyria

SAALT State Archives of Assyria Literary Texts

SAAS State Archives of Assyria Studies

SBLDS Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series

SBLMS Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series

SBLWAW Society of Biblical Literature Writings from the Ancient World

SBTS Sources for Biblical and Theological Study

SJOT Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament

TCS Texts from Cuneiform Sources

TDOT Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, ed. G. J. Botterweck et al.

Trans. D. E. Green et al. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974–

TynBul Tyndale Bulletin

UBL Ugaritisch-biblische Literatur

UNP Ugaritic Narrative Poetry, ed. S. B. Parker. SBLWAW 9. Atlanta: Scholars

Press, 1997

VAT Vorderasiatische Abteilung Tontafel

VT Vetus Testamentum

VTSup Supplements to Vetus Testamentum

WBC Word Biblical Commentary

WTJ Westminster Theological Journal

YOS Yale Oriental Series

ZA Zeitschrift für Assyriologie

_Walton_AncientNearEastThoughtOT.indd 16 3/2/18 2:06 PM

John H. Walton, Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament

Part 1

Comparative Studies

_Walton_AncientNearEastThoughtOT.indd 17 3/2/18 2:06 PM

John H. Walton, Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament

History and Methods

History

The rediscovery of Egypt began in earnest in the eighteenth century AD and

of Mesopotamia in the mid-nineteenth century AD. With the decipherment

of the ancient languages, the tens of thousands of texts that were being

unearthed began to be translated and analyzed. Today the number of texts

exceeds one million. In many cases the motives of the adventurers and scholars

represented a strange combination of politics, interest in antiquities (or trea-

sures), and biblical apologetics. Initial studies were inclined to be defensive

of the Bible, even if such a stance required the dismissal or distortion of the

cuneiform texts. The ﬂurry of activity in connection with the relationship

of these texts to the Bible had reached a critical mass of sorts by the turn of

the twentieth century; and, consequently, widespread attention was attracted

by the series of lectures presented in 1902 under the auspices of the German

Oriental Society and attended by Kaiser Wilhelm II. What the Scopes trial

was to the discussion of evolution, these lectures were to comparative stud-

ies. The lecturer was the noted Assyriologist Friedrich Delitzsch, son of the

famous conservative biblical commentator, Franz Delitzsch.

Delitzsch’s lectures, titled “Babel und Bibel,” brought a more focused at-

tention to the impact of Assyriology on the understanding of the Bible. More

controversial, however, was his claim that the literature of the Bible was depen-

dent on, and even borrowed from, the literature of the dominant culture rep-

resented in the region of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers. His contention was:

“The Mesopotamian evidence shows us not just parallels to Old Testament

_Walton_AncientNearEastThoughtOT.indd 19 3/2/18 2:06 PM

John H. Walton, Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament

customs and ideas, but genuine evidence regarding their origin.”

The logi-

cal conclusion would therefore be that the origin of the Old Testament was

human, not divine, and that the Christian faith therefore had its roots in pagan

mythology. Two more lectures elaborating on this thesis came over the next

two years. In the second, more objectionable than the ﬁrst, he questioned the

appropriateness of the traditional theological terminology used to describe the

Bible (e.g., revelation, inspiration) in light of its putatively evident dependence.

As H. Humon observes, “Delitzsch had moved from Babylonia as interpreter

and illustrator of the Old Testament to a general attack on the religious value of

the Old Testament for the modern German.”

At this time, many Assyriologists

were people of faith, with the result that Delitzsch was criticized vehemently

in their written responses to his lectures. Over the following decades, however,

as Assyriology became increasingly secular and its scholars, if concerned with

the Bible at all, had embraced the tenets of critical scholarship, Delitzsch’s

lectures became recognized as a watershed in comparative studies.

The result was a growing ideological divide between those who viewed com-

parative studies from a confessional standpoint, seeking to use Assyriology in

their apologetics, and those who viewed it from a scientiﬁc or secular standpoint,

seeing the Bible as a latecomer in world literature ﬁlled with what were little

more than adaptations from the mythology of the ancient Near East. Critical

scholars considered their opponents naive traditionalists. Confessional scholars

considered their opponents godless heretics.

As evidence emerged that did not

ﬁt easily with a desire to vindicate the Bible, the critics became more strident,

and many came to agree with Delitzsch’s contention that “the Old Testament

was no book of Christian religion and should be excluded from Christian

theology.”

In response, confessional scholars became more entrenched and

defensive. The cycle of division drove its wedges deeper and deeper.

The space of over a century allows current scholars to recognize that De-

litzsch’s lectures were not motivated solely by a sense of scientiﬁc objectivity.

He was a child of his culture as we all are, and his obvious nationalism can

now be seen to have been encumbered with not only anti-Christian but also

1. M. T. Larsen, “The ‘Babel/Bible’ Controversy and Its Aftermath,” CANE 1:95–106, quo-

tation on 99.

