Showing posts with label ANE parallels. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ANE parallels. Show all posts

Jun 23, 2025

Understanding Biblical Covenants

 


Progressive Revelation and the Suzerainty Treaty Framework

In a previous discussion, I touched on the concept of the biblical covenant but failed to fully highlight several key aspects that are essential for understanding its nature and development. In this post, I aim to clarify the principle of progressive revelation, the transformed role of blessings and curses in the New Covenant, the defining structure of a covenant as rooted in the ancient Near Eastern (ANE) Suzerainty treaty, and the importance of a biblical-theological approach to studying Scripture. Together, these elements offer a richer perspective on how God’s redemptive plan unfolds across the Bible.


Progressive Revelation: The Unfolding of God’s Covenant

At the heart of the biblical covenant is the principle of progressive revelation. This refers to the way God gradually reveals His redemptive plan through a series of covenants, each building upon and fulfilling its predecessors while introducing new elements (eg. Key Themes of the OT Chapter 9 and p 209). From the covenant with Adam to those with Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, and ultimately the New Covenant foretold in Jeremiah 31, we see both continuity (God’s unchanging commitment to His people) and discontinuity (new expressions of His plan). This dynamic is critical for understanding the covenant’s development from the Old Testament to the New Testament. For example, Jeremiah 31 points to a New Covenant that internalizes God’s law and fulfills earlier promises, yet it remains connected to the covenantal framework established in earlier Scriptures.

Blessings and Curses in the New Covenant: An Eschatological Fulfillment

One question that often arises is why Jeremiah 31’s description of the New Covenant omits the blessings and curses that are prominent in earlier covenants, such as the Mosaic Covenant (Deuteronomy 28). I propose that these elements are not absent but are transformed and fulfilled eschatologically. In Revelation 2–3, the letters to the seven churches reflect this continuity: blessings are promised for obedience (e.g., eternal life for the faithful), and warnings (functioning as curses) are issued for disobedience (e.g., removal of the lampstand). These passages serve as a prelude to the consummation of God’s kingdom, operating in an “already/not yet” framework. This suggests that the New Covenant retains covenantal accountability, but its expression is reshaped by Christ’s work—He became a curse for us (Galatians 3:13)—and the anticipation of future kingdom blessings. See further 

The Suzerainty Treaty: The Defining Structure of a Covenant

In my dissertation, I argued that a biblical covenant is defined by its alignment with the structure of a Suzerainty treaty, a common ANE framework for agreements between a sovereign (suzerain) and a vassal. Unlike treaties between equal parties, which are not the scriptural model, the Suzerainty treaty typically includes a preamble (identifying the parties), a historical prologue (recounting their relationship), stipulations (obligations), blessings (for obedience), curses (for disobedience), and witnesses (divine or natural). These elements, found in various forms and orders in ANE literature and Scripture (e.g., Exodus 20, Deuteronomy), are what identify a treaty, oath, or agreement as a covenant.

God communicated with His people in a way that was culturally intelligible within their ANE context, using this familiar treaty framework. However, the Suzerainty treaty structure is not merely a cultural adaptation borrowed from neighbouring peoples like the Hittites. It embodies the essence of what constitutes a covenant, distinguishing it from other forms of agreements. Its presence in the Bible is natural because it reflects the divine-human relationship inherent in God’s covenantal dealings, highlighting the progressive development of His redemptive plan.

In other words, wherever you have a covenant you will find these structural elements because that is what makes it a covenant. This underscores a fundamental claim: the presence of specific structural components, derived from the ANE Suzerainty treaty framework, is what identifies an agreement in Scripture as a biblical covenant. These components are not incidental or optional; they are the very essence of what constitutes a covenant, distinguishing it from other forms of agreements, treaties, or oaths. This is true both in the broader ANE context and, more importantly, within the biblical narrative, where God employs this framework to communicate His relationship with His people.

