Covenant & Law in the Hebrew Bible

1 Abstract No ancient Near Eastern parallels exist for the presentation of civil and criminal law as clauses attaching to a covenant, established between a God and a people or nation. In the Hebrew Bible, this conception is widespread. In particular, the Covenant Code (Exod 21-23), the Holiness Code (Lev 17-25), and the Deuteronomic Code (Deut 12-26) all—though in different ways—pretend to draw their force from a covenant between YHWH and Israel. In the present chapter, the notion of covenant and the various elaborations of covenant theology are explored. It is suggested that the combination of law and covenant was first established in Exod 19-24, and that the other law codes adopted the idea, together with an important number of laws (more in the case of Deuteronomy than in the Holiness Code), from there. Keywords Covenant, covenant theology, vassal treaty, constitutional arrangement, temple rights, criticism of the monarchy. Chapter Covenant Jan Joosten In the Book of Exodus it is recounted how Moses, after leading Israel out of Egypt, receives a miscellany of laws from God, transmits them orally to the Israelites, and writes them down. He then takes the “book of the covenant (‫ ”)ספר הברית‬and reads it in the hearing of the people, who commit to obeying them: Exod 24:3-4, 7 3 Moses came and told the people all the words of the LORD and all the ordinances; and all the people answered with one voice, and said, “All the words that the LORD 2 has spoken we will do.” 4 And Moses wrote down all the words of the LORD. (…) 7 Then he took the book of the covenant, and read it in the hearing of the people; and they said, “All that the LORD has spoken we will do, and we will be obedient.” The notion of covenant does not come entirely out of the blue. Before the revelation of the Ten Commandments and the ensuing miscellaneous laws, YHWH tells the Israelites, via Moses: “Now therefore, if you obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession out of all the peoples” (Exod 19:5). And in Exod 24:8 there is again mention of the “blood of the covenant,” which serves as ritual confirmation of the arrangement. Nevertheless, the information given to the reader on this covenant is sparse and indirect. The term emerges as something self-evident: what is established between YHWH and Israel at Mount Sinai, and what makes the divine laws and regulations binding, is a covenant. Everyone knows that, and everyone knows what is involved. Similarly laconic mentions of a covenant entailing divine laws are found elsewhere in Pentateuch (see notably Exod 34:10, 27, 28; Lev 26:15; Deut 4:13; 28:69): the Ten Commandments, the priestly legislation in Leviticus, and Deuteronomic law are all related to a covenant between the God of Israel and his people. What must have been self-evident to the first readers or hearers of the Pentateuchal story—and mostly remained so in confessional circles, whether Jewish or Christian—is profoundly problematic to modern-day scholars. No ancient Near Eastern parallels exist for the presentation of civil and criminal law as clauses attaching to a covenant established between a God and a people or nation. This raises the question of the origin of the motif in Israelite tradition. Is it possible to retrace the historical conditions and processes that issued in the conjunction of “covenant theology” and divine Torah as it is found in the Pentateuch? When did it happen, and why? A second factor of perplexity is the diversity of conceptions attached to the notions of covenant and law. Although the idea of covenant is rarely explicitly defined, contextual factors—the structure and rhetoric of the texts mentioning the covenant, 3 the narration into which they are embedded—indicate fundamentally divergent views underlying various passages. This raises the question of the history of tradition: how did the idea that the covenant involved detailed legislation pass from one circle to the next, and how was it adapted to different milieus and historical contexts? The present chapter will seek answers to these questions. 1. THE HEBREW WORD BERIT: MEANING AND REFERENCE Before tackling the historical-critical questions, it will be helpful to formulate some reflections on the Hebrew noun berit “covenant.” Words and concepts are to be kept apart, of course, but one cannot approach the biblical notion of covenant without analysing the vocabulary used to express it. The central term is berit (‫)בּ ְִרית‬. The word occurs some 287 times in the OT in a wide variety of contexts (Weinfeld 1973). In studying this Hebrew term, it has proven crucial to distinguish between lexical meaning and contextual meaning (Silva 1983: 101-112, 137-148). While the word itself has a rather formal and abstract meaning, reference to specific social, political and religious realities is defined by contextual factors (Lohfink 1991: 165, n. 