Mesopotamia and The Bible

ASSYRIOLOGY AND BIBLICAL STUDIES:
A CENTURY AND A HALF OF TENSION
Mark W. Chavalas
What is the reason for these efforts in remote, inhospitable, and dangerous
lands? What is the reason for this expensive rooting through rubble many
thousands of years old, all the way down to the water table, where no gold
and no silver is to be found? What is the reason for the competition among
nations to secure excavation rights to these deserted mounds, and the more
the better? Moreover, what is the source of the ever-increasing, self-
sacrificing interest, on both sides of the Atlantic, allotted to the excavations
in Babylonia and Assyria?
To these questions there is one answer, even if not the whole answer
which points to what for the most part is the motive and the goal, namely,
the Bible (Delitzsch 1906: 1).
So began F. Delitzsch's famous inaugural lecture for the German Oriental

Society entitled, 'Babel und Bibel', 13 January 1902, in Berlin. However,
those who believed that the excavations in Mesopotamia had the primary
purpose of illuminating the Bible and verifying its historicity were to be
disappointed with the remainder of Delitzsch's first and succeeding lec-
tures, as he spoke from the standpoint of an Assyriologist who attempted
to show the primacy and superiority of Babel (Mesopotamia) over the
Bible. The tension between the two disciplines of Assyriology and biblical
studies in the past century and a half has often been acute and has never
adequately been defined. In fact, any comparative study of issues concern-
ing the two has often been considered a hazardous affair.! Assyriology, of
course, is by definition a new discipline, and has often been considered
an intruder by biblicists (Kraus 1969: 69-73). On the other hand, the
Assyriologist has often had to work under the shadow of the biblicists,
who have for the most part considered Assyriology an auxiliary to biblical
studies. They often have had to connect their work for relevance to biblical
1. See the discussion by van der Toorn 1985: 1 -8.

22 Mesopotamia and the Bible
studies. Of course, many Assyriologists in the early period maintained a

traditional doctrinal orthodoxy. Assyriology remains a subject for special-
ists; there never has been an assyriological equivalent to Egyptomania,
except for the Amorite hypothesis. The Assyriologist must admit that
ironically it was the Bible that helped illuminate the newly found cunei-
form documents in the nineteenth century, as it provided transcriptions of
five of the names of the Assyrian kings.2 For some biblical scholars, the
impact of Assyriology upon biblical studies has been minimal, an unten-
able position for those of us who attempt to bridge both fields.3 When one
scrapes away the superficial similarities, however, the two disciplines have
thus developed almost wholly independent of each other. In some respects,
scholars of the two disciplines are not always properly trained or well
suited to do comparative studies.4 Too often scholars have taken 'in-
ventorial' approach to comparisons, listing various parallel phenomena
without making clear their significance (Malul 1990: 32). Although it is
certainly legitimate to look for parallels (Veenhof 1995), the methodo-
logical criteria for studying Mesopotamia and the Bible have not been
adequately articulated. There needs to be a systematic manner in the
approach to the comparative method.5 Most would agree that the biblical
scholar must examine the immediate and wider biblical context before
resorting to searching for external evidences from Mesopotamia, and the
general context of those external sources also. One must also ask whether
or not the phenomenon in question existed outside the stream of the
ancient Near Eastern tradition, of which both the biblical and Meso-
potamian cultures were a part (Malul 1990: 93-97).
On the whole, the biblical scholars have made but superficial use of
Assyriological research, mainly because of the high degree of speciali-
zation needed to work with its data (Millard 1989: 24). Furthermore, a
great number of Assyriologists neither have an interest in biblical studies,
nor do they see many obvious and direct connections to the Old Testa-
ment, while Old Testament scholars are often too concerned with theo-
logical matters to become interested in immersing themselves in technical
2. Also, see the discussion by Tadmor 1985: 262.

3. Notice the lack of attention to ancient Near Eastern matters in some of the
major works devoted to the history of Old Testament scholarship; Kraeling 1955; Hahn
1956; Kraus 1956; Greenslade 1963.
4. See the discussion of this issue in regards to biblical scholars studying Ugaritic
religion; see Killers 1985.
5. This is one of the themes of Barr 1987.
CHAVALAS Assyriology and Biblical Studies 23
matters (in fact, some biblical scholars were drawn to Assyriology because
of its comparative lack of theological controversies; this has certainly been
the case in Great Britain and North America). The cuneiform material
accessible to the biblical scholar is limited to the relatively few fully
edited and annotated texts. At any rate, it is not surprising to see a tension
between the two disciplines. In spite of this, it is strongly urged that the
two disciplines continue to interact, as long as they retain their own
methodology and autonomy (see Tadmor 1985: 266).
In this introduction, I will attempt to trace some of the major develop-
ments of the relationship between the two fields since the discovery and
subsequent decipherment of'Babylonic' cuneiform in the mid-nineteenth
century.
The two disciplines are very different. Assyriology studies a dead
civilization. When Xenophon, the Greek general and historian, traversed
the boundaries of Assyria at the beginning of the fourth century BCE, he
traveled past both Nimrud and Nineveh. Although he noticed both of these
cities, he called them by their Greek names, and assumed that the region
was part of Media, and that the two cities were destroyed by the Persians.
Thus, he was unaware that they were two of the great Assyrian capitals,
which had become abandoned mounds in the preceding two centuries.6
The Bible and various Greek sources became powerful factors in keeping
alive the memory of Mesopotamian civilization. Yet it was not simply the
interest in biblical studies that drove the Europeans to the Tigris-Euphrates
Valley in the early nineteenth century. France and Great Britain were
looking for land routes to India and took great efforts to exert their
influence on these areas. Archeology was thus an unconscious extension of
European imperialism.
Because of the spiritual connections with the Old Testament, those in
the West are the remote descendants of the Mesopotamians.7 Assyriology's
importance to world history is only now being discussed by Assyriologists.8
However, Assyriologists have rarely been able to synthesize their massive
data base for the public. Furthermore, biblical scholars have been much
6. Xenophon, Anabasis 1.4.6-12. Other classical period authors, including Hero-

dotus and Ptolemy were better versed about this area. I thank Michael C. Astour for the
preceding observation.
7. See Bottero (1992: 15-25) who argues that Assyriology should be at the center
of the social sciences, since it contains our cultural 'family documents'.
8. See, for example, Hallo 1996.
more prone to search for comparative data than have Assyriologists.9 The
two civilizations of Mesopotamia and Israel must be studied independently
of each other, while recognizing the intimate relationship of the two
(Saggs 1978: 5). Comparisons between the two were often done early on
in regards to polemic.10 The two traditions should be seen as two con-
temporary systems in the ancient Near East, and not necessarily
exclusively in context with each other. Searching for direct comparisons
can be methodologically unsound, causing one to omit great amounts of
relevant data. Clearly, Mesopotamia and Israel (including Syria) were part
of a greater cultural continuum (van der Toorn 1996: 4).
The study of Syro-Mesopotamian civilization has advanced greatly in
the past 25 years. Of special import is the renewed interest in Eastern or
'Mesopotamian' Syria, where new archeological finds have radically
altered our understanding of not only the ancient Near East, but of the
Bible as well. Although there have recently been some brief descriptions
of Mesopotamian connections and the Bible,11 there has been no detailed
synthesis in English of the Tigris-Euphrates region in regards to the Bible
in many years.12
From the beginning, scholars were intrigued by the possibilities of
studying the two disciplines, and either emphasized the similarities or
stressed differences.13 At the outset of the nineteenth century the Anglican
Church retained a supremacy over biblical studies that was not seen in
either Germany or France. Thus, when German and French historical and
literary criticism of the Bible began to filter into Great Britain there was a
sharp reaction. These 'Germanisms' as they were called (the propensity to
view many Old Testament stories as mythical and to de-emphasize the
importance of the Old Testament) were considered a threat to the
understanding of the divine inspiration of Scripture (Chadwick 1966:628).
There was a fear that the Bible would be 'polluted' by being too close to a
9. Sj6berg (1984: 217) found it necessary to state that he comes to the Old
Testament with 'the eyes of an Assyriologist'.
10. E.g. in terms of religion, see Vriezen 1968.
11. E.g. Hoerth, Mattingly and Yamauchi 1994.
12. E.g. Larue 1967; Parrot 1955; 1958. A number of Assyriologists have worked
on comparative themes of Mesopotamia and the Bible late in their career; see now von
Soden 1985 (this is not in fact a synthesis but a collection of some of von Soden's
previously published works on biblical and assyriological themes) and Bottero 1986-
92; 1993a; and 1994.
13. Talmon 1978a: 332; for a critique of finding comparisons as a modern variation
of the long history of the effort to deny Israel any innovation, see Greenspahn 1991.
pagan tradition (i.e. Mesopotamia). Ironically, the British and French

Enlightenment which had been imported to Germany had now returned in
an altered form to a country was had previously been cool to biblical
criticism. However, the fact that historical criticism was presently being
done in Homeric studies made it easier for scholars to be open to the
'Germanisms' (Kraeling 1955: 89-97). However, the first impressions of
the cuneiform tablets had little impact on nineteenth-century biblical
criticism.
The first major excavations were done by the French, under P.E. Botta,
who had knowingly begun working at Nineveh in 1842.14 Of course, the
ancient name of the mound was Ninua, a fact which was known by the
Medieval Arab geographers and Jewish travelers (e.g. Benjamin of Tudela
in the twelfth century AD), but not to the European travelers or, for the
most part, the European adventurers (Grayson 1997: 106). Though Botta
soon left Nineveh, he directed his attentions to Khorsabad, where he found
the palace of the Assyrian king Sargon II. Ironically, he mistakenly
thought he had discovered Nineveh (see Budge 1925: 67). Botta's dis-
coveries at Khorsabad, though, created an immense interest in Mesopo-
tamian antiquities in Europe. Although the French government sponsored
work on drawing the reliefs that had been brought to Paris, Botta never
received the public recognition afforded many other adventurers to the
Middle East. Nonetheless, the French government subsidized the magnifi-
cent volumes produced by Botta, although they were only accessible to a
small number of persons (not including Layard!) (McCall 1998:198). At
any rate, A. de Longperier was able to read the name Sargon, King of
Assyria on one of the monuments, identifying him with the same
mentioned in Isa. 20.1, the first name of a Mesopotamian king to be read
by a modern scholar from outside the biblical text.15 Furthermore, V. Place
succeeded Botta at Khorsabad and found more of the layout of the city of
Sargon II (Place 1867-70).
Soon thereafter the Englishman, A.H. Layard, began work at Nimrud in
1845.16 Like Botta, he also thought he had found Nineveh, and his famous
work, Nineveh and its Remains is in fact primarily a discussion of material
14. Botta and Flandin 1849-50; Botta 1843-44. For a recent discussion of the
French involvement in the mid-nineteenth century, see Fontan (ed.) 1994.
15. Moorey 1991:8. For French interest in Mesopotamian and biblical connections,
seeVigouroux 1877.
16. Layard 1849; 1849-53; 1853. A compendium of Layard's (and Botta's) work
was done by Bonomi 1852.
from Nimrud. Layard found at Nimrud the first dramatic sculptural link to
the Old Testament, the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III and the citation
concerning Jehu of Israel. This, of course, was not proven until the obelisk
was deciphered years later. At this early date there was a general under-
standing that the Assyrians and Babylonians led away the Israelites and
Judahites captive (Sennacherib and Nebuchadnezzar were household
names to the European public).17 Layard's finds were quickly disseminated
and became topics for newspapers and popular journals. They impressed
British and American societies who were still immersed in Old Testament
piety. They not only hoped that Layard's investigations would help
provide the correct understanding of Scripture, they were convinced that
the Bible had been vindicated by his finds, especially since they believed
that it confirmed the destruction of the Assyrian cities as foretold by the
biblical prophets. Thus, Layard had to step very carefully as he came to
conclusions about the finds and their relevance to the Old Testament,
knowing that controversies were brewing back home. But, as long as the
texts could not be read with any certainty, nothing could be firmly
established.18 Others, however, were more cynical and supposed that if
Layard attached biblical importance to his discoveries, he would become
more famous and receive the backing of the religious public.I9 Thus,
Layard created a sensation with his books, both in Europe and America.20
Many of the responses by theologians about the finds were premature and
often irresponsible, as they tried to appeal to religious sensibilities
(Kildahl 1959: 2-20). However, much of the hoopla about theological
fears of the budding discipline of Assyriology was soon displaced with
Darwin's revolutionary ideas.
Although both Botta and Layard knew their Bible as well as their
classics, neither appeared to be interested in trying to prove the historical
17. Hincks in 1849 had deciphered the names of Esarhaddon and Sennacherib in
the Layard's reliefs (185 Ib: 977); and Grotefend read Shalmaneser (Moorey 1991:10).
See Hincks 1851b; 1852; and H.C. Rawlinson found the names of the Israelite and
Judahite kings of Jehu and Menahem in the Assyrian annals, e.g., see Rawlinson 1850.
Also see Hincks 1853; 1850.
18. See the discussion in Larsen 1996: 155-64.
19. See Saggs 1984: 306; and Bamett 1960. Layard did not hesitate to make
biblical correlations, e.g., 18491:75-76. Unfortunately, many of his preliminary ideas
were preached from British pulpits, giving rise to widespread 'logorrhea', according to
Kildahl 1959: 55-59, 147-49.
20. Others quickly followed with works of the same ilk; see Vaux 1855; Bonomi
1869. For Layard's influence in Britain and the US, see Kildahl 1959.
veracity of either traditions in regards to Mesopotamia. Of course, the

public was interested in the elucidation of the Old Testament, while
academics saw in their work an interesting specimen for understanding the
evolution of the arts through sculpture and the like (Larsen 1996:68). But
the academic world was somewhat slow in incorporating the material
uncovered by them.
In 1852, now ten years after the first excavations in the Tigris-Euphrates
region, J.C. Hoefer published Chaldee, Assyrie, Medie, Babylonie, Meso-
potamie, Phenicie, Palmyrene,2] where he collected all of the biblical and
classical references to Mesopotamia, as well as descriptions of the area
by travelers from medieval times to his present. Little, however, was
discussed about the new finds. In the same year, E. Hincks and H.C.
Rawlinson were able to partially decipher Sennacherib's account of the
invasion of Judah, which appears to be remarkably similar to the biblical
account in 2 Kgs 18.13-16.22 At last, many thought there was now
convincing proof of the connections of Assyria and Israel, and that the
Assyrian texts really did contain information that would help explain Old
Testament passages. Although there was initial enthusiasm from the reli-
gious community, theologians were not able to explain the discrepancies
in the two accounts. Ten years later Rawlinson published a provisional
chronology of Assyrian history that provided a datum point for comparing
it with biblical history. He also was able to figure out an account of
Shalmaneser Ill's war with Jehu of Israel, which provoked great interest in
Great Britain.23 However, even Rawlinson's brother George, an Anglican
clergyman, felt that the investigation of the Assyrian palaces had to be
stopped because they came 'uncomfortably close to the holy text'.24 Henry
saw this as 'downright rot'.25 At any rate, the decipherment of Assyrian
cuneiform caused Assyriology to be acknowledged as a legitimate dis-
cipline.26 Although there were apparent contradictions in the Assyrian and
21. Paris: Firmin Didot Freres, 1852.

