Building on Stone? Deuteronomy and Esarhaddon's Loyalty Oaths ...

Bulletin for Biblical Research 19.4 (2009) 511–535

Building on Stone? Deuteronomy and Esarhaddon’s Loyalty Oaths (Part 2):

Some Additional Observations

markus zehnder

university of basel

and ansgar theological seminary

Many elements found in the so-called Vassal Treaty of Esarhaddon (VTE) andin the postulated “Ur-Deuteronomium” as well as in other parts of the book ofDeuteronomy are attested in other documents of the ancient Near East, espe-cially in Hittite vassal treaties and loyalty oaths from the 14th and 13th centu-ries b.c. and in Aramaic treaties from the 9th and 8th centuries b.c. In addition,it is probable that further textual witnesses containing similar elements onceexisted but were lost because of the perishable material that was frequently used.These observations, together with the dissimilarities between “Ur-Deuterono-mium” and VTE both in content and in historical background pointed out inpart 1 of this study,1 caution against overly optimistic claims of a dependenceof “Ur-Deuteronomium” on VTE. This article will also argue that, with respectto some parallels in the curse sections, a direction of dependence that is invertedcompared to the one commonly held cannot be ruled out.

Key Words: Deuteronomy, Vassal Treaty of Esarhaddon, Hittite vassal treaties,Hittite loyalty oaths, treaty of Tell Fakhariyeh, treaty of Sefire, Code of Hammu-rabi, Leviticus 26, curse

Parallels between VTE and “Ur-Deuteronomium”

Found in Additional Texts

A number of elements that are mentioned as parallels between VTE and aproposed “Ur-Deuteronomium” can actually be found in other documentsof the ancient Near East as well. I mention the following twelve elements.

Setting Up the Treaty and Keeping the Wording Unchanged

Provisions about the setting up of the treaty document and injunctions tokeep its formulation unchanged can be found both in VTE (§§35–36, lines

1. “Building on Stone? Deuteronomy and Esarhaddon’s Loyalty Oaths (Part 1): Some Pre-liminary Observations,” BBR 19 (2009): 341–74.

00-BBR_19.4.book Page 511 Monday, November 16, 2009 5:53 PM

Bulletin for Biblical Research 19.4512

397–413) and Deuteronomy (Deut 4:2; 13:1; 11:18–20; 27:1–8; 31:9, 24–26).2

Similar arrangements are mentioned in a number of Hittite documents.One example is the following passage in the treaty between Shattiwaza ofMittanni and Suppiluliuma I of Hatti:

[A duplicate of this tablet is deposited] in the land [of Mittanni beforethe Storm-god. . . . It shall be read repeatedly, for ever and ever,] be-fore the king of the land [of Mittanni and before the Hurrians. Who-ever, before the Storm-god, Lord of the kurinnu of Kahat, alters] thistablet, [or sets it in a secret location—if he breaks it, if he changes thewords of the text of the tablet] . . .3

Exclusivity of Allegiance

The exclusivity of the allegiance that the vassal owes to his suzerain, whichis one of the most important elements for Otto and others to relate the pos-tulated “Ur-Deuteronomium” to the Neo-Assyrian Empire, is found notonly in Assyrian contexts but well before in Hittite vassal treaties. This canbe gleaned from the following example, taken from the treaty betweenSuppiluliuma I of Hatti and Huqqana of Hayasa:

All of Hatti, the land of Hayasa, and the outlying and central landshave heard of you. Now you, Huqqana, recognize only My Majesty asoverlord. And recognize my son whom I, My Majesty, designate.4

Recognize only My Majesty and protect My Majesty! . . . and if theperson of My Majesty is not as dear to you as your own person is dearto you, and the concerns of My Majesty have not taken precedence foryou, you will transgress the oath.5

Inclusion of the Descendants

Also, the inclusion of the descendants of the addressees with the stipula-tion that they are also bound by the loyalty obligation can be found in otherancient Near Eastern texts. One may point to the treaty between Mursili IIof Hatti and Kupanta-Kurunta of Mira-Kuwaliya:

And later your descendants, Kupanta-Kurunta, to the first and secondgeneration, shall be effective and strong helpers.6

The same stipulation is also found in the Aramaic treaty of Sefire, datingto the middle of the 8th century b.c.:

2. Deuteronomy 4:2 and 13:1 do not refer explicitly to a written document, but they con-tain the prohibition not to change the wording of the commandments.

3. Gary Beckman, Hittite Diplomatic Texts (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996), 51, §8.4. Ibid., 27, §2.5. Ibid., 28, §3.6. Ibid., 77, §13.


Zehnder: Deuteronomy and Esarhaddon’s Loyalty Oaths 513

The treaty of Bar-Gaªyah, king of ktk, with Matiºel, the son of ºAt-tarsamak, the king [of Arpad; and the trea]ty of the sons of Bar-Gaªyah with the sons of Matiºel; and the treaty of the grandsons ofBar-Gaª[yah and] his [offspring] with the offspring of Matiºel . . .7

The necessity and obligation to instruct not only the immediate addresseesbut also subsequent generations about the stipulations of the documentare found outside VTE and Deuteronomy in other ancient Near Easterntexts as well. This can be seen, for example, in an oath imposed on a groupof higher Hittite army officers:

[If] we do not present these words before our sons, . . . [. . . , thenshall] al[l] gods of Hatti [destroy us].8

Swearing an Oath

The demand for an oath of loyalty is found repeatedly in Hittite vassaltreaties and of course in the documents referring to oaths imposed ondifferent groups of the higher administrative and military personnel inthe Hittite Empire. By way of example, we may mention the followinginstance, found in the treaty between Mursili II of Hatti and Kupanta-Kurunta of Mira-Kuwaliya:

Then I caused the land of Mira and the land of Kuwaliya to swear anoath to Mashuiluwa, Muwatti, and you, Kupanta-Kurunta.9

To “Love” the Suzerain

In several documents ranging from the 18th to the 7th centuries b.c.,“love” is used to describe the loyalty and friendship uniting either inde-pendent kings or sovereign and vassal or king and subjects.10

As an example, we may point to letter 53 of the Amarna letters, wherea (Canaanite) vassal makes clear that to “love” the Pharaoh is to serve himand to remain faithful to the status of vassal:

My lord, just as I love the king, m[y] lord, so too the king of Nuhasse,the king of Nii, the king of Zinzar, and the king of Tunanab; all ofthese kings are my lord’s servants.11

7. Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Aramaic Inscriptions of Sefire (rev. ed.: Rome: Pontifical BiblicalInstitute, 1995), 42–43, Sf I 1–5.

8. “[Wenn] wir diese Worte nicht vor unsere Söhne bringen, . . . [. . . , dann sollen uns]al[le] Götter von Hatti [vernichten]” (Einar von Schuler, “Die Würdenträgereide des Arnu-wanda,” Orientalia 25 [1956]: 230, col. II 18–19, 28–29).

9. Beckman, Hittite Diplomatic Texts, 75, §4.10. See William L. Moran, “The Ancient Near Eastern Background of the Love of God in

Deuteronomy,” CBQ 25 (1963): 78.11. Idem, The Amarna Letters (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992), 125

53:40–44.



Duty to Report Hidden Conspiracies

The issue of possible hidden conspiracies and the obligation to report themis found in several Hittite treaties, as can be seen from the following quo-tation, taken from the treaty between Tuthaliya II of Hatti and Sunash-shura of Kizzuwatna:

If someone, either a single man or a city, incites a revolt and beginswar against His Majesty, Sunashshura must inform(?) His Majesty assoon as he hears of it.12

This quotation is particularly close to Deut 13 in that it exhibits the samesequence of single person-city.

