Dr. Mark Chavalas continues the slavery series by reading ancient Near Eastern legal texts and contracts to show that “slavery” wasn’t one simple category—it was fluid, layered, and often temporary, tied to debt, restraint, famine survival, marriage arrangements, and social rank.

Then the real question comes into focus: if the biblical world shares the same environment, does Israel respond the same way—or does biblical monotheism and Genesis 1–2 shift the value of the human person underneath the system?

📜 Sources mentioned:

Code of Hammurabi (laws discussed: 115–116; also 146 referenced)

- Code of Ur-Namma (early laws on slaves and marriage)Muhammad A.

- Dandamayev, Slavery in Babylonia (and his Anchor Bible Dictionary article)

- Gender and Law in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East (ed. Victor H. Matthews, incl. Raymond Westbrook, “The Female Slave”)

- Marten Stol, Women in the Ancient Near East (c. 2016)

👍 Like • 🔔 Subscribe • 📩 Share

Email us at : buriedbiblepodcast@gmail.com

What was slavery in the Ancient Near East & how does that differ from our modern understanding?

Slavery is one of the most emotionally charged and morally difficult topics in Scripture. Dr. Mark Chavalas begins a new mini-series by starting with the Ancient Near Eastern world first, showing that “slavery” wasn’t one simple category but a wide spectrum (debt servitude, famine survival, war captives, household labor, and even political “servant” language).

The episode ends by setting up the key point for the next installment: how Israel’s approach to slavery may look similar on the surface to surrounding cultures, but is ultimately shaped by a different theology and view of human dignity.

📚 Sources mentioned:

- Raymond Westbrook, “Slave and Master in Ancient Near Eastern Law,” Chicago-Kent Law Review 70 (1995)

- Seth Richardson & Ella Karev, “Rethinking Slavery in the Ancient Near East,” ANE Today (ASOR)

- Martha T. Roth, Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor (SBL Writings from the Ancient World)

- Daniel Snell, Flight and Freedom in the Ancient Near East (2001)

👍 Like • 🔔 Subscribe • 📩 Share Email us at : buriedbiblepodcast@gmail.com

Did Genesis copy Gilgamesh — or is that the wrong question entirely? What if the Epic of Gilgamesh isn’t proof that Genesis copied — but proof that Genesis was responding?

In this episode we are joined by Assyriologist & Biblical Scholar Adam Miglio (Wheaton College) to explore one of the most misunderstood relationships in the ancient world: Genesis 1–11 and the Epic of Gilgamesh.While most discussions focus on the flood narrative, this conversation goes far beyond that comparison.

The episode examines shared ancient themes — such as the tree of life, serpents, human mortality, divine communication, and monumental building projects — and asks whether Genesis is copying Mesopotamian literature or engaging it in a deeper theological dialogue.

Rather than arguing for simple borrowing, the discussion highlights how Genesis enters the intellectual world of the ancient Near East and offers a radically different vision of humanity and the divine. Where Gilgamesh wrestles with mortality and the elusive search for eternal life, Genesis presents a God who speaks clearly, creates with purpose, and frames human existence within covenant and relationship.

The episode ultimately reframes the “copying” debate and invites listeners to see Genesis not as derivative, but as a bold and thoughtful counter-voice within the ancient world.

📌 Resources Mentioned

Adam Miglio, The Gilgamesh Epic and Genesis 1–11: Peering into the Deep

Ben Foster – Translation of the Epic of Gilgamesh

Andrew George – Translation of the Epic of Gilgamesh

💬 Let’s Talk in the CommentsWhat stood out to you most in this discussion? What other questions do you have when it comes to Gilgamesh & Genesis?

#BuriedBible #Genesis #Gilgamesh #AncientNearEast #BibleHistory #OldTestament #BiblicalContext #AncientLiterature #BibleStudy #theology

