CHAPTER 1<\/p>\n
Introduction<\/p>\n
\u201cYahweh, the God of Israel\u2013Israel, the people of Yahweh\u201d\u2014this phrase, J. Wellhausen contends, encapsulates the central theme of the whole OT and gives a comprehensive unity to the contents of the Hebrew Scriptures. This relationship between Yahweh and Israel finds expression in affirmative sentences such as, \u201cI will be your God and you will be my people\u201d whereby Yahweh declares both his covenant relationship to Israel and their corresponding fellowship with him. R. Smend identifies this formula as \u201cBundesformel\u201d and it is generally known by that title. E. Kutsch, however, calls it \u201cZugeh\u00f6rigkeitsformel\u201d, while G. Fohrer suggests the name \u201cZusammengeh\u00f6rigkeitsformel\u201d. Whatever the name, this formula with its underlying concept of covenant, defines the God-people relationship. And though it may not form the \u201ccenter\u201d (German \u201cMitte\u201d) of the OT, nevertheless it stands out as one of the basic themes of the Bible. One may ask whether this phenomenon, the declaration of fellowship, is exclusive to the OT religious covenant? Or do the OT texts which describe covenant-making between two human parties, attest to the existence of an analogous declaration of relationship? If such is the case, what is the nature and function of this affirmation of fellowship? Is the idea of belonging-to-the-other always stated in the same words, or is its formulation varied? How does this declarative act of fellowship\u2014the literary expression of which I entitle \u201cDeclaration Formula\u201d (= DF)\u2014stand in regard to covenant-enacting rites such as swearing, giving gifts, eating together, offering sacrifices? With respect to the function of the DF, does this play the same role in every text? One may wonder whether the affirmation of fellowship is the peculiar feature of the OT covenant episodes? Or, does the biblical formula reflect a general reality found throughout the Ancient Orient\u2014a fact which, if proved, will corroborate the reality of the OT formula. These questions are studied here.<\/p>\n
I. Importance of the Study<\/p>\n
(1) Although covenant between Yahweh and Israel is a key word in OT studies, the theme of secular covenants has drawn less interest among scholars. Very little research has been done in this field. It is, then, no wonder that the covenant DF has not been identified or described. Gerstenberger has noted the existence of oral declarative acts in treaties and claimed that these formulae played a significant role in establishing a treaty relationship. But he did not substantiate his theory with critical and contextual study of the Ancient Near Eastern (= ANE) documents, and did not apply it to the OT texts. (2) Kraetzschmar, already in 1896 remarked that \u201cbefore ber\u00eet was used in the religious sphere, i.e., to refer to the relationship between God and man, it was rooted in the soil of secular life and was limited to the relationships between ordinary men\u201d. Indeed, it is logical to suppose that fellowship with Yahweh was conceived on the analogy of day-to-day human relationships in Hebrew society. Thus the study of oral declarative acts of belonging-to-the-other in secular covenants seems to be a necessary background for a correct understanding of the covenant between Yahweh and the people. (3) The study of secular covenants may shed more light on the social, tribal and political structure of Israel. It is an undeniable fact that innumerable incidents and ideas in the history of Israel can be adequately understood only by examining the complex of covenant patterns of thought. A comprehensive study of the covenants among men is beyond our scope. Here we deal only with one aspect of covenant-making, i.e., declaration of relationship, and only two types of the biblical DF are studied in detail.<\/p>\n
II. Thematic Problems<\/p>\n
(1) The OT does not portray pure history; rather it contains the religious convictions of Israel about the way in which Yahweh cared for them, his chosen people. This religious context is quite other than that of the ANE historical documents. Secular covenants as such do not interest the biblical authors, they mention these covenants only in so far as suits their religious perspective; even then the original story is often adapted to the viewpoint of the compiler. Thus the OT usually does not offer full and detailed description of human covenants. We find here and there some sentences, some phrases which indicate or imply the idea of covenant-making, the shifting of allegiances, etc. Paucity and obscurity of material makes this study difficult. It is left to us to identify and describe the different types of DF in their proper \u201cSitz im Leben\u201d. ANE historical texts will serve here as medium of comparison. (2) The word \u201ccovenant\u201d poses a problem. Although the most frequent term for covenant is ber\u00eet (287 occurences) there are in the OT \u201cnumerous references to covenants and covenant relationships where this term does not occur\u201d. It is then illogical to restrict the study only to those texts where the word ber\u00eet occurs. Covenant seems to be a broad category which includes ber\u00eet passages as well as other texts which contain the idea even though not always verbally expressed. Non-ber\u00eet passages are included in this study. Part I of our investigation will briefly illustrate the complex character of the OT secular covenant concept. The covenant nature of the texts with the DF will be vindicated in the course of the discussion of these texts.<\/p>\n
III. Method of Procedure<\/p>\n
This work deals with the Declaration Formulae in OT Secular Covenants as well as in ANE documents. Covenant: For a descriptive notion of covenant, see below, p. 5. This study employs \u201cpact, \u201d \u201ccompact, \u201d \u201calliance\u201d as synonyms for both ANE (this word as well as \u201cAncient Orient\u201d refer to the non-biblical world) and OT covenants. \u201cAgreement\u201d and \u201caccord\u201d often indicate the same reality. The word \u201ctreaty\u201d is reserved to non-biblical compacts between two kingdoms. Secular Covenants designate those pacts to which Yahweh is not one of the parties involved, even though they are made effective by an oath which was usually an appeal to the deity. Declaration means a formal statement by which something definite is announced with solemnity.
\nHere the covenant relationship of the parties is declared. Covenant relationship here means the state of union and it is used in this sense through out our study.
\nOne\u2019s belonging-to-the-other can be affirmed either in generic terms (e.g., \u201cWe are one\u201d), or in specific formulations (e.g., \u201cI am your brother\/son\/vassal\/friend\/ally\u201d). I call a formula two fold if it expresses a mutual complete relationship between the parties: e.g., \u201cI am your son, you are my father, \u201d or \u201cI am your vassal, you are my lord.\u201d If a text has only a part of these formulae (e.g., \u201cI am your son, \u201d or \u201cI am your vassal\u201d), it is then labelled a one-way formula. Further, there do exist some phrases which are, by their very nature, one-way formulae, even though they express a complete relationship: e.g., \u201cI am your brother\u201d. Reciprocal Formula denotes those instances where both parties declare their fellowship.
\nClarification about terminology denoting superior-inferior status of parties is called for. \u201cSovereign\u201d and \u201coverlord\u201d imply a covenant relationship, while \u201clord\u201d, \u201cmaster\u201d and \u201csuperior\u201d do not necessarily convey the idea of pact\u2014the context will elucidate the exact significance. The same remark applies to the words \u201cunderling\u201d and \u201cinferior\u201d. \u201cVassal\u201d is always covenantal.
\nThis study is restricted to the Books of the Hebrew canon, thus I do not discuss, for instance, the covenant pericopes from the Books of Maccabees.<\/p>\n
PART I<\/p>\n
SECULAR COVENANTS IN THE OLD TESTAMENT<\/p>\n
Our theme, Declaration Formula in OT Secular Covenants (e.g., \u201cI am your brother\u201d, \u201cwe are your vassals\u201d), is a study of a specific aspect of secular covenant. Specific questions need to be studied in context and so the first two chapters will be devoted to a general survey of OT secular covenant. This brief presentation will serve not only to introduce the theme, i.e., to draw attention to the presence of oral declarative acts of relationship in covenant enacting episodes, but also to clarify our notion of secular covenant. Although the word \u2018covenant\u2019 is widely used in current writings, it remains a problematic concept. For some authors covenant means treaty form, i.e., a five-or six-member structure by which a political agreement is described or recorded in words. Many seem to take the covenant as an univocal concept, assuming that it must be identified with the word ber\u00eet. But such notions do not seem to correspond to the reality expressed in the OT covenant reports. Biblical texts inform us the normal situations when two parties enter into a covenant relationship: There are frictions or desires between persons or groups somehow apart (e.g., remote family, alienated family, citizens, etc, as well as strangers). There are often negotiations, a decision, a (mutual) sign of assent, and documentation (not necessarily textual; a reminder, a monument or a gift or the like may be enough). Covenant generally implies oath. The OT has different forms for enacting and expressing secular covenant. Although the most frequent term for covenant is ber\u00eet it is not the exclusive word for covenant, other words are used to express the same reality. And ber\u00eet itself is not a univocal concept, it could comprise relationships of different kinds. These points are fundamental in our study. Hence I begin with a brief exposition of the basic aspects of secular covenants. The scope of Chapter 2 is to show the complex nature and flexibility of the ber\u00eet concept, that it can be used for different kinds of agreements or accords. In Chapter 3 I will try to trace out the covenants which are not named as ber\u00eet in the OT. This chapter serves also to justify our entitling some non-ber\u00eet passages covenant texts and including them in the study. A certain disproportion in the length of Chapters 2 and 3 cannot be avoided. Since the ber\u00eet instances admit of no difficult issues and most of the texts are already studied, they demand but a terse presentation. Entirely different is the case of non-ber\u00eet material. That field still remains, one may say, unexcavated. Hence the burden of proving their covenant nature. This naturally calls for a more detailed exposition.<\/p>\n
CHAPTER 2<\/p>\n
Berith Texts<\/p>\n
This chapter falls into two parts. First we present a pr\u00e9cis of the OT ber\u00eet reports. This general survey will illustrate the complex nature of the ber\u00eet concept. Then the whole attention is riveted on a specific aspect of ber\u00eet, namely that of covenant-making\u2014the proper theme of our study. From this analysis of the ber\u00eet enacting episodes we can see that the OT had no single necessary covenant-making form.<\/p>\n
I. Berith Reports: A Conspectus<\/p>\n
The complex nature of ber\u00eet becomes evident when we survey OT reports concerning it:
\nDifferent kinds of relationships or agreements are expressed by this word. It could be a marriage bond (Mal 2:14; Ez 16:8; Prov 2:17; cf. Dt 7:2). There exists a ber\u00eet of friendship and love (1 Sam 18:3), a ber\u00eet \u02bea\u1e25\u00eem (Am 1:9) and a ber\u00eet \u0161\u0101l\u00f4m (Num 25:12; Is 54:10; Ez 34:25; 37:26). The OT speaks of a pact between king and people by which the king is elavated to the throne (2 Sam 5:3; 2 Kg 11:17 = 2 Chr 23:16, 3; cf. Hos 6:7\u201311a; 10:3\u20134). An accord reached between king Zedekiah and the citizens to free the slaves is called a ber\u00eet (Jer 34:8\u201310); the same word is applied to an agreement of the postexilic community to put away pagan wives (Ezr 10:3). A commitment undertaken by the priest Jehoiada with the military captains to dethrone the reigning queen and to install Joash, deserves the same name (2 Kg 11:4 = 2 Chr 23:1). There could be cases of ber\u00eet with stones and beasts of the fields (Job 5:23) as well as with Leviathan (40:28). Is 28:15, 18 speak of a ber\u00eet with. \u201cdeath\u201d. Job makes a pact with his eyes about avoidance of sinful glances (Job 31:1), and Jer 33:20, 25 mentions a covenant with day and night.
\nThe secular ber\u00eet is not exclusively concerned with political compacts. The word regularly denotes familial or interpersonal fellowship. The typical case is that of David and Jonathan. Even people with kinship ties enter into covenant relationship: the Jacob\u2013Laban account in Gen 31:44\u201350 attests to this fact. And Jonathan realized a pact with, his brother-in-law. Different kinds of ber\u00eet could exist among the same persons. David and Jonathan concluded at least two accords. The Chronicler offers another example: the people and Joash made two covenants (2 Chr 23:3 and 16) which had different objectives.
\nAn analysis of the contents of ber\u00eet will show that there existed in Israel different types of secular covenants. Mendenhall classifies them into four categories. (a) Suzerainty: a superior binds an inferior to obligations defined by the superior: 1 Sam 11:1; Ez 17:13; Hos 12:2; Job 40:28; 5:23. (b) Parity: both parties undertake obligations; they commit themselves by oath to the covenant: Gen 21:25\u201332; 26:26\u201331; 31:44\u201350; 1 Sam 18:3; 1 Kg 15:19; 20:34; Jos 9:3\u201327 (?); cf. Gen 14:13ff. (c) Patron: the party in superior position binds himself to some obligation for the benefit of an inferior: Is 28:15. (d) Promissory: There is only one party to this type of covenant by which future performance of stipulated obligations are guaranteed: 2 Kg 11:4\u201312, 17; 23:3; Jer 34:8; Ezr 10:3; Neh 5:11\u201313; 10:28\u201329.
\nKutsch brings out a different classification of secular ber\u00eet texts. The word means self-commitment or promise (\u201cSelbstverpflichtung, Zusage\u201d) in Gen 14:13; Ex 23:32; 34:12, 15; Dt 7:2; Jg 2:2; 2 Sam 5:3 = 1 Chr 11:3; 1 Kg 15:19b = 2 Chr 16:3b; Is 33:8; Jer 34:10; Mal 2:14; Ob 7; Ps 55:21; Job 31:1; 40:29. It is used for obligation laid on another (\u201cVerpflichtung eines anderen\u201d) in Jos 24:25; 2 Chr 23:1, 3; Jer 34:8; Ez 17:13\u201316, 18; Job 5:23. Further, ber\u00eet expresses the mutually assumed obligations (\u201cgegenseitige Verpflichtung\u201d): 1 Kg 15:19a = 2 Chr 16:3a; Am 1:9; Ps 83:6.<\/p>\n
II. Berith Enacting Texts<\/p>\n
A covenant can be ratified by pledged word or by rites.
\nIn some episodes both oath and rite appear, while other texts do not at all mention oath. This may mean that oath is not always the sine qua non element of a pact, other acts could constitute a covenant. Even different kinds of rites are employed and each of these does not have the same significance or function, as will be shown below. The krt ber\u00eet corpus includes the texts which describe a pact-enacting scene as well as the pericopes which merely allude to the covenant-making act.<\/p>\n
A. Descriptive Texts<\/p>\n
Pacts concerning Abimelech\u2013Abraham (Gen 21:22\u201334), Abimelech\u2013Isaac (26:23\u201333), Jacob\u2013Laban (31:25\u201332:3), Gibeon\u2013Israel (Jos 9), David\u2013Jonathan (1 Sam 18:1\u20134; 20:11\u201317). Abner\u2013David (2 Sam 3:12\u201321), David\u2013Israel (5:1\u20133 = 1 Chr 11:1\u20133), Asa\u2013Benhadad (1 Kg 15:16\u201320 = 2 Chr 16:1\u20134) and Ahab\u2013Benhadad (1 Kg 20:31\u201334) belong to this section.<\/p>\n
i. Abimelech\u2013Abraham<\/p>\n
The E account of the Abimelech\u2013Abraham pact (Gen 21:22\u201324, 27, 31) mentions two covenant-making acts, an oath (v. 31) and a donation (v. 27: acts of giving and accepting sheep and oxen). The act of swearing is stressed in the narrative: vv. 23, 24, 31. Abraham has to take an oath that he will keep the covenant terms. His oath serves to guarantee the observance of the stipulations and this is the main concern of political treaties. Although the swearing makes ber\u00eet binding and gives it a sacred and inviolable character, it does not directly constitute the covenant relationship, i.e., union. The other covenant ceremony, that of accepting sheep and oxen, does that function, the gift is directed at forming the fellowship between Abraham and Abimelech.
\nIn J\u2019s version (vv. 25\u201326, 28\u201330, 32\u201334) the central theme is a dispute over a well which is resolved by a pact. The narrative has the character of a sale contract\u2014a further argument for the complex nature of ber\u00eet\u2014which is concluded by the acceptance (lq\u1e25) of 7 ewes by Abimelech from the hands of Abraham. The covenant-making ceremony is vividly described in the text. Abraham sets apart 7 ewes of the flock (v. 28); then follows Abimelech\u2019s ritual question, \u201cWhat does this mean?\u201d (v. 29), and Abraham explains the symbolic function of the gift (v. 30). The gift constituted validation (\u02bf\u0113d\u00e2) of Abraham\u2019s claim to the well. Further, the gift served to establish the covenant relationship between the two parties. No oath is mentioned in the account.<\/p>\n
ii. Abimelech\u2013Isaac<\/p>\n
There are two covenant-making ceremonies in the story of Abimelech and Isaac (Gen 26:23\u201333): a covenant meal (v. 30) and a swearing one to another (v. 31). The ritual precedes, as in Gen 21 (E\u2019s version), the oath taking. The content of the oath is non-aggression. Both of the parties swears to the observance of the terms of the pact, as in the Abimelech\u2013Abraham account. Thus the oath has the same function, namely that of safeguarding the covenant. What is the significance of the covenant meal? It is more than a sign of accepting the pact. Eating together of portions of the same food had a profound meaning for the ancient Semites. It was a symbol and confirmation of fellowship and mutual social obligations. By this very act the participants are tied to one another by a bond of friendship. Indeed they become kinsmen, since only kinsmen eat together. Thus the common meal is the constitutive element of covenant relationship between Isaac and Abimelech, while oath made the pact binding.<\/p>\n
iii. Jacob\u2013Laban<\/p>\n
J\u2019s version of the Jacob\u2013Laban pact (Gen 31:44, 46, 48, 51\u201353a) contains the following covenant-making acts: the building of a cairn (gal) and eating upon it (v. 46), explaining the meaning of this monument-sign (vv. 48, 51, 52); and invoking the gods of both parties as judges (v. 53a). Here also the covenant meal precedes the swearing. It is the meal which established the covenant relationship. The function of the oath is evident. The respective deities of the parties are invoked to avenge the eventual transgressor.
\nA different picture is offered in E\u2019s version of the pact (vv. 45, 49, 50, 53b, 54). The covenant-making ceremony consisted in erecting a stele, ma\u1e63\u1e63\u0113b\u00e2 (v. 45); explaining the meaning of the monument-sign (vv. 49, 50); making Jacob swear by the pa\u1e25ad of Isaac (v. 53b); sacrificing and eating together (v. 54). It is the oath which ratifies the covenant. Jacob swears, v. 50b, and Laban utters words which are analogous to an oath formula, vv. 49 and 50b. He invokes the deity to witness (v. 50b) and watch (v. 49) the pact, i.e., act as a sanctioning agent who inflicts punishment on a perjurer. This act is followed by a rite entailing a sacrifice and communion. What is the function of this sacrificial meal? Jacob, by offering a zeba\u1e25 sacrifice to his deity who is already invoked to witness to and watch over the covenant, is seeking communion with God, a secular covenant is thereby elevated to a sacred level. By inviting the other party to participate in this sacred meal, Jacob reinforces the covenant relationship and admits them to his intimate circle and to the communion with his tribal God. A familial relationship is constituted between the tribal god, Jacob and Laban.<\/p>\n
iv. David\u2013Jonathan<\/p>\n
The pact\u2019s first account (1 Sam 18:1\u20134; 20:5\u20138) describes the covenant-enacting rite of arraying another with one\u2019s clothes and arms (v. 4). This act of Jonathan is a symbol of the gift of himself. Both of them are thereby intimately united, they become \u201cas one soul\u201d. Thus the ritual constitutes the covenant relationship. There is no mention of an oath. In 20:8 the pact is called ber\u00eet Yhwh, an expression reserved in all other places for the covenant of Yahweh with men (Dt 4:23; 10:8; 29:11, 24; Jos 23:26; 1 Kg 8:21; 2 Chr 6:11; ber\u00eet \u02be\u011bl\u014dh\u00eem: 2 Chr 34:32; Lev 2:13). Jonathan\u2019s covenant, then, is elevated to the level of the divine, it is Yahweh\u2019s own ber\u00eet. The reason may be that it was concluded in a holy place or more probably, an oath was sworn in the name of Yahweh.
\nAccording to the story in 1 Sam 20:11\u201317; 23:18 it was the word, i.e. oath, that ratified the covenant. Both parties swore in the name of Yahweh, saying: \u201cYahweh shall be between me and you, and between my descendants, for ever\u201d (v. 42). Further, v. 17a mentions David\u2019s swearing, to Jonathan.<\/p>\n
v. Abner\u2013David<\/p>\n
The Abner\u2013David account (2 Sam 3:12\u201321) lacks the ber\u00eet enacting report (see note 14). Instead it recounts a banquet (mi\u0161teh) in v. 20 and this act effected the covenant fellowship. These are the reasons for interpreting mi\u0161teh as a covenant-constituting ceremony: (a) Covenant texts refer to the eating together as a pact-enacting rite: Gen 26:30; 31:46\u201354; Jos 9:14; cf. Ex 18:12; Ps 41:10; 69:23; 1 Kg 1:25 and 9; 1 Chr 12:39f; 29:22; 2 Chr 18:2. (b) After the feast Abner addresses David as his overlord: v. 21 \u02be\u0103d\u014dn\u00ee hammelek. (c) The covenant narratives often conclude with a reference to the departure of the parties in an atmosphere of \u0161\u0101l\u00f4m\u2014a word which implies a covenant relationship, and in some instances is a synonym for pact itself: Gen 21:32; 26:31, 29; 32:1; 1 Sam 20:42f, 13; 23:18; 1 Kg 20:34; cf. Gen 33:16; Jg 11:11; 1 Sam 25:22; 1 Kg 10:13; 2 Kg 12:18; 15:19f. In the story of 2 Sam 3 the fact of Abner\u2019s departure \u201cin peace\u201d (= with covenant?) is thrice repeated, vv. 21, 22, 23. Participating together in a meal is the only covenant ceremony in this account; there is no mention of oath.<\/p>\n
vi. Asa\u2013Benhadad<\/p>\n
1 Kg 15:16\u201320 = 2 Chr 16:1\u20134 reports the enacting of a pact between Asa and Benhadad. The former approached the king of Aram with \u0161\u014d\u1e25ad to win a covenant and military support against his enemy Israel. And Benhadad \u201chearkened to\u201d (wayyi\u0161m\u02bf \u02beel) Asa and attacked Israel. The act of accepting \u0161\u014d\u1e25ad amounted to entering into a covenant relationship with the king of Judah.
\nCertain oral declarations of relationship appear in three covenant-making episodes: Jos 9; 2 Sam 5:1\u20133 = 1 Chr 11:1\u20133; 1 Kg 20:31\u201334. While Jos 9 has two further ceremonies, a covenant meal and swearing, the other two descriptions do not mention any specific rituals except the declarative acts of the parties. What are the functions of these declaration formulae in covenant making? Do they belong to the stage of covenant negotiations or to the acts which constitute the pact? This study tries to answer these questions.<\/p>\n
B. Allusive Texts<\/p>\n
Jer 34:8\u201322; Ez 17:11\u201321; Hos 12:2 and 2 Kg 11 = 2 Chr 23 merely allude to the covenant-making acts. These texts provide further information on the different possibilities for realizing a pact.
\nThe covenant of Zedekiah with the people, Jer 34:8\u201322, was realized in the temple (v. 15) with the ritual of passing between the parts of the slaughtered animals, v. 18f. (The expression b\u0101\u02be\u00fb baber\u00eet (v. 10) seems also to imply this ceremony). This enacted ritual symbolizes the Hebrew oath formula which is an abbreviated or implicit form of self-curse: partners pass between the sections of dismembered animals and thus leave themselves open, by implication, to the fate of the slaughtered animals in the event of future violation. Thus this symbolic curse or oath was concerned with the observance of the stipulation and was not intended to create the covenant union between the parties.
\nThere are two covenant-making acts in Ez 17:11\u201321: an oath (v. 13 wayy\u0101b\u0113\u02be \u02be\u014dtt\u00f4 be\u02be\u0101l\u00e2) sworn in the name of God (2 Chr 36:13) and the rite of n\u0101tan y\u0101d (v. 18) which was not merely a gesture of assent to the covenant terms, but a sign which effected the covenant relationship. See the next chapter.
\nHos 12:2 mentions oil in connection with a pact. How did the oil function in the enacting of the covenant? K. R. Veenhof explains thus: The vassal was smeared with oil, which penetrated into his flesh, just as the hypothetical curse would do in case of transgression of the stipulations. By this symbolic ritual, the covenantal party took upon himself the conditional curse which was an oath.
\nJehoiada established a pact with the officers, 2 Kg 11:4\u20138 and it had a swearing ceremony, v. 4b. The officers solemny committed themselves to a loyal behaviour.<\/p>\n
III. Conclusion<\/p>\n
The word ber\u00eet indicates different kinds of agreements or relationships, political, social, tribal, familial, etc. It is wrong then to tie it down to the political field. The OT ber\u00eet is not a univocal concept. Covenant-making was an ordinary affair of daily life among the Hebrews; There does not exist a fixed form for realizing a ber\u00eet. It could be ratified by pledged word or by rite, or by both of them as in Gen 21 (E), 26:31, (J & E), Jos 9. Some of these rites are symbolic oaths (e.g., passing between the parts of slaughtered animals, smearing with oil), but others, such as meal, gift, are destined to establish covenant union between the partners. What these latter type of rites imply, is sometimes orally affirmed (Jos 9; 2 Sam 5:1\u20133; 1 Kg 20:31\u201334); these oral declarations of relationship are the theme of our study.
\nThe flexibility of the ber\u00eet concept is not a peculiar or exclusive character of the biblical world. Albright observes that in the Late Bronze Age the word ber\u012btu was used in Syria and Egypt to denote agreements such as contract labour and contractual hiring of persone. Also the technical terms for treaty, riksu\/rikiltu, ad\u00fb, m\u0101m\u012btu (Akkadian), i\u0161\u1e2biul (Hittite) etc., often appear in texts describing non-treaty arrangements: Almost every deal or bargain between private persons seems to deserve the title riksu or its equivalents. It indicates hiring persons to tend cattle or sheep (\u201cH\u00fctungsvertrag\u201d) as well as to work in the field (\u201cErntearbeitervertrag\u201d). Ad\u00fb can mean an arrangement for the temple guard duty (\u201cWerkvertrag \u00fcber Tempelwachdienst\u201d). Riksu often stands for lend-and-lease contracts and for regulations on giving things for safe custody. Sale contracts (e.g., purchase of field, house, slaves, etc.) and marriage pacts are designated as riksu. The word rikiltu can denote a commercial alliance (\u201cGesch\u00e4ftsgenossenschaftsvertrag\u201d). There exist m\u0101m\u012btu, ad\u00fb, riksu or i\u0161\u1e2biul between king and his officials and soldiers. The Assyrian and Hittite sovereigns entered into such agreements with their palace and temple personnel such as scribes, physicians, augurs, diviners and priests. These few examples demonstrate that riksu etc., is not a univocal term for political treaties; it admits of different kinds of agreements which belong to private as well as public spheres. This means that treaties are just one example of a larger class of formalized obligations. The concept of Hebrew ber\u00eet, conforms to this tradition. Hence secular ber\u00eet is not to be identified with political pacts, these are but one of the many types of agreements, designated by the word ber\u00eet.<\/p>\n
CHAPTER 3<\/p>\n
Non-Berith Texts<\/p>\n
The OT secular non-ber\u00eet covenants are presented here under two titles: synonym texts, where synonyms for ber\u00eet occur; non-synonym texts, where covenant relationships are implied but no synonym for covenant is used.<\/p>\n
I. Synonym Texts<\/p>\n
ANE literature employs synonyms for treaty and enacting of a treaty. These idioms will help us to identify the analogous OT instances. To begin with, one must have adaequate knowledge of the basic ideas concerning the origin and evolution of the terms for treaty. This we now schematically provide. The technical words for treaty center on two semantic fields: the covenant-enacting rites and stipulations which are the outcome or effect of treaty. The standard Akkadian expression for treaty, rikiltu\/riksu u m\u0101m\u012btu = bond and oath, combines both these trends in a single phrase. But rikiltu\/riksu as well as m\u0101m\u012btu alone could mean treaty and is used often in that sense. The semantic evolution of the terms seems to be the following. The verb rak\u0101su means \u201cto bind, to tie\u201d and the noun riksu\/rikistu \u201cbinding\u201d. As such the noun denotes any kind of binding or bond. In treaty literature this general meaning gets concretized or restricted to a particular sphere, there it refers to stipulations. What makes a treaty are its stipulations: it is for the sake of imposing obligations that the treaties, especially those of the vassal type, are concluded. Hence the treaty itself came to be known under the designation \u201cstipulations\u201d. In other words, riksu is employed according to the principle of metonymy, effect for cause (stipulations are the outcome of a pact), for the agreement itself. The second word m\u0101m\u012btu means primarily oath; then it conveys the idea of curse. In m\u0101m\u012btu the emphasis is laid on the word spoken during swearing. Hence it could naturally indicate the obligations undertaken by oath. Further, it stands by metonymy for the treaty itself. The same semantic evolution is to be attributed to ad\u00ea. But mark the difference. While m\u0101m\u012btu \u201csays\u201d curse, ad\u00ea only \u201cimplies\u201d it. While the use of m\u0101m\u012btu in the sense of treaty is limited, ad\u00ea enjoys the title of the standard expression for treaty of the first millenium. In n\u012b\u0161um we have another designation for treaty. Literally it means curse, imprecation and refers to a covenant-making rite. Since it is the oath or curse that founds the treaty, the agreement itself came to be called after the covenant-enacting rite. The principle of synecdoche, of the part for the whole, is applied here. Indeed, this is a common phenomenon in Mari texts. Phrases descriptive of the pact-ratifying rites, such as napi\u0161tam lap\u0101tum \u201cto touch the throat, \u201d \u1e2bayaram qat\u0101lum \u201cto kill an ass\u201d, sissiktam rak\u0101sum \u201cto bind the hem of the garment\u201d, sissiktam kullum \u201cto hold the hem of the garment\u201d, qaran \u1e63ub\u0101t \u2026 \u1e63ab\u0101tum \u201cto seize the hem of the garment\u201d, etc., were used in the sense of \u201cto conclude a treaty\u201d. Some of these acts are symbolic oaths, while other rites refer to the relationship or union established between the partners.
\nFrom these observations on the semantic development of the Akkadian terms for treaty such as riksu, m\u0101m\u012btu, ad\u00ea, n\u012b\u0161um, we can see what synonym involves. The fact that B is a synonym of A does not mean that B conveys exactly and absolutely the significance of A, or that its associative field is identical with that of A. It demonstrates a basic similarity to A in meaning; but highlights also differences. The primary or literal meaning of B may not correspond to that of A, only in a secondary sense can it indicate it. Often a synonym expresses certain properties of the term; it is then used metonymically to denote the whole reality. In the case of treaty, words for stipulations and covenantmaking acts developed into terms for pact. The same semantic evolution underlies the OT ber\u00eet concept. The standard expression for enacting a pact, krt ber\u00eet seems to refer to one of the ceremonies in the covenant-making process. But it is used metonymically to signify the whole reality of covenant-making. Or, if one holds that ber\u00eet is related to the Akkadian bi\/ertu and means binding, then the word reflects stipulation and stands for covenant exactly as riksu = binding = stipulation, indicates treaty. Or, take Kutsch\u2019s ethymology that ber\u00eet stems from brh II and means obligation, commitment. Even then obligation denotes a covenant according to the principle of metonymy. Another word, \u02be\u0101l\u00e2 = curse, imprecation, which refers to a covenantmaking rite, occasionally stands for the pact itself.
\nWe have pointed out that the terms for treaty had derived from two properties of pact: treaty-enacting rites and stipulations. Treaty literature apprises us of a further phenomenon. There exists a group of synonyms which encapsulates the basic aspects of treaty. It is for establishing and securing \u0161ulmum = peace, sal\u012bmum = amity, \u1e6d\u016bbtu\/\u1e6d\u0101b\u016btu = friendship, kittu = loyal disposition, etc., that treaties are realized. Pacts effect friendship, peace, etc. These basic aspects of treaty\u2014its object or effect\u2014are employed according to the principle of metonymy, effect for cause, to denote treaty itself. More literally, these pacts meant an agreement which brought sal\u012bmum, \u0161ulmum, \u1e6d\u016bbtu, kittu, etc.
\nOT ber\u00eet synonyms for covenant have evolved on the same lines as the ANE terms for treaty. Like the treaty synonyms, the OT expressions fall under three groups: (a) Phrases descriptive of covenant-making acts: ntn y\u0101d, \u1e25zq bknp, mass\u0113k\u00e2, \u02bf\u015bh ber\u0101k\u00e2. (b) Phrases for stipulations: \u02bf\u0101d & \u02bf\u0113d\u00fbt, \u1e25\u014dzeh & \u1e25\u0101z\u00fbt, n\u0101\u1e25ah, d\u0101b\u0101r, \u1e63md. (c) Phrases related to stipulations: \u0161\u0101l\u00f4m, \u1e6d\u00f4b, \u1e25esed, \u02bemnh. To these three types of synonyms which have parallels in treaty literature, are to be added: (d) Phrases denoting union: \u1e25br, y\u1e25d. These expressions literally mean \u201cassociate\u201d, \u201cunite\u201d, hence could indicate a covenant association or union.
\nObviously, one cannot claim the same value for every text mentioned in the course of this study. At the end of each section on synonyms, I will try to evaluate the texts as certain, probable, possible, or as mere suggestions.<\/p>\n
A. Phrases Descriptive of Covenant-making Acts<\/p>\n
i. ntn y\u0101d<\/p>\n
The phrase literally means \u201cgive the hand\u201d and refers to a concrete rite. Besides evaluating the possibility of rendering it as a synonym for ber\u00eet, we have to find out the exact significance of this gesture: whether it stands for an oath, as it is generally understood, or it indicates a relationship, i.e., union between the partners as in the case of covenant meals and gifts. If a covenant text mentions only this ceremony and the gesture implies not an oath but a relationship, then it confirms our conclusion about the ber\u00eet texts, namely that oath is not a sine qua non element in pacts but that other rites such as those involving meals, gifts (and oral declaration of relationship) could constitute or ratify covenants. Certain Ancient Orient practices illuminate the biblical instances.<\/p>\n
a. Non-Biblical Evidence<\/p>\n
Authors associate the OT expression with an ANE ratifying ceremony of the contracts of surety. The guarantor struck the hand of the creditor and mortgaged himself on behalf of the debtor. The gesture was such an essential rite in the enacting of the contract that the contract itself came to known in Babylon p\u016bt \u2026 ma\u1e2b\u0101\u1e63u = \u201cstrike (the hand) for\u201d and the guarantor m\u0101\u1e2bi\u1e63 p\u016bti = \u201cone who strikes (the hand) for.\u201d The repealing of a contract of mortgage is expressed by the Akkadian q\u0101tam nas\u0101\u1e2bu = \u201cstrike off the hand\u201d i.e., \u201ctake back the hand.\u201d The OT also employs the same contract-enacting rite to denote the whole contract itself: in Prov 6:1; 11:15; 17:18; Job 17:3; cf. Prov 22:26 tq\u02bf k\u0101p\/y\u0101d = \u201cstrike the hand\u201d, mean \u201cto mortgage oneself\u201d. Besides p\u016bt ma\u1e2b\u0101\u1e63u the Babylonian documents make use of two phrases in the sense of realizing a contract of surety: p\u016bt \u2026 nad\u0101nu = \u201cgive (the hand) for\u201d and p\u016bt \u2026 na\u0161\u00fb = \u201craise (the hand) for\u201d. Thus non-biblical as well as OT texts employ a contract-enacting rite to express the whole reality. \u201cTo strike the hand\u201d or its equivalents stand for \u201cto make a contract of mortgage\u201d. One may say that the principle of synecdoche, of the part for the whole, is applied here.
\nThe exact significance of these idioms is not easy to determine. Obviously the ceremony implies the undertaking of obligation. Does it refer to the gesture in connexion with swearing (\u201cSchwurgestus\u201d)? Of course, the ANE legal transactions knew the swearing ceremony, but the oath was not an essential element of the contract as in the case of the treaty form. Contracts were not centred on the oath. It is then illogical to assume that a contract could come to be called after an accidental rite like oath. Only the act that validitates the agreement or implies the fundamental idea of the contract (in our case, mortgage) could metonymically stand for the contract itself. Hence one cannot identify rites like striking the hand with oath. The significance of the gesture is rather to be sought in the symbolism of hand. The hand stands for the person. By striking or clasping the hand of the creditor, the guarantor offers himself as the \u201chand\u201d i.e., in the place of the debtor. He snatches the \u201chand\u201d, i.e., the person of the debtor from the clasp of the creditor and puts himself in to the \u201chand\u201d of the creditor. He gives his \u201chand\u201d i.e., person, to the creditor who can claim his possessions and even his person if the debt remains unpaid. The guarantor surrenders his person to the creditor, he becomes, as Koschaker puts it, a \u201chostage\u201d. The occurance of the preposition p\u016bt, \u201cfor\u201d in the phrases confirms this interpretation. The hand is clasped (nad\u0101nu) or struck (ma\u1e2b\u0101\u1e63u) or raised (na\u0161\u00fb) \u201cfor\u201d somebody. From these observations one can conclude that the striking of the hand in the contracts of surety was not a \u201cSchwurgestus\u201d but a gesture for undertaking an obligation (\u201cVerpflichtungsgestus\u201d).