Duty to Seize Conspirators

Instigators of conspiracies are not only to be reported, but they are to beseized and handed over for due punishment. This is another elementfound in texts other than VTE and Deuteronomy, as the following ex-amples show. The loyalty oaths of the Hittite army officers contain thispassage:

[. . . or if] a friend presents a hostile matter before a friend, . . . and wedo not arrest him, . . . [. . . , then shall] al[l] gods of Hatti [destroy us].13

The treaty of Sefire exhibits a similar obligation:

[. . . And whoever will come to you] or to your son or to your offspringor to one of the kings of Arpad and will s[pea]k [ag]ainst me oragainst my son or against my grandson or against my offspring, in-deed, any man who rants and utters evil words against me. . . . Youmust hand them (i.e., the men) over into my hands, and your sonmust hand (them) over to my son, and your offspring must hand(them) over to my offspring.14

Being on Guard against Friends and Relatives

Warnings that treason and rebellion could originate in circles of friendsand relatives standing very close either to the suzerain or the addresseeand injunctions that in spite of close personal ties action must be takenagainst these instigators are found not only in VTE and Deut 13 but alsoin the treaty between Bar-Gaªyah and the king of Arpad and in severalHittite vassal treaties and loyalty oaths. See the following example takenfrom the treaty between Arnuwanda I of Hatti and the men of Ismerika:

If someone speaks an evil word before you—whether he is a governorof a border province . . . or if he is some person’s father, mother,

12. Beckman, Hittite Diplomatic Texts, 20, §18.13. “[. . . oder wenn] ein Freund vor einen Freund eine feindselige Angelegenheit bringt,

. . . und wir nehmen ihn nicht fest, . . . [. . . , dann sollen uns] al[le] Götter von Hatti [vernich-ten]” (Schuler, “Die Würdenträgereide,” 230, col. II 6–7, 10, 28–29).

14. Fitzmyer, The Aramaic Inscriptions, 136–37, Sf III 1–3.



brother, sister, or his child or [his] relative by marriage—[. . .] No oneshall conceal the one who speaks an (evil) word, but shall rather seizehim and make him known.15

A Matter of the “Heart”

The special reference to the “heart” of the addressees and especially toobedience as a matter of the “heart” is also found outside VTE and Deu-teronomy, as the example of the treaty between Mursili II of Hatti andKupanta-Kurunta of Mira-Kuwaliya shows:

[. . . And if] someone speaks an evil word concerning My Majesty toyou . . . —[this matter] shall be taken to your heart as a regulation.Take this [matter] to your heart today! . . . [And] you shall not commitevil [against My Majesty. As you have stood] on the side of My Maj-esty, continue to stand only on the side of My Majesty. [If] someonespeaks [an evil] word concerning My Majesty before you, Kupanta-Kurunta, and you [conceal] it from My Majesty, [and] act rashly, . . .you . . . will . . . transgress the oath.16

A reference to the “heart” of the addressees is also found in the treatybetween Ashur-Nerari V and the king of Arpad, dating to the mid-8thcentury b.c.:

[If the Assyrian army] goes to war . . . and Matiª-ilu, together with hismagnates, his forces and his char[iotry] does not go forth (on the cam-paign) in full loyalty.17

Combination of Conditional Protasisand Second-Person Address

The “if-you” formulations, that is, the combination of a conditional protasiswith a second-person address, typical of both VTE and Deut 13, are foundin the Sefire stele describing the treaty between Bar-Gaªyah and the king ofArpad and in several Hittite treaties, such as the treaty between Arnu-wanda I of Hatti and the men of Ismerika, the treaty between Murshili IIof Hatti and Tuppi-Teshshup of Amurru, the treaty between Murshili IIand Niqmepa of Ugarit, the treaty between Tudhaliya IV of Hatti andShaushga-muwa of Amurru.18

15. Beckman, Hittite Diplomatic Texts, 15, §9. The relevant passage in the treaty be-tween Bar-Gaªyah and the king of Arpad is found in Fitzmyer, The Aramaic Inscriptions,138–39, Sf III 9–11.

16. Beckman, Hittite Diplomatic Texts, 79, §21.17. Simo Parpola and Kazuko Watanabe, Neo-Assyrian Treaties and Loyalty Oaths (Helsinki:

Helsinki University Press, 1988), 11, rev. IV 1–3; the Akkadian word rendered with “loyalty”is literally “heart.”

18. See Paul E. Dion, “Deuteronomy 13: The Suppression of Alien Religious Propagandain Israel during the Late Monarchical Era,” in Law and Ideology in Monarchic Israel (ed. BaruchHalpern and Deborah W. Hobson; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991), 203–4.

spread one pica long

00-BBR_19.4.book 15 Monday, November 16, 2009 5:53 PM


Large Curse Sections

It is also worth noting that large curse sections are found not only in VTEand Deuteronomy but also in the Aramaic treaty between Bar-Gaªyah andthe king of Arpad (steles I–III of Sefire) as well as in the treaty betweenSuppiluliuma I of Hatti and Shattiwaza of Mittanni.

Eating One’s Own Children

Within the curse sections, we should also mention the element of the eat-ing of the flesh of one’s own children, found both in VTE and Deuter-onomy. The same element is already attested in the treaty betweenAshur-Nerari V of Assyria and the king of Arpad:

[M]ay they eat the flesh of their sons and daughters, and may it tasteas good to them as the flesh of spring lambs.19

Parallels between VTE and Hittite and

Aramaic Treaties and Loyalty Oaths

The large quantity of elements parallel in VTE and a postulated “Ur-Deuteronomium” (as well as some other passages in Deuteronomy) thatare shared by further treaty documents both in the Hittite and Aramaictradition strongly subverts the view that Deuteronomy, or more precisely“Ur-Deuteronomium,” depends on VTE. This observation is further cor-roborated by the fact that many additional traits found in VTE (and notshared by Deuteronomy) can be seen as standing themselves in a line ofcontinuity with earlier Hittite and Aramaic treaty texts. This claim may besubstantiated by adducing some instructive examples.

Sequence of Addressees and Divine Witnesses

The sequence of a list of addressees followed by a phrase stating that theoath is to be sworn “in the presence of DN,” with a list of gods indicatingwho these divine witnesses are, is found not only in VTE (§2, lines 13–24)but also, for example, in the Aramaic treaty of Sefire between Bar-Gaªyahof ktk and the king of Arpad (Sf I 7–14).

Loyalty Due also to the Suzerain’s Descendants

That the oath of loyalty must be sworn not only to the ruling king but alsoto his successor and further generations of rulers following the king is anelement shared between VTE and various Hittite documents. By way ofexample, we point to a passage found in the treaty between Mursili II ofHatti and Kupanta-Kurunta of Mira-Kuwaliya:

And as I, My Majesty, have not in the past mistreated you in anyway, Kupanta-Kurunta, in the future, Kupanta-Kurunta, [protect]

19. Parpola and Watanabe, Neo-Assyrian Treaties, 11, rev. IV 10–11.



me, My Majesty, as overlord. And further in the future protect thedescendants of My Majesty, to the first and second generation, [as]overlords.20

Exclusive Allegiance to the Suzerain;Prohibition to Do “Evil”

The obligations not to do any “evil” against the ruling dynasty and to ac-knowledge no other suzerain and to protect the suzerain king, featuresthat figure prominently in VTE, also appear in the treaty between MursiliII of Hatti and Kupanta-Kurunta of Mira-Kuwaliya:

And further in the future protect the descendants of My Majesty, tothe first and second generation, [as] overlords. You shall not seek toharm them, and you shall not [become implicated] in any evil. Youshall not desire any other power (over you). [In the future] protect MyMajesty as overlord.21

Plotting against the Suzerain

The issue of possible plotting against the suzerain among the addressees issingled out not only in VTE but also, for example, in the Aramaic treatybetween Bar-Gaªyah of ktk and the king of Arpad:

If the idea should come to your mind and you should express withyour lips (the intention) to kill me; and if the idea should come to themind of your grandson and he should express with his lips (the in-tention) to kill my grandson . . .22

Future Strife among the King’s Sons

The topic of a possible future strife among the king’s sons, mentioned inVTE, can also be found in the Aramaic treaty between Bar-Gaªyah and theking of Arpad:

If [my] son, who sits upon my throne, quarrels <with> one of hisbrothers, and he would remove him, you shall not interfere with them,saying to him, ‘Kill your brother or imprison him and do no[t] let himgo free.’ But if you really make peace between them, he will not kill andwill not imprison (him).23

Duty to Avenge the King

An obligation of the treaty partner to take measures to avenge the king orhis offspring after a conspiracy has been successfully carried out is found