22. See the discussion by Hincks and Rawlinson in Layard 1853: 118-24.
23. His magnum opus was H. Rawlinson 1860-84.
24. Although he came to see the usefulness of Mesopotamian studies on shedding
light upon the Old Testament world; see G. Rawlinson 1862: vi; 1859; 1871.
25. British Library 38977,219-24,31 March 1847 (as listed in Larsen 1996:366);
but see G. Rawlinson 1885. At any rate, Hincks was more open to stating biblical
connections than was Rawlinson: see Hincks 1862a; 1862b.
26. The decipherment became official when Rawlinson, Talbot, Hincks and Oppert
(1857) independently translated an inscription of Tiglath Pileser I.
biblical records, the two disciplines were intertwined, and continued to

retain close ties, at least for the time being. By this time, over 50 personal
and place names from the Bible had been identified in the Assyrian
records (Layard 1849: 626-28). In fact, the natural link between the two
disciplines was recognized by the founding of the Society of Biblical
Archaeology in London in 1870. The Society's goal was to investigate the
archeology and history of Assyria, as well as other biblical lands.
Arguably, the most sensational find of the early periods was made by
George Smith, who had been enthralled with the Bible since he was a
youth, and was almost obsessed with knowing more about the historical
books of the Old Testament (Smith 1875:9). On 3 December 1872, Smith
addressed the Society of Biblical Archaeology and revealed a Babylonian
account of the flood story, causing an ecclesiastical and scientific sensation
in both Britain and France, even greater than that of Layard's time. Public
interest in Mesopotamia was renewed. The flood texts were viewed by
the public at the British Museum with great interest. Assyriology was
now viewed as a sword to pierce the emerging German school of'Higher
Criticism', which was seen to be undermining the authority of the Old
Testament.27 Smith was offered funding to find the missing portion of
the tablet back in northern Iraq. Although the Bible had had priority as
having the oldest records of humanity, this new-found deluge text clearly
delineated a problem.28 How was there an earlier version of the Holy
Text? Did it no longer have chronological priority? Smith refrained from
providing his own interpretation. Was this just a later perverted version
from a different religious system, or the origin of all flood stories? In
retrospect, these issues ultimately caused the public to be wary of the
Assyriology, a discipline which was not regarded as being encumbered
with the authority of Scripture. It is at this point that the two disciplines
began to drift further apart (Tadmor 1985: 265). Hebrew scholars began
to suspect many of the Assyriologist's translations of texts. Based upon
the cumulative effect of Assyriological discoveries and finds in other
fields, the British resistance to biblical criticism was weakened (Kraeling
1955: 92).
27. Wiseman 1962: 11; Saggs 1999: 78. Many of these scholars, such as J. Well-
hausen and R. Smith, were Semiticists who were drawn to biblical comparisons with
Arabic studies, rather than Assyriology.
28. Smith 1876. B. Denys, in a review of Smith's work (The Chaldean Account of
Genesis [London: Thomas Scott, 1877]), was one of the few who appreciated the
seriousness of the issue.
Smith's successors in the British Museum continued in his tradition of

looking for biblical parallels. W. Boscawen caused a public excitement by
claiming that many of the difficulties in the book of Daniel, including the
identity of Darius the Mede, had been cleared up.29 Another Assyriologist
interested in biblical connections was A.H. Sayce, an Anglican priest who
was a prolific writer who periodically attempted to prove historical details
of the Old Testament from Assyrian and Babylonian sources.30 Sayce
identified Nimrod with Gilgamesh, and while others identified from
cuneiform sources the kings who fought with Abraham in Genesis 14.
Others who were influenced by Smith were T. Pinches (1902), and
indirectly S.R. Driver (1904), C.H.W. Johns (who became interested in
Assyriology as a boy by reading the works of G. Smith [see Johns 1914]),
A.T. Clay (1915; 1922), and L.W. King.31 We are even told by Wallis
Budge that one wealthy banker paid an Assyriologist a retaining fee to
look for biblical parallels (Budge 1925: 271). Many imaginary parallels
concerning creation (see Delano 1985), paradise,32 the fall of man, Cain
and Abel, and the Tower of Babel were reputedly found.33 At any rate, by
the end of the nineteenth century, Sayce was confident to say that the
'wave of historical skepticism' was ending before its spirit and principles
had influenced popular thought (Sayce 1894b).
American involvement (which was slow in manifesting itself)34 in the
Near East stemmed profoundly from its interest in the historical veracity
of the Bible and its interest in Semitic studies (see Brown 1888-89; 1909).
In fact, the American Oriental Society was formed in 1842, just about the
29. Boscawen's best known work was Boscawen 1903.

30. E.g. see Sayce 1885; 1888; 1891; 1894a; 1895; 1907.
31. King 1918. For a study of King's impact on biblical and Assyriological studies,
see Smith 1968.
32. E.g. see Neuman 1876: 66-67. Neuman, an American doctor of divinity, was
convinced that 'disentombing' the dead past would go far to strengthen the faith of the
weak and to dissipate the doubts of others (see Larsen 1992).
33. Observe the full title of Smith's work; The Chaldean Account of Genesis
containing the Description of the Creation, Fall of Man, the Deluge, the Tower of
Babel, the Times of the Patriarchs, and Nimrod; Babylonian Fables, and Legends of
the Gods; from the Cuneiform Inscriptions (Smith 1876).
34. Kildahl (1959: 194-212) argues that the Americans were too preoccupied with
domestic concerns until after the Civil War. There were only a handful of works
describing the relationship of the new finds to the Bible; e.g. Davis 1852; Kidder 1851;
Ward 1870; Tufton 1874; Merrill 1885. For an recent overview of American involve-
ment in the Near East, see Kuklick 1996.
same time as Botta's excavations. A large number of relics were sent to

the US by American missionaries who lived in the Near East. Many of
these items ended up in religious institutions, which provided a religious
context for their interpretation.35 Nathaniel Schmidt, a professor at Colgate
Divinity School, was actually put on trial for heresy and dismissed, as
many of his translations and interpretations of cuneiform texts were
considered contrary to Scripture.36
Many Americans went to Germany to study Assyriology with F.
Delitzsch, since there was no chair of Assyriology in either America or
Great Britain. These included Hilprecht (1903),37 F. Brown (the first to
teach Akkadian in America),38 G. Barton,39 and M. Jastrow (1914), while
W.F. Albright40 and R.W. Rogers (1908) studied with the German P.
Haupt in the US41; all wrote of the connections of the two fields. Brown,
along with Driver, took issue with Sayce's uncritical view that Scripture
had been confirmed by the findings of archeology (Brown 1896: 67;
35. E.g. Andover Theological Seminary, Episcopal Seminary (Alexandria, VA),

and Auburn Theological Seminary; see Merrill 1885. Other religious schools which
taught Akkadian included Baptist Theological Seminary (Newton Centre, MA),
Protestant Episcopal Seminary (Philadelphia, PA), and the Summer School of Hebrew
(Chicago, IL); see Adler 1887.
36. Schmidt left Colgate for Cornell in 1896, where he was able to flourish under
markedly different circumstances; see Bishop 1962:327. Later on during his tenure at
Cornell, Schmidt suffered persecution, not because of heretical' Assyriological views,
but because he refused to buy Liberty bonds during World War I (p. 429).
37. Hilprecht taught Old Testament theology at the University of Erlangen in
Germany and came to Philadelphia in 1886 to become the editor of the Sunday School
Times (see the discussion in Meade 1974: 35-37.
38. At Union Theological Seminary at New York, beginning in 1880. For his work
on bridging the two disciplines, see Brown (1891), where he warned theologians not to
discount the factual discoveries made by Assyriology nor to cause these facts to be fit
into the corresponding biblical model. Brown, like W.F, Albright later, eventually
devoted more time to Hebrew studies.
39. Barton 1916 was immensely popular and was reprinted many times.
40. It will be remembered that the great orientalist Albright began his career in
Assyriology, and was somewhat skeptical of the historicity of the biblical traditions:
see Long 1993. His unpublished doctoral dissertation was on the Assyrian flood
account (1916a). Many of his early articles were assyriological in nature; e.g. 1915;
1916b.
41. See Meade 1974. Haupt was editor of The Sacred Books of the Old Testament
(Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1893-1904), where he assembled scholars to do critical
editions of Old Testament books.
Driver 1909; Sayce 1894a). Brown, however, was a positivist when it

came to the historicity of Scripture in its relationship with the Assyrian
texts:
When an Assyrian statement can be equally well explained in two different
ways, we have the right, and are bound, as we should be in all historical
study, to take that explanation which harmonizes with a corresponding
Biblical statement (Brown 1891: 23).
With the impetus of de Sarzec's spectacular finds at Tello in the 1880s, the
American Oriental Society, Archeological Institute of America, and the
Society of Biblical Literature all began lobbying for an American expe-
dition to Babylonia. A number of scholars (acting on their own, and not as
representatives of any of the societies) came together to organize an
expedition that would find material that supported contemporary interpre-
tations of the Old Testament (Ward 1886:5). A team was assembled to dig
at Nippur in southern Mesopotamia, headed by the Reverend J. Peters and
the German trained Assyriologist H.V. Hilprecht. Though the two did not
always see eye to eye, the expeditions (1889-1900) collected thousands of
texts which continue to be housed at the University Museum of the
University of Pennsylvania and studied by Assyriologists.42 The French
finds at Susa of the Code of Hammurabi about this time also spurred
interest in biblical parallels (see Cook 1904). Assyriology was also
beginning to flourish in the late nineteenth century in Italy, Scandinavia,
and Holland (Budge 1925: 241-44).
The Germans also showed an interest in making biblical connections
with the Near East by at least 1880.43 E. Schrader published Die
Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament (1885-88), a model of thorough
scholarship that helped lead to the founding of the Deutsche Orient
Gesellschaft (German Oriental Society) in 1898,44 which led to the
German excavations in Babylon and Assur. We are told that 'every student
of Hebrew or of Assyrian consulted it, every Old Testament commentator
quoted from it or made reference to it' (see Rogers 1912: xvii). Thus, it led
many to be interested in biblical comparisons. In particular, H. Gunkel
attacked the recent arguments of J. Wellhausen for the late dating of
42. See Hilprecht 1908; and Peters 1899. See the recent evaluation of the
controversy in Kuklick 1996: 123-40.
43. For German (esp. in Berlin) work in the Near East, see Renger 1979. Schrader
published a volume on Israelite prehistory as early as 1863. Also see Delitzsch 1881.
44. One of its purposes was to elucidate the world of the Bible; see Larsen 1987:
102.
Genesis 1 by showing close parallels with it and Babylonian mythology,45

while F. Hommel (1897) studied comparative traditions of Israel and
Babylonia.46
By the end of the nineteenth century Old Testament scholars still
ignored much of the textual material that might have put Babylonian
civilization in a good light. They naively argued for the great superiority
of Hebrew monotheism. But the Assyriologists fought back and defended
the ethical and spiritual system of Babylonia, and even its ethical superi-
ority. F. Delitzsch47 argued against the high-handed manner with which his
subject was viewed by Old Testament scholars.48 Some argued that many
Hebrew ideas actually originated in Mesopotamia and were borrowed by
Israel. Much of this is understandable, if one realizes that before this,
Assyriology had been seen as less than an auxiliary science of Old Testa-
ment and classical antiquity studies (see Zimmern 1889). The idea of
Babylonian primacy was perfected by Delitzsch in 1902-1903.49 In his
lectures, he argued that Israel could only be studied in light of Babylonia,
and in fact Israelite civilization was derived from Babylonia. Thus,
comparative analysis was ultimately not productive, since Babylonia was
the source of Hebrew civilization. He then argued that many Babylonian
features were still clung to by the Judeo-Christian religious tradition (by
way of the Old Testament). Thus, in a series of lectures, Assyriology went
from an innocent scholarly pursuit to a discipline that had direct relevance
to modern religion. Delitzsch also claimed that the divine name Yahweh
was found in the Hammurabi code.50 In the second lecture, Delitzsch
argued against the divine inspiration of Scripture, went so far as to say that
the Old Testament had dubious relevance for Christianity, and claimed
45. Gunkel 1885. Gunkel took issue with Wellhausen's isolationist view, as he
refused to recognize the influence of Egypt and Mesopotamia upon Israelite literature.
46. Also done by the Dutch; e.g. Eerdmans 1891.
47. Budge (1925:289) tells us that Delitzsch 'had heard a supernatural voice which
assured him that he was to be George Smith's successor'. One can only assume that it
was Enki, the friend of humankind.
48. He also had an antipathy for the Old Testament; see the discussion by Finkel-
stein 1958: 432.
49. Delitzsch 1902. There have been numerous discussions by Assyriologists and
others of Delitzsch's famous lectures. In the early years, see e.g., Kittel 1903; Hommel
1902; Jensen 1902; and D. Gunkel 1903. For more recent reviews, see e.g., Finkelstein
1958; Reventlow 1983; Ebach 1986: 26-44; Huffinon 1987; Johanning 1988; Lehn-
mann 1994; and Larsen 1995.
50. Since disproved, see Huffmon 1971.
CH AVAL AS Assyriology an d Biblical Studies 33
that Jesus was a Galilean and not even a Semite.51 He also countered that
the Old Testament was intellectually inferior to the Babylonian tradition.
Predictably, the religious communities in Germany, Great Britain, and the
US reacted negatively to his lectures. H. Gunkel (1904) complained about
his naivety in knowledge of biblical interpretation and the history of
religion. However, biblical scholars could not argue with him concerning
Assyriological matters. Others vehemently argued against the idea of
the ethical inferiority of the Old Testament, but primarily from doctrinal
rather than strictly academic grounds.52 The third lecture bordered on anti-
Semitism, as Delitzsch emphasized the non-Semitic roots of Mesopo-
tamian civilization. Delitzsch went so far as to say that, since the Old
Testament was entirely superfluous to the Christian church, one should
rather read German cultural folk epics. He even advocated replacing the
Old Testament with W. Schwaner's Germanen-Bibel cms heiligen Schriften
germanischer Volker, which was a compilation of German folk traditions
and theological ideas (Schwaner 1910). In fact, the Israelite Scriptures
should no longer be considered as stemming from divine revelation, since
they did not stand up to the scrutiny of science and scholarship. Those
who continued to believe in the Scriptures were steeped in ignorance and
apathy. Moreover, he was explicit in his defense of German nationalism,
and the fact that those Germans who studied the tablets and excavated on
the mounds of Mesopotamia did it for 'Germany's honor'. Most scholars,
however, did not argue with his thesis directly. Delitzsch did show that
the Babylonians had reached a high level of ethical and spiritual thought.
Although many of his arguments can easily be refuted today (e.g. the
Babylonian connections with the Hebrew Sabbath), they could not be so at
the turn of the century because of an imprecise knowledge of Akkadian.
The biblical scholars refused to appreciate Babylonian religion on its own
terms and merits (see Finkelstein 1958: 438). The famous German New
Testament scholar A. Harnack (1903) said that Delitszch had said nothing
new, although the general public was now part of the debate.
The response of the Assyriologists was to be very cautious and circum-
spect; in fact, most withdrew from the public scene. Delitzsch, however,
was profoundly influential in the field because he trained many German,
British, and American Assyriologists, including, R.F. Harper, D.G. Lyon,
R.W. Rogers (1912), P. Haupt, C. Bezold, P. Jensen, and H. Zimmern.
51. For this treatment, see Davies 1975.

