Introduction

The biblical law codes, and specifically the Covenant Code within the book of Exodus, present a conundrum to many modern Christians who attempt to understand the relevance of what appear to be obscure and often disturbing rules of morality. However, the questions surrounding the biblical law surpasses mere relevance, and asks how the obvious parallels between the ancient Near Eastern laws of the pagans relate to the meaning and understanding of the legal information written in the Covenant Code. Without a proper understanding of the relationship between the two types of literature, the interpreter risks assuming the Bible is plagiaristic. However, a cognitive contextual methodology deployed within the discipline of cognitive environment criticism reveals that the Covenant Code is built upon the unique worldview of transcendence within an ancient Near Eastern society. First, a brief cultural overview of the book of Exodus is followed by an introductory excursion into the iconographic messaging of the outstretched arm motif in the book of Exodus. Next, similarities and differences between the Covenant Code and the ancient law codes ensues prior to applying the cognitive contextual methodology to the passage in Exodus. A final section briefly discusses a plan for integration into a Bible study setting.

Cultural Overview

The setting of the book of Exodus is Lower Egypt and Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula during the Late Bronze Age. Accordingly, the brief cultural overview is limited in both the location and period of the setting of the book.  According to Joel LeMon, the New Kingdom began with a reunited Egypt under the reign of Pharaoh Ahmose upon conquering the Hyksos around 1550 BC, which initiated a massive program of imperial expansion creating many vassal states.[1] The Egyptians worshipped the sun god Re who became intimately associated with the kingship of the pharaoh and, around 1370 BC, the Egyptian society was disrupted by the Hittites who attempted to overthrow Egypt.[2]

In light of the pharaoh’s presumed divine powers, Thomas Brisco explains that ruler had autonomous authority over Egyptian life as the mediator of the god.[3] Regardless of an early or late date of the Exodus event, the Israelites, under control of the pharaoh in Egyptian land, would have likely lived in a rural setting alongside peasant farmers close to one of the villages along the Nile river.[4] Small residential houses and larger palaces were built with mud bricks, which would likely explain the servitude of the Israelites during their captivity prior to their journey toward the Red Sea.[5]

During the Ramesside Period from around 1295-1069 BC, Ramesses I reestablished hereditary kingship and Seti I initiated a massive restoration program and, after the Battle of Qadesh in 1274 BC against the Hittites, Egypt experienced a renewed prosperity.[6] Depending on the dating of the Exodus event, it is possible that the slavery associated with the Israelites would have supported the building projects associated with the restoration, but the late date is less than certain. Furthermore, syncretism was prevalent prior to the Third Intermediate Period along with the gradual decline of Egyptian power.[7] Finally, regardless of the dating of the Exodus, Egyptians divided the year into three seasons that related to the weather patterns and flooding of the Nile that limited agricultural work, which provided opportunity for the employment of slave labor for the king’s building projects.[8]

Iconographic Overview

Figure 1. Painted wall of tomb at Hierakonpolis.

A brief iconographic overview of the book of Exodus first requires the definition of the term. Daniel Bodi explains that iconography refers to visual representations, which may include reliefs, statues, and amulets to name a few.[9] A comprehensive review of the ancient Near Eastern iconography is beyond this study for the ancient visual artifacts related to the book of Exodus are vast. From Aaron’s rod to the style and material of the Ark of the Covenant, Leland Ryken, James Wilhoit, and Tremper Longman acknowledge the significant breadth of iconographic imagery related to Exodus.[10] Accordingly, the following analysis will be limited to a representative sample of relevant iconography utilizing the imagery of an important phrase that is often used to describe Yahweh within the book of Exodus, “the

Figure 2. Temple relief at Tell el-Retaba.

outstretched arm” or “strong arm.” Brent Strawn asserts that the imagery tradition of the phrase takes two trajectories: the conquering arm of pharaoh and the life-giving deity.[11]

First, regarding the conquering arm of pharaoh, it is found very early in Egyptian iconography. According to Strawn, the imagery goes back to a tomb painting in Hierakonpolis around 3400 BC (fig. 1) and, in the New Kingdom period, the imagery is abundant and includes a depiction of the outstretched arm of Ramesses the Great around 1250 BC from a temple relief at Tell el-Retaba (fig. 2). [12] The question is whether

Figure 3. Limestone relief at Amarna

the imagery actually evokes the idea of Yahweh’s outstretched arm. Strawn notes that the outstretched arm of pharaoh connotes military action and power.[13] In Exodus 6:6, Yahweh tells Moses to explain to the Israelites that Yahweh “will redeem you with an outstretched arm.” Accordingly, it is not unreasonable to conclude that the imagery can be applied to Yahweh who wreaked havoc on the Egyptians during the Exodus event. However, certain differences between the usages of the phrase as it applies to pharaoh calls for additional investigation.

