9—
The Covenantal Aspect of the Promise of the Land to Israel
Two types of covenants are found in the Old Testament: the obligatory type reflected in the covenant of God with Israel and the promissory type reflected in the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants.[1] The nature of the covenant of God with Israel has been thoroughly investigated and recently clarified by a comparison with the treaty formulations in the ancient Near East.[2] The nature of the Abrahamic-Davidic covenants, however, is still vague and needs clarification. This chapter suggests a new way of understanding the character of the Abrahamic-Davidic covenants by means of a typological and functional comparison with the grant formulae in the ancient Near East.[3]
[1] See, e.g., D. N. Freedman, "Divine Commitment and Human Obligation," Interpretation 18 (1964), pp. 419–31, and R. E. Clements, Abraham and David , Studies in Biblical Theology, Sec. series 5 (London, 1967). Cf. also N. Lohfink, Die Landverheissung als Eid , Stuttgarter Bibelstudien 28 (Stuttgart, 1967) and F. C. Fensham, "Covenant, Promise and Expectation in the Bible," Theolgische Zeitschrift 23 (1967), pp. 305–22.
[2] Cf. G. E. Mendenhall, "Covenant Forms in Israelite Tradition," Biblical Archaeologist 17 (1954), pp. 50 ff.; K. Baltzer, Das Bundesformular , 2d ed., Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 4 (Neukirchen, 1964); D. J. McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant , 2d ed., Analecta Biblica 21a (Rome, 1978); M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford, 1972).
[3] A. Poebel, Das Appositionell Bestimmte Pronomen der 1 Pers. Sing. in den westsemitschen Inschriften und im A. T ., Assyriological Studies 3, Orien-tal Institute (Chicago, 1932). Poebel suggested that the promise to the Patriarchs bears the character of an oral "Belehnungsurkunde." His suggestion was based on the syntactical function of the phrase "I am the Lord" preceding the promise of the land. According to his view, the phrase "I am the Lord" is a typical opening phrase of royal documents in the ancient Near East, which has to be connected with and understood as the following: "I am the one who did so and so, etc.," and not "I am the Lord" as an independent phrase of self-introduction. This assumption, which seems to be correct, is not sufficient to bear out the thesis about the identity of the Abrahamic-Davidic covenant with the grant. We must, however, give credit to Poebel for his penetrating glance into the nature of the covenant in Israel, which, although expressed in one sentence, antedated Mendenhall (see n. 2) by twenty-two years. Cf. his summation of the syntactical discussion, "Wir sahen auch, dass in jedem einzelnen Fall die Anwendung der dem Herrscher und Urkundenstil entlehnten Formell durchaus der Situation angemessen war, weil die Verheissung, den Nachkommen der Erzväter das Land Kanaans zu verleihen, gewissermassen eine mündliche Belehnungsurkunde ist und auch die Bundesschliessung Gottes mit Israel nach der Absicht der Erzähler ahnlich wie der Abschluss eines Bundnisses zwischen politischen Staaten oder Herrschern unter dem Gesichtspunkt eines rechtlichen Staatsaktes betrachtet werden soll" (p. 72).
Two types of official judicial documents had been diffused in the Mesopotamian cultural sphere from the middle of the second millennium onward: the political treaty, which is well known to us from the Hittite empire,[4] and the royal grant, the classical form of which is found in the Babylonian kudurru documents (boundary stones)[5] but which also occurs among the Hittites[6] in the Syro-Palestine area[7] and in the neo-Assyrian
[4] Cf. E. Weidner, Politische Dokumente aus Kleinasien: Die Staatsverträge in akkadischer Sprache aus dem Archiv von Boghazköi, Boghazköi Studien 8 (Leipzig, 1923); J. Friedrich, Staatsverträge des Hatti Reiches in hethitischer Sprache, MVAeG 31 (1926); 34 (1934).
[5] L. W. King, Babylonian Boundary Stones and Memorial Tablets , (London, 1912). Cf. also F. X. Steinmetzer, Die babylonischen Kudurru (Grenzsteine) als Urkundenform , Studien zur Geschichte und Kultur des Altertums 11 (Paderborn, 1922).
[6] Cf. H. Güterbock, Siegel aus Bogazköy, AfO , Beiheft 5 (1940), especially pp. 47–55, which deal with the "Landschenkungsurkunden"; K. Riemschneider, Die hethitischen Landschenkungsurkunden , Mitteilungen des Instituts für Orient-forschung 6 (Berlin, 1958), pp. 321–81.
[7] Cf. the gift-deed of Abban to Yarimlim in D. J. Wiseman, TheAlalah Tablets , no. 1* (London, 1954), complemented by the tablet ATT/39/84 published by Wiseman in "Abban and Alalah," JCS 12 (1958), pp. 124 ff., for which see also: A. Draffkorn, "Was King Abba-AN of Yamhad[*] a Vizier for the King of Hattusa[*] ?" JCS 13 (1959), pp. 94 ff., and the Ugaritic donation texts in PRU 2 and 3.
period.[8] The structure of both of these types of documents is similar. Both preserve the same elements: a historical introduction, border delineations, stipulations, witnesses, blessings, and curses.[9] Functionally, however, there is a vast difference between these two types of documents. While the "treaty" constitutes an obligation of the vassal to his master, the suzerain, the "grant" constitutes an obligation of the master to his servant. In the "grant," the curse is directed toward anyone who violates the rights of the king's vassal,[10] while in the treaty the curse is directed toward the vassal who violates the rights of his king. In other words, the "grant" serves mainly to protect the rights of the servant , while the treaty protects the rights of the master . In addition, while the grant is a reward for loyalty and good deeds already performed, the treaty is an inducement to future loyalty.
[8] Cf. J. Kohler and A. Ungnad, Assyrische Rechtsurkunden , no. 1–30 (Leipzig, 1913); J. N. Postgate, Neo-Assyrian Royal Grants and Decrees (Rome: Pontifical Institute, 1969).
[9] For the structure of the Hittite treaties, cf. V. Korosec[*] , Hethitische Staatsverträge (Leipzig, 1931), and for the structure of the kudurru documents, cf. F. X. Steinmetzer, Kudurru (n. 5).
[10] Cf. the kudurru inscriptions in L. W. King, BBSt (n. 5) and the neo-Assyrian grants in Kohler-Ungnad, ARu no. 1–30 (n. 8); J. N. Postgate, Royal Grants (n. 8), no. 1–52. A peculiar threat occurs in an Old Babylonian grant from Hana, baqir[*] ibaqqaru . . . kupram ammam qaqqassu ikkappar ("whoever challenges the gift, his head will be covered with hot pitch"), in M. Schorr, Urkunden des altbabylonischen Zivil-und Prozessrechts , VAB 5, no. 219 (Leipzig, 1913), pp. 17–24. At times the donor takes upon himself a conditional self-curse as, for instance, in the grant of Abban, where Abban takes the following oath: summa[*]sa[*]addinukummi eleqqu[*] = "[may I be cursed] if I take back what I gave you" (Wiseman, AT [n. 7] 1*, pp. 16–20). For the conditional oath sentences, see W. von Soden, Grundriss der akkadischen Grammatik , Analecta Orientalia 33 (Rome, 1952), 185g, i.
The covenant with Abraham and the covenant with David indeed belong to the grant type and not to the vassal type of document. Like the royal grants in the ancient Near East, the covenants with Abraham and David were gifts bestowed upon individuals who excelled in loyally serving their masters. Abraham is promised the land because he obeyed God and followed his mandate (Gen. 26:5; cf. 22:16, 18), and David is given the grace of dynasty because he served God with truth, righteousness, and loyalty (1 Kings 3, 6; cf. 9:4; 11:4, 6; 14:8; 15:3). The terminology used in this context is indeed very close to that used in the Assyrian grants. For example, in the grant of Assurbanipal[*] to his servant Baltaya[*] we read:
I am Assurbanipal . . . who does good (epis tabti[*] ) . . . who always responds graciously[11] to all the officials who serve him and returns kindness to the servant (palihi[*] ) who keeps his royal command, whose heart is devoted [lit., is whole] to his master, served me [lit., stood before me] with truthfulness, acted perfectly [lit., walked in perfection] in my palace, grew up with a good name and kept the charge of my kingship. I took thought of his kindness and I have established his gift . . .[12] Any future prince from among the kings my sons . . . do good and kindness to them and their seed. They are friends and allies (bel tabit[*] , bel deqti[*] ) of the king their master.[13]
[11] it-ta-nap-pa-lu ina damqati[*] . The reading apalu[*] ("to answer") and not abalu[*] ("lead, direct") is supported by the vassal treaties of Esarhaddon, lines 98, 236 (D. J. Wiseman, The Vassal Treaties of Esarhaddon , Iraq 20 (London, 1958), where R. Borger ("Zu den Asarhaddon—Verträgen aus Nimrud," ZA 20 (1961), pp. 177, 182) reads correctly: ina kinate tarsati la[*]ta-ta-nap-pal-su-u-ni[*] ("if you do not respond with truth"). In a similar context we read in 1 Kings 12:7: w'nytm[*]wdbrt 'lyhm[*]dbrym twbym[*] , which means: "you will respond graciously"; in other words, "comply with their requests." See my article "The Council of the 'Elders' to Rehoboam and Its Implications," Ma'arav[*] , A Journal for the Study of the NorthWest Semitic Languages and Literatures 3 (1982), pp. 25–54 (ch. 8, n. 35).
[12] For this reading cf. my article "Covenant Terminology in the Ancient Near East and its Influence on the West," JAOS 93 (1973), p. 195, n. 77.
[13] Postgate, Grants (n. 8) no. 11, pp. 1–13, 42–45.
The gift comes as a reward for the "good and kindness" shown by the official to his master, the king, and is considered itself as "good and kindness (tabtu damiqtu[*] )."[14]
This is very similar in concept to the gifts bestowed upon Abraham and David, the faithful servants.[15] Like the Assyrian king who, prompted by the kindness of his servant, promises "good and kindness" (tabtu damiqtu ) to his descendants, so does YHWH to the offspring of Abraham.
Know, therefore, that . . . your God . . . keeps his gracious covenant (smr hbryt whhsd[*] ) to the thousandth generation of those who love him and keep his commandments . (Deut. 7:9)[16]
Although this verse is taken from Deuteronomy, which was written relatively late, its basic formula goes back to the more ancient sources, such as Exodus 20:6 (cf. Deut. 5:10):
The God who does kindness ('sh hsd[*] ;cf. epis tabti[*] , above) to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments ,
and also,
Who keeps kindness (nsr hsd[*] ) to the thousandth generation." (Exod. 34:7)
The kindness (hsd[*] ) of God to David is likewise extended to
[14] tabtu damiqtu[*] is a hendiadys, which denotes covenantal relationship; see my article "Covenant Terminology" (n. 12), JAOS 93 (1973), pp. 191 ff.
[15] For Abraham and David as Yahweh's servants see Gen. 26:24; Ps. 105:6, 42; 2 Sam. 3:18, 7:5, etc.
[16] "Who love him and keep his commandments" refers to the Patriarchs (like most of the Commentaries, cf. M. Weiss, "Some Problems of the Biblical 'Doctrine of Retribution,'" Tarbiz 32 [1963–64], pp. 4 ff. [Hebrew]) and thus parallels the phrase in the Assurbanipal[*] grant, "returns kindness to the reverent who keeps his royal command."
the future generations as may be seen from 2 Samuel 7:15 and 22:51; 1 Kings 3:6 and 8:23; and Psalms 89:34 f. Furthermore, as the official of Assurbanipal[*] is called bel tabti bel[*] damiqti "friend and ally" (lit., "man of kindness and favor") so are Abraham and David "the lovers" and "friends of God."[17]
The phrase found in the grant of Assurbanipal, "who returns kindness to the reverent (lit., "the one who fears") who keeps his royal command," which is parallel to "keeps/does kindness to those who love me/him and keep my/his commandments" in the quoted verses, is also found in reference to God's followers in general. Thus we read in Psalms 103:17–18,
But the kindness of YHWH is from everlasting to everlasting upon them that revere (lit., fear) him (yr'yw[*] ) and his righteousness to children's children to those who keep his covenant (lsmry[*] brytw ) and remember his commandments (wlzkry pkdyw ) to do them.[18]
The phrase tabtasu ahsusma[ *] "I took thought of his kindness" in Assurbanipal's[*] address to his loyal servant reminds us of God's words to Israel in Jeremiah's prophecy. "I took thought of (zkrty lk ) the kindness (hsd[*] ) of your youth . . . following
[17] Ibid., and see also Isa. 41:8: 'brhm 'whby[ *] David is called hsyd[*] in Ps. 89:20. (Read lhsydk[*] with manuscripts and versions; the reading lbhyrk[*] in 4Q Ps. 89 [J. T. Milik, "Fragment d'une source du Psautir (4Q Ps. 89) et fragments des Jubilés, de Document de Damas, d'un phylactère dans la grotte 4 de Qumran," RB 73 (1966), p. 99; cf. also E. Lipinski, Le Poème royal du Ps. 89, 1–5, 2–38 (Paris, 1967), pp. 70 ff.] is not original and was influenced—in my opinion—by verse 4a.) Compare also tmyk w'ryk l'ys hsydk[*] (should perhaps be read as: l'ys hsdk[ *] ) in Deut. 33:8. Here the term is ascribed to Levi who, like David, was devoted to God and therefore was granted priesthood (see below, pp. 262–64). The phrase bel tabti bel[*]damiqti equals the Hebrew hsyd/'ys hsd[*] , compare, e.g., bel[*]dami with 'ys[*]dmym in Hebrew. As is the Akkadian bel tabti / damiqti[*] , so the Hebrew hsyd/'ys hsd is not a man who is shown kindness but the one who shows kindness, i.e., practices hesed[*] and fulfills the demands of loyalty. Cf. N. Glueck, Hesed[*]in the Bible (Cincinnati, 1967), pp. 66–69.
