OBST 800 Short Paper Methodology 09-03-2023

docx

School

Liberty University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

800

Subject

Philosophy

Date

Oct 30, 2023

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by kristophermichaelwilliams

LIBERTY UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF DIVINITY Short Paper: Methodology Submitted to Dr. Michael Graham, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the completion of the course OBST 800-B02 Old Testament Backgrounds by Kristopher Williams 03 September 2023

TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………………………. 1 POTENTIAL FRAMEWORK FOR DETERMINING RELATIONSHIPS…………… ..... 4 GENESIS 1-2 VS. ENUMA ELISH AND THE ATRAHASIS CYCLE………………….. 8 CONCLUSION……………………………………………………………………………..12 BIBLIOGRAPHY…………………………………………………………………………..13 ii

INTRODUCTION Individuals interested in gaining a greater understanding of biblical texts may be able to achieve insight into the cognitive worldview of the authors of the texts through engaging various non-biblical sources that offer information that may expose the author’s contextual meaning, thereby leading to greater historical, cultural, and theological significance for the contemporary student. Examination of parallel information, which may somewhat mirror biblical texts or outright reject biblical data, may offer scholars and lay readers the ability to examine similarities and differences between the texts and offer plausible explanations for the divergences. Within the community of faith, this allows readers to engage apologetically with skeptics while seeking greater insight into the thoughts of the biblical writers from a position of faith and academic honesty. Use of comparative literature and material remains in biblical studies, focusing especially on the Old Testament, is a relatively recent phenomenon. In his monograph Against the Gods , Syro-Palestinian archaeologist John Currid draws attention to this recent influx of comparative data on the scholarly scene when he says that “Prior to 1798, the world’s knowledge of the history of the ancient Near East was principally derived from the Bible and from some early Greek writers who preserved some aspects of it in their own histories.” 1 Following Napoleon Bonaparte’s eastern Levantine expeditions, coupled with the development of “scientific” archaeological methods, the 19 th century saw numerous discoveries of and publication of material from the Ancient Near East (ANE) that had been forgotten and essentially erased from the cultural memories of those cultures in residence in the lands of the Bible, not to mention Europe, as successor states with divergent cultural and religious beliefs occupied the land over 1 John D. Currid, Against the Gods: The Polemical Theology of the Old Testament (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2013), 12. 1

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

the centuries. While many initial discoveries were prized in their own right for insights and knowledge about the civilizations themselves, many scholars believed these same discoveries could be used to better understand the Old Testament. While many today are at least aware of the existence of the Rosetta Stone and its usefulness in the study of Egyptian history, the initial discoveries across the Fertile Crescent were not uniform in their utility for biblical studies, with Currid stressing the fact that “Mesopotamia yielded many more monuments and inscriptions relevant to the history of the Old Testament than did Egypt.” 2 Beginning around 1870, a half-century after the deciphering of the Rosetta Stone and the creation of academic fervor for greater understanding of ancient Egypt, the discovery that many scholars believed could be directly related to the biblical texts occurred when efforts were made to translate Mesopotamian cuneiform tablets and discovering that these items preserved creation and flood narratives. 3 In their examinations of these tablets and in their publications in scholarly journals, contemporary scholars stressed what they believed to be parallels between these Mesopotamian creation and flood accounts versus the biblical accounts of creation in Genesis 1-2 and the flood of Genesis 6-9. In the beginning stages of this inquiry, scholars promoted caution, with George Smith arguing that the recent data “opens to us a new field of inquiry in the early part of Bible history” while recognizing that these items were merely “supplying material which future scholars will have to work out.” 4 Smith believed that the materials held information that could help expose the overall history of the Bible, though his desire for scholarly caution did not exist for long following his death in 1876. Many scholars, influenced greatly by what they believed were clear, 2 Ibid., 15. 3 George Smith, “The Chaldean Account of the Deluge,” Transactions of the Society of Biblical Archaeology 2 (1873): 213–234. 4 Ibid., 233. 2

