Introduction

From Friedrich Delitzsch’s Babel-Bibel lectures that accused the biblical writers of crass plagiarism to the name calling of Thomas Thompson, who applies the fundamentalist label to anyone who believes that the historicity of the Old Testament, the debate regarding the relationship between the Bible and ancient Near Eastern literature continues to rage. Accordingly, the question remains as to how to explain the profound similarities between the Old Testament and pagan mythology. Without a clear understanding of the relationship, the foundations of Christianity may sink into the quagmire of the delightful best-selling fiction on par with Homer, Dickens, or Tolkien. Based on the conviction that meaning only exists within context, the relationship between the Old Testament and the ancient Near Eastern literature rests on the Israelites’ cognitive contextual framework of transcendence. Accordingly, the analysis begins by exploring the nature, significance, benefits, and challenges of the biblical parallels followed by a brief explanation of comparative methodology used to assess the comparability of the Old Testament to ancient Near Eastern texts. The research concludes by applying the comparative methodology to an analysis of the similarities and dissimilarities between Genesis 1-2 and both the Enuma Elish and the ancient Egyptian creation accounts.

Biblical Parallels

The nature of biblical parallels may best be described as diverse. John Walton suggests the nature of the biblical parallels to the ancient Near East fall into three buckets: parallels that focus on individual features, parallels that focus on preserving a literary tradition often from a polemical perspective, and parallels that focus on worldview.^[1] An example of individual features may include the papyrus basket used to protect both Moses and Horus, or birds sent out in parallel flood narratives. The literary tradition may be upheld through parallel creation accounts or treaty formations. Finally, although numerous distinctions exist, a parallel regarding worldviews may include, for example, aspects of ancient cosmic geography.

The nature of the biblical parallels goes beyond Walton’s categories that focus primarily on content. Although completely separating content and form is impossible, Angel Manuel Rodríguez provides a nuanced perspective of the similarities by focusing on the linguistic, stylistic, and institutional parallels.^[2] Certain linguistic parallels are unavoidable in a Northwest Semitic language that would be similar to Ugaritic, Canaanite, Phoenician, and Moabite literary sources. Stylistic parallels also exist such as formulaic devices for certain type of literature such as a lament. Finally, kingship and covenant are two examples of social institutions that are found in both biblical and ancient Near Eastern sources.^[3]

The significance of biblical parallels should not be underestimated. Walton explains that cultural study, or the more focused comparative study, reconstructs the culture and beliefs of the ancient Near East to assist in understanding the content of Scripture.^[4] More specifically, by interpreting Scripture in light of the original ancient culture, it decreases the risk of superimposing a cultural bias.^[5] In summary, the significance of biblical parallels is to enhance understanding of the biblical text and inform exegesis.

The notion of understanding provides an umbrella for engaging the benefits of biblical parallels. Walton identifies three categories of understanding that cultural studies may benefit: literary genre, religious practice, and theology.^[6] First, regarding literary genre, dependency is not presupposed. Instead, when the literature of the Bible is juxtaposed with the literature of the ancient Near East, the potential payoff is an enhanced understanding of both. As Walton explains, the exercise attempts to recover certain aspects of the cognitive environment to illuminate the perspective of the Israelites.^[7] Second, cultural studies not only inform belief, but also praxis. Investigating the cultic and ritual activities of the ancient Near East enhances one’s understanding of the Israelites’ religious practice. Importantly, both similarities and differences must be studied to provide maximum benefit. Third, an awareness of the theological similarities and differences between the ancient Near East and Scripture provides the potential benefit of correctly perceiving the Israelites’ view of Yahweh. Finally, once the original author’s intent is determined through a proper interpretation of ancient literature, practice, and belief, the expositor can construct a principalizing bridge and appropriately apply the concepts to the modern listener.

Although the benefits of studying biblical parallels are significant, the challenges are, on occasion, quite substantial. The most obvious challenge for the evangelical theologian is the scholarly assumption that the biblical data is dependent upon pagan mythology, but the problem of presumptions cuts both ways. As Roberto Ouro explains, on the one hand, scholars have, at times, biblicized the ancient Near Eastern texts without adequate biblical support, and, on the other hand, scholars have mythologized the biblical account with even less evidence.^[8] In a classic essay, S. Talmon highlights four challenges to studying biblical parallels: (1) proximity, (2) intertextuality, (3) societal function, and (4) atomism.^[9] The first challenge to comparative study is properly aligning the dates under study rather than anachronistically applying geographical and chronological parallels. The second challenge is to properly apply the ancient Near Eastern cultural data to the biblical data after considering the Bible’s intertextual relationships. The third challenge is to develop an understanding of the Israelites’ societal structure before applying parallels. The fourth challenge is to apply the parallels holistically, rather than atomistically. In other words, the parallels must be interpreted in light of the broader ancient Near East and biblical context.