[18] Compare Ps. 119:63: lkl 'sr yr'wk[*]wlsmry[*] pqwdk , which exactly parallels the Assyrian phrase dealt with.
me[19] in the desert" (Jer. 2:2). The "kindness" referred to is the one that Israel did with her God for which she was granted the land (cf. v. 7 and Jer. 31:1 f.). However, unlike the promise to David, where the imagery is taken from the royal sphere, in Jeremiah the imagery is borrowed from the familial sphere. A similar typology is actually found in legal documents of a marital nature. For example, in a gift deed from Elephantine we read, "I took thought of you . . . ('stt lky[*] ) . . . and have given it to . . . in affection (brhmn[*] )[20] since she took care of me . . ."[21] The gift by the father is then motivated as in Jeremiah by the devotion of the donee, his daughter (see below, pp. 233 f.).
God's promises to Abraham and David and their descendants are motivated by loyal service and are typologically parallel to the "royal covenantal grants" of the Hittites and Assyrians. Also, as will be shown, the analogy goes even further. Hittite and Assyrian grants are similar to God's covenants with Abraham and David even in their formulation of the commitment to keep the promise to the descendants of the loyal servants.
A Hittite grant typologically similar to the grant of dynasty to David is the decree of Hattusili[*] concerning Middannamuwa, his chief scribe.
Middannamuwa was a man of grace (kanissanza[*] UKÙas[*] )[22] to my father . . . and my brother Muwatalli was kindly) disposed to him, promoted him (kanesta[*] . . . para
[19] hlk 'hry[*] in Hebrew and alaku[*] arki in Akkadian are legal formulae of the marital and political spheres; cf. my "Covenant Terminology," no. 12, JAOS 93 (1973), p. 196, n. 83.
[20] Cf. the discussion of the term in Y. Muffs, Studies in the Aramaic Legal Papyri from Elephantine (Leiden, 1969), pp. 40 ff., 132 f.
[21] E. Kraeling, The Brooklyn Museum Aramaic Papyri , no. 9 (New Haven, 1953), pp. 16–17.
[22] For clarification of this term, cf. A. Goetze, Hattusilis[*] (MVAeG 29/3, 1924; Leipzig, 1925) pp. 64–65.
huittiiat[*] ) [23] and gave him Hattusa[*] . My grace (assul[*] ) was also shown to him . . . I committed myself for (ser memiiahhat[*] ) the sons of Middannamuwa . . . and you will keep (pahhasdumat[*] ) . . . and so shall the sons of my son and the grandsons of my son keep. And as my son, Hattusili[*] , and Puduhepa, the great queen, were kindly disposed (kanesta[*] ) towards the sons of Middannamuwa so shall be my sons and grandsons . . . And they shall not abandon the grace (assulan anda le daliianzi[*] ) of my son. The grace and their positions shall not be removed (ueh-[*] ).[24]
Like Hebrew twbh/hsd[*] , Akkadian tabtu/damiqtu[*] , and the Aramaic tbt[*] , the Hittite assul and kannesuuar[*] connote kindness and covenantal relationship.[25] As in the case of David, in the Hittite grant the promise is to be "kept"[26] to the future generations of the devoted servant, i.e., "the man of grace."[27] The most striking parallel to the promise to David is the last sentence: "they shall not abandon the grace . . . their position shall not be removed." The language (anda ) daliia[*] , equivalent to the Akkadian ezebu[*] and the Hebrew 'zb[*] , which is often employed
[23] The verbs in question correspond to nth[ *] and msk[*] in Hebrew (kaniniia[*] = Akk. kanasu[*] = Hebr. nth, and huittiia[*] = Akk. sadadu[*] = Hebr. msk ), both employed with hsd[*] : nth hsd (Gen. 39:21), mskhsd (Jer. 31:3, Ps. 36:11; 109:12). Goetze (ibid.) related kanessuuar[*] to rema[*]rasu[*] in Akkadian and correctly remarked that the object corresponding to remu[*] in Hittite gradually became superfluous since it had been implied in the verb itself. The same equation has to be made, in my opinion, in regard to the Hebrew nth hsd/msk hsd and also ms '[*] = rasu.
[24] A. Goetze, Hattusilis[*] (MVAeG 29/3; Leipzig, 1925), pp. 40–44; (KBo 4, 12).
[25] assul = SILIM -ul (SILIM = salimum[*] ). kanessuuar[*] is synonymous with assul ; see Goetze, Hattusilis , (n. 24), pp. 64–65.
[26] pahs[*] = Akk. nasaru = Hebr. smr/nsr[*] , verbs employed in connection with keeping the promise.
[27] It occurs to me that kaneissanza[*] UKU-as[*] is equivalent to the Hebrew 'ys hsyd[*] and the Akkadian bel tabti/damiqti[*] appearing frequently in the context of grants.
in connection with hsd/hsd w'mt[*] , and ueh ("turn away," remove) is equivalent to the Hebrew swr , which appears in 2 Sam. 7 in a phrase similar to that of the Hittite grant whsdy l'yswr mmuw[*] —"and my grace shall not turn away from him" (v. 15).
The formulations concerning the promises to Abraham and David are overlapping. Thus we read in Gen. 26:4–5, "I will give to your descendants all these lands . . . inasmuch as Abraham obeyed me (sm' bqly[*] )[28] and kept my charge (wysmr[*]msmrty[*] ), my commandments, my rules and my teachings,"[29] a verse preserving verbally the notion of keeping guard or charge (issur massarti[*] ) found in the Assyrian text. The notion of "serving perfectly" found in the Assyrian grants is also verbally paralleled in the Patriarchal and the Davidic traditions. Thus, the faithfulness of the Patriarchs is expressed by "walk(ed) before me" (hthlk lpny —Gen. 24:40; 48:15 = JE; 17:1 = P), which is equivalent to the expression ina mahriya ittalak/izziz in the Assyrian grant. The P source adds to hthlk lpny the phrase whyh tmym (Gen. 17:1), which conveys the idea of perfect or loyal service expressed in the Assyrian document by (ittalak ) salmis[*] .[30] According to P, not only Abraham but also
[28] Cf., in the Amarna letters, amur arda sa isme[*] ana sarri[*] belisu[*] (behold, the servant who obeys the king, his Lord) (EA 147, 48 f.).
[29] This verse is not necessarily Deuteronomic; sm' bqwl[*] , along with other terms expressing obedience, is very frequent in the Deuteronomic literature, which stresses loyalty to the covenant, but this does not mean that the terms were coined by the Deuteronomic school. The combination of hqym wtwrwt[*] ("laws and teachings") is never found in the Deuteronomic literature. Deuteronomy always uses Torah in the singular and usually with the definite article htwra ("the law"). On the other hand, this combination is attested to in JE (Exod. 18:16, 20). The origin of smr msmrt[*] is not Deuteronomic; see my Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (n. 2), Appendix A.
[30] Cf. Mal. 2:6—bslwm wbmyswr[*] hlk'ty[*] —which means "he served me with integrity and equity"; see Y. Muffs, Aramaic Papyri (n. 20), pp. 203–04 (following H. L. Ginsberg). This phrase occurs in connection with the grant of priesthood to Levi (see below). For the interpretation of ittalaku salmis[*] as "served with integrity" and not as Kohler-Ungnad trans-lates—"in good or peaceful condition (wohlbehalten)"—see Y. Muffs, ibid., p. 203. alaku[*] /atalluku salmis is equivalent to hlk btm ("walk with integrity") (Prov. 10:9) and to hthlk btm lbb , which in Ps. 101:2 is connected with bqrb byty (within my house/palace).
Noah was rewarded by God (Gen. 9:1–17) for his loyalty, which is expressed by the very phrase used to describe Abraham's devotion: hthlk 't 'lhym[*] , hyh tmym (6:6, 9).[31]
David's loyalty to God is couched in phrases that are closer to the neo-Assyrian grant terminology. Thus, the terms "who walked before you in truth, loyalty[32] and uprightness of heart" hlk lpnyk b'mt wbsdqh wbysrt lbb[*] (1 Kings 3:3, 6); "walked after me with all his heart" hlk 'hry bkl lbbw[*] (14:8); and "a whole heart (like the heart of David)" lb slm[*] (klbb dwd) (15:3)[33] are the counterparts of the Assyrian terms "with his whole heart" libbasu[*] gummuru ; "stood before me in truth" ina mahriya ina kinati[*] izizuma ;[34] and "walked with loyalty (perfection)" ittalaku salmis[ *] , which come to describe the loyal service as a reward for which the gift was bestowed.[35]
[31] However, in contradistinction to the JE source, where the loyalty of the Patriarchs is a matter of the past, in the priestly source it is anticipated.
[32] sdqh[*] here means loyalty and faithfulness, as does sdq[*] in a similar context in the Panamuwa inscriptions (KAI 215:19, 216:4–7, 218:4), where bsdq 'by wbsdqy hwsbny mr'y . . . 'l krs' 'by[*] has to be understood as: "because of my father's and my own loyalty, the king has established me on the throne of my father." Virtually the same idea is expressed in 1 Kings 3:6: "You have done grace with your servant David my father as he walked before you in truth, loyalty and uprightness of heart and you kept your grace (promise) and gave him a son to sit upon his throne as at present."
[33] Cf. also 2 Kings 20:3.
[34] As in Hebrew hthlk/hlk lpny , so also in Akkadian ina pani[*] alaku[*] /atalluku is similar in connotation to 'md lpny =ina pani uzzuzu[*] , but the latter seems to have a more concrete meaning—praying, interceding, worshiping and serving—whereas the former is more abstract. Cf. Jer. 18:20. For discussion of these terms, cf. F. Noetscher, 'Das Angesicht Gottes schauen,' nach biblischer und babylonischer Auffassung (Würzburg, 1924), pp. 83 ff., 112f. A phrase identical with hlk lpny DNbsdqh[*] may be found in the Hittite A-NA PA-NI DINGIR, MES[*]para handandatar iia[*] - (cf.A. Goetze, Hattusilis[*] (n. 22) 1:48, MVAeG 29/3 (1924) 10, and his note on pp. 52–55 there), which means, "to walk before the gods with righteousness/loyalty," handai is equivalent to the Akkadian kunnû , and handandatar is rendered by NÍG.SI.SÁ-tar (NÍG.SI.SÁ = misarum[*] ), which also supports our analogy. Instances of para handandatar in which the gods show para handandatar in distress, war, etc. (cf. Goetze, Hattusilis (n. 22) 1:45, 2:15, 45, 3:18, 23) might be put in the proper light by the biblical sdqh[*] , which also connotes salvation. For the saving acts of God by means of sdqh , see, e.g., Ps. 31:2, 71:2, 143:11; para handandatar is revealed by the gods (A. Goetze, Die Annalen des Mursilis[*] , MVAeG 38 [Leipzig, 1933], 46:15), and the same is said about God in Israel in Isa. 56:1 and Ps. 98:2. Even the phrase in the introduction to the Apology of Hattusili[*] , SA dISTAR[*]para handandatar memahhi (1. 5), may be better understood on the basis of biblical parallels. Reciting or telling God's sdqh is very common in the Old Testament and is clearly attested in the ancient poem of Judg. 5 (v. 11).
In the grants from Ugarit the loyalty of the donee is expressed by terms such as "he exerts himself very, very much for the king his lord."[36] Similarly, in a deed from Susa convey-
[*] As in the Assyrian documents, in Hittite the idiom "to walk in righteousness/loyalty before RN," in the sense of serving loyally, is attested in the treaties (cf. A. Kempinski and S. Kosak[*] , "The Ismeriga-Vertrag[*] ," Die Welt des Orients 5 [1970], 192:13). The idiom seems to have been rooted in the royal sphere and then projected onto the divine realm.
[35] The close affinities to the neo-Assyrian phraseology in these verses may be understood in light of an identical chronological and cultural background. All of these verses appear in a Deuteronomic context, which means that they were styled in the seventh century, a period in which the above-mentioned documents were written. On the affinities of the Deuteronomic literature to the neo-Assyrian literary tradition, see my Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (n. 2), 1972.