Why These Elements Define a Covenant

In the ANE, a Suzerainty treaty was a formal agreement between a sovereign (suzerain) and a vassal, outlining the terms of their relationship. The structure of these treaties was standardized (not necessarily all present or in the same order) to ensure clarity, mutual understanding, and enforceability. Similarly, in Scripture, God uses this framework to establish covenants with His people (e.g., with Abraham, Moses, or Israel as a nation), adapting a culturally familiar form to convey divine truths. The presence of the preamble (identifying the parties, e.g., “I am the Lord your God” in Exodus 20:2), historical prologue (recounting past acts, e.g., God’s deliverance from Egypt), stipulations (commands or obligations, e.g., the Ten Commandments), blessings (promises for obedience, e.g., Deuteronomy 28:1–14), curses (consequences for disobedience, e.g., Deuteronomy 28:15–68), and witnesses (divine or natural entities, e.g., heaven and earth in Deuteronomy 30:19) signals that a covenant is in view.

These elements are not arbitrary; they reflect the relational and legal nature of a covenant. A covenant is not merely a casual promise or mutual agreement between equals (as in some ANE parity treaties, which are not the biblical model). Instead, it is a binding, hierarchical relationship initiated by a sovereign—God—toward His people, who are called to respond with loyalty and obedience. The structural elements ensure that this relationship is clearly defined: the preamble establishes authority, the prologue grounds the relationship in history, the stipulations outline responsibilities, the blessings and curses provide incentives and consequences, and the witnesses formalize the agreement. Without these components, an agreement lacks the formal, relational, and theological weight of a covenant.

Manifestation in Scripture

Wherever a covenant appears in Scripture, these structural elements are present, though they may vary in order, emphasis, or expression depending on the context. For example:

The Mosaic Covenant (Exodus 19–24, Deuteronomy): This is the clearest example, closely mirroring the ANE Suzerainty treaty. The preamble identifies God as the sovereign (“I am the Lord your God,” Exodus 20:2), the historical prologue recounts His deliverance of Israel from Egypt (Exodus 20:2), the stipulations include the Ten Commandments and other laws (Exodus 20–23), blessings and curses are outlined (Leviticus 26, Deuteronomy 28), and witnesses are invoked (e.g., the tablets of stone or heaven and earth in Deuteronomy 30:19).

The Abrahamic Covenant (Genesis 12, 15, 17): While less explicitly structured, the elements are still discernible. God identifies Himself as the initiator (preamble, Genesis 12:1), promises rooted in His prior faithfulness serve as a prologue (Genesis 15:7), stipulations include circumcision (Genesis 17:10–14), blessings are promised (e.g., land and offspring, Genesis 12:2–3), curses are implied for disobedience (e.g., Genesis 17:14), and the ritual of passing through the animals (Genesis 15:17) acts as a witness.

The New Covenant (Jeremiah 31:31–34): Though presented prophetically, the covenant retains these elements in a transformed way. God is the initiator (preamble, “I will make,” Jeremiah 31:31), the historical prologue is implied in Israel’s unfaithfulness (Jeremiah 31:32), stipulations involve internal transformation (law written on hearts, Jeremiah 31:33), blessings include forgiveness and relationship with God (Jeremiah 31:34), and while curses are not explicit, their eschatological fulfillment appears in Revelation 2–3 (as discussed earlier). Witnesses are less overt but may be implied in the eternal nature of the promise and ministry of the Spirit.

In each case, the presence of these elements confirms that a covenant is being established. Their absence would suggest a different kind of agreement, such as a informal promise or a non-covenantal command.


The Essence of a Covenant, Not a Cultural Borrowing

While the Suzerainty treaty framework was common in the ANE (e.g., in Hittite or Assyrian treaties), its use in Scripture is not merely a cultural adaptation. The statement “wherever you have a covenant you will find these structural elements because that is what makes it a covenant” implies that these elements are intrinsic to the theological concept of a covenant, not just a borrowed convention. God chose this framework because it perfectly suited His purpose: to reveal Himself as the sovereign King who enters into a binding, relational, and redemptive agreement with His people. The structure reflects the nature of God’s covenantal dealings—His authority, faithfulness, expectations, and commitment to reward or judge.