How did later Jewish tradition transform Melchizedek from a seemingly minor character into a cosmic figure?This wrap-up episode closes our Melchizedek mini-series by tracing how a brief priest-king character in Genesis 14 becomes a cosmic figure in later Jewish tradition—especially in Second Temple / Intertestamental Jewish writings and the Dead Sea Scrolls. We also look at how Hebrews 5 & 7 uses that expanded “Melchizedek tradition” to make a bigger argument: Jesus’ priesthood is superior to everything that came before.We walk through Intertestamental references (Philo, Josephus, targums, later rabbinic material), the Dead Sea Scrolls’ explosive “Melchizedek” text (11Q13 / 11QMelch), and the interpretive tension that trips up modern readers: Hebrews’ “without father or mother… no beginning… no end” language. Is that literal ontology—or typological argument from silence?Key insights to watch for- Why Melchizedek gets “cosmic” in Second Temple literature- How Hebrews uses the tradition without endorsing all of it.- “Without genealogy” as typology vs. claims that Melchizedek is divine / an angel / a Christophany.- The unresolved question: what exactly is the “order of Melchizedek,” and why is it superior? Sources & resources mentioned➡️ F.F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews (New International Commentary on the New Testament)➡️ James Kugel (book chapter on the Melchizedek tradition; referenced for collecting traditions)➡️ Genesis Apocryphon➡️ Philo of Alexandria➡️ Josephus (Antiquities / Jewish War)➡️ Targum Onkelos / Targum Neofiti (Melchizedek traditions)➡️ 11Q13 / 11QMelch (Dead Sea Scrolls)➡️ Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice (fragmentary Melchizedek references)Mentioned for further study: Michael Heiser (esp. on angelic/“Michael” claims)QUESTION:Do you read Hebrews 7 as typology, literal divine description, or something in-between? And why do you think the author assumed the audience already “knew” the Melchizedek tradition?🔥 If you want more deep dives like this, hit like, subscribe, and share it with someone who’s been stuck on Hebrews 7.

When Genesis calls Melchizedek a priest of “El Elyon,” what is the text actually claiming?

“El Elyon” (God Most High) shows up in Genesis 14 right at the center of the Melchizedek story—and it’s easy to assume that automatically equals Yahweh. The problem? That title isn’t exclusive to Yahweh—it appears in extra-biblical sources and broader ancient Near Eastern usage. In Genesis 14, Melchizedek invokes El Elyon generally, while Abraham explicitly names Yahweh and applies the same “Most High” title—suggesting Israel appropriates a known divine title rather than proving Melchizedek was a Yahweh worshiper.

That all leads to the BIG QUESTION: if the title isn’t exclusive, what does that suggest about whether Melchizedek was actually a Canaanite priest-king? And why does this figure later get “upgraded” into something far more cosmic by the time we reach Hebrews?

Key Points:

➡️ “El Elyon” is a shared ancient title, not a Yahweh-only label.(Its presence in Genesis 14 doesn’t automatically make Melchizedek a worshiper of Israel’s God.)

➡️ Genesis 14 shows a key distinction: Melchizedek uses the title; Abraham names Yahweh.(Abraham’s move shows how Israelites could claim “Most High” language for Yahweh while speaking in a Canaanite setting.)

➡️ This phrase becomes a bridge to later theology.(Understanding El Elyon helps explain why Melchizedek could later be reinterpreted and elevated through Psalm 110 and eventually used powerfully in Hebrews.)

Sources mentioned / texts discussed Bible passages:

Genesis 14 - Numbers 24 - Psalms 83 & 97 - Isaiah 14 - Daniel 7 - Deuteronomy 32:8–9 - Acts 7&16 - Psalm 110

Extra-biblical / scholarly:

📖 Sefire (Sfire) Aramaic treaty (via Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament / Pritchard; trans. Franz Rosenthal)

📖 Eusebius of Caesarea quoting Philo of Byblos / Sanchuniathon traditions (El/Elleun “Most High”)

📖 Kumarbi myth (Hurrian/Hittite tradition; Hoffner’s translations)

📖 Hasmonean-era references to “High Priest of Elyon” (via Josephus discussion)

📖 John Hilber, “Psalm 110 in Light of Assyrian Prophecies,” Vetus Testamentum (2003)📖 James Kugel, Traditions of the Bible (Melchizedek section)Mention: John Walton & “Aubrey Buster” Daniel commentary (forthcoming/part-released as discussed)

Who was Melchizedek really—and what does his name actually mean?

Genesis 14 introduces Melchizedek with almost no explanation, yet later biblical writers elevate him into one of the most theologically significant figures in Scripture. This episode slows down and asks a simple question: does Melchizedek’s name tell us more about his identity than we’ve assumed?

Dr. Mark Chavalas examines Melchizedek within Genesis 14, focusing on the meaning of his name (מלכי־צדק) and the possibility that it reflects Canaanite religious language rather than explicit Yahweh worship. By exploring ancient naming practices, divine epithets, and West Semitic religion, this conversation challenges the common assumption that Melchizedek was originally a monotheistic priest—and instead asks whether Scripture is intentionally reinterpreting a figure rooted in an older religious world.

Rather than weakening the biblical text, this approach reveals how the Bible often reclaims and re-centers ancient titles, names, and concepts, applying them to Yahweh in ways that deepen—not diminish—its theological message.

📚 Sources & resources referencedGenesis 14:17–24 | Psalm 110 | Hebrews 7

➡️ Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (DDD), entries on Melchizedek, El Elyon, and Zedek

➡️ Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament (James B. Pritchard)

➡️ West Semitic and Amorite personal name studies (Mari, Ugarit, Amarna texts)

➡️ Egyptian Execration Texts referencing early Jerusalem

➡️ Amarna Letters (notably EA 287)

#BuriedBiblePodcast #Melchizedek #Genesis14 #BibleInContext #AncientNearEast #BiblicalScholarship #OldTestamentStudies #Hebrews7 #Psalm110 #BiblicalTheology #HistoricalBible #biblestudy

Who was Melchizedek — a priest of Yahweh, a Canaanite king, or a Christ-like figure?