[36] ana sarri[*] belisu[*] anih dannis[*] dannisma[*] , PRU 3, 140:27–30; cf. ana sarri anih/itanah[*] , PRU 3, 84:24, 141:29, 108:16, 110:7. Cf. the Barrakib inscription, wbyt 'by [']ml mn kl[*] ("and my father's house exerted itself more than anybody else," KAI 216:7–8), which occurs in a passage expressing the loyalty of Barrakib to Tiglath-Pileser (see above, n. 32). Two different interpretations have been given to the phrase wbyt 'by [']ml mn kl , but neither of these is satisfactory. F. Rosenthal (ANET , 2d. ed., p. 501), following H. L. Ginsberg (Studies in Koheleth [New York, 1950], p. 3, n. 2a) translates, "the house of my father has profited more than anybody else," but this does not fit the immediate context, which is concerned with loyalty to Tiglath-Pileser. The same argument applies to B. Lands-berger's translation, "the house of my father was more miserable than any body else" (Sam'al[*] , Studien zur Entdeckung der Ruinenstätte Karatepe [Ankara, 1948], p. 71), which is diametrically opposed to Rosenthal's translations. Besides, Landsberger's translation is contradicted by the Panammuwa inscription (KAI 214:9), a fact of which Landsberger was aware (ibid., n. 187). Donner's translation, which we have adopted, is the most satisfactory and is now supported by the Akkadian parallels. It seems that 'ml[ *] is the semantic equivalent of anahu[*] . Similarly manahatu[*] means "results of toil," as does the Hebrew noun 'ml ; for the Hebrew 'ml in this sense, cf. H. L. Ginsberg, Qohelet (Tel-Aviv, 1961), pp. 13–15 (Hebrew).
ing a gift from a husband to his wife we read, "it is given her as a gift because she took care of him and worked hard for him."[37] The same motivation occurs in a deed from Elephantine quoted above: "I took thought of you ('stt lky[*] ) during my lifetime and have given you part of my house . . . I Anani have given it to Yehojisma[*] my daughter in affection since she took care of me (supported me) (lqbl zy sbltny ) when I was old in years and unable to take care of myself."[38] The verb anahu[*] , expressing the exertion of the vassal to his lord and the wife to her husband, actually means to toil, to suffer, but in our context they denote exertion and devotion. The notion of exertion is sometimes completed by the verb marasu[ *] ("to be sick"), as, for instance, in a letter from El-Amarna where the vassal says, "Behold I exerted myself to guard the land of the king (etanhu ana nasar mat sarri[*] ) and I am very sick" (marsaku dannis[*] ).[39] In fact, the verb marasu in Akkadian has also the meaning of "to care for," as does the Hebrew hlh[*] .[40] Held
[37] assum[*] ittissu[*] inahu[*] dulla ill[iku] nadissi[*] qis[ti][*] , MDP 24, 379:7 f.; for an analysis of this document see J. Klima, "Untersuchungen zum elamischen Erbrecht," Archiv Orientální 28 (1960), p. 39.
[38] E. Kraeling, The Brooklyn Museum Aramaic Papyri (n. 21), 1953, 9:16–17.
[39] EA 306:19–21.
[40] Cf. especially 1 Samuel 22:8—w'yn hlh mkm 'ly[*] ("and nobody cares about me")—in the context of loyalty to the king. Cf. also Amos 6:6, wl' nhlw 'l sbr ywsp[*] ("They do not care about the breach of Joseph"), and Jer. 22:13, zr'w hytm wqwsym qsrw nhlw l' yw'ylw[*] ("they have sown wheat and have reaped thorns, they exerted themselves but did not profit").
pointed out the correspondence of the Hebrew
In light of all this, we may properly understand Psalms 132:1—zkr idwd 't kl 'nwtw[ *] —which the Septuagint and the Syriac misunderstood by reading 'anwato[*] ("his humility"), which does not fit the context. In line with what we have seen above, it has to be understood as "his submissiveness[44] or devotion." To introduce God's promise to David, the psalmist depicts the devotion of David to God, which found expression in his deep concern for the ark. This is what is meant by the opening prayer, "Remember to David all his submissiveness."[45]Zkr l here is the semantic equivalent of 'st l[*] in the
[41] M. Held, "The Root ZBL/SBL in Akkadian, Ugaritic and Biblical Hebrew," (Speiser Memorial Volume), JAOS 88 (1968), p. 93.
[42] Cf. E. L. Greenstein and D. Marcus, "The Akkadian Inscription of Idrimi," The Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia University 8 (1976), pp. 59–96.
[43] The reference to the covenant with the ancestors of the suzerain and the sending of gifts to him was a stereotype in the oath of the vassals; see my "Initiation of Political Friendship in Ebla," in H. Hauptmann and H. Waetzoldt, eds., Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft von Ebla , Heidelberger Studien zum Alten Orient 2 (Heidelberg, 1988), pp. 345–48.
[44] Cf. w'n 'nk 'rst 'zt[*] ("I subjugated mighty countries") in the Azittawada inscription (KAI 26:18); cf. the Mesha inscription (KAI 181:5) and Exod. 10:3: 'd mty m'nt l'nt mpny[*] , which has to be rendered, "how long will you refuse to surrender before me." Cf. also Gen. 15:13; 16:6; Exod. 1:11; Num. 24:24; 2 Sam. 7:10; 1 Kings 11:39; Nah. 1:12.
[45] The notion that the promise of dynasty to David is to be seen as a reward for his devotion seems to lie behind the juxtaposition of chapters 6 and 7 in the second book of Samuel.
quoted Aramaic gift deed, which means "to take favorable thought."[46] The Akkadian hasasu[*] , the equivalent of the Hebrew
David's exertion, for which he was granted dynasty, is expressed in Psalms 132 by 'nh[*] , which corresponds to the discussed anahu[*] , marasu[*] and 'ml[*] .[51]
In the Deuteronomic historiography, however, David's devotion is expressed, as in the neo-Assyrian grants,[52] in a more abstract way—"walking in truth," "acting with whole-heartedness and integrity," etc. The phraseological correspondence between the Deuteronomic literature and the neo-Assyrian documents is very salient in the description of the benevolence of God toward the Patriarchs and toward David. Thus, the Assyrian king, before announcing the grant, says, "I am the king . . . who returns kindness to the one who serves in
[46] Cf. H. L. Ginsberg, "Lexicographical Notes," Hebräische Wortforschung: Festschrift W. Baumgartner , Suppl. VT 15 (Leiden, 1967), pp. 81–82.
[47] See, e.g., EA 228:18–19: lihsusmi glossed by yazkurmi ; cf. M. Held, "Studies in Comparative Semite Lexicography," Studies in Honor of B. Landsberger on his Seventy-Fifth Birthday , Assyriological Studies 15 (Chicago, 1965), p. 399. On the root zkr cf. P. A. H. de Boer, Gedenken und Gedächtnis in der Welt des A. T . (Leipzig, 1962); B. S. Childs, Memory and Tradition in Israel (London, 1962); W. Schottroff, "Gedenken" im Alten Orient und im Alten Testament (Neukirchen, 1967).
[48] See Y. Muffs, Aramaic Papyri (n. 20), p. 134.
[49] See n. 12.
[50] Compare the Latin foedus firmare ("to establish a pact"), cf. J. J. Rabinowitz, Jewish Law (New York, 1956), pp. 1–2.
[51] See n. 36. For the correspondence of 'ml to 'nh[*] , see Gen. 41:51–52; Deut. 26:7, etc.
[52] See n. 34 above.
obedience (lit., to the reverential) and (to the one who) guards the royal command."[53] This phrase is close to the biblical phrase, "the God . . . who keeps his gracious promise (hbryt whhsd[*] ) to those who are loyal to him (lit., who love him) and guard his commandments" (Deut. 7:9–12), which appears in connection with the fulfillment of God's promise to the Patriarchs. A similar phrase occurs in the context of the promise of dynasty to David: "who keeps his gracious promise (hbryt whhsd ) to your servants who serve you wholeheartedly" (hhlkym lpnyk bkl lbm , 1 Kings 8:23; cf. 3:6). The grant par excellence is an act of royal benevolence arising from the king's desire to reward his loyal servant.[54] It is no wonder, then, that the gift of the land to Abraham and the assurance of dynasty to David were formulated in the style of grants to outstanding servants.
The grant and the treaty alike are named bryt , a word which conveys the general idea of an obligation involving two parties, similar to riksu in Akkadian and ishiul[*] in Hittite. However, in the more developed and therefore more reflective stage of Deuteronomy one can find a distinction between the term for grant and the term for treaty. As we have seen, the Deuteronomic sources refer to the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants as hbryt whhsd ("the gracious covenant"), in contradistinction of the covenants of Sinai and the Plains of Moab, which referred to bryt only.
The Unconditional Gift
Although the grant to Abraham and David is close in its formulation to the neo-Assyrian grants and therefore might be late, the promises themselves are much older and reflect the Hittite pattern of the grant. "Land" and
[53] ana palihi[*]nasir[*]amat[*]sarrutisu[*]utirru gimilli dumqi , Postgate, Royal Grants (no. 8), numbers 9–11.
[54] Cf. F. Thureau-Dangin, "Un acte de donation," RA 16 (1919), p. 118: "Ces titres de propriété sont généralement des actes royaux de donation dont le bénéficiare est, soit un enfant de roi, soit un prêtre temple, soit quelque serviteur que le roi veut récompenser."
"house" (dynasty), the objects of the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants, respectively, are indeed the most prominent gifts of the suzerain in the Hittite and Syro-Palestinian political reality, and like the Hittite grants, the grant of "land" to Abraham and the grant of "house" to David are unconditional. Thus we read in the pact[55] of Hattusili[*] III (or Thudhalya IV) with Ulmi-Tesup[*] of Tarhuntassa[*] :[56] "After you, your son and grandson will possess it, nobody will take it away from them. If one of your descendants sins (uastai-[*] ) the king will prosecute him at his court. Then when he is found guilty . . . if he deserves death he will die. But nobody will take away from the descendant of Ulmi-Tesup either his house or his land in order to give it to a descendant of somebody else."[57] In a similar manner Mursili[*] II reinforces the right of Kupanta-Kal to the "house and the land in spite of his father's sins."[58] A similar wording occurs in the royal decree of Tudhaliya IV and Puduhepa for the descendants of Sahurnuvas[*] , a Hittite high official, where we read:[59] "No-
[55] In fact, this document can also be considered as a grant and, according to V. Korosec[*] ("Einige juristische Bemerkungen zur Sahurunuva-Urkunde[*] ," Münchener Beiträge zur Papyrusforschung und antiken Rechtsgeschichte 35 (1945), p. 221, n. 5), is something between a grant and a treaty. Cf. also E. von Schuler, "Staasverträge und Dokumente hethitischen Rechts," Historia , Einzelschriften 7 (1964), p. 40.
[56] KBo 4:10, obv. 8–14; cf. the treaty with Tarhuntassa[*] between Thudhalya IV and Kurunta, written on a bronze tablet and edited by H. Otten, Die Bronzetafel aus Bogazköy[*] , Studien zu den Bogazköy[*] -Texten Beiheft 1 (Wiesbaden, 1988), para. 20. The connection between this treaty and the Davidic covenant has been seen by R. de Vaux, "Le roi d'Israël, vassal de Yahve," Mélanges E. Tisserant 1 (Rome, 1964), pp. 119–33.
[57] Cf. (KBo 4:10), rev. 21 ff.: "Now as for what I, the sun, have given to Ulmi-Tesup[*] . . . I have engraved on an iron tablet and in future no one shall take it away from any descendant of Ulmi-Tesup, nor shall any one litigate with him about it; the king shall not take it, but [it shall belong] to his son. To another man's descendant they shall not give it." It seems that this iron tablet was the original gift-deed.
[58] J. Friedrich, MVAeG 31 (n. 4), (1926), no. 3:7–8 (pp. 112–15), 21–22 (pp. 134–37).
[59] KUB 26, 43 and 50. Cf. V. Korosec, "Einige juristische Bemerkungen" (n. 55) for analysis of this document.
body in the future shall take away[60] this house from Umanava (or Tesup-manava[*] ), her children, her grandchildren and her offspring. When anyone of the descendants of U-manava provokes the anger of the kings . . . whether he is to be forgiven[61] of whether he is to be killed, one will treat him according to the wish of his master but his house they will not take away and they will not give it to somebody else."[62]
A striking parallel to these documents is found in a will of Nuzi,[63] where it says: "Tablet of Zigi . . . in favor of his wife and his sons . . . All my lands . . . to my wife Zilipkiashe have been given . . . and Zilipkiashe shall be made parent of the sons.[64] As long as Zilipkiashe is alive the sons of Zigi shall serve/respect her (ipallahsunuti[*] ).[65] When Zilipkiashe dies the
[60] ziiladuua[*]arha le kuiski[*]dai[*] ; cf. the same formula in KBo 4:10, obv. 11. Cf. urram serram[*] mamman la ileqqê istu[*] qati PN in the grants from Ugarit written in Akkadian (PRU 3 passim), and shr[*] . 'lmt bns bnsm[*] (or mnk mnkm = whoever you are) l' yqhnn[*] . bd PN in the Ugaritic version of the grants. Compare the conveyance formula from Elephantine, mhr 'w[*]ywm 'hrm l'[*]'hnsl[*]mnky lmntn l'hrnn[*] ("on a future day I will not take it away from you in order to give it to the others"). (L. A. Cowley, The Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth CenturyB.C. (Oxford, 1923), pp. 7:18–19. On the correspondence between urram serram and mhr 'w ywm 'hr[*] , see J. J. Rabinowitz, Jewish Law (n. 48), (1956), p. 161. The Hebrew mhr[*] and therefore ywm 'hrwn[*] also mean future; cf. Gen. 30:33; Exod. 13:14; Deut. 6:20; Josh. 4:6, 21; 22:24, 27 for mhr , and Isa. 30:8 for ywm 'hrn[*] . Cf. also the neo-Assyrian formula ina serta ina lidis[*] ("some time in the future"); see Y. Muffs, Aramaic Papyri (n. 20), pp. 206–07.
[61] duddunu means "to forgive"; cf. A. Goetze, "Critical Reviews of KBo 14 (by H. G. Güterbock)," JCS 18 (1964), p. 93. Cf. also F. Imparati, "Conassione de Terre," RHA 32 (1974), pp. 96 ff.