Moreover, the Suzerainty treaty structure is not unique to one ANE culture (e.g., the Hittites) but appears in various forms across the region, suggesting it was a widely understood model. God’s use of this framework ensured that His people, immersed in an ANE context, could grasp the significance of His covenants. Yet, its presence in Scripture is “natural” because it aligns with the divine-human relationship at the heart of biblical theology. The covenant is not a Suzerainty treaty because it mimics Hittite documents; it is a covenant because it embodies these structural elements, which God ordained as the form for His redemptive agreements.

Implications for Biblical Interpretation

Recognizing that these structural elements define a covenant has significant implications for interpreting Scripture. When studying a passage that involves a divine-human agreement, we must look for these components to confirm whether a covenant is in view. For example, identifying a preamble or blessings and curses can help us distinguish a covenant from a general promise or command. This approach also guards against misinterpreting texts by imposing modern notions of contracts or agreements onto the biblical concept of covenant.

Furthermore, this understanding reinforces the progressive revelation discussed earlier. As God’s covenants unfold across Scripture, the Suzerainty treaty structure adapts to new contexts (e.g., the internalization of the law in the New Covenant), but the core elements remain, ensuring continuity in God’s covenantal dealings. By tracing these elements, we can better appreciate how each covenant builds toward the eschatological fulfillment in Christ and the kingdom.

Conclusion

In summary, the structural elements of the Suzerainty treaty—preamble, historical prologue, stipulations, blessings, curses, and witnesses—are what make a covenant a covenant in Scripture. Wherever these elements appear, they signal that God is establishing a formal, relational, and redemptive agreement with His people. This structure is not a mere cultural artifact but a divinely chosen framework that reflects the essence of the covenantal relationship. By recognizing these elements, we gain a clearer understanding of God’s covenants, their continuity and discontinuity across Scripture, and their ultimate fulfillment in the redemptive plan revealed through progressive revelation.

Avoiding Proof-Texting: The Need for a Biblical-Theological Approach

A common interpretive pitfall is proof-texting, where verses from disparate parts of Scripture (e.g., the Pentateuch, Prophets, Gospels, and Pauline Epistles) are combined without regard for their historical or covenantal context. This approach flattens the biblical narrative into a static framework, obscuring the progressive revelation of the covenant. For example, pulling verses from Leviticus, Isaiah, and Romans to construct a doctrine without tracing their covenantal connections risks missing the organic development of God’s plan.

Instead, I advocate for a biblical-theological methodology, as exemplified by Geerhardus Vos. This approach traces the organic, historical unfolding of God’s redemptive plan through Scripture, emphasizing themes like covenant, kingdom, and redemption (see my Key Themes of the OT and NT). It contrasts with a systematic-theological approach, such as that of John Murray, which prioritizes logical categorization of doctrines over historical progression. By adopting a biblical-theological perspective, we preserve the covenant’s dynamic nature and its eschatological fulfillment, allowing us to see how each covenant points forward to Christ and the ultimate consummation of God’s kingdom.

Conclusion: A Cohesive View of the Covenant

The biblical covenant is a profound expression of God’s relationship with His people, shaped by progressive revelation, structured by the Suzerainty treaty framework, and fulfilled eschatologically in Christ. By avoiding proof-texting and embracing a biblical-theological approach, we can better appreciate the covenant’s unfolding nature across Scripture. From the promises of Jeremiah 31 to the warnings and blessings of Revelation 2–3, the covenant reveals a God who speaks to His people in their context, holds them accountable, and faithfully guides them toward the fullness of His kingdom. Let us study this covenant with care, tracing its development through Scripture to see the beauty of God’s redemptive plan.

__________


Dr. David Graves PhD. Dissertation, University of Aberdeen. The Influence of Ancient Near Eastern Vassal Treaties on the Seven Prophetic Messages in Revelation.
  

Forthcoming:

Graves, David E. “The Hittite Suzerainty Treaty: Evaluating Its Structure and Influence on Biblical Studies.” In Scripture in Its Material and Literary Context: Historical, Archaeological, and Cultural Correlations: Edwin Yamauchi Festschrift, edited by Mark A. Hassler, Clyde E. Billington, and D. Scott Stripling, Chapter 2, 24–48. (New York: T & T Clark, 2027).

