The concept of PARALLELOMANIA, a term coined by Samuel Sandmel in his 1962 article “Parallelomania,” (Journal of Biblical Literature 81 (1962): 1–13), refers to the overzealous identification of parallels between texts or cultures, often without sufficient critical analysis, leading to exaggerated claims of dependence or similarity. Tigay, while pointing out the dangers of “parallelomania,” provides criteria for identifying parallels between Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) documents and the scriptures. He indicates that, “In the case of the Hebrew scriptures and the rest of the ancient Near East, frequent contacts between pre-Israelite Palestine and the Israelites, on the one hand, and Egypt, Mesopotamia, and Syro-Palestinian states on the other hand, provide sufficient channels to make borrowing in principle likely.” (Jeffrey H. Tigay, “On Evaluating Claims of Literary Borrowing,” in The Tablet and the Scroll. Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William W. Hallo (eds. Mark Cohen, Daniel C. Snell, and David B. Weisberg; Bethesda MD: Capital Decisions, 1993), 251.) The primary criteria for borrowing in the Old Testament with the Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) treaty structure is set out by Albright in a shared complexity “forming a pattern” (William Foxwell Albright, From the Stone Age to Christianity (New York: Doubleday, 1957), 67).
OPPORTUNITIES OF ANE STUDIES IN HERMENEUTICS
• Contextual Understanding: Conservative evangelicals value interpreting Scripture in its historical and cultural context to discern its intended meaning. ANE studies provide valuable insights into the worldviews, literary conventions, and cultural practices of the biblical authors’ time. For example, John Walton’s work on Genesis emphasizes how ANE creation accounts (like the Enuma Elish) used functional rather than material ontologies, suggesting Genesis 1 may focus on God assigning purpose to creation rather than describing its physical origins. Other scholars who also share this approach in their hermeneutics are Peter Enns, Tremper Longman III, John H. Sailhamer, Bruce K. Waltke, Daniel I. Block, and Michael S. Heiser share John Walton’s ANE-informed approach. This can enrich exegesis by clarifying what the text meant to its original audience, which is an oft times neglected or misunderstood hermeneutical principle.
• Defending Biblical Reliability: ANE parallels can demonstrate that the Bible is not a modern fabrication but a document rooted in its historical milieu. For instance, similarities between biblical laws and ANE legal codes (e.g., Hammurabi’s Code) affirm the Bible’s authenticity as a product of its time, which can bolster apologetic arguments for its historical credibility.
• Illuminating Difficult Texts: ANE studies can clarify obscure passages. Walton’s analysis of ANE temple ideology, for example, suggests that Genesis 1 portrays the cosmos as God’s temple, which aligns with evangelical views of God’s sovereignty and purpose in creation. Such insights can deepen theological reflection without undermining biblical authority.
CHALLENGES AND CONCERNS
- Risk of Over-Reliance on ANE Context: Conservative evangelicals may be cautious about approaches that seem to prioritize ANE literature over the Bible’s unique divine inspiration. If ANE texts are used to redefine biblical genres or doctrines (e.g., treating Genesis as myth rather than history), it could conflict with evangelical commitments to the historicity of key events like the creation or the Exodus. Walton’s functional view of Genesis, while insightful, has been critiqued for potentially downplaying the text’s historical claims, which are central to evangelical theology.
- Authority of Scripture: Critics argue that Walton’s heavy reliance on ANE cosmology risks subordinating Scripture to human cultural frameworks.
- Theological Implications: Certain interpretations informed by Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) studies can challenge traditional evangelical readings. For instance, John Walton’s view that Genesis 1 focuses on functional rather than material creation may conflict with young-earth creationist perspectives, which emphasize a literal six-day creation. As someone who does not hold to young-earth creationism (nor evolution), I align with Walton’s interpretation while maintaining a commitment to biblical inerrancy and a conservative evangelical perspective. (See The Location of Sodom, FACT 35: NOT ALL ARCHAEOLOGISTS APPROACH BIBLICAL NUMBERS IN THE SAME WAY). Similarly, comparing biblical narratives to ANE mythological genres risks undermining the Bible’s unique status as God’s inspired Word. However, such comparisons need not weaken confidence in Scripture’s distinctiveness if approached with care to affirm its divine authority.
- Methodological Balance: There’s a danger of imposing ANE frameworks onto Scripture in ways that obscure its distinct theological message. For instance, while ANE creation accounts share similarities with Genesis, evangelicals emphasize that Genesis uniquely presents a monotheistic, purposeful creation by a transcendent God, unlike the polytheistic chaos of ANE myths. Over-emphasizing similarities might blur these distinctions.
A Balanced Evangelical Response
A conservative evangelical approach can embrace ANE studies as a tool for illumination while maintaining Scripture’s primacy. Here’s how:
- Use ANE Studies as a Servant, Not Master: ANE insights should inform, not dictate, interpretation. Scripture’s divine inspiration sets it apart from other ANE texts, so parallels should clarify rather than redefine its message.
- Affirm Biblical Uniqueness: While ANE studies highlight shared cultural contexts, evangelicals should emphasize the Bible’s theological distinctiveness, such as its monotheism, ethical framework, and redemptive narrative.
- Test Interpretations Against Tradition: ANE-informed readings should be evaluated against historic orthodox interpretations and the broader biblical canon to ensure they align with core evangelical doctrines like inerrancy and the historicity of key events.
- Engage Critically: Scholars like Walton, et al. provide valuable perspectives, but their conclusions should be weighed carefully. For instance, Walton’s functional ontology is compelling but should not dismiss material creation if the text and tradition support it.
Conclusion
From a conservative evangelical perspective, ANE studies, as utilized by scholars like Walton, are a double-edged sword. They offer rich contextual insights that enhance biblical understanding and apologetic efforts, but they must be approached cautiously to avoid undermining Scripture’s authority, historicity, or theological uniqueness. By using ANE studies as a supplementary tool while grounding interpretation in the inspired text, evangelicals can benefit from this movement without compromising their core convictions.
Forthcoming:
Associated Blog Posts:
- The Literary Genre of Revelation's Seven Messages: Decoding Covenant and Oracle
- Reconciling Royal Grants and Treaty Rhetoric: Blessings and Curses in Revelation’s New Covenant Oracles
- Understanding Biblical Covenants: Progressive Revelation and the Suzerainty Treaty Framework
