Rav Kook on Ancient Near Eastern Parallels

Introduction

The discovery and study of ancient Near Eastern texts and cultural practices has long presented both opportunities and challenges for students of the Torah. Collections such as James Pritchard’s Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament (Princeton University Press: Princeton, 1969) and William Hallo’s The Context of Scripture (Brill: Leiden, 2003) abound with striking parallels between biblical narratives and earlier or contemporaneous sources — such as Mesopotamian creation myths, flood stories, or law codes. For the Orthodox Jew in particular, this can raise difficult questions. Do such similarities imply that the Torah merely reflects its cultural environment, rather than standing apart as divine revelation? How should one reconcile the traditional belief in the Torah’s uniqueness and eternal truth with evidence that it shares motifs, legal formulations, or symbolic structures with surrounding civilizations? These issues touch not only on faith and theology, but also on the nature of tradition, making the encounter with ancient Near Eastern parallels a potentially destabilizing, yet deeply significant, challenge for Orthodox Jewish thought.

In this article we will examine the approach of R. Abraham Isaac Hacohen Kook (1865–1935) to this issue, as reflected in the two places in his writings that he dealt with the issue at length.

Eder HaYakar

One of Rav Kook’s earlier works is Eder HaYakar, first published in 1905. In the fourth chapter of this work he briefly deals with the problem raised by ancient Near Eastern parallels to ideas and concepts found in the Torah in the context of a longer discussion about how various forms of heresy are impossible to maintain when facing the truth. “Thus it was when Assyriology came into the world and confused men’s minds with the similarities they found based on their fanciful hypotheses, between our holy Torah and words written on cuneiform tablets in relation to opinions, morals and deeds.” Rav Kook states that “is it not well known that among early humans there were those who knew God, prophets, people of great spirit, such as Methuselah and Chanoch, Shem and Ever and similar people, and is it possible that they had no impact on their generation? . . Can there have been no impact at all in their generation from their influence, and these must be similar to the ideas of the Torah.”¹

The conclusion to be drawn is that whatever parallels exist between the Tanakh and ancient Near Eastern societies are due to the dissemination of these proper ethical and spiritual teachings, and all the matters “which preceded the giving of the Torah and found a place in a nation and in the world, if they had an ethical foundation, and can be uplifted to an eternal and developed ethical level, were left in the divine Torah.”² Although the special ethical character of Methuselah, Shem and Ever is only noted in rabbinic works, the Torah itself hints to some special spiritual people in the ancient world. Chanoch is described as a person who walked with God (Gen. 5:22, 24) and King Melchizedek of Salem is described as a priest of God Most High who blesses Abram (Gen. 14:18–19). Thus, the idea of ancient Near Eastern people with some kind of valid spiritual ideas is found in the Torah in some fashion. While not referring to Rav Kook by name, Prof. Barry Eichler notes that one of the “approaches . . . within Jewish tradition” to the problem of ancient Near Eastern parallels is adding “new dimensions to the rabbinic concept of yeshivat Shem ve’Eber [the school of Shem and Ever].”³

In Eder HaYakar Rav Kook presents the approach that actually these ideas are not new innovations, stating that “Already from the time of Maimonides . . . it is known that prophecy acts within the nature of man, for his nature and predilections must be elevated by divine guidance . . .” Prof. Shalom Rosenberg explains that this is a reference to Guide for the Perplexed 3:32. “Many precepts in our Law are the result of a similar course adopted by the same Supreme Being. It is, namely, impossible to go suddenly from one extreme to the other: it is therefore according to the nature of man impossible for him suddenly to discontinue everything to which he has been accustomed. Now God sent Moses to make [the Israelites] a kingdom of priests and a holy nation (Ex. 19:6) by means of the knowledge of God . . . But the custom which was in those days general among all men, and the general mode of worship in which the Israelites were brought up, consisted in sacrificing animals in those temples which contained certain images, to bow down to those images, and to burn incense before them; religious and ascetic persons were in those days the persons that were devoted to the service in the temples erected to the stars, as has been explained by us. It was in accordance with the wisdom and plan of God, as displayed in the whole Creation, that He did not command us to give up and to discontinue all these manners of service; for to obey such a commandment it would have been contrary to the nature of man, who generally cleaves to that to which he is used; it would in those days have made the same impression as a prophet would make at present if he called us to the service of God and told us in His name, that we should not pray to Him, not fast, not seek His help in time of trouble; that we should serve Him in thought, and not by any action. For this reason God allowed these kinds of service to continue; He transferred to His service that which had formerly served as a worship of created beings, and of things imaginary and unreal, and commanded us to serve Him in the same manner, to build unto Him a temple, And they shall make unto me a sanctuary (Ex. 25:8); to have the altar erected to His name, An altar of earth thou shalt make unto me (ibid. 20:21); to offer the sacrifices to Him, If any man of you bring an offering unto the Lord (Lev. 1:2), to bow down to Him and to burn incense before Him.”

