4.1 Treaties Covenants

1. 4.1 Treaties & Covenants BOT612: Old Testament Backgrounds

2. Introduction �Treaties had a significant impact on the political shape of the ANE from the 3d to the 1st millennium b.c.e. They reveal a great deal of information about international relations in this area and the history of the peoples involved. The majority of them were written in Akkadian and (to a lesser extent) Hittite, with a very small number drafted in other languages; they were inscribed on tablets of clay or metal and deposited in temples of major deities. Egypt stands out as an exception to the widespread practice of treaty

3. Introduction making in the ANE, perhaps because it was deemed beneath pharaoh, as a living god, to enter into contracts with his servants. However, no treaty documents are known from Old Babylonian archives either, including Mari. This may indicate that in this period binding agreements between some city-states were concluded orally." The origins of the treaty form is disputed. Although a Hittite origin is likely, the Mesopotamian kurrudu � boundary stone has also been suggested.

4. Introduction "The ANE treaty was a sworn political agreement between two parties, at least one of which was a nation or king. At its core was an oath (�(by) the life of the gods�), taken before the state deities of one or both parties. It was at the same time an imprecation, calling down divine wrath on the oath breaker. The deities before whom the oath was taken were thought to act as guarantors of the treaty, punishing the one who transgressed it."

5. Types & Purposes �In general, one may distinguish between (1) international and (2) domestic treaties. The former were more common and may be subdivided into �parity� (between equal powers) and �suzerain-vassal� types (between a major power and a lesser nation). Parity treaties sought to establish nonaggression between the parties and to guarantee the stability of the respective ruling dynasties. Suzerain-vassal treaties served to consolidate the hegemony of the suzerain; the vassal�s interests were clearly subordinate."

6. Ratifying a Treaty �Establishing a treaty was thought to be accomplished primarily by swearing the oath, but also by certain accompanying rites. This is reflected in ANE expressions for concluding a treaty. One of the most widely used was �to cut an oath�. . . . The action may originally have referred to cutting animals into pieces in the oath ceremony. At Mari �to kill an ass� became a technical expression for making a covenant. The vassal treaties of Esarhaddon mention concluding a treaty by touching breasts, setting a table, drinking from a cup, and using water and oil (ANET, 536).

7. Treaty Rituals �In addition to the solemn acts that became synonymous with the establishment of the treaty, certain other rites sometimes accompanied the oath ceremony. Most of these had an intimidating character, foreboding the fate of the one who transgressed the sworn agreement. Mesopotamian sources mention �touching the throat� in this connection. A document from Alalakh, in reference to a treaty, reads: �Abban swore an oath to Yarimlim and cut the neck of a sheep, saying �(Let me so die) if I take back that which I gave you . . .��. Perhaps the most dramatic examples of such rites are mentioned in the treaties concluded with Mati>el of Arpad (ANET, 532�33, 660).�

8. Treaty Rituals ANET 660 �As this wax is consumed by fire, thus M[atti(el] shall be consumed [by fi]re. As a man of wax is blinded, thus Matti(el shall be blinded. [As] this calf is cut up, thus Matti(el and his nobles shall be cut up�.� ANET 532-533 �This spring lam be has been brought from its fold not for sacrifice, not for a banquet, not for a purchase, not for (divination concerning) a sick man, not to be slaughtered for [�]: it has been brought to sanction the treaty between Ashurnirari and Mati)ilu. If Mati)ilu sins against (this) treaty made under oath by the gods, then, just as this spring lamb, brought from its fold, will not return to its fold, will not behold again, alas, Mati)ilu, together

9. Treaty Rituals with his sons, daughters, officials, and the people of his land [will bee ousted] from his country, will not return to his country, and not behold his country again. This head is not the head of a lamb, it is the head of Mati)ilu, it is the head of his sons, his officials, and the people of his land. If Mati)ilu sins against this treaty, so may, just as the head of his spring lamb is torn off, and its knuckle placed in its mouth, [�], the head of Mati)ilu be torn off, and his sons [�]. This shoulder is not the shoulder of a spring lamb, it is the shoulder of Mati)ilu, it is the shoulder of his sons, his officials, and the people of his land. If Mati)ilu sins against this treaty, so may, just as the shoulder of this spring lamb is torn out,