2. H. B. Humon, “Babel und Bibel: The Encounter between Babylon and the Bible,” in

The Bible and Its Traditions, ed. M. P. O’Connor and D. N. Freedman (Ann Arbor: University

of Michigan Press, 1983), 309–20, quotation on 315.

3. There is no question that confessional scholars can use critical methodologies or that

critical scholars may have confessional convictions. I am using the terms as generalizations to

represent relative positions on a spectrum. They refer to those with a strong critical or confes-

sional inclination.

4. Humon, “Babel und Bibel,” 319.

Comparative Studies

_Walton_AncientNearEastThoughtOT.indd 20 3/2/18 2:06 PM

John H. Walton, Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament

anti-Semitic sentiment.

Humon summarizes the regression well: “In dealing

with Assyriological matters, as Delitzsch did in his ﬁrst two lectures, he combined

scholarship with special pleading; in dealing with Old Testament materials,

Delitzsch mixed learning with considerable naiveté; in dealing with the New

Testament, or, more speciﬁcally Jesus, Delitzsch displayed naiveté and perﬁdy.”

Delitzsch’s work spawned a movement, never widely popular but remark-

able for its excesses, called “Pan-Babylonianism,” which argued that all world

myths and all Christian Scriptures (Old and New Testament alike) were simply

versions of Babylonian mythology. For instance, the stories of Jesus in the

Gospels were based on the Gilgamesh Epic, and the passion of Christ was

based on Marduk mythology.

Even as Assyriology and Egyptology (and also Hittitology) emerged as serious,

autonomous, academic disciplines, the attention of many remained focused on

the Bible. As discoveries of major archives followed one after another from the

1920s to the 1970s, each was greeted with initial excitement as scholars made

great claims for the impact of the archive on the Bible. In most cases, time and

more careful attention resulted in many, if not all, of the initial claims being

rejected. Methodological maturity began to be displayed in the careful work

of W. W. Hallo, who promoted a balanced approach called the “contextual

approach,” which seeks to identify and discuss both similarities and dier-

ences that can be observed between the Bible and the texts from the ancient

Near East. “Hallo’s goal, ‘is not to ﬁnd the key to every biblical phenomenon

in some ancient Near Eastern precedent, but rather to silhouette the biblical

text against its wider literary and cultural environment.’ Thus we must not

succumb either to ‘parallelomania’ or to ‘parallelophobia.’”

It is Hallo’s work

that has provided the foundation for the following discussion of methodology.

Methodology

What Is Comparative Study?

Just as it would be foolish to think that all Europeans share the same cul-

ture, it would be a mistake to suppose that Babylonians, Hittites, Egyptians,

5. B. T. Arnold and D. B. Weisberg, “A Centennial Review of Friedrich Delitzsch’s ‘Babel

und Bibel’ Lectures,” JBL 121 (2002): 441–57, esp. 442–43.

6. Humon, “Babel und Bibel,” 319.

7. M. W. Chavalas, “Assyriology and Biblical Studies: A Century of Tension,” in Mesopota-

mia and the Bible, ed. M. W. Chavalas and K. L. Younger Jr. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic,

2002), 21–67, esp. 34.

8. Chavalas, “Assyriology and Biblical Studies,” 43.

History and Methods

_Walton_AncientNearEastThoughtOT.indd 21 3/2/18 2:06 PM

John H. Walton, Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament

Israelites, and Sumerians all shared the same culture. There would even be

noticeable dierences between the second-millennium Babylonians of Ham-

murabi’s time and the ﬁrst-millennium Babylonians at the time of Nebuchad-

nezzar. More importantly, caution must be exercised when using both Egypt

and the ancient Mesopotamian world for comparison. Egyptian culture is

markedly dierent than others found in the rest of the ancient Near East.

Nevertheless, there were some elements that many of the cultures of the an-

cient Near East held in common with Egyptians, and certainly many areas

in which they shared more commonality with one another than they do with

our modern culture.

Though we recognize distinct cultural dierences across time and place,

the commonalities warrant our attention. To think about how these ancient

commonalities need to be dierentiated from our modern ways of thinking,

we can use the metaphor of a cultural river, where the currents represent

ideas and conventional ways of thinking. Among the currents in our modern

cultural context we would ﬁnd fundamentals such as rights, privacy, freedom,

capitalism, consumerism, democracy, individualism, globalism, social media,

market economy, scientiﬁc naturalism, an expanding universe, empiricism,

and natural laws, just to name a few. As familiar as these are to us, such

ways of thinking were unknown in the ancient world. Conversely, the ancient

cultural river had among their shared ideas currents that are totally foreign

to us. Included in the list we would ﬁnd fundamental concepts such as com-

munity identity, the comprehensive and ubiquitous control of the gods, the

role of kingship, divination, the centrality of the temple, the mediatory role

of images, and the reality of the spirit world and magic. It is not easy for us

to grasp their shape or rationale, and we often ﬁnd their expression in texts

impenetrable.