This same reasoning can be applied to the cultic practices of the ancient world, that they themselves are earlier stages of weaning humanity away from even worse pagan practices in a gradual manner. Thus, Rosenberg states, “The claim of the existence of monotheistic orientations that precede Abraham, as a basis for explaining the similarity between the Torah and the culture of ancient peoples, is only the first step in a more all-embracing position,” connecting the ideas of the Torah to those of the ancient Near Eastern world as part of a slow process of refinement.⁴ The principle that Rav Kook draws from Maimonides is that divine inspiration comes not to break the nature of man, but rather to elevate it gradually.⁵ While Maimonides states that certain practices from ancient civilizations are ultimately meant to be discarded, Rav Kook understands that at least some of those elements, “if they had an ethical foundation, and can be uplifted to an eternal and developed ethical level,” reflect an understanding of divine ideals and so were retained in the Torah.

Lenvuchei HaDor

The other work where Rav Kook discusses his approach to ancient Near Eastern parallels is Lenvuchei HaDor, a work he wrote while serving as a rabbi in Bauska (Boisk), Latvia, sometime between 1902 and 1904. This work was only officially published for the first time in 2014.⁶ In this work Rav Kook has a more expanded presentation of the concepts found in Eder haYakar, written over two short chapters, 32 and 33.

He presents the problem in chapter 33. “And here is the thing that has touched the hearts of many, and has led others to a complete apostasy from the Torah from heaven, and then to a practical destruction and uprooting, as is the natural branching of evil roots, is the similarity found in several narrative matters between what is written in the Torah and what is engraved on the ancient tablets from ancient Babylon and Assyria, such as the matter of the flood, the separation (Tower of Babel), and so on. Even though the things there come with changes, in any case they have come to understand that things like these were legends found among the ancient peoples, and were written in the Torah in a slightly different style according to the content and spirit of the nation.”

He resolves the difficulty presented in the same manner as in Eder HaYakar, but in a more expanded formulation. In chapter 32 he states, “When the matter of prophecy is properly understood in its depth, we will also understand its connection to the human mind and to all practical knowledge, and how truly all the details of knowledge, whether the rational, the practical, or the prophetic, are all as one revelation of divine light in shades that appear to change, which are in truth nothing but one force of unity, and therefore they act on each other and are affected by each other. And in this we find that many things that are said in the Torah, whether in commandments or in stories, certainly must have their examples found in the words of the great and righteous men of the ancient nations, but the divine light that permeates until the end of all generations of the prophecy of Moses our teacher, may God bless him and grant him peace, selected and purified them from what arose in them from the confusion and the error. And whatever is found to be of real benefit in its doing and telling, is approached according to a higher purpose that encompasses everything together, and the Israelites are not praised at all as inventors of the laws of morality and righteousness in the world, nor even as inventors of the root of the unity of God. On the contrary, the Seven Commandments of the Children of Noah were already inherited from the Adam and Noah . . . And certainly many good things from the remnants of the prophets and disciples of the first generations, such as Methuselah, Chanoch, Shem and Eber, and the like, such as values, manners, thinking, and true stories, remained with the ancient nations and were preserved in their writings, until, upon searching, some examples of the words of the Torah will be found in them. And certainly many commandments are found that, according to human nature, there will be individuals who are inclined to them, having acquired some of their flavor and value, and in any case, the divine seal filled in them was properly enacted only by the Torah.”