Associated Blog Posts: 


For Journal articles and papers see  Follow me on Academia.edu or Selected Works

 
 
 
Updated June, 2025. © Copyright Electronic Christian Media


Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,

Jun 21, 2025

Concerns About Biblical Archaeology Today


Navigating the Field, Its Literature, and Ideological Tensions

Recently, I was asked, “What concerns me about biblical archaeology today?” As someone deeply engaged with Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) studies and a conservative evangelical perspective, I find this question both timely and complex. Biblical archaeology—the study of material remains to "illuminate" (not prove) the historical and cultural context of the Bible—holds immense potential to affirm Scripture’s reliability and enrich our understanding of its world. However, the field today raises significant concerns, from methodological biases and skewed literature to ideological contentions that challenge evangelical convictions. Below, I address these issues, offering a balanced reflection on the state of biblical archaeology, its literature, and the ideological battles shaping its trajectory.

Methodological Concerns in Biblical Archaeology

Over-Reliance on Minimalist Interpretations:

One of my primary concerns is the methodological bias prevalent in the field, particularly the influence of minimalist interpretations.

• Issue: The minimalist-maximalist debate remains a significant contention in biblical archaeology. Minimalists (e.g., Israel Finkelstein, Thomas L. Thompson) argue that much of the biblical narrative, especially pre-exilic history (e.g., Patriarchs, Exodus, United Monarchy), lacks direct archaeological corroboration and should be treated as late, ideological constructs. This challenges evangelical trust in the Bible’s historicity.

• Concern: Minimalist methodologies often prioritize archaeological data and material evidence over textual evidence, dismissing biblical history unless explicitly confirmed by material remains like artifacts. For example, the suggested lack of direct or definitive evidence for the Exodus, Joshua’s conquest of Jericho or David’s kingdom leads some to question their historicity, despite texts like the Merneptah Stele or the Tel Dan Stele supporting a “House of David.” Evangelicals worry this approach undermines Scripture’s reliability, treating it as myth unless proven otherwise.


• Impact: This can skew the literature toward skepticism, marginalizing evangelical scholars who advocate for a maximalist view (e.g., Kenneth Kitchen, James Hoffmeier) that sees archaeology as corroborating, not dictating, biblical history.

As a conservative evangelical, I find this troubling because it risks treating the Bible as a human document rather than divinely inspired Scripture (2 Tim. 3:16). The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, yet minimalist assumptions can erode confidence in the Bible’s historicity. 

Incomplete and Ambiguous Data:

Moreover, archaeological data is inherently fragmentary—sites like Jericho or Ai remain contested due to dating disputes or incomplete excavations—making it premature to reject biblical accounts based on “silence.” Evangelicals must advocate for a maximalist approach, as seen in scholars like Kenneth Kitchen, that views archaeology as corroborating, not dictating, Scripture’s historical claims.


• Issue: Archaeological evidence is fragmentary, and interpretations are often speculative due to the limited nature of finds. For instance, dating disputes over structures like the “Large Stone Structure” in Jerusalem (potentially David’s palace) highlight how ambiguous data can lead to conflicting conclusions.

• Concern: Evangelicals may be concerned that the field’s reliance on incomplete evidence leads to premature or biased interpretations that contradict biblical accounts. The absence of evidence is often misconstrued as evidence of absence, especially in popular literature.

• Impact: This can create a perception that archaeology disproves the Bible, challenging evangelical confidence in Scripture’s historical claims.