[62] Cf. the Abban deed from Alalah, ana sanim[*] ul inaddin ("he shall not give it to any one else," D. J. Wiseman, "Abban and Alalah," JCS 12 [1958] 1:63), and the Nuzi deed mimma ana nakari la inandin ("she shall not give anything [from the inheritance] to strangers," HSS 5 73:27–28). Compare the deed from Elephantine quoted above (n. 60): lmntn l 'hrnn[ *] ("to give it to the others").
[63] Excavations at Nuzi I , HSS 5 73:1–28; cf. E. A. Speiser, "New Kirkuk Documents," AASOR 10, no. 20 (1930), pp. 51–52.
[64] Read a-na a-bu-ti sa[*]mare[*]iteppus[*] (ll. 10–11), with P. Koschaker, "Review of Scheil, MDP XXII," OLZ 35 (1932), pp. 399 f.
[65] ipallahsunuti[*] has to be translated as "she shall respect them," but asSpeiser pointed out (see., e.g., Introduction to Hurrian, AASOR 20 (New Haven, 1941), pp. 206 f.) this grammatical confusion is characteristic of the Hurrian scribes (cf. also Speiser, "A Significant New Will from Nuzi," JCS 17 (1963), p. 66 to lines 21 f.).
sons of Zigi shall receive their inheritance portions, each according to his allotment.[66] Whoever among my sons will not obey Zilipkiashe, Zilipkiashe shall put him in the house of de[tention],[67] their mark (on the head) shall be applied to him and (they) will be put in (their) fetters,[68] but (their) right shall not be annuled[69] . . . and Zilipkiashe shall not give away anything to strangers."
The same concept lies behind the promise of the house to David and his descendants in 2 Sam. 7:8–16 where we read: "I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever, I will be his father and he shall be my son, when he sins I will chastise him with the rod of men and with human afflictions but my grace will not be removed . . . your house and your kingdom will be
[66] u maru[*]sa[*]Zigi attamannu ki[*]emuqisu[*]zitta ileqqu[*] (lit., "and the sons of Zigi, whoever you are , shall receive his inheritance portion according to his allotment." attamannu here is the equivalent of the Ugaritic mnk (mn + ka) quoted in note 58. Cf. the Canaanite and Aramaic inscriptions: KAI 13:3 (my 'th[*] ), 225:5 (mn 't[*] ), 259:2 (wmn zy 't[*] ), and Zech. 4:7: my 'th hr hgdwl lpnyZrbbl lmysr[*] ("whoever you are big mountain before Zerubabel, you will become a plain.").
[67] ina bit nu-[pa-ri] inandin ; cf. E. Cassin, "Nouvelles données sur les relations familiales à Nuzi," RA 57 (1963), p. 116, and M. Burrows and E. A. Speiser, eds., One Hundred New Selected Nuzi Texts, AASOR 16 (1935–36) (New Haven, 1936), p. 3, line 40: ina (bit[*] ) nupari[*] ittadanni ; p. 12, line 12: bit nupari; nuparu[*] occurs in parallel with bit kili[ *] in texts from Nuzi; see E. Cassin, "Nouvelles données," RA 57 (1963), p. 116.
[68] abbutasunu[*] umassarsu[*] u inakursisunu[*] (GIR-su[*] -nu ) Isakkan[*] . On the meaning of abbutu in this context, see E. Cassin, "Nouvelles données," RA 57 (1963), p. 116; E. Cassin, "Pouvoir de la femme et structures familiales," RA 63 (1969), pp. 133 f.; E. Speiser, "New Will from Nuzi" (n. 65), JCS 17 (1963) pp. 65 ff.
[69] kirbana la iheppe (lit. "lump [clod] of earth [symbolizing tablet of rights] will not be broken"); cf. E. Cassin, "L'influence babylonienne à Nuzi," JESHO 5 (1962), p. 133; M. Malul, Studies in Mesopotamian Legal Symbolism , AOAT (1988), pp. 80 ff.
steadfast before me forever, your throne shall be established forever."
The phrase "I will be his father and he shall be my son" is an adoption formula[70] and actually serves as the judicial basis for the gift of the eternal dynasty. This comes to the fore in Psalms 2 where we read, "he (God) said to me: you are my son, this day[71] have I begotten you. Ask me and I will give you nations for your patrimony and the ends of the earth for your possession" (vv. 7–8).
Similarly we read in Psalms 89:[72] "I have found David my servant . . . with whom my hand shall be established, my arm shall hold him 'sr[*]ydy tkwn 'mw 'p zrw'y t'msnw[*][ 73] . . . I will smash his adversaries before him and will defeat his enemies . . . he will call me 'you are my father'[74] my God . . . and I will make him as my first born, the highest of the earthly kings. I will keep my grace forever and my covenant shall endure for him. Should his children forsake my law and will
[70] Cf. C. Kuhl, "Neue Dokumente zum Verständnis von Hos. 2, 4–15," ZAW 52 (1934), pp. 102 ff.
[71] hywm ("this day") indicates the formal initiation of a legal contract; cf. Ruth 4:9–10, 14; Gen. 25:31, 33; see G. M. Tucker, "Witnesses and 'Dates' in Israelite Contracts," CBQ 28 (1966), pp. 42–45. Compare S. E. Loewenstamm, "The Formula me 'atta we'ad 'olam[*] ," Comparative Studies in Biblical and Ancient Oriental Literatures . AOAT 204 (Neukirchen, 1980), pp. 166 ff., for the formula istu[*]umi[*]annim[*] (from today) in the Akkadian documents from Alalah and Ugarit.
[72] On the relationship of this Psalm to Nathan's oracle, see N. M. Sarna, "Psalm 89: A Study in Inner Biblical Exegesis," in A. Altman, ed., Biblical and other Studies (Philip W. Lown Institute of Advanced Judaic Studies, Brandeis University, 1963), pp. 29–46.
[73] hzq[*] and 'ms[*] , verbs connoting strength (cf. the pair hzq and w'ms[*] ), when intensified by Hiph'il[*] or Pi'el[*] , express the concept of keeping and holding; cf. Ps. 80:18—thy ydk 'l 'ys[*]ymynk'l bn[*]'dm[*]'mst[*] lk ("May your hand be on the man at your right, upon the man you held with you"); cf. also Isa. 41:10—'mstyk 'p 'zrtyk 'p[ *]tmktyk bymyn sdqy[*] ("I have taken hold of you and helped you. I kept you with my victorious right hand"). For an understanding of 'ms in Ps. 80:18 and Isa. 41:10 I am indebted to the late Prof. H. L. Ginsberg.
[74] Cf. Jer. 3:4, 19, and see below.
not follow my decrees . . . I will punish their rebellion with the rod and their sin with afflictions. But I will never annul my grace with him and shall not betray my pact (wl"sqr b' mwnty[*] )[75] (with him). I will not profane my covenant and alter what came out of my lips."
"House" (dynasty), land, and peoples are then given to David as a fief, and as was the rule in the second millennium this gift could be legitimized only by adoption.[76] That this is really the case here may be learned from the treathy between Supilluliuma[*] and Mattiwaza.[77] Mattiwaza (or Kurtiwaza), in describing how he established relations with Suppiluliuma[*] , says: "(The great king) grasped me with [his ha]nd . . . and said: when I will conquer the land of Mittanni I shall not reject you, I shall make you my son,[78] I will stand by (to help in war) and will make you sit on the throne of your father . . . the word which comes out of his mouth will not turn back."[79] A similar adoption imagery is to be found in the bilingual of Hattu-
[75] Cf. Sefire, p. 3, line 7—sqrtm b'dy' 'ln[*] ("You will have been false to this treaty"); see W. Moran, "Recensiones, G. W. Ahlström, Psalm 89 ," Biblica 42 (1961), p. 239. 'mwnh[*] here and in v. 50 has the same meaning as 'mnh[*] in Neh. 10:1 (cf. J. C. Greenfield, "Stylistic Aspects of the Sefire Treaty Inscriptions," Acta Orientalia 29 [1965], p. 8). 'mwnh in 2 Kings 12:16 and 22:7 also, in my opinion, means pact or contract, and the reason for not calling to account the people in charge of the work was that they were bound by the oath to deal honestly. On the loyalty oath of craftsmen, see D. B. Weisberg, Guild Structure and Political Allegiance in Early Achaemenid Mesopotamia (New Haven, 1967).
[76] Cf., e.g., Yarimlim of Alalah, who is named son of Abban (see Wiseman, AT *444a, [n. 7] seal impression) but actually was the son of Hammurabi (AT *1:9; cf. *444b). According to A. Alt, "Bemerkungen zu den Verwaltungs-und Rechtsurkunden von Ugarit und Alalach," Die Welt des Orients , Band 3, Heft 1–2 (1964), pp. 14 ff., Abban adopted Yarimlim in order to create the legal basis for installing him as king of Haleb.
[77] Weidner, Politische Dokumente (n. 4), no. 2, lines 24 ff. (pp. 40–41).
[78] ana marutija[*]eppuskami[*] . Ana maruti[*]epesu[*] means to adopt as a son; cf. E. A. Speiser, "New Kirkuk Documents Relating to Family Laws," AASOR 10 (1930), pp. 7 ff. Cf. also below.
[79] amatu sa ina[*]pisu ussa[*]ana kutallisu ul itar[*] .
sili[*] I.[80] In this document, which actually constitutes a testament, we read:[81] "Behold, I declared for you the young Labarna: He shall sit on the throne, I, the king called him my son";[82] "he is for you the offspring of my Sun" (he is for you the offspring of his majesty).[83] On the other hand, when he speaks of his rejected daughter he says, "She did not call me father, I did not call her 'my daughter,'"[84] which reminds us of Psalms 89:27: "He will say to me: 'you are my father . . . and I will appoint (ntn ) him as my first born'" (compare Jer. 3:4, 19, and see below, pp. 246–47).
Hattusili[*] I himself is similarly described as adopted and legitimized by the sun goddess of Arinna: "She put him into her bosom, grasped his hand and ran (in battle) before him."[85] According to Psalms 89, David is also grasped and held by God's hand, as a result of which he succeeds in the battles with his enemies (vv. 22–26).[86] If the emendation of Psalms 2:7 is
[80] F. Sommer and A. Falkenstein, Die hethitisch-akkadische Bilingue des Hattusili[*] I (Labarna II) , Abhandlungen der bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-hist. Abt. N.F. 16, 1938.
[81] u a-nu-um-ma TUR-am la-ba-ar-na [aq-b]i-a-ak-ku-nu-si[*] -im su[*] -u li-it-ta-sa[*] -ab-mi LUGAL-ru [al]-si-su-ma DUMU(?)-am (in Hittite, [nu-us[*] -ma-as[*] TUR-la-an] la-ba-ar-na-an te-nu-un [a-pa-a-as-ua-as-sa-an e-sa-ru LUGAL-sa-an-za] DUMU-la-ma-an hal-zi-ih-hu-un (1/2; 2–4). The Akkadian qabû is equivalent to the Hittite te and the Hebrew 'mr[*] . In this context they have the same connotation as 'mr 'ly[*] in Ps. 2:7, "proclaim" or "declare." The newly appointed king is not the real son of Hattusili but the son of his sister, who is being adopted.
[82] Compare 1/2:37: "Behold, Mursili[*] is now my son."
[83] 2:44: NUMUN UTU .KU .NU. Compare the Akkadian ana maruti[*]nadanu[*] in the sense of adopting; see S. M. Paul, "Adoption Formulae," Eretz Israel 14, H. L. Ginsberg Volume (1978), p. 34 (Hebrew).
[84] 3:24–25.
[85] ana sunisu[*]iskunsu[*]u qassu isbastu[*] , ina panisu[*]irtup alakam , KBo 10, 1 Vs. 13–14 (cf. H. Otten, "Keilschrifttexte," MDOG 91 [1958], p. 79 and A. Goetze, "Review of KBo X," JCS 16 [1962], p. 125). For the corresponding Hittite restoration (KBo 10, 2 Vs. 1:28–30), see H. A. Hoffner, "Birth and Name-Giving in Hittite Texts," JNES 27 (1968), p. 201, note 27.
[86] According to H. L. Ginsberg (private communication), Isa. 41:9 ff., which also deals with grasping the hand and helping against enemies,refers to the election of Abraham (cf. end of v. 8), which supports our view about the common typology of the Davidic and Abrahamic covenants. On "grasping the hand" in Deutero-Isaiah and the corresponding neo-Babylonian royal imagery, see S. Paul, "Deutero-Isaiah and Cuneiform Royal Inscriptions," JAOS 88 (1968), p. 182, n. 19.
correct, then the idea of the heir placed into the bosom of his adoptant also occurs in connection with David.[87] It is also not without significance that the promise of Supilluliuma[*] to Kurtiwaza, as well as God's promise to David (v. 35), are accompanied by the declaration that the suzerain will not alter his word. Psalms 132:12 also says that "the lord swore to David in truth from which he will not turn away."