\nAnalogous terminology appears in texts concerning relationship. In EA 298:25\u201329 Yapahu, the prince of Gezer informs his overlord that his youngest brother is estranged from him and \u201chas entered Muhhazu and has given his two hands to the chief of the \u02bfApiru\u201d (trans. Albright in ANET, 490). The phrase nad\u0101nu q\u0101tu = give the hand, is the exact parallel to the OT ntn y\u0101d. It seems to refer to the rite by which the youngest brother concluded a pact with Hapiru. In the text it is used metonymically for the covenant itself. Concerning the significance of the gesture, it was not a \u201cSchwurgestus\u201d but a sign of union with the ally. His brother has joined the company of Hapiru as their vassal (hence the idea of submission), dedicated to their cause. Arabic customs which are more akin to the Hebrew practices than those of the Mesopotamian world, illustrates and confirms this interpretation. To cite one instance, a group of pilgrims from Mecca went to Medina and concluded \u201cbrotherhood\u201d with the inhabitants by shaking hands and saying: \u201cThis is my brother\u201d. Here handclasp is employed as a sign of union between the partners. In the words of Pedersen we have here \u201ceine Form der Vermischung zweier Sph\u00e4ren durch Ber\u00fchrung\u201d; for him giving a handshake is equivalent to \u201cforming an alliance\u201d. Further, the gesture has a special nuance. By this rite the Medinites undertook the obligation to protect the pilgrim group as if they were their own brothers. As the phrase \u201cshake the hand\u201d denotes \u201cconclude a pact\u201d, the opposite act \u201cstrike off a hand\u201d indicates \u201ccancel an alliance\u201d. Mari texts employ q\u0101tam nap\u0101\u1e63um (literally, strike off a hand) in the sense of revoking or refusing a covenant. It implies the thrusting back of a hand previously clasped or newly outstrectched in friendship. The breaking of union or relationship is meant by the idiom.
\nTo sum up, there existed in the ANE contracts of surety as well as political and non-political covenants, expressions analogous to the OT ntn y\u0101d. These phrases implied a contract\/covenant-making rite and could metonymically stand for the contract\/covenant. \u201cStrike off a hand\u201d expressed the revoking of a contract\/covenant. The possibility of understanding the rite as \u201cSchwurgestus\u201d is to be excluded. In contracts of mortagage it meant a \u201cVerpflichtungsgestus\u201d. The covenants generally convey the idea of union or relationship between the partners (\u201cVerh\u00e4ltnisgestus\u201d). Even then it is a union which creates obligations. Indeed, in certain contexts the idea of undertaking obligations preponderates. Among the unequal partners the gesture implies a relationship of disparity, that of vassalage. Hence the nuance of submission.<\/p>\n
b. OT Texts<\/p>\n
The OT offers seven instances of the use of ntn y\u0101d and all but one text seem to have covenant implications.
\n2 Kg 10:15f. describes the enactment of \u201cfriendship\u201d between Jehu and Jehonadab, the leader of the Rechabites. At the news of the revolt of Jehu against the house of Ahab, who promoted Baal worship in Israel, Jehonadab hastened to meet the rebel leader. The Rechabite regarded Jehu as champion of Yahwism and wanted to throw himself and his group into revolution under the leadership of Jehu. In other words, Jehonadab approached the military general for the purpose of forming an alliance with him. And it was constituted by mutual handshake. This act signified a union of minds (Jehu explicitly demanded it: h\u0103y\u0113\u0161\u02beit\u1e6d\u00ee lebobek\u0101 y\u0101\u0161\u0101r ka\u02be\u01ce\u0161er leb\u0101b\u00ee \u02bfim leb\u0101bek\u0101 \u201cAre you with me as I am with you?), the belonging to the other, an entering into the sphere of the other, sharing the same aspirations and ideals of life. Further, the gesture has the nuance of submission to Jehu, of accepting his authority. In the light of Ancient Orient parallels, ntn y\u0101d could be rendered as \u201cto make a pact\u201d. This accords perfectly well with the context and more concretely and vividly expresses the implications of the phrase.
\nEzr 10:1\u20135, 19 describes the enactment of a legal agreement of the Jewish community to divorce their pagan wives. Mixed marriages had corrupted their society and purity of Yahwistic religion was in danger. Ezra set his mind to uproot this evil (ch. 9\u201310). He persuaded the people to acknowledge their aberration and they voluntarily came forward to make a ber\u00eet to God (l\u0113\u02bel\u014dh\u00ean\u00fb v. 3) to dissolve the marriages. The \u201ccovenant\u201d ceremony consisted in taking an oath (v. 5) at the temple (v. 1). The report on the realizing of ber\u00eet concludes thus: v. 19 \u201cAnd they gave their hands to dismiss their wives\u201d. The phrase ntn y\u0101d, if understood in the literal sense, indicates the second act of the covenant ceremony (hence distinct from the first rite, oath. Hence it was not a \u201cSchwurgestus\u201d). The expression seems to stand for ber\u00eet itself, as its synonym: The purpose of krt ber\u00eet (v. 3) and ntn y\u0101d was identical, the same construction is used in both instances: leh\u00f4s\u00ee\u02be n\u0101\u0161\u00eem. And both texts express the same reality, the making of an agreement. In v. 3 the people decide for a ber\u00eet, the realization of which is reported in v. 19 by the phrase ntn y\u0101d. Concerning its significance, the act meant that the people were of one accord with the agreement. They were united in undertaking the obligation. It was a sign of their firm determination to accomplish the task. The English idiom \u201cjoin hands\u201d, i.e., combine in an enterprise, puts this idea very clearly. Our interpretation accords well with the intention of the author. He wanted to stress that people acted as one person, they were united heart and soul in putting away the pagan wives. The gesture emphasises the undertaking of obligation: people are allied for this special purpose. The act had a peculiar character: the handclasp did not take place between the two partners, but among the members of the same party.
\nTwo other texts, Ez 17:18 and Lam 5:6 allude to this covenantmaking act. The first text forms part of the pericope vv. 11\u201321, in which the prophet condemns Zedekiah for the covenant infidelity to his Babylonian overlord. V. 18 reads: \u201cHe despised the oath and broke the covenant; behold, he had given his hand and yet did all these things; he shall not escape\u201d. The text refers to two covenant-enacting rites, oath and ntn y\u0101d. In the light of non-biblical parallels (especially the Nimrud depiction of overlord and vassal king shaking hands as a sign of their covenant union, cf. above, p. 21, n. 24) one can interpret the gesture as the act which constituted the covenant union between Zedekiah and Nebuchadnezzar. Since the relationship was that of vassalage, the idea of submission underlies the ceremony. The prophet Ezechiel singled out this covenant-making act to give poignancy to his accusation. By the expression he meant the whole covenant itself.
\nIn Lam 5:6 the author refers to the policy of making foreign alliances, favoured by many of the kings and typically denounced by the prophets, e.g., Jer 2:18, 36; Hos 7:11; 12:2. These pacts were concluded not only for strategic reasons but also for economic considerations, as our text reports: \u201cWe have given the hand to Egypt, and to Assyria, to get enough food\u201d. Obviously the poet was employing the phrase ntn y\u0101d in the sense of \u201cto make a pact\u201d. And it conveys the idea of submission to Egypt and Assyria.
\nChronicles provide us with two instances of ntn y\u0101d. 1 Chr 29:24: \u201cAll the leaders and warriors, and also all other sons of king David n\u0101tn\u00fb y\u0101d ta\u1e25at Solomon\u201d. The text follows the account of Solomon\u2019s investiture. Baltzer connects the event with the ratification of the covenant with Yahweh, the ceremony of which is narrated in ch. 28. A sacrificial repast followed the covenant renewal (29:21f.). Then the people \u201cmade Solomon king\u201d and anointed him. The expression \u201cmake one king\u201d often implies a covenant of the people with the king, as we shall see in the section on \u201cNon-Synonym Texts\u201d. The Chronicler reports that after the installation of Solomon the people obeyed him and the nobility of the country n\u0101tn\u00fb y\u0101d ta\u1e25at Solomon. The preposition ta\u1e25at, \u201cunder\u201d determines the meaning of the phrase, it refers to the submission to Solomon\u2019s authority. What the Chronicler wanted to emphasis was this. Everything went well with Solomon. Yahweh magnified him in the sight of all (v. 25); people obeyed him (v. 23) and the nobility was subservient to him (v. 24). Thus the expression in its present form cannot be rendered as a synonym for covenant.
\nIn 2 Chr 30:8 Hezekiah exhorts the people to \u201cgive the hand\u201d to Yahweh. The king admonishes them to return (\u0161\u00fbb) to Yahweh and cease to be obstinate (q\u0161h \u02bf\u00f4rep lit. stiffnecked), but ten\u00fb y\u0101d to their God and enter his sanctuary. Some of these phrases pertain to covenant vocabulary. The act of ntn y\u0101d is suggested as an opposite action to the state of stubbornness. Hence it means subjecting oneself or yielding to Yahweh Covenant implications, however, are not excluded. Hezekiah seems to be asking the people to return to their divine overlord with whom they had once entered into a covenant relationship (2 Kg 11:4\u201317 = 2 Chr 23:1\u201316), to re-commit themselves to his service, or, in other words, to renew the covenant with Yahweh.
\nTo sum up, in handclasp the pact manifests itself. According to the principle of synecdoche this phrase which denotes a covenant-enacting rite, could mean \u201cto make a covenant\u201d. Thus ntn y\u0101d stands as a synonym for krt ber\u00eet in 2 Kg 10:15f. and Lam 5:6. One may add Ezr 10:19 and Ez 17:18 to the list, but they are only \u201cprobable\u201d texts. Although ntn y\u0101d of 1 Chr 29:24 and 2 Chr 30:8 have covenant implications, the phrase is not used there as a synonym for pact. Concerning the signification, ntn y\u0101d is basically a sign of relationship. Since the relationship in pacts between unequal partners is that of vassalship, the gesture can also convey the idea of accepting the authority of the superior. Indeed, some texts accentuate the idea of submission. The gesture has also the nuance of undertaking an obligation.<\/p>\n
Text
\nntn y\u0101d
\nOther Rites<\/p>\n
primary meaning
\nnuance<\/p>\n
2 Kg 10:15
\nsign of union
\nsign of submission<\/p>\n
Ez 17:18
\nsign of union
\nsign of submission
\nswearing
\nEzr 10:19
\nsign of union
\n\u201cVerpflichtungsgestus\u201d
\nswearing
\nLam 5:6
\nsign of submission<\/p>\n
1 Chr 29:24
\nsign of submission<\/p>\n
sacrificial repast
\n2 Chr 30:8
\nsign of submission<\/p>\n
The fact that oath does not appear in 2 Kg 10:15f. and Lam 5:6 deserves special attention. It is ntn y\u0101d which constituted or ratified the pact. The study widens our knowledge of the covenant concept. Ez 17:18 and Lam 5:6 speak of pacts between two countries. Ezr 10:19 is concerned with the undertaking of a definite obligation and the text mentions only one party to the agreement. Covenant between the king and people is the theme of 1 Chr 29:24. The text of 2 Kg 10 deals with a friendship pact between Jehonadab and Jehu, which is rather informal in nature.<\/p>\n
ii. \u1e25zq bknp<\/p>\n
Zech 8:23: \u201cIn those days ten men from the nations of every tongue shall take hold, yes, take hold of the robe of a Jew, saying, Let us go with you, for we have heard that God is with you\u201d. ANE parallels illuminate OT phrase \u1e25zq bknp = to grasp the garment. Three pact-enacting rites deserve special mention: sissiktam rak\u0101sum = \u201cto bind the fringe of the garment\u201d; sissiktam kullum = \u201cto hold or carry the hem of the garment\u201d; qaran \u1e63ub\u0101t \u2026 \u1e63ab\u0101tum = \u201cto seize the hem of the garment\u201d.
\nThe third phrase is analogous to the OT idiom. Just to cite one example: \u201cSince the day when he (Ari\u0161en, the ruler of Burundu) seized the hem of the garment of Zimri-Lim (king of Mari) \u2026 the town of Burundu has become the town of Zimri-Lim and Ari\u0161en his son\u201d. Here the phrase \u201cto grasp the hem of the garment\u201d stands for \u201cto make a pact\u201d. It refers to the gesture performed at the conclusion of the treaty. The act denoted the vassal relationship established between the partners. By grasping the robe\u2014the dress is symbolic of the personality of the wearer\u2014the inferior acknowledged the overlordship of the other party. He attached himself to the overlord who thereby took him into his protection. This covenant-making rite is used metonymically for the enacting of the treaty itself. The gesture appears not only in political covenants but also in \u201csocial\u201d or tribal pacts. Among the Arabs two persons or two groups entered into an alliance by performing this rite. Such pacts belong to the type of \u201cSchutzbund\u201d, because they were realized for the purpose of securing protection from foes. Zech 8:23 reflects such a \u201cSchutzbund\u201d. The prophet announces that the pagans will be moved by an ardent desire to participate in the favours which Yahweh bestows on his devotees at Zion. The route that leads to Jerusalem was a difficult one, pilgrims encountered dangers from robbers, animals, and in case of a non-Jew, from the fanatic Jews. Hence the gentiles will approach the pilgrim Jews with the request for a \u201cSchutzbund\u201d which will assure their safety throughout the pilgrimage. The text says that they grasped the garment of the pilgrim Jews. It refers to the rite performed at the covenant enacting scene.
\nIn the text it denotes covenant itself. The gesture signifies their acceptance or submission to the authority or patronage of the pilgrim Jews. The act constituted the covenant relationship between the parties, in which the gentiles played the role of vassals. Another fact confirms our covenant interpretation of the text: the gesture of the non-Jews was motivated \u201cbecause we have heard that \u02be\u011bl\u014dh\u00eem \u02bfimm\u0101kem\u201d. The same motive appears often in OT covenant-making reports. Abimelech concluded pacts with Abraham and Isaac because \u201cGod\/Yahweh is with you\u201d: Gen 21:22; 26:28. Israel\u2019s nearness to God induced Rahab and Gibeonites to seek alliances with them: Jos 2:9\u201311; 9:9\u201311. To conclude, \u1e25zq bknp of Zech 8:23 is to be rendered as \u201cconclude a pact\u201d. This \u201cSchutzbund\u201d verges on the non-political. The phrase refers to a covenant-making rite, and by metonymy expresses the whole reality.<\/p>\n
iii. mass\u0113k\u00e2<\/p>\n
Is 30:1: \u201cWho carry out a plan but not mine, and lins\u014dk mass\u0113k\u00e2 but not of my spirit\u201d. The prophet was complaining about the policy of seeking alliances with pagan powers, which showed Judah\u2019s lack of trust in her divine overlord. The phrase lins\u014dk mass\u0113k\u00e2, which derives from nsk, literally means \u201cpour out a pouring\u201d. OT texts connect the pouring of libation with sacrifice, e.g., Gen 35:14; Ex 30:9; Num 28:7; 2 Sam 23:16; 2 Kg 16:13; 1 Chr 11:18; Ps 16:4; Jer 7:18; 19:13; 44:17, 18, 19, 25; Ez 20:28; Hos 9:4. The ordinary Akkadian term for sacrifice naq\u00fb meant libation. Sacrifice appears often as a covenantratifying ceremony in the OT as well as in the non-biblical texts: Gen 31:54; Ex 24:5ff; Dt 27:7; Jos 8:31; 2 Chr 15:9\u201315; Ps 50:5; Zech 9:11; cf. Ex 18:12. This rite was not an adjunct to but constituent of the covenant. It effected a union, produced a relationship. Hence the act could stand for the covenant-making itself by synecdoche. Indeed, the Greek expression spondas spendein = \u201cto pour a drink-of-fering\u201d, is used in the sense of \u201cconclude a pact\u201d. The phrase nsk mass\u0113k\u00e2 in Is 30:1 is to be interpreted in the same way. The prophet had a specific reason in picking up the rite of pouring libation to deities to indicate the enacting of an alliance with pagan powers. Making a drink-offering to foreign gods implied covenant infidelity to the divine sovereign. It meant their union with the deities of pagan overlords. It is precisely for this reason that foreign pacts are displeasing to Yahweh. The prophet warns Judah that such alliances are neither in accordance with Yahweh\u2019s will nor derive from him. Although an Akkadian parallel is lacking, one can in all probability consider nsk mass\u0113k\u00e2 of Is 30:1 as a synonym for krt ber\u00eet.<\/p>\n
iv. \u02bf\u015bh ber\u0101k\u00e2<\/p>\n
The Assyrian commander conveys to the people of Judah the message of Sennacherib, 2 Kg 18:31 = Is 36:16 \u02bf\u0103\u015b\u00fb \u02beitt\u00ee ber\u0101k\u00e2. Hezekiah repudiated the vassal pact with Assyria. The infuriated overlord conducts a punitive expedition. Before the siege the official of Sennacherib exhorts the people of Judah to \u201cmake peace\u201d with their Assyrian overlord. They have to recommit themselves to the vassal pact. The general conveys this idea by the expression \u02bf\u0103\u015b\u00fb \u02beitt\u00ee ber\u0101k\u00e2. The word ber\u0101k\u00e2 means blessing; not rarely it signifies gift, e.g., Gen 33:11; Jos 15:19; Jg 1:15; 1 Sam 25:27; 30:26; 2 Kg 5:15 (These two ideas are strictly interrelated, the gift is \u201cthe palpable form of blessing\u201d). One offers ber\u0101k\u00e2, gift, to mend an estranged relationship\u2014hence ber\u0101k\u00e2, serves to make peace\u2014Gen 33:11 (Jacob\u2013Esau); 1 Sam 25:27 (Nabal family-David), or to create a friendship, 1 Sam 30:26 (David-elders of Judah). In the case of the Jacob\u2013Esau account, the relationship established by the giving of the present had the nature of vassalage. The significance and function of gift in covenant contexts become more clear from some other texts where gift is indicated not by ber\u0101k\u00e2 but by min\u1e25\u00e2, \u0161\u014d\u1e25ad etc. As our study on ber\u00eet texts has shown, \u201cgift\u201d constitutes a covenant relationship, and sometimes it stands as the unique covenant-making rite as in the J version of Abimelech\u2013Abraham covenant (Gen 21:25\u201326, 28\u201330, 32\u201334). In the Asa\u2013Benhadad episode (1 Kg 15:16\u201320) the accepting of \u201cpresent\u201d brought about alliance. As we shall presently see, in some non-ber\u00eet texts \u201cpresent\u201d is used to effect a pact or the mention of it indicates a covenant: 1 Kg 10:8\u201310; 2 Kg 16:5\u20139; 20:12 = Is 39:1. Some other texts report the bringing of gifts, or rather, tribute, and they imply vassal pacts: 2 Sam 8:9\u201310; 1 Kg 10:25; 14:25\u201328; 2 Kg 3:4; 12:19; 15:19f; 2 Chr 17:11; 26:8; 27:5. All these texts demonstrate the importance of \u201cgift\u201d in alliance, it effects covenant. It is then possible that this covenant making-rite could stand for the whole reality, it could metonymically indicate the covenant-making itself. In 2 Kg 18:31 the official is demanding a \u201cpresent\u201d, which will be a symbol of the vassalage of Judah to Assyria. By giving a \u201cpresent\u201d they were re-accepting the over-lordship of Sennacherib. The gift will serve to establish their vassal relationship. Thus we have in \u02bf\u015bh ber\u0101k\u00e2 a probable term for \u201cmake a covenant\u201d. It is not an ordinary synonym for krt ber\u00eet: 2 Kg 18:31 = Is 36:16 is the unique example in the OT, and the non-biblical evidence is lacking.<\/p>\n
B. Phrases for Stipulations<\/p>\n
i. \u02bf\u0101d, \u02bf\u0113d\u00fbt<\/p>\n
We have seen that the standard Neo-Assyrian expression for treaty, ad\u00ea really means obligation undertaken through oath and metonymieally indicates pact. The equivalent Aramaic term \u02bfdn\/\u02bfdy\u02be appears in Sefire inscriptions. It denotes stipulation, and as the Akkadian ad\u00ea, stands for treaty itself. The OT \u02bf\u0101d and \u02bf\u0113d\u00fbt could be interpreted in this light. I discuss here three texts. Gen 31:44: nikret\u00e2 ber\u00eet \u02be\u0103n\u00ee w\u0101\u02be\u0101t\u00e2 weh\u0101y\u0101 le\u02bf\u0113d b\u00ean\u00ee \u00fbb\u00eanek\u0101, \u201cLet us make a covenant, I and you; and let it be for a witness between me and you\u201d. The MT poses a grammatical difficulty: lack of agreement in gender between h\u0101y\u00e2 masculine and ber\u00eet feminine, its subject. Further, it is not the covenant but the deity invoked, that is really the witness (cf. v. 50). It seems that here the word is mispointed: \u02bf\u0113d (witness) for \u02bf\u0101d (pact). This emendation makes sense in the context: Laban the Aramean was suggesting: \u201cLet us make a covenant, you and I; and let there be a pact between you and me\u201d. Here the Hebrew ber\u00eet is balanced by the Aramaic \u02bf\u0101d: its parallel form commends it as a plausible ancient saying, preserved in oral tradition. Later redactors who did not understand this original meaning, changed the foreign word to \u02bf\u0113d and added the preposition le to provide some sense of syntactic property to their reading. According to this interpretation Gen 31:44 supplies us with a synonym for ber\u00eet. One can, however, attribute it only the value of probability, because it is based on emendation of the text.
\nThe MT of Is 33:8 does not make much sense: h\u0113p\u0113r ber\u00eet m\u0101\u02beas \u02bfar\u00eem \u201cHe has broken the covenant, rejected the cities\u201d. The word \u201ccities\u201d does not fit here as a parallel to ber\u00eet, or as the object of m\u0101\u02beas. In the light of IQ Isa BHS emends it to \u02bf\u0113d\u00eem = witnesses. According to this reading, the prophet was referring to the witnesses of the pact. A more plausible emendation is to change \u02bfar\u00eem to \u02bf\u0101d\u00eem = pacts. This constitutes an exact parallel to ber\u00eet and clarifies well the meaning of the verse: \u201ccovenants are broken, pacts are flouted\u201d. The emended \u02bf\u0101d\u00eem of Is 33:8 is a probable synonym for pact.
\nAnother term belonging to the same root is \u02bf\u0113d\u00fbt. Like the Akkadian ad\u00ea and the Aramaic \u02bfdn\/\u02bfdy\u02be it refers to stipulations of covenant and sometimes stands by metonymy for covenant itself. In 2 Kg 11:12 it appears in connexion with the pact between the king and the people. Joash was given \u02bf\u0113d\u00fbt. We could render the word as the document of the royal covenant which contained the stipulations; it was the symbol of covenant. Thus in 2 Kg 11:12 \u02bf\u0113d\u00fbt is a very probable synonym for pact.<\/p>\n
ii. \u1e25\u014dzeh, \u1e25\u0101z\u00fbt<\/p>\n
These words occur only in Is 28:15, 18. The prophet denounces Judah for that lack of trust in her living God, which consisted in seeking alliances with foreign powers such as Egypt and Babylon. By this act Judah was inviting the invasion of Assyria and destruction: v. 15 k\u0101ratn\u00fb ber\u00eet \u02beet m\u0101wet we\u02bfim \u0161e\u02be\u00f4l \u02bf\u0101\u015b\u00een\u00fb \u1e25\u014dzeh; v. 18 wekuppar ber\u00eetkem \u02beet m\u0101wet we\/\u0101z\u00fbtkem \u02beet \u0161e\u02be\u00f4l l\u014d\u02be t\u0101q\u00fbm. In both verses \u1e25\u014dzeh\/\u1e25\u0101z\u00fbt stands parallel to ber\u00eet; obviously the author was referring to the same thing, covenant, in both colons of these verses. Accordingly most versions, e.g., Targum, LXX, Vulgate, render it \u201cpact\u201d and modern translations follow suit. How can we etymologically justify this meaning? There exist two trends of interpretation. The first tries to explain the word from the ordinary root \u1e25zh = see. The second, on the contrary, postulates a new term \u1e25\u014dzeh II. The latter position is based on the comparative evidence from South Arabian epigraphy. G. R. Driver has unearthed a South Arabian (ESA) word \u1e25\u1e0fyt = rapprochment, agreement (root \u1e25-\u1e0f-\u02be = to confront) which occurs especially in the compound b\u1e25\u1e0fyt = \u201cin conformity with\u201d. The defenders of the ordinary meaning, i.e., see, fall into two categories. (i) Scholars of the last century find in \u1e25\u014dzeh the rite of divination or augury practised at the time of covenant-making; in Is 28:15, 18 the rite stands for treaty. (ii) Kutsch proposes that \u1e25zh = see, evolved into the meaning of commitment: sehen \u2192 ersehen \u2192 bestimmen \u2192 verordnen. According to this interpretation \u1e25\u014dzeh\/\u1e25\u0101z\u00fbt means \u201cthat which is determined, fixed\u201d. Or, we may simply say that which is provided for the future (\u201cprovidere\u201d), i.e., provision of the pact, stipulations. In the text it metonymically signifies pact itself. To conclude, in Is 28:15, 18 we have two terms for covenant, which are used as parallel expressions to ber\u00eet. The context and the ancient versions favour this suggestion. Etymological uncertainty impedes us from evaluating the term entirely.<\/p>\n
iii. n\u0101\u1e25ah<\/p>\n
In the Idrimi Inscription the vassal treaty of the Hurrian king with Idrimi of Alalakh is referred to as m\u0101na\u1e2btu which is the equivalent of riksu = stipulation of the Hittite treaties. It appears alone (lines 41.46\u201348.54) as well as in combination with NAM.ERIM = m\u0101m\u012btu (lines 51\u201352). It is virtually synonymous with the standard expression for treaty, riksu u m\u0101m\u012btu. As Goetze observes, m\u0101na\u1e2btu refers to the stipulations of the treaty. And by metonymy it stands for treaty itself. In the light of the Idrimi texts Eissfeldt has identified a parallel word in Is 7:2 n\u0101\u1e25ah which he renders \u201cjoin in a treaty\u201d. LXX, Peshitta and Targum confirm this interpretation. And it makes perfect contextual sense: the text refers to an alliance between Syria and Ephraim against Judah. In Is 7:2 we have a probable synonym.<\/p>\n
iv. d\u0101b\u0101r<\/p>\n
In Ancient Orient vassal treaties, \u201cword\u201d can denote a single stipulation, or it can stand for treaty itself. Koro\u0161ec has identified the following terms used in such a sense: ka.me\u0161, inim.me\u0161 (Sum.); aw\u00e2te (Akk.); memija\u0161; uttar (Hitt.). One may add the Akk. dab\u0101bu to this list which sometimes signify \u201ccome to an agreement\u201d
\nConcerning the OT d\u0101b\u0101r, it is widely used for the stipulations of religious covenant; e.g. dibr\u00ea haber\u00eet: Ex 34:28; Dt 28:69; 29:8; 2 Kg 23:3; Jer 11:2, 6, 8; 2 Chr 34:31; deb\u0101r\u00eem: Jos 24:26; hadd\u0101b\u0101r ha\u1e6d\u1e6d\u00f4b: Jos 21:45; 23:14, 15; 1 Kg 8:56. The word can stand, by metonymy, for the covenant itself. Some plausible suggestions: Hag 2:5; Dt 9:5 (cf. 8:18); Ps 105:8, 42. Does the OT refer to any secular covenant instances? Hos 10:4 reads: dabb\u0113r (BHS) deb\u0101r\u00eem \u02be\u0101l\u014dt \u0161\u0101we\u02be k\u0101r\u014dt ber\u00eet. It is generally accepted that these three parallel cola express the same reality, the enacting of political pacts. The first part \u201cuttering words\u201d is the synonymous parallel to the third part, \u201cmaking covenant\u201d. \u201cWords\u201d may be referring to either stipulations or to the swearing rite. In both cases it denotes, by metonymy, the pact itself. This is a very probable synonymous use of ber\u00eet and d\u0101b\u0101r. Is 8:10 uses the same phrase to refer to the covenants with foreign nations. The first David\u2013Jonathan covenant pericope in 1 Sam 20 concludes in v. 23: wehadd\u0101b\u0101r \u02be\u0103\u0161er dibbarn\u00fb \u02be\u0103n\u00ee w\u0101\u02be\u0101t\u00e2 hinn\u0113h YHWH b\u00ean\u00ee \u00fbb\u00eank\u0101 \u02bfad \u02bf\u00f4l\u0101m. Here Jonathan refers to the pact which is inviolable, since the Lord stands \u201cbetween\u201d the covenanting parties, the phrase seems to denote an oath formula. The \u201cword\u201d in all probability stands here for the whole reality, the accord. In 1 Kg 12:7 = 2 Chr 10:7 the elders counsel Rehoboam to speak deb\u0101r\u00eem \u1e6d\u00f4b\u00eem to the people who demanded him less severe stipulations as a prerequisite of the pact with him. We know that treaties were the words spoken by the Great King. In 1 Kg 12 the king is asked to speak \u201cgood words\u201d. The phrase possibly means stipulations that are agreeable to the people (e.g. 2 Sam 3:19; cf. also Jos 21:45; 23:14, 15; 1 Kg 8:56), or, in other words, to propose a pact congruous to the request of Israel. This is a mere suggestion. Finally, Jephtah\u2019s covenant with the people was solemnized \u201cbefore Yahweh at Mizpah\u201d with his reciting of the \u201cwords\u201d, Jg 11:11. The \u201cwords\u201d probably refer to the covenant stipulations, his oath of office.<\/p>\n
v. \u1e63md<\/p>\n
Already in 1926 Pedersen identified sm\u1e0f, in Num 25:3, 5. and Ps 106:28 as a word for covenant. Fresh evidence from the non-biblical sources render his suggestion more plausible. The bilingual accord between Shuppiluliumash of Hatti and Niqmadu of Ugarit employs two parallel expressions rikilta \u2026 irkus (Akk.), m\u1e63mt \u2026 \u0161t (Ug.) to denote \u201cto establish a pact\u201d. The word m\u1e63mt which derives from \u1e63md = to tie, unite, is thus semantically parallel to rikiltu\/riksu and like the Akk. term it metonymically indicates a pact. The OT texts speak of Israel\u2019s perfidy in aligning themselves with (\u1e63md) Baal Peor and participating in the sacrificial repast. Their act amounted to accepting a pagan deity in the place of their covenant God.<\/p>\n
C. Phrases Related to Stipulations<\/p>\n
i. \u0161\u0101l\u00f4m<\/p>\n
The word \u0161\u0101l\u00f4m indicates the wholeness of the relationship of communion between two parties. It is intimately connected with covenant as its object and effect. Men conclude a pact for the sake of \u0161\u0101l\u00f4m, which brings security, intactness and orderliness in their life. It sums up the whole content of covenant. The parties oblige each other to live in such a way as does not break the established harmony among them. This general obligation finds concrete expression in a set of rules. First of all the parties should maintain \u2018peace\u2019 among themselves by mutual non-aggression (Covenants between Abimelech and Abraham, Abimelech and Isaac, Laban and Jacob (J) were essentially non-aggression pacts). Further, allies should help each other to keep \u2018peace\u2019 in one other\u2019s territory by military assistance (Jos 10:6ff; 1 Kg 15:20; 22:4, 29\u201333; 2 Kg 3:9\u201327), extraditing the rebels and fugitives, reporting the insurrectiones, etc. And one should allow the other to \u201clive\u201d, i.e., to lead a prosperous life (Jos 2:13; 6:25; 9:15, 18, 19; 1 Kg 20:31f; 2 Kg 18:32; 25:24; Jer 27:12, 17). Thus \u201cpeace\u201d comprises in itself most of the main ideas of covenant stipulations. Since \u0161\u0101l\u00f4m is a fundamental concept of covenant, it can naturally stand by synecdoche, for the pact itself. Indeed, it is used, at least in some instances, as a synonym for ber\u00eet. The Akk. parallel sal\u012bmum (friendship, alliance)\/\u0161ulmum (peace, well being) not only supports this fact but also helps us to render more exactly the nuances of the Hebrew word.<\/p>\n
a. Non-Biblical Evidence: sal\u012bmum\/\u0161ulmum<\/p>\n
In all the cited instances sal\u012bmum\/\u0161ulmum metonymically denotes treaty. To render the word simply \u201cfriendship\/peace\u201d does not convey the full idea. An agreement which established friendship\/peace is implied in the contexts. I find four kinds of constructions in which the word indicates treaty.<\/p>\n
1. With a Verb:
\nTexts where sal\u012bmum\/\u0161ulmum is used with a verb to denote \u201cmake a treaty\u201d:<\/p>\n
In ARMT II, 37: 11\u201314 an official informs king Zimri-Lim that he established (\u0161ak\u0101num) sal\u012bmum between Hana and Idamaraz, two groups of people who both belonged to the administrative territory of Mari, by killing an ass. The ass-slaying, \u1e2bayaram qat\u0101lum was the covenant ceremony by which the official concluded sal\u012bmum. Treaty was enacted by the ritual of ass-slaying. The expression \u1e25ayaram qat\u0101lum describes the covenantmaking method and the phrase sal\u012bmam \u0161ak\u0101num means \u201cto make a treaty\u201d, literally, \u201cto make an agreement which established friendship\u201d. We find both expressions also in another Mari text (M\u00e9langes Dussaud II, 991) where they are used interchangeably in the sense of enacting a treaty: Sibkuna-Adad \u1e2bayaram qat\u0101lum, killed an ass with Zimri-Lim and Bin-Sim\u2019al; he explains that he sal\u012bmam ep\u0113\u0161um in defence against his enemy. Another Mari text, published by Dossin in Syria 19, 120f., confirms our interpretation of \u201cmake friendship\u201d as \u201cmake treaty\u201d. Zimri-Lim intended to sal\u012bmam \u0161ak\u0101num between Qarni-Lim and Hammurabi of Kurda. Since both kings were to take the oath of the gods it is clear that a formal treaty was envisaged. A text in the Aramaic inscription of Azitawadda king of Danunites, is to be understood in this sense. KAI 26A, I: 11\u201312 \u201cI have made peace (\u0161yt \u0161lm) with every king\u201d (trans. ANET, 654). He was boasting of having concluded pacts with other rulers which brought forth prosperity in his kingdom.<\/p>\n
2. With Other Nouns:
\nTexts where the word appears in combination with other substantives; both terms together form a phrase for treaty:<\/p>\n
A concrete example of this construction is given in the Chronicles of Chaldaean Kings where the phrase \u1e6d\u016bbtu u sulumm\u00fb is used together with \u0161ak\u0101num as a technical expression for \u201cto conclude a treaty\u201d, B.M. 21901, obv. 29 \u201cThe kings of Akkad and Kyaxares met one another by the city. They established mutual friendship and peace\u201d (trans. Wiseman, Chronicles, 59) The purpose of their meeting was to enact a pact. Our text does not say explicitly that \u201cthey realized a treaty\u201d; rather, the Chronicle makes use of another phrase \u201cthey established \u1e6d\u016bbtu u sulumm\u00fb\u201d to express the same reality. Cf. also B.M. 92701. II.ii: 27; iii: 18.24. The same terminology appears in a text published by L.W. King: \u201cFriendship and peace with Assur-bel-kala, king of Assyria, he established\u201d. Another phrase, sal\u012bmum u damq\u0101tum, is also used in the sense of treaty. An official informs Zimri-Lim (ARMT II, 44: 40\u201342) that the king of Eshnunna has dispatched his envoys to negotiate \u201cpeace and good relations\u201d.<\/p>\n
3. Alone:
\nTexts where sal\u012bmum\/\u0161ulmum alone is used as a term for treaty:<\/p>\n
Mari letters offer us many instances of this usage. In his report about the current events in the neighbouring countries Iawi-Ila informs his king, Zimri-Lim, that negotiations for sal\u012bmum are conducted between the country of Zalmaqum and the king of Elahut, ARMT XIII, 144:39\u201341. Obviously Zalmaqum was approaching Elahut for a treaty. A. Finet correctly renders sal\u012bmum as alliance in this text: \u201cQuant aux Zalmaq\u00e9ens, ils ne cessent d\u2019\u00e9crire pour une alliance a\u00cc \u0160arraya, l\u2019Elahut\u00e9en. Leur alliance ou leur non-alliance n\u2019a pas encore \u00e9t\u00e9 d\u00e9cel\u00e9e.\u201d Also in ARMT 1, 8: 6.8 (see Munn-Rankin, Iraq 18 85); II, 50: 15; I, 71: 13 the word denotes treaty.<\/p>\n
4. As Verb:
\nTexts where the verb slm\/\u0161lm is used to mean \u201cconclude a treaty\u201d:<\/p>\n
ARMT II, 40: 5\u20136 reads thus: I\u0161-me-\u02beDa-gan it-ti \u02be\u02beTu-ru-uk-ki is-lam. The expression *slm itti = \u201cto make friendship with\u201d refers here to the enactment of a formal treaty because a dynastic marriage\u2014so often an element in treaty making\u2014accompanied this \u201cfriendship\u201d, I\u0161me-Dagan took the daughter of Turukkean ruler as wife for his son. In ABL 129: 5\u201310 an official informs Sargon that he has gone to the city of the Kuluman tribe and established an oath with the people and brought \u201cpeace\u201d. Oath was taken by the people to keep terms of the pact, the realizing of which is expressed by *slm. According to the emendation suggested by Goetze, line 42 of the Idrimi Inscription reads, \u00fa-sa-al -la -am-\u0161u-nu \u201cI made peace with them\u201d, i.e., I concluded a treaty with them.<\/p>\n
b. OT Texts<\/p>\n
The \u0161\u0101l\u00f4m passages can be classified exactly as in the Akk. texts. There are texts where \u0161\u0101l\u00f4m (1) together with the verb \u02bf\u015bh denotes \u201cto enact a pact\u201d: Jos 9:15; Is 27:5; (2) in combination with the noun \u1e6d\u014db\u0101t\u0101m forms a phrase for an accord: Dt 23:7; Ezr 9:12; (3) alone is used as a term for a covenant: Jg 4:17; 1 Sam 7:14; 1 Kg 5:26 (the formula \u0161\u0101l\u00f4m b\u00ean \u00fbb\u00ean); Dt 2:26; 20:10, 11; Jg 21:13; 1 Kg 20:18; 1 Chr 12:18; cf. Gen 14:18; and (4) where the verb \u0161lm indicates \u201cto conclude an alliance\u201d: Dt 20:12; Jos 10:1, 4; 11:19; 1 Kg 22:45; 2 Sam 10:19 = 1 Chr 19:19; Job 5:23; 22:21.