unambiguous similarities in content between the recently deciphered cuneiform texts and Genesis in particular, argued that the accounts of Genesis were summations and derivatives of the Mesopotamian accounts. 20 th century Old Testament scholar Ephraim Speiser informs readers of the contempt of the biblical texts exhibited by some late 19 th century scholars. In his commentary on Genesis, Speiser relays how Friedrich Delitzsch, an important Assyriologist of the late 19 th and early 20 th century and son of staunchly orthodox Lutheran theologian Franz Delitzsch, “drew sharp attention to the Babylonian ingredient in Genesis and went on to conclude that the Bible was guilty of crass plagiarism .” 5 Friedrich Delitzsch does not stop at the charge of plagiarism on the part of biblical authors. Delitzsch argues that the accounts contained in Genesis represent alteration of Mesopotamian originals as a response, believing that “The priestly author that wrote the first chapter of Genesis took infinite pains to eliminate all mythological features from his story of the creation of the world.” 6 Friedrich Delitzsch’s approach, while perhaps shocking to many lay, believing Christians, need not necessarily be taken out of context and understood as a complete rejection of faith in the theological message of the text. “Crass plagiarism” may be too strong of a claim, while alteration of Mesopotamian stories with Yahweh of Israel as the creator may be unfounded since Delitzsch did not posit the potential that the author(s) of Genesis were responding to these Mesopotamian accounts rather than copying them. In effect, it need not be the case that the writers/editors of Genesis systematically removed mythological elements of Mesopotamian accounts in order to resituate the stories into the “monotheistic” theology more palatable to a Hebrew/Israelite original audience. As a counter, it is much more likely that the creation accounts in Genesis are intentionally constructed in order to interact with extant creation 5 E.A. Speiser, Genesis (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1964), lv-lvi. Emphasis added. 6 Friedrich Delitzsch, Babel and Bible (New York: Putnam, 1903), 50. 3

accounts from across the ANE. As constituent members of the ANE, the Hebrew authors of Genesis seek to set the record straight through relaying a story that is neither, of necessity, derived from the creation accounts deciphered from cuneiform tablets, nor independent of the same data since the cuneiform tablets and Genesis accounts circulated in the region. POTENTIAL FRAMEWORK FOR DETERMINING RELATIONSHIPS In order to conclude that the biblical authors either “demythologized” or plagiarized the Mesopotamian cuneiform tablets, scholars silently agree that Genesis, at the very least, interacts with the worldview of the ANE. Contemporary with the publication of the various cuneiform tablets was the promulgation of the so-called “Documentary Hypothesis” of the Pentateuch. 7 Examination of the Documentary Hypothesis is beyond the scope of this paper, but as the promotion of both the Documentary Hypothesis and “plagiarism” charges were achieving the consensus of many scholars in the final decades of the 19 th and early decades of the 20 th centuries, scholars did not ponder how later Hebrew authors would have obtained the information contained in the cuneiform texts, nor why they would have felt the impulse to address them unless they were relevant in their temporal cultural milieu. This hypothetical question of “When and Why” leads to one methodological approach that may offer insight into the ANE texts and the Old Testament by allowing the biblical student to interact responsibly and accurately with textual evidence. Cognate Language Study One auxiliary item that helps provide overall competence for Old Testament and ANE studies is reading competence in the several written languages used by the civilizations that 7 I believe in multiple hands, sources, and authors/editors for the texts of the Pentateuch, but not in the extremes of the DH. 4

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

occupied the ANE over many centuries. With this type of training, a scholar is better equipped to engage the extant literature and determine if the conclusions of others are founded. While not exhaustive, primary language study in Hebrew and Aramaic are foundational. For comparative studies, competence in Akkadian, Babylonian, Ugaritic, and Egyptian are critical for assessing worldview and for determining potential meanings for Hebrew words used in the Old Testament. In addition, further training in the cognate languages and literatures may allow for recognition of syntactical or genre similarities across languages that support the idea of cultural interaction and communication of similar worldviews. Historical, Archaeological, and Geographical Data Many historical reconstructions, especially those concerning dates, may be recovered through use of extant literature from a respective civilization. Scholars trained in the cognate languages may read these primary documents and draw conclusions. In addition to literature, it may be possible to glean additional insight through geographical knowledge of an area coupled with archaeological data. Archeological data does not constitute history since the finds must be interpreted. While related and relevant, relying on archaeology may produce results that are incorrect. 8 Simultaneously, literature does not necessarily constitute history since writers have agendas and do not answer the questions later readers may ask. Historical geographical data may offer greater insights for those wishing to interpret the Bible through understanding why people traveled certain routes or settled in certain places. In this way, readers may better humanize the individuals of both the Bible and the ANE in order to understand them in their context. Similarity Need Not Be Derivative Nor Dependent As noted above, many early scholars examining the Mesopotamian cuneiform tablets and the creation accounts presupposed literary dependence between them. While Friedrich Delitzsch 8 G.H. Richardson, "The Abuse of Biblical Archaeology,” in The Biblical World 47, no. 2 (1916): 94-99. 5