20. Beckman, Hittite Diplomatic Texts, 76, §11.21. Ibid.22. Fitzmyer, The Aramaic Inscriptions, 138–39, Sf III 14–15.23. Ibid., Sf III 17–18.



not only in VTE but also in the Aramaic treaty between Bar-Gaªyah andthe king of Arpad, as the following passage demonstrates:

Now if any one of my brothers or any one of my father’s householdor any one of my sons or any one of my officers or any one of my[of]ficials or any one of the people under my control or any one of myenemies seeks my head to kill me and to kill my son and my off-spring—if they kill m[e], you must come and avenge my blood fromthe hand of my enemies. Your son must come (and) avenge the bloodof my son from his enemies; and your grandson must come (and)avenge the blo[od of] my grandson. . . . If it is a city, you must strikeit with a sword. If it is one of my brothers or one of my slaves or [one]of my officials or one of the people who are under my control, youmust strike him and his offspring, his nobles, and his friends with asword.24

Sequence of General Curses and Ritual Curses

As far as the curses go, a sequence of general curses and curses accompa-nied by a ritual performance connected to the envisioned perils as mani-fest in VTE can also be found in the Aramaic treaty of Sefire.25 Moreover,a large ceremonial curse section with curses accompanied by rites is alsofound in the oath imposed on a group of higher military officers in Hatti.26

Ritual of Burning Wax

Among the specific curses, there are at least two attestations of a ritualin which wax is burnt in the fire to demonstrate the dire fate of thosebreaking the oath, apart from the one found in VTE (§89, lines 608–11).The first is found in the Hittite oath binding a group of higher military of-ficers just mentioned:

Just as this wax melts . . . whoever breaks these oaths . . . , let [him]melt lik[e wax].27

The second appears in the Aramaic treaty of Bar-Gaªyah with the king ofArpad:

Just as this wax is burned by fire, so may Arpad be burned and [hergr]eat [daughter-cities]!28

The same image appears in the Bible: Ps 68:3 speaks of the wicked meltinglike wax before God’s wrath; Ps 22:15 describes the afflictions of the per-secuted righteous sufferer by likening his heart to melting wax.

24. Ibid., Sf III 9–14.25. Ibid., 42–47, Sf I 14–42.26. See “The Soldiers’ Oath” (trans. Albrecht Goetze; ANET) 353–54.27. Ibid., 353, obv. i 40–ii 2.28. Fitzmyer, The Aramaic Inscriptions, 46–47, Sf I 35.



Grinding Bones

The grinding of the bones that is mentioned in a curse in VTE §47, lines445–46, is also attested in the curse section of a Hittite oath that a groupof higher military officers had to swear:

Let them grind their bones in the same way.29

Turning Men into Women

The curse that purports the turning of men into frightened women, com-bined with the motif of the spindle, which is found in VTE §91, lines 616–17, has its parallel once again in the Hittite document describing the oathimposed on a group of higher military officials:

[L]et these oaths change him from a man into a woman! Let themchange his troops into women. . . . Let them break the bows, arrows(and) clubs in their hands and [let them put] in their hands distaffand mirror.30

This feature can also be compared to the biblical image of the men of Israelbecoming like women in pains as a consequence of God’s judgments com-ing upon them (see, e.g., Isa 13:8, 26:17; Jer 22:23; Mic 4:10; Ps 48:7).

In addition, turning the disobedient king into a harlot and his soldiersinto women is mentioned in the curse section of the treaty between Ashur-Nerari V and the king of Arpad:

[M]ay Matiª-ilu become a prostitute, his soldiers women.31

Food, Drink, Ointment, Clothing

The series of curse topics covering food, drink, ointment, and clothingfound in VTE §56, lines 490–92, is found in almost the same sequence(food, ointment, drink, and clothing) in the treaty between Ashur-NerariV of Assyria and the king of Arpad:

My dust be their food, pitch their ointment, donkey’s urine theirdrink, papyrus their clothing.32

The element drink, defined as “urine of an ass/donkey,” is identical in bothcases.

Illness and Sleeplessness

The combination of sleeplessness and various kinds of illness, as found inVTE §38 A, line 418A–C, has a close parallel in the Akkadian variant of the

29. “The Soldiers’ Oath,” 353, obv. ii 26–27.30. Ibid., 354, obv. ii 48–49, 51–53, rev. iii 1.31. Parpola and Watanabe, Neo-Assyrian Treaties, 12, rev. v 932. Ibid., 11, rev. iv 14–15.



curse section of the bilingual (Aramaic-Akkadian) treaty document of TellFakhariyeh, dated to about 830 b.c.:

Headache, plague, sleeplessness will not be cut off from his land.33

Parallels with the LÚ.MES SAG-Texts

In many respects, the closest parallel texts comparable to VTE except fromother Neo-Assyrian succession treaties or loyalty oaths are two Hittitedocuments, issued by King Tudhaliya IV, and not, for that matter, a pos-tulated “Ur-Deuteronomium.”

These texts were published by Einar von Schuler under the headingHethitische Dienstanweisungen für höhere Hof- und Staatsbeamte, containingobligations addressed to state officials ministering in positions very closeto the Hittite king and designated as LÚ.MES SAG.

The parallels pertain to historical background, scope of regulations,sequence of characteristic textual elements, and specific topics andformulations.

Let us first turn to the historical situation: because he was not the first-born son, Tudhaliya IV was not predestined to become the heir of the Hit-tite throne. However, at a certain point his father, Hattusili III, decided, inopposition to the accepted rules of succession, that Tudhaliya should infact become his successor. In addition, Tudhaliya’s father had himself onlyascended the throne by overthrowing his cousin Mursili III, who was theson of his elder brother Muwattalli II. So Tudhaliya IV had to reckon notonly with the opposition of his elder brothers but also with members of theline of the elder brother of his father.34

This closely compares to the irregularities in the Assyrian kingdomstarting with the usurpation of the throne by Sargon II and culminatingin Esarhaddon’s battles for the Assyrian throne, being himself not thefirstborn of Sennacherib. As in the case of the Hittite model, things be-came more complicated by the fact that Esarhaddon in turn chose not hisfirstborn son, Shamash-shumu-ukin, to be his successor on the throne ofAssyria, but instead one of his younger sons, Ashurbanipal.

The second point of contact consists in the fact that the scope of obli-gations is limited strictly to issues that are directly bound up with the ex-clusive loyalty to the suzerain and his successors on the political level.

The parallels in the sequence of characteristic texual elements canvery clearly be seen in the opening paragraphs of VTE and the two Hittite“Dienstanweisungen.”

33. Stephen A. Kaufman, “Reflections on the Assyrian-Aramaic Bilingual from Tell Fa-khariyeh,” Maarav 3 (1982): 163, line 3.

34. See Frank Starke, “Zur urkundlichen Charakterisierung neuassyrischer Treueide an-hand einschlägiger hethitischer Texte des 13. Jh.,” ZAR 1 (1995): 77; cf. Eckart Otto, “PoliticalTheology in Judah and Assyria: The Beginning of the Hebrew Bible as Literature,” Svensk ex-egetisk årsbok 65 (2000): 64.



Table 135 shows the parallels between §§1–3 of the two Hittite textsand §§1–5 of VTE. Among the shared topics and formulations found out-side the opening paragraphs, we mention the following salient examples:

a. Obligation to report and prohibition against concealing evil wordsuttered against the suzerain:

If you hear any evil, improper, ugly word which is not seemly norgood to Assurbanipal, the great crown prince designate, son of Es-arhaddon, king of Assyria, your lord, either from the mouth of hisenemy or from the mouth of his ally, or from the mouth of his broth-ers or from the mouth of his uncles, his cousins, his family, membersof his father’s line, or from the mouth of your brothers, your sons,your daughters, or from the mouth of a prophet, an ecstatic, an in-quirer of oracles, or from the mouth of any human being at all, youshall not conceal it but come and report it to Assurbanipal, the greatcrown prince designate, son of Esarhaddon, king of Assyria. (VTE§10, lines 108–22)36

Parallel in LÚ.MES SAG §§24–25, lines 47–52, 54–57:

“If you hear an evil word against the Sun or an unjust word fromsomeone inside, t[e]ll it to the Sun.” However, if you have heardsomething and do not tell it to the Sun, it shall be put under oath.