Expanding the traditional Seven Noahide Laws into a fully functional law code is found in earlier rabbinic tradition. For example, Ramban to Genesis 34:13 states, “In my opinion, the meaning of ‘Laws’ which the Rabbis have counted among their seven Noahide commandments is not just that they are to appoint judges in each and every district, but He commanded them concerning the laws of theft, overcharge, wronging, and a hired man’s wages; the laws of guardians of property, forceful violation of a woman, seduction, principles of damage and wounding a fellowman; laws of creditors and debtors, and laws of buying and selling, and their like, similar in scope to the laws with which Israel was charged.” However, even according to the plain meaning of the biblical text, the fact that some parts of the Seven Noahide Laws appear in Genesis 9:4–6 is an indicator that there is a concept of ancient law codes revealed to man by God even before the Sinai Revelation.

In chapter 33, Rav Kook elaborates that this approach applies to the parts of the Torah that are understood to be metaphoric as well. “Therefore, just as the pure prophecy by the Spirit of God and the word of His mouth filtered the narrative side from falsehood and lies, so it filtered the parable side from the mixture of evil and foolish chaos. And the matters that are worthy of coming in the style of a parable came by divine legislation from the hand of a faithful shepherd according to God, in such a way that they are worthy of being a source of life from which to draw holy and sublime morality and a pure knowledge of God that stands forever.”

The totality of this approach fundamentally flips the matter of ancient Near Eastern parallels from a problem to an obvious fact of the eternal human interaction with God throughout history, which produced valid ideas which were later preserved in the Torah in their most refined expression. The more parallels are found, the more the divine–human connection is demonstrated. Divine revelation on the individual level is reported numerous times in the Torah before Mount Sinai; Rav Kook proposes that not all of these episodes were recorded in the Torah, and perhaps not all provided a clear instruction that was followed by its recipients, so only some components were preserved in the Torah itself. Although Rav Kook does not apply this approach to dealing with the multiple sources proposed by the Documentary Hypothesis, a similar approach is used by Nahum Sarna in that context, “Surely God can as well unfold His revelation in successive stages as in a single moment of time.”⁷

An Example: Kidnapping

As an application of this approach, we can examine the case of kidnapping. In Deuteronomy 24:7 we find, If a party is found to have kidnapped — and then enslaved or sold — a fellow Israelite, that kidnapper shall die; thus you will sweep out evil from your midst. In the other law codes of the ancient Near East a variety of punishments are found for kidnapping, some factoring in the ethnicity and status of the victim.

For example, the Hittite Laws (19–20) state, “If a Luwian abducts a free person, man or woman, from the land of Hatti, and leads him away from the land of Luwiya/Arzawa…the abductor shall bring (forfeit) his entire house. If a Hittite abducts a Luwian man in the land of Hatti itself and leads him away to the land of Luwiya, formerly they gave 12 persons, but now he shall give 6 persons. If a Hittite man abducts a Hittite slave from the land of Luwiya, and leads him here to the land of Hatti…the abductor shall pay him 12 shekels of silver” (§19–20). Since this law code understands kidnapping as a case of theft, only the payment of a monetary fine is required. On the other hand, the Code of Hammurabi stipulates a death penalty for kidnapping, “If any one steal the minor son of another, he shall be put to death” (§14).⁸

According to the understanding of Rav Kook, we can propose that in this instance the Code of Hammurabi can be understood to have made a ruling that reflected God’s will, resulting in this basic ruling being incorporated into the Torah, while the Hittite Laws are an example of the approach rejected by the Torah. Although in the epilogue to his law code Hammurabi states that the god Shamash has conferred these laws to Hammurabi, in fact the laws that are ethical and in line with what would later be found in the Torah came from the one true God, and can possibly be understood as emanating from a connection to the divine will, even despite the attribution offered by Hammurabi himself.

Conclusion

The approach of Rav Kook, that parallels to the Torah found in ancient Near Eastern texts are the result of earlier interactions with the divine will as experienced by some members of these ancient civilizations, defuses the problems raised by these similarities. While Rav Kook leaned on midrashic and rabbinic tradition to demonstrate the possibility of this approach, we have seen that kernels of the concept are found in the plain sense of the Torah text, as in the mention of Melchizedek and the Noahide laws themselves, and can be incorporated into a more pshat oriented worldview as well.