In today’s world people may ﬁnd that they dislike some of the currents in

our cultural river and wish to resist them. Such resistance is not easy, but even

when we might occasionally succeed, we are still in the cultural river—even

though we may be swimming upstream rather than ﬂoating comfortably on

the currents.

This was also true in the ancient world. When we read the Old Testa-

ment, we may ﬁnd reason to believe that the Israelites were supposed to resist

some of the currents in their cultural river. Be that as it may (and the nuances

are not always easy to work with), they remain in that ancient cultural river.

We dare not allow ourselves to think that just because the Israelites believed

themselves to be distinctive among their neighbors that they thought in the

terms of our cultural river (including the dimensions of our theology). We

need to read the Old Testament in the context of its own cultural river. We

Comparative Studies

_Walton_AncientNearEastThoughtOT.indd 22 3/2/18 2:06 PM

John H. Walton, Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament

cannot aord to read instinctively because that only results in reading the text

through our own cultural lenses. No one reads the Bible free of cultural bias,

but we seek to replace our cultural lenses with theirs. Sometimes the best we

can do is recognize that we have cultural lenses and try to take them o even

if we cannot reconstruct ancient lenses.

When we consider similarities and dierences between the ancient cultural

river and our own, we must be alert to the dangers of maintaining an elevated

view of our own superiority or sophistication as a contrast to the naïveté or

primitiveness of others. Identiﬁcation of dierences should not imply ancient

inferiority. Our rationality may not be their rationality, but that does not mean

that they were irrational.

Their ways of thinking should not be thought of

as primitive or prehistorical. We seek to understand their texts and culture,

not to make value judgments on them.

Ultimately the goal of background studies is to examine the literature and

archaeology of the ancient Near East in order to reconstruct the behavior,

beliefs, culture, values, and worldview of the people—that is, to explore the

dimensions and nature of the ancient cultural river. These could alternatively

be called cultural studies. Comparative studies constitutes a branch of cul-

tural studies in that it attempts to draw data from dierent segments of the

broader culture (in time and/or space) into juxtaposition with one another

in order to assess what might be learned from one to enhance the under-

standing of another. The range of this understanding can include behavior

and belief within the culture or the ways in which a culture is represented in

art or literature. Within the literary category, areas for research include the

larger issues of literary genre, the analysis of speciﬁc traditions and texts,

and the use of individual metaphors, idioms, and words.

Development of Sound Methodology for Comparative Study

As one can infer from the history related at the beginning of the chapter,

early practitioners were distracted from this larger task by curiosity or by axes

to grind. Whether defending or critiquing the Bible or defending the ancient

Near East, some scholars became enmeshed in using cultural and comparative

studies as a means to a polemical end. As is often the case in polemics of any

stripe, techniques such as selectivity and special pleading can create distor-

tion. This polemical application resulted in the abuse of comparative studies

from scholars at either end of the spectrum. Consequently some confessional

9. We may, for example, dierentiate between analogical reasoning and empirical reason

ing; they are dierent but they are both rational. See F. Rochberg, Before Nature: Cuneiform

Knowledge and the History of Science (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2016), 156–63.

History and Methods

_Walton_AncientNearEastThoughtOT.indd 23 3/2/18 2:06 PM

John H. Walton, Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament

scholars concluded that comparative studies posed a danger to the biblical text

when they saw it wielded as a weapon of skepticism and unbelief. At the same

time some critical scholars openly ridiculed what they saw as feeble attempts

by apologists to use comparative studies to prove that the Bible was true.

It took some generations for correctives to be put in place that served

to establish an appropriate methodology for background and comparative

study, which will be introduced below. Even as these have been put into place

over the last several decades, abuse and misunderstanding persist in pock-

ets. These methodological correctives have exposed the dangers inherent in

research that ignores either similarities or dierences between the Bible and

the ancient Near East.

One of the earliest and most signiﬁcant correctives was the insistence that

neither biblical studies nor ancient Near Eastern studies should be subordi-

nated to the other. Both represent autonomous disciplines, though they can

mutually beneﬁt from cross-fertilization. Even as comparative studies are

important for those seeking to understand the Bible, study of the ancient

Near East is not merely a subservient ﬁeld to biblical studies. Assyriology,

Egyptology, and the like are disciplines in themselves and valid academic,

cultural, and linguistic pursuits. Comparative study by Bible students is just

one application of the ﬁndings from those ﬁelds.

Why Do Bible Students Need Comparative Study?