\nLiterally, \u0161\u0101l\u00f4m corresponds often to the Akk. sal\u012bmum and means friendship; sometimes it expresses the idea of peace like the Akk. \u0161ulmum. It indicates covenant according to the principle of metonymy: an agreement which is concerned with (as object or effect) \u0161\u0101l\u00f4m; one may translate it as a covenant of amity\/peace.
\nA group of texts belonging to the Deuteronomistic school, tackles the problem of \u0161\u0101l\u00f4m with the pagan neighbours. The Deuteronomists were totally against pacts with the Canaanites lest the pagan cults might infect Israel. Laws concerning war (Dt 20:10\u201318) formulate the thoughts well. The entire Canaanite populace, with livestock and possessions should be destroyed (vv. 16\u201318), but \u0161\u0101l\u00f4m is to be proposed to the non-Canaanite cities (v. 10). If the inhabitants accept \u0161\u0101l\u00f4m they are to be treated as underlings (v. 11). If they will not make \u0161\u0101l\u00f4m, their city is to be besieged (v. 12). What does the thrice repeated \u0161\u0101l\u00f4m mean in the clause on the non-Canaanite cities? The text is not dealing, as some think, with an invitation to surrender without resistance (v. 10) and the positive (v. 11) or negative (v. 12) response to that call. Rather, it is concerned with the possibility of pacts of amity with the cities outside Canaan, \u0161\u0101l\u00f4m metonymically stands as a synonym for ber\u00eet in all the three verses: v. 10 qr\u02be le\u0161\u0101l\u00f4m: proposal covenant; v. 11 \u02bfnh \u0161\u0101l\u00f4m: \u201caccept the covenant\u201d; v. 12 we\u02beim l\u014d\u02be ta\u0161l\u00eem \u02bfimm\u0101k: \u201cif it (the city) will not make a covenant with you\u201d. The account of Jos 9 which tells us how Israel understood and applied the laws of war, justifies this interpretation. The Gibeonites pretended to be inhabitants of a distant country, which entitled them to a treatment according to the law of war concerning non-Canaanite cities, And Joshua acted in conformity with the law which consisted in entering into a ber\u00eet with the strangers. As a result of the pact the Gibeonites became the vassals of Israel and enjoyed the military protection. In this text covenant making is recorded by the author in two parallel expressions, \u02bf\u015bh \u0161\u0101l\u00f4m and krt ber\u00eet; both of them denotes the same reality, covenant. While Joshua is the subject of both phrases, the act of swearing is attributed to the princes of the community. Taking the oath was the rite which ratified the \u0161\u0101l\u00f4m or ber\u00eet. In Jos 10:1 and 4 (in both verses the verb \u0161lm replaces the phrase \u02bf\u015bh \u0161\u0101l\u00f4m) \u201cestablish friendship\u201d appears alone in the sense of \u201cconclude a covenant\u201d: the neighbouring cities react at the news that the Gibeonites have made \u2018amity\u2019 with Israel. Instead of using the phrase krt ber\u00eet the author simply says that they \u2018made friendship\u2019, because both words express the same reality as one can substitute for other. Also Jos 11:19 alludes to the Gibeonite covenant, the author says that except Gibeon no other city made \u2018amity\u2019, i.e., covenant, with Israel. The OT expressions show a striking similarity with those of the ANE treates. The phrase \u02bf\u015bh \u0161\u0101l\u00f4m of Jos 9:15 corresponds well with sal\u012bmam ep\u0113\u0161um\/\u0161ak\u0101num. The usage of verb \u0161lm in Jos 10:1, 4; 11:19; Dt 20:12 is analogous to the Akk. *slm which means \u201cenact a treaty\u201d. In Dt 20:10 and 11 the noun \u0161\u0101l\u00f4m implies a pact as in the third group of the Akk. texts. One may adduce a further comparison between Jos 9:15 and ARMT II, 37: 13\u201314 (see above, pp. 37f.). Treaty making is expressed in the Mari text by two phrases, \u1e2bayaram qat\u0101lum and sal\u012bmam \u0161ak\u0101num. In Jos 9 the Israelite leader is said to \u02bf\u015bh \u0161\u0101l\u00f4m and krt ber\u00eet. Yet the parallelism is not exact, the order and meaning of the expressions are different in both texts. While in ARMT the rite of ass-slaying which may indicate a symbolic oath comes first, Jos 9 has \u201cmaking friendship\u201d first followed by krt ber\u00eet and the rite of oath taking. But the force of the expressions is the same.
\nThere are two more deuteronomic passages where \u0161\u0101l\u00f4m is used in the sense of pact. Dt 23:7: Israel is asked not to seek \u0161el\u014dm\u0101m we\u1e6d\u014db\u0101t\u0101m of the Moabites and the Ammonites. This text will be fully discussed in the next section on \u1e6d\u014db. Ezr 9:12 is the quotation of Dt 23:7. Another text, Dt 2:26 treats of the encounter of Israel with Sihon, king of Heshbon, cf. also Num 21:21ff; Jg 11:19ff. We can speak of covenant here because the rules concerning war (Dt 20:10\u201318) are applied. Moses sent envoys to king Sihon with \u201cwords\u201d of \u0161\u0101l\u00f4m. Undoubtedly Israel was negotiating a pact of amity, the clauses of which were freedom of passage and provisions on food and drink (vv. 27\u201328). Since Sihon refused the convenant (cf. Jg 11:20), Israel attacked the city and, according to the laws concerning war, killed men and livestock and goods.
\nWe read in 2 Sam 10:19 = 1 Chr 19:19 that the vassal kings of Hadarezar \u201cmade peace with the Israelites and served them\u201d. This can rightly be understood as \u201cthey concluded a pact with Israel and became their vassals\u201d. Three other \u0161lm texts draw our special attention: an oral declaration of relationship appears in their immediate contexts 1 Kg 22:45 mentions that Jehoshaphat of Judah \u201cmade peace\u201d with the king of Israel. That a covenant is meant here becomes clear from the accompanying dynastic marriage, 2 Chr 18:1, \u2014a normal process in the political alliances of Ancient Orient. See also DF (1 Kg 22:4; 2 Chr 18:3), military assistance (1 Kg 22; 2 Chr 18) and commercial enterprise (2 Chr 20:35ff), \u2014two clauses frequently found in the treaty documents. 1 Chr 12:17\u201319 recounts how men from Benjamin and Judah became the allies of David. As they came to join his party, David said: \u201cIf you have come le\u0161\u0101l\u00f4m, my heart will be y\u0101\u1e25ad to you\u201d (v. 18). We will presently see in the section on y\u0101\u1e25ad phrases, that hyh l\u0113b\u0101b ley\u0101\u1e25ad is to be rendered as \u201cI am eager for an alliance with you\u201d. The leader of the group replied by declaring their belonging to him, v. 19 (a DF). Then David admitted them to his band. The word le\u0161\u0101l\u00f4m in David\u2019s question means \u201cfor amity i.e. covenant\u201d. See McCarthy, Bib 60, 251 n. 18. 1 Kg 20:18: When Benhadad of Aram, who was besieging Israel, heard that a party from the Israelite king was coming to him, said, \u201cIf they have come out for \u0161\u0101l\u00f4m, take them alive\u201d. It means, \u201cif they are approaching to sue for a peace covenant \u2026\u201d. In the context there appears an oral declaration of relationship (v. 4).
\nThe formula \u0161\u0101l\u00f4m b\u00ean web\u00ean (compare with sal\u012bmam bir\u012bt \u2026 u of ARMT II, 37: 13\u201314) occurs in three texts. In 1 Kg 5:26 the formula is used together with krt ber\u00eet: \u201cThere was \u0161\u0101l\u00f4m between Hiram and Solomon and they two made a ber\u00eet together\u201d. As we shall see in the section entitled \u201cCovenants: Political and Social\u201d David, Solomon\u2019s father had entered into a covenant relationship with Hiram. In the text \u0161\u0101l\u00f4m refers to the amity established through that pact, which continued to exist even after the death of David. This friendship between Hiram and Solomon was sealed by the enacting, or better, renewing of the pact (wayyikret\u00fb ber\u00eet). Thus \u0161\u0101l\u00f4m has covenant implications, but it is not a synonymous with pact in the text. After reporting that Israel delivered the Amorites from the hands of the Philistines 1 Sam 7:14 says, \u201cthere was \u2018friendship\u2019 between Israel and the Amorites\u201d. The implication may be that the original inhabitants of the place kept an attitude of vassals towards their saviours. According to Jg 4:17 the reason why Sisera, the captain of the king Jabin fled to the tent of Heber, was the \u0161\u0101l\u00f4m existed between Jabin and the Heber\u2019s family. The nature of this \u2018peace\u2019 is not evident from the text. Some kind of friendly relationship would have existed between them. One must remember that friendship such as that between Jonathan and David is also called a ber\u00eet in the OT.
\nDahood has contributed to the collection of \u0161\u0101l\u00f4m-covenant texts by identifying some passages from Wisdom literature and prophets. In Job 5:23 \u0161lm is used in parallel with ber\u00eet: \u201cFor with the stones of the field will be your covenant, and the beasts of the field will be allied to you (ho\u0161lem\u0101h l\u0101k). The author renders Job 22:21: \u201cCome to terms with him (hasken n\u0101\u02be \u02bfimm\u00f4) and make a covenant (\u016b\u0161el\u0101m)\u201d. In Ps 55:21 \u0161el\u016bm\u0101yw (qal pass. ptc) appears together with ber\u00eet: \u201cHe stretched forth his hand against his allies, he violated his covenant\u201d. Dahood cites also Is 42:19: \u201cwho is blind like the covenanted one (me\u0161ull\u0101m, pual ptc)\u201d; Ps 69:23; 41:10. Recently the same author has added another text, Ob 7b, where \u02bean\u0161\u00ea \u0161el\u014dmek\u0101 \u201cyour confederates\u201d is used in parallel to \u02bean\u0161\u00ea ber\u00eetek\u0101 \u201cYour allies\u201d. Lastly, Albright has an interesting proposal, he emends Gen 14:18 to melek \u0161el\u00f4m \u014dh and translates, \u201ca king of his alliance, a king allied to him\u201d.
\nTo sum up, \u201cto enter into covenant is \u2026 to make peace\u201d (Pedersen, Israel 1\u20132, 285). Concerning the literal meaning of \u0161\u0101l\u00f4m, the idea of friendship predominates in Dt 2:26; 20:10, 11, 12; 23:7 = Ezr 9:12; Jos 9:15; 10:1, 4; 11:19; 1 Sam 7:14; 1 Kg 5:26; 1 Chr 12:18. It conveys the idea of peace in Jg 4:17; 21:13; 2 Sam 10:19 = 1 Chr 19:19; 1 Kg 20:18; 22:45; Is 27:5; Job 5:23; 22:21. In most instances it metonymically stands for the agreement which effected friendship\/peace. One may render it pact of amity\/peace. As synonym for covenant the following texts can be classified as: sure: Dt 2:26; 20:10, 11, 12; Jos 9:15; 10:1, 4; 11:19; 2 Sam 10:19 = 1 Chr 19:19; 1 Kg 20:18; 22:45; 1 Chr 12:18; Job 5:23. probable: Gen 14:18; Job 22:21. possible: Jg 4:17; 21:13; 1 Sam 7:14; Is 27:5. The root \u0161lm is used in the sense of ally in Ob 7b (sure); Ps 55:21 (sure); 41:10 (mere suggestion); 69:23 (suggestion); Is 42:19 (suggestion). In the contexts of Jos 9:15; 1 Kg 20:18; 22:45; 1 Chr 12:18 one encounters oral declarations of relationship\u2014the propter theme of our thesis.<\/p>\n
ii. \u1e6d\u00f4b\/\u1e6d\u00f4b\u00e2<\/p>\n
This word is generally translated as \u201cgood\u201d. The concrete significance of \u1e6d\u00f4b (the root appears 741 times in the OT) can be determined only by a study of each literary unit. We seldom meet the word in secular covenant contexts. In the light of its Akk. cognate \u1e6d\u016bbtu \/ \u1e6d\u0101b\u016btu (in Hittite texts atter\u016btu), which is widely used in treaty literature, in some of these OT cases it is possible to understand the word as \u201ccovenant\u201d i.e., an agreement which is concerned with (as object or effect) friendship. Literally the word means amity; by metonymy it stands for a pact of amity.<\/p>\n
a. Non-Biblical Evidence: \u1e6d\u016bbtu \/ t\u0101b\u016btu<\/p>\n
Like sal\u012bmum, \u1e6d\u016bbtu \/ \u1e6d\u0101b\u016btu = friendship, is fundamental to treaty. Stipulations are centred on this concept, and pacts (especially those of parity) are enacted to establish secure friendship. Hence there is no difficulty in understanding \u1e6d\u016bbtu \/ \u1e6d\u0101b\u016btu as meaning treaty itself according to the principle of synecdoche, of the part for the whole. In the following texts we see that the word stands for treaty.<\/p>\n
1. With Verbs:
\nTexts where \u1e6d\u016bbtu \/ \u1e6d\u0101b\u016btu is used with ep\u0113\u0161u to denote \u201cmake a treaty\u201d:<\/p>\n
We find in a letter of Rib-Adda of Biblos to the Pharaoh (EA 136:8\u201332) two parallel expressions for \u201cmaking a treaty\u201d. The people were pressing the prince to \u201cmake peace\u201d (\u0161alma ep\u0113\u0161u) with Aziru of Amurru, but he preferred to \u201cmake friendship\u201d with Ammunira of Beirut and he went to meet him for that purpose. The phrase \u201cmake friendship\u201d signifies \u201cenact a pact of amity\u201d. The word damq\u0101tum which is the semantic parallel of \u1e6d\u016bbtu, is also used with ep\u0113\u0161u to mean \u201cconclude a treaty\u201d. Dossin, RA 36, 51: Yarim-Lim of Yamhad informs the envoys of Mari that \u201cAmut-pi-el, king of Qatanum, is coming to Aleppo. We shall establish \u2018good things\u2019 between myself and him by the oath of the gods and binding bonds\u201d. Bonds (riks\u0101tum) mean stipulations; damq\u0101tum, i.e., treaty, is established by oaths. In Hittite texts \u1e6d\u016bbtu is replaced by atter\u016btu, which is also employed with ep\u0113\u0161u in the same sense. In a letter Khattushilish III reminds his ally\u2019s son, Kadashman-Ellil of the treaty relationship existed between him and his father (KBo I.10:57). The treaty making is expressed in these words, \u201cI and your father have concluded \u2018friendship\u2019 and become as brothers\u201d.<\/p>\n
2. With other Nouns:
\nTexts where the word appears in combination with other substantives both terms together form a phrase for treaty:<\/p>\n
In the course of the study of sal\u012bmum we have discussed the texts where the following words together form a phrase for treaty (above p. 36 and n. 91).<\/p>\n
\u1e6d\u016bbtu u sulumm\u00fb B.M. 21901.obv.29; B.M. 92701.II.ii:27; iii:18.24 King, Chronicles, 58:6.
\nsal\u012bmum u damq\u0101tum (the semantic parallel to \u1e6d\u016bbtu) ARMT II, 44:40\u201342; X, 140:1\u201315; 157:8\u201316.<\/p>\n
Another phrase a\u1e2b\u1e2b\u00fbtu u atter\u016btu (the Hittite equivalent to \u1e6d\u016bbtu) is also used in the sense of treaty. KBo 1.10 + KUB 3.72:8 \u201cHave we not established eternal brotherhood and friendly relations?\u201d<\/p>\n
3. Alone:
\nTexts where the word alone is used as a term for treaty:<\/p>\n
The Aramaic letter of king Adon to his Egyptian overlord, published by A. Dupont-Sommer, Semitica 1, 43\u201368, offers us an interesting example of this usage. The vassal king is requesting the Pharaoh for military aid against the Babylonian invaders. He deserves such help since he has guarded the oath and good relations (n\u1e63r mwumh w\u1e6dbth) of his overlord (line 8). Two things are mentioned here: oath is the treaty-making rite, while \u2018good relations\u2019 signify the treaty itself. We find an analogous expression in the Annals of Esarhaddon: la na-\u1e63ir a-de-e la \u1e2ba-si-is \u1e6d\u0101bti \u0161a m\u0101t A\u0161-\u0161ur \u201cWho did not keep the oath, did not heed \u2018the friendship\u2019 of Assyria\u201d. Also in some El-Amarna tablets \u1e6d\u0101b\u016btu is used as a synonym for an accord: EA 6:8; 4:15; 17:51.<\/p>\n
b. OT Texts<\/p>\n
Although the covenant implications of some OT \u1e6d\u00f4b \/ \u1e6d\u00f4b\u00e2 texts have been already pointed out the possibility of their being synonyms for covenant (and not just covenant terms) has not been discussed in detail. Hence the need for reinvestigation of the texts. We begin with a very short note on the \u1e6d\u00f4b synonyms for religious covenant. The expression dbr ha\u1e6d\u1e6d\u00f4b\u00e2 possibly means \u201cannounce or promise a covenant\u201d in 2 Sam 7:28 = 1 Chr 17:26; 1 Sam 25:30 and Jer 33:14. See also \u201cPhrases for Stipulations: d\u0101b\u0101r\u201d. In Hos 8:3 Israel is accused of rejecting the t\u00f4b; the word seems to denote here the divine pact. As to the secular instances, they, like the ANE texts, fall into three categories: \u1e6d\u00f4b is used (1) with the verb \u02bf\u015bh: 2 Sam 2:6; 2 Chr 24:16; cf. Jg 8:35; 9:16; (2) in combination with other nouns: \u0161el\u014dm\u0101m: Dt 23:7 = Ezr 9:12; deb\u0101r\u00eem: 1 Kg 12:7 = 2 Chr 10:7; (3) alone; 2 Sam 3:19; cf. 2 Kg 25:27ff. Let us study these texts.<\/p>\n
1. With Verb<\/p>\n
2 Sam 2:6 forms part of the message sent by David to the men of Jabesh-gilead upon the death of their lord Saul. David commends them for their loyalty to Saul and says: \u02be\u0101n\u014dk\u00ee \u02bee\u02bf\u011b\u015beh \u02beitkem ha\u1e6d\u1e6d\u00f4b\u00e2 hazz\u014d\u02bet. The meaning of this verse and the motive of the message can only be determined by studying the historical context. David\u2019s intention in sending the envoys to Jabesh-gilead was not \u201cto make them think well of him\u201d; it was a diplomatic move to weaken the hands of Ishbaal, his political rival. He was inviting them to accept him in the position of Saul, their lord (\u02be\u0103d\u014dn\u00eakem vv. 5, 7): Saul is dead and I am king now! I will make with you the same (hazz\u014d\u02bet) \u2018amity\u2019 that Saul has made with you. Was he suggesting a friendly relationship or something more than that? The style and form of his message will settle the issue. H. Cazelles, in his review of PRU IV, affirms that the letter of David to the people of Jabesh-gilead has the characteristics of \u201cun acte international\u201d. He compares it to the letter of Shuppiluliumash II to Niqmadu II (RS 17.132) and finds the following similarities. David addresses the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead as the Hittite king adresses the ruler of Ugarit: RS lines 5\u20136 \u201cNiqmadu ne les crains pas, en toi-m\u00eame aie confiance\u201d. 2 Sam 5:7 \u201cNow therefore let your hands be strong, and be valiant\u201d. Like Shuppiluliumash, David first exposes the situation, then unilaterally declares what he is going to do and what he expects of them. I adduce further parallels. The style of both letters is that of persuasion rather than menance. The superior party tactfully leaves the final decision to the inferior party, at the same time suggesting that a positive response will be to their own advantage; the risk involved in a negative response is also hinted at. The addressees are admonished to continue the good tradition of friendship that existed in former times. Striking similarities with the Hittite proposal for pact are thus exhibited in the biblical text. The terminology employed by David sheds furthar light on the nature of the suggested amity. He commences with a blessing\u2014a frequent motif in the address of an ally, e.g. 1 Kg 5:21; 10:9; Gen 14:19; (See \u201cPolitical Covenants\u201d) Ex 18:10 (See \u201cSocial Covenants\u201d)\u2014and compliments the men of Jabesh-gilead on their act: \u02bf\u0103\u015b\u00eetem ha\u1e25esed hazzeh \u02bfim \u02be\u0103d\u014dn\u0113kem. As we will presently see, \u1e25esed often denotes covenant loyalty. Thus the phrase may mean that the people behaved as befitting their fidelity to their \u2018overlord\u2019 (\u02be\u0103d\u014dn\u00eakem). This implies that the people\u2019s relationship to king Saul was based on a covenant. Now David offers the same kind of relationship to them. He uses the phrase \u02bf\u015bh \u1e6d\u00f4b\u00e2 which corresponds to the Akk. \u1e6d\u016bbtu \/ \u1e6d\u0101b\u016btu \/ damq\u0101tum ep\u0113\u0161u\u2014a formal expression for \u201cmake a treaty.\u201d This OT expression occurs in the Abimelech\u2013Isaac story as the main stipulation of the pact, Gen 26:29. In two other instances, which we will now study, it seems to stand for the enacting of a pact itself. Thus 2 Sam 2:6 provides a probable synonym for covenant.
\nThe burial report of Jehoiada in 2 Chr 24:16, concludes thus; \u201che did \u1e6d\u00f4b\u00e2 in Israel and with God and his house.\u201d What Jehoiada did \u201cin Israel and with God\u201d was the covenant he realized \u201cin the temple\u201d (b\u00eat\u00f4), 2 Kg 11:17; 2 Chr 23:3\u201316. Hence \u1e6d\u00f4b\u00e2 seems to refer to this accord which effected friendly relationship between God and people. This is a mere suggestion.
\nJg 8:35 says that Israel did not do \u1e25esed to the family of Jerubbaal according to the whole \u1e6d\u00f4b\u00e2 which he had made with Israel. Jotham\u2019s fable also refers to the \u1e6d\u00f4b\u00e2, which they had made with Jerubbaal and his family, 9:16. Some authors find here a reference to the pact between Jerubbaal and Israel. Indeed, the context speaks of the people\u2019s infidelity to Jerubbaal: they sided with Abimelech against their former leader\u2019s family and made Abimelech king\u2014an act that implied a \u201cK\u00f6nigsvertrag\u201d. This new covenant-making was a repudiation of their obligation to the family of Jerubbaal. They did not perform \u1e25esed to his house. The phrase \u02bf\u015bh \u1e25esed can denote the behaviour corresponding to the covenant loyalty. It seems then that Jerubbaal\u2019s leadership has had a covenantal basis. In this suggestion \u02bf\u015bh \u1e6d\u00f4b\u00e2 of Jg 8:35; 9:16 refers to the enacted pact between Jerubbaal and Israel. This suggestion is one of the possible interpretations of the text.<\/p>\n
2. With Other Nouns<\/p>\n
Dt 23:7 belongs to the section on prescriptions concerning future relations with pagan neighbours (vv. 4\u20139). Israel is asked not to seek \u0161el\u014dm\u0101m we\u1e6d\u014db\u0101t\u0101m of the Moabites and the Ammonites all their life long. What was the motive behind this prohibition? On their journey from Kadesh to the Jordan Israel sought alliances with different Powers for the sake of obtaining freedom of passage and provisions (cf. Num 20:14\u201322a = Jg 11:16\u201317; Num 21:21\u201323 = Jg 11:19\u201320). Dt 23:5a refers to such an unrealized attempt: \u201cThey (Moab and Ammon) did not meet you with bread and water on the way.\u201d That Israel was requesting a covenant from Moab and Ammon becomes clear from the Sihon episode discussed above (p. 40) in connection with the phrase \u0161\u0101l\u00f4m in Dt 2:26. The reason is this. Ammon and part of Moab belonged to the kingdom of Sihon (Num 21:24, 26); hence their refusal to supply provisions for journey actually refers to Sihon story, which, as we have seen, narrates how the monarch rejected an alliance with Israel. Since Moab and Ammon did not accept the covenant and did not assist Israel in her times of dire need, Israel should never conclude a pact with these people. Another reason for this prohibition, though not mentioned explicitly in the text, was the fear that such relationship might lead to apostasy (cf. Dt 7:1\u20135, 16), a temptation to which Israel had once succumbed (Num 25). Precisely because of this motive Dt 20:10\u201318 forbade the \u201cfriendship\u201d, i.e., the covenant (as we have shown above, p. 38) with pagan neighbours. Because of this similarity in motive and expression (\u0161\u0101l\u00f4m is used with \u1e6d\u00f4b) Dt 23:7 can be rightly understood as forbidding covenant relationships with Moab and Ammon. A philological comparison with non-biblical texts corroborates such an interpretation: the phrase \u0161\u0101l\u00f4m we\u1e6d\u00f4b is equivalent to the Akk. \u1e6d\u016bbtu u sulumm\u00fb and sal\u012bmum u damq\u0101tum (the semantic parallel of \u1e6d\u016bbtu) as a descriptive synonym for treaty.
\n1 Kg 12:7 = 2 Chr 10:7 has been already studied in \u201cPhrases for Stipulations: d\u0101b\u0101r.\u201d The phrases deb\u0101r\u00eem \u1e6d\u00f4b\u00eem means here \u201cagreeable covenant stipulations\u201d; \u1e6d\u014db\u00eem qualifies \u201cthe words\u201d, i.e. stipulations.<\/p>\n
3. Alone<\/p>\n
2 Sam 3:19: Abner, the ally of David (see ch. 2) negotiates the covenant terms with Israel and reports to David kol \u02be\u0103\u0161er \u1e6d\u00f4b i.e. \u201call that is agreeable\u201d to the people. The phrase means \u201cacceptable stipulations\u201d, or, \u201can accord that is agreeable\u201d to Israel. This is a plausible suggestion.
\nIn 2 Kg 25:28 the king of Babylon speaks \u1e6d\u014db\u00f4t with Jehoiachin. Malamat finds here \u201ca type of legal agreement\u201d which brought about certain favours to the exiled king: his release from prison, a seat of honour at the royal table and a regular daily allowance.
\nSummary: In the light of the Akk. \u1e6d\u016bbtu \/ \u1e6d\u0101b\u016btu one may render the OT \u1e6d\u00f4b \/ \u1e6d\u00f4b\u00e2 \u2018friendship\u2019 rather than \u2018good things\u2019; metonymically it expresses the whole reality, the agreement which established amity, hence it stands for friendship pact. Dt 23:7 = Ezr 9:12 is a clear synonym for covenant; 2 Sam 2:6 is very probable; 2 Sam 3:19 is a plausible suggestion; 2 Chr 24:16 and Jg 8:35; 9:16 provide mere suggestions. 2 Kg 25:28 may imply a legal agreement.<\/p>\n
iii. \u1e25esed<\/p>\n
The word \u1e25esed is so pregnant with meaning as to defy translation. In the covenant context it is primarily firmness or determined loyalty to the terms and spirit of the pact. Almost all the OT texts convey this general sense of covenant commitment. Only in a few texts does the word seem to be employed in the sense of covenant, i.e., an agreement that established \u1e25esed. There is nothing extraordinary in this phenomenon, since \u1e25esed which is the \u201cessence of ber\u00eet\u201d (Glueck), can stand for the whole reality, covenant, in the same way as the word \u0161\u0101l\u00f4m can denote pact. We find a striking similarity between ber\u00eet phrases and \u1e25esed phrases. Like ber\u00eet it is constructed with \u0161mr (Dt 7:9; 1 Kg 8:23; Dan 9:4; Neh 1:5; 9:32; 2 Chr 6:14: in all these instances \u0161mr haber\u00eet weha\u1e25esed seems to mean \u201cobserve the pact of amity\u201d); zkr (Ps 98:3), n\u1e63r (Ex 34:7), \u02bfzb (Gen 24:27), krt (1 Sam 20:15); there exist \u1e25esed Yhwh (1 Sam 20:14; Ps 23:5; 103:17) and \u1e25esed \u02be\u011bl\u014dh\u00eem (2 Sam 9:3; Ps 52:10); the Bible speaks of \u02be\u0103n\u0161\u00ea ber\u00eetek\u0101 (Ob 7) as well as \u02be\u0103n\u0161\u00ea \u1e25esed (Is 57:1). Evidence from the Ancient Orient illuminates the usage, \u1e25esed\u2019s Akk. parallel kittu is used in the sense of treaty. Thus the phrase ep\u0113\u0161u kittu means \u201cmake an agreement\u201d in EA 83:24\u201325; 125:39; 132:33\u201335; 138:53 (cf. JCS 4, 170 n. 15).
\nConcerning the possible OT examples I would like to stress one point. The idea of loyalty is inherent in every text and one cannot separate it from this word. Still in some cases \u1e25esed\u2019s covenant implication is so strong as to substitute for ber\u00eet. In such instances the word ber\u00eet does not appear, \u1e25esed does its function, and accordingly \u1e25esed can be understood as a synonym for covenant.
\nIn the covenant-enacting scene of 1 Sam 20:11\u201317 (see ch. 2) Jonathan requests David: l\u014d\u02be takr\u00eet \u02beet ha\u1e63dek\u0101 from his family (v. 15). The expression krt \u1e25esed occurs only here in the Bible. It is used with krt to mean the opposite of the phrase krt ber\u00eet: while the verb in krt ber\u00eet expresses the positive act of realizing a ber\u00eet, it together with \u1e25esed denotes the negative act of revoking a \u1e25esed. Withdrawing covenant loyalty means repealing the covenant itself, \u1e25esed implies here ber\u00eet and stands as a part for the whole. Hence one may render it \u2018covenant\u2019 in this context, thus expressing the underlying idea more effectively. A further observation corroborates this interpretation. Jonathan entreats \u1e25esed YHWH of David (v. 14). In v. 8 their pact is named as ber\u00eet YHWH. Both phrases seem to be in parallel. According to 2 Sam 9:3 David offers to show \u1e25esed \u02be\u011bl\u014dh\u00eem to the family of Jonathan. These phrases are used in all other instances to express Yahweh\u2019s \u1e25esed or ber\u00eet with men. The David\u2013Jonathan pact is given the significance of the religious covenant, because this \u1e25esed or better ber\u00eet is sworn in the name of Yahweh (v. 17a, 42).
\nIn 2 Sam 10:2 = 1 Chr 19:2 David says: \u02bee\u02bf\u011b\u015beh \u1e25esed to Hanun, the son of Nahash, as his father \u02bf\u0101\u015b\u00e2 \u02bfimm\u0101d\u00ee. Accordingly David sent his officials to the new king of Ammon to condole with him (n\u1e25m) upon his father\u2019s death as well as to congratulate him on his accession to the throne. As in the case of Jabesh-gilead (see above, p. 44), here also David\u2019s move was motivated not merely by sympathy but by diplomacy. (He wanted to weaken the hands of his rival Eshbaal by entering into \u201cfriendly relationship\u201d with the neighbouring kingdoms (2 Sam 2:4b\u20137; 3:3). Concerning Ammon he intended to maintain the amity which existed in the time of Nahash. The Bible does not inform us about the nature of their relationship. Since it was a relationship between two kings, one may surmise in the light of ancient oriental practices that an alliance existed between them. David\u2019s action seems to confirm this opinion. As treaty literature amply attests, allies mourned for the death of a partner and greeted the successor at his accession. By this act of congratulation, one sought to renew the treaty which had existed between him and the deceased king. In this context we can evaluate the words of David. It conveys two ideas: (i) I will do \u1e25esed to Hanun; (ii) as his father has done \u1e25esed to me. (Compare David\u2019s words with those of Abimelech who was negotiating a pact with Abraham: Gen 21:23 ka\u1e25esed \u02bf\u0101\u015b\u00eet\u00ee \u02bfimk\u0101 ta\u02bf\u0103\u015beh \u02bfimm\u0101d\u00ee. cf. also Jos 2:12. David was using ber\u00eet language.) We do not know what is meant by the second proposition. A probable interpretation of the first part is: I will show covenant loyalty to the son of Nahash. This consisted in the act of sending envoys to Ammon\u2014a sign of his intention to continue the covenant relationship, or, in other words, to renew it. Hence one may even render \u02bf\u015bh \u1e25esed as \u201cmake, i.e. renew the covenant.\u201d
\n1 Kg 20:31ff. recounts the story of the defeated Benhadad. The Arameans, humbly attired, sue for life since the Israelite kings are malk\u00ea \u1e25esed. The pericope has a DF in v. 32\u2014the topic of our study in ch 6. Hence here only a short note on the phrase malk\u00ea \u1e25esed. The Arameans did not intend by this that Hebrew rulers are \u201cmerciful kings, \u201d They were not thinking that Ahab would set his enemies free if they approached him in due humility. As the story reveals, they had in mind a deal with Ahab. They seem to take Israelite kings as politically astute. The phrase probably means \u201ckings who make (vassal-)treaties (on the basis of concessions)\u201d: Sakenfeld. 1 Kg 20:31 has \u1e25esed as a possible synonym for covenant.
\nTwo texts, 2 Chr 24:22 and 1 Sam 15:6 employ the phrase \u02bf\u015bh \u1e25esed\u2014an expression which means \u201cenact a covenant\u201d in 2 Sam 10:2. The first text speaks of the \u1e25esed which Jehoiada has made with Joash. V. 16 expresses the same reality by employing \u02bf\u015bh \u1e6d\u00f4b\u00e2 which, as we have seen, possibly refers to the pact effected through mediation of Jehoiada. Hence it is logical to interpret the \u02bf\u015bh \u1e25esed of v. 22 as a synonym for covenant. This is a mere suggestion. According to the second text, 1 Sam 15:6, Saul hesitated to exterminate the Kenite tribe since they had once made \u1e25esed with Israel. As our section \u201cKenite Pact\u201d will show, the Kenites entered into a covenant relationship with Israel, when they came up from Egypt. 1 Sam 15 possibly has something to do with this covenant. The phrase \u02bf\u015bh \u1e25esed may be then referring either to the pact-enacting report (hence a synonym for \u201cmake a covenant\u201d) or to the Kenites\u2019 covenant comportment (a stipulation of the existing alliance). This possibility is less likely, their acts of loyalty are nowhere mentioned in the OT. Hence Saul\u2019s reference seems to be to the reality of the covenant fellowship rather than to specific acts of the covenant fidelity.