The notion of sonship within the promise of dynasty comes then to legitimize the grant of dynasty. It has nothing to do with mythology; it is a purely forensic metaphor. The metaphor is taken from the familial sphere,[88] as may be seen from the quoted Nuzi will. In this document, the father decrees that in case of disorder the rebellious son might be chained and confined but his inheritance rights will not be canceled. The same concept is reflected in 2 Samuel 7, where the phrase hwkh bsbt[*] ("chastening with the rod") is used, which in other places occurs in a didactic context (cf., e.g., Prov. 13:24, 23:14). Furthermore, on the basis of the comparison with the familial documents from Nuzi, the phrase "rod of men" ('nsym[*] ) and afflictions of the sons of man (bny 'dm[*] ) may now be properly
[87] 'spw 'lhyqy[*] , 'mr 'ylyw[*] ("I will gather him to my bosom, I will say to him") instead of 'sprh 'l hq[*] , yhwh 'mr 'ly[*] ("I will recite the law, YHWH said to me"). Cf. H. Gunkel, Psalmen , HKAT (Göttingen, 1929) ad loc., which follows Torczyner. For 'sp[*] in the sense of adoption, see Ps. 27:10.
[88] Cf. Ruth 4:6 and see Hoffner, "Birth," etc., JNES (n. 85). We must admit however, that putting into the bosom as such does not necessarily indicate adoption; it may just as well signify care and protection. T. Jacobsen ("Parerga Sumerologica," JNES 2[1943], p. 120) denies that nourishing by the goddess or placing on her knee in Sumero-Akkadian literature implies adoption. Similarly, giving birth on one's knees in the Old Testament (Gen. 16:2; 30:3; 50:23) does not necessarily imply adoption; see J. Tigay, "Adoption," Encyclopedia Judaica 2, cols. 298–301.
understood. In the so-called tuppi simti[*] documents from Nuzi published[89] and analyzed by Speiser,[90] we find often, in connection with the provisions about obedience to the adoptive father,[91] phrases such as "If PN1 (the adopted child) fails to show respect for PN2 (the adoptive father) then just as a man treats his son too shall PN2 treat PN1 ."[92] Another document says that "just as one treats the citizen of Arrapha, so should PN1 treat PN2 : he shall put fetters upon his feet, place a mark on his hand, and put him in the house of detention."[93] The intention is clear: the son given into adoption has the duties of a son (i.e., respecting his parents) but has also the privileges of a son: he has to be treated like the son of a free citizen and not like a slave. This is implied in another document of this collection, where the father says that the adoptive parent "may act as though she were I."[94] This kind of privilege for the adopted can be traced back to the Old Babylonian period. In a document of adoption by manumission, the master of the manumitted slave says, "If Zugagu will say to his father Sinabusu[*] 'you are not my father' they will impose upon him the punish-
[89] E. R. Lacheman, Excavations at Nuzi VIII: Family Law Documents , HSS 19 (Cambridge, Mass., 1962).
[90] E. A. Speiser, "A Significant New Will from Nuzi," JCS 17 (1963), pp. 65–71; cf. also E. Cassin, "Nouvelles données sur les relations familiales à Nuzi," RA 57 (1963), pp. 113–19.
[91] This means, of course, anybody who assumes parenthood of the children (ana abbuti[*] ) as, for instance, the wife or the daughter of the one who draws the will.
[92] summa[*] PN1 =PN2 la[*] [ipal]lahsu[*] u kime[*] awelu[*] marsu[*] huddumumma ippus[*] kinannama huddumumma ippus (JEN 572:26–31). Cf. the analysis of this passage by Speiser (n. 90), pp. 68–69. According to Speiser, huddumumma epesu[*] means to discipline. Cassin (n. 90), p. 116 translates it as "enfermer."
[93] kime marsu sa[*] awil[*] Arraphe ippusu[*] , kinannama PN1 =PN2 ippussuma[*] , kursa[*] ina sepesu[*] isakkan[*] , abbuta ina qaqqadisu[*] isakkan, ina bit[*] kili[*] inandin (Nuzi VIII , HSS 19, 39:16–23) (n. 89); cf. Speiser (n. 90), p. 69; E. Cassin, "Pouvoir," RA 63 (1969), p. 134 (n. 68).
[94] k [ima[*] ] yasi[*]eteppus[*] (Nuzi VII , HSS 19, 19:31–32) (n. 89); cf. Speiser, "New Will from Nuzi," (n. 90), p. 70 and n. 22 for the grammatical problem involved.
ment of the free born,"[95] i.e., he will not be enslaved but disciplined as the son of a free citizen.[96]
What is meant, then, in 2 Samuel 7:14, is that when David's descendants sin they will be disciplined like rebellious sons by their father,[97] but they will not be alienated. One must say that this lenient approach toward rebellious sons was not the rule in familial relationship in the ancient Near East. On the contrary, in most cases rebelliousness brought about the dissolution of sonship, be it sonship by birth or by adoption.[98] Among the quoted adoption documents from Nuzi we find that the adoptive parent may chastise the disobedient son but may also disinherit him if he wants.[99] Similarly, we find that the Hittite suzerain did not always grant land unconditionally. In a land
[95] PN ana PN abisu[*]ula abi atta iqabbima[*] , aran maru[*]awile[*]immidusu[*] (M. Schorr, Urkunden [n. 10], 1913, 23:23–27, p. 46).
[96] Contrary to Schorr (ibid.), who understands it as deprivation of freedom, i.e., enslavement.
[97] B. Jacob ("Das hebräische Sprachgut im Christlich-Palästinischen," (ZAW 22 (1902), pp. 91–92) interprets bsbt 'nsym wbng'y bny[*]'dm[*] ("Schlage wie sie die Kinder vom Vater erhalten d.h. aus Liebe und daher mit Maassen," which generally fits our understanding of the phrase. However, his interpretation of 'dm and 'nsym[*] as "parents," literally (on the basis of the Palestinian Syriac 'nswt '[*] ), is not warranted. It might as well be understood as "human" (cf. Hos. 11:4, bhbly 'dm 'mskm[*]b'btt 'hbh[*] ("I drew them with human cords, with bands of love.")
[98] Cf., e.g., CH, 168–69 and the discussion in G. R. Driver and J. C. Miles' The Babylonian Laws 1 (Oxford, 1952), pp. 348–49, 395–405. These laws apply to the real son as well as the adopted, as may be learned from a Nuzi document (Nuzi I , HSS 5 [n. 63], p. 7), where it is stated that the adopted son might be disinherited following repeated trials (11.25 ff.), which is similar in attitude to CH, 168–69, according to which the son is to be disinherited only after being brought up before the judges for the second time. Compare Deut. 21:18–21, where the rebellious son is to be condemned to death only after being previously chastised. For dissolution of sonship as a result of disobedience, cf. also RS 8. 145 (F. Thureau-Dangin, "Trois contrats de Ras-Shamra," Syria 18 [1937], pp. 249–50).
[99] PN kursi[*]inandinsu[*]abbuta umassarsu[*] , ina bit[*]kili[*]inandin, summa[*]hasihsu[*]kirba[na] iheppe u ukassasu[*]k[ima[*]] yasi[*]eteppus[*] ("PN may put fetters upon him, apply the slave mark to him, put him in the house of detention or, if it pleases her, break the clump of clay to disinherit him [kussudu[*] ], she may act as though she were I" (Nuzi VIII , HSS 19, 19:28–32) (n. 89).
grant of Mursili[*] II to Abiradda, the Hittite suzerain guarantees the rights of DU-Tesup[*] , Abiradda's son, to throne, house, and land, only on the condition that DU-Tesup will not sin (uastai -[*] ) against his father.[100] The unconditional promise is therefore a special privilege and apparently given for extraordinarily loyal service.
In connection with David, this privilege is also reflected in that David is given the right of the first born. As is now known to us from Nuzi, Alalah, Ugarit and Palestine,[101] the father had the right to select a "firstborn" as well as to make all his heirs share alike,[102] and was not bound by the law of primogeniture.[103] Needless to say, the selection of the firstborn elevated the chosen son to a privileged position in the family and thus entitled him to a double share in the inheritance. Indeed, the phrase bkwr 'tnhw[*] (Ps. 89:28) means "I will appoint him or make him firstborn," which speaks for a given right and not one acquired by nature. The titles "son" and "firstborn" are also attested among Mesopotamian kings; see M. J. Seux, Éphithètes royales Akkadiennes et Sumériennes , pp. 42–44.
In fact, not only David is named the firstborn to God; Israel itself is called by God "my son the firstborn Israel" (Exod.
[100] F. Hrozny, Hethitische Keilschrifttexte aus Boghazköi , Boghazköi Studien 3 (Leipzig, 1919), pp. 142–44, vs. 2:10–18; J. Friedrich, "Aus dem hethitischen Schrifttum, 2 Heft," Der Alte Orient 24:3 (1925), p. 20, lines 10–18; cf. also E. Cavaignac, "L'affaire de Iaruvatta," RHA 6 (Jan. 1932), p. 196; H. Klengel, "Der Schiedsspruch des Mursili II," Orientalia , N.S. 32 (1963), pp. 35–36, 41–42.
[101] Cf. I Mendelsohn, "On the Preferential Status of the Eldest Son," BASOR 156 (Dec. 1959), pp. 38–40 and the references there.
[102] Cf., e.g., ina libbisunu[*] sa[*]mariya[*]rabi yanu[*] ("there is none among them who shall be the oldest,") Nuzi VIII (n. 89) HSS 19 23:5–6; cf. 17:12–13; see Speiser, "New Will from Nuzi," JCS 17 (1963), p. 66 (n. 65) and the discussion on p. 70.
[103] This is prohibited in the Deuteronomic Code (21:15–17). The Deuteronomic Law stands in clear contradiction to Gen. 48:13–20, where Joseph, the son of the loved woman Rachel, is given the double share while Reuben, the son of the "unloved" Leah (cf. Gen. 29:33—snw'h[*] ), is repudiated as the firstborn.
4:22; cf. Jer. 31:8), and as the adoption of David is supposed to legitimize the inheritance of nations, i.e., the Davidic empire, the adoption of Israel by God is supposed to validate the gift of land. Though this is not expressed explicitly in the Pentateuch it is clearly indicated in a prophetic text (Jer. 3:19), where we read, "I said I will surely[104] put you among the sons (I will adopt you as a son, w'nky 'mrty 'yk ('k) 'sytk bbnym[*] )[105] and give you a pleasant land, the goodliest heritage of the host of nations, and I said you shall call me my father[106] and you will not turn away from me." The phrase 'sytk bbnym[*] ("I will put you among the sons") undoubtedly alludes to adoption, as Ehrlich indicated, and as such anticipates the inheritance of the land.[107]
The use of familial metaphors to express relationships belonging to the royal-national sphere should not surprise us, since the whole diplomatic vocabulary of the second millennium B.C.E.[108] is rooted in the familial sphere. For instance,
[104] Read 'akh[*] instead of 'eykh[*] ; cf. A. Ehrlich, Randglossen zur hebr. Bibel , ad loc.
[105] Cf. the new JPS translation of The Torah (Philadelphia, 1978): "I had resolved to adopt you as my son." Cf. in the Azitawadda inscription, w'p b'bt p'ln kl mlk[*] ("and every king made me his father [his suzerain]"); see N. H. Tur-Sinai (Torczyner), The Language and the Book II , 2d ed. (Jerusalem, 1964), p. 76 (Hebrew). The Greek poieisthai[*] (the Hebrew p'l[*] , the Akkadian epesu[*] ) or thesthai (the Hebrew sym[*] , syt[*] ) are the verbs used for adoption. wysymw[*] bnym in Ezra 10:44 implies adoption (cf. S. Feigin, "Some Cases of Adoption in Israel," JBL 50 [1931], pp. 196 ff., though we do not accept his restoration). For the Akkadian ana abbuti[*] epesu as adoption see the discussion by S. M. Paul, "Adoption Formulae" (n. 83), pp. 33, n. 23.
[106] Inheritance of land in connection with divine sonship (bny 'l[*] ) occurs in Deut. 32:8 (Septuagint and Qumran). Compare the cone of Enmetena of Lagash, "Enlil, the king of all the lands, the father of all the gods, marked off the boundary for Ningirsu (god of Lagash) and Shara (god of Umma) by his steadfast word" (Cone A, 1–7); cf. F. Thureau-Dangin, Die sumerischen und akkadischen Königinschriften (Leipzig, 1907), p. 36; J. S. Cooper, Presargonic Inscriptions (New Haven, 1986), p. 55.
[107] Cf. above, p. 241.
[108] Cf. J. Munn-Rankin, "Diplomacy in Western Asia in the Early Second Millennium B.C. ," Iraq 18 (1956), pp. 68 ff.
the relationship between the states is defined as abbutu[*] = fathership (suzerainty); marutu[*] = sonship (vassalship); ahhutu[*] = brotherhood (parity relationship). The phrase itti nakriya[*] lu[*] nakrata itti salmiya[*] lu salmata , "with my enemy be an enemy, with my friend be a friend," which is so common in the Hittite-Ugaritic treaties,[109] is already found in the Elamite treaty of the third millennium B.C.E.[110] This phrase is found in an Old Babylonian marriage contract in which we read zenî sa[*] PN1 PN2 izenni salamisa[*] isallim = "PN2 (the second wife) will be angry with whom PN1 (the first wife) will be angry, she will be on good terms with whom PN1 will be on good terms.[111] Similarly, we read in a Mari adoption document, damaqisunu[*] idammiq lemenisunu[*] ilemmin ("their joy will be his joy, their sorrow will be his sorrow").[112] The close relationship of familial and political alliances has also been seen long ago by N. Glueck,[113] who says, "Allies had the same rights and obligations as those who were blood relatives."
Thus, the gift of land to Abraham and the gift of kingship to David are formulated in the way Hittite grants used to be formulated, particularly those grants bestowing gifts upon privileged vassals. Contrary to the prevalent law in the Hittite
[109] Cf. PRU 4, pp. 36, 49 passim. From the Hittites it passed to the Greeks; see my article "Covenant Terminology," (n. 12) JAOS 93 (1973), p. 198 and note 103.
