Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary

ANCIENT NEAR EASTERN THEMES IN BIBLICAL THEOLOGY

BY JEFFREY J. NIEHAUS

– A CRITICAL INTERACTION

Submitted to Dr. Gary E. Yates

in partial fulfillment of requirements for THEO 695

by

Elke B. Speliopoulos

Downingtown, PA

March 1, 2010
 2

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................3

SUMMARY.....................................................................................................................................3

CRITICAL INTERACTION...........................................................................................................5

SOURCE CRITIQUE......................................................................................................................6

CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................7

BIBLIOGRAPHY............................................................................................................................8

BIBLIOGRAPHY
 3

INTRODUCTION

In the past decades, there have been a number of archaeological finds that have aided

researchers in learning about the theology of the people groups surrounding the Israelites. In

Ancient Near Eastern Themes in Biblical Theology, Jeffrey J. Niehaus takes his readers on an

excursion into the world of Israel’s surrounding neighbors’ belief systems based on these finds.

He shows how comparative elements can be identified in Egyptian, Assyrian, Babylonian,

Sumerian and Hittite writings to those found in the pages of the Scriptures.

However, Niehaus’ approach does not easily allow the reader to reach the conclusions he

intends for them to find. While making a strong point of the similarities of the various texts of

neighboring to biblical writings, Niehaus fails to convince that there is enough textual distinction

to see God’s transcendent work in contrast to the gods of Israel’s neighbors.

SUMMARY

Niehaus, who since 1982 has served as professor of Old Testament at Gordon-Conwell

Theological Seminary1, focuses his writing on the comparative elements within both biblical and

ANE texts. He does so by focusing on a number of topics to cross-examine similarities or

differences within the texts of Israel’s neighbors to comparative biblical texts.

The initial chapter provides a background to the reader about various attempts to classify

the data at hand. Niehaus differentiates between two entirely separate methodologies: the

experimental method and the comparative method. The latter is where Niehaus spends most of

his time and which he has broken down into two large subcategories: the first attempts to

categorize biblical texts into “categories of myth and legend”2, the second interprets myth and

legends of pagan origin in light of biblical truth. Niehaus is clearly promoting the latter, yet takes
1. Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminar, Faculty Information: Jeffrey J. Niehaus,
http://www.gcts.edu/prospective_students/jeffrey_j_niehaus (accessed March 1, 2010).

2. Jeffrey J. Niehaus, Anicent Near Eastern Themes in Biblical Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel
Publications, 2008), 15.
 4

his readers through a study of the various methods developed for the former. These are in

particular the universal approach3, which assumes a common human experience that might

explain e.g. the similarities in creation or flood stories in distinct cultures, and the derivative

approach4, which tries to show that the Bible was modeled after pagan myths. Ultimately,

however, Niehaus wants his readers to be clear that there is the – to him the only acceptable –

biblical truth approach: applying a view that sees the creation and flood stories as “true and

accurate accounts”5, the use of existing literary and legal text elements by God to reveal His truth

to His people, and the allowance of an element of common grace by God to let people

understand truth through concepts they were familiar with from their cultural surroundings. Only

in a footnote does Niehaus mention the possibility of demonic influence on extrabiblical

revelation.6

The following chapters evaluate specific text elements, both from ANE texts and from

the Bible - surprisingly from both Old and New Testament - against conceptual categories: God

and the royal shepherd; covenant and conquest; city; temple; image; city and temple as relation

to abandonment and restoration; covenantal household; and restoration of all things.

In a final chapter, Niehaus takes the readers back to the originally postulated premise that

God used the texts as vehicles of common grace, but also that demonic influences likely were the

source of the very similar contexts within the ANE texts.

3. Ibid., 16-21.

4. Ibid., 21-28.

5. Ibid., 29.

6. Ibid.
 5

CRITICAL INTERACTION

The pattern, which Niehaus seeks to establish, is not immediately clear. There is only the

briefest of table of contents to provide an initial orientation to the structure of the book. Once the

reader catches on that each of the segments looks at the ANE texts first before contrasting them

to the biblical texts, it becomes easier to follow. However, some of the chosen texts do require

additional thinking as to where the connection really lies. As Baranowski notes in a review, “The

occurrence of a key-word or a loosely formulated idea is already enough for the author to

recognize a ‘parallel.’”7 Even to a reader not extensively familiar with ANE texts, this becomes

readily apparent.

A critical flaw to Niehaus approach is his failure to discuss one element that sets apart the

Bible from all other religions: the transcendence of God. While the other religions viewed their

gods as a part of creation, only the God of the Bible remains outside of His creation, yet rules

over it. Oswalt appears to agree with the importance of keeping this in the forefront of any

exploration in his own reflection on ANE similarities to the Bible when he writes,

This work has centered on the observation that in comparison to the other literatures of
the ancient Near East, the Bible is characterized by a worldview that is sharply different
from all the rest….In the first, the divine is other than the cosmos; in the second, the
divine is inseparable from the cosmos. This difference is so significant that even today
there are only three religions that believe in true transcendence: Judaism, Christianity,
and Islam – and all of them have derived that conviction from one source only: the
Bible.8

It is indeed noteworthy that the monotheistic religions all originated from the ANE area

of the world. Niehaus argues both that God allowed for a realm of common grace in which

concepts about Him would be shown to ready the acceptance of His ultimate revelation in the

7. Krzysztof Baranowski, Niehaus, Jeffrey J.: Ancient Near Eastern Themes in Biblical Theology, vol. 9
(Edmonton, AB: Journal of Hebrew Scriptures, 2009),
http://www.arts.ualberta.ca/JHS/reviews/reviews_new/review422.htm (accessed March 1, 2010).