The challenges provided by Salmon provide a solid foundation. However, Walton builds on his foundation by identifying additional obstacles that may be grouped into three broad categories: similarities and differences, borrowing, and genre.^[10] The first challenge is to consider both the similarities and differences, while recognizing that similarities may simply suggest a common culture, rather than borrowing, and differences may occur at a deeper level. The second challenge is to identify the source of any borrowing and acknowledge the possibility of significant transformation in the final transmission. The third challenge is to properly identify the genre of both the ancient Near Eastern and biblical texts. If the genres are distinct, then the significance of the similarities may be diminished. Finally, Samuel Sandmel recognizes the challenge of parallelomania when studying biblical parallels, where scholars overdo the similarities, and then establish conclusions based on unstable evidence.^[11] However, the most significant challenge to the discipline of biblical studies may be, as Noel Weeks concludes, human nature, where conclusions are presupposed prior to the investigation.^[12]

Comparative Methodology

The pattern of comparative methodology followed throughout this research may be considered a cognitive contextual approach built upon an eclectic utilization of models. Walton identifies five potential models to engage cognitive environment criticism: borrowing, polemics, counter-texts, echoes, and diffusion.^[13] The first four assume direct access to the spectrum of ancient literature, whereas diffusion assumes the Israelites obtained information informally while existing in the cultural river. The planned methodology is built upon four foundational assumptions. First, the biblical writers had limited formal or informal access to ancient literature. To suggest that the biblical writers had continuous and direct access to all the cognate literature seems overdone, but alternatively, to assume the biblical writers were on a cultural island seems restrictive. Second, the biblical writers used various models to interact with the ancient cognitive environment. At times, the author may directly borrow from a source, at other times the purpose may be more polemical or counter textual. Sometimes the biblical author would use echoes or allusions to communicate the message, just as Old Testament writers used biblical intertextuality. At other times, the author may also use concepts from the cultural river or milieu. In other words, a holistic or thematic approach is evident where, as Jeffrey Niehaus explains, “a shared theological structure of ideas existed in the ancient Near East, a structure that finds its most complete and true form in the Old and New Testaments.”^[14] Third, the Old Testament has a dual authorship that includes both mankind and God. Accordingly, it is not unreasonable to assert a unity of Scripture where contextual threads pervade the canon. Fourth, the Old Testament rests on a contextually supported cognitive framework, and as Sandmel explains, passages may appear similar in isolation, but “when seen in context reflect difference rather than similarity.”^[15]

The Bible among the Myths: Unique Revelation or Just Ancient Literature?

In other words, in alignment with John Oswalt, the entire canon is built upon a contextual cognitive framework of transcendence, while the rest of the ancient Near East resides upon a cognitive contextual framework of continuity.^[16] Accordingly, assessing the comparability of Scripture and the literature from ancient Near Eastern texts always engages the broader context of the Israelites’ cognitive distinctiveness. The approach is not novel and would likely be considered evangelical, and it does diverge with many notable liberal scholars. As John Currid points out, many modern scholars engage the parallels between the Bible and ancient Near Eastern literature with cynicism and assume the content of Scripture is on par with literary fiction.^[17]

Methodology Applied

When applying the comparative methodology with the creation accounts of Genesis 1-2, it is difficult to ignore the famous Mesopotamian creation myth, Enuma Elish. The basic story of the myth is familiar. Creation is a clash of cosmic proportions between order and chaos. A divine assembly of gods, which included the gods Apsu and Tiamat, were birthed out of the watery chaos. Apsu and Tiamat procreate and birth many other gods who represented various parts of nature. Ultimately, a battle ensues between the gods, and Marduk killed Tiamat and splits her body into two parts. Marduk creates the heaven out of one part and creates the earth out of the other part. Finally, Marduk creates humanity.

