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.