[110] Cf. W. Hinz, "Elams Vertrag mit Naram-Sin von Akkade," ZA 24 (1967), pp. 66 ff. See also the text in Baghdader Mitteilungen 2 [1963], p. 54 [W 19900], 147, which according to F. R. Kraus ("Baghdader Mitteilungen 2 (1963) herausgegeben vom Deutschen Archäologischen Institut, Abteilung Baghdad," Bibliotheca Orientalis 22 [1965], p. 289) is part of a treaty, where we read: [lu a-n]a-ki-ir [is-l]i-mu lu-u a-sa-li-im.
[111] M. Schorr, Urkunden des altbabylonischen Zivil—und Prozessrechts , VAB 5 (Leipzig, 1913), 4:21–23; cf. 5:7–8; Schorr's translation is wrong and Ungnad's is incorrect; see p. 11 there. Cf. CAD v. 21 (Z) zenû b.
[112] ARM 8, 1:4–5. R. Yaron, "Varia on Adoption," Journal of Juristic Papyrology 15 (1965), pp. 173–75, discussed this text in the context of some of the above-mentioned texts and reached similar conclusions.
[113] Hesed in the Bible (n. 17) (Cincinnati, 1967), p. 46.
kingdom,[114] in Ugarit,[115] and in Alalah,[116] according to which the property of the condemned is to be confiscated, in the cited documents the property of the condemned cannot be taken away.
It was the Deuteronomist, the redactor of the Book of Kings, who put the promise of David under a condition (1 Kings 2:4; 8:25; 9:4 f.), as did Deuteronomy with the promise to the Patriarchs.[117] The exile of Northern Israel, the destruction of Jerusalem, and the disruption of the dynasty refuted, of course, the claim of the eternity of the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants, thereby necessitating a reinterpretation of the covenants. This was done by making them conditional, i.e., by asserting that the covenant is eternal only if the donee keeps his loyalty to the donor. It is true, even in the predeuteronomic documents, that the loyalty of David's sons and the sons of the Patriarchs is somehow presupposed,[118] but it is never formulated as the condition for national existence as in the Deuteronomic literature. In the JE source, Israel is never threatened with destruction for violating the law. The non-observance of the covenant will certainly bring punishment (Exod. 33:33; 34:12) but no annihilation. Even the parenetic section of Exodus 19:5–6, which sounds like a condition, is in fact a prom-
[114] Cf., e.g., Friedrich, Staatsverträge (n. 4), no. 3, 7C:13–17 (pp. 112 ff.); V. Korosec[*] , "Juristische Bemerkungen," (n. 53), pp. 218 ff., although the different attitudes toward the condemned do not reflect a historical development, as Korosec[*] puts it, but might be explained as a double standard: to the privileged on the one hand and to the unprivileged on the other.
[115] PRU 3, 16.249:22–29 (pp. 97–98); 16.145 (p. 169, bel[*] arni ).
[116] AT no. 17 (p. 40—bel masikti[ *] ). See S. E. Loewenstamm, "Notes on the Alalah Tablets," Comparative Studies in Biblical and Ancient Oriental Literatures , AOAT 20 (Neukirchen, 1980), pp. 23–26.
[117] It is significant that in spite of frequent references to the promise of the Patriarchs, Deuteronomy never mentions the eternity of this promise ('d 'wlm[*] , ldwrwtm, bryt 'wlm[*] ), in contrast to JE and P; see below.
[118] Cf. Gen. 18:19. This is an expectation and not a condition.
ise and not a threat: "If you will obey me faithfully and keep my covenant you shall be treasured possession (sglh ).[119] Indeed all the earth is mine but you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation."[120] The observance of loyalty in this passage is not a condition for the fulfillment of God's grace, as in Deuteronomy (cf. 7:12 f., 11:13 f.), but a prerequisite for high and extraordinary status.
The priestly code also, in spite of the curses and the threat of exile in Leviticus 26, does not end with the breach of the covenant; on the contrary, it has God saying: "Even when they are in the land of their enemies I will not reject them or spurn them so as to destroy them, violating my covenant with them
[119] For the meaning of sglh and its Akkadian equivalent sikiltum , see M. Greenberg, "Hebrew segulla[*] : Akkadian sikiltu ," JAOS 71 (1951), pp. 172 ff. Cf. now PRU 5, 60 (18.38), 11.7–12 (p. 84), where the Ugaritic vassal is called the sglt of his suzerain, which is rendered by C. Virolleaud as propriété . The sglt in the Ugaritic text now elucidates the sglh in the Pentateuch. It seems that sglt and sglh belong to the treaty and covenant terminology and that they are employed to distinguish the special relationships of the suzerains to their vassals. On the basis of Ugaritic, Biblical and also Alalahian evidence (cf. the seal impression in D. J. Wiseman, AT , pl. 3, where the king Abban is said to be the sikiltum of the goddess), we may safely say that the basic meaning of the root sakalu[*] is to set aside a thing or certain property either with good intention (as Israel is set aside from other nations) or with an evil purpose, as in CH 141 and other Babylonian sources. Cf. the discussion by M. Held, in "A Faithful Lover in an Old Babylonian Dialogue," JCS 15 (1961), pp. 11–12. For the Ugaritic text, cf. also H. B. Huffmon and S. B. Parker, "A Further Note on the Treaty Background of Hebrew yada'[*] ," BASOR 184 (1966), pp. 36 ff.; E. E. Loewenstamm, "Am Segulla," Hebrew Languages Studies Presented to Z. ben-Hayyim (Jerusalem, 1983), pp. 321–28.
[120] As a reward for her loyalty, Israel will in turn be God's most precious possession—she will be God's priesthood. A similar idea is indeed expressed in the consolation prophecy in Isa. 61:6: "And you shall be called the priests of YHWH. You will be named servants of our God, you shall eat the wealth of the nations and in their splendor you shall excel." For a thorough discussion of this passage see W. L. Moran, "A Kingdom of Priests," in J. McKenzie, ed., The Bible in Current Catholic Thought (1962), pp. 7–20.
(lhpr bryty 'tm[*] ). I will remember in their favor[121] the covenant with the ancients (wzkrty lhm bryt r'snym[*] )" (Lev. 26:44–45). Deuteronomy, however, concludes chapter 28 with the threat that the people will be sent back to Egypt, and no allusion to the grace of the covenant is made.[122]
The Covenant with Abraham in Genesis 15[fn123]The Covenant with Abraham in Genesis 15[123]
In light of our analysis we properly understand the nature of the covenant in Genesis 15: God as the suzerain commits himself and swears, as it were, to keep the promise.[124] It is he, accompanied by a smoking kiln and a blazing torch (tnwr 'sn wlpyd 's[*] ),[125] who passes between the parts as though he were invoking the curse upon himself.
A similar oath occurs in the Abban-Yarimlim deed, where Abban, the donor, takes the oath by cutting the neck of a lamb (kisad[*] 1 immery itbuh[*] ), saying "(may I be cursed) if I take back what I gave you."[126] In another document, which completes
[121] Cf. above, pp. 234–35.
[122] Deut. 30:1–10 and 4:29–31 are of a later origin and revolve around the Deuteronomic doctrine of return to God; cf. H. W. Wolff, "Das Kerygma des deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerks," ZAW 73 (1961), pp. 180 ff., and recently M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11 , Anchor Bible (New York, 1991), pp. 216–17.
[123] See the bibliography in C. Westermann, Genesis I BK 14 (Neukirchen, 1979), pp. 247–50.
[124] On the covenant with Abraham in Gen. 15 as representing an oath, cf. Lohfink, Die Landverheissung (n. 1), pp. 11–23.
[125] Compare the Sinaitic theophany where God appears in fire and smoke; cf. Exod. 19:18, "for YHWH had come down upon it in fire ('s[*] ) and the smoke ('sn[*] ) rose like the smoke of a kiln." In the commentary of the Syrian church father Ephrem (quoted by T. Zachariae; see J. C. Greenfield, "An Ancient Treaty Ritual and its Targumic Echo," Salvacion en la Palabra, Targum - Derash - Berith: Homenaje al Profesor A. Diez Macho [Madrid, 1985], p. 395), we find the tradition "that the Chaldeans would solemnize a pact by passing through the dissecting parts holding torches."
[126] D. J. Wiseman, "Abban and Alalah," JCS 12 (1958), p. 126, lines 39–42; cf. n. 10 above. In the continuation Abban states that if Yarimlimbetrays him he will forfeit his territory, thus making the gift conditional. We must, however, keep in mind that the deed of Abban to Yarimlim is not a deed of grant but rather of exchange. Alalah was given to Yarimlim in place of the destroyed Irridi. The gift of Alalah is therefore not a reward for loyal service as is the case in grants but part of a political arrangement between two parties.
the data of this gift, we read: "On that day Abban in exchange for Irridi gave the city. . . . On that day Yarimlim delivered (or brought up) to Istar[*] . . .,"[127] which seems to reflect a situation similar to that of the covenant in Genesis 15, i.e., that the inferior party delivers the animals while the superior swears the oath.
In Alalah as in Genesis 15 the animals slaughtered at the scene of the covenant are considered sacrificial offerings.[128] That the act of cutting the neck of the animal is of sacrificial nature may be learned from another covenantal description in Alalah, where we read, "the neck of a sacrificial lamb was cut in the presence of PN the general."[129] A later Alalahian cove-
[127] ina umisu[*] Yarimlim . . . [ana] Istar[*] useli[*] , reading with CAD E, p. 130 . According to Lohfink (Landverheissung [n. 1], pp. 93 ff.) the tradition of Gen. 15:7 ff. reflects an incubation dream in a sanctuary (Hebron or Shechem). If true, this might be an additional parallel with the Alalah covenant.
[128] Cf. Jubilees 14:9 ff.; Pseudo-Philo, Biblical Antiquities 23:6–7; Apocalypse of Abraham 9–15; Josephus, Antiquities 1, § 183–85; see C. T. Begg, "Rereadings of the 'Animal Rite' of Gen. 15 in Early Jewish Narratives," CBQ 50 (1988), pp. 36–46. For the sacrificial nature of the offerings brought to the ceremony in Gen. 15, see E. Loewenstamm, "Zur Traditionsgeschichte des Bundes zwischen den Stücken," VT 18 (1968), pp. 500 ff. (in English in AOAT 204, [1980], pp. 273–80). However, in view of the evidence presented here, we cannot accept his opinion that the sacrifice is a late element in the tradition of Gen. 15.
[129] AT* 54:16–18: GÚ SILÁ a-sa-ki IGI PN UGULA UKÚ. US[*]ta-bi-ih[*] (cf. A. Draffkorn "King Abba-AN" (n. 7), JCS 13 (1959), p. 95, n. 11). The presence of the general at this transaction may be paralleled with Gen. 21:22 f. and the Yahwistic counterpart in 26:26 ff., where the covenant between Abimelech and Abraham and Isaac, respectively, is made in the presence of Phicol the general. For Ahuzzat mere'ehu[*] , who joins Phicol in 26:26, cf. Jonathan D. Safran, "Ahuzzath and the Pact ofBeer-Sheba," in M. Cogan, ed., Beer-Sheva 2: Presented to S. Abramsky on his Retirement (Jerusalem, 1985), pp. 121–30 (Hebrew). According to Safran, mr'hw[*] is equivalent to merhum in Mari, who is in charge of the pasture lands.
nantal text[130] tells us about offerings[131] in connection with the oath of the vassal Idrimi to his Hurrian suzerain.[132] The ancient covenant in Exodus 24 is wholly based upon sacrifices, and the secular Patriarchal covenants are also ratified by sacrifices (Gen. 21:27).[133]
In Greece, too, sacrifices were offered at the covenant ceremony.[134] Thus we read in the Iliad 3:103–07 that for the covenant with the Achaeans the Trojans bring two lambs and a ram and prepare libations (3:268 ff.). Furthermore, as in Genesis 15:9, in Greece three animals (trityes ), a bull, a ram, and a boar, were usually taken for the covenantal rite.[135] The offerings of the lustrum in Rome also consisted of three animals (souvetaurilia ), a boar, a sheep and a bull (sus, ovis, taurus ), and accord-
[130] S. Smith, The Statue of Idri-mi (London, 1949); for a thorough investigation of this inscription see E. L. Greenstein and D. Marcus, "The Akkadian Inscription of Idrimi," The Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia University 8 (1976), pp. 59–96.
[131] See lines 55–56—SISKUR (niqê) usarbi[*] (I multiplied offerings); compare lines 89–90.
[132] E. Szlechter, "Les tablettes juridiques datées du règne d'Abi-esuh[*] conservées au Musée d'art et d'histoire de Genève," JCS 7 (1953), p. 92, 5:16–17; A. Goetze, "Critical Review of S. Smith The Statue of Idri-mi ," JCS 4 (1950), p. 228, n. 20.
[133] We are told there that Abraham gave seven lambs to Abimelech as a "witness" ('dh[*] ) or as Speiser (Genesis , Anchor Bible, ad loc.) translates, a "proof" for his rights on the well. A similar procedure is found in an old Babylonian act of partition where one of the partners gives to the other two lambs as a proof of the agreement (E. Szlechter, JCS 7 [1953], p. 92, 5:16–17). Compare also A. Goetze, JCS 4 (1950), p. 228, n. 20.