52. See Skinner 1910; even the Assyriologist Heidel (1946) indirectly hinted at the
inferiority of Babylonian religion.
Delitzsch's lectures had an impact not only on Assyriology and biblical

studies but on critical theology as well (Larsen 1995:97). The triumphant
view that Assyriology and its discoveries had vindicated the biblical
record and its historicity had been permanently marred. After all, Israel
was only a small part of a much larger ancient Near Eastern world that had
constant interaction with each other (see Winckler 1906a: 15).
Delitzsch made public the views of many Assyriologists, who now
espoused to a school of thought called 'Pan-Babylonianism', championed
by H. Winckler, who argued that all world myths were reflections of
Babylonian astral religion which had developed about 3000 BCE.53 H.
Zimmern argued that the Babylonian creation epic was an older version of
the New Testament and that the story of Christ's passion was nothing but a
repetition of the 'myth of Bel-Marduk of Babylon' ,54 P. Jensen argued that
the Mesopotamian myths (Gilgamesh in particular) were the foundation
for all world folk tales, including the Bible (Jensen 1890; 1906; 1924).
Israelite history was simply a series of repetitions of the Gilgamesh story.
Even the story of Jesus of Nazareth was simply a retelling of Gilgamesh.
In fact, the Kaiser himself jumped on the 'Babel bandwagon' and argued
that Jesus was a non-Jew who actually opposed the message of the Old
Testament. Other German scholars at the turn of the century argued for all
cosmology and other items coming from Babylon.55 Delitzsch himself
continued to hold to his views (Delitzsch 1920; 1921). The Pan-Baby-
lonians, however, were considered indiscriminate in their hypotheses, and
most of their extreme ideas were rejected by both biblical and Assyrio-
logical scholars.56 Pan-Babylonism did leave its mark to some extent on
biblical studies. For example, Old Testament scholars such as H. Gunkel57
and A. Jeremias (1911) began to examine literary types in the Old
Testament in the light of Mesopotamian literature. Biblical scholars now
53. Evidently first coined by Jeremias (1906) in his preface; also see 1904.
Jeremias (1903) also commented on Delitzsch's famous lectures. Pan-babylonianism
was spread largely through the efforts of Winckler 1901; 1905; and 1907a.
54. Zimmern 1906-18; 1901; 1910. Also see Radau 1908.
55. Winckler also discussed Pan-Babylonianism, Babel undBibel, and other issues
in 1906b; 1906c; 1907b.
56. E.g. Schmidt 1908 and Kugel 1910. Clay (1890) led the charge to discredit
Pan-Babylonism in America.
57. Though Gunkel complained about the extreme methods of Delitzsch, he took
advantage of using Mesopotamian literary themes to understand the Old Testament;
see Gunkel 1904.
began to accept the fact that the Bible could be studied in the context of
the ancient Near East (see Kittel 1921; Gressman 1924). Thus, the massive
corpus of Assyriological literature began to be used to illuminate the
entirety of ancient Near Eastern culture, not just ad hoc Old Testament
literary and historical problems.58
By the 1920s Assyriologists began to de-emphasize the theme of
origins, and were now intent to stress the distinctive elements of Meso-
potamian civilization.59 Thus, they attempted to assert their autonomy,60
calling for the study of Mesopotamia for its own sake.61 B. Landsberger
argued that any culture is conceptually autonomous (like the great German
thinker Johann Herder)62 and would be misunderstood if viewed from the
concepts of another culture.63 But Landsberger understood that because of
the sheer amount of textual material the Assyriologist has at his/her dis-
posal, they have rarely been afforded the time to reflect upon their
discipline and determine its long-term goals. At any rate, the Assyriologist
has left undefined its relationship with biblical studies, let alone its
relationship to world history (Wiseman 1962).
Ur
The 1920s also saw a flurry of spectacular discoveries in Mesopotamia
that appeared to have relevance to the Bible. At the site of Ur (the biblical
Ur of the Chaldees), C.L. Woolley, a follower of Sayce (rather than S.R.
Driver), was not only convinced he had found the city of Abraham
(Woolley 1936), but also believed he had found the biblical flood, which
he announced to the world in 1929. He was contrasted by the Assyriologist
S. Langdon, who argued that the flood deposits found at Kish more closely
resembled that mentioned in the Gilgamesh epic (Woolley 1930). These
58. See the discussion by Saggs 1969: 13.

59. Although see Hehn 1913; Stummer 1922; and Bonkamp 1939.
60. Still, some comparative studies of Israel and Mesopotamia continued: e.g.
Ermoni 1910 and Castellino 1940.
61. E.g. Landsberger 1926; even Landsberger (1967) occasionally wrote on biblical
comparisons; as did his colleague, Poebel 1932.
62. Even Herder had dreamt of the rediscovery of the ancient Near East for the
purposes of understanding the origins of European civilization; see the discussion in
Larsen 1987: 96-97.
63. Oppenheim (1977: 21-22) has echoed this concern about scholars who have
attempted to connect Assyriological data with the Old Testament in some acceptable
way, and others who find haphazard comparisons.
ideas have spawned many articles which have discussed the flood's his-
toricity (or lack thereof).64
Nuzi
The cuneiform texts discovered at the excavations at Nuzi (1925-31) have
long been a mine of comparative information for the Old Testament.65 E.
Chiera, the first director of the Nuzi excavations had received a Bachelor
of Divinity and Master of Theology from Crozer Theological Seminary,
and was thus sensitive to these issues. Furthermore, R.H. Pfeiffer, also one
of the Nuzi directors, was educated at the Theological School of Geneva
and received a Bachelor of Divinity from the University of Geneva in
1915. Very soon after their discovery, there was a flurry of scholarship
observing the striking putative parallels to the biblical Patriarchs in the
socio-economic and legal spheres.66 The consensus was that the two also
must have shared the same chronological proximity.
However, in the past generation there has been no consensus as to the
relative importance of the Nuzi material for biblical studies, especially
with the impetus of the publication of other Nuzi texts.67 There has been a
re-evaluation,68 and some have rejected any Nuzi connections to the Bible
altogether.69 However, the academic pendulum has swung back to the
middle, with what B. Eichler calls a 'more sobering and responsible
attitude toward the usefulness and importance of the Nuzi tablets and the
Bible' (Eichler 1989:107-19). Though the Nuzi-biblical parallels cannot
solve chronological issues, they are a source of documentation for the
socio-economic practices in Mesopotamia, which will help illuminate
biblical law and practices (Selman 1983; Eichler 1989: 107-19). Thus,
many have agreed with the rules of comparative method listed by W.M.
Clark (1977: 143), although there are still many concerns about biblical
64. See Mallowan 1964; Raikes 1966. However, there are skeptics (Lenzen 1964)
and those who hold to the symbolic meaning of the flood (Kilmer 1972; Carter 1977).
65. View the preliminary statements by S. Smith 1926.
66. E.g. S. Smith 1932; Chiera 1932-33; Ginsberg and Maisler 1933; Mendelsohn
1935; Gordon 1935a; 1935b; 1935c; 1935d; 1936; 1937; 1940; Burrows 1937; 1940;
Lewy 1938; 1939; 1940; Speiser 1938; 1940; 1964; 1955; 1967; Albright 1961.
67. See the discussion in Eichler 1989: 112.
68. Beginning with de Vaux 1949; Greenberg 1962; Van Seters 1968; 1969; Mullo-
Weir 1967-68; 1967; and Freedman 1970.
69. Van Seters 1975:65-103; Thompson 1974: 196-297; 1978. Also, see Thomp-
son's most recent work 1999.
connections (Morrison 1983). Other text collections (e.g. from Alalakh

and Emar) show that the Nuzi customs may have been common through-
out a wide chronological and geographic range, while others have argued
that first millennium BCE customs are more relevant for the biblical sphere
(or not relevant at all).70
Ugarit
Arguably, over the past 70 years there has been more written concerning
the relationship of Ugarit and the Bible than any other single Syro-
Mesopotamian site. The first generation saw a flurry of activity to show
numerous parallels with Ugarit and the Bible, both real and imagined, as
P. Craigie has noted.71 There was the usual novelty of studying newly
found materials that led to hasty conclusions (Craigie 1979a), but on the
whole there was not much excess in comparative studies.72 There were,
however, specific studies that elucidated comparisons between Psalm 29
and selections of Ugaritic poetry,73 although many have seen these con-
nections as more complicated than first supposed (Fensham 1963a; Craigie
1972; 1979b). Ginsberg (1945) also saw a comparison with Deut. 14.21
and an Ugaritic text that had a line that Virolleaud translated 'cook a kid in
milk' (Virolleaud 1933), although some have argued that this connection
is tenuous (Craigie 1977a). By the 1960s new developments arose. New
mythical and liturgical texts from Ugarit were discovered that initially
raised excitement among comparative scholars (see Gray 1978). However,
some argued that the connections between the two were ambiguous at
best, and problematic (see Smith 1952). M. Dahood argued that the
Hebrew language had to be relearned in light of new data from Ugarit.74
But, over the years, many have claimed that a 'Pan-Ugaritism' has
70. Again, see Van Seters 1968; 1975; and Thompson 1974.
71. Albright (1966: 6-7) was at the forefront of this.
72. See Jack 1935; de Vaux 1937; Baumgartner 1938; 1940; 1941; 1947; Dussaud
1937; de Langhe 1945; Patton 1944; Ginsberg 1945; andCoppens 1946. Later surveys
include Rainey 1965; Kapelrud 1965; Jacob 1960; Pfeiffer 1962; Gray 1957; 1978;
Barker 1976; Mihalic 1981; Gazelles 1985; O'Connor 1987; and Loretz 1990a.
73. Ginsberg (1938) theorized about the idea that Ps. 29 was originally a Phoenican
hymn. This was substantiated by Gaster 1946-47; Cross 1950; Freedman 1972.
74. Dahood 1962; 1966-70; 1968; and numerous articles in 1972-81. For a recent
critique of Dahood's comparisons, see Loretz 1972; 1987; 1990b; Talmon 1978b;
Schroer 1980; Caquot 1988; Curtis 1994; and Barr 1994.
resulted,75 primarily because of the large Claremont project directed by L.

Fisher (Fisher et al. 1972-81) and the large amount of works by Dietrich
and Loretz.76
The past 30 years has seen a reasoned analysis of comparisons in many
areas.77 Craigie has argued that the literary comparisons of Ugarit and
Israel are flawed since the two traditions used different literary forms
(Fisher and Knutson 1969; Craigie 1971). Others have argued against the
comparative school of Dahood (Stuart 1976). Still, comparative analysis of
poetic imagery (e.g. Watson 1976; Cross 1973: 112-44; Craigie 1974;
1978), parallel word pairs (Cassuto 1971: 25-32), and poetic meter con-
tinue (Gibson 1978:140; Loretz and Kottsieper 1987). J. Barr (1968) has
urged caution for the use of Ugaritic to establish new etymologies for
Hebrew. Others have argued a connection of feudalism in Ugarit and in
the Bible (see Gray 1952). There have been many comparisons of Ugaritic
and Hebrew religion, most of which emphasized the undeniable contrasts
between the two, but later studies have shown a continuity between
them.78 Hebrew Poetry and Ugaritic connections have been studied by
Albright (1944) and his students.79 At any rate, the recent works on Ugarit
and the Bible are numerous.80
Mori
Mari is a prime example of the need of caution of the use of the com-
parative method, since interesting comparisons can often lead to shallow
or extreme conclusions. Both W.F. Albright (1956:256) and A. Parrot, the
great excavator of Mari (the son of a Lutheran minister and devout in his
own right), succumbed to making direct but ultimately unconvincing
connections between the Mari population and the Patriarchs, and the tribe
75. Criticized by de Moor and van der Lugt 1974; Craigie 1977b; Donner 1967;
and Held 1974.
76. Ugarit Forschungen and Alter Orient undAltes Testament.
77. For a comparison of the literary relationships, see Craigie 1971; and Healey
1984.
78. Kaiser 1962; Habel 1964; Clifford 1972; Schmidt 1966; Miller 1973; Albright
1968; van der Toorn 1991; L'Heureux 1974; de Moor and Sandars 1991.
79. Cross and Freedman 1948; 1950; Cross 1955; 1968; 1973; Freedman 1976; and
Robertson 1972.
80. Curtis 1985; Craigie 1983; Brooke, Curtis and Healey 1994; Pope 1994; and
Petersen 1998. A recent ASORPlenary Session in Orlando, Florida (18 November 1998)
featured A.R. Millard and D. Pardee speaking on the subject of 'Ugarit and the Bible'.
Benjamin, in particular.81 Parrot, however, did revitalize biblical arche-

