ANE:Treaties in Tanakh and the Ancient Near East/0

Treaties in Tanakh and the Ancient Near East

This topic has not yet undergone editorial review

Overview

Archaeological finds have revealed many treaties from the ancient Near East which share much in common with their Biblical counterparts.  As such, these documents can shed light on specific aspects of the Biblical examples which are otherwise obscure or overlooked.  At the same time, the differences between the sources serve to highlight some of the unique features of Israelite treaties, and especially of Hashem's covenant with the nation.

Treaties in Tanakh

The term ברית appears 284 times in Tanakh, suggesting that a significant number of relationships in Tanakh are covenantal in nature.  In some cases, the term refers to treaties between individual people or countries, such as the treaties between Avraham and Avimelekh, Shelomo and Chiram, or Achav and Ben Hadad.  At other times it refers to a covenant between Hashem and man, such as Hashem's covenant with Noach, Avraham, or the nation of Israel. 

These covenants/treaties fall into two main categories:

• Promissory treaties – In these, the more powerful party unconditionally promises something or obligates themselves to the less powerful party.  An example would be Hashem's unconditional promises to Avraham or David.¹ 
•  Obligatory treaties – These treaties, in contrast, are conditional on the fulfilling of certain stipulations.  These include both suzerainty treaties between unequal parties, in which a vassal is expected to fulfill the treaty's conditions in obedience to an overlord (who, in turn, might promise protection or the like), and parity agreements where two equal parties agree to obey the same set of conditions. Hashem's covenant with Israel exemplifies the former, while Yaakov and Lavan's treaty illustrates the latter.

Treaties in the Ancient Near East

Second and first millennium (BCE) treaties have been found involving many countries including Egypt, Assyria, Mari, and Babylonia. However, the vast majority of discoveries stem from two eras and locales: the Hittite kingdom of Anatolia (15th-13th c. BCE),² and the Neo-Assyrian Empire (8th-7th c. BCE). B

Covenantal Form: The ancient near eastern treaties, and especially the Hittite suzerain treaties (which form the focus of this section)³ tend to share the same basic format, and include the following six elements:⁴

• Preamble – The opening introduced the person who composed the treaty, giving his title and attributes.⁵
• Historical introduction – The prologue recounted the events leading up to the decision to make the covenant.  These often focused on the benefits bestowed by the suzerain on his vassal, providing the basis for the expectation of obedience.⁶
• Stipulations – These included both general and specific obligations of the vassal to his overlord. Though these vary from treaty to treaty, some common duties included the payment of tribute, provision of military aid, and extradition of fugitives.  The subordinate king was also often prohibited from entering into alliances with kings other than the sovereign.
• Deposition and Public Reading – In several treaties,⁷ provisions for depositing the treaty in the temple (of both the vassal and suzerain) and for periodic public readings thereof were laid forth.⁸ 
• Divine witnesses – Various gods and the natural elements (perhaps also perceived as deities) were called upon to witness the treaty, and sometimes to  punish those who did not keep its terms⁹
• Curses and Blessings – The treaties usually ended with a list of curses and benedictions.

Covenantal Ceremony – In addition to the above, treaties were often accompanied by a ratification ceremony, which included:

• an oath of acceptance in which the vassal swore to keep the conditions of the treaty.
• sacrifices or slaughter of an animal¹⁰ – In several first millenium texts, simile curses,¹¹ in which an offending vassal is compared to a slaughtered animal, suggests that this part of the ceremony served not only to ratify the treaty but to warn the vassal of his fate were he to violate the agreement.