The pharaoh Amenhotep IV (1352-1336 BC) not only changed his name to Akhenaten, but also changed the capital to modern day el-Arman and the religion to the worship of the sun god Aten.[14] Along with these changes also came a new artistic style that influenced the iconographic landscape. According to Strawn, the outstretched arm motif, ubiquitous within imagery during the time, included the sun god’s rays,  which represented creation and redemption as a life-giving deity exemplified by a limestone relief (fig. 3) and a limestone stele (fig. 4) from Armana.[15] The redemption motif is evident in Exodus 13:8-9 when Moses tells the Israelites that it is because of the “strong hand of the Lord” that they have

Figure 4. Limestone
stele at Amarna.

been rescued and brought out of Egypt (cf. Exod 13:16).[16] Importantly, the images from Akhenaten’s era contain images of deities, not just kings, who bring life and blessing to the people. Although the iconographic data supporting the book of Exodus is much broader than the “outstreched arm,” the theme’s visual imagery within the ancient Near East, which includes paintings, reliefs, and stelae, provides a represenative overview of the importance of iconography when studying the pericopes of Exodus, the book of Exodus, and Scripture in general.

The Similarities

The first step in using a comparative methodology when performing cognitive environment criticism is to identify the parallels between the literature. Specifically, the parallels between the ancient Near Eastern literature and the Bible. The selected section of the book of Exodus under study is the Covenant Code, which is documented in chapters 20:23-23:19. The parallels between the ancient Near Eastern literature and the Covenant Code are extensive. However, according to Pamela Barmash the relevant parallels primarily exist in Mesopotamian and Hittite Laws, which include the Sumerian Laws of Ur-Namma and Lipit-Ishtar, the Akkadian Laws of Eshnunna and Hammurabi, and possibly the later Middle Assyrian Laws.[17] The ancient Near Eastern collections took the form of royal inscriptions, which not only exalted the king, but also justified his authority to his human subjects as well as the gods.[18] Although further analysis of the relationship occurs in the exploration of the comparative methodology, it is sufficient for now to note that the specific relationship between the ancient law codes and the biblical law codes is disputed. On the one hand, critical scholars assert that the relationship is found in an oral tradition, and others, such as David Wright, suggest the Covenant Code is directly dependent upon the Laws of Hammurabi.[19] On the other hand, some scholars assume the biblical author was trained in a scribal tradition, and others, such as John Walton, believe the relationship occurs due to the nature of the ancient cultural river.[20]

The similarities between the ancient Near Eastern legal codes and the Covenant Code may be categorized into three types. According to Bruce Wells, the first type is the existence of similar legal issues, which include problems, concerns, or issues that arise in ancient law codes and the Covenant Code within the context of legal matters.[21] For example, Exodus 21:16 addresses the topic of kidnapping by stating, “Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death.” The legal issue of kidnapping is also addressed in the Laws of Hammurabi §14, which states that anyone who kidnaps a man will be put to death regardless if the kidnapped man is sold or not. Next, Wells explains that a second type of similarity pertains to legal reasoning, which reflects an analogous way of thinking.[22] For instance, Exodus 21:35 explains that when two men each have an ox, and the oxen fight and one of them dies, then the two men shall share in the value of both the live and the dead ox. Similarly, the Laws of Eshnunna §53 explain that if two oxen gore each other, then the parties will divide the value of both. The logic resides in the concept or legal reasoning of shared risk. Finally, Wells identifies a third type of similarity, which consists of comparable legal remedies.[23] Exodus 21:18-19 addresses a situation regarding two men fighting where one man punches the other man, but if the man that is hit does not die, then the legal remedy is that renumeration must be given for the man’s loss of time (Exod 21:19). Similarly, in the Laws of Hammurabi §206, the man who inflicts the wound must pay the fees of the physician.