And if you hear evil against the Sun from someone, do not conceal it.It shall be put under oath.37

b. Prohibition against joining rebels and obligation to actively fightagainst plotters and try to prevent their plans from being executed:

35. The table is an adapted version of Starke, “Zur urkundlichen Charakterisierung,” 78.36. Parpola and Watanabe, Neo-Assyrian Treaties, 33, §10, lines 108–22.37. “ ‘Wenn ihr ein böses Wort gegen die Sonne oder ein Unrecht bei jemandem drinnen

hört, so s[ag]t es der Sonne’. Sowie ihr aber etwas gehört habt und es der Sonne nicht sagt, dassoll unter Eid gelegt sein. . . . Und wenn ihr bei jemandem Böses gegen die Sonne hört, ver-heimlicht es nicht. Es soll unter Eid gelegt sein” (Schuler, Hethitische Dienstanweisungen, 14).See also LÚ.MES SAG §29, lines 7–10 (Schuler, Hethitische Dienstanweisungen, 15).

Table 1. Parallels between lú.meß SAG and VTE

LÚ.MES SAG VTE

§1preamble:“Swear, LÚ.MES SAG, for the sake of the person of the Majesty as follows.”

§1preamble:“The treaty which Esarhaddon made with PN on behalf of Ashurbanipal.”

§2 divine witnesses

oath:“We want to protect the Majesty.” §3 oath:

“Swear each individually by DN!”

§2 recognition of Tudhaliya and his descendants §4 recognition of Ashurbanipal as crown prince

§3 unconditional obligation to be totally loyal to Tudhaliya and his descendants §5 unconditional obligation to be totally loyal to

Ashurbanipal



If an Assyrian or a vassal of Assyria, or a bearded (courtier) or a eu-nuch, or a citizen of Assyria or a citizan of any other country, or anyliving being at all besieges Assurbanipal, the great crown prince des-ignate, in country or in town, and carries out rebellion and insurrec-tion, you shall take your stand with and protect Assurbanipal, thegreat crown prince designate, wholeheartedly defeat the men whorevolted against him, and rescue Assurbanipal, the great crownprince designate, and his brothers, sons by the same mother. (VTE§14, lines 162–72)38

Parallel in LÚ.MES SAG §§21, lines 26–31:

Or whatever evil (is plotted) against the life of the Sun, and you knowit and tolerate it (?) and say as follows: “The day (of death?) (ap-proaches?) him, for which I have not shown up. That (is) not a mis-deed for me”—that shall be put under oath.39

The shared topics can be summarized as follows:

• exclusive loyalty to the suzerain who issues the loyalty oath• extension of the obligation to be loyal to the descendants of the

present king• warning against rebellious speech• warning against “evil”• prohibition against concealing threats against the king and obliga-

tion to report them• inclusion of friends among the people to be reported in case of

threats against the king

If we take seriously the observation that in the case of VTE no less than inthe case of its late Hittite precursor the loyalty oath was primarily symp-tomatic of a serious internal political crisis,40 it becomes even more ques-tionable whether a document such as this would recommend itself as amodel for biblical authors to express the fundamental terms of relation be-tween Yhwh and his people. It would presuppose that these authors werenot aware of the ambiguous background of VTE and the unstable situationthat led to its promulgation, and we cannot be sure of their political igno-rance. Alternatively, one would need to assume that they were in factaware of the problematic historical background but decided to choose thetext as a model nevertheless, ignoring its background. Such unusual be-havior, however, would need further explanation.

38. Parpola and Watanabe, Neo-Assyrian Treaties, 35, §14, lines 162–72.39. “Oder welche Übel(tat) auch immer gegen das Leben der Sonne (geschieht), du aber

weisst es und lässt es zu (?) und sprichst folgendermassen: ‚Diesem (naht?) der (Todes(?)-Tag;ein gewöhnliches Ereignis (?), zu dem ich mich nicht eingestellt habe. Das (ist) für mich keinFrevel’—das soll unter Eid gelegt sein” (Schuler, Hethitische Dienstanweisungen, 13).

40. See Starke, “Zur urkundlichen Charakterisierung,” 82.



Parallels between Deuteronomy

and Hittite and Aramaic Treaties and Other Texts

from the 2nd Millennium b.c.

It is not only VTE that can be shown to be related to a preceding traditionof Hittite and Aramaic treaty and oath documents. Above, we have al-ready pointed to some elements of Deuteronomy, especially in the sectionsthought to belong to a postulated “Ur-Deuteronomium” that are sharednot only with VTE but also with Hittite and Aramaic treaty and oathdocuments predating VTE. To this, we may now add some elements char-acteristic of Deuteronomy found in other ancient Near Eastern texts, butnot in VTE.

We shall first turn to elements found in the postulated “Ur-Deuterono-mium” and then look at other features of Deuteronomy.

Stress on “This Day”

The stress on “this day” as the crucial moment in which attention and obe-dience to the commandments of the suzerain are expected permeates thewhole book of Deuteronomy, including chaps. 6, 13, and 28. Though thiselement is absent from VTE, it can be found in Hittite vassal treaties, as theexample of the treaty between Mursili II of Hatti and Kupanta-Kurunta ofMira-Kuwaliya shows:

[. . . And if] someone speaks an evil word concerning My Majesty toyou . . . —[this matter] shall be taken to your heart as a regulation.Take this [matter] to your heart today! . . . [And] you shall not commitevil [against My Majesty. As you have stood] on the side of My Maj-esty, continue to stand only on the side of My Majesty. [If] someonespeaks [an evil] word concerning My Majesty before you, Kupanta-Kurunta, and you [conceal] it from My Majesty, [and] act rashly, . . .you . . . will . . . transgress the oath.41

Locusts and Worms

In the curse section of Deut 28, we find a sequence of locusts and wormsdamaging the agricultural produce of the land (see Deut 28:38–39). Thesame sequence appears in the curse section of the Aramaic treaty betweenBar-Gaªyah and the King of Arpad:

For seven years may the locust devour (Arpad), and for seven yearsmay the worm eat.42

41. Beckman, Hittite Diplomatic Texts, 79, §21.42. Fitzmyer, The Aramaic Inscriptions, 44–45, Sf I 27.

spread one pica short



Futility Curse

The same passage in Deut 28 speaks about the fact that the cursed peoplewill carry seed into the fields but gather little (Deut 28:38). A close parallelis found in the treaty document of Tell Fakhariyeh from about 830 b.c.:

And let him sow but not harvest. And let him sow one thousandbarley (measures) and let him recover a paris from it.43

Let him plough—let him not harvest. Let him plough one thousand—let him recover one BAN.44

Parallels with the Curse Section of the Code of Hammurabi

Many elements of the curse section in Deut 28 can be related to the cursesfound in the Code of Hammurabi, as tab. 2 shows.45 If one merely countsthe elements shared between Deut 28 and the curses found in the Code ofHammurabi, it turns out that they are actually more numerous than theones shared between Deut 28 and VTE, ignoring for a moment §56 of VTE.This is certainly an interesting observation. However, one also has to ad-mit that the parallels between Deut 28 and VTE are of a higher qualitythan those between the biblical text and the Code of Hammurabi.

Taking into consideration other passages in the book of Deuteronomy,we may point to the following elements.

First-Person Reference to the Suzerain

The divine suzerain in Deuteronomy is often described as speaking in thefirst-person singular. This is also true for the Great King in the Hittitevassal treaties but, notably, not for VTE, where Esarhaddon is referred toconsistently in the third-person singular.

Heaven and Earth as Witnesses

Heaven and earth as witnesses are mentioned in Deut 4:26, 30:19, 31:28. InVTE, it is only the gods dwelling in heaven and earth and the gods ofheaven and earth that are mentioned (VTE §2, line 21; §3, line 40; §56, line472), but not heaven and earth themselves. However, exactly this is foundin several Hittite vassal treaties and in the Sefire treaty between Bar-Gaªyahand the king of Arpad, often with heaven and earth mentioned besides thegods of heaven and earth.