Cultural Dimension of Language and Literature

When I ﬁrst began teaching in the early 1980s, I could refer in passing to

“the incident at Kent State” and feel assured that students would know what

I was talking about without further explanation. By the 1990s that was no

longer the case. As another example, several years ago I could still refer to

the “Berlin Wall” or to the “Iron Curtain” and assume that many students

need no further elaboration. As years pass, however, such labels are less rec-

ognized. Eective communication requires a body of agreed-upon words,

terms, and ideas.

Since communication requires a common ground of understanding, both

speaker and audience must do what they can to enter that common ground.

For the speaker this often requires accommodation to the audience. One uses

words (representing ideas) that the audience will understand, thus, by deﬁnition,

accommodating to the target audience.

When that common core of understanding exists, the author will not bother

to explain him- or herself to the understanding audience against the chance

that an uninformed person might be listening. This is where the work of

Comparative Studies

_Walton_AncientNearEastThoughtOT.indd 24 3/2/18 2:06 PM

John H. Walton, Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament

the audience comes in if they are not native to the language/culture matrix,

because reaching this common ground may require seeking out additional

information or explanation. If someone outside the language/culture matrix

wants to take advantage of information that is communicated within the

language/culture matrix, cultural education is required—the individual has

to adapt to the unfamiliar language/culture matrix.

For example, twice every year in most of the United States and in many other

places around the world we encounter the phenomenon known as “daylight

savings time.” If someone from another culture came to the United States and

heard the phrase “daylight savings time,” no study of the individual words

would alert them to its meaning. They would need information that would

enable them to adapt to the culture. These are issues that go beyond language

to culture. In the same way, if we are going to comprehend communication

that took place between members of an ancient culture, we are going to have

to adjust our thinking to be able to sit in the circle of communication with

the ancient audience. The Bible has plenty of examples like “Iron Curtain”

and “daylight savings time” that are not explained, and we do not intrinsi-

cally understand. But in many cases the key to understanding can be found

in other ancient Near Eastern literature.

When we study an ancient text, we cannot make words mean whatever we

want them to or assume that they meant the same to the ancient audience that

they do to a modern audience. Language itself is a cultural convention, and

since the Bible and other ancient documents use language to communicate,

they are bound to a culture. As interpreters, then, we must adapt to the lan-

guage/culture matrix of the ancient world as we study the Old Testament. But

as P. Michalowski has pointed out, “It is one thing to state banalities about

‘the Other,’ or about the inapplicability of western concepts to non-western

modes of thought; it is something quite dierent actually to step outside

one’s frame of reference and attempt a proper analysis.”

In fact, then, we

need more than translation; we need people in the role of “cultural broker”

who understand both cultures and negotiate meaning between them without

subordinating one to the other.

This awareness of the integration of language and culture (and ultimately,

worldview) moves us well beyond the sorts of research that were alluded to at

the beginning of this chapter. Here we are no longer talking about trying to

ﬁgure out whose religion is better, who was more ethical, who copied what

10. P. Michalowski, “Commemoration, Writing, and Genre in Ancient Mesopotamia,” in

The Limits of Historiography, ed. C. S. Kraus, Genre and Narrative in Ancient Historical Texts

56 (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 69–90, quotation on 72.

History and Methods

_Walton_AncientNearEastThoughtOT.indd 25 3/2/18 2:06 PM

John H. Walton, Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament

literature from whom, or what should be considered Scripture and what should

not. Methodology need not be tailored to detect literary borrowing or govern

polemical agendas. When comparative studies are done at the cognitive en-

vironment level, trying to understand how people thought about themselves

and their world, a broader methodology can be used.

Whatever cases might be made for literary dependence concerning one

text or another, in this book we are going to give more attention to how the

Israelites are embedded in the ancient world than to how one piece of litera-

ture might be indebted to another. This focus will make a dierence in our

methodology. For instance, when literary pieces are compared to consider

the question of dependence, the burden of proof is appropriately on the

researcher to consider the issues of propinquity and transmission—that is,

would the peoples involved have come into contact with one another’s litera-

ture, and is there a mechanism to transmit said literature from one culture

to the other? Literary questions of genre, structure, and context will all be

investigated as well as geographical, chronological, and ethnic dimensions.

When considering larger cultural concepts or worldviews, however, such

demands will not be as stringent, though they cannot be ignored altogether.

When we see evidence in the biblical text of a three-tiered cosmos, we have

only to ask, “Does the concept of a three-tiered cosmos exist in the ancient

Near East?” Once it is ascertained that it does, our task becomes to try to

identify how Israel’s perception of the cosmos might have been the same or

dierent from what we ﬁnd (ubiquitously) elsewhere. We need not ﬁgure out

how Israel got such a concept or from whom they “borrowed” it. Borrow

ing is not the issue, so methodology does not have to address it. Likewise

this need not concern whose ideas are derivative. There is simply common

ground across the cognitive environment of the cultures of the ancient world.