11). In spite of many extended studies of the semantics of the word, its lexical meaning is still, unfortunately, uncertain. To most scholars the word primarily means: “compact, binding agreement.” It denotes a relationship established between two parties, while stressing the officially binding nature of that relationship. A fuller definition stressing some additional points is: “an elected, as opposed to natural, relationship of obligation established under divine sanction” (Hugenberger 1994: 215). To others, the basic meaning is rather: “obligation, commitment”; the word designates the binding commitment taken on by one or both of the 4 parties to an agreement, or even a unilateral decision (Kutsch 1984).1 A berit virtually always presupposes a bilateral agreement (rarely an agreement between three parties, see 2 Kgs 11:17; Hos 2:20), involving two elements: specific obligations, and loyalty to the covenant partner. Whether berit specifically designates only the obligations while presupposing the loyalty, or whether it refers to the entire arrangement is hard to say; it is also relatively unimportant. The effect of a covenant is to establish peace, shalom, between the parties as is spelled out in several passages, and expressed also in the nominal phrase “a covenant of peace.”2 Reference to specific types of agreement is effectuated through contextual determination. The status of the parties engaging in the berit, the motivations, contents and purposes of the agreement all contribute to define the contextual reference of the word. Thus the word may refer to a personal pledge between friends, see notably 1 Sam 18:3; 20:8, 42; 23:18. Although the pact between David and Jonathan has political implications, it is still an agreement between two individuals and should not be assimilated to a vassal treaty. The term may also refer to the marriage relationship (Hugenberger 1994): Mal 2,14 … because the LORD was witness to the covenant between you and the wife of your youth, to whom you have been faithless, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant. In one passage, the berit is a solemn agreement to carry out a specific program—in effect a conspiracy to depose the reigning queen and install a new king in her stead (2 Kgs 11:4; cf. Jer 34:8). 1 Whether the word can indicate a decision taken without any consideration of another party (as is argued by Kutsch 1984: 343) is doubtful, however. 2 See Num 25:12; Isa 54:10; Ezek 34:25; 37:26; Josh 9:15; 1 Kgs 5:26! Mal 2:5. 5 In most cases involving two human parties, berit is expressly an instrument of national or international politics. The reference may be to a treaty between independent nations: 1 Kgs 5:26(12) And there was peace between Hiram and Solomon; and the two of them made a treaty. Or the reference may be to a treaty between an empire and its vassal state (e.g. Ez 17,11-21). Although berit does not by itself mean “treaty,” it would be futile to deny that these contexts speak about a treaty, or even to question that such a reference attaches to the word berit. Translating the word as “treaty” is in these passages a viable option. Occasionally, however, the reference of the word may be to political realities of a different sort. Thus, we find the word denoting a constitutional agreement between a monarch and his subjects, e.g.: 2 Sam 5:3 So all the elders of Israel came to the king at Hebron; and King David made a covenant with them at Hebron before the LORD, and they anointed David king over Israel. The berit creates a relation of mutual obligation between the northern tribes and David personally. As was indicated above, covenants involve divine sanction; they are never purely between human beings. When Zedekiah violates his treaty with the Babylonians, YHWH condemns this course of action saying: “As I live, I will surely return upon his head my oath that he despised, and my covenant that he broke” (Ezek 17:19). The treaty with the Nebuchadnezzar had been sealed with an oath by YHWH, Zedekiah’s god. Breaking it was an act against YHWH as much as against the Babylonian overlord. Nevertheless, when YHWH is presented as one of the parties to the covenant, this is a significant step. While covenants put under divine sanction are widely attested in ANE texts of the second and first millennium BCE (Kitchen and Lawrence 2012), covenants between a human partner and a god are very 6 rare outside the Hebrew Bible (Lewis 1996: 404-410). Theological uses of the word berit have to be understood in light of usage in inter-human contexts. This does not mean theological uses are necessarily metaphorical: the meaning of the word is sufficiently flexible to apply to an agreement established between a god and a group of humans. Admittedly it is not always possible to decide which ideas underlie “covenant theology” in every single passage. Moreover, at some point the word berit turned into a