At first the similarities seem obscure. However, Currid summarizes several parallels between the Enuma Elish and the creation account in Genesis. First, regarding similarities, the order of creation between the two episodes coincide.^[18] Furthermore, divine spirit and cosmic matter interact, and a dark chaos exists in the Enuma Elish, while an empty darkness exists in Genesis 1:2.^[19] Finally, in both cases, the creative process included light, firmament, dry land, luminaires, man, and finally, a rest period.^[20]  Although similarities exist, they may be considered superficial. The reason is that if any story of creation were to arise in an ancient civilization, it would, by definition, have to include the creation of certain entities that were in already existence, such as light and man, or it would hardly fit the genre. Furthermore, Ouro highlights several significant differences. In the Enuma Elish, Marduk is considered the organizer not a creator, cosmogony is expressed as theogony, and creation arises out of chaos.^[21] Alternatively, in the biblical account, Yahweh is considered the organizer and the creator by divine fiat, no theogony occurs, and the environment is described as an absence of life, not chaos.^[22]

Although various comparative models may appropriately be used to describe the reason and purpose behind the parallels, such as a polemic or a counter-text, the context of the cognitive worldview of the Israelites most appropriately describes the relationship. Oswalt explains that the Genesis account presumes creation ex nihilo by the will of a preexistent, eternal God independent from the work performed.^[23] In other words, the Israelites’ cognitive context built upon God’s transcendence trumps the potential problematic parallels.

The Egyptian creation accounts also have significant parallels to the creation account in Genesis. The Egyptian accounts occur in several disparate sources such as the Pyramid Texts, the Memphite Theology from the Shabaka Stone, The Book of the Dead, and various hymns such as the Hymn of Ptah. Currid provides a list of parallels, which include a reference to a potter’s wheel for creative acts, creation by verbal fiat of everything, and the creation of light, luminaries, fish, birds, land animals, and mankind.^[24]

Like the Enuma Elish, the distinctions between the Egyptian creation accounts and the biblical creation account are significant. According to Currid, in the Egyptian Memphite Theology, the god Ptah has created the world from primordial water that was personified as the god Nun.^[25] Alternatively, the biblical account contends that God is the creator of all creation ex nihilo, which is a stark contrast to the polytheistic Egyptian accounts. Furthermore, Ouro explains that one of the primary differences between the biblical and the Egyptian accounts concerns the purpose of humanity.^[26] In Egyptian cosmology, people were created to provide for the gods’ needs.^[27] Alternatively, in the biblical account, God created man in His image and entrusted mankind with the ability to make choices and care for His creation. Finally, Currid explains, unlike the biblical account, the gods in Egyptian literature were completely immanent, lacked omnipotence, and reflected humanity.^[28]

Again, many comparative models may be deployed. For example, it is possible that parallels were used as a polemic to defend God’s complete, monotheistic, sovereignty over creation. It is also possible that some of the content used by the biblical writers reflected the ancient cultural milieu allowing for a holistic or thematic methodology explained, at least partially, by diffusion. However, regardless of the motivations or reasons behind the techniques used to communicate the message, meaning can only exist within context. The biblical writers wrote their words from within a cognitive context or worldview of a sovereign, omnipotent, relational, transcendent God that countered the worldview of continuity at every turn.

Conclusion

Far from sitting down by a fire with Dickens’ fictional account of David Copperfield for mere pleasure, the Bible’s relationship to the ancient Near East finds its significance in the enhancement of understanding of the biblical text, which illuminates exegesis for the benefit of the student and scholar alike. However, challenges of biblical parallels range from the assertion of dependency to the cultural bias built deep within human nature. As can be seen in the comparative analysis between Genesis 1-2 and a sampling of the ancient Near Eastern creation accounts, the cognitive context is foundational to meaning and bridges the divide between Scripture and pagan mythology. The relationship between the Old Testament and the ancient Near Eastern literature rests on the Israelites’ cognitive contextual framework of transcendence. Personally, the biblical parallels to ancient context have, at times, been disturbing. A question deep within the recesses of the mind would trigger doubt. A doubt that seems to be pervasive in modern American society, “Is it a hoax?” However, in its final analysis, logic prevails. The God of the universe knew exactly what He was doing by entering the cultural milieu of His people and reframing the cognitive context to align with His ultimate reality.

_______________________________________

[1] John H. Walton, Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament: Introducing the Conceptual World of the Hebrew Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006), 25–26.

[2] Angel Manuel Rodriguez, “Ancient Near Eastern Parallels to the Bible and the Question of Revelation and Inspiration,” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 12, no. 1 (2001): 43–48.