Covenantal Form: Points of Contact

The treaty format described above has clear echoes in Tanakh.  The most striking parallel is to Hashem's covenants with the Nation of Israel.  In each of the three covenants, at Sinai (Shemot 19-24), in Moav (Sefer Devarim), and  in Shekhem (Yehoshua 24), many of the above components appear:

• Covenant at Sinai – The Decalogue opens with a short preamble and historical prologue as Hashem introduces Himself: "‎‎אָנֹכִי י"י אֱלֹהֶיךָ אֲשֶׁר הוֹצֵאתִיךָ מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם מִבֵּית עֲבָדִים."‎¹² The next 11 verses lists various stipulations, including the prohibition against other gods,¹³ the imperative to keep the Sabbath, and interpersonal directives.¹⁴ In contrast to Hittite treaties, the Sinai covenant does not conclude with the calling of Divine witnesses.  These are replaced by the tablets (לֻחֹת הָעֵדֻת) and the ark (אֲרוֹן הָעֵדוּת) which themselves serve as testimony to the covenant. Similarly there is no distinct unit of blessings and curses; these are instead interspersed into the stipulations.¹⁵ Shemot 24 describes the nation's ratifying of the covenant with an oath of obedience ("נַעֲשֶׂה וְנִשְׁמָע"), sprinkling of blood, and sacrificial meal. Finally, Hashem commands that the tablets be housed in the Mishkan (Shemot 25).
• Covenant in Moav – Sefer Devarim as a whole can also be seen to follow the treaty pattern. Chapters 1-3 constitute the historical prologue, Chapters 4-26 include the various stipulations, while Chapters 27-28 list the various blessings and curses (cf. Vayikra 26). The following chapters discuss the covenantal oath (29:8-14), directive to read the covenant every seven years (31:10-13),¹⁶ deposition of the ברית near the Ark of the Covenant (31:24-26) and witnesses in the form of the heavens and earth (30:19, 31:28ff).
• Covenant in Shekhem – Yehoshua's renewal of the covenant in Yehoshua 24 follows the same general format.  After introducing the speaker (2a), verses 2b-13 review various benevolent deeds done by Hashem for the nation throughout their history.  Verses 14-15 stipulate exclusive worship of Hashem, while verses 19-20 warn that disobedience will result in calamity.  The nation promises obedience (24:16-18, 21) and are themselves set up at witnesses to the covenant (24:20), alongside a monumental stone erected as testimony (24:26-27).

Covenental Form: Unique Features

Despite the overall similarity in form, certain features stand out as unique in the Biblical covenants:

• Stipulations – In all ancient near eastern treaties the conditions laid forth are aimed solely at the benefit of the overlord and never deal with the interpersonal behavior of the members of the vassal state. Hashem's covenant is thus unique in that He expects His vassals to observe laws not only aimed at Him but also their fellow man.
• Witnesses – Since monotheistic belief in Hashem precludes the existence of other gods, no individual deities are called as witnesses, and substitutes in the form of natural elements, the people themselves, or tablets of the covenant are found.
• Deposition in Mishkan – Ancient near eastern treaties were written in duplicate, with a copy to be placed in the temple of the gods of both the sovereign and vassal. In Tanakh, as well, there were two tablets made, but since the sovereign and Deity are one and the same, both copies were deposited in the same place, the Mishkan. According to this, each tablet constituted an entire copy of the covenant and contained all ten utterances,¹⁷ and not five as is commonly suggested.¹⁸
• Blessings and Curses – In the Hittite treaties, the list of curses tend to precede the blessings,¹⁹ and normally call for total destruction of the disobedient party.²⁰ In contrast, in both Vayikra 26 and Devarim 28, the blessings precede the curses. In addition, in Vayikra 26:44-45 Hashem explicitly states that he will not totally destroy the nation.  Though no such promise is made in Devarim, there, too, Hashem allows for the people's repentance and restoration of the relationship.
• Focus on individual layman – Ancient near eastern treaties are made between two kings, each representative of their state. In contrast, Hashem makes His covenant with the nation as a whole. This both symbolically raise the stature of every individual to that of king, and highlights the personal nature of the covenant.

Significance of the Parallels

Breaking the tablets – Many question what led Moshe to break the tablets when seeing the people sin with the golden calf, and how he would dare to do so, given their holy status. In light of the above, it would seem that once the nation broke the terms of Hashem's covenant, the document of that covenant (the tablets) became null and void.  Breaking the tablets was the equivalent of tearing up a contract.