blanket term designating the relationship between Israel and YHWH in general. Becoming more prominent in theological contexts than in human ones, the word berit mutated from a multi-purpose noun into a technical religious term.3 Although berit is the correct word for covenant, a covenant can be spoken of without mentioning the word. A good example is YHWH’s commitment to David in 2 Sam 7:5-16, which is referred to as a berit neither in the divine discourse, nor in the surrounding narrative. When David recalls it, however, in 2 Sam 23:5, he does use the term: “Is not my house like this with God? For he has made with me an everlasting covenant!” (similarly Ps 89:4-5). This example throws light on the seemingly erratic distribution of the noun in the legal passages in the Pentateuch: Israelite readers in antiquity would recognize the binding agreement established between YHWH and Israel as a covenant even before the word was used. 2. Forms of covenant theology The link between covenant and law, the subject of the present essay, is limited to theological contexts. YHWH’s covenant with Israel imposes a body of civil, criminal and ritual laws upon the people. As noted above, this motif is unattested elsewhere in the ancient Near East. 3 Similarly the noun minhah “gift” came in time to designate a type of sacrifice, and torah “instruction” took on the meaning of religious law. This specifically religious meaning of berit is found in the latest biblical books like Malachi and Daniel, and also in the Dead Sea Scrolls. 7 One Sumerian text from the third millennium has been held up as a parallel to the biblical material (Weinfeld 1972: 152). The Reforms of Uru-inimgina (aka Uru-kagina), conclude the enumeration of new rules with a summary statement: “Uru-inimgina made a compact with the divine Nin-Girsu that the powerful man would not oppress the orphan and widow” (CoS II: 407-408). But the parallel is at best partial: Uru-inimgina establishes the new rules in his quality of king, the god does not initiate the arrangement (cf. Josh 24:25). In the Hebrew Bible the notion of a God imposing a covenant implying law is prominent and represented in several different versions. Exodus 19-24, Exodus 34, Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy use the term berit in reference to the arrangement giving force to Godgiven laws. Before inquiring into the rationale of this linkage, it will be helpful to explore some of the conceptions underlying covenant theology itself. 2.1. The covenant as a vassal treaty A powerful hypothesis proposed first by George Mendenhall views covenant theology on the model of ancient Near Eastern vassal treaties (1954). Israel is like a clan or nation swearing allegiance to their suzerain, the God YHWH. Mendenhall founded the idea on similarities between Hittite vassal treaties, as analysed by Viktor Korošec, and the Sinai pericope in the Book of Exodus. Hittite treaty formularies of the fifteenth and fourteenth century BCE exhibit roughly the following structure (Korošec 1931): a) Preamble b) Historical prologue c) Stipulations d) Provision for the deposition and reading of the treaty document e) Divine witnesses f) Curses and blessings. 8 Mendenhall found all these elements, partially in the same order, in Exod 19-24. He concluded from this observation that the Decalogue represented the stipulations of a covenant established between YHWH and Israel in the thirteenth century BCE, close to the time of the Hittite treaties. Mendenhall’s hypothesis was accepted by many and developed in various directions by other scholars (Baltzer 1960; McCarthy 1963). But his view did not win over all biblical scholars. A valid criticism is that the Bible does not transmit the full text of a treaty document, but narrative accounts of its enactment (Bickerman 2007: 26). Consequently, some scholars of biblical covenant theology have dismissed the analogy with vassal treaties entirely (Perlitt 1969). Mendenhall’s thesis nevertheless lives on in scholarship until today. The most fruitful elaborations of the covenant-as-treaty approach concern the book of Deuteronomy, or rather: the Deuteronomic Code, Deuteronomy without its appendices in chapters 29-34, and before the addition of its latest literary strata. The nearest ancient Near Eastern parallels are not the Hittite treaties described by Korošec, but the Neo-Assyrian Vassal Treaties of Esarhaddon (VTE) published by Donald J. Wiseman (1958). Frankena and Weinfeld were able to show that many passages in Deuteronomy reflect language and motifs at home in VTE (Frankena 1965; Weinfeld 1972). The main passages are concentrated in Deut 13 (and 17:2-7), where apostasy is defined as high treason (Dion 1991), and Deut 28, the blessings and curses sanctioning the covenant (Steymans 1995). The date of VTE—672 BCE—is close to the one attributed to Deuteronomy in critical scholarship since Wilhelm L. M. de Wette (Levinson and Stackert 2012), and Judah was certainly within the orbit of Neo-Assyrian influence and power at the time the Neo-Assyrian treaties were composed.4 The authors of the Deuteronomic Code may have conceived of the covenant as a kind of turning of the tables, 4 The VTE were found in the Eastern part of the Assyrian Empire, but similar treaty documents also served in the West (Steymans 2013). 