Influence of ANE Parallels:

Another methodological concern is the over-reliance on ANE parallels, a topic close to my research on covenantal structures in Revelation. 
• Issue: Scholars like John Walton emphasize ANE parallels to illuminate biblical texts, such as comparing Genesis 1 to Enuma Elish or Mosaic laws to Hammurabi’s Code. While valuable, this approach risks parallelomania—the uncritical assumption that similarities imply dependence. For instance, equating Genesis with ANE myths might downplay its unique monotheistic theology, challenging evangelical doctrines of inspiration. This can lead to methodological assumptions that the Bible is derivative of ANE culture rather than divinely inspired. 
• Concern: Evangelicals may worry that ANE-focused archaeology reduces the Bible’s uniqueness, framing it as one of many ANE texts. For example, Walton’s functional view of Genesis 1, while insightful, might be seen as downplaying its historical claims, raising concerns about prioritizing cultural context over divine revelation.
• Impact: The literature’s focus on ANE parallels can overshadow the Bible’s theological distinctiveness, potentially weakening evangelical doctrines of inspiration and inerrancy. To counter this, we must follow Jeffrey H. Tigay’s caution, ensuring parallels are supported by cultural contact and complex patterns to avoid reducing Scripture to a cultural artifact.

Concerns in the Literature 

The literature of biblical archaeology presents its own challenges.

Bias in Scholarly Narratives: 

• Issue: Much of the archaeological literature is written by scholars with secular or critical perspectives, who may approach biblical texts with skepticism. Journals like Near Eastern Archaeology or Biblical Archaeology Review often feature debates that lean toward critical reconstructions, such as questioning the historicity of Joshua’s conquests based on sites like Jericho or Ai, often sidelining evangelical voices. 

• Concern: Evangelicals may find the literature dismissive of biblical accounts, favoring naturalistic explanations over supernatural ones (e.g., explaining the Red Sea crossing as a natural phenomenon). This can make it challenging to find resources that align with evangelical commitments to Scripture’s truthfulness.

• Impact: The dominance of critical perspectives in mainstream publications can marginalize evangelical scholars, limiting their influence and creating a perception that archaeology inherently contradicts the Bible.

Popular Misrepresentation:

Popular misrepresentation exacerbates this issue.

•  Issue: Popular media and books often sensationalize or misrepresent archaeological findings, either exaggerating their significance (e.g., claims of finding Noah’s Ark) or using them to debunk biblical accounts—without nuance. Such distortions, whether from fringe enthusiasts or skeptical critics, undermine the field’s credibility and obscure its value for illuminating Scripture. For instance, the hype around the “Large Stone Structure” in Jerusalem as David’s palace often overshadows careful archaeological debates, leaving believers wary of archaeology’s reliability. For example, media coverage of Israel Finkelstein’s The Bible Unearthed often amplifies its minimalist conclusions questioning the historicity of David or the Exodus, without nuance, while evangelical scholars like Bryant Wood (Associates for Biblical Research), who propose alternative datings for Jericho’s fall, struggle for mainstream traction. 

• Concern: Evangelicals may be concerned that such misrepresentations confuse lay believers, leading to distrust in archaeology or uncritical acceptance of dubious claims (e.g., unverified artifacts promoted by fringe groups). 

• Impact: This distorts the field’s credibility, making it harder for evangelicals to engage archaeology as a legitimate tool for understanding Scripture.  This imbalance creates a narrative that archaeology inherently contradicts the Bible, which can confuse lay believers seeking to affirm Scripture’s reliability. As a member of the Associates for Biblical Research I can recommend the Bible and Spade magazine as I have published many articles.

Lack of Evangelical Representation:

Additionally, the underrepresentation of evangelical scholarship limits the field’s accessibility to conservative audiences.

• Issue: While evangelical archaeologists like Bryant Wood or Steven Collins contribute to the field, their work is often underrepresented in mainstream academic literature compared to secular or critical scholars. While organizations like Associates for Biblical Research produce faith-affirming resources, their work is rarely featured in mainstream publications, leaving evangelicals to navigate a literature that feels hostile to their convictions. 

• Concern: This imbalance can create a one-sided narrative that sidelines evangelical perspectives, particularly those affirming biblical historicity. For instance, Wood’s redating of Jericho’s destruction to align with Joshua’s conquest is often dismissed by mainstream scholars.

• Impact: The literature may lack robust defences of biblical reliability, leaving evangelical readers to navigate a field that feels hostile to their convictions. This gap calls for more evangelical scholars to engage rigorously with the field, producing accessible works that bridge academic archaeology and church communities.

Ideological Contentions

Perhaps the most pressing concern is the ideological battles shaping biblical archaeology.