These are currents in the cultural river and do not depend on transmission

through literary sources.

The signiﬁcant dierence between borrowing from a particular piece of

literature (indebtedness) and resonating with the larger culture that has itself

been inﬂuenced by its literatures (embeddedness) must be taken into account

11. For example, J. Tigay’s criteria in “On Evaluating Claims of Literary Borrowing,” in

The Tablet and the Scroll: Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William W. Hallo, ed. M. Cohen

et al. (Bethesda, MD: CDL, 1993), 250–55.

12. I use the terminology of “cognitive environment,” but other terminology could serve just

as well and occurs in the literature; e.g., “intertextual echo” (Richard Hays), “shared stream

of linguistic tradition” or “common Wortfeld” (Michael Fishbane), “cultural codes” (Daniel

Boyarin), “patterns of meaning” (Hayden White), “matrix of associations” (Gershon Hepner),

“common conceptual milieu” (J. Richard Middleton). These are conveniently presented with

full bibliography by Middleton in The Liberating Image (Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2005), 62–64.

Comparative Studies

_Walton_AncientNearEastThoughtOT.indd 26 3/2/18 2:06 PM

John H. Walton, Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament

in our analysis. As a modern example, when Americans speak of the philoso-

phy 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 writ-

ings of the Greek philosopher Epicurus, who is traditionally identiﬁed with

promoting that approach to life. Historically the philosophy of Epicurus has

seeped into the culture and can therefore be reﬂected in statements today. The

demands of propinquity are considerably relaxed. A cultural trail will not be

as deﬁnable as a literary trail, nor will the tracking require the same criteria.

Given this backdrop, we can now introduce the discipline of “cognitive

environment criticism” as a branch of critical scholarship. Critical scholar-

ship as a whole represents an attempt to bring scientiﬁc rigor and thereby a

putative objectivity to an interpretation of a text by recovering the historical,

literary, and cultural world behind the text as a means to unravel the layers

that have brought it to its current state. “Cognitive environment criticism”

speciﬁcally focuses on the cultural element. It includes both background/

cultural studies and comparative studies.

Cultural Dimension of Literary Genre

On the whole, it is now recognized that the determination of literary de-

pendence is not as simple as once thought, nor should it be the dominant

goal of either comparative studies or cognitive environment criticism. Rather,

the careful observations of similarities and dierences in pieces of literature

help inform the study of both the Bible and the ancient Near East. For those

who have an interest in understanding the Bible, it should be no surprise that

this Israelite literature reﬂects not only the speciﬁc culture of the Israelites

but many aspects of the larger culture identiﬁable across the ancient Near

East. Even when a biblical text engages in polemic or oers critiques of the

larger culture, to do so its authors must be aware of and interact with current

thinking and literature. When we compare the literature of the ancient Near

East with the Bible, we are ultimately trying to recover aspects of the ancient

cognitive environment that may help us understand the Israelite perspective

a little better. By catching a glimpse of how they thought about themselves

and their world, we sometimes discover ways that the Israelites would have

thought that dier totally from how we think.

Beyond the words and ideas of the literature itself, another area where

we must be sensitive to cultural issues is in the way we understand literary

genres. It should be no surprise that Old Testament genres need to be com-

pared to genres in the larger culture of their world. Some genres operated

dierently in the ancient world than they do in our own culture, so we must

History and Methods

_Walton_AncientNearEastThoughtOT.indd 27 3/2/18 2:06 PM

John H. Walton, Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament

become familiar with the mechanics of the genres represented in the ancient

Near East. Whether we are looking at wisdom literature, hymnic literature,

historical literature, or legal literature, we ﬁnd generous doses of both simi-

larities and dierences. Understanding the genre of a piece of literature is

necessary if we desire to perceive the author’s intentions. Since perceiving an

author’s communicative intentions is an essential ingredient to the theological

and literary interpretation of a text, we recognize that understanding genre

contributes to legitimate interpretation. Nevertheless, we will also have to

recognize that some pieces of literature have no counterparts and therefore

cannot be designated with a genre (they are sui generis). “Genre” can only

be used to apply to a group of literary pieces.

Where similarities can be observed between the biblical and ancient Near

Eastern genres, they help us to understand the genre parameters and charac-

teristics as they existed in the ancient mind. For instance, it is important for

us to explore what deﬁned historical writing in the ancient world. How close

was it to the journalistic approach of today that relies heavily on eyewitness

accounts? How did genealogies function in Old Testament times? Were they

compiled for the same purpose that we compile them for?

Occasionally comparisons within genres reveal very close similarities be-

tween the biblical and ancient Near Eastern literatures on the level of content.

Such similarities do not negate the individuality of either. Even if the Hebrew

Bible had the very same law or the very same proverb that was found in the

ancient Near East, we may ﬁnd uniqueness in how that law or proverb was

understood or how it was nuanced by the literary context in which it was

incorporated. At other times the Israelite version may not be noticeably dif-

ferent from the ancient Near Eastern example at any level.