9 with YHWH taking the place of the Neo-Assyrian suzerain. In the form Frankena and Weinfeld have given to the thesis it continues to enjoy wide, though not universal, acceptance (Otto 1996; Levinson and Stackert 2012; more critically Koch 2008; Crouch 2014). 2.2. The covenant as a disposition of temple rights A very different conception of the covenant is found in the Holiness Code (Joosten 1998). Although express mentions of a covenant between YHWH and Israel are found only in the concluding paraenetic chapter (Lev 26:9, 15, 44, 45), the ordinances and commandments on whose observance the covenant is made to depend are those spelled out serially in the preceding chapters. The covenant, berit, of Lev 26:9, 15, 44, 45 is the arrangement by which Israel is obliged to observe the rules and regulations contained in the preceding chapters. Its contours are the following (Joosten 1996): a) The arrangement was established by YHWH when he led the Israelites out of Egypt. The exodus is a change of master: from slavery in Egypt, the Israelites went over into the service of YHWH. The commandments define the specifics of their servitude. b) The central requirement for Israel is to shun impurity and observe holiness. All the commandments are tailored to this one goal: to conform Israel’s behaviour to the nature of their God (Lev 19:2), so as to enable God’s indwelling among them in an earthy sanctuary (Lev 26:11). c) The arrangement has a well-defined spatial dimension: the Israelites are to be settled on land belonging to YHWH. The land occupied by Israel is conceived of as an extension of the sanctuary: purity and holiness are to be observed throughout the land to make YHWH’s indwelling feasible (Lev 18:24-28; 20:3). 10 The Holiness Code’s covenant is one of of sacred correlation. If correctly observed, it will abundantly benefit Israel (Lev 26:3-13). But the initiative is solely YHWH’s, who established it in the past, by bringing his people out of Egypt. The peculiar conception of the covenant encountered in the Holiness Code finds many parallels in ancient Near Eastern texts. As has impressively been documented by Moshe Weinfeld, throughout the ancient Near East, cities or regions could be liberated from taxes and corvée and consecrated to service of the gods whose sanctuary was situated in their midst (Weinfeld 1995: 97-120). In spite of local and temporal variations, a basic scheme transpires in a multitude of ANE texts: • the inhabitants of the city or region consecrated are considered divine property, they may not be sold to a third party; • a well-delimited territory is considered to belong to the gods; • all impurity and injustice are to be banished from this territory; • the divine presence in the sanctuary guarantees the inviolability of the territory • however, irritating the gods may lead to their departure and dire consequences. It is to just such an arrangement, applied to the cities of Nippur, Sippar and Babylon, that reference is made in a text going under the title “Advice to a Prince,” edited by W. G. Lambert (1960: 112-115): Anu, Enlil and Ea, the great gods, have affirmed the freedom of the inhabitants of the three cities (lines 29-30); kings are advised, therefore, not to tax them, impose corvée upon them or maltreat them in any way (lines 9-28; 31-58); non-respect of the arrangement will lead to the gods’ quitting their dwellings (lines 58-59). Interestingly, this arrangement is called a “covenant” (“treaty” in Lambert's translation), using the Akkadian term riksu (line 51), referring here, as it appears, not to a political treaty between human parties, but to the disposition taken by the gods in favour of the said cities. * 11 The notions of covenant underlying Deuteronomy and the Holiness Code differ radically. Much of Deuteronomy is oriented toward demands of exclusive loyalty toward YHWH. In the Holiness Code loyalty and exclusive faithfulness are much less prominent; instead, issues of purity of the land and respect for the sanctuary are central. In Deut 28, the chapter of blessings and curses sanctioning the covenant, the only rule expressly spelled out is the prohibition to worship other gods (Deut 28:14, see also vv. 36, 64). In contrast, the one law repeatedly referred to in the parallel chapter in the Holiness Code is that on the sabbatical rest of the land (Lev 26:34, 35, 43). Assimilating the covenant mentioned in Lev 26 to that of Deuteronomy, or viewing the one as a developed form of the other, is unhelpful (Joosten, 1998). That covenant theology might be based on various institutional models should not come as a surprise. In Ezek 16:59-62, the berit between YHWH and his people is presented in the image of yet another human institution, namely marriage. 