Secular vs. Theological Agendas:

• Issue: Biblical archaeology operates in a tension between secular academic standards and theological agendas. Secular scholars approach the Bible as a human document, subjecting it to the same scrutiny as ANE texts, often rejecting supernatural elements like miracles (e.g., Jericho’s walls, Josh. 6). This naturalistic bias clashes with evangelical commitments to Scripture’s divine inspiration and historical accuracy, creating a sense that archaeology is inherently skeptical of faith.

• Concern: Evangelicals may see an ideological bias in biblical archaeology, where secular assumptions—such as rejecting miracles or prioritizing material evidence—marginalize faith-based views. For instance, dismissing the fall of Jericho’s walls (Josh. 6) as “mythological” reflects a naturalistic worldview that conflicts with evangelical theology. Conversely, the archaeological evidence at Tall el-Hammam, likely biblical Sodom, suggesting destruction by an airburst, does not rule out divine intervention but may clarify the mechanism described in Scripture, enhancing our understanding of the biblical account.
• Impact: This tension can alienate evangelical scholars and believers, who may feel pressured to compromise their view of Scripture’s authority to gain academic credibility.

Politicization of Archaeology:

Politicization further complicates the field with modern geopolitical debates. 

• Issue: Biblical archaeology is often entangled with modern political and cultural debates, particularly in the Middle East. For example, excavations in Israel, such as in Jerusalem (e.g., the City of David) are sometimes used to support or challenge claims about Israel’s historical presence, influencing contemporary geopolitical narratives.

• Concern: Evangelicals may be cautious about ideological agendas—Zionist, Palestinian, or secular—influencing archaeological interpretations. For example, minimalist claims that David’s kingdom was minor may stem from political motives to diminish Israel’s historical roots. Conversely, assertions linking archaeological finds to the Davidic period may be exaggerated to advance a political agenda. Such biases can distort objective analysis. Evangelicals should approach these interpretations critically, ensuring archaeology pursues truth rather than serving ideological goals.

• Impact: This politicization can undermine the field’s objectivity, making it difficult for evangelicals to trust findings that appear influenced by non-scholarly agendas.

Postmodern and Revisionist Trends:

Finally, postmodern and revisionist trends pose a challenge.
• Issue: Postmodern approaches in archaeology question traditional historical narratives, including biblical ones, favoring deconstructionist or revisionist readings that view biblical stories as “constructed” rather than revealed. 
• Concern: Evangelicals, who affirm the Bible’s objective truth, may see these trends as undermining Scripture’s authority. For example, reinterpreting ANE parallels to emphasize cultural relativity might weaken confidence in the Bible’s unique authority as God’s Word. The emphasis on subjective interpretations (e.g., viewing biblical stories as “constructed” narratives) conflicts with evangelical convictions about divine revelation.  
• Impact: These ideological shifts can make the field feel inhospitable to evangelicals, who may struggle to find common ground with scholars prioritizing cultural or ideological lenses over historical accuracy.

Specific Concerns for Conservative Evangelicals

Challenge to Inerrancy:

• Minimalist interpretations that deny the historicity of biblical events (e.g., the Patriarchs, Exodus) directly challenge evangelical doctrines of inerrancy, which hold that the Bible is true in all it affirms, including historical details.

• Concern: Evangelicals may fear that the field’s skepticism erodes confidence in Scripture, especially when archaeological “silence” (e.g., lack of evidence for the conquest of Canaan) is used to dismiss biblical accounts.

• Mitigation: Evangelicals can counter this by emphasizing that archaeology is a developing field and absence of evidence does not disprove biblical claims, citing finds like the Merneptah Stele or Tel Dan Stele as partial corroborations.

Overemphasis on ANE Context:

• As noted previously, ANE studies can illuminate biblical texts but risk reducing the Bible to a product of its cultural milieu. For example, Walton’s view of Genesis as a functional cosmology may align too closely with ANE myths for some evangelicals, who prioritize the Bible’s unique inspiration.

• Concern: Over-reliance on ANE parallels may lead to interpretations that downplay the Bible’s divine origin, challenging evangelical theology.