[134] Cf. P. Stengel, Die griechische Kultusaltertümer , 3d ed. (Berlin, 1920), p. 119, n. 7; 137; M. P. Nillson, Geschichte des griechischen Religion 1, 3d ed. (Munich, 1967), pp. 139 ff.; W. Burkert, Griechische Religion (Stuttgart, 1977), pp. 133 ff.
[135] Cf. P. Stengel, Griechische Kultusaltertümer (n. 134), pp. 119, 137 f.
ing to Dionysius of Halicarnassus, the triple sacrifice consisted of a bull, a ram and a goat,[136] as in Genesis 15:9.
This tradition of covenantal sacrifices goes back to the third millennium B.C.E. In the treaty between Lagash and Umma, recorded on the stele of the vultures, we hear about sacrificing a bull[137] and two doves.[138] The doves remind us of the pigeon and the turtledove in Genesis 15, whereas the NINDA + GUD (fattened bull), which equals Akkadian biru[*] , is in many cases three years old[139] and may therefore be paralleled with
[136] It was pointed out that the later Greeks sometimes performed such sacrifices and the knowledge of such sacrifices may have misled the scribe of the work of Dionysius; see E. Cary, Dionysius Halicarnassensis , (Loeb Classical Library, Harvard University Press, 1939), pp. 338–39.
[137] Rev. 1:37–40, Utu lugal ni-sig-ga-ra larsam (ki) e-babbar NINDÁ + GUD-se[*] an-ku , which is translated by E. Sollberger (Le système verbal dans les inscriptions "royales" presargoniques de Lagas[*] , [Geneva, 1952], example 161), a Utu, le roi étincelant, à Larsa dans l'Ebabbar, j'y ai fait le sacrifice (alimentaire). Compare id., Inscriptions royales Sumériennes et Akkadiennes (Paris, 1971), p. 54. The passage is not altogether clear; some scholars take the phrase to mean that the doves were offered like sacrificial bulls (see J. S. Cooper, Presargonic Inscriptions [New Haven, 1986], p. 36 and the references there, pp. 33–34), but in the other paragraphs the doves are being released and not sacrificed. Cf. also G. Steiner, "Der Grenzvertrag Zwischen Lagas[*] und Umma," Acta Sumerologica 8 (1986), pp. 219 ff. C. T. Begg ("The Covenantal Dove in Ps. 84:19–20," VT 37 [1987], pp. 78–80), interprets Ps. 84:19–20, where twr (dove) is mentioned next to berit[*] (covenant), on the basis of Gen. 15:9, 17.
[138] "Two doves on whose eyes he had put kohl (and) on whose heads he had strewn cedar he released them to Enlil at Nippur (with the plea): 'As long as days exist . . . if the Ummaite . . . breaks his word . . .'"
[139] Cf. biru[*] B, CAD , vol. 2 (B) p. 266. The three-year-old bull in 1 Sam. 1:24 (Septuagint and Qumran) and the three-year animals in Gen. 15 do not therefore reflect precisely a Shilonite tradition, as Loewenstamm contends (loc cit). It seems that the three-year-old animal was considered of good quality in general; cf., e.g., 1 immeru sa[*] sullusitu[*] damqu ("one three-year-old sheep of good quality" (C. J. Gadd, Tablets from Kirkuk, RA 23 [1926], p. 154, no. 47.15); sullusita[*] enza ("a three-year old she goat") in connection with a feast (Anatolian Studies 6 [1956], p. 152:15, 44); l alpu sulussu[*] esru[*] sa . . . PN ana Ebabbara iddinu ("the three-year old ox, the tithe which PN has given to Ebabbara") (J. N. Strassmaier, Inschriften von Nabonidus, König von Babylon [Leipzig, 1889], no. 1071:1). For cattleand sheep and their ages in Mesopotamia, cf. MSL 5, vol. 1 and esp. p. 67 there. For the age adjective sulussu[*] , compare also 'glt slsyh[*] (Isa. 15:5, Jer. 48:34) and see Mishnah Parah 1:1 slsyt[*] .
Genesis 15:9. An offering of a similar kind, though in a different context (lustration), is found in Leviticus 14:4, 49, where two birds are taken, along with cedar wood, crimson stuff, and hyssop.
Release of birds for lustration is very common in Mesopotamia and Anatolia.[140] Especially instructive are the Hittite lustrations, where we find, as in Leviticus, cords of red wool, etc., put on the head of the substitute like a crown.[141]
In the covenantal ceremony of Genesis 15, as in the treaty between Lagash and Umma, it is very difficult to distinguish between the sacrifice proper and the lustration; we may have a combination of both here. Indeed, the rite of passing between the pieces of the victims originated in Asia Minor and had been propagated in the sphere of Hittite influence; cf. E. J. Bickerman, "Couper une alliance," Archives d'histoire du droit Oriental 5 (1950–51), 141 ff. Cf. also S. Henninger, "Was bedeutet die rituelle Teilung eines Tieres in zwei Hälften?" Biblica 34 (1953), pp. 344–53. Especially interesting for our discussion is the case in which a man, a goat, a puppy, and a little pig were cut, and the soldiers had to pass between the pieces (see O. Masson, "A propos d'un rituel Hittite pour la lustration d'une armée: le rite de purification par le passage entre les deux parties d'une victime," RHR 137 (1950) pp. 5–25). An oath accompanied by passing between the pieces is found in Greece: electing a candidate for office is done by passing between the pieces of the sacrifice while walking toward the altar (Plato, Laws 753d).
In Mari we encounter a ritual accompanying the covenant (ARM 2:37) that also does not look sacrificial. For the covenant between the Haneans and the land of Idamaras[*] , the pro-
[140] Cf. David P. Wright, The Disposal of Impurity: Elimination Rites in the Bible and in the Hittite and Mesopotamian Literature (Atlanta, 1986), pp. 80–83.
[141] Ibid., p. 56.
vincial tribes brought a young dog and a she-goat, which the king of Mari did not permit but gave the command to use a donkey foal (hayaru ) instead. The "killing of a donkey foal" (hayaram qatalum[*] ) for a covenant ceremony was so common that this phrase was tantamount to "making a covenant."[142] In the ceremony of Genesis 15, the passing between the parts symbolizes the self-curse, similar to the act of "seizing the throat," but this does not nullify the sacrificial nature of the ceremony. On the contrary, the ritual adds solemnity to the oath. It is only in the covenantal ceremonies of the first millennium that the sacrificial element gradually disappears and gives way to the dramatic act. Thus, the neo-Assyrian treaty and the Deuteronomic covenant become binding and valid not by virtue of the treaty ritual but by the oath-imprecation (the mamitu[*] )[143] that accompanies the ceremony. The ritual itself—if it was performed—served only a symbolic and dramatic end: to tangibly impress upon the vassal the consequences that would follow inevitably should he infringe the covenant. The treaty between Ashurnirari V and Mati'ilu[*] of Bit-Agusi[144] even states explicitly that the ram is brought forward in the treaty ceremony not for sacrificial purposes but to serve as a palpable example of the punishment awaiting the transgressor of the treaty (Drohritus): "This ram was not taken from its flock for sacrifice (UDU .SISKUR), it has been brought to conclude the treaty of Ashur-nirari, king of Assyria, with Mati'ilu, if Mati'ilu [shall violate] the covenant and oath to the
[142] Cf. M. Held, "Philological Notes on the Mari Covenantal Rituals," BASOR 200 (1970), pp. 32–40.
[143] Cf. M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School , 1972, pp. 102–4.
[144] See E. Weidner, "Der Staatsvertrag Assurniraris[*] VI von Assyrien mit Mati'ilu von bit Agusi," AfO 8 (1932), pp. 17–34; E. Reiner, ANET , 3d ed. pp. 532–33; R. Borger, "Assyrische Staatsverträge," in O. Kaiser, Texte aus der Umwelt des Alten Testaments , Band 1 Lieferung 2 (Gütersloh, 1983), pp. 155–58; S. Parpola and K. Watanabe, Neo-Assyrian Treaties and Loyalty Oaths , State Archives of Assyria 2 (Helsinki, 1988), pp. 8–13.
gods, then just as this ram, which was taken from its flock and to its flock will not return, and not behold its flock again, so Mati'ilu with his sons, (ministers), the men of his land, shall be taken from his land, and to his land he shall not return, and not (behold) his country again" (col. 1, ll. 10 ff.).
Like Saul, who cut a yoke of oxen into pieces and proclaimed, "Whoever does not come after Saul and Samuel, so shall it be done to his oxen" (1 Sam. 11:7),[145] Bar Ga'yah[*] declared in his treaty with Mati"el[*] , "[As] this calf is cut apart so shall Mat"el be cut apart."[146] Zedekiah's covenant with the people on the manumission of the slaves (Jer. 34:8–22) is to be understood in an analogous manner. Hence, those passing between the two parts of the calf (v. 18) must have accepted the consequences ensuing from a violation of the oath-imprecation: "So may it befall me if I shall not observe the words of the covenant."[147] Dramatic acts of this sort were not, however, performed only with animals. In the Sefire treaty,[148] in the vassal treaties of Esarhaddon,[149] and in Hittite military oath-taking ceremonies[150] similar acts were performed with wax images and other objects.[151] Generally speaking, however, it appears that this act was not a requisite part of the ceremony. Many Hittite and Assyrian treaties make no men-
[145] Compare the Mari letter (ARM 2, 48), where it is proposed to cut off the head of a culprit and circulate it among the cities of Hana so that the troops may fear and quickly assemble.
[146] [w'yk zy[*]] ygzr 'glh[*] znh kn ygzr mt"l[*] ; see J. A. Fitzmyer, The Aramaic Inscriptions of Sefire 1, Biblica et Orientalia 19 (Rome, 1967), A:39–40.
[147] See W. Rudolph, Jeremia , 2d ed. HAT (1985), p. 205.
[148] 1A:35–42.
[149] D. J. Wiseman, Vassal Treaties (n. 11), lines 608–11.
[150] J. Friedrich, "Der hethitische Soldateneid," ZA 35 (1924), p. 163, 1:41–45, 2:1–3; see now N. Oettinger, Die militärischen Eide der Hethiter , Studien zu den Bogazköy Texten 22 (Wiesbaden, 1976).
[151] This type of symbolism was also employed in Babylonian magic; see E. Reiner, Surpu[*] : A Collection of Sumerian and Akkadian Incontations 3, AfO 11 (Graz, 1958), pp. 60–112.
tion of such acts, and neither does the book of Deuteronomy. Apparently the oath-imprecation, which was recorded in the treaty document, was believed to be enough to deter the treaty party from violating the stipulations of the treaty.
Distinction should therefore be made between the covenant in Genesis 15 (which, like the covenants of Alalah and Mari, preserves the sacrificial element alongside the symbolic one), and the covenant in Jeremiah 34, in which the ceremony, although performed before God, seems to be nothing more than a self-curse dramatized by a symbolic act. Another difference between Genesis 15 and Jeremiah 34 is that while in Genesis 15, as in the Abban deed, it is the superior party who places himself under oath, in Jeremiah 34, as in the treaty of Ashurnirari V, the vassals are the parties who commit themselves to their masters.
The Legal Formulae in the Covenant with Abraham
It has already been indicated that the legal formulae expressing the gift of land to Abraham are identical to the legal formulae of conveyance of property in the ancient Near East.[152] Especially instructive in this case are the formulations of conveyance in perpetuity. For example, the formulae, "for your descendants forever" (lzr'k 'd 'wlm[*] —Gen. 13:15) and "for your descendants after you throughout their generations" (lzr'k 'hryk ldrtm[*][153] —Gen. 17:7–8)[154] are identical to the conveyance and
[152] Cf. J. J. Rabinowitz, Jewish Law (New York, 1956), pp. 130–31; id., "The Susa Tablets," VT 11 (1961), pp. 55 ff.
[153] As Loewenstamm indicated in his article "The Divine Grants of Land to the Patriarchs," JAOS 94 (1971), pp. 509–10 (AOAT 204 [1980], pp. 423–25), there are two types of legal declarations in the grant formulae: (1) the land is given to the patriarch and to his seed (Gen. 13:15; 17:8; 26:3; 28:4, 13; 35:12), and (2) the land is given to the patriarch's seed (Gen. 12:7; 15:18; 24:7; 48:4). The former type represents the standard formula of the royal grant, but it is inappropriate in Genesis, where the patriarchs are sojourners in the land and only their descendants are the legal possessors of it. On the formulation of the land promise in the Priestly code vs. the one in the Deuteronomic source, see M. Z. Brettler, "The Promiseof the Land of Israel to the Patriarchs in the Pentateuch," Shnaton 5–6 (1981–82), pp. VII–XXIV.
donation formulae from Susa,[155] Alalah,[156] Ugarit[157] and Elephantine.[158] In Assyria and Babylonia proper we meet with different clichés in this context, such as ana arkat ume[*][159] or anasat ume[*] ,[160] which, though not as close to 'd 'wlm[*] or ldrtm as the expressions of the peripheral documents (adi daris[*] ,[161] etc.), nevertheless render the same idea of perpetuity.
The proclamation of the gift of land in Genesis 15 is also styled according to the prevalent judicial pattern. In the gift-
[154] dwr (duru[*] ) with the pronominal suffix is also attested in old Babylonian documents pertaining to conveyance in perpetuity. Cf., e.g., eqlam ana durisu[*] idna ("give the field as his permanent property") (TCL 7, 16:13; cf. F. R. Kraus, Briefe aus dem British Museum [Altbabylonische Briefe ], in Umschrift und Ubersetzung 7 [Leiden, 1977] to which one might compare Lev. 25:30, "that house shall be established forever to him that bought it throughout his generation " ldrtyw (i.e., for his permanent property).