\nTo sum up, 1 Sam 20:15; 2 Sam 10:2; 1 Kg 20:31; 2 Chr 24:22 and 1 Sam 15:6 have covenant implications; \u1e25esed seems to stand for ber\u00eet by synecdoche. 1 Sam 20:15 is a probable synonym for covenant. 1 Kg 20:31 is a possible text. 2 Sam 10:2 has the value of a plausible suggestion. 2 Chr 24:22 and 1 Sam 15:6 can be added to the list as mere suggestions.<\/p>\n
iv. \u02bemnh<\/p>\n
This word stems from \u02bemn = to be firm, to be true and is intimately connected with \u1e25esed, e.g., the phrases \u1e25esed we\u02be\u011bmet and \u02be\u011bm\u00fbn\u00e2 we\u1e25esed. In covenant contexts it means, like \u1e25esed, fidelity, loyalty to alliance, e.g., Jos 2:14; Jg 9:16, 19; 1 Sam 22:14. As \u1e25esed it can stand for the pact itself by synecdoche. In this manner its Akk. equivalent kittu (which is also the cognate of \u1e25esed) is used for treaty. In Neh 10:1 we have a solid instance of the use of \u02bemnh as a term for covenant: \u201cAnd because of all this k\u014drt\u00eem \u02be\u0103m\u0101n\u00e2 and write it.\u201d Neh 9\u201310 describe a covenant renewal, ch. 9 stands as \u201cantecedent history\u201d, i.e., one of the elements in the covenant form. Our passage forms the superscription; the covenant document is reproduced in the next verses. The idiom krt \u02bemnh occurs only here in the OT. The meaning of the phrase becomes clear from the context. There the whole attention is on the strict observance of the pact, loyalty to its provisions. The success of the reform of Ezra\u2013Nehemiah depends on the strict adherence to the terms of the agreement. In 10:1 the word for loyalty, firmness, is used to indicate the pact itself. It is a covenant which is based on the loyalty of the parties; \u02bemnh stands for pact by synecdoche. In all probability, we have in this text a synonym for krt ber\u00eet.
\nIn Neh 11:23 \u02be\u0103m\u0101n\u00e2 denotes the ordinances concerning the templesingers (\u201cDienstordnung\u201d): the word seems to refer to both their obligations and privileges. In the Ancient Orient such arrangements go by the names of riksu, ad\u016b, etc.\u2014the technical terms for treaties. (see ch. 2). Also the OT ber\u00eet can comprise agreements of different kinds. Hence Neh 11:23 may be taken as a possible covenant term.<\/p>\n
D. Phrases Denoting Union<\/p>\n
Covenant is relational, in one way or other it creates unity, community. Hence words denoting association, league, federation may, in covenant contexts, signify a covenant union, alliance.<\/p>\n
i. \u1e25br<\/p>\n
The root meaning of \u1e25br is \u201cunite\u201d, \u201cjoin together\u201d. It indicates different kinds of associations in the non-biblical documents as well as in the OT texts. Covenant associations are implied in Dan 11:6, 23; 2 Chr 20:35ff; Hos 4:17. The Daniel texts belong to the pericope (vv. 5\u201345) on the dynastic histories of the Ptolemies in Egypt (king of the south) and the Seleucids in Syria (king of the north). The story was one of bitter rivalry, which had, however, some sane intervals. Our texts refer to these rare occasions when both dynasties were united in covenant relationship: v. 6 \u201cIn due course both yithabbar\u00fb and the daughter of the king of the south shall come to the king of the north la \u02bf\u0103\u015b\u00f4t me\u0161\u0101r\u00eem.\u201d The kings in question are Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285\u201346) and Antiochus II Theos (261\u201346). They concluded a covenant of friendship which was sealed by the marriage of Ptolemy\u2019s daughter Berenice to Antiochus. The Hebrew expressions \u1e25br and \u02bf\u015bh my\u0161rm indicate the making of an alliance; they can be understood as synonyms for krt ber\u00eet. The word my\u0161rm stems from y\u0161r = to be straight, right. In our text it is employed together with \u02bf\u015bh for \u201cmake an equitable agreement.\u201d The LXX renders it poi\u0113sasthai sunth\u0113kas = make a covenant. The Akk. equivalent m\u0113\u0161aru is parallel to kittu, which, as we have seen (p. 48) is used in combination with ep\u0113\u0161u in the sense of \u201cconclude a pact\u201d. V. 17 confirms the interpretation of \u02bf\u015bh my\u0161rm (BHK) as a term for krt ber\u00eet. The enacting of a covenant between Ptolemy V and Antiochus III is referred to by this phrase. The pact was given visible expression by the marriage of Antiochus\u2019 daughter Cleopatra to Ptolemy. The verb \u1e25br appears also in v. 23 in the sense of entering into an alliance: min hit\u1e25abr\u00fbt \u02be\u0113l\u0101yw (hitpael infinitive, Aramaic form) = \u201cafter an alliance was made with him\u201d, alludes to the fraudulent covenant of Antiochus IV Epiphanes (167\u201364) with the Ptolemaic dynasty. The Chronicler makes use of the same word twice to refer to the alliance between Jehoshaphat of Judah and Ahaziah of Israel, which had the nature of a commercial pact, 2 Chr 20:35, 37. According to Hos 4:17 Ephraim is joined to idols. It may mean that Ephraim has become the \u201ccovenanted friend of idols rather than of Yahweh\u201d. This interpretation gives more poignancy to the accusation of the prophet. Also Num 25:3, 5 and Ps 106:28 refer to pacts with pagan deities: see \u201csynonym smd\u201d. Summary: \u1e25br stands for covenant association in Dan 11:6, 23; 2 Chr 20:35, 37. One may add also Hos 4:17. Another synonym for krt ber\u00eet appears in Dan 11:6 and 17: \u02bf\u015bh my\u0161rm which stresses the idea of equity in agreement.<\/p>\n
ii. y\u1e25d Phrases<\/p>\n
S. Talmon and R. Schiemann have proposed that in certain instances y\u1e25d or y\u1e25d phrases are to be translated as covenant or making a covenant. This is an interesting suggestion which needs a close study. First of all some philological observations. The root y\u1e25d means \u201cto be united\u201d, \u201cto be one\u201d; ya\u1e25ad can be a noun or adverb. As a noun it signifies \u201cunion\u201d, \u201cassociation\u201d, \u201ccommunity\u201d. Thus it may denote also a covenant association. We have very few clear instances of the use of ya\u1e25ad as a noun in the OT (1 Chr 12:18; Dt 33:5). But it is often employed as an adverb in the sense of \u201cfriendly together\u201d, \u201cin union\u201d. Talmon points out that in some cases an apparent adverb conceals a formal nou, e.g. Ps 83:6; Neh 6:2, 7. According to J. C. De Moor the adverb ya\u1e25d\u0101w was originally the locative in Assyrian. Let us analyse the possible y\u1e25d texts. In 1 Chr 12:18 ya\u1e25ad appears in relation with \u0161\u0101l\u00f4m which, as we have noted on p. 40, is a synonym for ber\u00eet. To a group of men who came to dedicate themselves to his cause, David said: \u201cIf you have come for \u0161\u0101l\u00f4m ihyeh l\u00ee \u02bf\u0103l\u00eakem l\u0113b\u0101b ley\u0101\u1e25ad\u201d. David was declaring his readiness to comply with their desire, to grant them \u0161\u0101l\u00f4m, i.e., covenant. He does not make use of the word \u0161\u0101l\u00f4m, but expresses the same idea, alliance, with a descriptive phrase, hyh l\u0113b\u0101b ley\u0101\u1e25ad which denotes \u201ca community of souls\u201d, \u201cform one whole\u201d\u2014\u201cthus being the substance of the covenant\u201d (Pedersen, Israel 1\u20132, 279). J. M. Myers rightly renders the phrase as \u201cI am eager for an alliance.\u201d
\nNeh 6:1\u201314 narrates the plots of enemies against Nehemiah. Sanaballat, the governor of the province and Geshem, a chieftain of Qedar sent him a message (v. 2): lek\u00e2 weniww\u0101\u02bf\u0103d\u00e2 ya\u1e25d\u0101w. When he rejected their offer, they accused him of rebellious intentions and repeated the proposal (v. 7): weatt\u00e2 lek\u00e2 weniww\u0101\u02bf\u0103\u1e63\u00e2 ya\u1e25d\u0101w. The intention of the foes was to murder him by luring him out of the city ostensibly for a parley. But were they merely suggesting to Nehemiah a meeting together? It seems that they were proposing a mutual agreement, a pact which will end their animosity. They were pretending that, upon the success of Nehemiah\u2019s mission, they wanted to be his foes no longer but his allies. They were apparently proposing an alliance and inviting him to come and discuss it with them. Only such an offer will persuade Nehemiah to approach them. If they had changed their hostile attitude, it would be better to establish a friendly relationship with them! It is absurd to suppose that they were demanding an account of his activites. Such a request would have frustrated their aim. Nehemiah would never respond positively! Hence it is logical to interpret their move as a diplomatic one. They were inviting him, so they pretended, to patch up the past hostilities and establish a friendly relationship between them. Let us see whether the terminology will support this interpretation. The Vulgate translates y\u02bfd ya\u1e25d\u0101w as \u201cpercutiamus foedus pariter\u201d\u2014a phrase which is employed to render krt ber\u00eet almost exclusively elsewhere in the OT (e.g., Neh 9:8; Ezr 10:3; 2 Chr 34:31 \u2026). Cf. also Ps 83:6 where y\u02bf\u1e63 ya\u1e25d\u0101w appears in parallel to krt ber\u00eet. The nifal of y\u02bfd means \u201cto assemble, agree, meet by appointment\u201d. KAI 202A: 4 connects it with the old Aramaic \u02bfdn = treaty or treaty stipulations, but such a semantic connection is not very certain. y\u02bf\u1e63 signifies deliberate, take counsel, resolve, determine. According to the study of J. C. De Moor, ya\u1e25d\u0101w is the locative of the noun ya\u1e25ad (Neh 6:2 mentions the place of the meeting) which can stand for any kind of association, hence also covenant association. In the light of context and terminology I propose a possible translation of v. 2 and v. 7: \u201cCome, let us assemble (agree) for an alliance at Caphrim \u2026\u201d v. 7 \u201cCome, let us deliberate for an agreement\u201d.
\nPs 83 is a prayer for deliverance from the nations who have formed a covenant to wipe out Israel. The context explicitly speaks of a ber\u00eet. v. 6 k\u00ee n\u00f4\u02bf\u0103\u1e63u l\u0113p ya\u1e25ad \u02bf\u0101l\u00e8k\u0101 ber\u00eet yikr\u014dt\u00fb. It is the characteristic of biblical poetry that fixed pairs of synonyms or related words are used in parallel. Here y\u02bf\u1e63 ya\u1e25ad and krt ber\u00eet appear in parallel. But by itself the second phrase needs not always be a synonym since the second colon often elaborates and not merely repeats the thought of the first. Accordingly both phrases in v. 6 are not generally understood as synonyms. Since the idiom y\u02bf\u1e63 l\u0113b ya\u1e25ad does not occur elsewhere in the OT, it is not easy to determine its meaning. As we have seen, the adverb ya\u1e25ad may be translated as a noun. The word l\u0113b can denote determination, disposition, intention, purpose. If we take l\u0113b ya\u1e25ad as a construct form with adjectival meaning we have a synonym for krt ber\u00eet in the first colon and can translate v. 6: \u201cIndeed, they take counsel for the purpose of an alliance (or, for a firm covenant), against you they make a covenant\u201d. This, if correct, is a mere suggestion.
\nPs 2:2 offers us another instance of ya\u1e25ad. In vv. 1\u20133 the rebellion of local kings against the new overlord is described. The period between the death of the overlord and the consolidation of power by the new king was a time of great turmoil in the Ancient Orient. Vassals often seized this opportunity to set themselves free from his dominion. In v. 3 we have an oral announcement of annulling the existing covenant relationship. As Dahood has noted \u2018bonds\u2019 and \u2018yoke\u2019 may be a metaphorical reference to the covenant stipulations. In this covenant context we can evaluate v. 2. The Psalter\u2019s dominant structural feature, parallelism, is evident in this verse. \u201cThe kings of the earth\u201d and \u201cthe princes\u201d are a pair of synonyms used in parallel. The phrase n\u00f4sed\u00fb ya\u1e25ad of the second colon is parallel to yitya\u1e63b\u00fb of the first. Verb y\u1e63b means: take one\u2019s position, stand firm. According to HAL, 399 we have in v. 2b ysd II (nifal) = associate, combine. If we take ya\u1e25ad as a noun the text could be rendered: \u201cThe kings of the earth take position and the rulers associate in a covenant against Yahweh and his anointed\u201d. The second colon elaborates the thought of the first. While the latter describes the decision of the kings to join in an covenant, the former says that they have formed an alliance against their overlord. They declare their independence and array themselves against the sovereign. BKH suggests some emendations to the text. Accordingly we have the following verse: yity\u0101 \u02bf\u0103s\u00fb malk\u00ea \u02beeres wer\u00f4zn\u00eem n\u00f4\u02bf\u0103d\u00fb y\u0101\u1e25ad. The two expressions y\u02bf\u1e63 and y\u02bfd ya\u1e25ad are familiar to us from Neh 6:2, 7 and Ps 83:6. Accordingly one may translate: \u201cThe kings of the earth deliberate and the rulers assemble (agree) for an alliance \u2026\u201d In this interpretation of Ps 2 the rebel vassal kings are said to form a covenant against a covenant. This is not an extraordinary phenomenon in the Ancient Orient. In Prism A, III: 20\u201327 Esarhaddon accuses rebel vassals of forming an alliance against him. In 2 Kg 15:29 Pekah disowns his Assyrian overlord and forms an anti-Assyrian coalition. Other parallels: Is 30:1: the text combines planning and making covenant together (see above, p. 28). In Is 8:10 two phrases, \u02bfu\u1e63\u1e63\u00fb \u02bf\u0113\u1e63\u00e2 and dabr\u00fb d\u0101b\u0101r are used in parallel to denote the enacting of alliances with pagan powers. We have already identifed the second expression as a probable synonym for \u201crealize a pact\u201d (see d\u0101b\u0101r).
\nThe result ot the study of y\u1e25d texts can be summarized as follows. In 1 Chr 12:18 the noun y\u1e25d appears as a sure synonym for ber\u00eet. Neh 6:2 and 7 are possible texts. The possibility of understanding ya\u1e25adaw as alliance is based on the theory that this apparent adverb conceals a formal noun. The interpretation of l\u0113b ya\u1e25ad (according to the emendation of BHS) in Ps 83:6 as \u201cfor the purpose of a pact\u201d is very feeble. In Ps 2:2 ya\u1e25ad stands as a probable term for covenant.<\/p>\n
E. Conclusions on Synonym Texts:<\/p>\n
The study of the non-ber\u00eet synonyms for covenant illustrates the complex nature of the covenant concept. It demonstrates that the idea of covenant could comprise both political as well as non-political alliances. The terms for pact originate from the acts descriptive of covenant-making, from the notion of stipulations, and from the idea of covenant union. McCarthy\u2019s remark points to this reality: \u201cThus, as well as the relation itself, it can mean the action of undertaking it or the content (obligation) undertaken\u201d. In the course of the study we have confronted texts, Jos 9:15; 1 Kg 20:18; 22:45; 1 Chr 12:18\u2014which mention oral declarations of relationship, the proper theme of this study.<\/p>\n
Additional Note: A List of the Possible OT Synonyms for Covenant<\/p>\n
A. Phrases Descriptive of Covenant-Making Acts
\ni. ntn y\u0101d 2 Kg 10:15; Ez 17:18; Lam 5:6; Ezr 10:19.
\nii. \u1e25zq bknp Zech 8:23.
\niii. mass\u0113k\u00e2 Is 30:1.
\niv. \u02bf\u015bh ber\u0101k\u00e2 2 Kg 18:31 = Is 36:16
\nB. Phrases for Stipulations
\ni. \u02bf\u0101d, \u02bf\u0113d\u00fbt Gen 31:44; Is 33:8; 2 Kg 11:12.
\nii. \u1e25\u014dzeh, \u1e25\u0101z\u00fbt Is 28:15, 18.
\niii. n\u0101\u1e25ah, Is 7:2.
\niv. d\u0101b\u0101r Hos 10:4; Is 8:10; 1 Sam 20:23; 1 Kg 12:7 = 2 Chr 10:7; Jg 11:11.
\nv. \u1e63md Num 25:3\u20135; Ps 106:28.
\nC. Phrases Related to Stipulations
\ni. \u0161\u0101l\u00f4m Dt 2:26; 20:10, 11; Jg 21:13; 1 Kg 20:18; 1 Chr 12:18; Ob 7b; cf Gen 14:18. + b\u00ean \u00fbb\u00ean: Jg 4:17; 1 Sam 7:14; + \u1e6d\u014db\u0101tam: Dt 23:7 = Ezr 9:12. + \u02bf\u015bh: Jos 9:15; Is 27:5. Verb \u0161lm: Dt 20:12; Jos 10:1, 4; 11:19; 2 Sam 10:19 = 1 Chr 19:19; 1 Kg 22:45; Job 5:23; 22:21. \u0161el\u016bmayw: Ps 55:21. me\u0161ull\u0101m: Is 42:19. \u0161el\u00f4m\u00eem: Ps 69:23. \u0161el\u00f4m\u00ee: Ps 41:10. \u0161el\u0113m\u00eem: Gen 34:21.
\nii. \u1e6d\u00f4b \/ \u1e6d\u00f4b\u00e2 2 Sam 3:19; cf. 2 Kg 25:28. + \u0161el\u014dm\u0101m: Dt 23:7 = Ezr 9:12. + \u02bf\u015bh: 2 Sam 2:6; 2 Chr 24:16; Jg 8:35; 9:16.
\niii. \u1e25esed: + krt 1 Sam 20:15. + \u02bf\u015bh: 2 Sam 10:2 = 1 Chr 19:2; 1 Sam 15:6; 2 Chr 24:22. + malk\u00ea 1 Kg 20:31.
\niv. \u02bemnh Neh 10:1; Neh 11:23.
\nD. Phrases Denoting Union
\ni. \u1e25br Dan 11:6, 23; 2 Chr 20:35, 37; Hos 4:17 (cf. \u02bf\u015bh my\u0161rm: Dan 11:6, 17).
\nii. y\u1e25d Phrases 1 Chr 12:18; Neh 6:2, 7; Ps 2:2; 83:6.<\/p>\n
II. Non-Synonym Texts<\/p>\n
Texts where covenant relationships are implied but no synonym for ber\u00eet is used, are studied under this title. It comprises the following sections: Pacts Between King and People, Covenants of Vassalage, Marriage Alliances, and Covenants: Political and Social.<\/p>\n
A. Pacts Between King and People<\/p>\n
In the first section on ber\u00eet texts we have pointed out the texts which refer to a covenant between king and people in Israel: 2 Sam 5:3; 2 Kg 11:17 = 2 Chr 23:3, 16; 2 Kg 23:1\u20133; cf. Hos 6:7\u201311a; 10:3\u20134. Also in some non-ber\u00eet passages such a pact seems to be implied. Scholars have drawn attention to such covenants involving Saul, David, Solomon, Jeroboam, Absalom, Jehu, Abimelech and Jephtah.<\/p>\n
i. Non-Biblical Formula<\/p>\n
My argument for such covenants is based on the study of the formula \u201cmake one king\u201d. This phrase (47 times in the OT) may be considered as a standard and \u2018frozen\u2019 formula. We are dealing with a formula which was commonly in use in ANE treaty documents, royal annals and inscriptions. In these texts \u201cmake one king\u201d (ep\u0113\u0161u \u0161arru, hmlk, \u0161ak\u0101nu ana \u0161arruttu) or \u201cset one on the throne\u201d (ina kuss\u00ee a\u0161\u0101bu) is connected with treaty. Tudkhaliash IV of Hatti concluded a treaty with Shaushgamuwash of Amurru and made him king and brother-in-law: \u201cI have made you king in the land of Amurru\u201d. In Rassam Cylinder VII, 45\u201347 Ashurbanipal says of an Arab prince: \u201cI made him swear a treaty under oath and so made him king\u201d. But innumerable instances of this formula, especially in Royal Annals, do not explicitly mention a treaty, they simply record that \u201cRN (royal name) made PN (personal name) king\u201d. That the formula itself implies a treaty becomes evident from the subsequent references to tribute, or vassalage or giving in marriage of the daughter or sister. Often the text do not even mention such stipulations. This means that the expression has become a standard and \u2018frozen\u2019 formula which implies a vassal-overlord relationship.
\nThe Sitz in Leben of the formula in these texts is that of overlord installing his vassal as king. One is set on the throne by his overlord. We have three similar instances in the OT. In the style of the ANE royal annals 2 Kg 24:17 (= 2 Chr 36:10; Jer 37:1) merely records that Nebuchadrezzar wayyaml\u0113k Zedekiah. We know from Ez 17:16 that a ber\u00eet existed between them. According to 2 Kg 23:34 = 2 Ch 36:4 Pharaoh Neco wayyaml\u0113k Jehoiakim. That a covenant is implied here becomes clear from the accompanying payment of tribute, mentioned in v. 35. The third instance comes from Is 7:6. Since Judah refused to join the Aramean\u2013Israelite coalition against Assyria, they took steps to whip her into line by deposing Ahaz and wenaml\u00eek melek ben Tabeel, their vassal. But the life setting of these texts is totally different from most of the OT passages where the people are said to make one king. Are there examples of this formula in ANE historical texts? Although in the social and political structure of Ancient Mesopotamia there is little room for a treaty between king and people, still we do have a few instances of such pacts. Esarhaddon imposed a treaty on his own people concerning the future kingship of his son Ashurbanipal. A similar oath of fealty to Ashurbanipal was administered by the queen mother Naqi\u2019a. The Prism of Esarhaddon informs us that Sennacherib, his father, had concluded a treaty with the people to assure the succession of Esarhaddon. We also have an example from the Hittite empire. Murshilish II makes Duppi-Teshub king of Amurru and causes the people to swear an oath of fealty to their ruler. The formula \u201cmake one king\u201d appears in the Vassal Treaty of Esarhaddon, 69\u201372: \u201c\u2026 if you install another king, another lord over yourselves and swear the oath of loyalty to another king or lord \u2026\u201d. Here the making of king is explicitly connected with the oath-treaty.
\nTo sum up: Historical documents from the ANE provides us with solid evidence for the nexus of the formula \u201cmake one king\u201d with the oath or treaty. This standard and \u2018frozen\u2019 formula can by itself imply an alliance between the superior and inferior. In this light let us study the biblical texts where the people are said to make one king.<\/p>\n
ii. Biblical Formula<\/p>\n
This formula is used in two ber\u00eet texts. 2 Kg 11:4\u201320 = 2 Chr 23:1\u201321 describes the enthronment of Joash. According to 2 Kg 11 the people wayyamlik\u00fb \u02be\u014dt\u00f4 (v. 12) \u2026 and Jehoiada wayyikr\u014dt \u02beet habr\u00eet between Yahweh and the king and the people (v. 17). In the version of the Chronicler the people\u2019s covenant with the king comes first (v. 3a), then wayyamlik\u00fb \u02be\u014dt\u00f4 (v. 11). 2 Sam 5:1\u20133 does not describe the investiture scene but simply records that David wayyikr\u014dt lahem ber\u00eet before Yahweh and wayyim\u0161e\u1e25\u00fb David lemelek over Israel. The account of this in 1 Chr 12:39\u201341 does not mention a ber\u00eet, but it twice employs the formula \u201cmake one king\u201d (which seems thereby to imply a pact) and adds two further elements, a covenant meal and rejoicing. It is evident that in these two instances making the king is intimately associated with ber\u00eet. Other texts where the word ber\u00eet does not occur are to be evaluated in this light.
\n1 Sam 8\u201312 present us a series of texts that develop the deuteronomistic interpretation of how the monarchy began under Saul. In these texts the political institution of kingship is intergrated into the fundamental relationship between Yahweh and the people. Hence it is not easy to determine the exact nature of monarchy as a political institution. Scholars find in ch. 12 the complete outline of the covenant form: the same terminology, the same style, the same major motifs, historical memories and other characteristic features. The covenant form is used here on the occasion of making Saul king. Two covenants seem to be combined here. This is analogous, as McCarthy notes, to the two covenants mentioned in the context of Joash\u2019s enthronement, 2 Kg 11:17: up to v. 15 the Saul-text implies a covenant involving king and people, as in 2 Kg 11:17b; vv. 16ff recall 2 Kg 11:17a: a pact involving the people and Yahweh.
\nThe investiture ceremonial described in two other texts-and it is similar to Joash\u2019s enthronement provides further proof for the \u201ccovenant of kingship\u201d. 1 Sam 10:17\u201327 narrates the accession of Saul according to Mizpah tradition, which consisted of three elements: (1) official presentation of Saul: v. 24a, cf. also 12:13. (2) acclamation by the people: ye\u1e25\u00ee hammelek: v. 24b. By these two formal acts a new relationship is set up, that between Saul and the people. The people accept the king by acclamation; they bind themselves to him; the act amounted to an oath. (3): proclamation of the rights and duties of the kingship, recording them on a scroll, depositing it in the sanctuary: v. 25. Thus the Mizpah tradition contains all the basic elements of covenant-making; \u201ceven if the word (covenant) is missing, the fact is undoubtedly there\u201d. The tradition prevailed in Gilgal is summarized in 11:14\u201315: \u201cthey made Saul king (wayyamelik\u00fb) before Yahweh in Gilgal \u2026 sacrificed peace offerings \u2026 rejoiced greatly\u201d. Sacrifice and rejoicing usually accompany the enacting of a covenant. Here it is a covenant of kingship. The previous acts, such as presentation, acclamation and proclamation of statutes, are not explicitly mentioned by the redactor; in their place he merely makes use of the formula \u201cthey made him king\u201d and proceeds to report the subsequent acts of investiture, namely, sacrifice and rejoicing. This may mean that the formula can by itself imply or stand for those acts of the covenant of kingship.
\nThe investiture of Solomon is described in 1 Kg 1:33\u201348. The following acts directly pertain to our theme: annointing at a sacred place: vv. 34, 39, 45; acclamation by the people ye\u1e25\u00ee hammelek: vv. 34, 39; rejoicing: vv. 40, 45. 1 Chr 29:21\u201325 supplements the account of the Kings with further elements: besides anointing and rejoicing it mentions sacrifice and meal, and makes use of the formula, \u201cthey made him king\u201d. As already noted, acclamation, sacrificial repasts and rejoicing belong to covenant setting. Thus the context seems to be that of the enacting of a pact between the king and people on the occasion of his accession. Hence the formula \u201cthey made him king\u201d is intimately connected with the covenant of kingship. The formula by itself seems to imply such an accord.
\nThe story of Abimelech\u2019s investiture (Jg 9:1\u20136) contains a double declaration of relationship, v. 2b and 3b. This is the proper theme of our study; hence ch. 6 will deal with this literary unit. The mutual declaration of oneness by Abimelech and the citizens of Shechem initiated a formal relationship between them and they joined hands to win the throne for him. The pericope concludes with the formula, \u201cthey made Abimelech king over them\u201d (wayyaml\u00eek\u00fb lemelek), cf. also vv. 16, 15, at the sacred precinct in the city. The following points call for a covenant interpretation of the formula: Jotham accuses the Shechemites of treachery (vv. 7\u201321): by making Abimelech king they had violated their \u1e6d\u00f4b\u00e2 and \u1e25esed towards Jerubbaal. As we have noted on p. 46, \u02bf\u015bh \u1e6d\u00f4b\u00e2\/\u1e25esed of Jg 9:16 and 8:35 is a synonym for covenant or covenant loyalty. The act of making Abimelech king amounted to their shifting of covenant allegiance from Jerubbaal to Abimelech. Another expression used by Jotham, \u02bf\u015bh be\u02be\u00eamet \u00fbbtam\u00eem (vv. 16, 19)\u2014which is to be rendered as \u201cact according to the covenant fidelity and integrity\u201d\u2014confirms the covenant interpretation: by making Abimelech king the people had transgressed against the covenant loyalty which they owed to Jerubbaal\u2019s family. Their sin consisted in accepting Abimelech in the place of their covenant partner. The formula used in v. 15, m\u0161\u1e25 lemelek \u02bfl is explicitly connected with a ber\u00eet in 2 Sam 5:3. Moreover, the act of anointing has, at least in some occasions, a covenantal meaning.
\nA slightly different formula, \u201cmake one lord\u201d (\u015b\u00eem le r\u014d\u02be\u0161) is employed in the account of Jephthah\u2019s rise to leadership (Jg 10:17\u201311:11). The elders of Gilead requested Jephthah to be their military captain to fight the Ammonites. He refused to assume that role unless they promised him rulership over them. And they swore: \u201cYahweh will be witness between us; we will surely do as you say\u201d. Accordingly the people made him ruler over them in Mizpah (v. 11) while Jephthah affirmed all the deb\u0101r\u00eem, i.e. covenant stipulations before Yahweh. Formulae analogous to the \u201cmake one lord\u201d of Jg 11:11 are found in the treaty texts. In the treaty between Murshilish II and Kupanta-KAL we read that the superior makes his vassal lord (ep\u0113\u0161u b\u0113lu) or establishes his lordship (a\u0161\u0101bu ana b\u0113l\u016btu) by installation.
\nThese are the instances where the formula \u201cthey made him king\u201d appear together with some rites which can be clearly understood as pertaining to the enacting of a covenant. But we have other texts which do not mention any such acts. No details are given. In the style of many ANE texts they merely report that the people made such and such a one king. In the light of the above discussed texts and of the examples from the documents of the Ancient Orient we can infer that the standard and \u2018frozen\u2019 formula implies a covenant of kingship in these passages.
\nWhile 2 Sam 5:1\u20133 explicitly states that the elders of Israel concluded a ber\u00eet with David, the brief account of 2:4a does not mention any pact between the king and the men of Judah. But the formula of investiture is the same in both cases: \u201cthey anointed David king at Hebron\u201d, \u2014an expression which is equivalent to the normal formula \u201cthey made him king\u201d, as 1 Chr 11:10; 1 Chr 12:31, 38 (twice) attest. In this episode the formula seems to indicate a covenant of kingship.
\n1 Kg 12:1\u201319 = 2 Chr 10 describes the case of an unrealized covenant between Rehoboam and Israel. The people assembled at Shechem \u201cto make him king\u201d. The account abounds in covenant terminology: the people would \u201cserve\u201d (\u02bfbd; v. 4) him, be his \u201cservants\u201d (v. 7) only if he \u201chearkens to\u201d (\u0161m\u02bf\u02bel): (vv. 15, 16) them, imposes less heavy yoke upon them (vv. 4, 9, 10, 11, 14), speaks debar\u00eem \u1e6d\u00f4b\u00eem (v. 7), i.e., stipulations agreeable to them. Since Rehoboam rejected their conditions they \u201crebelled (p\u0161\u02bf) against \u201chim (v. 19) and refused to \u201cfollow\u201d (\u02bea\u1e25\u0103r\u00ea) the house of David (v. 20). Their reply to the king in v. 16 practically meant their revoking of the existing covenant relationship with the house of David. After revoking the bond the people \u201cmade Jeroboam king over Israel\u201d (v. 20; 2 Kg 17:21). It is probable that Jeroboam accepted their \u201cstipulations\u201d and they concluded a covenant with him. But this is not explicitly mentioned in the text. The author seems to convey all these ideas by the standard formula. It implies the covenant which took place at the investiture.
\nOther instances of the formula which imply a pact of kingship: 1 Kg 16:16: Omri (cov. terminology: \u201cfollow\u201d vv. 21, 22) 1 Kg 16:21: Tibni (cov. term. \u201cfollow\u201d vv. 21, 22; \u201cdie\u201d v. 22), 2 Kg 14:21 =2 Chr 26:1 \u201cThey took (lq\u1e25) Azariah and made him king in the place of his father\u201d. Cf. KBo I, 1:56 \u201cI took PN by hand and set him on the throne of his father\u201d. 2 Kg 21:24 = 2 Chr 33:25: Josiah; 2 Kg 23:30 = 2 Chr 36:1: Jehoahaz (lq\u1e25 + anoint); 2 Chr 22:1: Ahaziah; Hos 8:4 \u201cthey make kings but not mine, princes without my knowledge\u201d; 2 Kg 10:5: Jehu demanded the elders and rulers of Samaria to choose between him and the Ahab\u2019s family. Their reply contains a declaration of relationship. Since this is the theme of our study, vv. 1\u20137 will be analysed in detail in ch. 5. Further, they informed Jehu: \u201cWe will not make anyone king\u201d. Thereby they were declaring their decision not to join in a covenant relationship with one of the sons of Ahab to fight for his cause.
\nThere are three texts where, even though the formula does not appear, a covenant of kingship is implied. 2 Kg 9:4\u201313 narrates the anointing of Jehu king over Israel (vv. 6, 12) by a prophet and acclaiming of him by military officers (v. 13) which consisted in spreading their cloaks under him, sounding the trumpet and shouting m\u0101lak Yehu. This oral proclamation (which I will call \u201croyal formula\u201d) implied their acceptance of Jehu as their king and their submission to him\u2014the very ideas underlying a covenant of kingship. 1 Kg 1:5\u201310, 18\u201319, 25\u201326 describes Adoniah\u2019s investiture. The following acts favour a covenant: acclamation: ye\u1e25\u00ee hammelek v. 25; sacrificial meal: vv. 9, 19, 25. From 2 Sam 15:10\u201312 we can deduce some elements of Absalom\u2019s covenant with the people on the occasion of his investiture: proclamation: the royal formula m\u0101lak Ab\u0161\u0101l\u00f4m; acclamation cf. 16:16; sacrifice v. 12a.<\/p>\n
iii. Summary<\/p>\n
Covenant of kingship took place on the occasion of investiture. It is expressed by the standard formula \u201cmake one king\u201d. Some texts explicitly mention covenant-making rites. But most instances do not give any details. In these passages the formula can by itself imply a covenant. This interpretation is corroborated by the examples from the ANE historical texts. Its original setting in life is that of the overlord making his vassal king. The OT adapts the formula to its own notion of monarchy, here the people make one king. Since in the texts this pact merges in the context with the religious covenant, it is very difficult to determine the exact nature of the political accord between king and people. In the OT the idea of the covenant of kingship, \u201cwas one of the foundations of the monarchy that survived till the end of the kingdoms\u201d. The covenant of kingship demonstrates that the word covenant is not an univocal concept, it can comprise relationships of different kinds.
\nIn two texts dealing with covenant of kingship, Jg 9:1\u20136 and 2 Sam 5:1\u20137, oral declarations of relationship appear. This is the theme of our study.<\/p>\n
B. Covenants of Vassalage<\/p>\n
One can trace out numerous references to covenants of vassalage in the OT, where the term ber\u00eet does not occur. Some are strictly political covenants, i.e., concerning two states, while others are about relationships between groups or individuals. In most of the texts of the former group the vassalage is expressed by two types of formulae: i) An oral formula by which one of the parties formally affirms his covenant relationship to the other: e.g., \u201cI am your servant\u201d. Such declarations appear in the accounts of Ahaz-Tiglath-pileser (2 Kg 16:7) and Achish\u2013David (1 Sam 27:12). Gen 50:8 also contains a DF, which does not, however, express a political relationship. All these texts belong to the body of our study and hence will be discussed in ch. 5. ii) A reportorial formula which is employed by the author to indicate vassalage: e.g., \u201cThey served him\/became his servants\u201d. Although there are certain instances of the absolute use of this formula (Jg 3:8, 14; 2 Sam 8:14 = 1 Chr 18:13), most often it stands together with other formulae: become servant + bring tribute 2 Sam 8:2 = 1 Chr 18:2; 2 Kg 17:3; 2 Sam 8:6 = 1 Chr 18:6; 1 Kg 5:1; serve + rebel: Gen 14:4; 2 Kg 24:1; rebel + not serve: 2 Kg 18:7. We have to prove that these formulae imply covenant relationships. \u02bfbd = \u201cto serve (the overlord)\u201d, is the essence of covenants of vassalage. 1 Sam 11:1 makes its connection to ber\u00eet very explicit: the men of Jabesh-Gilead request Nahash, kerot l\u0101n\u00fb ber\u00eet wen\u02bfabdek\u0101. Cf. also Jos 9:11. In 2 Sam 10:19\u20131 Chr 19:19 we have a reportorial formula proper, the vassal (\u02bfabd\u00ea) kings of Hadarezer \u2018made peace\u2019 with Israel wayya \u02bfabd\u00fbm. As already noted (p. 50) \u201cmake peace\u201d (\u0161lm) stands here as a synonym for ber\u00eet. These texts make clear how inseparable is the concept \u02bfbd from the covenant of vassalage. One presupposes the other. Since one term comprises in itself the idea of the other, it is not always necessary to mention explicitly both terms. Hence the texts where \u02bfbd appears alone can indicate covenant of vassalage, just as ard\u016btu (vassalage), without mention of ad\u00ea (treaty) implies a treaty relationship.<\/p>\n
i. Non-Biblical Evidence<\/p>\n
The OT reportorial formula is analogous to the formulae employed in the ANE royal annals. Vassal relationships are recorded there in short, stereotyped expressions. A standard reportorial formula is \u201che drew my yoke (i.e., was my vassal)\u201d. Thus we read in the annals of Sennacherib: \u201cSharru-lu-dari \u2026 I set over the people of Ashkelon and I imposed upon him the payment of tribute (in the form of) presents to my majesty. He drew my yoke (i-\u0161a-a-a\u1e6d ab-\u0161a-a-ni)\u201d. This formula seldom stands alone;. more often it appears together with other expressions; \u201cset up on the throne\u201d, impose\/offer tribute, both of which imply a pact. Covenants of vassalage are indicated also by the formula urd\u016btu uppu\u0161u \u201cthey entered (lit. performed) servitude\u201d. The annals make use of a further expression, which however, does not speak of the actual state of vassalage (as does the formula \u201che drew my yoke\u201d), but is concerned with the approach of somebody \u201cto become servant\u201d or \u201cdo servitude\u201d. Usually it is connected with rendering tribute. Hezekiah\u2019s vassage to Assyria is recorded thus in the annals of Sennacherib: \u201cTo pay tribute and to accept (lit. do) servitude he dispatched his messengers\u201d.