Where there are dierences it is important to understand the ancient Near

Eastern genres because signiﬁcant points in the biblical text may be made

by means of contrast. For example, literature from Mesopotamia contains

a couple of texts that recount the complaints of a righteous suerer similar

to what we ﬁnd in the book of Job. The theology behind the book of Job,

however, not only oers dierent explanations but even uses the mentality

of the ancient Near East (represented in the arguments of Job’s friends) as a

foil. Job maintains his integrity precisely by not adopting the appeasement

mentality recommended by his friends (Job 27:1–6) and representative of the

ancient Near East. The book’s message is accomplished in counterpoint. If we

are unaware of the contrasts, we will miss some of the nuances. Throughout

this book I will be presenting what can be understood about the cognitive

environment of the ancient Near East and interspersing “Comparative Ex-

plorations” to consider speciﬁc similarities and dierences found in Israel.

Comparative Studies

_Walton_AncientNearEastThoughtOT.indd 28 3/2/18 2:06 PM

John H. Walton, Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament

Cultural Dimension of Religious Practice

Another aspect of comparative study concerns comparative religion. One of

the most consistent claims made within the biblical text concerns the distinctive-

ness of the Israelite religion. Yet at the same time the text does not hide the fact

that the distinctions that were articulated in theory often did not translate into

practice. Furthermore, the material culture often draws our attention to the

similarities. Consequently, comparative study is helpful both for understanding

the background religious practice to which the biblical ideal is contrasted and

for understanding the syncretistic elements that were represented in common

practice. Even when noticing the contrasts, however, comparative study will

reveal many areas of continuity alongside the noted discontinuity. For instance,

even though the biblical ideal is aniconic (no use of idols), the study of religious

iconography can give understanding to objects like the ark of the covenant. As

a second example, though the prophets decry the use of the high places, high

places had a role even in legitimate worship in some periods.

Indeed, as much continuity as Christian theologians have developed between

the religious ideas of preexilic Israel and those of Christianity, there is prob-

ably not as much common ground between them as there was between the

religious ideas of Israel and the religious ideas of Babylon. When we think of

Old Testament religious concepts such as ritual sacriﬁce, sanctuaries/sacred

space, priests and their role, creation, the nature of sin, communication with

deity, and many other areas, we realize that the Babylonians would have found

Israelite practice much more comprehensible than we do.

Finally, though there would have been aspects of Canaanite or Babylonian

religious practice (such as the ideology behind certain rituals) that were not

understood clearly by the Israelites, they were well acquainted with the basic

elements and ideals of their neighbors’ beliefs. As H. W. F. Saggs has pointed

out, for example, a man such as King Jehu of Israel must have been able to

be fairly convincing as a Baal worshiper and well enough informed about the

nuances of their religious practice to succeed in persuading all of the Baal

worshipers to shed their weapons and come into the temple to be slaughtered

(2 Kings 11:18–28). Saggs gives several other examples and makes his point

persuasively.

We must not make a mistake in our assessment in either direc-

tion. Both similarities and dierences must be observed, documented, and

evaluated, not for the sake of critiquing but for the sake of understanding.

Though some use comparative studies to contradict claims made in the bibli-

cal text, the data need not be so employed.

13. H. W. F. Saggs, The Encounter with the Divine in Mesopotamia and Israel, Jordan Lec-

tures in Comparative Religion 12 (London: Athlone, 1978), 6–8.

History and Methods

_Walton_AncientNearEastThoughtOT.indd 29 3/2/18 2:06 PM

John H. Walton, Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament

Cultural Dimension of Theology

Including but expanding beyond religious practice is the construct termed

theology. To investigate Israelite theology in relation to any other ancient theology

we must go beyond the simple identiﬁcation of similarities and dierences to

articulate the relationships on a functional level. For example, it is one thing to

say that both Israelites and Babylonians used rituals for transference of oense.

It is another matter altogether to understand the function of those rituals and

the role they played in the larger theology. Similarities could exist because Israel

adapted something from ancient Near Eastern culture or literature or, as previ-

ously mentioned, because they simply resonated with the culture. Dierences

could reﬂect the Israelites’ rejection of an ancient Near Eastern perspective, in

which a practice was either ignored or proscribed, or they might emerge in ex-

plicit Israelite polemics against the views of their neighbors, in which extended

discourse drew out the distinction. In all such cases the theology of the text may

be nuanced or clariﬁed by an understanding of the cultural context, whether it

resonates with its environment or stands in sharp relief against it.

I am not as convinced as some in comparative studies that the Old Testament

regularly engages in polemics against the surrounding cultures and ideolo-

gies. Examples such as the caricature of images in Isaiah 44 and Jeremiah 10

demonstrate that the Hebrew Bible does indeed at times engage in polemics.

