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]