10. Treaty Rituals and [�], the shoulder of Mati)ilu, of his sons, his officials, and the people of his land be torn out and [�] in [�].�

11. The Treaty Relationship �The establishment of the treaty created a state of amicable relations between the contracting parties. This was described in 2d-millennium parity treaties by words such as �peace� (cf. Josh 9:15), �brotherhood� (cf. Amos 1:9), �friendship,� and �love.� Concretely, this translated into mutual nonaggression and agreement on respective spheres of influence. The relationship was commonly qualified as �eternal,� since it was considered binding upon the parties� successors as well. The relationship of the vassal to his suzerain was not �brotherhood� but �servitude.� In treaties of this type, the language of �father/son� replaced �brothers� and was apparently interchangeable with

12. The Treaty Relationship �lord/servant�. The vassal was forbidden to seek alliances with other great powers but was to �acknowledge� only the suzerain as his overlord (cf. Hos 13:4), to be at enmity with his enemies, to extradite political refugees to the suzerain, and to report all seditious talk to him. Moreover, he was to maintain peaceful relations with all fellow vassals."

13. Keeping & Breaking the Treaty �Remaining loyal to the treaty was described as �guarding� (cf. Exod 19:5; Deut 33:9) or �remembering� (cf. Amos 1:9) it. Verbs used to describe breaking it include �break� (cf. Deut 31:16), �transgress� (cf. Deut 17:2), �be false to� (Ps 89:34�Eng 89:33), �despise� (cf. 2 Kgs 17:15), �erase,� �sin against,� �forget� (Deut 4:23). Breaking the oath brought the full force of the imprecations on the guilty party. Hittite texts speak of the oath gods �pursuing� (cf. Deut 28:45), �seizing,� or �destroying� (Deut 28:20, 22) the oath breaker. Assyrian documents likewise speak of the imprecation �overtaking� (cf. Deut 28:15, 45), �seizing,� and �destroying.� In suzerain vassal

14. Keeping & Breaking the Treaty treaties, this often took the form of a punitive campaign by the suzerain against the transgressor.�

15. Keeping & Breaking the Treaty �These vassal treaties, with their explicit threat of divine retribution in case of violation, were the ideological glue which held the Hittite empire together. Nonetheless, some Hittite vassals were willing to risk the wrath of the gods and the might of the Hittite armies in order to achieve independence, as shown by the revolts which frequently broke out upon the death of a Hittite monarch. Therefore the Hittites also sought to bind their subjects to Hatti on other ways. The most important such expedient was the creation of personal bonds between vassal and overlord through diplomatic marriage."

16. The Structure �The structure of treaties in the LB Age was fully described already in 1931 by V. Korosec, but it was not until 1954 that the extraordinary similarity to certain OT traditions was pointed out (Mendenhall 1954a). Though there has been an enormous amount of discussion since that time, there still seems to be no consensus concerning the historical significance or even the validity of those similarities."

17. The Structure "The �ideal structure� of LB Hittite treaties has been abstracted from numerous examples. It is not surprising that not every treaty exhibits all of the individual elements of the structure. The modern idea that all the covenants had to conform to some rigid form defined in advance is characteristic of a �strict law� type of legalistic mentality that not only is quite rare in the history of jurisprudence but also was probably foreign to the ANE historical reality.�

18. Identification of the Covenant Giver �This introduction to the treaty text typically begins with the formula �The words of . . . ,� followed by the name of the Hittite king, his genealogy, and his various titles, ending with the epithet �the hero.� The vast majority of the treaties preserved are suzerainty treaties in which the underlying ideology held that the great and powerful king was bestowing a gracious relationship upon an inferior. It followed, then, that the relationship of the vassal to the overlord had to be an exclusive one: the vassal could not engage in treaty or other relationships with other independent monarchs without being guilty of

19. Identification of the Covenant Giver treason, and therefore becoming subject to the death penalty. (The similarity between this ideology centering upon the Hittite great king and the biblical monotheism seems obvious.)�

20. The Historical Prologue �This section, in which the Hittite king recounted his past deeds of benefit to the vassal, is frequently so detailed and extensive as to constitute a major source for our knowledge of ANE history in this period. The motivation for this section was obviously not an academic interest in the past for its own sake, but rather to have that past serve as the foundation for the present obligation of the vassal to be obedient to the stipulations of the covenant. The implications of this element of the covenant structure are far-reaching, but it is difficult if not impossible to prove what those implications might have been. It can at least be suggested that certain concepts were presupposed as present in the minds of both parties to the covenant."