• Mitigation: Evangelicals can use ANE studies selectively, affirming parallels that clarify context (e.g., covenant structures) while upholding Scripture’s distinct theological message.

Accessibility for Lay Believers:

• The technical nature of archaeological literature and its often skeptical tone can make it inaccessible or discouraging for lay evangelicals seeking to understand the Bible’s historical context.

• Concern: This creates a gap between academic archaeology and church communities, limiting its apologetic value for reinforcing faith.

• Mitigation: Evangelical scholars can produce accessible resources (e.g., books, lectures) that highlight archaeology’s support for Scripture, such as the work of organizations like Associates for Biblical Research, Trowling Down, our Biblical Archaeology from the Ground Down and Explorers of the Lost Vaults Podcasts all operated by professional evangelical archaeologists.

A Path Forward for Evangelicals

Despite THESE concerns, biblical archaeology remains a powerful tool for affirming Scripture’s historical and cultural context. To engage the field effectively, evangelicals should:

Adopt Methodological Rigor: Use the above criteria to identify legitimate ANE parallels, avoiding parallelomania while leveraging cultural insights, as demonstrated in my dissertation on Revelation’s covenantal structure.

Amplify Evangelical Voices: Produce scholarship that counters minimalist narratives, highlighting finds like the Tel Dan Stele or Siloam Inscription that support biblical history.

Affirm Scripture’s Authority: Use archaeology to illuminate, not dictate, biblical interpretation, ensuring ANE parallels enhance rather than undermine the Bible’s theological distinctiveness.

Bridge Church and Academy: Create accessible resources that equip believers to engage archaeology confidently, reinforcing faith in Scripture’s reliability .

Conclusion

Biblical archaeology is a field of both promise and peril for conservative evangelicals. Methodological biases, critical literature, and ideological tensions challenge doctrines of inerrancy and inspiration, yet they need not deter us. By engaging archaeology with discernment, grounding interpretations in Scripture’s authority, and advocating for faith-affirming scholarship, we can uncover insights that deepen our understanding of God’s Word. As my work on Revelation’s covenantal structure shows, ANE studies can enhance our grasp of biblical truth without compromising its divine origin, paving a path to affirm both faith and reason in the pursuit of biblical understanding and faith-affirming scholarship.

_________



Dr. David Graves PhD. Dissertation, University of Aberdeen. The Influence of Ancient Near Eastern Vassal Treaties on the Seven Prophetic Messages in Revelation.
  


I deal with more issues related to Biblical archaeology in my book on Digging Up the Bible.

For Journal articles and papers see  Follow me on Academia.edu or Selected Works

 
 
 
Updated June, 2025. © Copyright Electronic Christian Media



Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Oct 20, 2012

New article published in the NEASB on Hippocratic oath

Unveiling a Hidden Connection: The Hippocratic Oath and Ancient Near Eastern Vassal Treaties

I’m thrilled to share that The Near East Archaeological Society Bulletin (NEASB) has published my latest article, titled “Influence of the Ancient Near Eastern Vassal Treaties on the Hippocratic Oath.” Near East Archaeological Society Bulletin NEASB 57 (2012): 27–45. This groundbreaking study, born from my Ph.D. research, uncovers a previously unrecognized link between the Hippocratic Oath and Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) suzerain-vassal treaties, shedding new light on the cultural exchange between Babylon and Greek civilization. As a conservative evangelical scholar passionate about ANE studies and biblical archaeology, I’m excited to contribute to this fascinating field and grateful for the opportunity to share my findings with you.

The Discovery: A New Perspective on the Hippocratic Oath

The Hippocratic Oath, a cornerstone of medical ethics, has long been studied for its Greek origins, attributed to the school of Hippocrates around the 5th century BC. However, my research reveals that its structure and content bear striking similarities to ANE suzerain-vassal treaties, such as those from the Hittite and Assyrian empires. These treaties, which formalized relationships between a suzerain (king) and vassal (subject), typically include a preamble, historical prologue, stipulations, witnesses, and blessings/curses—elements that resonate with the Oath’s form and intent.