ology for the French-speaking public in a way not seen since Botta.
Since the commencement of the publication of Man texts after World
War II, and because of the connection of Man being in the reputed home-
land of the patriarchs (Gibson 1962; Mathews 1981; 1986), there have
been numerous examples of comparative research in the field of personal
names (e.g. Jean 1954), tribal organization (Malamat 1962; 1968), rituals
(Speiser 1958), and other various Israelite customs (Gazelles 1967; Mala-
mat 1973). One of the most discussed comparisons are the Man prophetic
texts.82 However, E. Noort has argued that the relationship between the
two prophetic traditions is ambiguous at best.83 But the Israelite and Mari
material need to be seen as two separate corpora, even if similar (Malamat
1989:27-29). He advocates a typological or phenomoenological method.
Efforts should be concentrated on examining typical phenomena, seeking
out common sets of concepts and practices and institutions. One must not
forget the immense chronological gap between the two corpora. When
such similarities are seen in aggregate, they cannot simply be seen as
representing common patterns of human nature.84 Proper comparisons also
involve the contrasting approach. The very nature of the source material is
fundamentally different, as the Mari texts are first hand daily material,
while the biblical text has been processed, and composed later than its
events (see Malamat 1983). As with Ugarit, there are many current studies
on the relationship of Mari and the Bible.85
Alalakh
When Woolley began working at Alalakh in 1937, he was interested in
finding evidence of cultural connections between Syria and the eastern
Mediterranean area.86 Though not directly related to the Bible, the Alalakh
81. Parrot 1950; 1954; 1962; 1967. Mari had been a site of major concern for bibli-
cal scholars soon after the commencement of the excavations; see Bea 1940.
82. Among the more recent are: Schult 1966; Huffrnon 1968; Buss 1969; Moran
1969; Ross 1970; Craghan 1975; Ellermeier 1977; Schmitt 1982; Sasson 1983; Mala-
mat 1987; Parker 1993; and Barstad 1993.
83. Noort 1977; and the review by Sasson 1980.
84. On the comparative approach, see Gelb 1980; Millard 1983; and Lemaire 1985.
85. See the 'Table ronde sur Mari et la Bible', in RA 92.1-2 (1998) and 93.1
(1999); and Malamat 1998.
86. The excavations were from 1937-39 and 1946-^9; see Woolley 1955, and a
more popular account, Woolley 1953.
material has been considered to shed light on the greater Syro-Palestinian

context of the Bible (see Tsevat 1958). The ubiquitous Habiru have also
been found there, but are viewed as an important mercenary class in the
Alalakh texts. This term, of course, has been compared to the biblical term
Hebrew on many occasions.87 Moreover, some Assyriologists have argued
that the biographical inscription of Idrimi appears to anticipate the bio-
graphical stories of Joseph and David (Oppenheim 1955; Buccellati 1962),
and has even been compared to the Jepthah story in Judges 11,88 At any
rate, the Alalakh material has been considered a valuable source of com-
parative (and contrastive) material (see Wiseman 1967). Like Nuzi, the
customs (e.g. marriage contracts) at Alalakh have been compared to the
Patriarchal periods, although it is admitted that the parallels from Alalakh
are less clear (Hess 1994:204). Certainly the connection of Alalakh hupsu
('poor') with Hebrew hopsi ('poor') is vague at best (Hess 1994: 208-
209). As with Nuzi, J. Van Seters has rejected the Alalakh comparisons
with the Patriarchal narratives (Van Seters 1975:100-103). R. Hess in this
volume argues that the cumulative weight of comparisons with the Bible
shows a common cultural milieu for both. He argues that we need to view
Alalakh comparisons on a case by case basis (Hess 1994: 199-215).
Ebla
No Syro-Mesopotamian site in recent memory has appealed to the reli-
gious sensibilities of those interested in biblical studies more than Tell
Mardikh/Ebla.89 The Italians under, P. Matthiae, labored there for over 12
years before they uncovered a large cache of cuneiform tablets in the room
of a palace (1974-76).90 The epigrapher G. Pettinato (1980) called the
script used there 'proto-Canaanite', a potential ancestor to biblical Hebrew.
For the next five years many exceptional and unsubstantiated claims were
made about the significance of the Ebla texts and their relationship to the
Bible, many of which came from those who had nevej seen the texts, or
were not familiar with cuneiform. Nonetheless, there was also much
87. There are numerous studies concerning the Habiru; Bottero 1954; Greenberg
1955; Loretz 1984a; and Na'aman 1986.
88. Greenstein and Marcus 1976:76-77. At any rate, the Alalakh material has been
considered a valuable source of comparative (and contrastive) material.
89. For an overview of the controversies of Ebla and the Bible to 1979, see
Bermant and Weitzman 1979.
90. General works on Ebla include, Matthiae 1981; and Pettinato 1981.
speculation among the scholarly world (Pettinato 1976; 1980; Freedman

1978). D.N. Freedman made his conclusions about the earlier historical
context for the biblical patriarchs based upon unpublished Ebla tablets,
which were preliminarily read by M. Dahood and Pettinato.91 Dahood
made many preliminary statements concerning the connection between
Ugaritic forms and Eblaite (e.g. the fact that Ebla sheds light on the Minor
Prophets).92 The present consensus is that Ebla has no bearing on the
Minor Prophets, the historical accuracy of the biblical Patriarchs, Yahweh
worship, or Sodom and Gomorrah (see Merrill 1983). Many of these
preliminary analyses came into the popular press as truth, and thus great
amounts of misinformation leaked to the public.93
The second epigrapher, A. Archi spent some effort in refuting many of
the premises of Dahood and Pettinato, ignoring most of the sensational-
ism, primarily from the American press (Archi 1979; 1981). He argued
that the supposed evidence for Yahweh at Ebla was questionable and
ambiguous, and that the kings of Ebla were not anointed like the kings of
Israel (contra Pettinato 1977), the function of Eblaite judges does not
appear to be like that of Israel, there is no Genesis creation story (Pettinato
1977:231 -32), and Ebla place names do not easily correspond to the Bible
names or the 'cities of the plain'.94 The Eblaite connections with the
Hebrew language are unclear.95
The excitement concerning the Ebla material has somewhat died down.
In Pettinato's more recent works there is still a discussion concerning
biblical connections, primarily in the field of geography (Pettinato 1991:
179-80; Hallo 1992). The trend has been to exhibit the fact that Ebla has
an importance all of its own as an incipient Old Syrian civilization at the
advent of urbanism. Thus, in the past 15 years, only a miniscule amount of
effort has been put to comparisons of Ebla and the Bible, compared to the
large amount of work on the civilization of Ebla itself. This is preferable.96
91. Dahood and Pettinato 1982 (a large bibliography of newspaper and popular
articles was compiled by M. O'Connor: 331-35); Dahood 1978; 1979; 1981a; 1982;
1984; and 1987.
92. Dahood 1983a; and Shea 1983. Greenfield (1988) argues that a little restraint
would have stopped some of these extraordinary theories.
93. With the help of H. Shanks, editor of BARev.
94. Echoed by Biggs 1980.
95. Dahood 1978: 81-112. For a reasoned view of Ebla in its Palestinian context,
see Vigano and Pardee 1984.
96. See for language, Dahood 1982; 1984; Miiller 1984; Baldacci 1987; Althann
1983. For religion, see Dahood 1981b; 1983b; Muller 1981; and Loretz 1984b.
Emar
Although it has not had the publicity of either Ebla, Man, or for that
matter Ugarit, the texts of Emar may shed more light on biblical customs
than do the other textual corpora. Emar is physically closer to Israel than
any of the others. Emar was fated to be in the background of the Ebla
controversies of the late 1970s and 1980s. The construction of the Tabqa
Dam in Syria caused the Middle Euphrates site of Emar to be regarded as
a salvage project, commenced by a French team in 1972 (see Margueron
1995). Six seasons of work were sandwiched into five years (1972-76; see
Pitard 1996: 14). Nearly 2000 texts were found, most of which were
published a decade later by D. Arnaud (1985-86). Thus, the excitement
surrounding the other textual corpora has been slow in coming with Emar.
The research concerning Emar and biblical studies has thus far been
reasoned and tentative (see, e.g., Arnaud 1979; 1981; Tsukimoto 1989;
Fleming 1995). This, however, in light of past experience, is likely to
change. Emar was evidently not ever a great kingdom in its own right. The
site of Imar was mentioned in both the Ebla and Man archives, and later
became a Hittite protectorate in the Late Bronze Age. The relationship of
Emar to biblical studies is, as D. Fleming says in this volume, most
striking in the religious sphere. The concept of anointing is found at Emar,
as the NIN.DINGER priestess is anointed on the first day of the festival
(Fleming 1992). The Emar festivals have various requirements that may be
compared to the Levitical regulations (Fleming 1995: 144), and the
elements of the biblical festival system have some correspondence to the
zukru calendar (Fleming 1995: 144; and his essay in this volume, see
below). Emar also has the prophetic office ofnabu, already well known at
Man (Fleming 1995: 145). Others have argued that the Emar inheritance
texts bear a resemblance to the Nuzi material, and thus to Genesis 31 (see
Huehnergard 1985), while still others claim that Emar 'provides an
empirical model for the Mesopotamian textual tradition, exemplifying the
possibilities of transmission to Iron Age Israel' (Hoskisson 1991:21-32).
B. Schmidt has recognized connections concerning the care of the dead at
Emar and Israel (Schmidt 1992). Fleming concludes that Emar's mixed
urban and small-town Syrian communal life offers a closer social
comparison for Israel that even Ugarit (Fleming 1995: 147). At any rate,
Emar's indigenous ritual texts represent a unique source of understanding
ancient Syrian religions, with texts that are distinct from the Ugaritic
corpus.
Synthesis
The tendency in the last 30 years has been to overemphasize the impor-
tance of new discoveries to the Old Testament, and then when the flaws
become obvious, approach comparative data from the standpoint of skepti-
cism, causing many to completely ignore comparative material altogether
(Roberts 1985:96). Scholars have had difficulty between 'paralellomania'
and isolating the culture in question. The comparative method has been
attacked as a form of'pseudorthodoxzy'.97 One scholar who has attempted
the middle ground between the comparative and contrastive methods is
W.W. Hallo, who espouses a contextual method, which emphasizes both
similarities (comparative) and differences (contrastive), also looking for
diachronic and synchronic variations.98 Hallo's goal, 'is not to find the key
to every biblical phenomenon in some ancient Near Eastern precedent, but
rather to silhouette the biblical text against its wider literary and cultural
environment' (Hallo 1991: 24). Thus, we must not succumb either to
'parallelomania'99 or to 'parallellophobia'.100
Since World War II there has been an explosion of comparative studies
of Israel and Mesopotamia from scholars of both fields. There have been a
number of collections of primary source materials from the ancient Near
East and their relationships to the Bible.101 The primary English volumes
were compiled by J. Pritchard and others.102 Other works include general
studies (Miiller 1991), literature,103 pictoral studies (Keel 1974; 1977;
97. M. Smith 1969 and even advocating a 'contrasting' method; Hallo 1977 but see
the caveat by Roberts 1976.
98. Apparently first coined by Parker (1979-80) who emphasizes both simi larities
(comparative) and differences (contrastive), also looking for diachronic and synchronic
variations (Hallo 1980). Hallo has led four National Endowment for the Humanities
Summer Seminars which have had this as its primary theme: SIC 1; SIC 2; SIC 3; SIC
4. See the review of S7C 1 by Pardee 1985; also see van der loom 1985.
99. Sandmel (1962) describes it as 'that extravagance among scholars which first
overdoes Hie supposed similarity in passages and then proceeds to describe source and
derivation as if implying literary connection flowing in an inevitable or predetermined
direction', p. 1.
100. See the discussion of Ratner and Zuckerman 1986.
101. Since the publication of Winckler 1892; Gressman 1909; and Galling 1950.
102. Since 1945, see, DOTT; ANET; Beyerlin 1978; COS; and Matthews and
Benjamin 1997.
103. Lambert 1954; Kramer 1959; Lowenstam 1980; Soil 1988; Walton 1989; and
Gordon and Rendsberg 1997.
1978), women (Frymer-Kensky 1989; 1992; van derToorn 1994), sacrifice

(Hallo 1987), religion,104 prophecy (H. Weippert 1985; Millard 1985),
cosmology (Heidel 1946; 1951; Lambert 1965; Saggs 1978), law,105
treaties,106 hymns and psalms,107 wisdom,108 death and the afterlife (Lewis
1989; Tropper 1989; 1994), genealogies (Malamat 1968; Wilson 1977),
and historical literature (Speiser 1957; Albrektson 1967; Younger 1990;
and various contributions in FTH).
Many have viewed the past century and a half of relations of Meso-
potamia and the Bible to be cyclical in nature.109 Typically, there was a
furor because of the announcement of a rumor that a large archive was
found that had the potential of verifying the biblical text. Often, unverified
statements were made by conservative Old Testament scholars who were
concerned about the historicity of the text (which is not to say that the
subject of historicity has no place in biblical studies). Of course, the
publication of a selected portion of an archive causes excitement because
of the supposed biblical parallels. However, the publication of a larger
corpus permits the more precise contexts for many of these parallels, but
the Assyriologist then shows the uniqueness of the area in question. The
philologist begins to show that the linguistic parallels are superficial. It
often takes time for the biblical scholar interested in parallels to appreciate
the Assyriologist's contributions. J. Sasson has promoted some goals that
should be set forth before making biblical connections; what are the
104. de Fraine 1954; Draffkorn 1957; de Jonge 1959; Moran 1965; Gamper 1966;
Weippert 1972; McKay 1973; Cogan 1974; Wright 1987; Gammie and Perdue 1990;
Dietrich and Loretz 1992; Bottero 1993b; and van der Toorn 1997.
105. Szlechter 1954; Mendenhall 1954; Greenberg 1960; Yaron 1970; Paul 1970;
Lambert 1972; Boecker 1980; van der Toorn 1985; Westbrook 1985; and Epstein
1986.
106. Other than Mendenhall (1955), most biblical scholars have either ignored or
paid scant attention to Wiseman's publication of the vassal treaties of Esarhaddon
(Wiseman 1958). Mendenhall wrote before their discovery. This is in spite of the fact
that Assyriologists have shown stark similarities between the treaties and Deut. 28
(Borger 1961; and Frankena 1965). See Fensham 1962; 1963b; Killers 1964; 1969;
Weinfeld 1970; 1973; and McCarthy 1978.
107. A few works were devoted to this before World War II, e.g., Driver 1926; and
Widengren 1936. More recent works include Dalglish 1962; Hallo 1968; Gerstenberger
1971; and Ferris 1992.
108. Noth and Winton Thomas 1955; Gray 1970; Cooper 1971; Sasson 1973;
Waltke 1979; and Weinfeld 1988.
109. Sasson 1980: 128-30. Much of the remainder of the paragraph comes from
Sasson, and Greenspahn 1991: 6.
differences in contexts? Are the texts in question the same literary genre?
Is etymological kinship always useful in helping to make comparisons
(Sasson 1980: 129)?
I end this survey with an admonition from a prominent Assyriologist:
We shall always have with us the third- and fourth-hand popularizers who
will pound and mash significant additions to the fund of knowledge into an
amorphous and misleading pabulum for the consumption of the semi-
literate. The field of biblical history and archeology has had more than its
fair share of treatment. But it is quite another thing for reputed scholars in
the field to lend their own prestige and authority to similar endeavors... I
believe that the first responsibility of such scholars after the requirements of
their own researches is to inform the truly literate portion of the general
public... of the very substantial gains made in recent decades toward our
understanding of the Bible, and the world of which it was a part. And this
must be done in a way that can inspire the confidence of the educated lay
public in the methods and critical standards of biblical scholarship
(Finkelstein 1958: 349).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adler, C.
1887 'Review of Les Langues perdues de la perse et de I'Assyrie', Andover
Review 8: 44.
Albrektson, B.
1967 History and the Gods (Lund: C. W.K. Gleerup).
Albright, W.F.
1915 'The Conclusion of Esarhaddon's Broken Prism', JAOS 35: 391-93.
1916a 'The Assyrian Deluge Epic' (PhD dissertation, The Johns Hopkins Uni-
versity).
1916b 'The Eighth Campaign of Sargon', JAOS36: 226-32.
1944 'The Oracles of Balaam, JBL 63: 207-33.
1956 The Archaeology of Palestine (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books).
1961 'Abram the Hebrew: A New Archaeological Interpretation', BASOR 163:
36-54.
1966 New Horizons in Biblical Research (London: Oxford University Press).
1968 Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan (Garden City, NY: Doubleday).
Althann, R.
1983 'Psalms 58,10 in the Light of Ebla', Bib 64: 123-25.
Archi, A.
1979 'The Epigraphic Evidence from Ebla and the Old Testament', Bib 60: 556-
66.
1981 'Further Concerning Ebla and the Bible', BA 44: 145-54.
Arnaud, D.
1979 'Meskene-Emar et 1'Ancien Testament', RHR 116-19.
1981 'La religion a Emar', Le Monde de la Bible 20: 34.