initially suggested plagiarism in Genesis, he later placed forward the less incendiary idea of “demythologization” of Mesopotamian accounts for literary consumption by Hebrew audiences. However, this process of demythologization assumes direct literary dependence since those responsible for the final form of Genesis would have to have gone through each Mesopotamian creation account, intentionally removed polytheistic motifs, and then created and inserted a monotheistic rebuttal while being unable to remove certain items determined by some modern scholars as structurally determinative for communicative purposes. 9 In actuality, however, it may be the case that similarities between these texts may be more the desires of scholars for continuity than expressions of concrete reality. In short, a type of scholarly “self-deception” may exist in which one sees parallels where they might not exist. Samuel Sandmel summarizes this tendency exhibited by some scholars for claiming parallel accounts by noting that the adherent often “proceeds to describe source and derivation as if implying a literary connection flowing in an inevitable or predetermined direction.” 10 Dissimilarity May Not Imply Literary Independence Sandmel cautions about focusing attention onto what may be superficial similarities between accounts. An implied corollary is that scholars systematically failed to focus on those dissimilar items before deciding upon literary dependence. Dissimilar items between Genesis and the Mesopotamian accounts suggests a divergent worldview, but the dissimilarities themselves may not require literary independence. According to this hypothesis, which suggests that the dissimilarities exist due to literary dependence , there exists an intentional literary technique John Currid calls “polemical theology” on the part of the biblical author. Polemical theology, according to Currid, is the “use by biblical 9 Currid, Against the Gods , 18. 10 Samuel Sandmel, “Parallelomania,” in Journal of Biblical Literature 81, no. 1 (1962): 1. 6

writers of the thought forms and stories that were common in ancient Near Eastern culture, while filling them with radically new meaning,” where “biblical authors take well-known expressions and motifs from the ancient Near Eastern milieu and apply them to the person and work of Yahweh, and not to the other gods of the ancient world.” 11 Apologetically, the biblical text is actually better situated in the purported time period. The biblical authors, in composing a contrary text, are dependent on the literature and contemporary worldview in which they exist and wish to correct by providing the accurate account. Overall Theoretical Framework In an attempt to examine the relationships between the biblical creation account in Genesis 1-2 and two Mesopotamian accounts, the Atrahasis cycle and Enuma Elish, a multidisciplinary approach is most feasible. Archaeological finds produced the cuneiform texts, but without relevant philological studies to decipher the language, the tablets would be nothing more than perplexing artifacts. General historical data obtained through texts, geography, and archaeology may offer greater breadth for better understanding the context of Genesis by understanding that the authors were communicating to an audience that understood this context. GENESIS 1-2 VS. ENUMA ELISH AND THE ATRAHASIS CYCLE Unequivocally, the most immediate observation that can be made between Enuma Elish and the creation account of Genesis is the “Who and how many?” In both accounts of the creation of the universe, we see that the world/cosmos as we know it is the result of the creative action of a single deity. Simultaneously, the “How” is a clear difference since the creator of the cosmos in Enuma Elish , Marduk, creates the visible and invisible world as a result of theomachy . In the divine war, Marduk slays the chaos goddess Tiamat, splits her corpse into two parts, and 11 Currid, Against the Gods , 25. 7