[155] Cf. ana dur[*]u pala ana serseri[*] . . . kima[*]abu ana mari[*]isamu[*] , PN ana darati[*]isam[*] (MDP 22, 45:10–21) ("forever and for all times, for the offspring . . . like a father, who bequeathes to his son, so shall PN bequeath forever."
[156] marmarisu[*] ana daria[*] marianni : "his descendants will have the status of mariannu forever," (AT 15:8–9); cf. S. Smith, "A Preliminary Account of the Tablets from Atchana," The Antiquaries Journal 19 (1939), p. 43.
[157] Cf. PRU 3, p. 160, 16.132:27–38: u ittadinsu[*]ana Adalseni[*][u] ana maresu[*]adi dariti[*]("and gives it to Adalseni[*] and his sons forever"); cf. 16.248:14 (p. 48: ana dari[*] duri[*] ), 16.182 + 199:9 (p. 148: ana dariti/ana dari duri ), 16.146:10–12 (p. 146: eqlatu samid[*]ana dariti ). In Ugaritic the formula is wlbnh 'd 'lm[*] (PRU 2, 16.382, pp. 20–21).
[158] Cf. A. Cowley, The Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth CenturyB.C. (Oxford, 1923), 8:9, (p. 22): 'nty slyth[*]bh mn ywm' znh w'd 'lm[*]wbnyky 'hryky[*] ("you have rights over it from this day forever and your children after you"); ibid., 25:9 (p. 85). Cf. R. Yaron, The Law of the Elephantine Documents (Jerusalem, 1961), pp. 82 f., 165 (Hebrew).
[159] F. Steinmetzer, "Die Bestallungsurkunde Königs Samas-sum-ukin[*] von Babylon," Archiv orientální 7 (1935), pp. 314–18, 2:9.
[160] ana sati irensu[*] ("he granted to him in perpetuity,") BBSt 8 (n. 5), 1:13; cf. also 34:6.
[161] Cf. CAD vol. 3 (D), p. 198.
deed of Abban to Yarimlin we read, "On that day (ina umisu[*] ) Abban gave the city. . . ." Similarly, we read in Genesis 15:18, "On that day (bywm hhw'[*] ) Yahweh concluded a covenant with Abraham saying: 'To your offspring I give this land.'" The phrase "on that day" in these instances certainly has legal implications.[162] The delineation of the borders and the specification of the granted territories in vv. 18–21 indeed constitute an important part of the grant documents in the ancient Near East.[163]
The formulation of the priestly covenant with Abraham, "to be unto you a God" (lhywt lk l'lhym[ *] —Gen. 17:7, 8) and the priestly formulation of the covenant with Israel, "I will be your God and you shall be my people" (whyyty lkm l'lhym[*]w'tm[*]thyw ly l'm[*] —Lev. 26:12, Exod. 6:7; cf. Deut. 29:12), is taken from the sphere of marriage/adoption legal terminology,[164] as is its Davidic counterpart in 2 Samuel 7:14.[165]
The covenant with Abraham and the covenant with David are indeed based on a common pattern, and their literary formulation may have the same historical and literary antecedents.[166] The promise of the land to Abraham is preceded by
[162] Cf. note 71 above.
[163] Cf. BBSt (n. 5) (passim) and also Cowley, Aramaic Papyri (n. 158), 8:3 ff.; 13:13 f.; 25:4 f. On this point see my Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (n. 2), pp. 69 ff.
[164] Cf. Y. Muffs, "Studies in Biblical Law IV (The Antiquity of P)," Lectures at the Jewish Theological Seminary, (New York, 1965). For the use of verba solemnia in marriage and adoption in Mesopotamia see S. Greengus, "The Old Babylonian Marriage Contract," JAOS 89 (1969), pp. 514 ff. On the prophetic vs. pentateuchal imagery of the covenantal relationship between God and the people, see my Deut. and the Deuteronomic School , (n. 2), pp. 81 ff.
[165] The tradition of the covenant with Abraham is very ancient and reflects the covenant customs in Mari and Alalah, but the literary formulation of this covenant is more recent and seems to be from the time of the United Monarchy; cf. R. E. Clements, Abraham and David , Studies in Biblical Theology, 2d. ser. 5 (London, 1967).
[166] Cf. K. McCarter, II Samuel , Anchor Bible (New York, 1984), p. 205.
the promise of progeny (Gen. 15:4–5), and the latter is formulated in the way the promise of the dynasty is phrased in 2 Sam. 7:12: sr ys mm 'yk[*] . Similarly, the promise of a great name to Abraham (w'gdlh smk[*] —Gen. 12:2) sounds like 2 Sam. 7:9: "David will have a name like the name of the great ones of the earth" (ksm[*] hgdlym 'sr b'rs[*] ). As I have shown elsewhere,[167] the greatness of the name has political significance,[168] which also finds expression in the Genesis traditions apparently crystalized under the impact of the united monarchy.[169]
The priestly source in Genesis goes even further and combines the promise of land with the promise of dynasty. To the promise of progeny he adds, "Kings shall come out from you" (17:6, 16; 35:11), which sounds like a promise of dynasty.
The Grant of Hebron to Caleb
On the basis of the grant typology, discussed here, we may properly understand the nature of some other promises and bestowals in the Old Testament. Thus, the accounts of the conquest inform us about the gift of Hebron to Caleb (Josh. 14:13–14, Judg. 1:20; cf. Num. 14:24, Deut. 1:36).[170] The reason for the gift was the faithfulness of Caleb during his mission with the spies: "Because he filled up after the lord" (y'n ky ml' 'hry YHWH 'lhy ysr'l[*] —Jos. 14:14; cf. vv. 8, 9 and Num. 14:24, 32:11–12, Deut. 1:36),
[167] "Political Greatness: The Realization of the Promise to the Patriarchs," Eretz-Israel vol. 24 (1993), A. Malamut volume (in press).
[168] Cf. sumam[*] rabêm in connection with military victories in ARM 1, 69:14–16.
[169] The extent of the promised land in Gen. 15:19–21, and especially the Kenites, Kenizzites and Kadmonites mentioned there, also point to a Davidic background; cf. B. Mazar, "Historical Background of the Book of Genesis," JNES 28 (1969), pp. 79 f.
[170] Joshua is secondary in this tradition (cf. Num. 14:24; Deut. 1:36). The promise of land to Joshua was incorporated later, when the conquest was nationalized and the original account of spying out the south (to Hebron and the Valley of Eshkol, Num. 13:22–23) was expanded by an alleged excursion to the northern part of the country (to Rehob at Lebo-Hamath, v. 21). See Commentaries and J. Liver, "Caleb ," in EncyclopediaMiqra'it[*] 4, cols. 106–110 (Hebrew).
a phrase which is semantically equivalent to hyh tmym (be perfect, i.e., wholly devoted) of the Abrahamic covenant and hyh slm[*] of the Davidic covenant. Furthermore, as in the Abrahamic-Davidic covenants and in the grants of the ancient Near East, in the Caleb gift we also find the conventional formulae of conveyance in perpetuity: "to you and your descendants forever" (lk.. wlbnyk 'd 'wlm[*] —Josh. 14:9).
Granting a city or a territory to the one who excelled in the king's expedition is indeed very common in the kudduru documents,[171] and the case of Caleb has therefore to be considered as a grant, although we don't know whether the grant reflects an authentic historical fact of the times of the conquest or is rather a back projection of later times. Granting a city to a vassal who proved loyal to the overlord is found in connection with the city Siglag[*] , which was given to David by Achish, the Philistine king (1 Sam. 27:6).[172]
Clements[173] suggested that Hebron was the birthplace of the traditions of the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants. The tradition about the grant to Caleb is certainly rooted in Hebron. It therefore seems plausible that the tradition of the grant of Hebron to Caleb had been transmitted by the same circle which transmitted the tradition of the Abrahamic-Davidic covenants.
The Grant of Priesthood and Priestly Revenues
The documents of grant in the ancient Near East also include grants of status—maryannu -ship,[174] priesthood,[175] etc. The priesthood of Aaron in Israel had also been conceived as an eternal grant.
[171] Cf. e.g., King, BBSt (n.5), pp. 31 ff., 43 ff., 96 ff.
[172] Cf. J. Tigay, "Psalm 7:5 and Ancient Near Eastern Treaties," JBL 89 (1970), p. 183, n. 34.
[173] See note 1.
[174] Cf. S. Smith, The Antiquaries Journal 19 (1939), ATT/8/49 (p. 43): mar[*] maresu[*] ana daria[*] maryanni u sangi[*] sa[*] Enlil ("his grandsons in perpetuity are [will be] maryannu and priests of Enlil").
[175] Cf., e.g., Schorr, Urkunden (n. 10), VAB 5, no. 220; F. Thureau-Dangin, "Un acte de donation de Mardouk - zâkir - sumi[*] ," RA 16 (1919), pp. 141 ff. and the Alalah text in the previous note.
Thus we read in Num. 25:12–13: "Phinehas, son of Eleazar son of Aaron the priest, has turned back my wrath from the Israelites by displaying among them his passion for me . . . say, therefore, I grant him my pact of friendship (bryt slwm[*] ). It shall be for him and his descendants after him a pact of priesthood forever (bryt khnt 'wlm[*] )." As in other grants, here the grant is given for showing one's zeal and devotion for the master; and like the other grants, the gift of priesthood is given in perpetuity.[176] In biblical texts that do not follow the rigid distinction (of the Priestly code) between priests and Levites but rather adopt the Deuteronomic attitude of priests and Levites being one group, the grant applies to the whole tribe of Levi. Thus, we read in Malachi 2:4 f.: "that my covenant might be with Levi . . . my covenant was with him of life and well being (hyym whslwm[*] )." In the continuation, an indication of the loyalty and devotion of Levi is also found, which is similar in its phraseology to the descriptions of the loyalty of Abraham and David:[177] "he walked with me [he served me] with integrity and equity" (bslm wbmyswr hlk 'ty[*] —v. 6).[178] The eternal covenant with Levi is also mentioned alongside the covenant with David in Jeremiah 33:17 ff.
Priestly revenues in the ancient Near East were also subject to grants and royal bestowals. This is also reflected in Israel. The holy donations assigned to the Aaronide priesthood are formulated in the manner of royal grants:[179] "All the sacred donations of the Israelites, I grant them to you and your sons as a prerequisite,[180] a due for all time" (lkl qdsy[*]bny ysr'l[*]lk nttym lmshh[*]wlbnyk lhq 'wlm[*] —Num. 18:8; cf. Lev. 7:34 ff.), and in
[176] Cf. above, pp. 233–39.
[177] Cf. above, pp. 230–31.
[178] See note 30 above.
[179] Following the translation of The Torah , Jewish Publication Society of America (1962).
[180] On the priestly revenue as a royal grant see Y. Muffs, "Joy and Love as Metaphorical Expressions of Willingness and Spontaneity in Cuneiform, Ancient Hebrew and Related Literatures," in J. Neusner, ed., Christianity, Judaism and other Greco-Roman Cults: For Morton Smith at Sixty 3 (Leiden, 1975), pp. 14 ff.
slightly different formulations, "all the sacred gifts that the Israelites set aside for YHWH I give to you, to your sons . . . as a due forever, it shall be as everlasting salt covenant . . . for you and your offspring as well" (v. 19).
Similarly, the tithe, which according to Numbers 18:21 f., belongs to the Levites, was also given to them as a grant for the services that they perform (hlp 'bdtm 'sr hm 'bdym[*] ). Grants of the tithe of a city to royal servants are actually known to us from Ugarit, as we read, for instance, in the grant of Ammistamru II:[181] "(From this day) Ammistamru[*] granted everything whatsoever (that belongs to the city) to Yasiranu[*] . . . forever for his grandsons: his grain, and his wine of its tithe." Yasiranu receives here the right to collect the tithe.[182]
The connection of the Aaronites and the Levites to Hebron has been pointed out,[183] and we may therefore suppose that the "Sitz im Leben" of the grant to Aaron and the Levites is rooted in Hebron, as are the other grant traditions discussed.
As has been shown, the grants to Abraham, Caleb, David, Aaron, and the Levites have much in common with the grants from Alalah, Nuzi, the Hittites, Ugarit, and middle-Babylonian kudurru's , i.e., in documents from the second half of the second millennium B.C.E. This fact and the possible link of the mentioned Israelite grants to Hebron, the first capital of David's kingdom, may lead us to the contention that it was Davidic scribes who stood behind the formulation of the covenant of grant in Israel.
[181] GN qadu gabbi mimmi sumsisa[*] iddin ana PN . . . ana daris[*]ana mare[*]maresu[*] : sesu[*] , sikarsu[*]sa ma sarisu[*] (PRU 3, 16.153): 4–11 (pp. 146–47). As in Ugarit, in Israel the tithe is taken from grain and wine (and also oil).
[182] Cf. M. Heltzer, The Rural Community in Ancient Ugarit (Wiesbaden, 1976), pp. 50–51.
[183] Cf. the dissertation by M. D. Rehm, "Studies in the History of the Pre-Exilic Levites," announced in the Harvard Theological Review 61 (1968), pp. 648–49. Cf. also B. Mazar, "Cities of Priests and Levites," SVT 7 (1959), pp. 197 ff.