1985-86 Recherches au pays d'Astata: Emar VI (Paris: Editions Recherche sur les
Civilisations).
Baldacci, M.
1987 'The Eblaite PN ish-ta-mar dda-gan and Micah 6,16a', AO 5: 144-46.
Barker, K.
1976 'The Value of Ugaritic for Old Testament Studies', BSac 133: 119-30.
Barnett, R.
1960 'Canning and Cuneiform: A Century of Assyriology', The Museum Journal
60.8: 192-200.
Barr, J.
1968 Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament (Oxford:
Clarendon Press).
1987 Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament (Winona Lake,
IN: Eisenbrauns, 2nd edn).
1994 'Philology and Exegesis: Some General Remarks, with Illustrations from Job
3', in C. Brekelmans (ed.), Questions disputees d'Ancien Testament
(Leuven: Leuven University Press): 39-61.
Barstad, H.
1993 'No Prophets? Recent Developments in Biblical Prophetic Research and
Ancient Near Eastern Prophecy', JSOT 57: 39-60.
Barton, G.
1916 Archeology and the Bible (Philadelphia: American Sunday-School Union).
Baumgartner, W.
1938 'Ras Shamra Mythologie und biblische Theolgie', TLZ 63: 153-56.
1940 'Ras Schamra und das Alte Testament', TRu 12: 163-88.
1941 'Ras Schamra und das Alte Testament', TRu 13: 1-20, 85-102.
1947 'Ugaritische Probleme und ihre Tragwiete fur das Alte Testament', 7Z3: 81-
100.
Bea, A.
1940 'Die Texte von Mari und das Alte Testament', Bib 21:188-96.
Bermant, C., and M. Weitzman
1979 Ebla: A Revelation in Archeology (New York: Times Books).
Beyerlin, W. (ed.)
1978 Near Eastern Religious Texts Relating to the Old Testament (trans. J. Bowden;
Philadelphia: Westminster Press).
Biggs, R.
1980 'The Ebla Tablets: an Interim Perspective', BA 43: 76-87.
Bishop, M.
1962 A History of Cornell (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press).
Boecker, H.
1980 Law and the Administration of Justice in the Old Testament and Ancient
East (London: SPCK; trans. ofRecht und Gesetz im Altes Testament und in
altes Orient, 1976).
Bonkamp, B.
1939 Die Bibel im Lichte der Keilschriftforschung (Recklinghausen: G.W.
Wisarius).
Bonomi, J.
1852 Nineveh and its Palaces: The Discoveries ofBotta and Layard, Applied to
the Elucidating of Holy Writ (London: Office of the Illustrated London
Library).
1869 Nineveh and its Palaces: The Discoveries ofBotta and Layard, applied to
the Elucidation of Holy Writ (London: Bell & Daldy, 2nd edn).
Borger, R.
1961 'Zu den Asarhaddon-Vertragen aus Nimrud', ZA 54: 173-%.
Boscawen, W.
1903 The First of Empires: Babylon and the Bible in the Light of Latest Research
(London: Harper).
Botta, P.E.
1843-44 Lettres sur ses decouvertes a Nineve (Paris: Imprimerie Royale).
Botta, P.E., and M.E. Flandin
1849-50 Monument de Ninive (5 vols.; Paris: Imprimerie Nationale).
Bottero, J.
1954 Le probleme des Habiru (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale).
1986-92 Naissance de Dieu: La Bible et I'historien (Paris: Gallimard).
1992 Mesopotamia: Writing, Reasoning, and the Gods (trans. Z. Bahrani and M.
van de Mieroop; Chicago: University of Chicago Press).
1993a Initiation a I 'Orient ancient: De Sumer a la Bible (Paris: Gallimard).
1993b 'Le modele babylonien de la Genese biblique', L 'Histoire 164: 14-22.
1994 Babylone et la Bible: entriens avec Helene Monsacre (Paris: Hachette).
Brooke, G.J., A.H.W. Curtis and J.F. Healey (eds.)
1994 UB.
Brown, F.
1888-89 'Semitic Studies in the Theological Seminary', Hebraica 5: 86-88.
1891 Assyriology: Its Use and Abuse in Old Testament Study (New York: Charles
Scribner's Sons).
1896 'Old Testament Problems', JBL 15: 67.
1909 'Semitic Studies in America', Johns Hopkins University Circular 3:240-59.
Buccellati, G.
1962 'La "camera" di David e quella di Idrimi, re di Alalah', BeO 4: 95-99.
Budge, E.A.
1925 The Rise and Progress of Assyriology (London: Martin Hopkinson & Co.,
Ltd).
Burrows, M.
1937 The Complaint of Laban's Daughters', JAOS 57: 259-76.
1940 'The Ancient Oriental Background of the Hebrew Levirate Marriage',
BASOR11: 1-15.
Buss, M.
1969 'Mari Prophecy and Hosea', JBL 88: 338.
Caquot, A.
1988 'PsaumeLXXII 16', VT38: 214-18.
Carter, E.
1977 'The Babylonian Story of the Flood: An Archaeological Interpretation',
Bibliotheca Mesopotamia 1: 9-15.
Cassuto, U.
1971 The Goddess Anath: Canaanite Epics of the Patriarchal Age (Jerusalem:
Magnes Press).
Castellino, G.
1940 Le lamentazioni indiviuali e gli inni in Babilonia e in Israele (Torino:
Societa Editrice Internazionale).
Gazelles, H.
1967 'Mari et 1'ancien Testament', La civilisation de Mari (RAI 15; Liege: G.
Miegiers): 73-90.
1985 'Ugarit et la Bible', BAT 1985: 244-47.
Chadwick, O.
1966 The Victorian Church (London: A. & C. Black).
Chiera, E.
1932-33 'Habiru and Hebrews', American Journal of Semitic Languages 49:115-24.
Clark, W.M.
1977 'The Patriarchal Traditions', in J. Hayes and J.M. Miller (eds.), Israelite and
Judean History (Philadelphia: Westminster Press): 120-48.
Clay, A.T.
1890 Amurru: The Home of the Northern Semites: A Study Showing that the
Religion and Culture of Israel were not of Babylonian Origin (Philadelphia:
Sunday School Times).
1915 Light on the Old Testament from Babylon (Philadelphia: The Sunday School
Times Co., 4th edn).
1922 A Hebrew Deluge Story in Cuneiform and Other Epic Fragments in the
Pierpont Morgan Library (YOS, 3/V; New Haven: Yale University Press).
Clifford, R.
1972 The Cosmic Mountain in Canaan and the Old Testament (Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press).
Cogan, M.
1974 Imperialism and Religion: Assyria, Judah, and Israel in the Eighth and
Seventh Centuries B.C.E. (Missoula: Scholars Press).
Cook, S.A.
1904 The Laws of Moses and the Code of Hammurabi (New York: Macmillan,
1904).
Cooper, J.
1971 New Cuneiform Parallels to the Song of Songs', JBL 90: 157-62.
Coppens, J.
1946 'Les paralleles du Psautier avec les textes de Ras Shamra-Ougarit', Bulletin
d'histoire et d'exegesis de ATI 8: 113-42.
Craghan, J.
1975 'Mari and its Prophets: The Contributions of Mari to the Understanding of
Biblical Prophecy', BTB 5: 32-55.
Craigie, P.C.
1971 "The Poetry of Ugarit and Israel', TynBul 22: 3-31.
1972 'Psalm XXIX in the Hebrew Poetic Tradition', FT 22: 143-51.
1974 "The Comparison of Hebrew Poetry: Psalm 104 in the Light of Egyptian and
Ugaritic Poetry', Semitics 4: 10-21.
1977a 'Deuteronomy and Ugaritic Studies', TynBul 28: 155-69.
1977b 'Three Ugaritic notes on the Song of Deborah', JSOT2: 33-49.