The similarities referred to above focus primarily on content. However, similar structural characteristics between the ancient legal codes and the Covenant Code also exist. Joel Hamm, Bryan Babcock, and Justin Strong identify two specific structural features of the codes: the casuistic nature utilizing conditional statements and the third person writing.[24] The examples above include both characteristics. Although, without a doubt, close parallels occur between both the content and the structure of the ancient legal codes and the Covenant Code, the similarities must not be exaggerated. The distinctions between the codes must also be considered.

The Distinctives

Significant distinctions between the ancient Near Eastern law codes and the Covenant Code, as well as the corpus of law codes in general, exist both conceptually and structurally. Conceptually, Shalom Paul first notes that moral exhortations, religious injunctions, and legal prescriptions are found independently in the ancient Near Eastern legal codes, but only in the biblical account are they combined.[25] The holistic nature of Scripture provides support for the concept of the imago Dei interwoven within the biblical law. Second, the biblical account of the law codes plumbs the depths of humanity rather than merely focusing behavioral or cultic rituals. Specifically, according to Roy Gane, unlike the ancient Near Eastern tradition, the biblical law deals with the attitudes of individuals and the value of human life.[26] For example, Exodus 20:17 is a prohibition against coveting houses, other people, animals, or anything at all. Coveting is detectable only by assessing inner motivations, which are available only to an omniscient God. Furthermore, Exodus 21:12 states, “Whoever strikes a man so that he dies shall be put to death.” Although the punishment may seem extreme, it clearly displays the value that Yahweh places on human life, which differs from certain ancient Near Eastern laws that allow for economic remuneration for homicide.[27]

Structural distinctions also exist, especially pertaining to societal directives. Gane points out that, unlike the biblical law, some ancient Near Eastern law codes punish individuals by killing a family member in what was called “vicarious talion” or “talionic ruler punishment”  (see Laws of Hammurabi §229 and §230).[28] Exodus 21:29 highlights the distinction by stating that if an ox has a history of goring, and the animal kills an individual, then not only does the ox get stoned, but the owner, not a family member, is put to death. Gane also explains that the social class distinctions are not delineated when applying legal remedies to non-slaves in the Covenant Code.[29] In other words, some ancient Near Eastern legal texts modify the punishments based on the rank of the individual assaulted (see Laws of Hammurabi §196-98). Finally, the biblical law codes have an important structural similarity to the United States Penal Code. Gane explains that the biblical legal code was a major advance in jurisprudence relative to the ancient Near Eastern legal system by “consistently treating an individual as innocent unless found to be guilty through an authorized procedure.”[30]

The Lost World of the Torah: Law as Covenant and Wisdom in Ancient Context (Volume 6) (The Lost World Series)

Alternatively, according to the Laws of Hammurabi §132, if a finger is pointed against a man’s wife accusing her of adultery, even though it has not been verified, she may be thrown in the Euphrates River as a sign of divine judgement.

Three additional distinctions between the ancient Near Eastern legal codes and the Covenant Code need discussed. First, Walton identifies one of the most obvious yet significant differences, which is the source of the material.[31] The ancient Near Eastern code originates from society’s kings, but the biblical material originates from the revelation of Israel’s divine king, Yahweh. Although the source distinction ought not be minimized, the two primary differences that most notably pertain to cognitive environment criticism are the concepts of covenant and holiness, both of which will be explored in greater detail within the methodology section. First, Yahweh enters a covenant with Abram in Genesis 12:1-3, which was ratified in Genesis 15 and extended to the nation of Israel in Exodus 6:6-7 when Yahweh takes the Israelites as His people. Although the suzerain-vassal relationship existed as substantiated by ancient treaties, Walton explains that the type of covenant extended to Israel is not attested in the ancient Near East.[32] The covenantal distinction is illuminated by the novel ancient construct of co-identification, whereby Yahweh identifies with Israel, and thus, “Israel is made holy because Yahweh is holy.”[33] Importantly, holiness is not a behavioral attribute but, instead, an ontological reality conferred via co-identification. The ancient Near Eastern law codes exclude any reference to the concept of conferred holiness. In sum, the Covenant Code, according to Walton, did not convey legislation, but instead, ordered the nature of the covenantal relationship that defined the holy people of Yahweh.[34]