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

separates them from each other to create heaven and earth. 12 This divine war stands in direct opposition to the account of Genesis 1-2. In Genesis 1-2, there is no account of warfare between competing gods in which the victor decides to create. The Atrahasis Epic does not present the creation of the cosmos as the result of a war between competing deities. According to this account, three supreme deities drew up a covenant between themselves to divide and rule over pre-existent material, namely land, water, and the heavens, to eliminate the specter of chaos and achieve order and function. 13 While additional divine beings seem to be assumed by Genesis, there is no suggestion that they are equivalent to the creator god in essence or power. While it is open for debate regarding the “pre-existence” of matter in Genesis 1:1-2, the text does no divide authority for land, sea, and heaven between three supreme gods. In Genesis 1-2, we observe a single supreme deity order and assign function via verbal fiat while constraining chaos and operate the resulting cosmos in a monarchical fashion. While Enuma Elish , Genesis, and the Atrahasis Epic note the creation and purpose of humans, severe differences exist regarding the “how and why” in each account. According to Enuma Elish , the supreme god who emerged victorious over Tiamat, Marduk, is not the direct creator of humanity. Marduk determines that humans need to exist and assigns this task to his father, Ea, who executes the divine general in command of the armies of Tiamat and uses the blood of this general to create humans. 14 According to the text, humanity’s purpose is to perform manual labor that was once the task of the gods. The Atrahasis Epic relates that a god and goddess, Enki and Nintu, take clay and, like Enuma Elish , the blood of a god as the material ingredients needed for a magical spell to create humanity. In line with Enuma Elish , humanity’s 12 “Enuma Elish” in Myths from Mesopotamia: Creation, The Flood, Gilgamesh, and Others , trans. Stephanie Dalley (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 255. 13 “Atrahasis” in Myths from Mesopotamia: Creation, The Flood, Gilgamesh, and Others , trans. Stephanie Dalley (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 9. 14 “Enuma Elish,” 261. 8

purpose is to relieve the gods from their labor and provide the gods with leisure instead of work. The accounts of Enuma Elish and the Atrahasis Epic stand in stark contrast with the creation of Genesis 1-2. The creation of humans is presented with complementary details. In Genesis 1, the supreme deity, in his divine council with lesser divine beings, utilizes an exhortatory plural when he states, “Let us create humanity in our image,” though the verb for creating is very clearly singular, noting that this being is solely responsible. It is not delegated to someone else. In Genesis 2, it is clear that preexistent material is used to create humanity, though divine blood is not among the ingredients nor is a magical incantation required. The purpose of humans is not to relieve him of his work. While it is clear that humans are supposed to work (Genesis 2:15), the toil that they were created to perform was neither punishment nor to help God. Their intended purpose stems from the mandate to “subdue” the earth, somehow related to their “image of God” status. In his commentary on Genesis, Old Testament scholar John Walton disagrees with the claim and argues that “Genesis agrees with Babylon that people were created to serve deity,” though he does waffle somewhat by declining to define what it means to “serve” before claiming that this service itself “is not drudgery that God himself has gotten tired of doing.” 15 According to Walton’s thesis, the workload assigned to humanity in Genesis 2:15, rather than being work that God was doing and which human take over, is work that can better be defined as “for the sake of the Master,” which did not exist prior. Utilizing the ideas of sacred space and extending sacred space outside of Eden and into the entire world, Walton argues that this labor by humanity is “the privilege of serving in the temple of God.” 16 Humans are intended to participate in the extension of God’s kingdom while operating as his stewards. 15 John H. Walton, Genesis: The NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2001), 186. 16 Ibid., 186. 9

Victor Hamilton believes Enuma Elish should be read as a theogony explaining the existence of divine beings that details the events causing Marduk to become the supreme deity rather than expositions intended to explain the origins of the earth, the heavens, and humanity itself. 17 Hamilton then explains that Genesis exists as cosmogony as opposed to theogony, suggesting that the purpose of Genesis is to explain the origins of the material and immaterial worlds while noting the special status of humans as “the image and likeness of God.” A similarity often missed by the believing Christians in their examinations of Genesis, Atrahasis, and Enuma Elish involves the existence of multiple divine beings. In my reading of Genesis 1, informed by readings of OT texts such as Job 1-2 and Psalms 82 & 89, there are a multiplicity of divine beings. Rather than “Let us create man in our image” being a reference to the Christian Trinity, I read this as the supreme, unique, creator God speaking to lesser divine beings. Additional stress would be on the nature of creation (clearly the result of a single person due to the 3rd person masculine singular verb, א֥ ָרָב , used three times in Genesis 1:27). Atrahasis and Enuma Elish present a world in which competing gods can be replaced on the pantheon; this is not the case with Genesis. 18 Moreover, Yahweh does not need to come to terms with and split authority with equal beings, as in the Atrahasis Epic. He alone is sovereign and can assign lesser beings to achieve his goals. The Atrahasis Epic does not address material creation of the cosmos. The existence of the material world is taken for granted and not discussed. While conclusions may be drawn regarding whether the material cosmos is coeternal with the three divine beings who divide sovereignty, it is not an essential theological point. Interestingly, the creation account of Genesis 17 Victor P. Hamilton, Handbook on the Pentateuch , (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1982), 39-40. 18 See John H. Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate , (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2009). 10

