A Summary and Critique of the article “The Relation of the Old Testament to Ancient Cultures” by G. Herbert Livingston.
Introduction
That God did not choose to reveal Himself in an abstract, ahistorical vacuum, but primarily through a narrative of His interaction with individuals and communities should alert Christians to pay close attention to historical and cultural context of the Old Testament. For this, we are indebted to archeological findings in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, which provided biblical scholars a treasury of data regarding the ancient Near East cultures. Livingston’s article discusses features in their literature, crafts, architecture, religious ideas and practices as reflected in the Hebrew milieu.
Summary and Critique
From a survey of cultures spanning the Early Bronze Age to the Iron Age III, the author ably outlined the creative interaction ancient Hebrews had with their neighbors. It occurred to me that, even since the time of patriarchs, they were not primitives living at the infancy of human civilization, but in a sophisticated setting where the city-states, written word, pottery, craftsmanship and legislation were in existence. While the Israelites held to a unique, transcendental monotheism, they were not technologically or culturally unexposed. For example, it was likely that they learnt the widespread art of preserving religious ideas in early, written form through Sumerian influence. This finding puts caution to insistence on lengthy period of oral transmission of biblical accounts. They also showed remarkable creativity in assimilating military and administrative structures, architectural technology, literature and artistic forms in their religious worship and national life. A notable example is the format of Hittite treaties, which is similar to OT covenant in their components of a preamble, a historical prologue, stipulations, provisions for “sacred deposit” and its public reading and a list of curses and blessings. Even though their loyalty to Yahweh wavered from time to time, the Israelites were not to be seen as mere “cultural sponges”, capable of only absorption.
In their cultural interchanges, the remnant Israel remained committed to Yahweh in creatively modifying the adopted structures to their monotheistic and moral convictions. For example, the creation and flood narratives in Genesis share common materials with the Babylonian “Epic of Creation” and “Epic of Gilgamesh,” as would be expected for a catastrophe of such magnitude. Yet in apologetic fashion, the Hebrew account eschews the polytheism and the immorality of the gods found in these mythical accounts. While the civil laws in Pentateuch also bear similarities to the Code of Hammurabi, as Livingston noted, he could have pointed out significant moral improvements found in the former also. Nevertheless, the author cited many other helpful instances of the Israelite faithful redeeming legal, societal and religious structures in their vicinity – “the treaty (covenant) was cleansed of its deity list , the place of worship had no idols, the priests and prophets were prohibited from engaging in sorcery, the sacrifices were divorced from magic, and the king was not to be identified with deity”.
Conclusion
Further archeological findings and insight into the Old Testament socio-cultural context would be an immense help in our exegesis. Perhaps a clearer appreciation of how the Israelites interact with the surrounding nations should encourage believers today to courageously engage our own cultural milieu in similar redemptive fashion. By doing so, we would honor the Lord by avoiding the twin dangers of irrelevant obscurantism and fashionable apostasy.