The Methodology

As mentioned above, within cognitive environment criticism, Walton identifies several potential models that engage the parallels between the ancient Near Eastern literature and the Bible: borrowing, polemics, counter-texts, echoes, and diffusion.[35] However, the current research deploys a cognitive contextual methodology that explains the parallels through the Israelite’s worldview of transcendence. The application of the contextual methodology to a specific section of Scripture, such as the Covenant Code, begins with the identification of genre. The traditional view of the biblical legal codes, according to Wells, asserts that the law was authoritatively prescriptive and codified legislation that continues to reside within a debate regarding the extent of the codification and authority.[36] Others assumed the legal codes were academic or non-legal treaties produced by scribal schools.[37] However, Gane explains that the biblical laws, such as the Covenant Code, were built upon already existing divine values or priorities of God such as the sanctity of life and relational living (cf. Gen 1:27-31).[38] Accordingly, Walton concludes that the Covenant Code was not codified legislation or a set of prescriptive documents, but instead, wisdom lists, similar to the genre of proverbs, that specifically provided judicial wisdom.[39] However, in the ancient Near Eastern perspective of the law, justice was perceived through the lens of continuity, where the god(s) took care of the people so the people would take care of the god(s) in a co-dependent relational dynamic.[40] In short, the concept of justice within an ancient Near Eastern worldview of continuity became a quid pro quo or a mutual accommodation of self-need. Alternatively, the context of the Covenant Code or wisdom lists exists within a worldview of transcendence where the Israelites kept the law in relationship with a transcendent “Other” that needed nothing in return.

The genre of the Covenant Code as wisdom lists provides the launching pad to apply the comparative methodology to the two critical distinctions between the ancient Near Eastern law codes and the biblical law codes identified above: the covenant and holiness. First, regarding the covenant, William Barrick notes that biblical covenants are found within the context of ancient treaties, such as the Hittite treaties, that delineate and preserve the relationship between the suzerain and the vassal, a relationship dynamic prevalent in the ancient Near East between a king and his conquered subjects.[41] Within the biblical covenant, Yahweh represents the suzerain king and the Israelites represent the vassals. Importantly, Walton explains that Israel, the vassal, is to demonstrate Yahweh’s power; thus, Israel’s condition reflects Yahweh’s holy reputation or holiness, who graciously offers His love to Israel by “extending His identity to them.”[42] God proclaims in Exodus 6:7 that He is Israel’s God and the Israelites are His people, which seals the identity of the Israelites. Accordingly, Walton explains that the Covenant Code is not about following rules, and the failure to follow rules is not about penalizing sin, but instead, failure is about violating the covenant, which is supposed to preserve “the sanctity of sacred space as Yahweh’s people reflect the holy status given to them as partners and vassals in a covenant with Him.”[43] At this point, the application of the comparative methodology crystalizes.

Although the structure of the treaties and the related legal content of the ancient Near East appear to parallel the Covenant Code, by applying a cognitive contextual methodology, the meaning of the two corpuses are unmistakably different. First, the covenant that underpins the biblical law code emphasizes a high view of humanity where, unlike the ancient Near Eastern context, the Israelites participate within a relationship with the one and only transcendent God.[44] Second, within the covenantal relationship, the Israelites can freely decide to obey the Covenant Code. Alternatively, the ancient Near Eastern worldview assumes, according to Oswalt, that choice is an illusion and hard determinism the standard within a worldview of panentheistic continuity.[45] Third, within the covenantal relationship, the transcendent Yahweh, unlike the fickle ancient Near Eastern gods, is absolutely consistent and reliable. Fourth, in the transcendent worldview of the Israelites, the first principle is Spirit, not, as in the ancient Near Eastern view, matter.[46] The relevance of the first principle becomes especially noteworthy within the context of conferred co-identification that results in a holy people. If holiness is not a behavioral or physical attribute, then holiness must be a conferred reality by the invisible Spirit of an almighty transcendent God whose spiritual presence resides among His people. Alternatively, the ancient Near Eastern view of continuity contends that reality is an enmeshment of the human and the divine. Fifth, Israel, as Yahweh’s holy people, is called to behave in a holy manner, which reflects Yahweh’s holiness, within a covenantal relationship. Accordingly, Oswalt explains that the biblical worldview calls for a standard of ethical obedience or holiness as a result of the conferred holiness, whereas the ancient Near Eastern view has no single standard of ethics.[47]