We first turn to the treaty between Suppiluliuma I of Hatti with Shat-tiwaza of Mittanni as an example of the phenomenon in the Hittite realm:

43. Kaufman, “Reflections,” 163, lines 18–19 of the Aramaic version.44. Ibid., lines 30–32 of the Akkadian version.45. Cf. Kenneth A. Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerd-

mans, 2003), 292–93.


Zehnder: Deuteronomy and Esarhaddon’s Loyalty Oaths 525Ta

ble

2.C

urs

es in

Deu

tero

nom

y 28

and

Cod

ex H

amm

ura

bi

Deu

tero

nom

y 28

Cod

ex H

amm

urab

i

v. 1

5B

ut it

sha

ll co

me

abou

t, if

you

will

not

obe

y th

e L

or

d y

our

God

, to

obse

rve

to d

o al

l His

com

man

dm

ents

and

His

sta

tute

s w

ith

whi

ch I

char

ge y

ou to

day

, tha

t all

thes

e cu

rses

sha

ll co

me

upon

you

and

ove

rtak

e yo

u.

XLI

X 1

8–28

If th

at m

an d

id n

ot h

eed

my

wor

ds

. . .

and

dis

rega

rded

my

curs

es,

and

did

not

fear

the

curs

e of

the

god

s, b

ut h

as a

bolis

hed

the

law

whi

ch

I ena

cted

. . .

LI 8

6–91

May

Enl

il, b

y hi

s w

ord

whi

ch c

anno

t be

alte

red

, cur

se h

im w

ith

thes

e cu

rses

, and

may

they

com

e up

on h

im q

uick

ly!

v. 2

0T

he L

or

d w

ill se

nd u

pon

you

curs

es, c

onfu

sion

, and

rebu

ke, i

n al

l you

und

erta

ke

to d

o, u

ntil

you

are

des

troy

ed a

nd u

ntil

you

peri

sh q

uick

ly, o

n ac

coun

t of t

he e

vil

of y

our

dee

ds,

bec

ause

you

hav

e fo

rsak

en M

e.X

LIX

53–

65M

ay E

nlil,

the

lord

, the

det

erm

iner

of d

esti

nies

, who

se o

rder

s ca

nnot

be

alt

ered

, who

mad

e m

y ki

ngd

om g

reat

, inc

ite

revo

lts

agai

nst h

im in

hi

s ab

ode

whi

ch c

anno

t be

supp

ress

ed, m

isfo

rtun

e le

adin

g to

his

rui

n!

vv. 2

1–22

a

The

Lo

rd

will

mak

e th

e pe

stile

nce

clin

g to

you

unt

il H

e ha

s co

nsum

ed y

ou fr

om

the

land

, whe

re y

ou a

re e

nter

ing

to p

osse

ss it

. T

he L

or

d w

ill s

mit

e yo

u w

ith

cons

umpt

ion

and

wit

h fe

ver

and

wit

h in

flam

ma-

tion

and

wit

h fi

ery

heat

.LI

50–

65

May

Nin

karr

ak, t

he d

augh

ter

of A

num

. . .

infl

ict u

pon

him

in h

is

bod

y a

grie

vous

mal

ady,

an

evil

dis

ease

, a s

erio

us in

jury

whi

ch n

ever

he

als,

who

se n

atur

e no

phy

sici

an k

now

s, w

hich

he

can

not a

llay

wit

h ba

ndag

es, w

hich

like

a d

ead

ly b

ite

cann

ot b

e ro

oted

out

.v.

27

The

Lo

rd

will

sm

ite

you

wit

h th

e bo

ils o

f E

gypt

and

wit

h tu

mor

s an

d w

ith

the

scab

and

wit

h th

e it

ch, f

rom

whi

ch y

ou c

anno

t be

heal

ed.

v. 2

4T

he L

or

d w

ill m

ake

the

rain

of y

our

land

pow

der

and

dus

t; fr

om h

eave

n it

sha

ll co

me

dow

n on

you

unt

il yo

u ar

e d

estr

oyed

.L

64–

71M

ay A

dad

, the

lord

of

abun

dan

ce, t

he ir

riga

tor

of h

eave

n an

d e

arth

, m

y he

lper

, dep

rive

him

of t

he r

ain

from

hea

ven

(and

) the

floo

dwat

ers

from

the

spri

ngs!

v. 2

5aT

he L

or

d w

ill c

ause

you

to b

e d

efea

ted

bef

ore

your

ene

mie

s.L

81–

91M

ay Z

abab

a, th

e m

ight

y w

arri

or .

. . w

ho m

arch

es a

t my

righ

t han

d,

shat

ter

his

wea

pon

on th

e fi

eld

of

batt

le! M

ay h

e tu

rn d

ay in

to n

ight

fo

r hi

m, a

nd le

t his

ene

my

tram

ple

upon

him

!

vv. 2

8–29

aT

he L

or

d w

ill s

mit

e yo

u w

ith

mad

ness

and

wit

h bl

ind

ness

and

wit

h be

wild

er-

men

t of h

eart

; and

you

sha

ll gr

ope

at n

oon,

as

the

blin

d m

an g

rope

s in

dar

knes

s.X

LIX

53–

54, 6

8–72

May

Enl

il, th

e lo

rd, t

he d

eter

min

er o

f d

esti

nies

. . .

det

erm

ine

. . .

dar

knes

s w

itho

ut li

ght,

sud

den

dea

th!

v. 2

8T

he L

or

d w

ill s

mit

e yo

u w

ith

mad

ness

and

wit

h bl

ind

ness

and

wit

h be

wild

er-

men

t of

hear

t.L

XIX

98

L 2

–6M

ay E

nki,

the

mig

hty

prin

ce .

. . d

epri

ve h

im o

f kn

owle

dge

and

un-

der

stan

din

g, a

nd c

onst

antl

y le

ad h

im a

stra

y!v.

34

And

you

sha

ll be

dri

ven

mad

by

the

sigh

t of

wha

t you

see

.

v. 3

2Yo

ur s

ons

and

you

r d

augh

ters

sha

ll be

giv

en to

ano

ther

peo

ple,

whi

le y

our

eyes

sh

all l

ook

on a

nd y

earn

for

them

con

tinu

ally

; but

ther

e sh

all b

e no

thin

g yo

u ca

n d

o.

XLI

X 5

3–54

, 74,

80

May

Enl

il, th

e lo

rd, t

he d

eter

min

er o

f d

esti

nies

. . .

ord

er .

. . th

e d

is-

pers

ion

of h

is p

eopl

e.v.

41

You

shal

l hav

e so

ns a

nd d

augh

ters

but

they

sha

ll no

t be

your

s, f

or th

ey s

hall

go

into

cap

tivi

ty.

v. 6

4M

oreo

ver,

the

Lo

rd

will

scat

ter y

ou a

mon

g al

l peo

ples

, fro

m o

ne e

nd o

f the

ear

th

to th

e ot

her

end

of

the

eart

h; a

nd th

ere

you

shal

l ser

ve o

ther

god

s, w

ood

and

st

one,

whi

ch y

ou o

r yo

ur f

athe

rs h

ave

not k

now

n.

v. 3

6T

he L

or

d w

ill b

ring

you

and

you

r ki

ng, w

hom

you

sha

ll se

t ove

r yo

u, to

a n

atio

n w

hich

nei

ther

you

nor

you

r fa

ther

s ha

ve k

now

n, a

nd th

ere

you

shal

l ser

ve o

ther

go

ds,

woo

d a

nd s

tone

.

L 9

2–93

LI 1

9–23

May

Inan

na, t

he la

dy

of b

attl

e an

d c

onfl

ict .

. . d

eliv

er h

im in

to th

e ha

nds o

f his

ene

mie

s, a

nd m

ay th

ey c

arry

him

aw

ay in

bon

ds t

o a

land

ho

stile

to h

im!

v. 4

5So

all

thes

e cu

rses

sha

ll co

me

on y

ou a

nd p

ursu

e yo

u an

d o

vert

ake

you

unti

l you

ar

e d

estr

oyed

, bec

ause

you

wou

ld n

ot o

bey

the

Lo

rd

you

r G

od b

y ke

epin

g H

is

com

man

dm

ents

and

His

sta

tute

s w

hich

He

com

man

ded

you

.LI

84–

91M

ay E

nlil,

by

his

wor

d w

hich

can

not b

e al

tere

d, c

urse

him

wit

h th

ese

curs

es, a

nd m

ay th

ey c

ome

upon

him

qui

ckly

!

v. 4

8T

here

fore

you

sha

ll se

rve

your

ene

mie

s w

hom

the

Lo

rd

sha

ll se

nd a

gain

st y

ou,

in h

unge

r, in

thir

st, i

n na

ked

ness

, and

in th

e la

ck o

f al

l thi

ngs;

and

He

will

put

an

iron

yok

e on

you

r ne

ck u

ntil

He

has

des

troy

ed y

ou.