\nCertain facts emerge from a study of royal annals. Vassalage is imposed or accepted because of military defeat, or fear of the invader and his gods. In the face of a threat\u2014internal or external\u2014to one\u2019s throne, a petty king may betake himself to a mighty Power. The pact concluded between them was, to all intents and purposes, nominal. No serious attempts were made to bind the vassals under strict control. They were left to themselves as long as they paid the tribute regularly. In practice a pact of vassalage meant provision concerning tribute. Rebellion consisted in withholding one\u2019s due. Since tribute implied acceptance of the dominion of the other, by itself it can denote a vassal relationship. It is not necessary in each instance to repeat the formula, \u201che drew my yoke\u201d, \u201cimpose yoke\u201d, \u201center servitude\u201d, or \u201cset upon the throne\u201d, \u201cmake a pact (brt)\u201d; \u201cswear an oath\u201d. Thus very frequently the royal annals indicate vassalage by employing formulae such as \u201cI impose upon him tribute\u201d, or\u201cI received from him.\u2026 as tribute\u201d, or, \u201cthey brought tribute\u201d. Sometimes even the word tribute or gift (t\u0101martu, biltu, kadr\u00fb, maddattu, argamannu or other equivalents) does not appear, texts merely enumerate the items received from the underling. The royal inscriptions amply testify to the instability of the vassal relationships. Subject kings, at the earliest opportunity, denounced their political subservience by refusing to send the tribute. Many royal expeditions were directed against these rebels. The recalcitrant vassal was either punished or pardoned. In the first case a new king was installed, or the territory was annexed to the sovereign\u2019s empire. In the second, the penitent was reinstated but additional tribute was imposed on him.<\/p>\n
ii. OT Formulae<\/p>\n
OT episodes occur with similar situations and analogous terminology. 2 Kg 18:7 reads thus: \u201cHe (Hezekiah) rebelled against the king of Assyria and served him not\u201d. The reportorial formula \u201cdo not serve\u201d affirms the disclaiming of the status of vassal. The following points will demonstrate that this formula refers to the existence of a covenant of vassalage between Judah and Assyria. Ahaz, the father of Hezekiah, had offered himself as a vassal of Tiglath-pileser (2 Kg 16:7 \u201cI am your servant and your son\u201d). His behaviour corresponds well to the stipulations mentioned in the ANE treaty texts: visiting the overlord periodically (v. 10a), recognizing the great king\u2019s gods (vv. 10b\u201318). Hezekiah, on the contrary, did just what was forbidden in the treaty documents: he rebelled against his sovereign by seeking alliances with his enemies (with Egypt: Is 30:1\u20137; 31:1\u20133; with Babylon: Is 39; 2 Kg 20:12\u201319) and by repudiating the Assyrian gods. This brought out Sennacherib\u2019s punitive expedition against his perfidious vassal. The speech of the Assyrian commander (2 Kg 18:19\u201335 = Is 36:4\u201320; cf. also 2 Kg 19:10\u201313) seems to allude to treaty curses aimed at a rebellious vassal. According to Hillers the officer is reminding the people of the curses they were bringing on themselves by the rebellion and they shudder with horror. He claims that the siege is perfectly legal, since Yahweh, before whom Judah had sworn loyalty to Assyria, has sent him. Hezekiah cannot win the battle because Sennacherib\u2019s campaign has the nature of \u2018ordeal by the battle\u2019: the Assyrian king is executing the curse in the name of the gods who are beseeched in the treaty to inflict the punishment on the perfidious partner. Hezekiah\u2019s admission of guilt (\u1e25\u0101\u1e6d\u0101\u02bet\u00ee) and readiness to accept any kind of penalty (2 Kg 18:14) point to the existence of a pact which he tried to disown. Ha\u1e6d\u00fb\/\u1e2b\u012b\u1e6du the Akk. equivalent of the Hebrew \u1e25\u1e6d\u02be is often employed to express treaty violation. Compare the humble message of Hezekiah with the words of the penitent Gibeonites to their overlord in Jos 9:24\u201325. The king of Judah was reinstated. His vassalage to Sennacherib is denoted in v. 14b by the formula: \u201cAnd the king of Assyria imposed upon Hezekiah three hundred talents of silver and thirty talents of gold\u201d. Here the items of tribute are reported without using the word tribute.
\nThe second text where the combination \u201cserve and rebel\u201d occurs, is 2 Kg 24:1: \u201cIn his days Nebuchadrezzar, king of Babylon came up, and Jehoiakim wayyh\u00ee l\u00f4 \u02bfebed three years; then he turned and rebelled against him\u201d. As in many instances of Assyrian and Babylonian royal records, the motive for accepting political subservience is the fear of the invader. The OT episodes are introduced by the phrase, \u201cX came up against Y\u201d (\u02bfl or ba\u02be \u02bfl): 1 Sam 11:1 (the word ber\u00eet appears here: the terrified party pleads for it); 2 Kg 12:17; 15:19; 17:3; 1 Kg 14:25; 20:1. Concerning Jehoiakim, 2 Chr 36:6 and Dan 1:1 (besides 2 Kg 24:1) make use of the same expression. The Chronicler speaks of an invasion during which Jehoiakim was thrown into chains and threatened with deportation. The Book of Daniel observes that Nebuchadrezzer came to Jerusalem in the third year of Jehoiakim\u2019s reign. Both texts mention that the great king carried to Babylon part of the temple treasure. These texts probably refer rather to the military campaign of Nebuchadrezzar on which occasion Jehoiakim shifted his allegiance from Egypt to Babylon, than to the punitive expedition of 598 \/597 B. C. against the rebel kingdom of Judah. Thus the phrase \u201ccame up against\u201d in both instances seems to be used in the same sense as that of 2 Kg 24:1. The mention of Nebuchadrezzar\u2019s carrying away the temple treasure may be understood as bribe or as tribute paid by Jehoiakim to ward off disaster. See also 1 Kg 14:25\u201328, 2 Kg 12:17; 15:19\u201320 where the phrase \u201ccome up against\u201d appears in the similar contexts and speaks of the extraction of tribute without using the word tribute. Even the formula \u201cbecome servant\u201d is lacking in these texts; tribute here stands for the covenant of vassalage. According to 1 Kg 14:25\u201328 Shishak came up against Jerusalem; he \u2018accepted\u2019 the treasures of the temple and palace from Rehoboam. It would seem that the king of Judah acknowledged the sovereignty of Egypt and emptied his teasuries (also in Jehoiakim\u2019s case the tribute consisted of temple treasures) to buy off Shishak. Same kind of tribute or bribe was yielded by Jehoash of Judah to the invading Hazael, 2 Kg 12:18\u201319. The third text, 2 Kg 15:19f records that Menahem gave the threatening Tiglath-pileser III a thousand talents of silver\u2014an obvious sign of his political subjection. Menahem welcomed Assyrian suzerainty so that the mighty ally would prop up his shaky throne. This is the meaning of the phrase \u201cstrengthen his hold of the kingdom\u201d. And it accords well with the treaty clause that demands that one stand by an ally in the event of an insurrection. The action of Menahem has parallels in the Ancient Orient where the local princes, in the face of internal or external threats to their reign, used to seek alliances with a great king. There may be a further indication in the Bible of Menahem\u2019s vassalage to Tiglath-pileser. 2 Kg 17:16 mentions the practice of the Assyrian astral cult in Israel, which possibly refers to the time of Menahem and Hoshea; then this cult may have appeared in Israel as a result of Menahem\u2019s vassalage to Tiglath-pileser. After three years of subservience to Babylon Jehoiakim rebelled. The word mrd belongs to the covenant terminology: Zedekiah who had a ber\u00eet with Babylon, revolted, 2 Kg 24:20; 2 Chr 36:13; Jer 52:3; Ez 17:15. Hezekiah, the vassal of Assyria, committed treachery, 2 Kg 18:7, 20; Is 36:5. In the third instance mrd appears together with \u02bfbd, Gen 14:4: \u201cThey (the five Canaanite city kings) had served Chedorlaomer for twelve years, but in the thirteenth year they rebelled\u201d. The only detail given in the account is about the aftermath of revolt: the punitive expedition of Chedorlaomer against his rebel vassals. The phrase \u201ccome up (against)\u201d is employed in v. 5 with a different significance than the one we have already encountered: the compaign was conducted not for the sake of extracting subservience and tribute, but for punishing the disloyal underlings. The end of Jehoikim\u2019s reign is marked by the same event. After his perfidy the king of Babylon marched against Jerusalem (2 Kg 24:10, 11), dethroned Jehoiachin, his successor and deported him, high officials and leading citizens. Further instances where the expression indicates punitive expedition against rebel vassals: 2 Kg 25:1 Nebuchadrezzar vs Zedekiah; 2 Kg 18:13 Shalmaneser vs Hezekiah; 2 Kg 17:5; 18:9 Shalmaneser vs Hoshea; 2 Kg 15:29: Tiglathpileser vs Pekah who disowned his predecessor\u2019s overlord and formed an anti-Assyrian coalition.
\nIn 2 Kg 17:3 the formula \u201cbecame servant\u201d is found together with the phrase \u201crender tribute\u201d. As in the case of Jehoiakim, so also Hoshea confronted by the imminent ravaging of his country, acknowledged the overlordship of Assyria and undertook to pay tribute annually. According to H. W. Wolff Hos 5:13 and 8:9f allude to this episode. The Annals of Tiglath-pileser provides a further elucidation. Hoshea was set on the throne by the king of Assyria. As we already know, the formula \u201cmake one king\u201d implies a covenant of vassalage. That the formula \u201cserved him\u201d indicates a pact of subservience becomes more evident from the later actions of Hoshea. He conspired against Assyria by sending envoys to Egypt, the sovereign\u2019s enemy, to negotiate a covenant, and by refusing tribute\u2014things explicitly forbidden in the treaty documents. Assyria reacted immediately. Shalmaneser \u201ccame up against\u201d Samaria (18:9; 17:5), arrested and imprisoned Hoshea, deported people and annexed Israel to Assyria. All these are punitive measures usually undertaken by Mesopotamian kings against disloyal vassals.
\nAccording to 1 Kg 5:1 the kings \u201cbrought min\u1e25\u00e2 we\u02bf\u014dbd\u00eem Solomon all the days of his life\u201d. The fear of military strength of Solomon may have induced them to accept vassalage. Ps 72:10\u201311, which speaks of rendering tribute, prostrating before the sovereign and serving him, may be a reference to this event. The parallel text, 1 Kg 10:25 = 2 Chr 9:24 makes use of the formula, \u201cthey brought him tribute \u2026 at an annual rate\u201d to denote their subservience to Solomon. The annalistic account of David\u2019s military exploits, 2 Sam 8:1\u201314 = 1 Chr 18:1\u201313, provides us with two other examples of the use of the double formula, \u201cbecome servant + bring tribute\u201d. It is employed concerning Moab in v. 2. The defeated Moabites were forced to acknowledge the overlordship of David and to pay him tribute. The significance of the formula in v. 6 is not clear. Did David reduce the conquered AramDamascus to a province of his kingdom or accept it as a vassal state? The mention of tribute tends to favour the latter opinion. It is also difficult to ascertain the nature of Edom\u2019s status, after its subjugation to David. V. 14 merely says: \u201cAll Edom became David\u2019s servants\u201d. Some authors hold that David established a covenant of vassalage with Edom. The third chapter of the Book of Judges sheds light on the meaning of the formula. Being subdued by the king of Moab \u201cthe children of Israel served Eglon eighteen years\u201d (v. 14). That the formula implies tribute rendering, is evident from the following min\u1e25\u00e2 offering scene (vv. 15\u201318). Also v. 8 \u201cthe children of Israel served Cushanrishathaim eight years\u201d, seems to refer to a vassal relationship.
\nIn some texts, however, the formula, \u201cthey served him\u201d, is lacking; it is only noted that \u201cX payed Y tribute\u201d (with or without employing a technical word for tribute). This expression seems to reflect formulae in the Mesopotamian royal annals, which imply a pact of subservience (above, pp. 68f). In the following texts we have already identified the reality of the vassal pact: 1 Kg 10:25 = 2 Chr 9:24 \u201cthey brought him min\u1e25\u00e2\u201d (Motive: fear of military strength); 1 Kg 14:25\u201328 \u201che accepted the treasures \u2026\u201d (Motive: fear of invader); 2 Kg 12:19 \u201che gave the treasures \u2026\u201d (Motive: fear of invader); 2 Kg 15:19f \u201che gave a thousand talents \u2026\u201d (Motive: fear of invader). Five other texts belong to this category. 2 Kg 3:4 says that Mesha, king of Moab used to render to the king of Israel one hundred thousand wether lambs and one hundred thousand shearling rams. Is 16:1 may allude to this episode. This meant that Moab was a vassal of Israel. Indeed, the Moabite Stone discloses that Omri had conquered Moab and reduced it to a vassal state. Moab continued to pay annual tribute till the death of Ahab; then Mesha revolted, 2 Kg 3:5, 7; 1:1; Moabite Stone, lines 9ff. The word p\u0161\u02bf expresses covenant disloyalty. This evoked a punitive expedition against Israel\u2019s rebel ally, 2 Kg 3:9\u201327.
\nAccording to 2 Sam 8:8\u201310 Toi, king of Hamath sent his son with precious gifts to greet and congratulate David who had defeated Hadadezer, Hamath\u2019s enemy. There exist two interpretations of this episode. Some understand it as a move to win a covenant, while others find here a tribute rendering scene by Toi, David\u2019s vassal. This second opinion is to be preferred. The Hamath delegation was headed by the king\u2019s son Joram\u2014an abbreviated form for Jehoram (\u201cYahweh is exalted\u201d). In the parallel passage, 1 Chr 18:10, however, he is called Hadoram\u2014a short form for Hadad-ram (\u201cHadad is exalted\u201d). Is Joram a textual corruption of Hadoram? Malamat argues that we have here a case of a double name, one original, the other adopted. His hypothesis, if correct, has far reaching consequences: the Israelite Yahweh has replaced Hamath\u2019s Hadad in the theophoric name of the king\u2019s son! This evidently demonstrates Israelite dominion over Hamath. For the Semites the name enbodies the person, it reveals the whole personality. A new name symbolizes a drastic change in one\u2019s life style. One manifests this new reality by renaming himself. In most cases, however, the name is imposed on one by an outsider. The significance of this act is clear: one is taken under the patronage of another who determines one\u2019s mode of life. One\u2019s new name stands as a symbol of this dependence. Thus Nebuchadrezzar changed the name of Mattaniah to Zedekiah and put him on the throne as the vassal of the king of Babylon, 2 Kg 24:17. Pharaoh Neco renamed Eliakim, his vassal, as Jehoiakim and made him king over Judah, 2 Kg 23:34 = 2 Chr 36:4. The name of Joram, in our text, may indicate a vassal relationship. If the son of Toi had given himself an Israelite theophoric name, this could mean that the Hebrew religion was so widespread in Hamath that even the prince was tempted to drop his proper deity Hadad from his name in favour of \u2018Yahweh\u2019. Such a situation may have resulted only from a pact of subservience with David, since vassal treaties often required the inferior party to introduce the cult of the overlord\u2019s gods into his kingdom. Another possibility is that the name was imposed by David on the king\u2019s son as a token of his subject status\u2014a case analogous to the Zedekiah and Jehoiakim episodes. To conclude, Joram was sent to David with tribute by Toi, the vassal of Israel. The text says that he approached David to \u201csalute and congratulate him\u201d on his military victory. Such an act accords well with the practice of the vassal kings of the Ancient Orient. The OT offers two such instances. Both Melchizedek and king of Sodom appeared in person to greet Abram the conqueror, Gen 14:17\u201320 (We will deal presently with this literary unit). David\u2019s move against AramZobah, Hamath\u2019s enemy can be interpreted in the light of the famous treaty stipulation: \u201cTo my friend you are friend, and to my enemy you are enemy\u201d. Finally, the position of the Toi pericope in 2 Sam 8 provides us with a further argument for taking the text as a tribute rendering episode: Hamath\u2019s presents are mentioned in a series of texts that speak of tributes from David\u2019s vassal kings.
\nIn three texts there is the brief notice of bringing\/rendering tribute. 2 Chr 17:11: The Philistines brought Jehoshaphat min\u1e25\u00e2 and \u2018a great quantity of silver\u2019 (NEB), and the Arabians brought him flocks: seven thousand seven hundred rams and seven thousand seven hundred hegoats. By this act the Philistines and the Arabians acknowledged the sovereignty of Jehoshaphat. Tribute was often paid in flocks and herds in the Ancient Orient. And it was motivated by fear of the might of Yahweh. According to the Assyrian Annals petty kings, being \u201coverwhelmed by the terror-inspiring glamour of god Ashur\u201d flocked to accept subservience and to render tribute. As for OT examples, Abimelech sought alliances with Abraham and Isaac because he was afraid of the savage and vindictive deity of the patriarchs. Cf. also Jos 2:9\u201311, infra pp. 87\u201389. Military defeat is mentioned in two other texts as the cause of rendering tribute\u2014an act which implied vassalage. 2 Chr 26:8: \u201cAnd the \u02bfMeunites gave min\u1e25\u00e2 to Uzziah\u201d. 2 Chr 27:5: The Ammonites rendered to Jotham yearly a hundred talents of silver, ten thousand kors of wheat and ten thousand kors of barly.
\nThe Assyrian Annals record four tribute rendering episodes which are not reported in the Bible. The first case concerns Manasseh of Judah. Rassam Cylinder I, 65 and Cylinder A I, 25 (ANET, 294) of Ashurbanipal say: \u201cDuring my march to Egypt 22 kings (among them Manasseh, king of Judah).\u2026 servants who belonged to me, brought heavy gifts (t\u0101martu) to me and kissed my feet. I made these kings accompany my army \u2026 with their armed forces and their ships respectively.\u201d Note the use of the treaty vocabulary \u2018servant\u2019 and \u2018bringing tribute\u2019 as well as the realization of the treaty clause on military aid. The Prism of Esarhaddon lists Manasseh among the 22 kings required to forward materials for his building project\u2014a job often ascribed to the vassal kings of Assyria. The OT provides us with further information on Judah\u2019s political subservience. 2 Kg 21:37 reports that Manasseh erected altars to the Assyrian deities in the temple itself. 2 Chr 33:10\u201317 tells the story of Manasseh\u2019s \u2018salvific arrest\u2019 by the Assyrians. Most authors agree that this incident rests on a historical basis, but differ in identifying the underlying event. Some relate the episode to Esarhaddon\u2019s great assembly of 672, where the vassal kings were brought to swear their loyalty to the future king Ashurbanipal. Others think that Manasseh, the vassal of Assyria, was summoned to Nineveh for his ambiguous role in the revolt of Shamash-shum-ukin, Ashurbanipal\u2019s rival (652\u2013648), but was pardoned and reinstated. The second opinion is preferable. The OT employs the expression \u201cbound him in fetters\u201d (wayya\u02beasr\u0113h\u00fb) in connection with rebel vassals: 2 Kg 25:7 (Zedekiah); 17:4 (Hoshea); 23:33 (Jehoahaz). According to the Assyrian records perfidious vassals were flung in irons and brought to Assyria. In any case both interpretations defend the political subservience of Manasseh to Assyria.
\nConcerning the vassal status of Jehu and Jehoash of Israel we have to depend completely on the non-biblical texts. The records of Shalmaneser III attest the submission of Jehu to the yoke of Assyria. It was the fear of the invader that induced Jehu to acknowledge the suzerainty of Assyria by paying tribute. In CIWA III, plate 5 No 6 (= ARAB I, 672) says: \u201cI received the tribute of the inhabitants of Tyre, Sidon and of Jehu, son of Omri\u201d. The items of his tribute are enumerated in Layard, Inscriptions, plate 98 (= ARAB I, 590). Further, Shalmaneser has depicted the tribute offering scene in his Black Obelisk. Constrained by the same situation, Jehoash of Israel accepted cepted the overlordship of Adad-nirari III by paying tribute: \u201cI received the tribute of Ia\u02beasu the Samaritan\u201d.<\/p>\n
iii. Summary<\/p>\n
Like the Mesopotamian royal annals, the OT makes use of \u02bfbd formula to indicate political vassal covenants. The main motives that induced one to accept political subservience were military defeat, fear of invasion, fear of the might of the other or his god, or the desire to win a powerful ally against external or internal enemies. In practice vassalage meant an obligation to render tribute regularly. The inferior was left in peace to run the affairs of his country as long as he payed the tribute. Hence a vassal relationship is often expressed by the reportorial formula, \u201cI accepted the (tribute)\u201d or \u201cHe brought me (tribute)\u201d. Such \u2018pacts\u2019 were an \u2018accomodation\u2019, they lacked a lasting value, the inferior party disowned the bond at the earliest opportunity. The vassalage involved here is almost nominal.
\nIn the course of this investigation we have noticed that 2 Kg 16:7; 1 Sam 27:12 and Gen 50:8 contain oral declarations of vassalship. Our study is concerned with these DF.
\nWe have so far discussed the texts with \u02bfebed or tribute reportorial formula. Not all the political covenants of vassalage are indicated in the OT by a reportorial formula. Moreover, all pacts of vassalage are not strictly political. There also exist \u2018social\u2019 covenants, i.e. relationships between tribes or clans or individuals, which are those of vassalage. Our aim in this study is not to provide an exhaustive list of vassal pacts. Often it is not easy to determine whether a text speaks of a vassal or parity relationship. In the following section we study marriage alliances; these imply either a parity or vassal covenant. The final section deals with all other political and \u2018social\u2019 pacts, irrespective of the nature of the fellowship.<\/p>\n
C. Marriage Alliances<\/p>\n
Marriage agreements are designated as ber\u00eet in Mal 2:14; Ez 16:8 and Prov 2:17. The phrase \u02bf\u015bh my\u0161rm of Dan 11:6 and 17, which stands as a synonym for ber\u00eet in the text (see above, pp. 51\u201353), is connected with the diplomatic marriage between the Ptolemaic dynasty of Egypt and the Selucid dynasty of Syria. There are references to diplomatic marriages in the OT, where the word ber\u00eet or its synonyms do not occur. Once we read these episodes in the light of ANE political practice, their significance becomes clear: diplomatic marriages imply a pact.<\/p>\n
i. Non-Biblical Evidence<\/p>\n
Marriage alliances were a political measure not uncommon in the Ancient Orient. Usually, treaties, both parity and vassal, were given visible expression through royal marriages between the families of the partners. This served to reinforce the political relationship, to assure the unwavering loyalty of the other. Further, it gave a familial colour to a formal alliance: both states become members of one family. Thus marriage unions generally accompanied the enactment of treaties. In other words, treaties were sealed by such bonds. Intermarriage took place at different levels. The overlord gave in marriage his sister or daughter to the vassal king or his son. Or, he married or took as wives for his son, princesses from the vassal\u2019s family. Partners of equal status also cemented the pact by intermarriage. Texts do not always speak of a formal treaty in connection with diplomatic marriage. This may mean that a marriage alliance involved a political pact, hence the documents did not find it necessary to mention it every time. It is also possible that diplomatic marriage served the main purpose of a formal treaty, i.e., to win an ally devoted for his cause, and thus could substitute for it. In both cases marriage alliance had a political dimension, it was intended to build up a legal friendship, of a covenant-type.<\/p>\n
ii. OT Instances<\/p>\n
These observations will elucidate the OT references to marriage unions between royal families. According to 1 Kg 3:1 Solomon tied (wayyit\u1e25att\u0113n) himself to the king of Egypt by marrying his daughter. Cf. also 11:1. Here we have the only case known to history of a pharaoh\u2019s daughter given in marriage to a foreign royal house. 1 Kg 9:16 mentions the dowry offered by Pharaoh to Solomon in the form of the city of Gezer. A plausible explanation of the episode will be this: The Egyptian army moved towards the south of the coastal plain of Palestine occupied by the Philistines, for the purpose of conquering the trade route from Southern Arabia at its Gaza terminal, and captured Gezer; but Solomon halted their further advance and the Pharaoh was forced to make peace with the Israelite power. He arranged a dynastic marriage with Solomon. The offer of Gezer could be understood as one of the stipulations of a formal pact realized between Egypt and Israel; the marriage may be then the act which cemented the covenant.
\n1 Kg 16:31 says that Ahab of Israel married Jezebel, the daughter of Ittoba\u02bfal, king of Tyre. The event implies a formal treaty, sealed by marriage. During the time of Solomon a ber\u00eet existed between the two countries. Now it seems to have been renewed and the pact, one may surmise from the historical situation, contained military and commercial clauses. Israel and Tyre needed strong allies against the mounting menace from Aram-Damascus. The strong challenge offered by the Arameans to Tyre and Israel in the commercial sphere (cf. 1 Kg 20:34) may have given form to a common policy in matters of trade. According to the agreement Israel offered Tyre agriculture products, while Tyre found markets for her merchandise in Israel and via Israel, in the lands of the south.
\n1 Kg 11:14\u201322, 25b deals with the Hadad episode. When Edom fell into the hands of David, the prince Hadad sought political asylum in Egypt. Pharaoh welcomed him eagerly (m\u1e63\u02be \u1e25\u0113n be\u02bf\u00ean\u00ea me\u02be\u014dd \u201cfind great favour in the eyes\u201d) and assigned him a house and maintenance and made him a grant of land. Moreover, Hadad was made a member of the royal family: Pharaoh gave him in marriage the sister of his own wife. And his son was brought up \u201camong the sons of Pharaoh\u201d. The death of David brought Hadad back to Edom and he became its king. The story has definite parallels in the political documents of the Ancient Orient. To cite an instance, Kurtiwaza (Mattiwaza) sought refuge in Hatti and he was made son-in-law of Shuppiluliumash who supported him to regain the kingdom of Mitanni Land, made him king there and concluded with him a treaty. Also the rearing of the foreign vassals\u2019 progeny in the court was a well attested policy of Egypt, Hatti and Assyria. The Egyptian policy of that time thus elucidates the Hadad episode. Even the feeble dynasties of Egypt maintained their ambition of political expansion. The alliance with Solomon may be viewed as a temporary measure, circumstances constraining the Pharaoh to acknowledge the sovereignty of Israel. Since a military expedition for the purpose of re-estabilishing her dominion was beyond Egypt\u2019s power at the time of Solomon, she resorted to other methods to undermine the stability of the Israelite empire. This may explain why the Pharaoh so promptly greeted, with great honours, the fugitive Hadad. The Edomite prince could serve to bring about the disintegration of the Hebrew kingdom. A diplomatic marriage shortly took place and it can be understood as accompanying the enactment of a formal pact. It seems that the Pharaoh supported Hadad in regaining the throne of Edom, this may even been a clause of their pact.
\nAs we have pointed out on p. 44, n. 117, David\u2019s marriage to the daughter of the king of Geshur (2 Sam 3:3) was a political move to win an ally to the north of Ishbaal\u2019s kingdom. This placed his political rival in a precarious strategic position between Geshur and Judah. Further, the alliance served to neutralize Geshur, an Aramean state, during the conflict between Israel and Aram. A formal covenant concerning mutual military help seems to be implied in this report of marriage.
\nAccording to 1 Kg 14:21, 31 Solomon married Naamah, an Ammonite princess. This bond can be taken as a diplomatic alliance, intended to strengthen the political stability of his empire.
\nJehoshaphat \u201cmade peace\u201d, i.e. concluded a pact (see p. 40) with Ahab (1 Kg 22:45) and this covenant was cemented by a royal marriage (2 Chr 18:1). An oral DF appears in the JehoshaphatAhab pericope, which is the proper theme of this study. Similarly there is a case of marriage alliance in Gen 34, where an oral declaration of relationship is reported.<\/p>\n
iii. Summary<\/p>\n
The OT calls ordinary marriages ber\u00eet. This fact encourages us to evaluate the texts which deal with marriage unions. In this section our attention is focused on the instances of marriages between royal families. These diplomatic marriages, as the ANE treaty documents amply attest, are always connected with political pacts. Sometimes the texts do not explicitly speak of a treaty, since the existence of a political marriage amounts to a pact. In the light of Ancient Orient practice I have identified the OT texts concerning marriage alliances. The study of this type of covenant widens our knowledge of the covenant concept. It has also drawn our attention of the existence of oral declarations of relationship in covenant contexts.<\/p>\n
V. General Conclusion on the Vassal Formula<\/p>\n
Jos 9:8 (a ber\u00eet text); 2 Kg 16:7; 2 Kg 10:5f; and 1 Sam 27:12 (all non-ber\u00eet texts) illustrate the phenomenon of oral declarative acts in the vassal pacts. In the first three texts it is the inferior party who declared his belonging-to-the-other as a vassal. By this declaration he committed himself to a life of subordination and subservience. The weaker party\u2019s declaration, by itself, cannot effect an alliance; the stronger person has to confirm the declared relationship. An implicit ratifying act is recorded in the Joshua text: the Israelites partook of the Gibeonite provisions. 2 Kg 10:6 refers to the verbal response of Jehu: he ratified the nobles\u2019 vassal declaration by stating that they belonged to him. He used then a generic formula, a DF of the \u201cwe all one\u201d type. But 2 Kg 16 does not mention any ratifying act of the pact. Instead, the author proceeds to recount the result of the realized covenant: the overlord came to the vassal\u2019s rescue. This means that the mere mention of the standard DF were enough to indicate the conclusion of an accord. To sum up, in all the three texts the enunciation of the DF, together with the ensued gesture of consent, effected the covenant relationship. The purpose of the oral declarative act was not simply to open covenant negotiations; rather, it served as a covenant constituting act. Jos 9 refers to an additional rite, an oath: the swearing was concerned with the stipulations. The fourth text 1 Sam 27:12 speaks of a re-confirming act of the existing vassal relationship. It is the superior party who pronounced the DF. By affirming the underling\u2019s relationship to him, Achish established David as an eternal vassal. The DF was enough to create the enunciated relationship.
\nThreat of life or invasion induced the Gibeonites, Ahaz and the \u00e9lite of Samaria to declare themselves as vassals. This was analogous to many ANE covenant making episodes. Achish\u2019s declaration resulted from the motive of his vassal\u2019s loyalty. According to Jos 9 and 2 Kg 16 the contact between the parties was initiated with the words of the DF. The declaration of 2 Kg 10 came later as response to Jehu\u2019s indirect invitation for surrender. Jos 9 offers a case of an accord between an invading force and a city-state. 2 Kg 16 speaks of an alliance between two powers. The Jehu text implies a \u201cK\u00f6nigsvertrag\u201d, based on loyalty oaths of the subjects. 1 Sam 27 depicts the covenant relationship between a city ruler and the leader of \u201cl\u2019apatride\u201d.
\nThese are all one-way formulae in nominal form. Only 2 Kg 10 reflects a reciprocal formula. Even there the superior\u2019s declaration is not couched in the usual formulation such as \u201cyou are my vassal\u201d. All these DF (except Jehu\u2019s words) define the nature of the relationship: vassalage. Ahaz text adds the filial element to his declaration.
\nThe DF implies all the covenant stipulations (cf. the \u02bfebed concept). This may be the reason why the OT texts often do not explicitly mention the covenant clauses.
\nThe OT offers two more examples of oral \u02bfebed formula in secular contexts: Gen 44:16 and 50:18 concern Joseph and his brothers. Jacob\u2019s sons declared themselves as slaves of the Egyptian governor: hinnen\u00fb \u02bf\u0103b\u0101d\u00eem la\u02bed\u014dn\u00ee (44:16); hinnen\u00fb lek\u0101 la\u02bf\u0103b\u0101d\u00eem (50:18). Here the demonstrative adverb with suffix is used to reinforce the affirmation. The first declaration was made in accordance with the pledged word of 44:9f. In 50:18 fear of eventual vengeance prompted the brothers to seek a legal relationship with Joseph. The vocabulary employed in the pericopes is analogous with the terminology of the Jacob\u2013Esau pact: hi\u0161ta\u1e25aweh 42:6; 43:28; npl lep\u0101n\u0101yw 44:14; 50:18; \u02bfebed 42:10, 11, 13; 44:18, 18, 19, 21, 23, 31, 32, 33; cf. 44:7, 9, 16; \u02bead\u014dn\u00ee 42:10; 44:16, 16, 18, 18, 19, 20, 22, 24, 33; cf. 43:20; 44:7, 9. In both instances the declared relationship was not materialized, since the superior party did not ratify the declaration.<\/p>\n
B. Declaration Formula<\/p>\n
i. \u02bf\u0103b\u0101dek\u0101 \u02be\u0103na\u1e25n\u00fb<\/p>\n
With these words began the officials\u2019 message to Jehu. As we know the rulers of small kingdoms, in the face of threat to life and throne, sought help from a mighty monarch, with the words \u201cWe are your servants\u201d. This declaration of subservience appeared at the very opening of the message or speech, a plea for mercy or help came only afterwards, this being presented in association with the declaration of subservience. They are his vassals, hence they are entitled to his protection, he is obliged to defend their cause. The petty princes resorted to this technique to make their entreaty more appealing and efficacious. The \u00e9lite of Samaria did the same. They followed a well established covenant tradition of both the biblical and non-biblical word. They introduced their message with a standard formula which had a fixed formal significance. It expressed in concise and lucid terms their total submission and subordination to Jehu. By the declaration \u201cWe are your servants\u201d they averred their acceptance of Jehu as master in the place of Ahab (an act amounting then to a rejection of Ahab\u2019s overlordship and to the revoking of their allegiance to the royal family). The formula indicated their avowal of belonging to him: they are his (see how Jehu puts it from his part in v. 6: \u201cif you are mine\u201d), they are at his disposal; they put their lives in his hands, he can deal with them as he sees fit (at the same time they expect him to act according to \u1e25esed guaranteeing their safety and security). Subjects live for their masters, apart from whom they have no existence. They are committed to his service in total obedience, and they undertake to do his bidding. All these ide\u00e4s are implicit in our declaration formula. But the nobles of Samaria put them in explicit words in the subsequent clauses of the message.<\/p>\n
ii. wek\u014dl \u02be\u0103\u0161er t\u014d\u02bemar \u02be\u0113l\u00ean\u00fb na\u02bf\u0103\u015beh<\/p>\n
Here we find a formula, analogous to those of the ANE letters of vassals to their superiors. Some instances: Mari letters: \u201cWhatever my lord will say, I will do\u201d \u0161a qa-be-e be-li-ia lu-pu-\u00fa\u0161 ARMT II, 26; 29; ARMT III, 11; 70; ARMT XIII, 107; 109; 122; 127; 130. Cf. also the phrase, \u201cWhatever my lord will send me (i.e., write me, i-\u0161a-ap-pa-ra-am) I will do\u201d: ARMT III, 37. Assyrian letters: \u201cWhatever the king (my lord) says (I will do)\u201d mcnu \u0161a \u0161arru iqabb\u00fbni ABL 136, 143, 179, 439, 440, 445, 598, 737, 1378; \u201cAccording to your instructions we shall act\u201d ammala t\u00eart\u012bka neppa\u0161: BIN 4, 5: 11; EA letter 155: 44: \u201cthe word which comes out of the king\u2019s mouth to his servant, he will do\u201d. Lachish letter IV: cf. \u201cAnd now according to everything that my lord has sent (i.e., written), so has your servant done\u201d w\u02bft kkl \u02be\u0161r \u0161l\u1e25 \u02bedny kn \u02bf\u015bh \u02bfbdk.