The Study

The relevance of ancient Near Eastern background material fused with the distinctive ancient Israelite worldview has shown to be quite valuable in uncovering the core meaning of the Covenant Code. Accordingly, the following analysis briefly discusses a plan to incorporate ancient background material into a Bible study setting that is understandable to learners. In light of the identified genre of the Covenant Code, juridical wisdom literature, the approach to integrating background material into teaching incorporates a methodology that Gane calls “progressive moral wisdom.”[48] The methodology first analyzes the function of the law itself, which reveals its representative value, and then the process expands to analyze the law within the Old Testament, the context of ancient life, the process of redemption, and finally, in regards to modern life.[49] The verse used to deploy the plan of study is Exodus 23:4, which states, “If you meet your enemy’s ox or his donkey going astray, you shall bring it back to him.”

First, regarding the function of the specific law identified, the underlying element addresses an inimical relationship between two parties, which ultimately leads to a profound test of character. At the start, Exodus 23:4 reveals a distinction from ancient Near Eastern legal codes as noted above, the biblical law deals with the attitudes of individuals. Specifically, if an enemy’s donkey goes astray and the escaped animal is seen, the individual may simply ignore the problem and nobody would know the difference, except an omniscient God. However, God holds individuals’ attitudes accountable. Accordingly, the law attempts to restrain the animosity between two enemies.

Second, within the immediate context, Exodus 23:4 exists within a series of laws about justice and, within the broader context of the Pentateuch, the verse reflects similar content written in Deuteronomy 22:1-3. However, the most important aspect of context is the values presented. Certainly, in light of the personal property at stake, the Decalogue comes to mind, “You shall not steal” (Exod 20:15). However, underpinning the entire verse is the law of love with respect to valuing the life of animals, valuing human life even when contentious, and valuing relational living. The high value placed on relationships and human life is a biblical distinctive. Alternatively, the ancient Near Eastern legal codes are built upon a worldview of panentheistic determinism where human choice is an illusion and personal responsibility is rejected.

Third, analyzing Exodus 23:4 within the context of the ancient Near Eastern law codes provides additional nuance to the study and understanding of the verse. For example, §71 of the Hittite Laws addresses a similar situation of an escaped stray ox.[50] The individual who found the ox is allowed to use the animal while under his care as long as he notifies the elders, otherwise he is treated as a thief. Although similar content does exist, the nuanced meaning of Exodus 23:4 emerges by highlighting its distinctiveness. Gane points out that the ancient Near Eastern legal codes do not hold individuals accountable for the possibility of ignoring the situation, an act invisible to all but an omniscient God, and by contrast, the biblical account moves beyond neglect to the radical extension of love toward an enemy.[51] A love based on the holiness of Yahweh is reflected in His co-identified holy people, the Israelites, a concept completely foreign to the ancient Near Eastern perspective.

Fourth, the Covenant Code moves beyond the ancient Near Eastern attempt to control chaos and into the sphere of redemptive restoration. The inherent purpose of the command in Exodus 23:4 is to restore a broken relationship between two human beings. Significantly, no reward or penalty is identified within the command. Instead, according to Gane, the motivation was to follow the command not only because it was the right thing to do, but also because it was the wise thing to do.[52] First, obeying the command is right because, as His vassals, following the command reflects the holiness of God who loves and values human life and relationships. Alternatively, the ancient Near Eastern motivation to follow the laws is to meet the needs of the gods so, in turn, their needs would be met, a perspective built upon the cognitive foundation of quid pro quo. Additionally, obeying the command is wise because even if extending love to an enemy immediately appears to backfire, the ultimate result may be to “heap burning coals on his head” (Prov 25:22). In other words, extending love to an enemy often provides an opportunity for the adversary to reconsider his responses in light of the powerful force of unconditional love. Said another way, according to Gane, “the biblical way to destroy your enemy is to turn him into a friend!”[53]

Fifth, at this point, the modern application is obvious. Many modern situations arise where a person attempts to extend harm. The harm may arise in the form of a co-worker, peer, friend, relative, or even spouse; thus, an enemy materializes. The natural tendency is to attempt to follow the rule. In this case, love an enemy. However, holiness is not about following rules. Holiness is a gift from God who has co-identified with His people. Accordingly, God’s people are holy. When believer’s live in that holy reality, they can loosen their grip on needing to find their value in what others think, how they are treated, or how they perform because their holy status has already been conferred by God. Accordingly, with nothing to prove, they no longer need to fight to be valued, fight to be right, or fight for their rights. A holy people can, in the most hostile environments, reflect the most holy behavior of all: love.