XLI

X 5

3–54

, 66–

67, 8

0M

ay E

nlil,

the

lord

, the

det

erm

iner

of

des

tini

es .

. . d

eter

min

e . .

. ye

ars

of f

amin

e.



[T]he Storm-god, Lord of Heaven and Earth, the Moon-god and theSun-god, the Moon-god of Harran, heaven and earth, the Storm-god. . . Ishtar, Evening Star, Shala, Belet-ekalli, Damkina, Ishhara, themountains and rivers, the deities of heaven, and the deities of earth.46

From the Sefire treaty, we may quote the following passage:

[I]n the presence of Marduk and Zarpanit, in the presence of Nabuand T[ashmet, . . .] . . . in the presence of Hea[ven and Earth, in thepresence of (the) A]byss and (the) Springs, and in the presence of Dayand Night.47

Regular Reading of the Documents

Special provisions for the regular reading of the document are mentionedboth in Deuteronomy (see Deut 31:9–13) and in Hittite vassal treaties. Asan example for the latter, we point to a section found in the treaty betweenMuwattalli II of Hatti and Alaksandu of Wilusa:

Furthermore, this tablet which I have made for your, Alaksandu,shall be read out before you three times yearly, and you, Alak-sandu, shall know it.48

Gift and Prolongation of Life

The motif of the giving of life and prolongation of the days by the suzerainwith respect to the vassal, found repeatedly in Deuteronomy (see, e.g.,Deut 4:40, 5:33, 11:9, 22:7, 32:47), also appears in Hittite vassal treaties.This can be seen in the following passages of the treaty between Suppi-luliuma I of Hatti and Shattiwaza of Mittanni:

I, Great King, King of Hatti, have given life to the land of Mittanni forthe sake of my (!) daughter.49

And I, Great King, King of Hatti, will revive the dead land of Mit-tanni, and I will restore it to its place.50

And you, Shattiwaza, your sons and grandsons by the daughter ofthe [Great] King, [King of Hatti]—the Hurrians shall accept you (!) forkingship for eternity. [Prolong the life] of the throne of [your father];prolong the life of the land of Mittanni.51

46. Beckman, Hittite Diplomatic Texts, 47, §14.47. Fitzmyer, The Aramaic Inscriptions, 42–43, Sf I 8, 11–12.48. Beckman, Hittite Diplomatic Texts, 91, §16.49. Ibid., 44, §6.50. Ibid., 46, §11.51. Ibid., 48, §16. This motif is particularly frequent in Egyptian texts; see Stefano de

Martino and Fiorella Imparati, “Observations on Hittite International Treaties,” in Akten desIV: Internationalen Kongresses für Hethitologie (ed. Gernot Wilhelm; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz,2001), 352.



“Observe”

In the context of the blessings in Deut 8:1 and 28:1, the verb samar (“ob-serve”) is used to describe the positive sort of action that is rewarded byGod’s blessings. In Deut 33:9, this verb is used in parallel with naßar. Itseems that, in these instances, samar and naßar can be treated as syn-onyms.52 Importantly, the cognates of the verb naßar are also used in otherancient Near Eastern documents in passages that describe the positivebehavior of the treaty partner that will result in divine blessing.

As one example, I mention the treaty between Murshili II of Hatti andNiqmepa of Ugarit:

But if Niqmepa observes [these] words [of the treaty] and of the oathwhich [are written] on this tablet, [these oath gods] shall protect[Niqmepa].53

In the treaty between Bar-Gaªyah and the king of Arpad, the same verb isused with the same meaning, but in this case it is in the negative contextof the failure to observe the treaty stipulations, thereby giving the reasonfor the arrival of the curses mentioned afterward:

Whoever will not observe the words of the inscription which is on thisstele . . . may the gods overturn th[at m]an and his house and all that(is) in it.54

Parallels with Middle Assyrian Laws

We also have to mention in this context that some laws incorporated inDeuteronomy have their closest parallels in Middle Assyrian laws; wepoint to the most salient example, Deut 25:11–12 and MAL A, 7–8:

When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the onedraweth near to deliver her husband out of the hand of him thatsmiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the se-crets; then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall have no pity.

If a woman has laid hands on a seignior, when they have prosecutedher, she shall pay thirty minas of lead (and) they shall flog her twenty(times) with staves.

If a woman has crushed a seignior’s testicle in a brawl, they shall cutoff one finger of hers, and if the other testicle has become affectedalong with it by catching the infection even though a physician has

52. See F. Charles Fensham, “Malediction and Benediction in Ancient Near EasternVassal-Treaties and the Old Testament,” in A Song of Power and the Power of Song: Essays onthe Book of Deuteronomy (ed. Duane L. Christensen; Sources for Biblical and TheologicalStudy 3; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1993), 247–55, esp. 253.

53. Beckman, Hittite Diplomatic Texts, 69, §21.54. Fitzmyer, The Aramaic Inscriptions, 54–55, Sf I 16–17, 21–23.



bound (it) up, or she has crushed the other testicle in the brawl, theyshall tear out both her [eyes].55

Whether the MAL tablets were found in a Neo-Assyrian archaeologicalcontext is disputed. What is clear, however, is that so far no Neo-Assyriancopies of the Middle Assyrian laws have been found. This makes it possiblethat in fact the Middle Assyrian laws were not widely known in the firsthalf of the first millennium b.c. If this is correct, the parallels betweenMiddle Assyrian laws and biblical laws could point to an early origin of thelatter.

The Overall Structure of

the Book of Deuteronomy

We must now broaden our perspective by turning from specific pas-sages within the limits of a postulated “Ur-Deuteronium” and else-where in Deuteronomy and examining the overall structure of the book.This is a legitimate endeavor even from a point of view that reckonswith the existence of an “Ur-Deuteronomium” and seeks this in Deut 6,13, and 28. After all, the relevant passages, including those that are simi-lar to VTE, were transmitted exclusively as integral parts of the book ofDeuteronomy.

An overview of the structure of Deuteronomy, as it compares to thestructure of other treaty and oath documents of the ancient Near Eaststarting in the 2nd millennium, is depicted in tab. 3.56 The table demon-strates that the overall structure of the book of Deuteronomy shows thehighest degree of similarity to the Hittite vassal treaties from the 14th and13th centuries and not, for instance, to the law collections of the early 2ndmillennium or even to the Neo-Assyrian vassal treaties and loyalty oathsas, for instance, VTE, a fact that is particularly important in the presentcontext.

Most remarkable are the presence of a historical prologue and of a se-ries of blessings besides the curses. Both these elements are found in thebiblical and Hittite texts but are missing in the Neo-Assyrian documentsas well as in the Aramaic treaties from the 9th and 8th centuries. The dif-ferences in the place of the divine witness(es) follows the same pattern:whereas, in both Aramaic and Assyrian treaties and loyalty oaths, the di-vine witnesses are mentioned in the introductory sections of the docu-ment, Deuteronomy as well as the later Hittite vassal treaties mentionthem only toward the end of the document.

As a result, we can state that at least on the level of the global structurethere is no specific similarity between Deuteronomy and Neo-Assyrianloyalty oaths but rather a close relation between Deuteronomy and laterHittite vassal treaties. Those who claim a dependence of a postulated “Ur-

55. “The Middle Assyrian Laws” (trans. Theophile J. Meek; ANET), 181, A, 7–8.56. The table follows roughly tabs. 24 and 26 in Kitchen, On the Reliability, 287–88.



Deuteronomium” on Neo-Assyrian loyalty oaths must explain why theoverall structure of this literary work corresponds not to the Neo-Assyrianmodel but rather to the alternative model of Hittite vassal treaties. As faras I can see, no compelling explanation has yet been brought forth.