1978 'Deborah and Anat, A Study of Poetic Imagery (Judges 5)', ZA W 90: 374-
81.
1979a 'Ugarit and the Bible: Progress and Regress in 50 Years of Literary Study',
in G.D. Young (ed.), Ugarit in Retrospect: Fifty Years of Ugarit and
Ugaritic (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns): 99-111.
1979b 'Parallel Word Pairs in Ugaritic Poetry: A Critical Evaluation of their
Relevance for Psalm 29', UF 11: 135-40.
1983 Ugarit and the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).
Cross, P.M.
1950 'Notes on a Canaanite Psalm in the Old Testament', BASOR 117:19-21.
1955 'The Song of Miriam', JNES 14: 237-50.
1968 'Song of the Sea and Canaanite Myth', JTS 5: 1-25.
1973 Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic (Cambridge: Harvard University Press).
Cross, P.M., and D.N. Freedman
1948 'The Blessing of Moses', JBL 67: 191-210.
1950 Studies in Ancient Yahwistic Poetry (Missoula: Scholars Press).
Curtis, A.H.W.
1985 Ugarit: Ras Shamra (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).
1994 The Psalms since Dahood', UB: 1-10.
Dahood, M.
1962 'Ugaritic Studies and the Bible', Gregorianum 43: 55-79.
1989 Ugaritic-Hebrew Philology: Marginal Notes on Recent Publications (Rome:
Biblical Institute Press).
1966-70 The Psalms (3 vols.; Garden City, NY: Doubleday).
1968 Ugaritic and the Bible (Paris: Desclee de Brouwer).
1975-81 in L. Fisher, et al., RSP, 1975-81.
1978 'Ebla: Ugarit, and the Old Testament', in J.A. Emerton (ed.), Congress
Volume: Gottingen, /977(VTSup, 29; Leiden: EJ. Brill): 81-112.
1979 'The Ebla Tablets and Old Testament Theology', Theology Digest 27: 303-
11.
198 la 'Ebla, Ugarit, and the Bible', in G. Pettinato, The Archives of Ebla: An
Empire Inscribed on Clay (Garden City, NY: Doubleday): 81-121.
1981b 'The God JA at Ebla', JBL 100: 607-608.
1982 'Eblaite and Biblical Hebrew', CBQ 44: 1-24.
1983a 'The Minor Prophets and Ebla', in Studies Freedman: 41-61.
1983b 'The Divine Designation <hu> in Eblaite and the Old Testament', AION43:
193-99.
1984 'Hebrew Hapax Legomena in Eblaite', in L. Cagni (ed.), // bilinguisimo a
Ebla (Naples: Istituo Universitario Orientale): 439-70.
1987 ' Love and Death at Ebla and their Biblical Reflections', Studies Pope: 93-99.
Dahood, M., and G. Pettinato
1982 'Ebla and the Old Testament', in T. Ishida (ed.), Studies in the Period of
David and Solomon and Other Essays (Winona Lake, IN: Eiseubrauns): 309-
35 (bibliography by M. O'Connor, pp. 331-35).
Dalglish, E.
1962 Psalm Fifty-One in the Light of Ancient Near Eastern Patternism (Leiden:
E.J. Brill).
Davies, A.T.
1975 'The Aryan Christ: A Motif in Christian Anti-Semitism' Journal of
Ecumenical Studies 12: 569-79.
Davis, A.
1852 Lecture on the Remarkable Discoveries Lately made in the East: as those of
Nineveh, Persia, etc. (Buffalo: Phiriney).
Delano, J.
1985 'The "Exegesis" of Enuma Elish and Genesis 1—1875-1975: A Study in
Interpretation' (PhD dissertation, Marquette University).
Delitzsch, F.
1881 Wo Lag das Parodies? eine biblisch-assyriologisch Studie (Leipzig:
J.C.Hinrichs).
1902 Babel und Bibel (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs; trans. Babel and Bible [Chicago:
The Open Court Publishing Co.]).
1906 Babel and Bible: Three Lectures on the Significance of Assyriological
Research for Religion, Embodying the Most Important Criticisms and the
Author's Replies (Chicago: The Open Court Publishing Co.).
1920 Die Grosse Tauschung, I (Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt).
1921 Die Grosse Tauschung, II (Wurttemberg: Karl Rohm in Lorch).
Dietrich, M., and O. Loretz
1992 'Jawhe und seine Aschera': Anthropomorphes Kultbild in Mesopotamien,
Ugarit und Israel. Das biblische Bildverbot (Munster: Ugarit-Verlag).
Donner, H.
1967 'Ugaritismen in der Psalmenforschung', ZAW79: 322-50.
Draffkorn, A.
1957 'Ilani-Elohim', JBL 76: 341-49.
Driver, G.R.
1926 'The Psalms in the Light of Babylonian Research', in D.C. Simpson (ed.),
The Psalmists (Oxford: Oxford University Press): 109-73.
Driver, S.R.
1904 The Book of Genesis (London: Metheun).
1909 Modern Research as Illustrating the Bible (London: Oxford University
Press).
Dussaud, R.
1937 Les decouvertes de Ras Shamra (Ugarit) et I'Ancien Testament (Paris: P.
Geuthner; revised 1941).
Ebach, J.
1986 'Babel und Bibel oder: Das "Heidenische im Alten Testament"', in R.
Farber and R. Schleisier (eds.), Die Restauration der Cotter: Antike Religion
und Neo-Paganismus (Wurzburg: Konigshausen & Neumann): 26-44.
Eerdmans, B.D.
1891 Melekdienst en vereringvan hemellischamen in Israel's Assyrische periode
(Leiden: Eduard Ijdo).
Eichler, B.
1989 'Nuzi and the Bible: A Retrospective', in Studies Sjoberg: 107-19.
Ellermeier, F.
1977 Prophetie in Mart und Israel (GSttingen: Norten-Hardenberg; 2nd edn).
Epstein, L.
1986 SocialJustice in the Ancient Near East and the People of the Bible (London:
SCM Press; trans, of La justice sociale dans le Proche-Orient ancient et le
peuple de la Bible).
Ermoni, N.
1910 La Bible et I'assyriologie (Paris: Bloud, 1910).
Fensham, F.C.
1962 'Malediction and Benediction in Ancient Near Eastern Vassal Treaties and
the Old Testament', ZAW14: 1-9.
1963a 'Psalm 29 and Ugarit', Studies on the Psalms (Potchefstroom: Pro Rege):
84-99.
1963b 'Common Trends in Curses of the Near Eastern Treaties and Kudurru
Inscriptions Compared with Maledictions of Amos and Isaiah', ZAW15:
155-75.
Ferris, P.W.
1992 The Genre of Communal Lament in the Bible and the Ancient Near East
(Atlanta: Scholars Press).
Finkelstien, J.J.
1958 'Bible and Babel: A Comparative Study of the Hebrew and Babylonian
Religious Spirit', Commentary 26: 431-44.
Fisher, L., and F.B. Knutson
1969 'An Enthronement Ritual at Ugarit', JNES 28: 157-67.
Fisher, L., and S. Rummel (eds.)
1975-81 RSP.
Fleming, D.
1992 The Installation of the Baal's High Priestess at Emar: A Window on Syrian
Religion (Atlanta: Scholars Press).
1995 'More Help from Syria: Introducing Emar to Biblical Study', BA 58:139-47.
Fontan, E. (ed.)
1994 De Khorsabad a Paris: le decouvertes des Assyriens (Paris: Reunion des
Mus6es Nationaux).
Fraine, J. de
1954 L 'aspect religieux de la royaute Israelite: L 'institution monarchique dans
I'Ancien Testament et dans les textes mesopotamiens (Rome: Pontifical
Biblical Institute).
Frankena, H.
1965 'The Vassal-Treaties of Esarhaddon and the Dating of Deuteronomy', OTS
14: 122-54.
Freedman, D.N.
1970 'A New Approach to the Nuzi Sisterhood Contract', JANESCU2: 77-85.
1972 'Psalm XXIX in the Hebrew Poetic Tradition', VT22: 144-45.
1976 'Divine Names and Titles in Early Hebrew Poetry', Studies Wright: 55-102.
1978 'The Real Story of the Ebla Tablets: Ebla and the Cities of the Plain', BA 41:
143-64.
Frymer-Kensky, T.
1992 In the Wake of the Goddesses: Women, Culture, and the Biblical Trans-
formation of Pagan Myth (New York: Fawcett Columbine).
1989 'The Ideology of Gender in the Bible and the Ancient Near East', Studies
Sjoberg: 185-91.
Galling, K.
1950 Textbuch zur Geschichte Israels (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr).
Gammie, J., and L. Perdue (eds.)
1990 The Sage in Israel and the Ancient Near East (Winona Lake, IN: Eisen-
brauns).
Gamper, A.
1966 Gott als Richter in Mesopotamien undin Alten Testament: zum Verstdndnis
einer Gebsbirte (Innsbruck: UniversitStsverlag Wagner).
Gaster, T.
1946-47 'Psalm 29', JQR 37: 55-65.
Gelb, I.J.
1980 'Comparative Method in the Study of the Society and Economy of the
Ancient Near East', Rocznik Orientalistyczny 41: 29-36.
Gerstenberger, E.
1971 Der bittende Mensch: Bittritual und Klageleid des Einzelnen im alten
Testament (Heidelberg: Habil-Schrift).
Gibson, J.C.L.
1962 'Light from Mari on the Patriarchs', JSS 8: 44-62.
1978 Canaanite Myths and Legends (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 2nd edn).
Ginsberg, H.
1938 'A Phoenician Hymn in the Psalter', Atti delXIXCongresso Internazionale
degli Orientalisti, 23-29 Settembre, 1935 (Rome: G. Bardi): 472-76.
Ginsberg, H., and B. Maisler
1933 'Semitized Hurrians in Syria and Palestine', JPOS 13: 243-67.
Ginsberg, J.
1945 'Ugaritic Studies and the Bible', BA 8: 41-58.
Gordon, C.H.
1935a 'A New Akkadian Parallel to Deuteronomy 25.1-12', JPOS 15: 29-34.
1935b ' 'Mm in its Reputed Meaning of Rulers, Judges', JBL 54: 139-44.
1935c 'Fratriarchy in the Old Testament', JBL 54: 223-31.
1935d 'Parallels nouziens aux lois et coutumes de 1'Ancien Testament', RB 44:
34-41.
1936 'An Akkadian Parallel to Deuteronomy 21.Iff', RA 33: 1-6.
1937 'The Story of Jacob and Laban in the Light of the Nuzi Tablets', BASOR 66:
25-27.
1940 'Biblical Customs and the Nuzi Tablets', BA 3: 1 -12.
Gordon, C.H., and G. Rendsberg
1997 The Bible and the Ancient Near East (New York: W.W. Norton & Co.,
4th edn).
Gray, J.
1952 'Feudalism in Ugarit and Early Israel', ZA W64: 49-55.
1957 The Legacy of Canaan (VTSup, 5; Leiden: E.J. Brill; 2nd rev. edn 1965).
1970 'The Book of Job in the Context of Ancient Near Eastern Literature', ZAW
82:251-69.
1978 'Canaanite Religion and Old Testament Study in the Light of New Alpha-
betic Texts from Ras Shamra', Ugaritica 1: 79-108.
Grayson, A.K.
1997 'The Resurrection of Ashur: A History of Assyrian Studies', Assyria 1995:
105-14.
Greenberg, M.
1955 The Hab/pint (New Haven: American Oriental Society).
1960 'Some Postulates of Biblical Criminal Law', Studies Kaufmanir. 5-28.
1962 'Another Look at Rachel's Theft of the Teraphim', JBL 81: 239-48.
Greenfield, J.
1988 'Review of Studies Freedman', BASOR 262: 93-94.
Greenslade, S. (ed.)
1963 The Cambridge History of the Bible. III. The West from the Reformation to
the Present Day (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Greenspahn, F.
1991 'Introduction', in F. Greenspahn (ed.), Essential Papers on Israel and the
Ancient Near East (New York: New York University Press): 7-8.
Greenstein, E., and D. Marcus
1976 The Akkadian Inscription of Idrimi', JANESCU 8: 76-77.
Gressman, H.
1924 'Die Aufgabender alttestamentlichen Forschung', ZAW42: 1-33.
Gressman, H. (ed.)
1909 Altorientalische Texte undBilder zum Alien Testament (2 vols.; Berlin: W.
de Gruyter; 2nd edn 1926).
Gunkel, D.
1903 'Babylonische und biblische Urgeschichte', Die Christliche Welt 17:121-34.
Gunkel, H.
1885 Schopfung und Chaos in Urzeit und Endzeit: eine religionsgeschichtliche
Untersuchung iiber Gen. 1 und AP Joh. 12 (G6ttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht).
1904 Israel and Babylon: The Influence of Babylon on the Religion of Israel
(Philadelphia: J. McVey; trans, of Israel und Babylon: der Einfuss
Babylonien aufdie israelitische Religion, 1903).
Habel, N.
1964 Yahweh versus Baal (New York: Brookman Associates).
Hahn, H.
1956 The Old Testament in Modern Research (London: SCM Press).
Hallo, W.W.
1968 'Individual Prayer in Sumerian: The Continuity of a Tradition', JAOS 88:
71-89.
1977 'New Moons and Sabbaths', HUCA 48: 1-2.
1980 'Biblical History in its Near Eastern Setting: The Contextual Approach', SIC
1: 1-26.
1987 'The Origins of the Sacrificial Cult: New Evidence from Mesopotamia and
Israel', in Studies Cross: 3-13.
1991 The Book of the People (Atlanta: Scholars Press).
1992 'Ebrium at Ebla1, Eblaitica 3: 139-50.
1996 Origins: The Ancient Near Eastern Background of Some Modern Western
Institution (Leiden: E.J. Brill).
Harnack, A.
1903 Letter to the Preussiche Jahrbuch on the German Emperor's Criticism of
Prof. Delitzsch's Lectures on Babel und Bibel (London: Williams &
Norgate).
Healey, J.
1984 'The Immortality of the King: Ugarit and the Psalms', Or 53: 245-54.
Hehn, J.
1913 Die biblische und die babylonische Gottesidee (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs).
Heidel, A.
1946 The Gilgamesh Epic and Old Testament Parallels (Chicago: University of
Chicago Press).
1951 The Babylonian Genesis (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).
Held, M.
1974 'Hebrew Ma'gal: A Study in Lexical Parallelism', JANESCU6: 107-14.
Hess, R.S.
1994 ' Alalakh Studies and the Bible: Obstacle or Contribution?', in Studies King:
199-215.
Hillers, D.
1964 Treaty-Curses and the Old Testament Prophets (Rome: Pontifical Biblical
Institute).
1969 Covenant: The History of a Biblical Idea (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins
University Press).
1985 'Analyzing the Abominable: Our Understanding of Canaanite Religion',
JQR 75: 253-69.
Hilprecht, H.V.
1903 Explorations in Bible Lands (Philadelphia: A.J. Holman).
1908 The So-Called Peters-Hilprecht Controversy (Philadelphia: A.J. Holman,
1908).
Hincks, E.
1850 On the Khorsabad Inscriptions (Dublin: H. Gill).
1851 'Assyrian Antiquities', The Athenaeum 1246: 977.
1851 'Nimrud Obelisk', The Athenaeum 1251: 1384-85.
1852 'Nimrud Inscriptions', The Athenaeum 1262: 26.
1853 in Layard, Discoveries in the Ruins of Nineveh and Babylon (London: J.
Murray): 139.
1862a 'Bible, History, and the Rawlinson Canon', The Athenaeum 1810: 20-22.
1862b 'Bible, History, and the Rawlinson Canon', The Athenaeum 1813: 115-16.
Hoefer, J.C.
1852 Chaldee, Assyrie, Medie, Babylonie, Mesopotamie, Phenicie, Palmyrene
(Paris: Firmin Didot Freres).
Hoerth, A., G. Mattingly, and E. Yamauchi (eds.)
1994 POTW.
Hommel, F.
1897 The Ancient Hebrew Traditions as Illustrated by the Monuments: A Protest
Against the Modern School of Old Testament Criticism (New York: E. &
J.B. Young, trans, from German).
1902 Die altorientalischen Denkmdler und das Alte Testament: eine Erwiderung
aufProf.Fr. Delitzsch 's 'Babel und Bibel' (Berlin: Deutsche Orient Mission).
Hoskisson, P.
1991 'Emar as an Empirical Model of the Transmission of the Canon', SIC 4:
21-32.
Huehnergard, J.
1985 'Biblical Notes on Some New Akkadian Texts from Emar (Syria)', CBQ 47:
428-34.
Huffmon, H.
1968 'Prophecy in the Mari Letters', BA 31: 101-24.
1971 ' Yahweh and Mari', in Studies Albright: 283-90.
1987 'Babel und Bibel: The Encounter Between Babylon and the Bible', in M.
O 'Connor and D.N. Freedman (eds.), The Backgrounds for the Bible (Winona
Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns): 125-36.
Jack, J.W.
1935 The Ras Shamra Tablets: Their Bearing on the Old Testament (Edinburgh:
T. & T. Clark).
Jacob, E.
1960 Ras Shamra-Ugaritet I'Ancien Testament (Neuchatel: Delechaux & Niestle).
Jastrow, M.
1914 Hebrew and Babylonian Traditions: The Haskell Lectures Delivered at
Oberlin College in 1913 (London: T. Fisher Unwin).
Jean,C.
1954 'Les noms propres de personnes dans les lettres de Mari et dans les plus
anciens textes du Pentateuque', in La Bible et I'orient: 121-28.
Jensen, P.
1890 Assyrische-babylonische Mythen undEpen (Berlin: Reuther & Reichard).
1902 'Babel und Bible', Die Christliche Welt 16: 487-94.
1906 Das Gilgamesch-Epos in der Weltliteratur (Strassburg: K.J. Trubner).
1924 Gilgamesch-Epos, jiidische Nationalsagen, llias und Odysee (Leipzig: E.
Pfeiffer).
Jeremias, A.
1903 Kampfe urn Babel und Bibel: ein Wort zur Verstandigung und Abwehr
(Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs).
1904 Die Panbabylonisten der alte Orient und die aegyptische Religion (Leipzig:
J.C. Hinrichs).
1906 Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs).
1911 The Old Testament in the Light of the Ancient East (London: Williams &
Norgate; trans, of Das Alte Testament im Lichte des Alten Orients).
Johanning, K.
1988 Der Babel-Bibei-Streit: Eineforschungsgeschichtliche Studie (Frankfurt am
Main: Peter Lang).
Johns, C.H.W.
1914 The Relations between the Laws of Babylonia and the Law of the Hebrew
Peoples (London: H. Milford).
Jonge, H. de
1959 Demonische ziekten in Babylon edde Bijbel (Leiden: E.J. Brill).
Kaiser, O.
1962 Die mythische Bedeutung des Meeres in Aegypten, Ugarit und Israel (Berlin:
Alfred TOpelmann).
Kapelrud, A.
1965 The Ras Shamra Discoveries and the Old Testament (Oxford: Basil Black-
well).
Keel, O.
1974 Wirkmdchtige Siegeszeichen im Alten Testament (GQttingen: Vandenhoeck
& Ruprecht).
1977 Jahwe-Visionen undSiegelkunst (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht).
1978 The Symbolism of the Biblical World (New York: Seabury).
Kidder, D.
1851 Nineveh and the River Tigris (New York: Lane & Scott).
Kildahl, P.
1959 'British and American Reactions to Layard's Discoveries in Assyria (1845-
1860)' (PhD dissertation, University of Minnesota).
Kilmer, A.
1972 'The Mesopotamian Concept of Overpopulation and its Solution as Reflected
in the Mythology', Or 41: 160-77.
King, L.W.
1918 Legends of Babylon and Egypt in Relation to Hebrew Tradition (London: H.
Milford).
Kittel, R.
1903 Die babylonischen Ausgrabungen und die biblische Urgeschichte (Leipzig:
A. Deichert).
1921 'Die Zukunft der alttestamentlichen Wissenschaft', ZAW39: 84-99.
Kraeling, E.
1955 The Old Testament since the Reformation (London: Lutterworth Press).
Kramer, S.N.
1959 'Sumerian Literature and the Bible', AnBib 12: 185-204.
Kraus, H.
1956 Geschichte der historisch-kritischen Erforschung des Alten Testaments
(Neukirchen: Erziehungsverein).
1969 Geschichte der historisch-kritischen Erforschung des Alten Testaments
(Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2nd edn).
Kugel, F.
1910 Im Bennkreis Babels: Panbabylonische Konstruktionen und Religions-
geschichtliche Tatsachen (Miinster: Verlag der Aschendorfschen Buchhand-
lung).
Kuklick, B.
1996 Puritans in Babylon: The Ancient Near East and American Intellectual Life
1880-1930 (Princeton: Princeton University Press).
L'Heureux, C.
1974 'The Ugaritic and Biblical Rephaim', HTR 67: 265-74.
Lambert, M.
1954 'De quelques themes litteraires en Sumerien et dans la Bible, in La Bible et
I'orient: 4-15.
Lambert, W.
1965 'A New Look at the Babylonian Background of Genesis', JTS 16: 287-300.
1972 'Destiny and Divine Intervention in Babylon and Israel', OTS 17: 65-72.
/Landsberger, B.
1926 'Die Eigenbegrifflichkeit der babylonischen Welt', Islamica 2: 355-72.
Reprinted and translated as The Conceptual Autonomy of the Babylonian
World (MaMbu: Undena, 1976).
1967 'Akkadisch-Hebraisch Wortgleichungen', VTSup 17: 176-204.
Langhe, R. de
1945 Les textes de Ras Shamra-Ugarit et leurs rapports avec le milieu biblique de
I'Ancien Testament (2 vols.; Louvain: Bibliotheque de 1'universite).
Larsen, M.
1987 'Orientalism and the Ancient Near East', Culture and History 2: 96-102.
1992 'Seeing Mesopotamia', Culture and History 11:116-20.
1995 'The "Babel/Bible" Controversy and its Aftermath', CANE 1: 95-106.
1996 The Conquest of Assyria: Excavations in an Antique Land (London:
Routledge).
Larue, G.
1967 Babylon and the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House).
Layard, A.H.
1849 Nineveh and its Remains (London: J. Murray).
1849-53 The Monuments of Nineveh (London: J. Murray).
1853 Discoveries in the Ruins of Nineveh and Babylon (London: J. Murray).
Lehnmann, R.G.
1994 Friedrich Delitzsch und der Babel-Bibel Streit (Freiberg: Universitats-
verlag).
Lemaire, A.
1985 'Mari et la Bible et le monde nord-ouest semitique', MARI4: 549-58.
Lenzen,H.
1964 'Zur Flutschicht in Ur1, BaM3: 52-64.
Lewis, T.J.
1989 Cults of the Dead in Ancient Israel and Ugarit (Atlanta: Scholars Press).
Lewy, J,
1938 'Influences hurrites sur Israel', Revue des etudes semitiques: 49-75.
1939 'Habiru and Hebrews', HUCA 14: 587-623.
1940 'A New Parallel between Habiru and Hebrews', HUCA 15: 47-58.
Long, B.
1993 'Mythic Troupe in the Autobiography of William Foxwell Albright', BA 56:
36-45.
Loretz, O.
1972 'Die Ugaritistik in der Psalmeninterpretation. Zum Abschluss des Kommen-
tars von M. Dahood', UF4: 167-69.
1984a Habiru-Hebraer: eine sozio-linquistische Studie iiber die Herkunft des
Getiliziums 'Ibri vom Appellativum Habiru (Berlin: W. de Gruyter).
1984b 'Hebraer in Ebla? Eine Fehlanziege zu 'ibri "Hebraer" und dem "Hebraer
Abram" (Gen 14,13)', in P. Fronzaroli (ed.), Studies on the Language of
Ebla (Florence: Istituto de Linguistica e di Lingue Orientali): 253-79.
1987 'Textologie des Zephanja-buches. Bemerkungen 10 als Parallelen zu Ps. 29,
10', ZAW99: 219-28.
1990A Ugarit und die Bibel: Kanaanaische Cotter und Religion im Alien Testament
(Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft).
1990b 'KTU 1.101.1 -30 und 1.2 IV kanaanaischer Literatur in Psalm 6', UF 22:
195-220.
Loretz, O., and I. Kottsieper
1987 Colometry in Ugaritic and Biblical Poetry: Introduction, Illustrations and
Topical Bibliography (UBL, 5; Altenberge: CIS-Verlag).
Lowenstam, S. (ed.)
1980 Comparative Studies in Biblical and Ancient Oriental Literatures (Neuckir-
chen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag).
Malamat, A.
1962 'Man and the Bible: Some Patterns of Tribal Organization and Institutions',
7^0582:143-50.
1968 'King Lists of the Old Babylonian Period and Biblical Genealogies', JAOS
88: 163-73.
1973 Mori and the Bible: A Collection of Essays (Jerusalem: Jerusalem University
Press).
1983 'The Proto-History of Israel: A Study in Method', in Studies Freedman:
303-13.
1987 'A Forerunner of Biblical Prophecy: The Man Documents', in Studies
Cross: 33-52.
1989 Mori and the Early Israelite Experience (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
1998 Mari and the Bible (Leiden: E.J. Brill).
Mallowan, M.
1964 'Noah's Flood Reconsidered', Iraq 26: 62-82.
Malul, M.
1990 The Comparative Method in Ancient Near Eastern and Legal Studies
(AOAT, 227; Kevelaer: Verlag Butzon & Bercker).
Margueron, J.-C1.
1995 'Emar: The Capital of AStata in the Fourteenth Century B.C.E.', BA 58: 126-
38.
Mathews, V.H.
1981 'Pastoralists and Patriarchs', BA 44: 215-18.
1986 "The Walls of Gerar', BA 49: 118-26.
Matthews, V.H., and D. Benjamin
1997 Old Testament Parallels: Laws and Stories from the Ancient Near East
(New York: Paulist Press, 2nd edn).
Matthiae, P.
1981 Ebla: An Empire Rediscovered (Garden City, NY: Doubleday).
McCall, H.
1998 'Rediscovery and Aftermath', in S. Dalley (ed.), The Legacy of Mesopotamia
(Oxford: Oxford University Press): 181-98.
McCarthy, D.
1978 Treaty and Covenant (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute).
McKay, J.
1973 Religion inJudah under the Assyrians 732-609 B.C. (London: SCM Press).
Meade, C.
1974 Road to Babylon: Development of U.S. Assyriology (Leiden: E.J. Brill).
Mendelsohn, I.
1935 'The Conditional Sale into Slavery of Free-born Daughters in Nuzi and the
Law of Ex. 21.7-11', J/JOS 55: 190-95.
Mendenhall G.
1954 'Ancient Oriental and Biblical Law', BA 17: 26-46.
1955 Law and Covenant in Israel and the Ancient Near East (Pittsburgh: Biblical
Colloquium).
Merrill, E.
1983 'Ebla and Biblical Historical Inerrancy', BSac 140: 302-21.
Merrill, S.
1885 'Assyrian and Babylonian Monuments', BSac 32: 320-49.
Mihalic, I.
1981 'Ugarit and the Bible (a Question still unanswered)', UF 13: 147-50.
Millard, A.R.
1983 'Methods of Studying the Patriarchal Narratives as Ancient Texts', in A.R.
Millard and D.J. Wiseman (eds.), Essays on the Patriarchal Narratives
(Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns): 43-92.
1985 'La prophetie et Pecriture: Israel, Aram, Assyrie', RHR 202: 125-45.
1989 'Mesopotamia and the Bible', Aram 1: 1-24.
Miller, P.D., Jr
1973 The Divine Warrior in Early Israel (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press).
Moor, J.C. de, and P. van der Lugt
1974 "The Spectre of Pan-Ugaritism', BO 31: 3-26.
Moor, J.C., de, and P. Sandars
1991 'An Ugaritic Expiation Ritual and its Old Testament Parallels', t/F23:283-
300.
Moorey, P.
1991 A Century of Biblical Archeology (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox
Press).
Moran, W.
1965 'The Ancient Near Eastern Background of the Love of God in Deuteronomy',
CBQ 25: 77-87.
1969 'New Evidence from Mari on the History of Prophecy', Bib 50: 15-56.
Morrison, M.A.
1983 'The Jacob and Laban Narrative in Light of Ancient Near Eastern Sources',
BA46: 155-64.
Mtiller, H.-P.
1981 'Gab es in Ebla einem Gottesnamen Ja?', ZA 70: 70-92.
1984 'Ebla und das althebrSische Verbalsystem', Bib 65: 145-67.
Muller, H.-P. (ed.)
1991 Babylonien und Israel: historische, religiose und sprachliche Beziehungen
(Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft).
Mullo-Weir, C.J.
1967-68 'The Alleged Human Wife-Sister Motif in Genesis', Transactions of the
Glasgow University Oriental Society 22: 14-25.
1967 'Nuzi', AOTS: 73-86.
Na'aman, N.
1986 'Habiru and Hebrews: The Transfer of a Social Term to the Literary Sphere',
JNES 45: 211-88.
Neuman, J.
1876 The Thrones and Palaces of Babylon and Nineveh (New York: Harper &
Bros).
Noort, E.
1977 Untersuchungen zum Gottesbescheid in Man: Die 'Mariprophetes' in der
alttestamentlichen Forschung (Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker).
Noth, M., and D. Winton Thomas (eds.)
1955 Wisdom in Israel and the Ancient Near East (Leiden: E.J. Brill).
O'Connor, M.
1987 'Ugarit and the Bible', in M. O'Connor and D.N. Freedman (eds.), Back-
grounds for the Bible (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns): 151-64.
Oppenheim, A.L.
1955 'Review of S. Smith, The Statue of Idrimi (London: British Institute of
Archaeology at Ankara)', JNES 15: 199-200.
1977 Ancient Mesopotamia: Portrait of a Dead Civilization (Chicago: University
of Chicago Press, 2nd edn).
Pardee, D.
1985 'Review of SIC 1', JNES 44: 220-22.
Parker, S.B.
1979-80 'Some Methodological Principles in Ugaritic Philology', Maarav 2: 7-41.
1993 'Official Attitudes toward Prophecy at Man and in Israel', KT43: 50-68.
Parrot, A.
1950 'Les tablettes de Mari et PAncien Testament', RHR 30: 1-11.
1954 'Mari et 1'Ancient Testament', in La Bible et I'orient: 117-20.
1955 Nineveh and the Old Testament (London: SCM Press).
1958 Babylon and the Old Testament (London: SCM Press).
1962 Abraham and his Times (Philadelphia: Fortress Press; trans. W.J. Farley).
1967 'Mari', ,4073: 136-44.
Patton, J.H.
1944 Canaanite Parallels in the Book of Psalms (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins
University Press).
Paul, S.
1970 Studies in the Book of the Covenant in the Light of Cuneiform Law (Leiden:
E.J. Brill).
Peters, J.
1899 Nippur, or Excavations and Adventures on the Euphrates (2 vols.; New
York: G.P. Putnam's Sons).
Petersen, A.R.
1998 The Royal God: Enthronement Festivals in Ancient Israel and Ugarit? (CIS,
5; JSOTSup, 259; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press).
Pettinato, G.
1976 The Royal Archives of Tell-Mardikh/Ebla', BA 39: 44-52.
1977 'Gli archivi reali di Tell-Mardikh-Ebla: riflessioni e prospettive', RivB 25:
231-35.
1980 'Ebla and the Bible', BA 43: 203-16.
1981 The Archives of Ebla: An Empire Inscribed on Clay (Garden City, NY:
Doubleday).
1991 Ebla: A New Look at History (Baltimore: The John Hopkins University
Press; trans, from Italian, 1986).
Pfeiffer, C.
1962 Ras Shamra and the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House).
Pinches, T.
1902 The Old Testament in the Light of the Historical Records and Legends of
Assyria and Babylonia (London: SPCK).
Pitard, W.
1996 'The Archaeology of Emar', in Emar: \ 3-23.
Place, V.
1867-70 Ninive et I'Assyrie, avec des essais de restauration par Felix Thomas
(3 vols.; Paris: Imprimerie Imperiale).
Poebel, A.
1932 Das appositionell bestimmte der I. Pers. Sing, im den Westsemitisch
Inschriften undim Alien Testament (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).
Pope, M.
1994 Probative Pontificating in Ugaritic and Biblical Literature: Collected Essays
(UBL, 10; Munster: Ugarit-Verlag).
Radau, H.
1908 Bel, the Christ of Ancient Times (Chicago: The Open Court Publishing Co.).
Raikes, R.
1966 'The Physical Evidence for Noah's Flood', Iraq 28: 52-63.
Rainey, A.
1965 'The Kingdom of Ugarit', BA 28: 102-25.
Ratner, R., and B. Zuckerman
1986 'A Kid in Milk...? New Photographs of KTU 1.23, Line 14', HUCA 57:
15-60.
Rawlinson, G.
1859 Historical Evidences of the Truth of the Scripture Records (London: John
Murray).
1862 The Five Great Monarchies of the Ancient Eastern World (New York: Dodd,
Mead, & Co.).
1871 The Alleged Historical Difficulties of the Old and New Testaments (London:
Harper & Bros.).
1885 Egypt and Babylon: From Scripture and Profane Sources (London: Hodder
& Stoughton).
Rawlinson, H.C.
1850 'On the Inscriptions of Babylonia and Assyria', JRAS 12: 401-83.
1860-84 Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia (5 vols.; London: R.E. Bower).
Rawlinson, H.C., W.H.F. Talbot, E. Hincks, and J. Oppert
1857 Inscription ofTiglath Pileser I, King of Assyria (London: Royal Asiatic
Society).
Renger, J.
1979 'Die Geschichte der Altorientalisk und der vorderasiatischen Archaologie in
Berlin von 1875-1945', in W. Arenhovel and C. Schreiber (eds.), Berlin und
die Antike (Berlin: Deutsches Orient Archaologiches Institut): 151-92.
Reventlow, H.G.
1983 Hauptprobleme der alttestamentlichen Theologie im 20. Jahrhundert (Darm-
stadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1983; trans, as Problems of
Biblical Theology in the Twentieth Century, 1985).
Roberts, J.J.M.
1976 'Myth vs. History', CBQ 38: 1-13.
1985 "The Ancient Near Eastern Environment', in D. Knight and G. Tucker (eds.),
The Hebrew Bible and its Modern Interpreters (Philadelphia: Fortress
Press): 89-96.
Robertson, D.
1972 Linguistic Evidence in Dating Early Hebrew Poetry (Missoula: Scholars
Press).
Rogers, R.W.
1908 The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria, Especially in its Relations to Israel
(New York: Eaton & Mains).
1912 Cuneiform Parallels to the Old Testament (New York: Eaton & Mains).
Ross, J.
1970 'Prophecy in Hamath, Israel, and Mari', HTR 63: 1-28.
Saggs, H.W.F.
1969 Assyriology and the Study of the Old Testament (Cardiff: University of
Wales Press).
1978 The Encounter with the Divine in Mesopotamia and Israel (London: The
Athlone Press).
1984 The Might that was Assyria (London: Sidgwick & Jackson).
1999 'Assyriology and Biblical Studies', Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation
(Nashville: Abingdon Press): 69-78.
Sandmel, S.
1962 'Parallelomania'.yfiLSl: 1-13.
Sasson, J.
1973 'A Further Cuneiform Parallel to the Song of Songs', ZAW85: 359-60.
1980 'Two Recent Works on Man', AfO 27: 127-35.
1983 'Man Dreams', JAOS 73: 283-93.
Sayce, A.H.
1885 The Witness of the Monuments to the Old Testament Scriptures (London:
Religious Tract Society).
1888 Fresh Light from the Ancient Monuments: A Sketch of the Most Striking
Confirmations of the Bible (London: Religious Tract Society).
1891 The Races of the Old Testament (London: The Religious Tract Society).
1894a The Higher Criticism and the Verdict of the Monuments (London: SPCK).
1894b "The Archaeological Witness to the Literary Activity of the Mosaic Age', in
R.V. French, Lex Mosaica, or the Law of Moses and the Higher Criticism
(London: Eyre & Spottiswoode): 1-17.
1895 The Bible and the Monuments: The Primitive Hebrew Records in the Light of
Modern Research (London: Eyre & Spottiswoode).
1907 The Archaeology of the Cuneiform Inscriptions (London: SPCK).
Schmidt, B.
1992 "The Gods and the Dead of the Domestic Cult at Emar', in Emar: 141-63.
1994 Israel's Beneficent Dead: Ancestor Cult and Necromancy in Ancient Israelite
Religion and Tradition (FAT, 11; Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr).
Schmidt P.W.
1908 'Panbabylonismus und ethnologischer Elementargedanke', Mitteilungen der
anthropologischen Gesellschaft in Wien 38: 73-9.
Schmidt, W.
1966 Konigtum Gottes in Ugarit und Israel (Berlin: Alfred Topelmann, 2nd edn).
Schmitt, A.
1982 Prophetischer Gottesbescheid in Mari und Israel: Eine Strukturunster-
suchung (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer Verlag).
Schrader, E.
1863 Studien zur Kritik und Erklarung der biblischen Urgeschichte (Zurich:
Verlag von Meyer & Zeller).
1885-88 Die Keilinschriften unddas Alte Testament (London: Williams & Norgate,
trans, as The Cuneiform Inscriptions and the Old Testament).
Schroer, S.
1980 'Psalm 65-Zeugnis eines integrativen JHWH Glaubens?', UF22: 285-301.
Schult, H.
1966 'Vier weitere Mari-Briefe "Prophetischen Inhalts"', ZDPF82: 228-32.
Schwaner, W.
1910 Germanen-Bibel aus heiligen Schriften germanischer Volker (Schlachtensee:
Volkerzieher Verlag, 3rd edn).
Selman, M.J.
1983 'Comparative Customs and the Patriarchal Age', A.R. Millard, and D.J.
Wiseman (eds.), Essays on the Patriarchal Narratives (Winona Lake, IN:
Eisenbrauns): 91-139.
Shea, W.
1983 'Two Palestinian Segments from the Eblaite Geographical Atlas', in Studies
Freedman: 589-612
Sjoberg, A.
1984 'Eve and the Chameleon', in Studies Ahlstrom: 217-25.
Skinner, J.
1910 A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T.
Clark).
Smith, C.C.
1968 'The Impact of Assyriology upon Old Testament Study, with Special Refer-
ence to the Publications of Leonard William King' (PhD dissertation,
University of Chicago).
Smith, G.
1875 Assyrian Discoveries (London: S. Low, Marston, Low & Searle).
1876 The Chaldean Account of Genesis (London: S. Low, Marston, Searle &
Rivington).
Smith, M.
1952 'The Common Theology of the Ancient Near East', JBL 71: 49-50.
1969 "The Present State of Old Testament Studies, JBL 88: 19-35.
Smith, S.
1926 in C. Gadd, 'Tablets from Kirkuk', RA 23: 127.
1932 'What were the Teraphim?', JTS 33: 33-36.
Soden, W. von
1985 Bibel und alter Orient: altorientalische Beitrage zum Alten Testament
(Berlin: W. de Gruyter).
Soil, W.
1988 'Babylonian and Biblical Acrostics', Bib 69: 305-23.
Speiser, E.A.
1938 'The Nuzi Tablets Solve a Puzzle in the Books of Samuel', BASOR 72: 15-
17.
1940 'Of Shoes and Shekels: (I Samuel 12.3,13.21)', BASOR 17: 15-20.
1955 'I Know not the Day of my Death', JBL 74: 252-56.
1957 'The Biblical Idea of History in its Common Near Eastern Setting', IEJ1:
201-16.
1958 'Census and Ritual Expiation in Mari and Israel', BASOR 149: 17-25.
1964 Genesis (AB; Garden City, NY: Doubleday).
1967 'The Wife-Sister Motif in the Partriarchal Narratives', in J.J. Finkelstein and
M. Greenberg (eds.), Oriental and Biblical Studies (Philadelphia: University
of Pennsylvania Press): 62-82.
Stuart, D.
1976 Studies in Early Hebrew Meter (Missoula: Scholars Press).
Stummer, F.
1922 Sumerisch-akkadische Parallelen zum Aujbau alttestamentlicher Psalmen
(Paderborn: F. Schoningh).
Szlechter, F.
1954 'Le prat dans 1'Ancien Testament et dans les codes Mesopotamiens d'avant
Hammourabi', in La Bible et I'orient: 16-25.
Tadmor, H.
1985 'Nineveh, Calah, and Israel', BAT: 253-64.
Talmon, S.
1978a 'The Comparative Method', J.A. Emerton (ed.), Congress Volume:
Gottingen, 1977 (VTSup, 29; Leiden: E.J. Brill): 320-56.
1978b 'On the Emendation of Biblical Texts on the Basis of Hebrew parallels', El
14: 117-24 (in Hebrew).
Thompson, T.L.
1974 The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives (BZAW, 133; Berlin: W. de
Gruyter).
1978 'A New Attempt to Date the Patriarchal Narratives', JAOS 98: 76-84.
1999 The Bible in History: How Writers Create a Past (London: Jonathan Cape).
Toorn, K. van der
1985 Sin and Sanction in Israel and Mesopotamia: A Comparative Study (Assen:
Van Gorcum).
1991 'Funerary Rituals and Beatific Afterlife in Ugaritic Texts and in the Bible',
BO 48: 40-66.
1994 From her Cradle to her Grave: The Role of Religion in the Life of the
Israelite and Babylonian Woman (The Biblical Seminar, 23; Sheffield: JSOT
Press).
1996 Family Religion in Babylonia, Syria, and Israel: Continuity and Change in
the Forms of Religious Life (Leiden: E.J. Brill).
Toorn, K. van der (ed.)