Conclusion

Far removed from spending the afternoon on the lookout for escaped donkeys, the modern biblical interpreter finds rich meaning within the Covenant Code. When properly viewed in light of the relevant cognitive context, obscure rule following falls by the wayside of the ancient dirt roads. Furthermore, the cultural context and iconographic imagery provide a necessary framework to view the ancient world of Exodus. Moreover, unlike the ancient Near Eastern legal codes, the underlying wisdom of the Covenant Code rejects quid pro quo, assumes a high view of humanity, denies determinism, engages a consistent and reliable God, receives a conferred holiness from the first principle, and behaves ethically as a reflection of Yahweh’s holiness. Although similarities exist between the ancient Near Eastern law codes and the biblical account, when a cognitive contextual methodology is deployed within the discipline of cognitive environment criticism, it becomes apparent that the Covenant Code is built upon the unique biblical worldview of transcendence. Personally, using the model of progressive moral wisdom within the distinctive cognitive environment of the Israelites provides both insight into modern application and a method for an intensely vibrant study of the biblical legal material.

__________________________________

[1] Joel M. LeMon, “Egypt and the Egyptians,” in The World around the Old Testament: The People and Places of the Ancient Near East, ed. Bill T. Arnold and Brent A. Strawn (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2019), 172–178.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Brisco, Holman Bible Atlas, 57.

[4] Ibid., 59.

[5] Ibid.

[6] LeMon, “Egypt and the Egyptians,” 178–181.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Brisco, Holman Bible Atlas, 59.

[9] Daniel Bodi, “Mesopotamian and Anatolian Iconography,” 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), 165.

[10] Leland Ryken, James C. Wilhoit, and Tremper Longman III, eds., Dictionary of Biblical Imagery (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998), 1, 20.

[11] Brent A. Strawn, “‘With a Strong Hand and an Outstretched Arm’: On the Meaning(s) of the Exodus Tradition(s),” in Iconographic Exegesis of the Hebrew Bible / Old Testament: An Introduction to Its Theory, Method, and Practice, ed. Isaak J. De Hulster, Brent A. Strawn, and Ryan P. Bonfiglio (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015), 106.

[12] Ibid., 107.

[13] Ibid.

[14] LeMon, “Egypt and the Egyptians,” 176–177.

[15] Strawn, “‘With a Strong Hand and an Outstretched Arm’: On the Meaning(s) of the Exodus Tradition(s),” 109.

[16] Ibid., 109–112.

[17] Pamela Barmash, “Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Law,” Religion Compass 12, no. 5–6 (May 2018): 3.

[18] Ibid.

[19] David P. Wright, Inventing God’s Law: How the Covenant Code of the Bible Used and Revised the Laws of Hammurabi (Oxford: Oxford University, 2009), 3–4.

[20] John H Walton, “Understanding Torah: Ancient Legal Text, Covenant Stipulation, and Christian Scripture,” Bulletin for Biblical Research 29, no. 1 (2019): 2–4.

[21] Bruce Wells, “What Is Biblical Law?: A Look at Pentateuchal Rules and Near Eastern Practice,” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 70, no. 2 (April 2008): 233.

[22] Ibid., 236.

[23] Ibid., 238–241.

[24] Hamme, Babcock, and Strong, “Code of Hammurabi.”

[25] Shalom Paul, Studies in the Book of the Covenant in the Light of Cuneiform and Biblical Law (Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 2005), 43.

[26] Gane, Old Testament Law for Christians, 130.

[27] See the Hittite Telipinu Edict §49, the Laws of Eshnunna §47A, and the Laws of Hammurabi §198.

[28] Gane, Old Testament Law for Christians, 130–131.

[29] Ibid., 131.

[30] Ibid., 132.

[31] John H. Walton and J. Harvey Walton, The Lost World of the Torah: Law as Covenant and Wisdom in Ancient Context (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2019), 90–91.

[32] Ibid., 91–92.

[33] Ibid., 92.

[34] Ibid.

[35] Walton, “Interactions in the Ancient Cognitive Environment,” 333–335.