This episode begins a new series on Melchizedek, one of the most confusing and debated figures in the Bible. Starting in Genesis 14, Dr. Mark Chavalas examines the ancient Near Eastern war narrative and shows that Melchizedek originally appears as a seemingly minor, historical king–priest figure, not a cosmic being.

The discussion explores how later Jewish writings, the Psalms, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the book of Hebrews progressively expand Melchizedek’s significance.We also discuss Genesis 14’s war narrative and ancient “military itinerary” style—and ask why this minor character gets singled out for massive theological significance later on.

The key argument: being an archetype doesn’t automatically make Melchizedek the “type.”

What we talk about:

- Why Genesis 14 reads like an ancient Near Eastern military itinerary

- How Abraham looks like a much bigger political player than most people assume (318 retainers, allies, treaty logic)

- Why Melchizedek’s bread and wine likely means “provisions,” not a communion scene (in its original context)

- The tension behind El Elyon: title for Israel’s God, or a Canaanite divine name that later gets re-applied?

- Why later writers (Psalms → Dead Sea Scrolls → Hebrews) expand Melchizedek into a larger figure

- The episode’s cliffhanger: Melchizedek may not even be a Yahweh worshiper in Genesis 14

Sources & references mentioned

🔗 Genesis 14:1–24 | Psalm 110

🔗 Dead Sea Scrolls (Melchizedek traditions / intertestamental development)

🔗 Hebrews (Melchizedek as archetype/prototype language)

🔗 Barry Beitzel (ed.), Lexham Geographic Commentary on the Pentateuch (Genesis 14 article)

🔗 William W. Hallo, “The Road to EMAR” (itinerary/travel text discussion)

🔗 Gary Beckman, Hittite Diplomatic Texts (booty/treaty parallels)

🔗 James K. Hoffmeier (2024), “Abraham’s Battle… and His Encounter with Melchizedek” (HipHil Novum, Vol. 9)

Let’s talk in the comments:

Do you think Melchizedek is portrayed as a Yahweh priest in Genesis 14, or is that a later interpretive move?

🎙️ Subscribe for more episodes that uncover Scripture through the ancient world and the cultures beneath the surface.

#Melchizedek #Genesis14 #BibleContext #OldTestament #BiblicalStudies#AncientNearEast #HebrewsBible #DeadSeaScrolls #ancientneareast

Was the Star of Bethlehem a miracle in the night sky—or an astrological “birth report” that only trained Magi would’ve understood?

This wraps our Christmas mini-series by diving straight into the Michael Molnar hypothesis: Matthew’s “star” may function like a royal natal horoscope pointing to Judea. That one shift reframes multiple “odd” details in Matthew 2—why the Magi saw the star “in the East,” why they traveled west, why they went to Jerusalem first, and why nobody else in Jerusalem noticed anything spectacular.

We also explore how terms like “in the East” may be technical language tied to heliacal rising, and how planetary retrograde motion/stationing could help explain the star “going before them” and “stopping.”

🔥 Key Moments & Ideas

➡️ Why modern scholars often ignored astrology—and why that blind spot matters for historians

➡️ Molnar’s core claim: the “star” is the report of a natal horoscope

➡️ “We saw his star in the rising” as heliacal rising (not simply a compass direction)

➡️ Why astrology could point to a province (Judea) but not a town (Bethlehem)

➡️ Why no one in Jerusalem “saw” the star—because the pattern is recognized on a horoscope, not as a spectacle

➡️ The theological question: providence through natural means vs. outright sky-miracle

➡️ Stars as deities vs. stars as subordinate heavenly beings—how Jews differed from their neighbors

📚 Sources Mentioned

- The Star of Bethlehem and the Magi (ed. Barthel van Kooten)

- Bradley Schaefer on the Molnar hypothesis

- Michael Molnar, The Legacy of the Magi

- Ptolemy, Tetrabiblos

- Tacitus, Annals/Histories

- Suetonius, Life of Vespasian

- Firmicus Maternus, Mathesis

💬 Let’s Talk in the CommentsDo you think Matthew is describing a visible miracle, an astrological reading, or God’s providence using both? Where do you land?

🎥 Like, Subscribe & ShareIf you want more Bible passages explained through ancient context, subscribe and share this with a friend who loves Christmas… but also loves the hard questions.

#BuriedBiblePodcast #StarOfBethlehem #Magi #Matthew2 #AncientAstrology #AncientNearEast #BibleContext #BiblicalHistory #christmasseries