3. Covenant and law The comparative perspective has opened up a novel way of understanding biblical covenant theology. But it has done very little to explain the junction of covenant and law. On the contrary, the ancient Near East parallels only throw the uniqueness of the biblical combination of covenant and law into relief. Neither the vassal-treaty model, nor that of provisions for sacred spaces calls for the inclusion of civil and criminal law. Had Deuteronomy only demanded loyalty, and the Holiness Code only respect for the sanctuary, they would have conformed to expectations. Instead, both corpora include a host of laws with scant connection to the relation between YHWH and Israel they spell out. If the extension of the covenant stipulations to include civil, criminal and ritual law cannot be accounted for on the basis of the conceptions underlying Deuteronomy and 12 Holiness Code, the most likely explanation is that it reflects earlier tradition. This brings us back to Exod 19-24 (attributed to the Elohist in the classical documentary hypothesis, Driver 1913: 31-32; Baden 2012: 117-118). As was stated above, the non-priestly Sinai pericope refers to a covenant between YHWH and Israel (Exod 19:5; 24:7-8), which implies a code of laws (or two: the Decalogue in Exod 20:1-17, the Covenant Code in Exod 21-23). Moreover, the literary dependence of Deuteronomy and the Holiness Code on the Covenant Code has been argued on good grounds (for Deuteronomy, see Levinson 1998; for Lev 17-26, see Milgrom 2001:2154-3155; Kilchör 2015). Is it possible, then, that the covenant framework too was borrowed from the Covenant Code into Deuteronomy and the Holiness Code? And does the conception of the covenant in the Covenant Code explain the conjunction of covenant and law? It appears both questions can be answered cautiously with yes. Setting out from the “altar law” in Exod 20:18-22, which together with Exod 19:3-8 and Exod 24:3-8 provides a kind of framework into which the laws have been inserted, Simeon Chavel has recently attempted to define the tenor of the basic narrative stretching out from Exod 19 to 24 (Chavel 2015). The basic thrust of this textual complex is anti-monarchic, directing Israelites from royal sanctuaries with their pomp to cultic spaces throughout the land. [T]he narrative attacks an Israelian and Judean ideology in which royal success defines territorial extent, shapes the polity, enshrines divine power in temples, and controls divine blessing (Chavel , 169). The basic stratum of Exod 19-24 projects the image of a nation directly subordinate to YHWH, without any need for an earthly king. Linking up with the scathing criticisms of the eighth-century prophets Amos and Hosea, it seeks to redress the abuse and injustices created in the wake of the monarchy. Differently from the prophets, it does not offer only criticism, 13 but imagines a different type of society, with clear utopic traits, in which such wrongs could never occur. Chavel argues convincingly that both Deuteronomy and the priestly texts of the Pentateuch respond to the vision projected in the framework texts of Exod 19-24, accepting their central, anti-royal, claim while at the same time blunting some of their sharpest edges (Chavel 2015: 202-207). Although he barely addresses issues of covenant theology and covenant law, the implications of his argument are that both the notion of a covenant with YHWH and the combination of covenant and law would have been part of what the later corpora accepted in their discussion with the earlier narrative. On the view advanced by Chavel, the presence of the covenant-law combination in both Deuteronomy and the Holiness Code is no longer anomalous, but readily understood. At this juncture, the pressing question is whether the idea of covenant expressed in Exod 19-24 accounts for the inclusion of a law book any better than in Deuteronomy or the Holiness Code. This would indeed seem to be the case. Structural considerations led Mendenhall to claim that the covenant of Exod 19-24 was modelled on vassal treaties, but his hypothesis could be confirmed by very little additional evidence. The outlook of Deuteronomy is indeed dominated by questions of diplomacy and international affairs, as is shown by the issues on which it legislates (war and peace, Deut 20:1-9; 20:10-20; 21:10-14; neighbouring nations Deut 23:2-8), and the character of blessings and curses (Deut 28:10-13, 33-44). In this context, picturing the relation to YHWH on the model of Neo-Assyrian treaty documents makes sense. In contrast, Exod 19-24 is much more provincial. The question at issue in Exodus is not to whom Israel