[36] Wells, “What Is Biblical Law?,” 226–228.

[37] Ibid., 228–230.

[38] Gane, Old Testament Law for Christians, 23, 79–80.

[39] Walton, “Understanding Torah,” 5–7.  See the fusion of Torah and wisdom through the exploration of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Ben Sira, and Tobit in John J. Collins, “Torah as Narrative and Wisdom,” in The Invention of Judaism, 1st ed., Torah and Jewish Identity from Deuteronomy to Paul (Oakland: University of California Press, 2017), 80–96. See also the Torah viewed as wisdom in Deuteronomy in John J. Collins, “Wisdom and Torah,” in Pedagogy in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, ed. Karina Martin Hogan, Matthew Goff, and Emma Wasserman (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2017), 59–80.

[40] John N. Oswalt, The Bible Among the Myths: Unique Revelation or Just Ancient Literature? (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Academic, 2009), 59–60.

[41] Barrick, “The Mosaic Covenant,” 215.

[42] Walton, “Understanding Torah,” 10–11.

[43] Ibid., 11–12.

[44] Oswalt, The Bible among the Myths, 69–70.

[45] Ibid., 60.

[46] Ibid., 66–67.

[47] Ibid., 60–61.

[48] Gane, Old Testament Law for Christians, 197.

[49] Ibid., 201.

[50] See also a similar ancient Near Eastern parallel in §50 of the Laws of Eshnunna.

[51] Gane, Old Testament Law for Christians, 229.

[52] Ibid., 230.

[53] Ibid., 231.

Bibliography

• Barmash, Pamela. “Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Law.” Religion Compass 12, no. 5–6 (May 2018): 1–9.
• Barrick, William D. “The Mosaic Covenant.” The Master’s Seminary Journal 10, no. 2 (1999): 213–232.
• Bodi, Daniel. “Mesopotamian and Anatolian Iconography.” 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.
• Brisco, Thomas V. Holman Bible Atlas: A Complete Guide to the Expansive Geography of Biblical History. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1998.
• Collins, John J. “Torah as Narrative and Wisdom.” In The Invention of Judaism, 80–96. 1st ed. Torah and Jewish Identity from Deuteronomy to Paul. Oakland: University of California Press, 2017.
• ________. “Wisdom and Torah.” In Pedagogy in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, edited by Karina Martin Hogan, Matthew Goff, and Emma Wasserman, 59–80. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2017.
• Gane, Roy E. Old Testament Law for Christians. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2017.
• Hamme, Joel, Bryan C. Babcock, and Justin David Strong. “Code of Hammurabi.” In The Lexham Bible Dictionary, edited by John D. Barry. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016.
• LeMon, Joel M. “Egypt and the Egyptians.” In The World around the Old Testament: The People and Places of the Ancient Near East, edited by Bill T. Arnold and Brent A. Strawn. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2019.
• Oswalt, John N. The Bible Among the Myths: Unique Revelation or Just Ancient Literature? Grand Rapids: Zondervan Academic, 2009.
• Paul, Shalom. Studies in the Book of the Covenant in the Light of Cuneiform and Biblical Law. Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 2005.
• Ryken, Leland, James C. Wilhoit, and Tremper Longman III, eds. Dictionary of Biblical Imagery. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998.
• Strawn, Brent A. “‘With a Strong Hand and an Outstretched Arm’: On the Meaning(s) of the Exodus Tradition(s).” In Iconographic Exegesis of the Hebrew Bible / Old Testament: An Introduction to Its Theory, Method, and Practice, edited by Isaak J. De Hulster, Brent A. Strawn, and Ryan P. Bonfiglio. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015.
• Walton, John H. “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. “Understanding Torah: Ancient Legal Text, Covenant Stipulation, and Christian Scripture.” Bulletin for Biblical Research 29, no. 1 (2019): 1–18.
• Walton, John H., and J. Harvey Walton. The Lost World of the Torah: Law as Covenant and Wisdom in Ancient Context. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2019.
• Wells, Bruce. “What Is Biblical Law?: A Look at Pentateuchal Rules and Near Eastern Practice.” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 70, no. 2 (April 2008): 223–243.
• Wright, David P. Inventing God’s Law: How the Covenant Code of the Bible Used and Revised the Laws of Hammurabi. Oxford: Oxford University, 2009.