Aliyah LaRegel (Shemot 23)– The command to make a pilgrimage to the Mikdash three times a year and ""

Covenantal Ceremony: Parallels

The ancient near eastern practice of ratifying a treaty with animal slaughter or sacrifice and accompanying simile curses, might shed light on several passages in Tanakh, where the practices might be paralleled or hinted to:

• Language of "כרת ברית":
  
• Passing through animal pieces  – Both ברית בין הבתרים and the covenant in the time of Tzidkiyahu involve the cutting of animals and passing through the pieces. Many question the meaning of these actions, but in light of the ancient near eastern parallels, it seems that this was simply the conventional method by which to seal a promise.  In Yirmeyahu it is explicit that transgression of the covenant will result in punishment, supporting the idea that the slaughter was sybolic in nature, similar to the simile curses of the ancient near east. The Covenant Between the Pieces, however, is unique for it is Hashem, the suzerain rather than the vassal, who passes through the pieces, taking upon Himself a potential curse for non-compliance.
• Blood at the Covenant at Sinai – The covenant at Sinai is accompanied by sacrifices, the sprinkling of blood, and eating of a meal. The fact that the blood is sprinkled on the people and not just the altar, might also be understood as a warning for transgression.
• Yitro's sacrifices in Shemot 18 – R. D"Z Hoffmann suggests that Yitro's sacrifice and festive meal are not religious in nature, but part of a  diplomatic ceremony which accompanied the signing of a covenant between the nations of Israel and Midyan.²¹ See Eating Bread Lifnei HaElohim and Yitro's Purpose for elaboration.
• Sacrifices vs. Meal – Several treaties in Tanakh appear to be sealed with both a sacrifice and the sharing of a meal (see the treaty of Yaakov and Lavan,²² or the covenant at Sinai) while elsewhere just a meal is mentioned (see the treaties of Yitzchak and Avimelekh or David and Avner). This alternative method of ratifying treaties, which involved only eating, might further shed light on several other passages in Tanakh:
• Rashbam suggests that the lentil stew and bread given by Yaakov to Esav did not constitute payment for the birthright but the sealing of their deal.
• R. Hovav Yechieli suggests that the Lechem HaPanim should be understood as constitutes a covenant sealing meal which renews the eternal covenant between the nation and Hashem.
• –
• "כרת ברית"
• "כה יעשהלי וכהיוסיף..."

 

¹ Some question whether these are really unconditional. See

² These treaties were found in two main archives, at the ancient capital of the Hittites, Hattusas, and at Ugarit, modern day Ras Shamra.

³ All examples of the form discussed below are from such Hittite treaties. For a vast collection of Hittite diplomatic texts, see G. Beckman, Hittite Diplomatic Texts, ed. H. A. Hoffner Jr. (Atlanta, 1999).

⁴ Not every treaty contains all the elements listed, nor do they always preserve the order presented below, but as a whole they appear to share this pattern. The basic sections were first noted by Viktor Korosec, in his article, Hethitische Staatsverträge, ein Beitrag zu ihrer juristischen Wertung, Leipziger rechtswissenschaftliche Studien, vol. 60 (1931): 12–14. G. Mendenhall built off his work in his article, "Covenant Forms in Israelite Tradition," Biblical Archaeologist 17 (1954): 50-76, where he highlighted the importance of the Hittite treaties for Biblical study.  Many scholars have since discussed the common form of the treaties, though they differ regarding some of the specifics.

⁵ Thus, for example in a Hittite treaty between Muršilis and Duppi-Tešub, we read, "These are the words of the Sun Muršilis, the great king, the king of the Hatti land, the valiant, the favorite of the Storm-god, the son of Šuppiluliumas, the great king, the king of the Hatti land, the valiant."

⁶ For example, see the prologue in the Treaty Between Mursilis and Duppi-Tessub of Amurru.