as a nation owes its outward allegiance, but what is the inner politico-religious makeup of the Israelite nation. The point is that YHWH rules over his people directly, not through the intermediary of the king. In other words, the covenant of Exod 19:5; 24:7, 8, is not a vassal treaty, but a constitutional arrangement comparable to the 14 one referred to in 2 Sam 5:3 quoted above. The divine king YHWH cuts a covenant with the Israelites at Sinai just as David concluded his berit with the northern tribes in Hebron (compare also 2 Kgs 11:17). In this perspective, the inclusion of a law book makes good sense. Comparative evidence suggests that kings and laws go together. Practically all law codes of the ancient Near East are associated with kings or kingly figures. Admittedly, no royal law codes are referred to in the Hebrew Bible. Royal rulings are mentioned in 1 Sam 30:25, however, and regal reforms taking the form of a berit are associated with kings in 2 Kgs 23:3 and Jer 34:8-10. The inclusion of a law book also makes sense in view of the intention to imagine an alternative society in which the abuses criticized by Amos and Hosea could be avoided. The prophetic spirit of the Covenant Code has often been noted. Many of the themes and motifs found in Exod 21-23 overlap issues addressed in the eighth-century prophets (Crüsemann 1988). 4. Conclusions The Biblical scenario in which a covenant between a God and a people involves a corpus of civil, criminal and ritual laws is unique in the entire ancient Near East. It appears to have been created at a highly significant moment in the history of Israel, shortly after the fall of Samaria had created global havoc, exposing the politico-religious pretensions of the monarchy and raising the authority of prophets like Amos and Hosea (who had predicted the catastrophe). A narrative was produced according to which YHWH, in times long past, proposed to rule Israel on the condition that they keep his laws and commandments. The vision of society projected in this narrative cuts against all the main political and religious trappings of contemporary Judean society: the king, his court and administration, the royal sanctuaries and their personnel. Substituting the national God for the earthly king, the vision is modelled on 15 constitutional arrangements as referred to a few times in the historical books (2 Sam 5:3; 2 Kgs 11:17). In the seventh century, the authors of Deuteronomy accepted the narrative lock, stock and barrel, but tweaked it in the light of Neo-Assyrian texts and practices that had become influential in their time. From “king of Israel,” YHWH became “the great king” in the image of the Assyrian emperor who had sought to extend his authority throughout the civilized world of the time. The metaphor of covenant underlying the texts changed in subtle ways from a constitutional agreement to a vassal treaty. In truth, this new conception had no place for a code of law, but the law was taken over nevertheless, and enthusiastically so. The priestly school too related to the vision and claims of the story contained in Exod 19-24, although with more reserve than the Deuteronomic authors. In the Holiness Code, the constitutional arrangement is transmuted into the typically priestly scheme of provisions for sacred space. YHWH is no longer pictured as a king, but as a God who grants certain rights to a sanctuary with its lands, and to its personnel. The law is recast as a set of regulations on purity and holiness: stealing, lying, oppressing the poor, etc., are presented as cultic defects. The recalibration leads to a different selection of laws than in the Covenant Code, including notably two chapters on sexual conduct. Nevertheless, a lot of overlap between the two corpora remains. The term berit, covenant, turns out to be very flexible indeed. All three texts use it in reference to an agreement between YHWH and Israel, but each with a different set of implications. It seems entirely possible that earlier theological traditions used the word with yet other connotations: the tradition of the covenant between YHWH and David may be older than the earliest strand of Exod 19-24; and additional traditions may have existed that were not included in the writings that have come down to us. Perhaps there always was something “contractual” about the relationship between Israel and their God (Kawashima 2014). 16 Dating the basic narrative in Exod 19-24 to the final quarter of the eighth century is no more than an informed guess. The main considerations are that this date accounts for the reception of the narrative in Deuteronomy and the Holiness Code. It also chimes with the almost total lack of reference to the covenant in the eighth century prophets. If Amos and Hosea had known of a divine covenant stipulating the need to protect the poor and to practice justice, they might have referred to it. In prophets of the late seventh and sixth century— Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Second Isaiah—the motif is very much present. The relatively late date also explains the absence of the lawgiving in many “historical summaries” of salvation history (Deut 26:5-9; Josh 24; Jud 11; Ps 106 (Rad 1975: 124). REFERENCES Baden, Joel S. The Composition of the Pentateuch. Renewing the Documentary Hypothesis. Anchor Bible Reference Library. New Haven: YUP, 2012. Baltzer, K. Das Bundesformular. WMANT 4. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1960. Bickerman, Elias J. “Cutting a Covenant.” Pages 1-31 in Studies in Jewish and Christian History. Volume One. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Chavel, Simeon. “A Kingdom of Priests and its Earthen Altars in Exodus 19-24.” VT 65 ( 2015): 169- 222. Crouch, Carly L. Israel and the Assyrians. Deuteronomy, the Succession Treaty of Esarhaddon, and the nature of subversion. ancient Near East Monographs 8. Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2014. Crüsemann, Frank. “Das Bundesbuch — Historischer Ort und Institutioneller Hintergrund.” Pages 27-41 in Congress Volume. Jerusalem 1986. Edited by John A. Emerton. SVT 40. Leiden: Brill, 1988. Dion, Paul-Eugène. “Deuteronomy 13: The Suppression of Alien Religious Proganda in Israel during the Late Monarchical Era.” Pages 147-216 in Law and Ideology in Monarchic Israel. Edited by 17 Baruch Halpern. JSOTS 124. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991. Driver, Samuel Rolles. An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 19139. Frankena, R. “The Vassal Treaties of Esarhaddon and the Date of Deuteronomy.” Oudtestamentische Studiën 14 (1965): 122-154. Hugenberger, Gordon P. Marriage as Covenant. SVT 52. Leiden: Brill 1994. Joosten, Jan. People and Land in the Holiness Code. An Exegetical Study of the Ideational Framework of the Law in Leviticus 17-26. SVT 67. Leiden: Brill, 1996. Joosten, Jan. “Covenant Theology in the Holiness Code,” ZABR 4 (1998): 145-164. Kawashima, Robert. “Covenant and Contingence: The Historical Encounter between God and Israel.” Pages 51-70 in Myth and Scripture: Contemporary Perspectives on Religion, Language, and Imagination. Edited by Dexter Callender. Atlanta GA: SBL, 2014. Kilchör, Benjamin. Mosetora und Jahwetora. Das Verhältnis von Deuteronomium 12-26 zu Exodus, Levitikus und Numeri. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2015. Kitchen, Kenneth A. and Paul J.N. Lawrence. Treaty, Law and Covenant in the ancient Near East. Part 1: The Texts. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2012. Koch, Christoph. Vertrag, Treueid und Bund. Studien zur Rezeption des altorientlaischen Vertragsrechts im Deuteronomium und zur Ausbildung der Bundestheologie im Alten Testament. BZAW 383. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2008. Korošec, Viktor. Hethitische Staatsverträge. Leipzig: T. Weicher, 1931. Kutsch, Ernst. ‫בּ ְִרית‬, THAT I (1984), 339-352. Lambert, Wilfred G. Babylonian Wisdom Literature. Oxford: OUP, 1960. Levinson, Bernard M. Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation. Oxford: OUP, 1998. Levinson, Bernard M. and Stackert, Jeffrey. “”Between the Covenant Code and Esarhaddon’s Succession Treaty.” JAJ 3 (2012): 123-140 18 Lewis, Theodore J. “The Identity and Function of El/Baal Berith.” JBL 115 (1996): 401-423. Lohfink, Norbert, “Der Begriff ‘Bund’ in der biblischen Theologie.” ThPh 66 (1991): 161-176. McCarthy, Denis J. Treaty and Covenant. Analecta Biblica 21. Rom: PIB, 1963. Mendenhall, George E. “Covenant Forms in Israelite Tradition.” BA 17 (1954): 50-76 Milgrom, Jacob. Leviticus 23-27. Anchor Bible. New York: Doubleday, 2001. Otto, Eckart. “Treueid und Gesetz: Die Ursprünge des Deuteronomiums im Horizont neuassyrischen Vertragsrechts.” ZABR 2 (1996): 1-52. Perlitt, Lothar. Bundestheologie im Alten Testament. WMANT 36. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1969. Rad, Gerhard von. Theology of the Old Testament. Volume one. London: SCM, 1975. Silva, Moisés. Biblical Words and their Meaning: An Introduction to Lexical Semantics. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983. Steymans, Hans-Ulrich. Deuteronomium 28 und die Ade zur Thronfolgeregelung Asarhaddons: Segen und Fluch im Alten Orient und in Israel. OBO145. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag / Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1995. Steymans, Hans-Ulrich. “Deuteronomy 28 and Tell Tayinat.” Verbum et Ecclesia 34, Art. 870. DATE Weinfeld, Moshe. Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School. Oxford: OUP, 1972. Weinfeld, Moshe. ‫בּ ְִרית‬, TWAT I (1973), 781-808. Weinfeld, Moshe. Social Justice in Ancient Israel and the ancient Near East. Jerusalem: Magnes / Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995. Wiseman, Donald J. “The Vassal-Treaties of Esarhaddon.” Iraq 20 (1958) : 1-99.