The methodological question is the extent to which polemics can be used

as an explanation in cases of tacit insinuation. Can choice of words (“great

lights” in Gen. 1:16 instead of the words “sun” and “moon,” whose cognates

are also used as the names of the sun god and moon god) or the promotion

of an alternative view (Yahweh riding on the clouds or chaos creatures under

Yahweh’s control) be construed as polemic? Polemics by means of insinuation

depends on general recognition by the audience. The literature of the Old

Testament never forthrightly refutes or undermines an ancient myth; it only

lampoons or denies the power of the gods.

E. Frahm alternatively adopts the designation “counter-texts” to describe

works in the ancient Near East that he concludes have been composed as reac-

tions to earlier texts (e.g., Erra and Ishum as a reaction to Enuma Elish).

that sense, they take their place in the reception history of the earlier work.

The dierence between this and polemics is in the intention: Is the writer

trying to disprove his counterpart’s claims (polemics) or simply presenting

14. I have carried out this sort of study in more depth in Old Testament Theology for

Christians: From Ancient Context to Enduring Belief (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2017).

15. E. Frahm, Babylonian and Assyrian Text Commentaries: Origins of Interpretation,

Guides to the Mesopotamian Textual Record 5 (Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2011), 347–64.

Comparative Studies

_Walton_AncientNearEastThoughtOT.indd 30 3/2/18 2:06 PM

John H. Walton, Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament

his own alternate perspective (counter-texts)? In counter-texts, one form of

reaction would be to reverse the plots of earlier works. Less obviously, “small

but signiﬁcant manipulations of older works were another way to adapt texts

to the needs of a later era and produce new meanings.”

In such a case the

views can be meaningfully juxtaposed to interpretive advantage.

A third perspective understands similarities as reﬂecting an even lower

threshold as a form of intertextuality. In this view, the biblical tradents or

composers are broadly familiar with the literature of the ancient Near East

and make faint allusions to it that echo its themes or content at the minimal

end of the spectrum. Alternatively, at the maximal end, they are actually using

the tropes or motifs of speciﬁc literature to craft a new work. In the latter case,

there is no intention of parodying, arguing, or even countering the subject text.

Examples can be found in the way that Ezekiel makes use of Erra and Ishum.

A ﬁnal model diers from the rest in that it does not require that speciﬁc

pieces of literature were known by the Israelite scribes (whether they actu-

ally were or not). In this view what we know as literary traditions circulated

around in informal ways and often in oral form. A diusion model does not

deny that whatever scribal schools there were in Israel may have had access to

the literary works that comprised a scribal curriculum. It recognizes, however,

that archival texts may not have been the most prominent forms in which the

traditions circulated. One of the advantages of the diusion model is that

it can also account for many of the fundamental aspects of ancient culture

that are evident in the Hebrew Bible but are not tied speciﬁcally to literary

traditions, even though they may surface in one or several speciﬁc pieces.

These approaches are not mutually exclusive options. Theoretically we

might ﬁnd examples of each of them scattered throughout the Hebrew Bible.

They share some common ground in that in all but the last option the Hebrew

writer shows an awareness of the cognate literature. He is a protagonist in a

conversation, whether engaged in borrowing and reworking, debate (polemic),

reﬂection (counter-text), or casual intertextuality, or working from a general

awareness of the way that ideas were framed or approached in the ancient

world. Each understanding, therefore, requires the modern scholar to present

evidence that the Hebrew writer would have plausibly been aware of either

the speciﬁc piece of literature or the tradition, whichever the case may be.

16. Frahm, Babylonian and Assyrian Text Commentaries, 345.

17. D. Bodi, The Book of Ezekiel and the Poem of Erra, OBO 104 (Switzerland: Univer-

sitätsverlag Freiburg; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991).

18. Adapted from J. Walton, “Biblical Polemics in Comparative Contexts,” in Behind the

Scenes of the Old Testament, ed. J. Greer, J. Hilber, and J. Walton (Grand Rapids: Baker Aca-

demic, forthcoming).

History and Methods

_Walton_AncientNearEastThoughtOT.indd 31 3/2/18 2:06 PM

John H. Walton, Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament

When it comes to the formulation of our modern theology based on the

biblical text, we may logically conclude that without the guidance of back-

ground studies we are bound to misinterpret the text at some points. A text

can be thought of as a web of ideas linked by threads of writing. Each phrase

and each word communicates by the ideas and thoughts that it will trigger in

the mind of the reader or hearer. We can then speak of the potential meanings

that words point to as gaps that need to be ﬁlled with (one hopes, appropriate)

meaning by the audience. The writer or speaker assumes that those gaps will

be ﬁlled in particular ways based on the common language and worldview

shared with the audience. Interpreters of the Bible have the task of ﬁlling in

those gaps, not with their own ideas (theological or otherwise) but with the

ideas of the writer as those ideas can be understood. Often the words he uses

and the ideas he is trying to convey are rooted in the culture and therefore

need the assistance of background studies.

