Deuteronomy 26: 16-19 as the central focus of the covenantal framework of Deuteronomy (original) (raw)
Related papers
The authors are preparing a volume for the Yale Anchor Bible Reference Library, Deuteronomy and the Pentateuch, which will examine the following key questions: (1) What is the date and historical context for the composition of Deuteronomy? (2) What is Deuteronomy’s method of composition? (3) What is the relationship between law and narrative in Deuteronomy? (4) What is the intent of Deuteronomy vis-à-vis its Israelite sources? (5) What is the influence of cuneiform legal and treaty traditions upon Deuteronomy and its Israelite forebears? (6) What is Deuteronomy’s status within the compiled Pentateuch (and the larger biblical canon)? In this article, the authors summarize these issues and then examine Deut 13 and its relevance for dealing with each of them. Keywords: Tel Tayinat, EST, VTE, Esarhaddon’s Succession Treaty, Vassal Treaty of Esarhaddon, canon formula, CTH 133, Joshua Berman, Covenant Code, Hittite treaty, biblical law, Deuteronomy, succession, Assurbanipal, Deut 28, Dtn 28, Deut 13, Dtn 13, Pentateuch, law and narrative.
On the Commonalities of Deuteronomy 13 with Ancient Near Eastern Treaties
Journal for the Evangelical Study of the Old Testament, 2016
This article evaluates the numerous potential influences upon Deut 13 from ancient Near Eastern treaties. After assessing both the features Deut 13 shares with Hittite, Aramean, and neo-Assyrian treaties and the ways in which Deut 13 is distinct from them, it will become apparent that this biblical text shares some significant literary traits with these ANE treaties, but the degree to which it differs from them does not enable us to confirm literary dependence, a claim many scholars have asserted. Rather, Deut 13 expresses a uniquely Israelite treaty style within a general ancient Near Eastern treaty tradition.
Deuteronomy 13 in Comparison with Hittite, Aramaic and Assyrian Treaties
Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel, 2019
The Old Testament is rooted in the common cultural tradition of the ancient Near East as a whole. Therefore, Deuteronomy 13 can serve as a test case for distinguish- ing between traditional elements and the dependence on a literary source. The motif of a rebellious city in Hittite, Aramaic, and biblical texts, as well as the idea of a contract between humans and divinity, belong to the historic stream of traditions in the Levant. In contrast, the similarities between Deuteronomy and Esarhaddon’s Succession Treaties (EST) cannot be coincidental, but point to the uniqueness of the relationship. A close reading of the extra-biblical parallels of Deuteronomy in their contexts in EST will show that there is a similarity between Deuteronomy 13 and EST with respect to the order in which the common elements appear in their texts.
Memory and Covenant: Deuteronomy’s Core in Light of its Frame
A Paper presented at IBR, 16 November, 2018 “Emerging Scholars on the Old Testament" Denver, Colorado (USA) Nominated by R. W. L. Moberly Abstract: The framing chapters of Deuteronomy (1–11 and 29–34), as is well-known, are interconnected across the core of the book in fascinating ways. Many studies have been conducted that have explored the linguistic, thematic, and theological connections between these chapters. This study seeks to add to this important and ongoing research through a discussion of the variant understandings of the epistemological requirements of the covenant as can be seen in 4:9–20 and 29:3 (Heb.). I begin with Deuteronomy’s closing frame and argue that Deut 29:3 establishes a strong separation between personal experience and understanding such that Israel’s personal experiences of YHWH’s acts in history does not guarantee a proper response of covenant faithfulness. In other words seeing is not always believing. I continue by addressing the different and implicit claim of Deut 4:9–20 that understanding the significance of the Horeb event is not dependent upon a personal experience of that event. In other words, not seeing is not not understanding. Together these two claims indicate that covenant fidelity is neither the guaranteed result of personal experience, nor is personal experience a prerequisite for faithfulness. With these two claims in place, I conclude by noting possible ways that a close reading of these texts in the outer frame of Deuteronomy may help the reader to comprehend the means by which the covenant may be understood by tradents to be perpetual, requiring obedience to Deuteronomy’s core stipulations in every generation.
Chapter 4. Deuteronomistic Covenant and Hittite Treaties
Because George E. Mendenhall proposed that the form of the covenant evident in the book of Deuteronomy derived from the Hittite empire and its subjugation treaties, this study looks next at the Hittite empire. Mendenhall argued that the treaties of ⁄uppiluliuma I, Mur¡ili II, and Muwatalli II (ca. 1344–1271 B.C.E.) resembled the covenant in the book of Deuteronomy. This study will review, first, the scholarship concerning Mendenhall’s proposal and other studies that relate the DH to the Hittites. In order to get behind the religious presuppositions of the treaties, this study looks, second, at the religion of the Hittites. Third, in order to understand the presuppositions of imperialist war evident in the treaties, this study analyzes the annals and war reports. Fourth, in order to get a sense of the purpose and function of the Hittite subjugation treaties, this study looks at the treaties within a much wider scope than that analyzed by Mendenhall and others. The chapter finishes with a comparison of the Hittite ideological worldview and the deuteronomistic covenant.