1997 The Image and the Book: Iconic Cults, Aniconism, and the Rise of Book
Religion in Israel and the Ancient Near East (Leuven: Peeters).
Tropper, J.
1989 Nekromantie, Totenbefragung in alten Orient und im Alien Testament
(Kevelaer. Verlag Butzon & Bercker).
Tsevat, M.
1958 'Alalakhiana', HUCA 29: 109-43.
Tsukimoto, A.
1989 ' Emar and the Old Testament: Preliminary Remarks', AJBI15: 3-24.
Tufton, O.
1874 'Progress and Result of Cuneiform Decipherment', Baptist Quarterly 8:
191-208.
Van Seters, J.
1968 'The Problem of Childlessness in Near Eastern Law and the Patriarchs of
Israel', 75187:401-408.
1969 'Jacob's Marriages and Ancient Near Eastern Customs: A Reexamination',
HTR 62: 387-95.
1975 Abraham in History and Tradition (New Haven: Yale University Press).
Vaux, R. de
1937 'Les textes de Ras Shamra et 1'Ancien Testament', RB 46: 526-55.
1949 'Les patriarchies Hebreux et les decouvertes modernes', RB 56: 34-35.
Vaux, W.
1855 Nineveh andPersepolis (London: Arthur Hall, Virtue & Co.).
Veenhof, K.H.
1995 'Seeing the Face of God: The Use of Akkadian Parallels', Akkadica 94.5:
33-37.
Vigano, L., and D. Pardee
1984 'Literary Sources for the History of Palestine and Syria: The Ebla Tablets',
BA 47: 6-16.
Vigouroux, F.
1877 La Bible et le decouvertes modernes en Egypte et en Assyrie (Paris: Berche
et Tralin).
Virolleaud, C.V.
1933 'Lanaissance des deux gracieux et beaux: poemephenicien de Ras Shamra',
Syria 14: 128-51.
Vriezen, C.
1968 'The Study of the Old Testament and the History of Religion', VTSup 17:
1-24.
Waltke, B.
1979 'The Book of Proverbs and Ancient Wisdom Literature', BSac 136: 221-38.
Walton, J.
1989 Ancient Israelite Literature in its Cultural Context (Grand Rapids: Zonder-
van).
Ward, W.H.
1870 'Assyrian Studies-Textbooks', BSac 27: 184-91.
1886 Report on the Wolfe Expedition to Babylonia, 1884-5 (Boston: Archeo-
logical Institute of America).
Watson, W.G.E.
1976 "The Pivot Pattern in Hebrew, Ugaritic, and Akkadian Poetry', ZAW8B:
239-53.
Weinfeld, M.
1970 'The Covenant of Grant in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East',
JAOS90: 184-203.
1973 'Covenant Terminology in the Ancient Near East and its Influence in the
West', .//40S 93: 190-99.
1988 'Job and its Mesopotamian Parallels', in W. Claassen (ed.), Text and Context
(JSOTSup, 48; Sheffield: JSOT Press): 217-26.
Weippert, H.
1985 Beitrage zur prophetischen Bildsprache in Israel and Assyrien (Freiburg:
G6ttingen).
Weippert, M.
1972 '"Heiliger Krieg" in Israel und Assyrien', ZAWS4: 469-93.
Westbrook, R.
1985 'Biblical and Cuneiform Law Codes', RB 92: 247-64.
Widengren, G.
1936 The Accadian and Hebrew Songs of Lamentation as Religious Documents
(Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell).
Wilson, R.
1977 Genealogy and History in the Biblical World (New Haven: Yale University
Press).
Winckler, H.
1892 Keilschriftliches Textbuch zum Alten Testament (Leipzig: E. Pfeiffer).
1901 Himmels-und Weltenbild der Babylonier als Gntndlageder Weltanschaung
und Mythologie oiler Volker (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs).
1905 'Die Weltanshaung des Alten Orients', Ex Oriente Lux 1: 1-50.
1906a 'Der alte Orient und die Bibel', Ex Oriente Lux 2: 15.
1906b Die babylonische Weltschopfimg (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs).
1906c Der A he Orient und de Bible uebst einemanhang Babel und Bibel-Bibel und
Babel (Leipzig: E. Pfeiffer).
1907a Die babylonische Geisteskultur in ihren Beziehungen zur Kulturentwicklung
der Menscheit (Leipzig: Quelle & Meyer).
1907b Diejungsten Kampfer wider den Pmnhabylonismus (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs).
Wiseman, DJ.
1958 'The Vassal Treaties of Esarhaddon', Iraq 20: 1-99.
1962 The Expansion of Assyrian Studies: An Inaugural Lecture Delivered on 27
February, 1962 (London: School of Oriental and African Studies, University
of London).
1967 'Alalakh', AOTS: 119-35.
Woolley, C.L.
1930 "The Biblical Deluge: An Ascertained Fact', Illustrated London News 8
February.
1936 Abraham: Recent Discoveries and Hebrew Origins (London: Faber &
Faber).
1953 Forgotten Kingdom (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books).
1955 Alalakh: An Account of the Excavations at TellAtchana in the Hatay, 1937-