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

1-2 is actually somewhat fluid. Traditional exegesis wishes to demand that Genesis 1:1 be read as an independent clause that marks the ex nihilo creation of matter. A problem that exists is that the verb א֥ ָרָב , the same as in Genesis 1:27 used to describe the creation of humans, need not describe creation from nothing. Based on grammar, it is possible to read Genesis 1 as the reorganization of preexistent matter out of chaos and into a functioning system. 19 The text is not concerned with material origins, but why the universe functions as it does and with the idea that ancient Hebrews assumed that Yahweh created the material in the first place. An additional item concerns whether matter itself is, like Yahweh, eternal and exhibits some type of divine nature, an idea in line with some of the Atrahasis Epic. 20 Magic and incantations are observed in Enuma Elish and the Atrahasis Epic as means through which one divine being can exhibit power over another divine being. In the Hebrew Bible, and into the New Testament, there is no evidence that magical incantations have any power over Yahweh, the god of Israel. The claims made in Genesis 1-2 establish the theological concept of omnipotence for Yahweh. There is no struggle to achieve rule or struggle to create. He cannot be controlled, defeated, or killed through magic, and no other being is exactly like him in all attributes. Yahweh is not presented as requiring anything from humanity, whereas the gods of Mesopotamia almost starved to death without sacrifices from humans. John Walton argues for the idea intended to be communicated by Yahweh’s rest following the six days of creation is not that Yahweh was “sleeping in or taking an afternoon nap,” but that the “normal routines can be established and enjoyed…that the normal operations of the cosmos can be undertaken.” 21 CONCLUSION 19 This is the thesis of John H. Walton in The Lost World of Genesis One. 20 Derek Kidner, Genesis (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1967), 50. 21 Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One , 71. 11

Comparing and contrasting the biblical texts with materials from the Ancient Near East may allow a biblical exegete to better understand the overarching cultural milieu of the societies that the biblical writers lived in and interacted with through centuries. These data may better allow a student to understand the Biblical texts more accurately. Similarities and differences between the respective materials need to be taken into account rather than focusing on one to the detriment of the other. The theological claims made regarding the main divinities of the various creation accounts ( Enuma Elish , the Atrahasis Epic, Genesis 1-2) argue that the god of the Bible is understood to be uniquely powerful, the creator, omniscient, omnipresent, and not requiring anything from humanity, whereas the gods of the ANE were not and needed humans for sustaining their existence, whether through sacrifices for food or to eliminate manual labor. BIBLIOGRAPHY Currid, John D. Against the Gods: The Polemical Theology of the Old Testament . Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2013. Dalley, Stephanie. Myths from Mesopotamia: Creation, the Flood, Gilgamesh and Others . Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989. Delitzsch, Friedrich. Babel and Bible . New York: Putnam, 1903. Hamilton, Victor P. Handbook on the Pentateuch . Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1982. Kidner, Derek. Genesis . Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1967. Richardson, G.H. "The Abuse of Biblical Archaeology.” The Biblical World 47, no. 2 (1916): 94-99. Sandmel, Samuel. “Parallelomania.” Journal of Biblical Literature 81, no. 1 (1962): 1-13. Speiser, E.A. Genesis . Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1964. Smith, George. “The Chaldean Account of the Deluge.” Transactions of the Society of Biblical Archaeology 2 (1873): 213–234. Walton, John H. Genesis: The NIV Application Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2001. 12