⁷ This element is not as widespread as some of the others.  Examples can be found in the Treaty Between Suppiluliumas and Kuriwaza, the Treaty between Tudhaliya of Hatti and Kurunta of Tarhuntassa, and the Treaty between Muwattalli II of Hatti and Alaksandu of Wilusa.

⁸ While deposition in a shrine might have served to sanctify the treaty (and invite Divine vengeance on disloyal vassals), the periodic reading probably served the practical function of ensuring that the entire populace was familiar with the treaty's stpiulations.

⁹ For instance, see the invocation of the gods in theTreaty Between Mursilis and Duppi-Tessub of Amurru and the Treaty Between Suppiluliumas and Kuriwaza.

¹⁰ Charles F. Fensham, "Did a Treaty between the Israelites and the Kenites Exist?", BASOR 175 (1964): 51-54, cites examples from a letter from Mari and two treaties from Alalakh as evidence:

• The Letter from Mari mentions slaughtering an ass in connection to a treaty between the Ḫanaeans and Idamaras
• In a treaty from Alalakh (Donald J. Wiseman, Abban and Alalah, Journal of Cuneiform Studies, Vol. 12, No. 4, 1958, pp. 126, 129),we read that Abban “placed himself under oath” and "had cut the neck of a sheep,” saying, “If I take back that which I gave thee!”
• In another treaty from Alalakh (Sidney Smith, The Statute of Idrimi [1949], pp. 16 f.), it mentions that after a covenant is cut between Idrimi and Sutarna, an oath is made and accompanied by a covenant.

¹¹ See, for instance, the treaty between King Barga’yah and Matti'el in the Sefire Inscription, the Treaty Between Ashurnirari V of Assyria and Mati'ilu of Arpad, and the Vassal-Treaty of Esarhaddon.

¹² As in the Hittite treaties, Hashem speaks of an act of benevolence which invites obedience.  J. Berman, "God's Alliance with Man," AzureOnline 25 (2006), points out that Hashem could easily have chosen to introduce Himself instead as Creator.  The fact that He instead speaks of Himself as redeemer (a fact well known to the nation) might be the intentional desire to model the Decalogue after treaties of the time.

¹³ Though this prohibition against false gods has an obvious place in a monotheistic religion, in light of the Hittite treaties it could also be seen as parallel to the stipulation that the subordinate power not ally themselves with other kingdoms, an act which would be viewed as not only disloyal but ungrateful.

¹⁴ Parashat Mishpatim continues with more specific rulings guiding behavior in both the realm of man to God and man to man.  The casuistic form of these laws (comprising "if... then..." statements), however, make them more similar to other legal codes which are also couched as case law.  The apodictic form of the Decalogue (Do / Do not...) finds parallels only in the treaties.

¹⁵ The latter is unique, as in all ancient near eastern treaties the conditions laid forth are aimed solely at the benefit of the overlord and never deal with the interpersonal behavior of the members of the vassal state. Hashem, in contrast, expects his "vassals" to observe laws not only aimed at Him but also their fellow man.

¹⁶ This constitutes the mitzvah of "הקהל".  See Purpose of Hakhel and the position there that the point of the command was to reenact the covenants at Sinai and Moav.

¹⁷ See M. Kline,"The Two Tables of the Covenant," Westminster Theological Journal 22 (1960): 133-46, who develops this point.

¹⁸ See the disagreement between R. Chanina and the Sages in Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael.

¹⁹ In the Neo-Assyrian treaties of the first millenium, the blessings are missing altogther and only curses are listed.

²⁰ For example, Mursilli II tells his vassal that if he does not fulfill the treaty's stipulations, the "gods shall destroy Tuppi-Teshshup, [together with his person], his [wife], his son, his grandsons, his household, his city, his land, and together with his possessions."

²¹ He thereby explains why the generic name Elohim is used, rather than Hashem (the name usually found with regard to sacrifices).

²² We are told, "וַיִּזְבַּח יַעֲקֹב זֶבַח בָּהָר וַיִּקְרָא לְאֶחָיו לֶאֱכָל לָחֶם".