49 (London: Society of Antiquaries).
Wright, D.P.
1987 The Disposal of Impurity: Elimination Rites in the Bible and in Hittite and
Mesopotamian Literature (Atlanta: Scholars Press).
Yaron, R.
1970 'Middle Assyrian Law Codes and the Bible', Bib 51: 77-85.
Younger, K.L. ,Jr
1990 Ancient Conquest Accounts: A Study in Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical
History Writing (JSOTSup, 98; Sheffield: JSOT Press).
Zimmem, H.
1889 Die Assyriologie als Hilfswissenschqftjur das Studium den Alten Testaments
und des klassischen Altertums (Konigsberg: W. Koln).
1901 Biblische und babylonische Urgeschichete (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, trans. The
Babylonian and Hebrew Genesis, London: David Nutt, 1901).
1906-18 Zum babylonischen Neujahrsfest (2 vols.; Leipzig).
1910 Zum Streit um die 'Christusmythe': Das babylonische Material in seinen
Hauptpunkten dargestellt (Berlin: Reuther & Reichard).

Mesopotamia and The Bible

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mesopotamia and The Bible

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ASSYRIOLOGY AND BIBLICAL STUDIES:

A CENTURY AND A HALF OF TENSION

So began F. Delitzsch's famous inaugural lecture for the German Oriental

1. See the discussion by van der Toorn 1985: 1 -8.

studies. Of course, many Assyriologists in the early period maintained a

2. Also, see the discussion by Tadmor 1985: 262.

6. Xenophon, Anabasis 1.4.6-12. Other classical period authors, including Hero-

pagan tradition (i.e. Mesopotamia). Ironically, the British and French

veracity of either traditions in regards to Mesopotamia. Of course, the

21. Paris: Firmin Didot Freres, 1852.

biblical records, the two disciplines were intertwined, and continued to

Smith's successors in the British Museum continued in his tradition of

29. Boscawen's best known work was Boscawen 1903.

same time as Botta's excavations. A large number of relics were sent to

35. E.g. Andover Theological Seminary, Episcopal Seminary (Alexandria, VA),

Driver 1909; Sayce 1894a). Brown, however, was a positivist when it

Genesis 1 by showing close parallels with it and Babylonian mythology,45

51. For this treatment, see Davies 1975.

Delitzsch's lectures had an impact not only on Assyriology and biblical

58. See the discussion by Saggs 1969: 13.

connections (Morrison 1983). Other text collections (e.g. from Alalakh

resulted,75 primarily because of the large Claremont project directed by L.

Benjamin, in particular.81 Parrot, however, did revitalize biblical arche-

material has been considered to shed light on the greater Syro-Palestinian

speculation among the scholarly world (Pettinato 1976; 1980; Freedman

1978), women (Frymer-Kensky 1989; 1992; van derToorn 1994), sacrifice

1981 'La religion a Emar', Le Monde de la Bible 20: 34.

1977b 'Three Ugaritic notes on the Song of Deborah', JSOT2: 33-49.

Toorn, K. van der (ed.)

1955 Alalakh: An Account of the Excavations at TellAtchana in the Hatay, 1937-

You might also like