In the article, I argue that the Hippocratic Oath adapts this ANE treaty framework to establish a covenant-like bond between physicians and their mentors or patients. 

For example:
  • Preamble: The Oath begins by invoking divine witnesses (e.g., Apollo, Asclepius), mirroring treaty introductions that identify the suzerain.
  • Stipulations: Ethical obligations, such as preserving life and confidentiality, parallel treaty stipulations binding vassals to loyalty.
  • Blessings/Curses: The Oath’s promises of prosperity for adherence and ruin for violation echo treaty blessings and curses.

This connection suggests that Babylonian cultural influences, transmitted through trade, conquest, or intellectual exchange in the ANE, shaped Greek medical ethics, challenging the traditional view of the Oath as purely Hellenistic.

Significance of the Research

This discovery is significant for several reasons:
  • Cultural Exchange: It provides fresh evidence of Babylonian influence on Greek culture, supporting broader research into ANE-Greek interactions. As Jeffrey H. Tigay and William F. Albright emphasize, cultural contact and complex patterns are key to identifying legitimate parallels, and my analysis meets these criteria by tracing specific treaty elements in the Oath.
  • Interdisciplinary Insight: The article bridges biblical archaeology, ANE studies, and medical history, offering a new lens for understanding the Oath’s origins and its ethical framework.
  • Pioneering Contribution: No scholar has previously identified this link, making the study a pioneering addition to the field. My Ph.D. research, which also explores ANE vassal treaties in the Book of Revelation, laid the groundwork for this insight, highlighting the versatility of treaty structures across cultures.

Gratitude and Peer Review

I’m deeply grateful to the Near East Archaeological Society for publishing this article and to the peer reviewers whose insightful suggestions strengthened the final piece. Their rigorous feedback ensured the study avoids parallelomania—the pitfall of overstating similarities—by grounding the parallels in historical and textual evidence. This collaborative process underscores the value of scholarly dialogue in advancing our understanding of the ancient world.

Implications for Evangelical Scholarship

For conservative evangelicals, this research affirms the Bible’s historical and cultural context by illuminating the pervasive influence of ANE covenantal forms, which also appear in Scripture (e.g., the Mosaic Covenant in Deut. 28). While the Hippocratic Oath is a secular text, its treaty-like structure echoes the covenantal patterns God used to communicate His relationship with Israel, reinforcing the Bible’s engagement with its cultural milieu. This study equips evangelicals to engage archaeology and ANE studies confidently, using rigorous scholarship to affirm Scripture’s reliability without compromising its divine inspiration.

Looking Ahead

Publishing this article is a milestone in my journey as a scholar, building on my dissertation’s exploration of ANE vassal treaties in Revelation 2–3. I hope it sparks further research into ANE influences on Greco-Roman culture and encourages dialogue among biblical scholars, archaeologists, and historians. If you’re intrigued by the intersection of ANE studies, biblical archaeology, and cultural history, I invite you to read the full article in NEASB 57 and share your thoughts!
  • Get the Article: Access “Influence of the Ancient Near Eastern Vassal Treaties on the Hippocratic Oath.” in Near East Archaeological Society Bulletin 57 (2012): 27–45, available through academic libraries or the NEAS website.
  • Let’s Connect: How do you see ANE cultural exchanges shaping biblical or classical studies? Drop a comment or reach out to discuss this fascinating topic!
  • Also in the same issue: Graves, David E. “Review of Kamash, Zena. Archaeologies of Water in the Roman Near East: 63 BC - AD 636. Gorgias Dissertations in Near Eastern Studies 54. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2010.” Near East Archaeology Society Bulletin no. 57 (2012): 56–57.
  • Blog Labels: #BiblicalArchaeology, #ANEstudies, #HippocraticOath, #VassalTreaties, #EvangelicalScholarship, #CulturalExchange

    _________

    For Journal articles and papers see  Follow me on Academia.edu or Selected Works


    For all books by Dr. David E. Graves
     
     
    Updated June, 2025
    Posted by at No comments:
    Labels: , , , , ,
    Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)