\nIn the instances from Mari and Assyria the expression appears at the end of the letters; it is with this stereotyped phrase that the inferior concludes his letter. He has executed the orders of his master, he will do the same in future. This is simply his duty resulting from his sworn loyalty. He employs the formula to avow his unswerving allegiance to his master. It is the statement of one already a vassal who re-affirms his unremitting dedication to the cause of his superior. He closes the correspondence with this formula as if it is the normal statement expected from a person who is bound to the king by an oath of fealty. In the El-Amarna instance, the formula occurs in the middle of the letter. The vassal prince Abimilki of Tyre affirms his incessant covenant fidelity to his overlord Amenophis IV. He is lamenting that, even though he had ever remained loyal to his master, the Pharaoh does not notice the plight of his loyal servant! The declaration of allegiance is here intended to prompt the Pharaoh into action.
\nWe now turn to the OT cases. The phrase exemplified in 2 Kg 10:5 \u201cWe will do whatever you tell us\u201d, is made up of three different elements: k\u014dl, \u02bemr, \u02bf\u015bh. But it admits the following variations without any altering of the basic meaning: \u201cWe will do according to all you say\u201d (ke is added to k\u014dl) (53 times); \u201cWe will do what you say\u201d (k\u014dl is dropped out) (44 times); \u201cAs you say, so we shall do\u201d (k\u0113n is added) (6 times); \u201cWe will do whatever you command (\u02bemr is substituted with \u1e63wh or the like) (46 times). Since these different formulations do not change the significance of the phrase, texts are dealt with here irrespective of these variations. As in the ANE examples this OT formula occurs both in reports (indirect speeches, e.g., \u201cA did what B told him\u201d: 36 times) and in personal addresses (direct speeches, e.g., \u201cI will do what you say\u201d). 2 Kg 10:5 belongs to this second category; hence we are directly concerned with this type only. These texts may be classified on the basis of who is speaking and who are the subjects of \u02bemr and \u02bf\u015bh:
\nspeaker: superior: (25 times) Gen 18:5; 28:15; 41:55; Ex 23:22; 29:35; 33:17; 35:10; Num 14:28; 15:22; 22:20; Dt 1:18; 4:13; 24:8; 31:5; 1 Kg 2:31; 9:4; 2 Kg 10:10; 21:8 = 2 Chr 33:8; 2 Chr 7:17; Ruth 3:11; Jer 35:18; 39:12; 50:21; cf. Jer 11:8. inferior: (16 times) Gen 27:19; 31:16; Ex 19:8; 24:3, 7; Num 32:25; 31; Dt 26:14; 2 Sam 7:25 = 1 Chr 17:23; 2 Sam 9:11; 2 Kg 10:5; Ruth 3:5; Neh 5:12; Jer 32:23; Ez 9:11. status indeterminabile: (4 times) Num 23:26; 2 Kg 20:9; Is 38:7; Jer 40:3.
\nsubject of \u02bemr: speaker: (14 times) Gen 28:15; Ex 23:22; 29:35; Num 15:22; 22:20; Dt 1:18; 24:8; 31:5; 1 Kg 9:4; 2 Kg 21:8 = 2 Chr 33:8; 2 Chr 7:17; Jer 50:21; cf. 11:8. addressee: (16 times); Gen 18:5; 27:19; Ex 33:17; Num 14:28; 32:25; Dt 26:14; Jos 1:16; 2 Sam 7:25 = 1 Chr 17:23; 2 Sam 9:11; 2 Kg 10:5; Ruth 3:5, 11; Neh 5:12; Jer 32:23; Ez 9:11; a third person (16 times): Gen 31:16; 41:55; Ex 19:8; 24:3, 7; 35:10; Num 23:26; 32:31; Dt 4:13; 1 Kg 2:31; 2 Kg 10:10; 20:9 = Is 38:7; Jer 35:18; 39:12; 40:3.
\nsubject of \u02bfsh: speaker (18\u00d7): Gen 27:19; 28:15; Ex 19:8; 24:3, 7; 33:17; Num 14:28; 23:26; 32:25, 31; Dt 26:14; Jos 1:16; 2 Sam 9:11; 2 Kg 10:5; Ruth 3:5, 11; Neh 5:12; Ez 9:11; addressee (19\u00d7): Gen 18:5; 31:16; 41:55; Ex 23:22; 29:35; 35:10; Num 15:22; 22:20; Dt 1:18; 4:13; 24:8; 31:5; 2 Sam 7:25 = 1 Chr 17:23; 1 Kg 9:4; 2 Chr 7:17; Jer 35:18; 39:12; 50:21. a third person (9\u00d7): 1 Kg 2:31; 2 Kg 10:10; 20:9 = Is 38:7; 2 Kg 21:8 = 2 Chr 33:8; Jer 32:23; 40:3; cf. 11:8.
\nsubject of \u02bemr and \u02bf\u015bh: identical (9\u00d7): Gen 18:5; 21:1; 28:15; 2 Sam 7:25 = 1 Chr 17:23; 2 Kg 10:10; 20:9 = Is 38:7; cf. Jon 3:10.
\nOur text, 2 Kg 10:5 belongs to the category where the inferior is the speaker and the subject of \u02bf\u015bh, while the addressee appears as the subject of \u02bemr. The one who speaks is the inferior party, the nobles of Samaria, who state their resoluteness to do whatever the addressee, Jehu, may demand. The texts which form this group (Gen 27:19; Ex 19:8; 24:3, 7; Num 32:25; Dt 26:14; Jos 1:16; 2 Sam 9:11; Ruth 3:5; Neh 5:12; Ez 9:11) contribute to the study of the phrase in our pericope. Three texts, Gen 27:19; Dt 26:14; Ez 9:11 refer to the instructions already put into action: the inferior is not declaring as in 2 Kg 10:5, that he will execute (action in future) the bidding of his master, but, like Lachish letter IV, is reporting that the orders are already fulfilled (action in the past). An inferior-superior status already exists among the parties and the dependent\u2019s words reflect his present loyalty to the other person. The text of Dt 26:14b implies covenant fidelity. At the ceremony of triennial tithing the people had to enunciate in the presence of Yahweh a set of declarations on their comportment in accordance with the covenant law, which terminated thus: \u201cI have listened to the voice of Yahweh, my God, I have done in accordance to all that you have commanded me\u201d. This double assertion of covenant fidelity in general (note that our phrase appears here in company with the formula \u0161m\u02bf beq\u00f4l; it stands as a synonym to the latter expression, and the double clauses are employed to emphasize their covenant fidelity. Cf. 2 Kg 10:6, where Jehu in his reply, equates the words of the officials \u201cwe will do all that you bid us\u201d with ulq\u00f4l\u00ee \u02beattem \u0161\u014dm\u02bf\u00eem) comprehends all the foregoing statements of singular acts of loyalty (hence it is put as the concluding declaration). It also implies their overall devotedness in the service of Yahweh, which entitles them to the blessings of prosperous and peaceful life which the eternal lord has promised them and they ask for this in the final part of the ritual) (In the case of the officials in 2 Kg 10, they expect the gift of \u201clife\u201d from Jehu).
\nOn the remaining texts of the type of 2 Kg 10:5 attention is to be focused on the nature of the loyalty indicated by the formula. Accordingly they fall into two groups: texts which do not involve a covenant: Num 32:25; Jos 1:16; 2 Sam 9:11; Ruth 3:5; and texts which involve a covenant oath: Ex 19:8; 24:3, 7; Neh 5:12. In both groups of texts the inferior avows his resoluteness to put the instructions of the superior into action. The formula stands for a declaration of his loyalty; it highlights his status of subordination and dependence. It meant his acceptance of the authority of the other party and his willingness to obey unreservedly the master. The words, \u201cI will do whatever \u2026\u201d refers directly to the orders already given to him. It points to precise and definite instructions from the superior. Do these words also include future biddings? Or, to put it differently, does the inferior\u2019s statement imply his steadfastness to execute not only this present order, but every future order? A good number of texts seem to suggest this implication. But we have to see whether this interpretation can be justified from the grammatical point of view.<\/p>\n
say-do
\nqatal-yiqtol: Ex 19:8; 24:3, 7; Jos 1:16
\nyiqtol-yiqtol: 2 Sam 9:11; Ruth 3:5 (2 Kg 10:5 belongs here)
\ndo-say
\nyiqtol-ptc: Num 32:25; Neh 5:12<\/p>\n
Thus the \u201csaying\u201d of the superior is put in the qatal, yiqtol and participle form. We have evidence that these grammatical \u201caspects\u201d are used to denote frequentative or habitual actions. In some cases they do not delimit the field of action to a particular time only, but imply also its repetition or continuation at any time. Some examples for this frequentative or enduring aspect: qatal Gen 22:2; 1 Sam 1:3; 2:1; yiqtol Gen 2:25; 6:21; 9:11; 32:33; 43:32; Num 11:5; Dt 1:44; 2 Sam 13:18; 1 Kg 5:25; 2 Kg 4:8; 1 Chr 9:27; Job 1:5; ptc Gen 2:10; 3:5; 32:12; Ex 10:11; 1 Kg 3:3. In this light it is possible to interpret the words \u201cwhatever you say\u201d as referring (directly) to the already expressed wish of the superior as well as (implicitly) to his every future orders.
\nWhat is the setting of this oral formula in the texts which involve a covenant or oath?
\nNeh 5:12: The rite by which Nehemiah made the iniquitous officials to commit themselves to a life befitting the covenant people consisted of the following acts: convoking of the assembly: v. 7b; addressing the congregation: (a) recounting the past history: a story of transgressions, vv. 8\u201310a; (b) defining the future conduct: regulations: vv. 10b\u201311; response of the other party: (a) committing to the regulations: v. 12a. (b) concluding statement: k\u0113n na\u02bf\u0103\u015beh ka\u02be\u0103\u0161er \u02beatt\u00e2 \u02be\u00f4m\u0113r: v. 12b; swearing before priest: v. 12c; an acted out curse accompanied by verbal form: v. 13a; response of the assembly: (a) ratifying act: \u201camen\u201d: v. 13b; (b) cultic act: praising Yahweh: v. 13b. In the formula (v. 12b) the aspect of \u201cdoing\u201d is emphasized by putting it at the beginning of the phrase. It illustrates their firm determination to act promptly and definitively. The added particles k\u0113n \u2026 ke \u201cso \u2026 as\u201d, indicate their resoluteness to do exactly what Nehemiah demanded, which, in a certain sense, bind their action to his present utterance only. The formula stands as the concluding part of the promise of the officials to Nehemiah. Then came the oath, the solemn undertaking to do what they had agreed upon in v. 12ab. The words of v. 12ab form the content of the oath. Our formula, then is part of the object of the oath.
\nEx 19:8: In the present Sinai narrative, the literary unit Ex 19:3\u20138 serves as an invitation to a covenant with Yahweh and the people\u2019s acceptance of it. To the words of Yahweh, communicated by the mediator Moses, the people with one voice responded: k\u014dl \u02be\u0103\u0161er dibber YHWH na\u02bf\u0103\u015beh. The words of Yahweh of vv. 3b\u20136, however, do not offer detailed norms of conduct. No precise and definite regulations are issued to them. Rather, Yahweh makes only a conditional promise: \u201cif you listen to my voice and keep my covenant \u2026\u201d. By these words which involve the attitude proper to a loyal servant\/son, Yahweh proposes to them a pact. The tone of the two expressions is more characteristic of the opening scene of a covenant negotiation than the closing or sealing ceremony of an alliance. Yahweh has brought the people to Sinai in order to enter into a covenant with them. Now he announces his purpose; they are invited to declare their acceptance. This they do whole heartedly (ya\u1e25d\u0101w) with the solemn words of our formula. They affirm their alacrity to obey him loyally. It implies their listening to his \u201cvoice\u201d as the only \u201cvoice\u201d in their life, their acceptance of Yahweh as their only lord. The formula indicates their general loyal disposition towards him. The words k\u014dl \u02be\u0103\u0161er dibber refer to v. 5, God\u2019s demand for their subservient attitude which is to be manifested in concrete cases as will be presently announced to them. Hence the formula refers directly to the already pronounced wish which itself calls forth well defined future regulations. From this pledging of the people to obedience (it amounts almost to the oath of a vassal treaty) results the lord-servant relationship among the parties, and this fellowship paved the way for the proclamation of covenant laws and for the formal realization of pact as described in ch. 24.
\nEx 24:3b, 7b: The formula occurs twice in the covenant tradition of Ex 24:3\u20138 and the people pronounce these words on the occasion of the covenant making which took place in two acts: (i) preparatory step to covenant (vv. 3\u20134): (a) oral communication of \u201cstipulations\u201d; (b) ceremonial acceptance by the people: k\u014dl haddeb\u0101r\u00eem \u02be\u0103\u0161er dibber YHWH na\u02bf\u0103\u015beh; (c) recording of the \u201cstipulations\u201d, etc.; (ii) proper covenant ceremony (vv. 5\u20138); (a) sacrifices; (b) blood rite accompanied by the reading of the text of \u201cstipulations\u201d, ceremonious acceptance by the people: (k\u014dl \u02be\u0103\u0161er dibber YHWH na\u02bf\u0103\u015beh weni\u0161m\u0101\u02bf), and Moses\u2019 oral explanation of the rite. In vv. 3b and 7b the people affirm their strict adherence to the \u201cwords\u201d of Yahweh proclaimed to them. The formula refers to the definite laws. By agreeing to the well defined regulations which are Yahweh\u2019s \u201cvoice\u201d in concrete form, they signified their acceptance of the author of the \u201cvoice\u201d as their lord. Their words symbolized the union of their will to that of God to whom they profess loyal obedience. In v. 7b the proclamation is combined with the blood rite which gives profound significance and solemnity to the pronounced \u201cword\u201d. By the response of v. 3b the people confirm the already existing relationship (resulted from their acclamation in 19:8); their acceptance of the divine \u201cordinances\u201d led to the final solemn ceremony in which the \u201cword\u201d (v. 8b) in combination with \u201caction\u201d definitely ratified the covenant relationship.
\nThis elaborate analysis of the formula \u201cdo whatever another say\u201d illustrates that the phrase often appears in covenant texts where it enjoys different functions: it may serve as a covenant-enacting rite or an act which leads to a pact, or an act that presupposes an alliance (cf. the non-biblical examples). One undertakes to fulfil the bidding\u2014present\/future\u2014of the other party. This declaration of loyalty creates a relationship of subordination and dependence, or renews such a fellowship. And we have in this phrase a synonym of the formula \u0161m\u02bf beq\u00f4l.
\nIn 2 Kg 10:5 the words wek\u014dl \u02be\u0103\u0161er t\u014d\u02bemar \u02be\u0113l\u00ean\u00fb na\u02bf\u0103\u015beh appear after the declaration of allegiance, \u201cWe are your servants\u201d. Acceptance of Jehu\u2019s overlordship initiated a new relationship, that of a vassal covenant. Now the officials of Samaria hasten to reinforce and intensify their assertion by explicitly putting into words the major implications of the \u02bfebed concept. First of all they avow to do whatever Jehu may ask. Assuming the status of vassals, the nobles make known their promptness to obey him; they affirm their unremitting loyalty to him. His will is their will, his cause is their cause. Jehu has not yet pronounced his words as overlord. Hence the formula refers to future orders. They will execute each and every demand; no restrictions are involved. Thus their words signify the loyal attitude proper to a vassal.<\/p>\n
iii. l\u014d\u02be naml\u00eek \u02be\u00ee\u0161<\/p>\n
Another idea implied in the vassal concept finds expression in these words of the \u00e9lite of Samaria. By this statement they flatly disowned their relationship to the royal family. (The relationship seems to have had its origin in the obligation to set the deceased king\u2019s son on the throne\u2014and coronation probably meant a covenant renewal. Rejection of this obligation signified revoking the relationship itself). They have accepted Jehu in the place of Ahab. Jehu is their overlord and his enemies are their enemies. They stand for his cause. Thus as Jehu\u2019s vassals, the officials affirm their decisiveness not to adhere to the opposite party. They reject other masters. Thus their words implied an avowal of their loyalty to Jehu.<\/p>\n
iv. ha\u1e6d\u1e6d\u00f4b be\u02bf\u00ean\u00e8k\u0101 \u02bf\u0103\u015beh<\/p>\n
The nobles\u2019 response closed on this note of submission, a disposition proper to vassals. A servant owes his life to his master, who enjoys complete freedom over his person. An underling utterly depends upon his lord. The officials acknowledge this power of Jehu over their persons. Their words, at the same time, imply, as in Jos 9:25, their belief in his benign comportment towards them, to which, as vassals, they have a certain claim.
\nThus the \u00e9lite of Samaria responded positively to an implicit invitation from Jehu to join his cause, by an outright avowal of submission and subservience, as well as by a triple declaration of loyalty. Although the initiative came from Jehu, his was not an overt demand for an alliance to which the other party subscribed. Formally speaking this is not a case of consenting to the covenant request by a declaration of vassalage. The subtle mind of Jehu so framed his words to the leaders of Samaria as to put them legally in the position of one who moved first by averring submission and loyalty. Hence their declaration demands consent and ratification from the other party; only then will the pact be formally realized. Of course the officials did not expect from the new leader a formal and perspicuous affirmation of acceptance. All that they looked for was some positive hint in his next move.<\/p>\n
v. \u02beim l\u00ee \u02beattem \u00fblq\u014dl\u00ee \u02beattem \u0161\u014dm\u02bf\u00eem<\/p>\n
Jehu\u2019s reaction came in the form of a demand for the heads of the princes, introduced by these two clauses. A correct interpretation of these \u02beim-clauses will serve to define the exact nature of the covenant response of Jehu.
\nThese two clauses are generally considered as conditional clauses, \u201cif you are for my side and will listen to me\u201d. Did Jehu put to them his macabre request conditionally\u2014\u201cexecute the sons of Ahab if you claim to be my men\u201d? If understood in this sense (the particle \u02beim means then \u201con condition that\u201d, \u201cin case that\u201d), the officials are left free to be for him or against him: they have to obey his orders if they are on his side. But the text admits another interpretation which is built up on the study of the analogous case in 2 Kg 9:15b. After the royal anointing and the solemn acclamation, m\u0101lak Y\u0113h\u00fb\u02be by his military colleagues, Jehu tells them: \u02beim y\u0113\u0161 nap\u0161ekem \u02beitt\u00ee (with G) \u201clet no one slip out of the city to go and tell the news in Jezreel\u201d. This is certainly not a conditional demand for their cooperation, as if Jehu were uncertain of their adherence to him. His fellow-officers had already accepted him as their king and thereby had undertaken to serve him loyally\u2014likely in the manner of a \u201cK\u00f6nigsvertrag\u201d. It does not make sense to hold that Jehu spoke about their partisanship conditionally (a disinterested address, if you are mine, then you do this) as if leaving them free to be his men. Jehu absolutely needed their assistance for the realization of his kingship. A word from them to Jehoram at Jezreel, of the Ramath-gilead \u201cepisode\u201d, and Jehu is finished for ever! Rather, the words \u02beim y\u0113\u0161 nap\u0161ekem \u02beitt\u00ee are to be taken as, \u201cIndeed, you are truly with me\u201d\u2014a statement whereby Jehu, in response to the acclamation of military captains, corroborates the king\u2013people relationship. After these confirmative words Jehu demands the obedience which they owe to him as king. The superior asks his subjects to collaborate with his cause: to impede the departure of the possible traitors from the city. Jehu issues his order because (not if) they are his allies. Hence the \u02beim clause makes more sense if understood as \u201csince (or indeed) you are truly with me\u201d. Some other instances of the particle \u02beim with this meaning: Gen 23:8, 13 (contract context); 2 Sam 18:25; Num 22:20; Gen 47:29.
\nThis analysis of the \u02beim-clause of 2 Kg 9:15b provides the key to the interpretation of our text, 2 Kg 10:6. The officials of Samaria had already declared their allegiance to Jehu. What he expected from his letter\u2014submission and subservience of the \u00e9lite of Samaria\u2014had materialized. Now he could take advantage of their new status, use them as instruments to accomplish his design, the extermination of the royal rivals. He could now demand that loyal obedience which they had professed. They had declared their commitment to execute his each and every bidding (\u201cwhatever you say, we will do\u201d), now he could give them a specific command\u2014its realization will be a living and concrete sign, a confirmation of their fidelity. Jehu moved in this direction. He pretended to accept their declaration of vassalage: \u201cIndeed, you are mine, and you will listen to my voice\u201d, he tells them, \u201cnow bring me the heads of the princes\u201d. He, as their superior, issues the order. The verbs are put in the imperative: qe\u1e25\u00fb\u2026 \u00fbb\u014d\u02be\u00fb. It was an unconditional and categorical demand. Jehu charges them to act according to the undertaken loyalty, to proceed against the enemies of their overlord. He demands loyalty because (not \u201cif\u201d) they are his vassals, since they are on his side and will listen to his voice. His words come to an acceptance of their declaration and to a subscription to their vassal status. If this interpretation is correct, we have in v. 6 a clear indication of Jehu\u2019s acceding to the proferred subservience. Thus the second letter seems to imply his consent to the pact; the \u02beim-clauses are intended probably as a validating act of the covenant. The officials seem to have understood the letter in this sense, and accordingly hastened to discharge the entrusted task as loyal vassals.
\nConcerning the covenant significance of \u201clisten to the voice\u201d: As we have noted in the course of discussion on Dt 26:14b and Ex 19:5, the phrase is often in synonymous parallel with \u201cdo whatever the other says\u201d, to denote the observance of covenant stipulations. Some examples: Ex 23:22; Dt 13:19; 27:10; 28:1; Jer 11:4. Thus Jehu could equate the words of the officials wek\u014dl \u02be\u0103\u0161er t\u014d\u02bemar \u02be\u0113l\u00ean\u00fb na\u02bfaseh with \u00fblq\u014dl\u00ee \u02beattem \u0161\u014dm\u02bf\u00eem and demand concrete action according to their commitment.
\nAlso the opening words of the letter, \u02beim l\u00ee \u02beattem has covenant implications: Phrases analogous to this occur in covenant contexts. We have already discussed 2 Kg 9:15b where Jehu says to military colleagues: \u02beim y\u0113\u0161 nap\u0161ekem \u02beitt\u00ee. In 2 Kg 10:15 Jehu asks to Jehonadab: haye\u0161 \u02beitt\u00ee (BHK) lebobk\u0101 y\u0101\u0161\u0101r ka\u02be\u0103\u0161er leb\u0101b\u00ee \u02bfim lebabek\u0101. The expression means \u201care you with me as I am with you\u201d? The positive response of the Rechabite leader led to the covenant-making act of ntn yad (see above, p. 23). In Jer 11:4 Yahweh addresses the people: \u201chearken to my voice and do according to all that I command you, so shall you be my people and I will be your God\u201d. Here our two phrases \u0161m\u02bf beq\u014dl and \u02bf\u015bh k\u014dl \u02be\u0103\u0161er \u02bemr are joined to the \u201cBundesformel\u201d. Loyalty to covenant stipulations will create an intimate relationship: the Israelites will become Yahweh\u2019s possession, his own: \u201cpeople\u201d (Dt 27:10), \u201ca holy people\u201d and segull\u00e2 (Ex 19:5, 6). All these special titles are used to denote a relationship of the type of vassal pact. The expression in 2 Kg 10:6 indicates the essential content of every relationship, belonging-to-the-other. The nature of this belonging-to-the-other varies according to the types of pacts. In vassal alliances the inferior party belongs to the other as dependant. Parity pacts denote relationships of brotherhood and friendship: one is allied to the other as a brother or friend. Besides these specific formulations of belonging-to-the-other, there exists a set of formulae where relationship is stated only in generic terms, as \u201cwe all one\u201d and \u201cI am thine\u201d, \u201cyou are mine\u201d. This generic formulation could mark relationships of equal status as well as of inferior-superior type; the context will then define the exact nature of the belonging-to-the-other. We have studied in Chapter 4 two non-biblical instances of generic DF. 1 Kg 22:4 (= 2 Kg 3:7; 2 Chr 18:3); 1 Chr 12:18\u201319; 1 Kg 20:4 and Gen 34:15, 34:16, 34:22 offer possible biblical DF examples. Our study does not provide a detailed analysis of these texts. Here I merely point out some of their covenant implications. To the Israelite demand for military aid, the Judaean ally Jehoshaphat (the following facts indicate the existence of a covenant between them: wayya\u0161el\u0113m 1 Kg 22:45 (cf. p. 40); hit\u1e25br 2 Chr 20:35, 37 (cf. p. 52); diplomatic marriage: 2 Chr 18:1; 21:6 (cf. p. 83); commercial cooperation 2 Chr 20:35\u201337; military help 1 Kg 22; 2 Kg 3; 2 Chr 18; see also the covenant term \u02behb in 2 Chr 19:2) replied: k\u0101m\u00f4n\u00ee k\u0101m\u00f4k\u0101 ke\u02bfamm\u00ee keammek\u0101 kes\u00fbsay kes\u00fbsek\u0101 \u201cI am as you are, my people as your people, my horses as your horses\u201d, 1 Kg 22:4; 2 Kg 3:7; 2 Chr 18:3 (without the last phrase on horses). By these words Jehoshaphat affirmed his belonging-to-the-other, his covenant oneness with the king of Israel. This was a declaration of his covenant loyalty as well as his readiness to execute the will of his superior. 1 Chr 12:17\u201319 recounts how groups from Judah and Benjamin joined forces with David. As they approached him David greeted them saying that if they had sought him out for an alliance (\u0161\u0101l\u00f4m: see p. 40), he would most willingly grant it to them (hyh l\u0113b\u0101b ley\u0101\u1e25ad is a synonym for covenant: p. 55). Then Amasai, on behalf of the group replied: \u201cWe are yours, David; we are with you, son of Jesse\u201d. This is a clear covenant declaration of their belonging to David. By these words they affirmed their oneness with him. David, the superior party, sealed their covenant declaration by accepting (qbl) them as his own men. According to 1 Kg 20, Benhadad demanded Ahab\u2019s surrender in these words, v. 3: \u201cYour silver and gold belong to me; your wives and dearest children belong to me\u201d. This was a categorical affirmation that Ahab and his possessions belonged to Benhadad. Taking this a demand to acknowledge the Aramean overlordship, Ahab replied, v. 4: \u201clek\u0101 \u02bean\u00ee wekol \u02be\u0103\u0161er l\u00ee. By these words Ahab declared his vassalage to Benhadad. Lastly, Gen 34 presents a veiled picture of the Shechemites enacting a pact with the Hebrews, which consisted in coexistence, connubium and trading privileges. Traces of the formula, \u201cWe are one\u201d appear in the covenant negotiations: \u201cIf you become as we are\u201d (v. 15); \u201cAnd we will become one people\u201d (v. 16); \u201cto be one people\u201d (v. 22).
\nTo sum up, the threatening letter of Jehu led the leaders of Samaria to acknowledge him as their lord. Revoking their allegiance to the royal family, they declared their submission and subservience to the military general. Their avowal came as a response to his indirect invitation to accept him as king in the place of Jehoram. But it was a mere, though solid, inference, and some sort of affirmative act on the part of Jehu was required for the ratification of the pact. In other words, the declarative act of the nobles could not by itself constitute the covenant. The words of Jehu\u2019s second letter point to his consent: the two \u02beim-clauses\u2014where two of the officials\u2019 declarations are repeated in different words\u2014and the order for the heads of the princes could be understood as denoting Jehu\u2019s acceptance of the pact. Their declaration \u201cWe are your servants\u201d defined the nature of the relationship, i.e., that of the vassal type. Jehu\u2019s \u02beim l\u00ee \u02beattem accentuated the generic aspect of the fellowship, the idea of belonging-to-the-other. While the officials averred their specific relationship to him, he stated their relationship to him in generic terms. This DF has \u02bf\u0103b\u0101d\u00e8k\u0101 as the initial word; in Jehu\u2019s reply l\u00ee is put before \u02beattem. The DF, which appears in the nominal form, is not a twofold formula (\u201cWe are your vassals, your are our lord\u201d); it speaks only of the inferior\u2019s relationship to the superior. And Jehu\u2019s words denote only their association to him; nothing is said of his relationship to them.
\nStrictly speaking we do not have here an oral declaration of relationship: the inferior does not appear in person before the superior and enunciates the words of subservience to him. DF is sent to the overlord in a written message, as was often the case in the ANE instances. Whether it is oral or written does not make any basic difference to the declaration; both types enjoy the same legal effect.<\/p>\n
C. Conclusion<\/p>\n
2 Kg 10:5 offers us another instance of covenant DF texts where the word ber\u00eet does not occur. The implied pact pertains to the type of \u201cK\u00f6nigsvertrag\u201d. The literary unit offers a case of the repudiating of an existing allegiance with the declining Ahab dynasty and entering into an alliance with the emerging leader Jehu. It resulted from the political sagacity and ingenuity of Jehu, who, by winning over the \u00e9lite of Samaria, came to achieve his ambition, the crown.
\nThis historical narrative makes use of formal and stylized language. The text follows a tradition which presents contracts and legal documents in epistolary form.
\nThe whole episode could be read in a setting of \u201cK\u00f6nigsvertr\u00e4ge\u201d: preliminary scene (ch. 9): The military colleagues acclaim Jehu king at Ramoth-gilead; present scene (ch. 10): Jehu challenges the leaders of Samaria to \u201cmake Ahab\u2019s son king\u201d (thereby to renew the existing alliance with the royal family); the officials reject their allegiance to Ahab and his sons; they declare their submission and subservience to Jehu as lord and king. Of course, this is reading between the lines. The history of monarchy as a political institution does not fall within the scope of the Bible. What one can do at the very most is then to reconstruct the history from casual references scattered in the OT narratives. Hence our argument in favour of existence of a pact between king and people or their chiefs in the time of Ahab can claim only the value of probability.
\nThe story of 2 Kg 10:1\u20137 is narrated not for the sake of recording the covenant declarative act of the leaders of Samaria, but for the sake of describing the extermination of Ahab\u2019s dynasty. The author\u2019s intention was to draw up an account of Jehu\u2019s successful endeavour to wipe out not only the royal family but also Ahab\u2019s collaborators (v. 11). Even though the author\u2019s attention was not focused on the covenantal aspect of the story, still he employed words and phrases which had strict covenant implications. He follows the challenge and response structure which is the heart of the OT religious covenant-making formulations. There occurs the standard formula of declaration, \u201cWe are your servants\u201d, which had a fixed legal meaning: covenant affirmation of submission and subservience. We can also find in the words of Jehu in v. 6 an implicit acceding to their declared vassalage. Thus a pact, a \u201cK\u00f6nigsvertrag\u201d, is established. It is the word alone\u2014the written word\u2014that realizes the covenant. There is a declaration of belonging-to-the-other, promises of loyalty, but no oath in the strict sense. In the last act of the story the officials, as vassals, loyally accomplish the task entrusted to them. The episode attests to the existence of loyalty oaths in Israel.<\/p>\n
IV. 1 Sam 27:12<\/p>\n
This, a covenant text, even though not called explicitly a ber\u00eet, draws our attention because of its feature unique in the OT: it is the superior party who speaks. It is not a pact-enacting scene. Rather, a covenant relationship already exists between the parties and Achish, king of Gath, totally convinced of the unswerving loyalty of David, his vassal says: weh\u0101y\u00e2 l\u00ee le\u02bfebed \u02bf\u00f4lam. This special declarative act\u2019s covenant significance and function are discussed here.<\/p>\n
A. A Pact Between a Ruler and a \u201cCondottiere\u201d<\/p>\n
We imust study 1 Sam 27:12 in the light of all the Achish\u2013David pericopes so as to have the complete setting necessary to interpret it accurately and to elucidate the covenant nature of this non-ber\u00eet text.
\nThe pericopes are: ch. 27; 28:1\u20132; ch. 29. Here we deal with narratives used to extol king David. As Saul\u2019s animosity reached to dangerous dimensions, David fled, built up a band of dexterous warriors and began to lead the life of bandit-mercenary chieftain. The final stage of this adventurous life finds the Israelite hero in the very country of Israel\u2019s arch-enemy. David went over to the king of Gath not simply out of dire necessity\u2014as the narrator tries to make it; his move was also motivated by political ambitions: to seize the royal reins of Judah.<\/p>\n
i. David, the \u201cApatride\u201d<\/p>\n
David approached Achish as the head of a military band. The sociopolitical nature of such bands is illustrated in numerous ANE documents providing valuable insights into the case of the Judean outcast. The late Bronze Age saw the emergence in Syria and Palestine of groups of \u201cles apatrides\u201d (i.e., those who were cut loose from normal political ties) called in diplomatic correspondence as \u1e2bapiru (Akkadian)\/SA.GAZ (Sumerian). The following traits of these people could be singled out: These outlaws or drop-outs from the society are banded together from diverse origins: abused peasants, ill-paid mercernaries, insolvent debtors, slaves, criminals and bandits. These desperadoes harassed the established regime. Texts speak of two types of Hapiru: \u201cl\u2019apatride dissident\u201d and \u201cl\u2019apatride r\u00e9sidant\u201d. The former, who did not enjoy legal acceptance and social integration into a political community, led the life of an eternal fugitive, \u201ca strayed dog\u201d (kalbu \u1e2balqu: e.g., EA 67:17) roaming about on the fringes of society and doing \u201cwhat they please\u201d (EA 76:14\u201316; 104:17\u201324; cf. 109: 9\u201311), frequently reading, looting, and burning neighbouring villages (EA 185; 186; 286). Such sinister elements could not easily find admission into local comunities; hence they were constrained to eke out an existence in inaccessible remote parts of country. Still some, fed up with \u201ceternal\u201d roaming, precarious living, would, in group or individually, seek social integration into an alien political entity, or association into family circles as servants. If these succeeded, there ensued a radical change in their social status: \u201cl\u2019apatride dissident\u201d would become \u201cl\u2019apatride r\u00e9sident\u201d. Motives, economic (ready availability on unexacting conditions) and military (Hapiru were dexterous warriors), induced families or city-states to recruit them as domestic servants or mercenaries. Texts speak of formal contracts and pacts, realized on those occasions, which defined the rights and obligations of the Hapiru. They were entitled for rations, clothing and quarters (often in the city of the superior, rarely in another city given to them as \u201cgrant\u201d). The Amarna corpus draws a vivid picture of \u201cl\u2019apatride r\u00e9sidant\u201d at the service of their patron. They are \u201cwith him\u201d (EA 82:8f), they act on his commands (79:10ff. 21f), he assembles them to make war (71:28f; 76:17f; 91; 23f), they are his auxiliaries (71:20ff). They are engaged in marauding sorties against surrounding towns. Then they return with the booty to their master (186; 187). They are even said to be taking cities at the instruction of their lord (83:16ff; cf. 90:25; 117:58). Hapiru do not seem to have had any particular ideologies or to have striven to win any political objectives. They served anyone who could pay them. However, their loyalty could not always be reckoned upon. Texts allude to their double-dealing. Lastly, both \u201cl\u2019apatride dissident\u201d and \u201cr\u00e9sidant\u201d seem to have had their own patron deities\u2014the documents entitle them \u201cHapiru gods\u201d\u2014whom they frequently consulted.
\nDavid\u2019s outcast life, as depicted in 1 Sam 21:2\u20132 Sam 2:3 shows striking similarities with the Hapiru life style. He first led the life of \u201cl\u2019apatride dissident\u201d (1 Sam 21\u201326), then that of \u201cl\u2019apatride r\u00e9sidant\u201d (1 Sam 27\u20132 Sam 2:3). David fled king Saul, to save his life; so he became a stateless person who did not enjoy any legal protection. He has become legally a \u201cnobody\u201d, cf. the words of Nabal in 25:10f: \u201cWho is David, who is the son of Jesse? Here is the one who \u2018broke\u2019 \u2018away\u2019 (pr\u1e63) from his lord. This is a band, who come from I know not where. Why then waste my provisions on such nobodies\u201d? David indeed commanded a band of renegades of diverse origins: men in dire straits, in debt and with a grievance (22:2)\u2014people who willingly embraced outlaw status or forced into it. Some of them were already valiant warriors (1 Chr 12:9\u201319), but David transformed his whole band of 600 men (1 Sam 23:13; 27:2) into a dexterous military force. Their embittered spirit would often vent itself in violent hostility towards their former monarch: e.g., 24:5\u20138; 26:8\u201312: David hardly restrained his men and Abishai from striking the king down; 24:5f implies that David himself turned vindictively on Saul; David is accused of rising against his master (22:13), and of lying in ambush for the king (vv. 8, 13), his enemy (19:17).
\nThe band led a hazardous life, dodging continually to escape the clutches of the king. They took to flight (23:26), escaped to the cave of Adullam (22:1), wandered from place to place (23:13), lived in desert refuges or in the barren hill country near Ziph (v. 14), hid at Horesh or on the hill of Hachilah (v. 19) in the desert below Maon (v. 24), stayed in the refuges behind En-gedi (24:1, 23b) and in the wilderness of Paran (25:1b). Even the local population did not welcome the band\u2019s presence in their midst, however hard David tried to curry favour with them, e.g., by rescuing Keilah from the invading Philistines (23:1\u20135) or by protecting Nabal\u2019s sheep and shepherds (25:7\u20138, 15\u201316, 21). For all his services, David met only with mockery (v. 10f, cf. vv. 14, 21) and betrayal (23:12, 19f; 26:1). Therefore these outlaws had to support themselves by conducting protection-racket operations (25:7f, 15) and predatory activities. They threatened households (vv. 13, 22, 34; cf. vv. 26, 31, 33). Texts recount their brigandry: raiding villages, killing entire population and carrying off beasts and apparel (27:8f, 11a; 30:17ff). As in the case of the Hapiru, they had their own special relationship with the divine world through the mediation of priest Abiathar. David constantly consulted Yahweh in his undertakings: 23:2, 4, 9\u201312; 30:7f; 2 Sam 2:1.
\nHowever, they found themselves unable to bear the perils of outlawry (27:1). Hence they sought asylum in the land of Philistines. The text does not offer us details, but simply reports that David with his 600 men wayy\u0101q\u0101m \u2026 wayy\u02bf\u0103b\u014dr \u02beel Achish, king of Gath (v. 2); wayy\u0113\u0161eb \u02bfim Achish at Gath (v. 3). David\u2019s act involved his breaking off completely the bond with Saul and joining the enemy\u2019s camp. The phrase \u02bfbr \u02beel meant deserting one\u2019s lord as well as allying with the opposite party. Assuming the status of an underling in the service of a foreign king David becomes \u201cl\u2019apatride r\u00e9sidant\u201d. We have seen that Hapiru bands were admitted into the service of a a family or political entity by means of formal contracts or pacts. Analogously, David\u2019s adhering to Achish implied an alliance of vassalage. Negotiations that set forth the terms of David\u2019s sojourn in Gath might have preceded the enacting of the pact. The king of Gath could clearly see the military and political use of these vagrant outlaws. A brilliant general of Judah and a band of dexterous warriors are offering their submission and service to him. They will be a remarkable accession to his military strength. There were even possibilities for Achish to play on the antagonism of these \u201capatrides\u201d to Saul\u2019s regime to harass the Hebrew population, by pillaging and plundering the villages of Judah. And he could use them to guard the frontier against inroads of savage inhabitants of the southern steppe. Further, it was better to have these sturdy rogues as liege subjects than to be a prey to their forays. All these considerations would have prompted Achish to accept David and his men as mercenary vassals. Terms of the pact can be gleaned from the OT texts. They are given quarters, in the city of the master (27:3, 5; cf. 29:3; the phrase \u201cdwell in company with someone\u201d (y\u0161b \u02bfim\/\u02beet) may imply also board: Gen 27:44; 29:14; Ex 2:21; Dt 23:17; Jg 17:11; cf. 1 Sam 2:8; Ps 26:4; 113:8). Further, David\u2019s life as the Philistine underling resembles the life of the allied Hapiru. His band is \u201cwith Achish\u201d (27:3, 5; 29:3). David serves as the body-guard of the king (28:2). The band is instructed to \u201cgo out with\u201d the sovereign on campaign (v. 1). And they are ready to go down into battle (cf. 29:2, 4). They are sent on raiding expeditions. Although they are supposed to strike at the villages of Judah, David, like a true Hapiru, played both ends against the middle and ravaged the districts of those tribes who plagued neighbouring Judaean clans (27:8\u201311). After these predatory feats they come back with the booty to their patron (v. 9b) just like the ruffians of EA 186 and 187. As the Hapiru of Nuzi contracts, David and his men were committed to a life-long service (28:2; 27:12). To sum up, this study of David\u2019s life as a fugitive from the ANE socio-juridical perspective, points to a formal pact underlying the AchishDavid relationship, and a close study of ch. 27\u201329 will further illustrate the covenant nature of David\u2019s Philistine days.<\/p>\n
ii. David, the Philistine Ally<\/p>\n
As we have seen, David\u2019s going-over to (\u02bfbr \u02beel) the king of Gath involved two things: his breaking off from Saul and adhering to Achish. Here we are in the realm of covenant vocabulary. Treaty documents usually employ separate phrases (perhaps to emphasize the gravity of vassal\u2019s behaviour) to express the \u201cdetaching\u201d and \u201cattaching\u201d acts, and they are often mentioned together: pa\u1e6d\u0101ru itti \u2026 sa\u1e2b\u0101ru ana: W 7, 31\u201332, 51\u201352; au\u032fan ar\u1e2ba tiia \u2026 anda ki\u0161: F 3, 13\u201314; au\u032fan ar\u1e2ba tiia \u2026 EGIR-an tiia\u0161i; F 3, 16\u201317; F 4, 6\u20138; F 6, 2\u20133. For biblical expressions synonymous to \u02bfbr \u02beel which have covenant connotations, see n. 187.
\nIn granting political asylum to the renowned son-in-law of the Hebrew king and Saul\u2019s possible successor, the king of Gath was simply following the regal policy of the Ancient Orient. As we already know, the empires of Egypt, Hatti and Assyria often resorted to the stratagem of divide et impera; for this purpose they enthusiastically welcomed fugitive heirs-apparent and concluded treaties with them. The pact enabled the monarchs to harass their states, and finally reduce them to vassal kingdoms with prot\u00e9g\u00e9s as rulers. Achish seems to have moved more or less on these lines in accepting David and his men.
\nIn 28:1b Achish summons David to take field with him against Israel with these words: y\u0101d\u014d\u02bfa t\u0113da\u02bf k\u00ee \u02beitt\u00ee t\u0113\u1e63\u0113\u02be bama\u1e25\u0103neh \u02beatt\u00e2 wa\u02be\u0103n\u0101\u0161\u00e8k\u0101. David is committed to assist the king at military expeditions and his reply (v. 2a) implies that he is conscious of this. It is couched in language proper to a vassal: l\u0101k\u0113n \u02beatt\u00e2 t\u0113da\u02bf \u02beet \u02be\u0103\u0161er ya\u02bf \u0103\u015beh \u02bfabdek\u0101. \u201cUpon my word\u201d, David says, \u201cyou yourself will see what your servant will do\u201d. Calling himself \u02bfebed of Achish (of. also 27:5; 29:8\u2014the word is already familiar to us as a covenant term) David states his loyal disposition to discharge his covenant duties. Achish understood it in this sense, so much so as to entrust his vassal with the office of bodyguard for life (v. 2b). What the concept of \u0161\u014dm\u0113r l\u0101r\u014d\u02be\u0161 meant in the Philistine society is not known to us. Analogous Assyrian concepts, \u0161a qurb\u016bti and \u0161a \u0161\u0113p\u0113 will serve to evaluate David\u2019s office. Assyrian bodyguards were a \u201ccorps d\u2019\u00e9lite\u201d of regular infantry who marched with the king and waged wars in close propinquity to their lord; the phrase \u0161a \u0161\u0113p\u0113 literally means \u201cone (who stands) at the feet (of the king)\u201d. Only persons who excelled themselves in unswerving loyalty were admitted to this post. And they had to serve the king for the whole life time, kol hayy\u0101m\u00eem, as Achish informs David. Next we find David in the act of performing his military obligation, 29:2: In the offensive operation against the overlord\u2019s enemy, David\u2019s band marches with the king of Gath. ANE vassal treaty sdatipulations on military help is well known to us.
\nDavid\u2019s raiding, carrying the spoils to Achish and reporting the location of his fray. are in accord with treaty clauses: the sovereign\u2019s enemy is also the enemy of vassal who is obliged to have recourse to every possible means to bring about the enemy\u2019s destruction. And the treaty documents set forth precise booty regulations: e.g., W 7, 29\u201333; 37\u201341; 49\u201351; 59\u201362; 40\u201344; W 10, 11\u201313; 15\u201317. For an OT example, cf. Gen 14:17, 21\u201324 (pp. 86f).
\nCovenant relationship brought forth also certain prerogatives. David was entitled to \u201cdwell\u201d (y\u0161b) in the Philistine land (27:3, 7; 2 Sam 1:1). The \u201cdwelling\u201d of Rahab in Israel (Jos 6:25: watt\u0113\u0161eb) resulted from a pact. \u201cTo dwell\u201d meant \u201clive in security\u201d, a motif that appears frequently in the ANE and OT covenant texts.<\/p>\n
iii. A Royal Grant<\/p>\n
In 27:5 David approaches Achish with the request for a town. The entreaty is introduced with the words: \u02beim n\u0101\u02be m\u0101\u1e63\u0101\u02bet\u00ee \u1e25\u0113n be\u02bf\u00ean\u00e8k\u0101. The phrase \u201cfind favour in the sight of\u201d occurs 43 times in the OT. It is always the inferior who finds favour in the sight of a person of superior status. The idea of benevolence is inherent in the \u1e25\u0113n concept, but it is wrong to characterize it as an undeserved favour at the hands of superior At least in secular texts, the inferior \u2018wins\u2019 \u1e25\u0113n; it is realized partially as a result of his \u2018merit\u2019; in certain sense he deserves it. Among the examples of m\u0101\u1e63\u0101\u02be \u1e25\u0113n be\u02bf\u00ean\u00ea we single out texts which deal with covenant relationships: Gen 32:6; Gen 33:8, 15: In Jacob\u2013Esau encounter. Jacob propitiates his elder brother by presents and obsequious acts, and thus\u2019 wins\u2019 his favour. Gen 34:11: In order to mollify Jacob\u2019s party and win an alliance Shechem offers to meet their each and every wish. 1 Kg 11:18b\u201319: The text says that Pharaoh assigned the fugitive Edomite prince a house, maintenance and made him a grant of land; Hadad found great favour with Pharaoh who gave him in marriage his sister-in-law. The king\u2019s \u1e25\u0113n did not result from his benignity. The Edomite could be useful to him to set against Israel. So Hadad won \u1e25\u0113n.
\nOur text has an \u201cif\u201d clause which introduces a request: The phrase \u02beim n\u0101\u02be m\u0101\u1e63\u0101\u02bet\u00ee \u1e25\u0113n be\u02bf\u00ean\u00e8k\u0101 appears in direct speech qtl first person singular (normally) also in the following texts: Gen 18:3; 30:27; 33:10; 47:29; 50:4; Ex 33:13; 34:9; Num 11:15; 32:5 (first person plural); 1 Sam 20:29; Est 5:8; 7:3; 8:5 (le p\u0101n\u0101yw instead of be\u02bf\u00ean\u00ea). One addresses a request to the authorities (gods, kings, officers \u2026) with the formula which implies an acknowledgement of one\u2019s inferior status and dependence; this implicit declaration will serve to make the other party well disposed towards him. But to reduce the meaning of the phrase to a mere ceremonial \u201cplease\u201d (the German \u201cBitte\u201d), is unwarranted. One presents his request since he has found (qtl) favour with the other. His subservient attitude or loyal deportment has already met approval with the superior. This fact emboldens him, so to speak, to approach the superior with a certain confidence in a positive outcome. This seems to be the implicit sense of the phrase, in almost all texts which involve human relationships. Thus David already knows that he has found favour in Jonathan\u2019s eyes, 1 Sam 20:3 (cf. also 18:1, 3: Jonathan loved David and because of this love he made a covenant with him); this knowledge permits him to ask for leave, which is introduced by our \u02beim formula, 20:29. Here the formula is covenantal, it is employed by the vassal David. Esther dared to seek (\u02beim formulae \/ 3 times; Est 5:8; 7:3; 8:5) the king\u2019s presence and intervention, since she had already won his affection (\u1e25\u0113n: 5:2; 2:17; cf. v. 15, and also the words of the king in 5:3, 6; 7:2), and she adduced to the \u02beim formula the cogent motive of his love for her (8:5: we\u1e6d\u00f4b\u00e2 \u02be\u0103n\u00ee be\u02bf\u00ean\u0101yw) in order to make her appeal more effective. Gen 30:10: Jacob already enjoyed the favour of Esau\u2014he had warmly received him (wattir\u1e63\u0113n\u00ee) cf. also v. 4\u2014when he urged his brother to accept his present; he implored him on the strength of \u1e25\u0113n which Esau had showed him. In Gen 50:4 Joseph introduces his request to the courtiers of Pharaoh with an \u02beim formula, since he stood high with Pharaoh. Gen 47:29: Jacob knew that Joseph holds him so dear as to deny him nothing and he appeals to his \u1e25\u0113n, Ex 33:13 34:9; Num 11:15: Moses solicits Yahweh\u2019s help since his divine lord is already well disposed towards him as Yahweh\u2019s own cited words show: \u201cI know you by name and you have also found favour in my sight\u201d (Ex 33:12). The meaning of Laban\u2019s words in Gen 30:27 (note that the apodosis is missing here, the sentence abruptly ends with the \u02beim formula) can be thus explained: He stood to lose much from the departure of his underling. He had to mollify Jacob. Hence he cajoled his servant into staying with him and addressed him in the language of an inferior who is in his master\u2019s good books.
\nIn the light of the study of \u02beim formula we can interpret the meaning of 1 Sam 27:5. David\u2019s loyal department has already met approval of Achish. This fact encouraged him to approach his master and introduce his request by an appeal to Achish\u2019s \u1e25\u0113n which he already enjoys: \u02beim n\u0101\u02be m\u0101\u1e63\u0101\u02bet\u00ee \u1e25\u0113n be\u02bf\u00ean\u00e8k\u0101. Indeed, the story puts in explicit terms that the Philistine was fully convinced of David\u2019s loyalty, and regarded his vassal with an eye of a favour. Achish even asserts David\u2019s fidelity before fellow regents (29:3), and later to David he swears by Yahweh, his vassal\u2019s deity, to the fact (v. 6; cf. v. 9)\u2014using the component parts of \u02beim formula, in positive and negative statements: negative: v. 3 wel\u014d\u02be m\u0101\u1e63\u0101\u02bet\u00ee b\u00f4 me\u02be\u00fbm\u00e2; v. 6 l\u014d\u02be m\u0101\u1e63\u0101\u02bet\u00ee bek\u0101 r\u0101\u02bf\u00e2; positive: v. 6 y\u0101\u0161\u0101r \u02beatt\u00e2 we\u1e6d\u00f4b be\u02bf\u00eanay; v. 9 \u1e6d\u00f4b \u02beatt\u00e2 be\u02bf\u00eanay.
\nIn v. 8 David makes a protest of his innocence by employing the verb m\u1e63\u02be: \u00fbmah m\u0101\u1e63\u0101\u02bet\u0101 beabdek\u0101. And the fact that the princes are suspicious of David\u2019s loyal participation in war, is communicated to David in these words, v. 6c: \u00fbb\u02bf\u00ean\u00ea hasr\u0101n\u00eem l\u014d\u02be \u1e6d\u00f4b \u02be\u0101t\u00e2. Let us study the significance of the main expressions in these verses.
\nIn statements which deny any disloyalty (vv. 3, 6) Achish says that he has not found me\u02be\u00fbm\u00e2\/r\u0101\u02bf\u00e2 in his vassal ever since David adhered to him. In v. 7 the king exhorts his underling: wel\u014d ta\u02bf\u0103\u015beh r\u0101\u02be be\u02bf\u00ean\u00ea the princes. The word evil (Akkadian lemnu; Hittite idalu) means in the ANE treaty texts disloyalty, perfidy, and the sovereign continually admonishes his vassal not to \u201cdo evil (ep\u0113\u0161u lemuttu\/lamuttu; idalau\u032fa\u1e2b) against the Sun\u201d: W 1, 69\u201370; F 2, 32 (twice); F 3, 26, 30\u201331; 5\u20136 (p. 150); F 5, 77\u201378; F 6, 47.
\nThe OT word r\u0101\u02bfd appears in the covenant between Abimelech and Isaac: one of its stipulations is \u201cdo no evil\u201d, Gen 26:29. The author of Ps 7 protests that he has not repayed his ally with treachery, i.e., he has not rescued his enemy by arms, v. 5. And the phrase of 1 Sam 29:7, \u201cdo evil in the sight of\u201d occurs 62 times in the OT and in all instances (except our text) it denotes the disloyalty towards the divine sovereign. The kings and people did r\u0101\u02bf\u00e2 by \u201ctransgressing the covenant\u201d (Dt 17:2) which consisted in not obeying the voice of Yahweh (1 Sam 15:19; Jer 18:10), not following him unreservedly (ml\u02be \u02bea\u1e25\u0103r\u00ea: 1 Kg 11:6), not serving him (Jg 10:6), turning aside (s\u00fbr) from the way which Yahweh has commanded (Dt 31:29), acting contrary to the stipulations (m\u02bfl (of. HAL): 2 Chr 29:6), despising his commandments (bzh: 2 Sam 12:9), forsaking Yahweh (\u02bfzb: Jg 10:6), choosing what he did not delight in (Is 65:12; 66:4)\u2014in other words, serving other overlords (Jg 2:11; 3:7; 10:6). In all these texts r\u0101\u02bf\u00e2 is concerned with covenant disloyalty. Thus by solemnly denying any r\u0101\u02bf\u00e2 in David, Achish affirms the covenant fidelity of his vassal.
\nFurther, the king of Gath avows the loyalty of his servant in positive terms. The fugitive Hebrew is y\u0101\u0161\u0101r (v. 6) and \u1e6d\u00f4b (v. 9); also \u1e6d\u00f4b is his steadfast company in the campaign (v. 6). The biblical y\u0101\u0161\u0101r and \u1e6d\u00f4b are interconnected and they often appear together in the texts. The idea of uprightness in one\u2019s dealings with the other, underlies the concept of y\u0101\u0161\u0101r. One is y\u0101\u0161\u0101r when he loyally follows the established norms of religion or society. The word is most often employed in relation to Yahweh, the source of goodness and uprightness (Ps 25:8). Human beings become \u1e6d\u00f4b and y\u0101\u0161\u0101r when their life corresponds to the divine covenant ordinance. Thus according to Dt 12:28 \u201cto do good and right in Yahweh\u2019s eyes\u201d means to obey faithfully the stipulations proclaimed by the divine overlord; and it will bring \u1e6d\u00f4b to the people and their posterity \u02bfad \u02bf\u00f4l\u0101m. The nature of this \u1e6d\u00f4b is illustrated in Dt 6:18: Yahweh will make a grant of land to those who \u201cdo good and right in his sight\u201d. 2 Kg 10:30: Jehu will be rewarded with the grant of throne to his dynasty, since he had been \u1e6d\u00f4b in doing hayy\u0101\u0161\u0101r in Yahweh\u2019s eyes: he had been loyal to the covenant law and vindicated the honour of his divine sovereign. Asa (2 Chr 14:1) and Hezekiah (31:20) are said to have performed what was good and right in the sight of their Lord: their loyalty to the covenant stipulations are meant there. And it brought them prosperity (\u1e63l\u1e25), 14:5 and 31:21. In 2 Kg 10:15 Jehu\u2019s prerequisite for a pact with Jehonadab was lebobk\u0101 y\u0101\u0161\u0101r, loyal disposition to the ally. Hence Achish\u2019s words y\u0101\u0161\u0101r \u02beatt\u00e2 in 1 Sam 29:6 seems to indicate David\u2019s covenant fidelity, his deportment in accordance with his commitments to the overlord. Further, he is \u1e6d\u00f4b in the eyes of the Philistine king (v. 9). The word \u1e6d\u00f4b as a synonym for covenant is already familiar to us. Here also it has covenant implications. Like the word y\u0101\u0161\u0101r, to which it is often linked as shown in the above mentioned texts, \u1e6d\u00f4b refers to the covenant loyalty. Abner, David\u2019s ally, is said to be \u201cgood\u201d (1 Kg 2:32) because he had lived up to his covenant commitments. Rehoboam is supposed to be \u1e6d\u00f4b to his vassals (2 Chr 10:7) and to speak deb\u0101r\u00eem \u1e6d\u00f4b\u00eem to them (1 Kg 12:7; 2 Chr 10:7); the people expected from him a behaviour proper to an ally. Hence one can say that by employing the words y\u0101\u0161\u0101r and \u1e6d\u00f4b Achish averred his vassal\u2019s covenant loyalty, which was contradicted by the Philistine chieftains, v. 6c. And he stated that David\u2019s participation in the campaign is \u1e6d\u00f4b to him (v. 6), since (k\u00ee) there exists no r\u00e1\u02bf\u00e2 in his underling. The same motive impelled him to appoint David to the post of bodyguard for life, 28:2. Also the words of David in 29:8 refer to his covenant fidelity on the strength of which he could protest against his exclusion from the host; he took it\u2014or better, pretended to consider it\u2014as an affront to his loyalty: meh \u02bf\u0101\u015b\u00eet\u00ee \u00fbmah m\u0101\u1e63\u0101\u02bet\u0101 be\u02bfabdek\u0101\u2026 These words pertain to the genre of covenant complaint between the allies (e.g., accusations, reproofs, protests of innocence concerning loyalty)\u2014a pattern which has close connections with the r\u00eeb concept. The complaint is generally introduced with the particles meh, l\u0101m\u00e2 or madd\u00fb\u02bfa. In Gen 29:25 the servant Jacob protests to his contrahent: mah z\u014d\u02bet \u0101\u015b\u00eet\u0101 l\u00ee, and Laban in turn asks him later, 31:26: meh \u02bf\u0101\u015b\u00eet\u0101. The vassal David remonstrates with Jonathan, 1 Sam 20:1: \u201cWhat have I done? What is my guilt? And what is my sin \u2026?\u201d In the ANE historical texts we find complaint formulae analogous to that of David in 1 Sam 29:8. The vassal Abdi\u1e2biba of Jerusalem complains to Pharaoh exactly in the same words of David, EA 286: 5 ma-an-na ip-\u0161a-ti \u201cWhat have I done?\u201d
\nTo sum up, David approached Achish as a loyal vassal whose services are well appreciated by the master; and he introduced his request with an appeal to this \u201cgracc\u201d. Next we read in v. 6 wayyiten l\u00f4 AKIS bayy\u00f4m hah\u00fb\u02be \u02beet SIQLAG. Here is an example of the well known ANE custom of royal grant bestowed upon subjects as a reward for their outstanding loyalty. Thus we read in the decree of Khattushilish III, son of Murshilish II, concerning his chief scribe Middannamuwash. Note here especially expressions analogous to the OT \u201cfind favour with\u201d: lines 9\u201318 \u201c(Middannamuwa\u0161) war ein Mann, der bei meinem Vater in Gnade stand (IS.TU A.BI.IA ka-ni-e\u0161-\u0161a-an-za UN-\u00e1\u0161 e-e\u0161-ta).\u2026 schenkte er ihm auch meinetwegen Huld (na-an-k\u00e1n am-mu-uk-ka an-da ka-ni-e\u0161-ta). Und dir zeigte er damit verdientermassen Huld (nu-ut-tak-k\u00e1n a-p\u00e1d-da ka-ni-e\u0161-\u0161\u00fa-u-wa-ar \u1e2ba-an-ti te-ik-ku-u\u0161-\u0161e-e\u0161-ta) \u2026 Und dem Middannamuwa\u0161 schenkte Muwatalli\u0161, mein Bruder, seine Huld, und f\u00f6rderte ihn und gab ihm Hattu\u0161a\u0161. Auch meine Gnade (a\u0161\u0161ul) war ihm bestimmt\u201d. This example shows that the ANE concept of royal grant is closely connected with treaty or loyalty oath. This connexion needs to be precisely defined\u2014there exists a lot of confusion in this matter\u2014before we proceed to evaluate OT instances in the light of Ancient Orient practice. The royal grant is concerned with throne and other gifts which are conferred on individuals in two situations: (1) the sovereign first sets a person on throne or furnishes him with territory, then enacts a pact with him; (2) the sovereign rewards a loyal covenanted vassal with gifts. In the first situation the grant of throne or land will then be cited in the documents of the pact as a motive for loyalty. For examples, see ch. 3, p. 58, n. 168. The following treaties, which are not referred to there, are worth mentioning. Shuppiluliumash\u2019s treaties with Tette of Nukhashi (W 3) and with Huqqanash of Hayasah (F 6) arose out of the conferral of vassal kingdoms on these princes. The treaty of Tudhaliyash IV with UlmiTeshub of Dattasa (Text in T & C, 302\u2013307; discussion on pp. 69\u201371) deals mainly with the gift of territory and kingship. Bestowing the city of Alalakh in exchange for the destroyed Irridi, Abba-AN (or Abba El) of Yamkhad renewed the vassal treaty with Yarimlim (Text in T & C, 307f, discussion on pp. 84\u201381). OT also provides examples of this type. 1 Kg 11:18b\u201319: Prince Hadad was given (ntn) land before he was made an Egyptian ally. Besides the grants of kingship and land, the OT religious covenants mention a large variety of \u201cgifts\u201d: e.g., according to Mal 2:4\u20136 the Levite covenant contained two clauses: Yahweh gave (ntn) Levi \u201clife and welfare\u201d (ha\u1e25ayy\u00eem weha\u0161\u0161\u0101l\u00f4m) and in return demanded from him loyal and reverential service. The \u201cgift\u201d does not result from loyalty, rather it engenders fidelity: the effect of covenant is described in v. 6: Levi stood by every word of the pact. Finally, Yahweh\u2019s covenants with Abraham and David concerning \u201cgifts\u201d of land and dynasty probably fall into this category. A closer analysis of Abraham\u2013David promise pericopes seems to exclude their classification as royal grants bestowed on loyal servants. The following texts deal with Yahweh\u2019s promise of a land to Abraham and his progeny: Gen 12:7; 13:15, 17; 15:17; 18; 17:8; 24:7; 26:3, 4; 28:4, 13; 35:12; 48:4; 50:24; Ex 6:4; 13:5, 11; 32:13; 33:1; Num 11:12; 14:16, 23; 32:11; Dt 1:8, 35; 4:31; 6:3, 10, 18, 23; 7:13; 8:1; 9:5f; 10:11; 11:9, 21; 19:8; 26:3, 15; 28:11; 30:20; 1 Chr 16:15\u201318; Ps 105:8\u201311. The \u201cgift\u201d of land is not depicted here as the reward for Abraham\u2019s loyalty; these texts do not cite his fidelity as a motive for Yahweh\u2019s promise\u2014as the ANE decrees of royal grants invariably do. Rather, the promise invites loyalty. The story of Abraham\u2019s call commences with the promise and the patriarch blindly adhered to Yahweh\u2019s words. As in the case of the above mentioned ANE treaties, land makes the main clause of Yahweh\u2019s covenant or oath: Gen 15:18; 17:8; 24:7; 26:3 and the texts from Ex, Num, Dt, Ps and 1 Chr. Concerning the \u201cgift\u201d of dynasty to David, the following texts put it as the content of Yahweh\u2019s promise: 2 Sam 7:13, 16; 1 Kg 8:25; 9:5; 1 Chr 17:11, 12, 14; 28:7; 2 Chr 13:5; 21:7; Ps 89:5, 30, 37, 38; 132:11f; Jer 33:21, 17; cf. 1 Kg 11:38. None of these texts refer to David\u2019s fidelity as a motive for the \u201cgift\u201d of dynasty. Thus they lack the essential element of royal grant form. On the contrary, they fit better to the treaty pattern where vassals are said to receive throne as a pure gift without any merit from their part, and are promised dynastic succession. For instance, 2 Sam 7:8\u201316 exhibits some similarities to the treaty: It begins with the preamble formula, v. 8a (analogous to the ANE umma formula + title of overlord), which is followed by past history, 8b\u201311a, where the beneficient and gratuituous acts of the overlord is recounted (the inferior owes his throne and \u2018peacc\u2019 to his lord) as to move the underling to gratitude and loyalty. Next come the main clauses. The promise of dynasty itself is called ber\u00eet in 2 Sam 23:5; Ps 89:4f, 35\u201338; 132:11f; 2 Chr 13:5; 21:7; Jer 33:21. The regular if-clause of treaties\u2014in case of disloyalty the vassal will forfeit the throne\u2014appears in some texts, but they are later in origin: Ps 132:12; 1 Kg 8:25; 9:4f; 11:11; 1 Chr 28:6f; Jer 33:21; cf. 1 Kg 11:38.
\nIn all these texts \u201cgifts\u201d are bestowed on individuals as an incentive for future loyalty. The covenant is totally concerned with the \u201cgifts\u201d, or at least, \u201cgifts\u201d are mentioned in the pacts. They belong to the category of grants which do not presuppose a life of devotion and fidelity to the superior. OT provides also examples of another type of \u201cgifts\u201d, which are issued as reward for the past services. They follow the pattern of ANE loyalty grants, (for instance: see pp. 178f: KBo IV, 12). The Caleb pericopes present a strong case. The respective texts fall under two headings, promise of land and giving of land. Legal terms, some of which appear in Achish story, are especially underlined, promise: Num 14:24: Yahweh speaks:\u2014motive \u201cBecause (\u02bf\u0113qeb) he has followed me fully \u2026\u201d;\u2014promise: possession of land. Num 32:11\u201312: Yahweh speaks\u2014promise: seeing the land;\u2014motive \u201cBecause (k\u00ee) he has wholly followed Yahweh\u201d. Dt 1:36: Yahweh speaks:\u2014promise \u201cTo him and to his children I will give (ntn) the land \u2026\u201d\u2014motive: \u201cBecause (ya\u02bfan \u02be\u0103\u0161er) he has wholly followed Yahweh \u2026\u201d. Jos 14:6\u201312: Caleb to Joshua: he recounts the story of his fidelity to his divine overlord, which won him the promise (under oath) of land from Moses. Then he requests the land according to the promise. V. 8: In contrast to his companions he wholly followed Yahweh. V. 9: Moses swore bayy\u00f4m hah\u00fb\u02be saying:\u2014promise \u201cland shall be your inheritance \u2026 \u02bfad \u02bf\u00f4l\u0101m.\u2014motive: \u201cSince (k\u00ee) you have wholly followed Yahweh \u2026\u201d. V. 12: request \u201cNow (we\u02bfatt\u00e2) give (ntn) me the hill country of which Yahweh spoke bayy\u00f4m hah\u00fb\u02be. grant: Jos 14:13\u201314: v. 13: act of giving: \u201cAnd Joshua blessed him and gave (ntn) Hebron to Caleb \u2026\u201d v. 14.\u2014report of the conclusion of the act: \u201cSo Hebron became the inheritance of Caleb \u2026 ad hayy\u00f4m hazzeh.\u2014motive: \u201cBecause (ya\u02bfan \u02be\u0103\u0161er) he wholly followed Yahweh\u201d. Jos 15:13: act of giving: \u201cAnd to (le) Caleb \u2026 he gave (ntn) \u2026 Hebron. Jg 1:20: act of giving; \u201cAnd they gave (ntn) Hebron to Caleb as Moses had said\u201d.
\nCaleb\u2019s loyalty to his divine overlord (there already existed the Sinai covenant) won him the \u201cgift\u201d of land. His firm adherence to Yahweh is explicitly stated as the reason for the grant. According to Jos 14:9 the promise of land in perpetuity took placc in the form of an oath which cited loyalty as the motive of the \u201cgift\u201d. The land was given to Caleb on that day and Hebron became his property to this day.
\nConcerning grant of throne as reward for covenant fidelity, one can refer to 2 Kg 10:30. It consists of two parts: motive of grant: \u201cBecause (ya\u02bfan \u02be\u0103\u0161er) you have done well \u2026\u201d; declaration of grant: \u201cYour sons of the fourth generation shall sit on the throne of Israel\u201d. Dynastic succession is guaranteed unconditionally, but no oath is mentioned on the occasion. This accords well to the practice of ANE royal grant decrees.
\nNum 25:10\u201313 speaks of a special kind of divine grant, the \u201cgift\u201d of friendship\/priesthood, to Phinehas, for his ardent allegiance to his covenant Lord: motive: \u201cfor (be) he was zealous \u2026\u201d; solemn announcement of grant: introductory formula: l\u0101k\u0113n \u02be\u011bm\u014dr; grant: \u201cHereby (hinn\u00ee) I give (ntn) him my covenant of friendship (ber\u00eet\u00ee \u0161\u0101l\u0302m); it shall be for him and for his descendants a pact of everlasting (\u02bf\u00f4l\u0101m) priesthood\u201d; motive: \u201cBecause (ta\u1e25at \u02be\u0103\u0161er) he was zealous \u2026\u201d Here the grant itself is called ber\u00eet, which is given him as a reward for the past services. It is an unconditional \u201cgift\u201d which cannot be revoked; the pact is valid forever.
\nAchish\u2019s grant of Ziklag to his loyal servant belongs to this category. The king of Gath rewards David for his fidelity by promoting him to the office of body-guard for life (1 Sam 28:2), and allotting him a city (27:6). Cf. the case of Middannamuwash whose loyal service won him promotion as well as land. Here one could refer also the Ugaritic custom of \u201cdons-nominations\u201d\u2014a royal juridical \u201cact\u201d by which persons are promoted to higher offices and at the same time were given lands. The terminology used in 27:6, wayyiten l\u00f4 AKIS bayy\u00f4m hah\u00fb\u02be \u02beet SIQLAG will corroborate our interpretation. The expressions \u201cgive\u201d, \u201cthat day\u201d and \u201cforever\u201d (in 28:2) belong to the genre of juridical \u201cacts\u201d. The phrase i\u0161tu \u016bmi ann\u00ee \u201c(dating) from this day\u201d marked the formal initiation of a legal agreement in the Akkadian texts from Ras Shamra. This formula indicates the coming-into-force of the juridical \u201cact\u201d which is often qualified as valid for perpetuity, adi d\u0101r\u012bti, adi \u1e63\u00e2ti. The \u201cday\u201d formula is used in juridical acts of king or ordinary citizen. These documents deal with a variety of \u201cacts\u201d: bestowing gifts, purchasing or selling goods or slaves, redeeming property, repaying the loan, exchanging goods, partitioning property, adopting persons as son or brother, transforming security into property, etc. The royal texts deal exclusively with the acts of exempting from taxes and obligations, validating citizens\u2019 gifts, purchase or sale of property, and national and international verdicts. But a good number of royal acts are concerned with issuing gifts and \u201cdons-nominations\u201d. To cite one example: RS 16.247:1\u20139 (PRU, III, p. 65): \u201cFrom this day, Niqmadu, son of Ammistamru the king of Ugarit, has given (id-din-\u0161u) Ibrisharru, his servant, land (name and description) forever\u201d. This legal \u201cformule d\u2019entr\u00e9e en vigueur\u201d is also employed in political texts to mark the solemn initiation of formal relationship: e.g., in treaties: W 8, 14\u201316: \u201c\u2026 the king of the land of Egypt has entered into a treaty \u2026 with Khattushilish, the great king, the king of Hatti land, his brother, (from) this day on (adi \u016bmi ann\u00ee) to establish good friendship and good brother-hood between us forever (adi d\u0101r\u012bti)\u201d; cf. also 24\u201327; loyalty oath: to Ashurbanipal: ABL 1105:17f: \u201cFrom this day, as long as we live (ultu \u016bmu ann\u00ee a-di \u016bmu) Ashurbanipal, king of Assyria, is the man we love\u201d, cf. also 32\u201334. Here we are interested, however, in the royal grants. Our standard formula is used in the Abba-AN treaty to denote the coming-into-force of the gift of land: \u201cOn that day (ina \u016bm\u012b\u0161u) Abba-AN gave (id-di-na-am) the city\u201d (AT 1:5; T & C, 308 n. 8). In the neo-Assyrian royal grants, however, \u2018the day\u2019 formula does not appear, but the fact of giving is recorded as ana PN \u2026 addin.
\nNow we come to analogous OT text with the \u2018day\u2019 formula and ntn. The word y\u00f4m with the definite article or prepositions ke\/be and demonstrative pronouns hazzeh\/hah\u00fb\u02be, is employed in legal contexts: purchase (of land and people: Gen 47:23; Ruth 4:5, 9, 10 a case of redeeming property and person), sale (of birthright in exchange for food: Gen 25:31\u201334 kayy\u00f4m twice; other legal terms: \u0161b\u02bf, ntn), adoption\/legitimation (cf. Ruth 4:14; Ps 2:7), juridical re-confirmation of integrity (1 Sam 12:5), proclamation of release of prisoner (Jer 40:4). It occurs in covenant\/oath texts: in a covenant-making act: Gen 31:48; Jos 24:15; in the report of covenant-making: Jos 24:25; in the covenant-making formula: Gen 15:18 (content of the covenant: promise of land); in an oath formula: Jos 14:9 (content of oath:promise of land \u02bfad \u02bf\u00f4l\u0101m); cf. also v. 12 in which Caleb refers to Yahweh\u2019s promise bayy\u00f4m hah\u00fb\u02be. Concerning ntn, the texts with the formula \u201cPN1 gave land (or other gifts) to PN2, are already familiar to us. Here I merely cite the texts, classifying the acts of bestowing (or promise of bestowing) \u201cgifts\u201d into two types: that precedes\/accompanies the covenant\/oath: 1 Kg 11:18f; Mal 2:4\u20136; Gen 12:7; 13:15, 17; 15:7, 18; 17:8; 24:7; 26:3, 4; 28:4, 13; 35:12; Dt 6:10, 23; 7:13; 9:6; 10:11; 11:9, 21; 19:8; 26:3, 9, 15; 28:11; 30:20; that follows the covenant\/loyalty oath: Dt 1:36; Jos 14:12, 13; 15:13; Jg 1:20; Num 25:12.
\nAs we have seen, Ras Shamra texts often refer to the eternal validity (adi d\u0101r\u012bti\/\u1e63\u00e2ti) of transactions; also Neo-Assyrian royal grants were bestowed in perpetuity. We have already noted the everlasting nature of the OT grants. They fall into two categories: (a) which do not presuppose loyal service: Gen 13:15; 17:8; 48:4; Ex 32:13; 2 Sam 7:13, 16; Ps 89:5, 29, 30, 37, 38; Ps 132:12; 1 Kg 9:5; 1 Chr 28:7; 2 Chr 13:5; 21:7; cf. 1. Kg 8:25; (b) which are awarded for fidelity: Num 25:13; Jos 14:9; cf. v. 14; 2 Kg 10:30.
\nThese ANE and OT instances of the legal use (especially in royal grants) of the formula \u201cPN1 gave land (or other gifts) to \u201cPN2\u201d, \u201cday\u201d formula and \u201cforever\u201d phrase, will justify our interpretation of 1 Sam 27:6 and 28:2b: \u201cThen Achish granted him Ziklag on that day; therefore Ziklag belongs to the kings of Judah to this day (\u02bfad hayy\u00f4m hazzeh)\u201d. \u201cUpon my word (l\u0101k\u0113n) I make you my bodyguard for life (kol hayy\u0101m\u00eem)\u201d. These texts provide a typical example of grant of land and promotion for the outstanding services of vassal. The similarity of 27:6 with Jos 14:6\u201314 is remarkable. Like Caleb, David approaches his master with the request for the land. Both of them refers to the gratification of the overlord in them. And the evarlasting nature of the gift is noted with the formula \u02bfad hayy\u00f4m hazzeh. 1 Sam 28:2b employs the phrase kol hayy\u0101m\u00eem to indicate the perpetual character of the gift of office. The case of the zealous Phinehas (Num 25:10\u201313) who was elevated to the prestigious office of \u201ceternal\u201d (\u02bf\u00f4l\u0101m) priest-hood, offers a parallel to the promotion of David.
\nTo sum up, the study of 1 Sam 27\u201329 in the light of non-biblical and biblical texts, has demonstrated the existence of a Covenant relationship between Achish and David. Further, it has illustrated the details of day-to-day covenant life of the partners. This disposes us well to evaluate the significance of 27:12.<\/p>\n
B. Declaration Formula?<\/p>\n
The text consts of three parts:<\/p>\n
wayya\u02be\u0103m\u0113m AKIS be DAVID le\u02bem\u014dr
\nhabe\u02bf\u0113\u0161 hib\u02be\u00ee\u0161 be\u02bfamm\u00f4 beyi\u015br\u0101\u02be\u0113l
\nweh\u0101y\u00e2 l\u00ee le\u02bfebed \u02bf\u00f4l\u0101m<\/p>\n
This is rendered as: \u201cAnd Achish trusted David, thinking: He has made himself utterly abhorred by his people Israel; therefore he shall be my servant always\u201d (RSV and commonly). Commentators find in v. 12 an example of Achish\u2019s naivety: the king of Gath thought that David\u2019s raiding feats against Judah had brought out a definitive and complete break with his people, and this will constrain him to remain for the whole life as a Philistine vassal. According to this reading the verse merely records the foolish thinking of the obstuse king. This interpretation weakens the story: Achish\u2019s words have little meaning. They are babblings of a dupe! But if they have a reasonable (though mistaken) meaning they make a more forceful narrative, and proper interpretation gives them such a meaning. This depends on the words weh\u0101y\u00e2 l\u00ee le\u02bfebed \u02bf\u00f4l\u0101m, the cardinal part of the text. And precisely here we find formal covenant language. If the king of Gath makes use of a standard covenant expression, may this not have a very real significance? To understand the covenant language we turn to documents illustrating the thought world of the non-Hebrew Achish.<\/p>\n
i. \u02bfebed \u02bf\u00f4l\u0101m<\/p>\n
ANE treaties are qualified in documents as \u2018eternal\u2019 (adi d\u0101r\u012bti) pacts, they are enacted in perpetuity and are binding forever. Examples are selected from different kinds of texts:
\n(a) treaty documents: W 8, (here sal\u0101mum\/a\u1e2b\u1e2b\u00fbtum or at\u1e2b\u00fbtum are to be understood as synonyms for treaty, cf. p. 36) 1\u20133.8.9; 10.16.17; 21.24.27; Wiseman, Treaties of Esarhaddon, 295; (b) inscription: KAI 27, 8\u201311; (c) royal correspondence: KBo I, 10:8; ARMT, IV, 20: r. 26; (d) epic: Tukulti-Ninurta, VI, 31. The non-biblical documents often speak of the eternal character of vassalage. Thus the El Amarna underlings protest their fidelity to the king by declaring: anaku aradka adi d\u0101r\u012bti = \u201cI am your servant for ever\u201d, e.g., EA 156:6\u20137; 157:8; 160:8. 29; 161:10; 165:45; 189:26; 209:9\u201310. The original \u201cSitz im Leben\u201d of this formula seems to be the covenant-making act in which the rulers of city-state declared their subservience to Egypt. In Ugaritic texts this formula is employed in such a context: Threatened by destruction, Baal submitted to Mot by stating: \u02bfbd an wd\u02bf lmk = \u201cYour vassal am I, yea yours forever\u201d: UT 67:II:12, 19\u201320 (= CTA 5:II:12, 19\u201320); cf. also UT 137:36\u201337 (= CTA 2:36\u201337). Concerning the OT, Yahweh\u2019s covenant is designated as ber\u00eet \u02bf\u00f4l\u0101m: Gen 9:16; 17:7, 13, 19; Ex 31:16; Lev 24:8; 2 Sam 23:5; Is 24:5; 55:3; 61:8; Jer 32:40; 50:5; Ez 16:60; 37:26; Ps 105:10; 1 Chr 16:17. The expression \u02bfebed \u02bf\u00f4l\u0101m occurs in Dt 15:17; Job 40:28; 1 Sam 27:12; cf. Ex 21:6 and Lev 25:46 (in both texts the verb \u02bfbd is used with le\u02bf\u00f4l\u0101m). There is also the equivalent in 1 Kg 12:7 = 2 Chr 10:7: \u02bf\u0103b\u0101d\u00eem kol hayy\u0101mim. The texts from Ex, Lev, and Dt deal with laws regarding slaves which are couched in pregnant juridical terminology: Ex 21:6 and Dt 15:17 describe the ritual of making a Hebrew slave as a permanent possession; the texts conclude with the statement: weh\u0101y\u00e2 lek\u0101 \u02bfebed \u02bf\u00f4l\u0101m. Lev 25:46 states the law concerning the aliens: they could be made perpetual slaves. Job 40:28 reads: h\u0103yikr\u014dt ber\u00eet \u02bfimm\u0101k tiqq\u0101\u1e25enn\u00fb le\u02bfebed \u02bf\u00f4l\u0101m. This is clear covenant terminology: eternal vassalage is said to result from ber\u00eet; the status of \u02bfebed \u02bf\u00f4l\u0101m will entitle Leviathan to all legal privileges proper to a vassal. According to 1 Kg 12:7 = 2 Chr 10:7 only the \u2018good\u2019 behaviour (p. 000) of Rehoboam will bring the covenant renewal to fruition, which will commit the people to be his vassals forever: wehay\u00fb lek\u0101 \u02bf\u0103b\u0101d\u012bm kol hayy\u0101mim. Evidently these words convey a formal covenant expression. To sum up, in \u02bfebed \u02bf\u00f4l\u0101m we have a juridical or legal terminology which is employed in formal occasions: (a) of making of a covenant: Job 40:28; (b) of making of a contract: Lev 25:46: The law concerning aliens implies a contract of slave-purchase which is valid in perpetuity; (c) of renewing or re-confirming of a covenant: 1 Kg 12:7 = 2 Chr 10:7; (d) of renewing or re-confirming of a contract: Ex 21:6; Dt 15:17: The contract with a Hebrew slave expires after six years; but if he then renounces his freedom, he is to be re-confirmed in the service by a solemn ritual in the presence of the household deity. In other words, the phrase occurs in the contexts of entering into a new covenant\/contract relationship or that of re-confirming the existing covenant\/contract fellowship. The cited ANE texts also fall into this classification: one declares his vassalship in enacting or re-confirming the covenant. Thus both Ancient Orient and OT examples designate \u02bfebed \u02bf\u00f4l\u0101m, as a standard formal expression used in covenant\/contract making or re-confirming instances. Our text, 1 Sam 27:12 is naturally expected to follow the same pattern. The question of realizing a covenant does not enter here, there already exists a covenant relationship. Hence the reference of re-confirming the vassalage remains the only possibility. Do the first two parts of v. 12 fit in with this interpretation? I think that an affirmative answer can be warranted. It is based on the interpretation of wayy\u02be\u0103m\u0113n be, l\u0113\u02bemor, and the conjunction we in weh\u0101y\u00e2.<\/p>\n
ii. wayy\u02be\u0103men \u2026 l\u0113\u02bemor \u2026 weh\u0101y\u00e2<\/p>\n
The root \u02bemn means \u201cto be firm, sure, stable\u201d. Hiphil primarily brings causative or declarative sense to the root. Hence he\u02beemin can mean \u201cmake firm, declare, to be firm\u201d, i.e., to confirm. Can other instances of he\u02beemin be be adduced in support of this interpretation? This construction occurs 23 times in the OT. Seven instances, Dt 28:66; Ps 78:32; 106:12; 119:66; Job 15:31; 24:22; 39:12, do not have a person as object; hence do not concern us here. The remaining texts can be classified according to the status of the subject of the verb in the context: inferior: (10 times) Gen 15:6; Ex 14:31; 19:9; Num 14:11; 20:12; Dt 1:32; 2 Kg 17:14; Jon 3:5; Ps 78:22; 2 Chr 20:20; superior: (3 times) 1 Sam 27:12; Job 4:18; 15:15; status unclear: (3 times): Jer 12:6; Mic 7:5; Prov 26:25. Since only a person of superior status can confirm the inferior, and not vice versa, the first set of texts does not enter into our discussion. Thus the texts of interest are reduced to two, Job 4:18 and 15:15. Unfortunately he\u02beemin of these texts occur in negative contexts: Yahweh does not \u201che\u02beemin\u201d his servants and saints. These curt statements of sapiential style, made to stress the abjectness of creatures, do not provide comparative material to evaluate the sense of the positive statement of the narrative in 1 Sam 27:12. Hence we have to draw upon the contextual meaning to support our interpretation.
\nAs indicated above, Achish had in mind concrete political designs in extending vassalship to the dexterous ex-general of his enemy. But everything depended on the genuineness of David\u2019s \u201cconversion\u201d, which needed to be ascertained. The king of Gath had to be convinced of the sincerity and fidelity of the new underling. This will naturally call forth a rigid scrutiny of the deserter\u2019s day-to-day deportment. Only a long-standing definite proof of David\u2019s unswerving loyalty can dispel lingering suspicions about his real motives and win the overlord\u2019s trust and the status of permanent vassal. In case Achish\u2019s scrutiny portrayed the fugitive in dark colours, then David\u2019s sojourn in the Philistine land will be over and done with. Hence one can say that the pact by which the Hebrew was admitted into service, was not intended as a definitive arrangement. It had only the nature of a tentative or temporary alliance which could be dissolved or re-confirmed according to expediency of the superior party. The pact provided Achish ample opportunity to probe the good intentions of his vassal. The text says (27:3) that the king made the band stay with him at Gath. Achish could then closely observe David\u2019s deportment. Further, the ex-general of Saul had to stand up to two excruciating tests of loyalty. The Philistine lord demanded his active participation in the battle against his own people (28:1). His promptness in casting in his lot with the master was accounted as a clear proof of unfaltering loyalty. The idea of conducting forays, 27:8\u201312\u2014David was supposed to strike at the border villages of Judah\u2014seems to have been devised by Achish to probe the authenticity of his vassal\u2019s covenant commitment. The marauding band had to return each time to Achish to give a meticulous account of their incursion, identifying the site of inroads. His insistence on the name of the locality (v. 10) points to his motive for orchestrating raids into the enemy territory. And promptly David rendered a fabricated account of incursions into Judah. The report gratified the king. The repeated forays attest to the sincerity of the fugitive\u2019s adherence to the new master. David has finally broken with his people. The raids amounted to acts of political challenge to Judah. He has made himself utterly abhorred by his countrymen; this renders an eventual reconciliation between the parties impossible. He has forfeited \u201chis share in the inheritance of Yahweh\u201d (26:19). And he brought on himself this forlorn situation out of covenant loyalty. His sincerity is well established. David has won the trial. There is no need of further tests. Achish is fully convinced of the fidelity of his vassal. He can finally depend on the Hebrew. Hence David\u2019s vassalship can be reconfirmed in perpetuity, which will enable him to utilize without reservation the underling\u2019s service for the realization of his dream: the destruction of Judah. Indeed, David deserves to be made a vassal forever. Thus the context demands, or at least favours, the interpretation of he\u02beemin in the sense of re-confirming the vassal covenant with David in perpetuity. The pericope begins with David seeking subservience; it concludes with Achish granting full buservience. To put it differently, at first David is accepted temporarily because of uncertainty of his loyalty; at the end David is accepted (or re-confirmed) permanently because of certainty of his fidelity. To add a further observation, the confirming act results from the fidelity of the underling; it comes as a reward for the loyal performance. We have an analogous case in 28:1\u20132. In both instances words of loyalty bring declaration of establishing in office. It is granted in perpetuity as a sign of overlord\u2019s gratification since the vassal had demonstrated unveering loyalty in trying times. Both pericopes concludes with a reward for passing the test.
\nV. 12 connects wayy\u02be\u0103m\u0113n be David with l\u0113\u02bem\u014dr; the second and third parts of the text are the contents of l\u0113\u02bem\u014dr, hence the importance of the correct interpretation of the word. The verb \u02bemr can express wide variety of meaning. For instance, it can mean: \u201cannounce, state, declare, assure, etc\u201d. The infinitive construct, l\u0113\u02bem\u014dr can have \u201cthe function of interpreting or defining\u201d. It may be translated simply as \u201csaying\u201d, or, as \u201cdeclaring, stating, announcing\u201d. There exists a further possibility of rendering it as \u201cwith the words\u201d. Since our texts uses formal language, the appropriate translation will be: declaring or stating.
\nThe subject matter of l\u0113\u02bem\u014dr is presented in two clauses: statement of a fact (David has antagonized his people) is followed by the clause: weh\u0101y\u00e2 l\u00ee le\u02bfebed \u02bf\u00f4l\u0101m. What is the exact sense of the conjunction we in the whole verse 12? Most scholars understand it in sequential sense. Hence rendering it \u201ctherefore\u201d does not pose a problem. This particle serves to introduce statements of the following kinds, all of which are made in the light of the narrated fact or the forgoing discourse: (a) exhortation: Dt 7:11; 30:19; 1 Sam 6:5; 1 Kg 2:6; Ez 18:32; (b) admonition: Dt 2:4; 4:15; (c) demand\/request: Jos 15:19; Ruth 3:9; (d) declaration: Is 49:6b; 1 Sam 27:12c.
\nTwo texts from this group, Dt 30:19 and Is 49:6 deserve special mention. In the first, which is couched in covenant terminology, the conjunction we introduces a solemn covenant statement. Like this text, the sequential clause of 1 Sam 27:12 appears in a formal setting and employs covenant vocabulary. The second text exhibits striking similarities to our text: the particle introduces a declaration of promoting the servant to a prominent office; by this act the divine master showed his approbation of his underling. There followed a new era in the life of the servant. Thus there are parallels indicating that the conjunction we of the third clause of 1 Sam 27:12 can be rendered \u201ctherefore\u201d. It introduces Achish\u2019s declaration, made in the light of David\u2019s covenant loyalty which costed him his countrymen\u2019s allegiance and share in Yahweh\u2019s heritage. The king cites the fact of David\u2019s antagonizing Judah as the motive for re-confirming him as vassal forever. Thus 1 Sam 27:12bc seems to follow the structure of royal grant texts like 2 Kg 10:30; Num 25:10\u201313; cf. also Caleb pericopes (pp. 182f): It consists of two elements, motive and solemn declaration. This observation that the text employs formal legal structure, provides a further argument against understanding v. 12 as depiction of Achish\u2019s giving vent to his naive feelings. To conclude, the following translation of v. 12 seems to be warranted:
\n\u201cThen Achish re-confirmed David, stating: He has made himself utterly abhorred by his people Israel; therefore he shall be my vassal forever\u201d. According to this interpretation we have in the third part of v. 12 an oral covenant declaration formula.<\/p>\n
iii. The Function and Properties of the DF<\/p>\n
We already know some of the peculiar characteristics of this DF. The formula occurs not in a covenant making scene; it is employed to re-confirm an already existing pact. Ancient Orient DF offer remote parallels. The vassal rulers frequently affirmed their loyalty by re-confirming their vassalage. As for OT instances, cf. Ps 116:16, 16; 119:125; 143:12. But the Samuel text has the sovereign as the one who re-confirms the vassalage. We seldom find ANE instances of overlord employing vassal DF. The following instances, though not strictly analogous to our text, will serve to prove that the superior party employed formulae which expressed the inferior\u2019s relationship to him. In the treaty between Murshilish II and Niqmepa (PRU, IV, 84\u2013101) the Hittite king, granting the throne to Niqmepa, says: \u201cand you Niqmepa, with your country\u2014you are my vassals\u201d: RS 17.338: 3\u20134; 17.353: 3; 17.407: 3. This may be a ratifying act of the vassal status of the king of Ugarit. OT texts do not offer any instances where a human superior declares the vassal relationship; all the cases are concerned with the proclamations of Yahweh. The first two examples are gleaned from \u201cSchuldknechtschaft\u201d legislation: Lev 25:39\u201343 and 47\u201355. The first law forbids the Hebrews to take their countrymen as slaves. The motive: \u201c\u02bf\u0103b\u0101day h\u0113m whom I brought out of Egypt\u201d (v. 42). By employing the \u02bfebed formula Yahweh claims these people as his own slaves. By affirming that they are his exclusive property, Yahweh disavows others\u2019 possibility of acquiring the Hebrews as slaves. He is not establishing here a new right on his people. They are already his servants with whom he had entered into a covenant relationship at Sinai (His words, \u201cwhom I brought out of Egypt\u201d may be understood as implying that episode). The present occasion called for an assertion, and Yahweh vindicated his ownership on the people. This \u02bfebed DF is employed to affirm the existing relationship. Lev 25:47\u201355 tackles the problem of Hebrew who is slave to a foreigner. His release is demanded by citing the same motive as v. 42. In v. 55 it is put more emphatically by twice affirming the Hebrew\u2019 belonging to Yahweh (l\u00ee ben\u00ea Israel \u02bf\u0103b\u0101d\u00eem; \u02bf\u0103b\u0101day h\u0113m), and by employing the concluding formula \u02be\u0103n\u00ee YHWH \u02be\u011bl\u014dh\u00eakem, by which Yahweh, invoking his own lordship over the whole universe, ratifies the foregoing statement. Deutero-Isaiah, provides further instances of Yahweh\u2019s \u02bfebed declarations. Is 41:9b \u201cAnd I said to you: \u201c\u02bfabd\u00ee \u02beatt\u00e2; I have chosen you and not cast you off\u201d: The oracle of salvation (vv. 8\u201313) is delivered to the exiles in distress and despondency. To enable the people to accept the assurance of salvation, Yahweh gives in vv. 8\u20139 a r\u00e9sum\u00e9 of his dealings with Israel to date. It is in this historical retrospect that the DF occurs. The \u02bfebed formula is pronounced in the context of call, and the ideas of election and protection are joined to it. By this formal declaration Yahweh established Israel as his vassal, make her his own \u201cproperty\u201d, granted the people protection and security\u2014in other words, actualized the ideas underlying the concept of vassal. Thus the vassal relationship was constituted by Yahweh\u2019s oral act. In the present context of oracle, the formula is cited to assure the people in dismay that he still avowed them vassals (it is then a confirming act), which meant assurance of his presence, help and protection (vv. 10\u201313).
\nIs 42:1 h\u0113n\u02bfabd\u00ee, \u201cThis is my servant\u201d: The formula occurs in the context of the solemn \u201cinstallation\u201d of the \u02bfebed: Yahweh formally presents his underling before the heavenly court, announces his appointment to a special task as well as equipping him adequately for it. The \u02bfebed formula forms the keynote of this \u201cservant song\u201d. The demonstrative particle h\u0113n occurs 18 times in Deutero-Isaiah (40\u201355), and in all instances except 42:1, it introduces the whole sentence; only in our text it is used to qualify the single word, \u02bfabd\u00ee. This peculiar grammatical construction is intended to bring into focus the person of Yahweh\u2019s underling. The whole stress is laid on the word \u2018servant\u2019. The \u02bfabd\u00ee is syntactically connected with the relative clause \u02beetmok-b\u00f4, which Elliger renders, \u201cden ich halte\u201d: it refers to a detail in the act of presentation, Yahweh is holding the hand of his nominee. This interpretation (cf. v. 6) gives a deeper meaning to Yahweh\u2019s speech (vv. 1\u20134), as Elliger observes: \u201cdass er die Ernennung und Einsetzung zum Ebed erst wirksam macht und zum g\u00fcltigen Abschluss bringt\u201d (p. 203). The underling is further qualified by the title be\u1e25\u00eer\u00ee, which is appositional to \u02bfabd\u00ee and with whom Yahweh is pleased. These observations elucidate the function of the DF. Here one does not deal with a declaration which serves to constitute the \u02bfebed relationship. The relationship already exists. The person is already \u201cmy chosen in whom I have delight\u201d. Rather it is an official proclamation of this fact before a solemn assembly, who seems to play the role of witness. The presentation takes place during the ceremony of \u201cinstallation\u201d to an office. Yahweh\u2019s declarative act, which lays the whole emphasis on \u02bfabd\u00ee, is an affirmative statement of the existing relationship. One can say, it implicitly means a re-confirmation of the \u02bfebed status.
\nIs 43:10: \u02beattem \u02bfeday \u2026 we\u02bfabd\u00ee: In the trail speech (\u201cGerichtsrede\u201d), vv. 8\u201313, Yahweh addresses these words to Israel. It consists of two parallel formulae. By the words, \u201cyou are my witnesses\u201d, Yahweh proclaims Israel as his own witnesses. The declarative act serves to confer on them a new job: they are commissioned to act as his witnesses. At the same time he affirms: \u201cyou are my servant\u201d. While the first declaration is concerned with a new status which is specific in nature, the second one refers to the already existing status (the words, \u201cwhom I have chosen\u201d, imply it: they refer to a past act), a fundamental relationship which makes possible the bestowing of specific status. The people are made witnesses, since they are already allied to Yahweh as servants. The master assigns a new task to his underling. Yahweh enunciates the first formula in the light of the reality expressed by the \u02bfebed formula. This second formula does not establish a new relationship, but simply affirms (hence implicitly re-confirms) the existing fellowship. Why does Yahweh explicitly employ this DF at this context? As the subsequent lema\u02bfan clauses poignantly put it, his assertion is intended to arouse the people to the implications of \u02bfebed status: Yahweh is their unique lord (\u02be\u0103n\u00ee h\u00fb\u02be) and almighty divine patron, they, as underlings, are obliged to acknowledge his overlordship and confide in his absolute power.
\nIs 44:21: \u02bfebed l\u00ee \u02beatt\u00e2: Yahweh\u2019s \u201cTrost- und Mahnwort\u201d (vv. 21\u201322) to a despondent community, exhibits the following elements: The unit begins and ends with two imperative admonitions (\u201cThink of this\u201d; \u201cReturn to me\u201d), which are followed by two motive (k\u00ee) clauses. The words of \u201cconsolation\u201d (vv. 21d\u201322ab) are addressed in the light of the declared reality in v. 21c: \u201cYou are a servant of mine\u201d. It is to this proposition which is introduced by the words, \u201cI formed you\u201d, that the first \u2018Mahnwort\u2019 refers: Israel is asked to focus her attention (zkr) on these words, she has to make herself awake to the implications of Yahweh\u2019s declaration. The special formulation of the phrase (\u02bfebed l\u00ee instead of the usual \u02bfabd\u00ee)\u2014neither metric nor stylistic motives could warrant it, as Elliger notes\u2014seems to have been intended to put the people\u2019s \u02bfebed relationship to Yahweh (the whole emphasis is laid on l\u00ee) in the limelight. The formula is connected with the words, \u201cI formed you\u201d, which refers to a past event. An analysis of y\u1e63r instances in Deutero-Isaiah which have Yahweh as subject and persons as object, provides the following data: (a) y\u1e63r + equivalent verbal terms as qr\u02be (42:6; 43:1 + be\u0161\u0113m); b\u1e25r (44:2); hzq bey\u0101d: (42:6); g\u02bel (43:1; 44:21f); (b) the place of y\u1e63r: womb (44:2, 24; 49:5); (c) the purpose of y\u1e63r: Yahweh\u2019s k\u0101b\u00f4d (43:7) and tehill\u00e2 (43:21); (d) the destination of the \u201cformed\u201d! to be \u02bfebed (49:5; 44:2, 21); l\u00ee \u02be\u0101t\u00e2 \u201cyou are mine\u201d (43:1); l\u00ee \u201cfor myself\u201d (43:21); (e) promises to the \u2018formed\u2019: \u02bfzr (help) 44:2; \u02beal t\u00eer\u0101\u02be \u201cfear not\u201d (43:1; 44:2).
\nThis analysis shows that y\u1e63r is related to the concepts of call, election and redemption; the forming takes place in the womb\u2014in the case of Israel, Mount Sinai where she was created as Yahweh\u2019s people\u2014when Israel was designated as Yahweh\u2019s \u02bfebed (cf. the expression, \u201ccalled you by name\u201d) and possession (\u201cyou are mine\u201d; \u201cfor myself\u201d). As the study of 49:3 will illustrate, it is by declaring Israel as his \u02bfebed that Yahweh formed\/called\/elected\/redeemed her. Thus the DF constitutes the relationship between the parties. In the present context Yahweh, by reiterating the DF, demands Israel to dwell upon the signification of her \u02bfebed status, which invites trust in the divine patronage. Yahweh\u2019s words imply that he had not repudiated Israel, but still accepts her as \u02bfebed (hence DF is an implicit re-confirmation of the relationship). His further words are enunciated in the light of this declaration: as the master he assures Israel that he will never forget her, announces the pardon of offenses, and demand her to return to him.
\nIs 49:3: \u02bfabd\u00ee \u02be\u0101t\u00e2: This formula forms part of the servant\u2019s \u201cinaugural\u201d speech (\u201cAntrittsrede\u201d), vv. 1\u20136. He summons the foreign nations and presents his \u201ccredentials\u201d before them. He claims that he is appearing before them as Yahweh\u2019s man, who elected him and commissioned him with a special task. Yahweh is said to have called him (qer\u0101\u02bf\u0101n\u00ee) from birth, and proclaimed his name (hizk\u00eer \u0161em\u00ee) from his mother\u2019s womb. The terminology has the flavour of the Assyrian texts on election and naming of the future king by deities. Compare the phrase zak\u0101ru nib\u012bt \u0161um\u012b\u0161u \u2026 ana of Ashurbanipal\u2019s Rassam Cylinder, col. i.1\u20135 with the OT hizk\u00eer \u0161\u0113m: \u201cI am Ashurbanipal \u2026 whose name, Ashur, Sin \u2026 have called to kingship from distant days, whom they formed already in the womb to be the shepherd of Assyria\u201d. The second part of this text is analogous to Is 49:5: \u201cYahweh who formed you in the womb to be his servant\u201d. In the Cylinder denominating is related to electing to a specific office. The Isaiah-text follows the same pattern. V. 1 recounts the fact of calling and naming. The conferred name and the assigned task is revealed in v. 3. It comes in the form of an oral declaration: \u201cyou are my servant, in whom I will be glorified\u201d. It is by proclaiming him his \u02bfebed that Yahweh elects the \u201cspeaker\u201d of the pericope. The declarative act constitutes the relationship between the parties. The word \u02bfebed serves as a title of the person and implies his function, which is, moreover, stated explicitly as glorifying the master. We have already noted that \u02bfebed is \u2018formed\u2019 to glorify his lord. In the present context DF is cited by the \u201cspeaker\u201d to establish himself as Yahweh\u2019s emissary to the gentiles.
\nTo sum up the result of the study of texts where the superior states the \u02bfebed relationship: In all the texts from Leviticus and Deutero-Isaiah (except 49:3) the DF occurs in the context of Yahweh\u2019s speech, and his declaration implies a re-confirmation of the existing relationship. These OT examples attest to the use of \u02bfebed DF for the purpose of re-confirming an existing fellowship. Hence they corroborate the interpretation of 1 Sam 27:12b as an oral declarative act to re-confirm David in his vassal status.
\nThus Achish\u2019s statement serves to confer on David the status of life-long (\u02bf\u00f4l\u0101m) vassal. No follow-up process was needed to make the declaration valid: the authoritative words of the superior party could establish the enunciated status. It is analogous to proclamation of a decree by a sovereign. The properties of DF: It is a one-way formula in nominal form, which affirms the inferior\u2019s relationship to the superior. The master orally declares the underling\u2019s fellowship to him. The formula, though not a two-fold one\u2014hence it does not explicitly state the reciprocal relationship: \u201cyou are my vassal, I am your lord\u201d\u2014, nevertheless implies the vassal\u2013lord fellowship: cf. the prepositional suffix, l\u00ee = to me, of the formula. The subject is put in the third person (\u201cHe will be my eternal vassal\u201d)\u2014a phenomenon not uncommon in the Ancient Orient. The formula defines the nature of the relationship.<\/p>\n
C. Conclusion<\/p>\n
David-Achish units, 1 Sam 27\u201328:2; 29, though a \u201ckonstruierte Berichte\u201d, neverthless enrich our understanding of OT covenant. It speaks of a non-ber\u00eet pact, the parties of which are not two kings. A ruler of a city-state establishes an alliance with a leader of \u201cl\u2019apatride\u201d. And it illustrates the covenant behaviour of the parties. V. 12 provides the unique instance of OT secular covenants where the superior declares the vassal relationship. By this oral declaration the vassal status is fully established. This re-confirming act of the existing relationship comes as a reward for unswerving loyalty.<\/p>\n
V. General Conclusion on the Vassal Formula<\/p>\n
Jos 9:8 (a ber\u00eet text); 2 Kg 16:7; 2 Kg 10:5f; and 1 Sam 27:12 (all non-ber\u00eet texts) illustrate the phenomenon of oral declarative acts in the vassal pacts. In the first three texts it is the inferior party who declared his belonging-to-the-other as a vassal. By this declaration he committed himself to a life of subordination and subservience. The weaker party\u2019s declaration, by itself, cannot effect an alliance; the stronger person has to confirm the declared relationship. An implicit ratifying act is recorded in the Joshua text: the Israelites partook of the Gibeonite provisions. 2 Kg 10:6 refers to the verbal response of Jehu: he ratified the nobles\u2019 vassal declaration by stating that they belonged to him. He used then a generic formula, a DF of the \u201cwe all one\u201d type. But 2 Kg 16 does not mention any ratifying act of the pact. Instead, the author proceeds to recount the result of the realized covenant: the overlord came to the vassal\u2019s rescue. This means that the mere mention of the standard DF were enough to indicate the conclusion of an accord. To sum up, in all the three texts the enunciation of the DF, together with the ensued gesture of consent, effected the covenant relationship. The purpose of the oral declarative act was not simply to open covenant negotiations; rather, it served as a covenant constituting act. Jos 9 refers to an additional rite, an oath: the swearing was concerned with the stipulations. The fourth text 1 Sam 27:12 speaks of a re-confirming act of the existing vassal relationship. It is the superior party who pronounced the DF. By affirming the underling\u2019s relationship to him, Achish established David as an eternal vassal. The DF was enough to create the enunciated relationship.
\nThreat of life or invasion induced the Gibeonites, Ahaz and the \u00e9lite of Samaria to declare themselves as vassals. This was analogous to many ANE covenant making episodes. Achish\u2019s declaration resulted from the motive of his vassal\u2019s loyalty. According to Jos 9 and 2 Kg 16 the contact between the parties was initiated with the words of the DF. The declaration of 2 Kg 10 came later as response to Jehu\u2019s indirect invitation for surrender. Jos 9 offers a case of an accord between an invading force and a city-state. 2 Kg 16 speaks of an alliance between two powers. The Jehu text implies a \u201cK\u00f6nigsvertrag\u201d, based on loyalty oaths of the subjects. 1 Sam 27 depicts the covenant relationship between a city ruler and the leader of \u201cl\u2019apatride\u201d.
\nThese are all one-way formulae in nominal form. Only 2 Kg 10 reflects a reciprocal formula. Even there the superior\u2019s declaration is not couched in the usual formulation such as \u201cyou are my vassal\u201d. All these DF (except Jehu\u2019s words) define the nature of the relationship: vassalage. Ahaz text adds the filial element to his declaration.
\nThe DF implies all the covenant stipulations (cf. the \u02bfebed concept). This may be the reason why the OT texts often do not explicitly mention the covenant clauses.
\nThe OT offers two more examples of oral \u02bfebed formula in secular contexts: Gen 44:16 and 50:18 concern Joseph and his brothers. Jacob\u2019s sons declared themselves as slaves of the Egyptian governor: hinnen\u00fb \u02bf\u0103b\u0101d\u00eem la\u02bed\u014dn\u00ee (44:16); hinnen\u00fb lek\u0101 la\u02bf\u0103b\u0101d\u00eem (50:18). Here the demonstrative adverb with suffix is used to reinforce the affirmation. The first declaration was made in accordance with the pledged word of 44:9f. In 50:18 fear of eventual vengeance prompted the brothers to seek a legal relationship with Joseph. The vocabulary employed in the pericopes is analogous with the terminology of the Jacob\u2013Esau pact: hi\u0161ta\u1e25aweh 42:6; 43:28; npl lep\u0101n\u0101yw 44:14; 50:18; \u02bfebed 42:10, 11, 13; 44:18, 18, 19, 21, 23, 31, 32, 33; cf. 44:7, 9, 16; \u02bead\u014dn\u00ee 42:10; 44:16, 16, 18, 18, 19, 20, 22, 24, 33; cf. 43:20; 44:7, 9. In both instances the declared relationship was not materialized, since the superior party did not ratify the declaration.<\/p>\n
title Declaration and covenant: a comprehensive review of covenant formulae from the Old Testament and the ancient Near East}\u00b4
\nauthor Kalluveettil, Paul}<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
CHAPTER 1 Introduction \u201cYahweh, the God of Israel\u2013Israel, the people of Yahweh\u201d\u2014this phrase, J. Wellhausen contends, encapsulates the central theme of the whole OT and gives a comprehensive unity to the contents of the Hebrew Scriptures. This relationship between Yahweh and Israel finds expression in affirmative sentences such as, \u201cI will be your God and … <\/p>\n