8. John N. Oswalt, The Bible Among the Myths: Unique Revelation or Just Ancient Literature? (Grand
Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009), 185.
 6

Bible9, and that demonic influences were at work.10 Yet, civilizations formed also outside of the

ANE space, and it would be of major interest to see and understand whether this reasoning can

still help in understanding why other civilizations may not have started from similar theological

footing, e.g. the ancient Chinese civilization. It would seem that here Niehaus might have to

work much more strongly off the demonic influence aspect of his reasoning, but, of course, that

is not his focus.

In his closing chapter in which Niehaus attempts to tie all information back together in a

comprehensive view of why there are so many similarities, yet the Bible stands out, Niehaus

depicts what appears to be a very much simplified version of the relationships that exist between

gods and nations as a) Egypt: Amon Ra > Pharaoh, son of Ra, “Ra in his limbs”> warfare >

covenant with conquered > temple service; and b) Bible: God > Jesus, Son of God, God

incarnate > warfare > new covenant > temple service11. Commenting on this comparison, Halton

(correctly!) writes in a review of Niehaus’ book: “This chart and the associated discussion are

simplistic. It is akin to saying one could substitute Jesus for Nirvana and change Buddhism into

Christianity.”12

SOURCE CRITIQUE

One additional distracting factor that needs to be mentioned comes in the form, or rather

the age, of the texts Niehaus uses for his research. As every graduate student can tell, old sources

are not to be used if at all avoidable; however Niehaus seems to not pay much heed to this, as

pointed out by Baranowski who says that “most of the bibliographical references were published

9. Niehaus, Anicent Near Eastern Themes in Biblical Theology, 29.

10. Ibid., 29n52.

11. Ibid., 173.

12. Charles Halton, “Book Review, Ancient Near Eastern Themes in Biblical Theology,” Journal of the
Evangelical Theological Society 52, no. 1 (March 2009): 132, http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/52/52-1/JETS
%2052-1%20121-202%20Book%20Reviews.pdf (accessed March 1, 2010).
 7

before the author's doctoral studies at Harvard.”13 As a reader who is not an expert in ANE texts,

it is important to understand that many of the texts studied show, according to Baranowski a

“reliance on antiquated scholarly literature”14 on Niehaus’ part.

CONCLUSION

Niehaus’ work is clearly an important one, yet it appears to be beset with a number of

issues that almost come across as sloppy research, as demonstrated above. From the somewhat

forced fit of texts into a structure, which make following Niehaus’ reasoning sometimes a bit

tricky, to the textual resources not being the most recent available, which would show up in a

markdown of a grade in any graduate student’s work, a book this recent seems to simply demand

more from its author and for its readership.

Niehaus frames his book with bookend chapters that state clearly what he is setting out to

show, in particular that demonic activity may be attributing to the similarities seen in the almost

parallel appearing texts of other ANE cultures. However, for the reader who comes to the text in

most cases from a faith background, Niehaus does not offer an easy path at all to reach the

conclusion that God has indeed shown Himself unique and sovereign against the backdrop of the

(not real) gods of the neighbors of His covenant people Israel. The majority of the book leaves

the reader unengaged as they are not shown a true contrast to what they want to know to be

biblical supremacy, showing the covenantal love of the Creator of the universe for His children.

Instead, the feeling a reader may walk away with is one of frustration with the lack of

differentiation.

13. Baranowski, Niehaus, Jeffrey J..

14. Ibid.
 8

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Baranowski, Krzysztof. Niehaus, Jeffrey J.: Ancient Near Eastern Themes in Biblical Theology.
Vol. 9. Edmonton, AB: Journal of Hebrew Scriptures, 2009.
http://www.arts.ualberta.ca/JHS/reviews/reviews_new/review422.htm (accessed March 1,
2010).

Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminar. Faculty Information: Jeffrey J. Niehaus.

http://www.gcts.edu/prospective_students/jeffrey_j_niehaus (accessed March 1, 2010).

Halton, Charles. “Book Review, Ancient Near Eastern Themes in Biblical Theology.” Journal of
the Evangelical Theological Society 52, no. 1 (March 2009).
http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/52/52-1/JETS%2052-1%20121-202%20Book
%20Reviews.pdf (accessed March 1, 2010).

Niehaus, Jeffrey J. Anicent Near Eastern Themes in Biblical Theology. Grand Rapids, MI:
Kregel Publications, 2008.

Oswalt, John N. The Bible Among the Myths: Unique Revelation or Just Ancient Literature?
Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009.