21. The Historical Prologue "In the first place, the historical prologue is inseparable from the concept of reciprocity that is so prevalent in premodern cultures. The narration of the past history emphasized very strongly the benefits that the great king had already bestowed upon the vassal in the past. The implication is, of course, that the common decency of gratitude would place the vassal under obligation to comply with the wishes of his benefactor. The principles underlying this sort of relationship are illustrated by an old Arabic saying (which actually applies to persons who are equals in an egalitarian society): �If someone does you a favor, you never forget it; if you do someone else a favor, you never mention it.�

22. The Stipulations �This section of the LB treaties, often phrased in the case-law format (�if . . . , then . . .� ), described the interests of the great king that the vassal is bound to protect and obey under the covenant relationship. Already in this section there is an implicit distinction between what might be termed public vs. private concerns. The imperial control over vassals involved no interest in the internal affairs of the vassal state other than the obvious one of suppressing or controlling subversive activities and elements that might disrupt the harmonious relationship between the vassal and his overlord.�

23. The Provision for Deposit and Periodic Public Reading �This segment of the treaty is again surprisingly sophisticated. Deposit of a copy of the treaty in the temple was an act that now placed that treaty within the interests of the local deity and under its protection. In more modern terminology, the treaty and its contents were to be incorporated into the operating value system of the vassal state, and thus to be internalized as determinants of future behavior. To put it in simplest terms, the treaty was a sacred act and object. (As is often the case, there was undoubtedly a considerable difference between this official doctrine and practical reality.)

24. The Provision for Deposit and Periodic Public Reading The provision for periodic public reading implies that although the treaty was formally established with the vassal king himself, nevertheless it was also binding upon the population over which he ruled. The treaty became a part of the public policy of the king and thus was integrated into the �law� of his kingdom. Interestingly enough, the frequency specified for the periodic public reading varied, but it was usually scheduled from one to four times a year."

25. The List of Witnesses to the Treaty �These treaties also typically listed those �third parties� who would witness the enactment of the treaty. It is of especial interest that the witnesses were exclusively deities or deified elements of the natural world. The list of deities was frequently so lengthy as to justify the conclusion that it was intended to be exhaustive: all gods relevant to both parties were called upon as witnesses, so that there was no god left that the vassal could appeal to for protection if he wanted to violate his solemn oath. It is especially amusing that often the >apiru gods,� i.e., even the gods of renegade rebel bands, were included in the list of witnesses.

26. The List of Witnesses to the Treaty The witnesses also included the heavens and the earth, and mountains and rivers, a fact of particular significance because the motif continues in the poetic and prophetic traditions of the Bible (Deuteronomy 32; Isa 1:2; Mic 6:1�2), but there is little if any trace of it in any other extrabiblical Iron Age covenant texts and ideologies centuries later. The witnesses were those entities that were called upon to observe the behavior of the party under oath and to carry out the appropriate rewards and punishments (the blessings and curses) connected with the treaty (see below). The fact that these enforcers are all supernatural beings reflects the underlying idea that in this covenant ideology strenuous (if not

27. The List of Witnesses to the Treaty pretentious) efforts were made to place the entire covenant complex outside the realm of political and military coercive force, and into the realm of a voluntary acceptance of a commonality of interest between suzerain and vassal. In other words, there is expressed here the hope that the vassal�s obedience will be �self-policing,� i.e., based upon a conscientious regard for higher principles (the gods) than simply upon the fear of superior military force.�

28. The Blessing & Cursing �This section of the treaty text described in detail the consequences of obedience and disobedience with which the witnesses to the treaty rewarded or punished the vassal. Because the witnesses were the supernatural entities mentioned in the previous section, the blessings and curses were appropriately (in large measure) those experiences that are beyond normal human ability to predict, much less control. Particularly in this prescientific age the most important concerns of humanity were clearly beyond mortal

29. The Blessing & Cursing control: health, productivity of fields and flocks and wives, and freedom from external violence. Thus the treaty made an inseparable connection between ethical adherence to promises made and the consequences of economic prosperity, freedom from disease, and tranquil long life. The text of the treaty typically concluded with this enumeration of the consequences of obedience and disobedience."