[3] See Jeffrey J. Niehaus, Ancient Near Eastern Themes in Biblical Theology (Grand Rapids: Kregel Academic & Professional, 2008). Rodríguez’s institutional parallels provide the building blocks for the holistic approach of Niehaus, which proposes shared structures between Scripture and the Ancient Near Eastern texts.

[4] Walton, Ancient Near Eastern Thought, 18.

[5] John H. Walton, Victor H. Matthews, and Mark W. Chavalas, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2000), 7.

[6] Walton, Ancient Near Eastern Thought, 22–25.

[7] Ibid., 22.

[8] Roberto Ouro, “Similarities and Differences between the Old Testament and the Ancient Near Eastern Texts,” Andrews University Seminary Studies 49, no. 1 (2011): 7.

[9] S. Talmon, “The ‘Comparative Method’ in Biblical Interpretation: Principles and Problems,” in Volume Du Congres, ed. Frederick E. Greenspahn (Leiden: Brill, 1978), 324–328, 342, 356.

[10] John H. 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.

[11] Samuel Sandmel, “Parallelomania,” Journal of Biblical Literature 81, no. 1 (March 1962): 1.

[12] Noel Weeks, “Problems with the Comparative Method in Old Testament Studies,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 62, no. 2 (June 1, 2019): 306.

[13] John H. Walton, “Interactions in the Ancient Cognitive Environment,” in Behind the Scenes of the Old Testament: Cultural, Social, and Historical Contexts, ed. Jonathan S. Greer, John W. Hilber, and John H. Walton (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2018), 333–335.

[14] Niehaus, Ancient Near Eastern Themes in Biblical Theology, 30.

[15] Sandmel, “Parallelomania,” 2.

[16] John N. Oswalt, The Bible Among the Myths: Unique Revelation or Just Ancient Literature? (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Academic, 2009), 185–194.

[17] John D. Currid, Against the Gods: The Polemical Theology of the Old Testament (Wheaton: Crossway, 2013), 22.

[18] Currid, Against the Gods, 37.

[19] Ibid.

[20] Ibid.

[21] Ouro, “Similarities and Differences,” 13.

[22] Ibid.

[23] Oswalt, The Bible among the Myths, 101.

[24] Currid, Against the Gods, 39.

[25] Ibid., 46.

[26] Ouro, “Similarities and Differences,” 16.

[27] Ibid.

[28] Currid, Against the Gods, 40.

Bibliography

• Currid, John D. Against the Gods: The Polemical Theology of the Old Testament. Wheaton: Crossway, 2013.
• Niehaus, Jeffrey J. Ancient Near Eastern Themes in Biblical Theology. Grand Rapids: Kregel Academic & Professional, 2008.
• Oswalt, John N. The Bible Among the Myths: Unique Revelation or Just Ancient Literature? Grand Rapids: Zondervan Academic, 2009.
• Ouro, Roberto. “Similarities and Differences between the Old Testament and the Ancient Near Eastern Texts.” Andrews University Seminary Studies 49, no. 1 (2011): 5–32.
• Rodriguez, Angel Manuel. “Ancient Near Eastern Parallels to the Bible and the Question of Revelation and Inspiration.” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 12, no. 1 (2001): 43–64.
• Sandmel, Samuel. “Parallelomania.” Journal of Biblical Literature 81, no. 1 (March 1962): 1–13.
• Talmon, S. “The ‘Comparative Method’ in Biblical Interpretation: Principles and Problems.” In Volume Du Congres, edited by Frederick E. Greenspahn, 320–356. Leiden: Brill, 1978.
• Walton, John H. Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament: Introducing the Conceptual World of the Hebrew Bible. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006.
• ________. “Cultural Background of the Old Testament.” In Foundations for Biblical Interpretation, edited by D. Dockery, K. Mathews, and R. Sloan, 256. Nashville: Broadman/Holman, 1994.
• ________. “Interactions in the Ancient Cognitive Environment.” In Behind the Scenes of the Old Testament: Cultural, Social, and Historical Contexts, edited by Jonathan S. Greer, John W. Hilber, and John H. Walton. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2018.
• Walton, John H., Victor H. Matthews, and Mark W. Chavalas. The IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2000.
• Weeks, Noel. “Problems with the Comparative Method in Old Testament Studies.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 62, no. 2 (June 1, 2019): 287.