To preclude possible misunderstandings, I’d like to point out that theobservation of a structural parallel between the book of Deuteronomy andthe Hittite vassal treaties implies, according to my understanding, neitherthat we are forced to date all the material found in Deuteronomy in theMosaic age nor that we may not reckon with the possibility of Fortschrei-bung57 and later additions before the final fixation of the document.

The Curses in VTE and Deuteronomy 28:

Reconsidering the Question of

the Direction of a Possible Dependence

All the observations adduced so far undermine the widely held assump-tion that it can be claimed with confidence that the postulated “Ur-Deuteronomium” must be dependent on VTE as its Vorlage. In the caseof the curse sections in Deut 28 and VTE, we can even go a step further.

Hans Ulrich Steymans believes VTE §56 to be the structural model forDeut 28:20–44;58 at the same time, he states that the sequence of topicsappearing in VTE §56, with two exceptions, does not correspond to the

57. The term is not used in the narrow sense as defined by van der Toorn, implying anongoing accretion of textual material (see Karel van der Toorn, Scribal Culture and the Makingof the Hebrew Bible [Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2007], 148–49). This remark is alsovalid for the uses of the term in the following section of this article.

58. See Hans Ulrich Steymans, “Eine assyrische Vorlage für Deuteronomium 28,20–44,”in Bundesdokument und Gesetz (ed. Georg Braulik; Freiburg: Herder, 1995), 120–21.

Table 3. Deuteronomy and Other Treaty and Oath Documents

Lipit-Ishtar / Hammurabi

(ca. 1900–1700)

Hittite Treaties, phase 2

(ca. 1400–1250)Deuteronomy

(?)

Aramaic Treaties

(ca. 900–730)

Neo-AssyrianTreaties and

Loyalty Oaths (ca. 800–650)

1. Preamble 1. Title 1. Title/Preamble (1:1–5) 1. Title 1. Title

2. Prologue(theological)

2. HistoricalPrologue

2. Historical Prologue(1:6–4:49)

6. Witnesses 6. Witnesses

3. Laws 3. Stipulations 3. Stipulations/Laws (chaps. 5–11: general stipulations) (chaps. 12–26: specific stipulations, “deuteronomic law”)

5b. Curses 3. Stipulations

9. Epilogue 4. Deposition/Reading

4. Deposition/Reading(31:9–13, 26)

3. Stipulations

5a. Blessings 5b. Curses 5a. Blessings (28:1–14)

5b. Curses 5a. Blessings 5b. Curses (28:15–68) 5b. Curses

6. Witnesses 6. Witness (30:19; 31:19–22, 26)



thematic sequence of Mesopotamian curses in which the gods are im-plored individually.59

Already in the previous article on the present subject we pointed tothe necessity of reconsidering the question of the direction of possible lit-erary dependence. On a general level, scientific standards of objectivityand openmindedness prevent us from accepting the answer to a questionsuch as this a priori and dispensing with a closer study of the respectivetexts in order to give substantial reasons for or against the commonly heldassumptions. Even if the global picture about the relation of two largertextual corpora seems to point clearly in one direction, it is still importantboth to consider all aspects of the texture of the respective cultures and toassess each text individually and thereby answer the question a posteriori,after scrutiny of all the available data.

If one tries to assess the question of the direction of a possible depen-dence between some of the curses in Deut 28 and VTE, one has to take intoaccount at least four basic factors.

1. As shown in the previous sections of this article, there is a certain probability that the material included in Deuteronomy may well be earlier than the date of the composition of VTE.

2. As demonstrated in the first article,60 there are serious historical problems bound up with the assumption that a postulated “Ur-Deuteronomium” might be dependent on VTE.

3. The curse sections of VTE are obviously of a composite character, with materials of different origins woven together.

4. During its last phase, especially from the last decades of the 8th century onward, the Neo-Assyrian Empire exhibits a tremendous degree of cultural syncretism, especially in the form of what is normally called the “Aramaization” of Assyria.

The last two points need further elaboration.

The Composite Character of the Curse Sections in VTE

It is widely recognized that the text of VTE in general is not a harmoniouswhole, since “several passages have been inserted into an already existingtext.”61 This is also true with respect to the curse sections, as Frankenapoints out referring to the curse of Belet-ili in §46, lines 437–39, of VTE:“The curse of Belet-ile having its origin in the Epic of Irra (III, 16f.) showsthat curses could be drawn from different sources.”62 We may also men-tion the curse in §56, lines 476–77, which is identical to a passage in the

59. “Die Reihung der Themen des §56 entspricht, von zwei Ausnahmen abgesehen, nichtder Themenabfolge mesopotamischer Fluchsequenzen, in denen die Götter einzeln angerufenwerden” (Steymans, “Eine assyrische Vorlage,” 120).

60. Zehnder, “Building on Stone?”61. Rintje Frankena, “The Vassal Treaties of Esarhaddon and the Dating of Deuter-

onomy,” in Oudtestamentische Studiën XIV (ed. Pieter A. H. de Boer; Leiden: Brill, 1965), 124.62. Ibid., 129–30.



curse of Shamash in the curse section of the Code of Hammurabi (XXVIIrev. 34–35). Frankena concludes: “It seems to me a plausible suppositionthat the author in compiling the curse section of the treaty had severalsuch short curse formulae at his disposal from which he could freelychoose.”63 We also observe that in the section of curses formulated mainlyas similes (§§58–106, lines 518–663), the 26 curses based on similes are in-terrupted by 15 curses of the normal type, which may well point to the factthat this section forms no unity.64 Moreover, the sequence of curses in thissection does not seem to be thoroughly or rigidly structured; no clear prin-ciples governing the combination of curses can be detected, apart fromloose bonds created by catchwords and topical associations.65 In addition,it is worth noting that curses based on similes are unknown in other As-syrian texts but have a close parallel in the treaty between SuppiluliumaI of Hatti with Shattiwaza of Mittanni.

More specifically, with respect to the large curse section starting with§58, it is possible to detect anomalies in the curses of §§63 and 64, wherewe find the comparison of earth and sky to iron and bronze respectively,similar to what is presented in Deut 28:23. The irregularity consists in thefact that in this passage of VTE, a well-known element found in Mesopo-tamian curses, namely, the comparison of the ground with a brick, is en-riched by the motif of the iron earth and the brazen sky, found in none ofthe roughly 130 preserved curse texts from Babylonia and Assyria, andsupplemented with the surreal image of burning coals raining on the land.This certainly constitutes a disturbance in the text that could be indicativeof literary borrowing. Such a suspicion may be enhanced by the fact thatthe passage in question, so singular in a Mesopotamian context, is not re-lated to any specific deity, but only in a very general way to “all the godsthat are [mentioned by name] in th[is] treaty tablet.”66 If one reckons withthe possibility that the Assyrian authors of the text borrowed materialfrom outside, this quasi anonymous section would certainly be a fittingplace to insert it. The same remark can be made with respect to the cursesin §56, where we find some possible links to curses in Deut 28 and where,again, the ascription is only to the great gods of heaven and earth in gen-eral and not to any specific Mesopotamian deity.

The Cultural Syncretism of the Late Neo-Assyrian Empire

Concerning the cultural syncretism and the process of the “Aramaization”of Assyria, the following short remarks are in order.67

63. Ibid., 130.64. Ibid., 133.65. See Michael P. Streck, “Die Flüche im Sukzessionsvertrag Asarhaddons,” ZAR 4

(1998): 186.66. Parpola and Watanabe, Neo-Assyrian Treaties, 51, §63, line 526.67. For details, see my “ ‘Aramaisierung’ Assyriens als Folge der Expansion des as-

syrischen Reiches,” in “. . . der seine Lust hat am Wort des Herrn!” Festschrift für Ernst Jenni (ed.Jürg Luchsinger, Hans-Peter Mathys, and Markus Saur; Münster: Ugarit Verlag, 2007), 417–38.

spread one pica long



Assyrian society and culture during the last phase of the Neo-AssyrianEmpire to which VTE belongs bear strong syncretistic traits, with a visibleopenness for influences coming from outside, not the least from the west-ern/Aramaic regions. A very typical iconographic hint of this situation isthe numerous depictions of scribes writing on scroll-like devices, standingnext to colleagues within the scribal guild who write on tablets in accor-dance with the traditional Mesopotamian fashion. Most likely, the firstgroup of scribes wrote Aramaic.68

However, western, especially Aramaic, influences were not confinedto the realm of language and writing. They also extended to the politicalsphere, not to mention others. The tendency to define and establish politi-cal relations in treaty form is likely dependent on influences from the Ara-maic world, which in turn inherited this tradition from the Hittites.

This again opens the way for the assumption that the authors of VTE,who (judging from the length of the curse sections) had received ordersfrom their royal principal to compose a curse catalogue of unmatchedcomprehensiveness, had recourse to foreign curse traditions. Traditionssuch as these must have been easily accessible to them given the presenceof personnel coming from different parts of the empire and its vassal statesat the court. Because we have clear indications from Assyrian sources ofthe fact that deportees from Israel and Judea were among these foreignpersons employed in different branches of the state administration,69 theroyal commissioners responsible for the writing of VTE could have comein contact with Israelite curse traditions as well. The reconstruction of aclear historical route of transmission turns out to be easier when we as-sume that the Israelite side is the source of the convergences with the As-syrian side, rather than the other way around. Interestingly, immediatelypreceding the curses of §56 that are attributed to the great gods of heavenand earth in general, the names of the four Syrian gods Aramamis, Bethel,Anat-Bethel, and Kubaba of Carchemish are appended to the end of thefirst curse section. This may offer additional support to the view that theAssyrian authors of VTE were dependent on western models in the com-position of the document.

It would perhaps be going too far to claim confidently that there is a di-rect borrowing of Israelite elements by the Assyrians in the composition ofthe curses in VTE. However, after assessing all the available evidence, thisdirection of dependence is certainly no less probable than the opposite one.This serves as a healthy reminder that we should not let ourselves be de-tracted by seemingly incontestable premises in our search for the best ex-planation with respect to questions concerning the origins of ancient texts.

68. For examples, see John M. Russell, Sennacherib’s Palace without Rival at Nineveh (Chi-cago: University of Chicago Press, 1991), 28–30, and figs. 18–19.

69. See, e.g., Bustanai Oded, “Observations on the Israelite/Judaean Exiles in Mesopota-mia During the Eighth-Sixth Centuries bce,” in Immigration and Emigration: Festschrift E. Lipinski(ed. Karel van Lerberghe and Antoon Schoors; Leuven: Peeters, 1995), 205–12.



The Alternative Possibility of “Fortschreibung”

Even if we give precedence to the opposite hypothesis and reckon with thepossibility that some elements in Deut 6 or Deut 13 or, most likely, in Deut28, could ultimately be dependent on VTE, this would by no means implythat these chapters as a whole or even the postulated text of an “Ur-Deu-teronomium” as a whole is dependent on VTE, because we always have toreckon with the possibility of interpolations or punctual Fortschreibungen.However, if only a punctual dependence of rather small portions in Deu-teronomy can be proven, then these parallels cannot be used as anchors forthe dating of a proposed “Ur-Deuteronomium” as a whole.70

Enlarging the Picture:

Taking into Account Lost Documents

The picture becomes even more complicated if we take into account the in-complete nature of the textual evidence.

In his review of Steymans’s monograph on Deut 28, Wilfred G. Lam-bert makes the following important remark:

[R]oyal inscriptions often mention the making of treaties of which nocopy or identifiable fragment has come down to us. And how muchmore does the same hold of the Luvians and West-Semitic peoples ofSyria and Palestine, whose treaties would normally have been writtenon leather or papyrus. The Aramaeans, Phoenicians and others cer-tainly had their own traditions of literary curses, as the Sefire inscrip-tions attest.71

It is in fact very likely that many more treaties and curse texts existed,and as a consequence uncovering parallels between VTE and Deuter-onomy does not by itself prove the dependence of one on the other. Thisconclusion is corroborated by extant Luvian inscriptions dating from the10th through 8th centuries b.c. that contain curse formulas quite compa-rable to those found in Neo-Assyrian documents and that are probablydrawn from Hittite models themselves.72

70. That Fortschreibungen in fact do exist within the book of Deuteronomy can be seen,e.g., in Deut 34:5–12: So Moses the servant of Yhwh died there in the land of Moab, accordingto the word of Yhwh. And he buried him in the valley in the land of Moab over against Beth-peor: but no man knows of his sepulchre unto this day. And Moses was a hundred and twentyyears old when he died: his eye was not dim, nor his natural force abated. And the childrenof Israel wept for Moses in the plains of Moab thirty days: so the days of weeping in themourning for Moses were ended. . . . And there has not arisen a prophet since in Israel likeunto Moses, whom Yhwh knew face to face.

71. Wilfred G. Lambert, “H. U. Steymans, Deuteronomium 28 und die adê zur Thron-folgeregelung Asarhaddons,” AfO 44/45 (1997–98), 398.

72. See Starke, “Zur urkundlichen Charakterisierung,” 71.

spread one pica short



This view, at least with respect to the vivid curse formulae found inthe treaty between Shattiwaza of Mittanni and Suppiluliuma I of Hatti, isheld by other scholars, including Martino and Imparati, who state:

We might . . . advance the hypothesis that in the composition of thistreaty, particularly in the version drawn up by Sattiwaza, that is, theversion of the Hurrian part, a repertoire of images characteristic ofthe Assyrian tradition were adopted, a tradition we do not knowabout from treaties of the Middle Assyrian age, but one that is welldocumented for the Neo-Assyrian Age.73

Conclusion

Taking into consideration all the above deliberations, the relatively wide-spread recent assumption that a postulated “Ur-Deuteronomium” and es-pecially some passages of the curse sections in Deut 28 may be dependenton VTE is not well founded and therefore does not commend itself. Asshown in the first article, there are too many problems of a historical, re-ligious, and psychological nature that contradict the hypothesis, evenapart from the literary fact that the lexical and phraseological points ofcontact are not strong enough to support it.

In the present article, the dependence hypothesis was further under-mined by the observation that many of the shared elements are found inother ancient Near Eastern texts as well and that both VTE and Deuter-onomy contain many elements that, for their part, suggest a closer rela-tionship to other Near Eastern treaties. What appears, then, is a net ofrelated common traditions that is far too complex to be reduced to thesimple construction of a direct literary dependence of the proposed “Ur-Deuteronomium” on VTE. VTE must be understood as a late heir of dif-ferent traditions having their roots especially in the Hittite and Aramaicworld, which makes it an unlikely candidate as a source text for the pos-tulated “Ur-Deuteronomium.” It is much more likely that Israelite writersinherited similar traditions independently of their Assyrian counterparts.Such a view is corrobated by the observation that the overall structure ofthe book of Deuteronomy has its closest analogy in the format of the Hit-tite vassal treaties of the 14th and 13th centuries b.c., a fact that could notbe explained by the assumption that the postulated “Ur-Deuteronomium”is dependent on VTE. This is especially true if due weight is given to thefact that the Hittite model was no longer available in its full form after thecollapse of the Hittite Empire around 1200 b.c.

On the other hand, this does not exclude in principle the possibilitythat VTE could have had more limited influence on the text of Deuter-onomy at certain points because Deuteronomy was probably still in theprocess of extension, adaptation, and modification before reaching its finalcanonical form. This is especially true with respect to the curse sections.

73. Martino and Imparati, “Observations,” 353.



However, in these sections the opposite direction of influence is even moreprobable.

The picture becomes more complex if one takes into consideration thatthe textual witnesses available only form a limited part of what was onceextant among ancient Near Eastern peoples. If one reckons with manymore treaty documents, including curse sections, that are now lost, thesafest conclusion would be that the similarities between VTE and the pos-tulated “Ur-Deuteronomium” are the results of dependence on shared lit-erary traditions.74

74. See Lambert, “H. U. Steymans,” 399.


Building on Stone? Deuteronomy and Esarhaddon's Loyalty Oaths ...

Documents

Transcript of Building on Stone? Deuteronomy and Esarhaddon's Loyalty Oaths ...