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. In other words,

the tower was seen as a way for people to ascend to heaven. But background

study has allowed modern interpreters to recognize that the tower is an ex-

pression used to describe the ziggurats of Mesopotamia, which were intended

to serve as a bridge or portal between heaven and earth for the gods to use.

Thus comparative study oers an alternative, and arguably more accurate,

interpretation of the text.

In Genesis the tower should be viewed as provid-

ing a way for deity to descend. In conclusion, then, as our interpretation of the

text requires us to ﬁll in the gaps, we want to be careful to consider the option

of ﬁlling those gaps from the cultural context before we leap to ﬁll them with

a theological signiﬁcance coming out of our own experience or understanding.

Scope of Comparative Study

As we continue to think on the level of the common cognitive environment,

we will have reason to expand the focus of our comparative studies.

The scholarly interest in comparative studies formerly focused on either

individual features (e.g., ﬂood accounts from both the Bible and the ancient

19. I am not here speaking of the sort of information that one could theoretically derive

from cross-examining or even psychoanalyzing the writer. I simply refer to those elements that

can be found to make sense against the backdrop of the culture.

20. See more complete discussion in “Comparative Exploration 5.2: The Tower of Babel,”

in chap. 5.

Comparative Studies

_Walton_AncientNearEastThoughtOT.indd 32 3/2/18 2:06 PM

John H. Walton, Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament

Near East feature birds sent out from an ark) or the literary preservation of

traditions (e.g., creation accounts, vassal treaties), and many studies have

been conducted with either apologetics (from confessional circles) or polemics

(against confessional traditions) in mind. Those interested in the interpretation

of the text have only more recently begun to recognize in addition the impor-

tance of comparative studies that focus on conceptual issues conducted with

illumination of the cultural dynamics and worldview behind the text in mind.

Comparative research in the Biblical ﬁeld has often become a kind of “paral-

lel hunting.” Once it has been established that a certain biblical expression or

custom has a parallel outside the Bible, the whole problem is regarded as solved.

It is not asked, whether or not the extra-Biblical element has the same place

in life, the same function in the context of its own culture. The ﬁrst question

that should be asked in comparative research is that of the Sitz im Leben and

the meaning of the extra-Biblical parallel adduced. It is not until this has been

established that the parallel can be utilized to elucidate a Biblical fact.

Conclusions

Principles of Comparative Study

Ten important principles must be kept in mind when doing comparative

studies:

1. Both similarities and dierences must be considered.

2. Similarities may suggest a common cultural heritage or cognitive envi-

ronment rather than borrowing.

3. It is not uncommon to ﬁnd similarities at the surface but dierences at

the conceptual level and vice versa.

4. All elements must be understood in their own contexts as accurately

as possible before cross-cultural comparisons are made (i.e., careful

background study must precede comparative study).

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.

21. H. Ringgren, “Israel’s Place among the Religions of the Ancient Near East,” in Studies

in the Religion of Ancient Israel, VTSup 23 (Leiden: Brill, 1972), 1; quoted in S. Talmon, “The

Comparative Method in Biblical Interpretation: Principles and Problems,” in Essential Papers

on Israel and the Ancient Near East, ed. F. E. Greenspahn, Essential Papers on Jewish Studies

(New York: New York University Press, 1991), 402.

History and Methods

_Walton_AncientNearEastThoughtOT.indd 33 3/2/18 2:06 PM

John H. Walton, Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament

7. The signiﬁcance of dierences between two pieces of literature is mini-

mized if the works do not represent the same genre.

8. Similar functions may be performed by dierent genres in dierent cultures.

9. When literary or cultural elements are borrowed they may in turn be

transformed into something quite dierent by those who borrowed them.

10. A single culture will rarely be monolithic, either in a contemporary

cross section or in consideration of a passage of time.

Goals of Cognitive Environment Criticism

I would contend, then, that students should undertake cognitive environ-

ment criticism with four goals in mind:

1. Students may 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. Students may study archaeology as a means of recovering the lifestyle

reﬂected in the material culture of the ancient world.

3. Students may study the literature of the ancient Near East as a means

of penetrating the cognitive environment of the people who inhabited

the ancient world that Israel shared.

4. Students may study the language of the ancient Near East as a means

of gaining additional insight into the semantics, lexicography, idioms,

and metaphors used in Hebrew.

These goals then each contribute to comparative studies and will help us

understand the Old Testament better.

22. 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 Tigay, “On Evaluating Claims,” 250–55.

Comparative Studies

_Walton_AncientNearEastThoughtOT.indd 34 3/2/18 2:06 PM

John H. Walton, Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament