Covenant Forms in Israelite Tradition

• Legal custom of covenant is brought to religion

• Covenant is what establishes the relationship between man and God

• Contract between man and God was an actual event, with a location and repercussions

The Nature of Covenant

• Oaths were instituted in order to hold one to the covenant they made

• Vassal is bound by oath to obey the Hittite sovereign

• Purpose of the suzerainty was to create a mutually beneficial relationship between two nations

The Structure of the Covenant

• Covenant belongs to the sovereign (suzerain)

• 6 elements: preamble, history, stipulations, public reading, list of gods

• Treaty was written in the 1st person to create a personal tone

Other Factors in the Covenant

• Vassal swore obedience by oath

• Suzerainty treaties were not found in any other period

Covenant Forms in Israel

• Covenant between Abraham and God: circumcision was a sign, not an obligation

• ID’s the participants of the covenant

• Mosaic Covenant imposes promises fulfilled by the clans, but Yahweh doesn’t promise anything

The Covenant of Joshua 24

• A monotheistic obligation is implied

• 1st person reference on behalf of Joshua

• Difference between generations (Joshua vs. Moses)

The Breakdown of the Covenant Form

• Monarchy established (pros and cons of the “old ways”)

• King made by covenant; Yahweh was witness

• David’s reign was declared the Golden Age (modus vivendi)

The Rediscovery of Moses

• King Josiah made a covenant with his people to follow the Lord’s commandments

• Former amphictyonic covenant was rediscovered

• New Testament is founded upon the Mosaic Covenant

• Moses speaks in the 1st person

• Religious tradition and political leadership went hand in hand

Intro:

• Two covenant types in the Old Testament: obligatory vs. promissory

• Treaty vs. grant

• Treaty: vassal obligated to obey master

• Grant: master obligated to care for vassal

• Abrahamic and Davidic covenants were grants

Unconditional Gift

• Hittite treaties are known for giving land away as a reward to their vassals

• People of a dynasty cannot give land away to a stranger

• A father’s sins don’t fall to the son

• Dynasty could be legitimized by adoption (???)

• Adoption is classified as a “forensic metaphor”

• Adopted sons can be punished as the sons of free men, not slaves

The Covenant with Abraham in Gen. XV

• Suzerain = God

• God swears to keep His promise to Abraham

• Sacrificial animals were part of oath-taking

• 3rd millennium is when sacrifices for a covenant began

• Oath-imprecation (???)

The Legal Formulae in the Covenant with Abraham

• Conveyance in perpetuity (???)

• There was a “judicial pattern” in the way that land was gifted in Genesis XV

• Abraham is promised a legacy, a dynasty, before he is promised land

• David and Abraham were promised that their names would be great

The Grant of Hebron to Caleb

• Caleb was loyal and faithful, so he was granted Hebron as a fiefdom

• Scholarly assumption that Abrahamic and Davidic covenantal traditions originated in Hebron

The Grant of Priesthood and Priestly Revenues

• Grants of status

• Levites were given the tithes of all Israel by God

• Sons of Levi were given an inheritance

• Hebron is the origin of the Aaronite and Levite grant

• Abraham was named “Father of the hos of nations”

The Abrahamic Covenant in the Priestly Source

• D source is a reformulation of the P source

• P source covenant relationship is considered “one-sided”

• D source says that Israel actively participates in forming a relationship with God

• Abraham is promised that he will have a kingly legacy

• Israel had at least 5 vassal states

• Circumcision was classified as a pre-requisite for becoming a person of Israel

Rediscovery of Mosaic Covenant

During the reign of King Josiah, he and his people agreed to follow the commandments given by the Lord. In doing so, they managed to bring back an “amphictyonic covenant” that allowed them to become more unified in their religion. Because Yahweh was a witness to their covenant, Moses took the position of first person speaker, since he was given the position of representative for Yahweh. At this time, the people managed to form a bridge between the politics of leaders and the obligations that came with religion.

Hi User:Kk 1291! Your additional point on the mosaic covenant is insightful but could use some small tweaking. First off I think your input would be better understood if you were a little more specific. For instance when you say "King Josiah and his people," you could be more specific with which group of people are you referring to. Aside from that, your explanation regarding the transition from politics to religion is great! Sunshine619 ( talk) 19:51, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Assyrian Treaties

The grants in the time of the Assyrians place a large emphasis on loyalty and favor. It can be viewed in terms of reciprocity. The Assyrian suzerain expects loyalty and honest service from his vassal. In exchange for that loyalty, the king will grant favor to the vassal. However, it’s also mentioned that the king showing kindness or being benevolent to his vassal is the gift he gives to the servant who served him with loyalty. Also, the concept of the subject guarding the ruler is mentioned repeatedly. In these grants, it’s about guarding the suzerain politically from others or from within his empire.

Hi User:Kk 1291, I enjoyed your input on suzerain treaties developed throughout the Assyrian rise. Your focus on the relationship between the two parties of a grant is clear and concise. The only note I have for you is regarding siting your sources! Your claim might be better supported if you reference either Coogan or whoever else you may have studied. Other than that it looks great! Sunshine619 ( talk) 14:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Battle of Gibeah

The story of the nameless concubine that led to the Battle of Gibeah draws parallels to other narrative of the Bible. In the Hebrew Bible, the story of Jephthah and his daughter has some similarities. While Jephthah’s sacrifice of his daughter was unintentional, the master who owned the concubine gave her to the men willingly. Another biblical story with parallels is that of Lot and his daughters. He offered them to men as well in exchange for the safety of the men under his roof. All three of these narratives draw more than the similarities of sacrificed women due to the actions of men. They are tied together by the idea of family sacrifice, or family obligation. The women of these stories are entrusted to the men of their family to be cared for. However, the man of the house still had authority over what happened or didn’t happen to the females under his protection.

Hayes Outline

Christine Hayes' main point throughout the reading is that the aversion of intermarriage between Israelites and Gentiles was not due to ritual impurity. She repeatedly emphasizes the notion that factors such as sexual relations and genealogical purity are reasons why intermarriage was not allowed. In the reading, she provides evidence from Ezran ideals on the subject of intermarriage. Hayes also discusses the notion of an aversion of intermarriage due to a fear of Israelites turning away from their God. Deuteronomy text supports the idea that an intermarriage between an Israelite and a Gentile will cause God to turn away from the Israelite. While this isn't a prominent point to the degree that genealogical purity is, Hayes takes the time to discuss that it was also a deciding factor in regards to the subject of not prohibiting intermarriage.

Katherine Southwood Outline

Southwood's main point is that the intermarriage issue in the Book of Nehemiah is presented the way it is due to the author's need of ethnic preservation. She analyzes this idea by discussing a three-fold structure that ties into the author of Nehemiah wanting to maintain the Judean identity. The three-fold structure is an interwoven relationship of ethnicity, language and religion. Nehemiah's sole argument for denying intermarriage is the possibility and potential reality of losing their ethnic identity due to linguistic assimilation. Meaning, intermarriage can cause the mix of different languages or dialects to be brought into the community and therefore, does not make the Judean language the prominent factor of the group's identity. Southwood further emphasizes these points with social and cultural studies done by scholars where language has been used as a symbol of ethnic pride and is even used as a boundary to divide groups into the stereotypical "us vs. them." She discusses these studies because they tie into Nehemiah's intermarriage beliefs as a way to understand the crisis going on within the story. The author of Nehemiah insinuates that the non-exilic people who assimilated to a local linguistic dialect were not keeping the language pure and therefore, this unintelligible language was not Judean. A final idea is that since exogamy led to linguistic assimilation by the group, supporting endogamy would hold off the process of assimilation and keep that "us vs. them" boundary intact.