4'1 Treaties

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
  vassals 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 Matigtel of Arpad (ANET, 53233,
  660).

8
Treaty Rituals

• ANET 660 As this wax is consumed by fire, thus
  Matti(el shall be consumed by fire. 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 915), brotherhood (cf. Amos 19),
  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 134), 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 195 Deut 339) or
  remembering (cf. Amos 19) it. Verbs used to
  describe breaking it include break (cf. Deut
  3116), transgress (cf. Deut 172), be false
  to (Ps 8934Eng 8933), despise (cf. 2 Kgs
  1715), erase, sin against, forget (Deut
  423). Breaking the oath brought the full force
  of the imprecations on the guilty party. Hittite
  texts speak of the oath gods pursuing (cf. Deut
  2845), seizing, or destroying (Deut 2820,
  22) the oath breaker. Assyrian documents likewise
  speak of the imprecation overtaking (cf. Deut
  2815, 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
  gtapiru 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 12 Mic
  612), 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 vassals 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."