![]() ![]() In one text, the seal is connected with an oath. 13The king himself pledges his power to assure the reality of the grant. The royal seal likewise confirmed the rights of the one to whom the land was given. This is an abrupt change from the Suzerain-vassal treaty which directed the curses toward a disloyal vassal. In each case, the curses are directed against any who would infringe upon the rights of the land owner. While in the Suzerain-vassal treaty, the rights of the Great King are guaranteed by the treaty, in the Royal grant the rights of a favored individual are protected. 11The first characteristic of the Royal grant is seen in the basic posture of the covenant. This would particularly apply to favored individuals who were asked by the king to settle among hostile populations. The land was thus put under the protection of the gods in lieu of governmental protection. 10Thus, to the documents of the Royal grant were added divine curses and the witness of the gods. King has suggested that the kudurru stones were employed at a time when the authority of the government was not sufficiently powerful to guarantee respect for the real estate of private individuals. 8While the number of texts is not astounding, there are certainly sufficient number to establish a pattern of covenant form and to shed light on certain biblical texts as well. 550, i.e., the whole period of Babylonian history during which Boundary-stones were employed for the protection of private property. 7They are particularly known from the Babylonian kudurru or boundary stones, texts which cover a period from B.C. Royal grant treaties or covenants have been found in Hittite, Babylonian and Neo-Assyrian texts and most recently in materials from Ras Shamra. The Identity and Structure of the Royal Grant Treaty in the Ancient Near East 6It will be the purpose of this paper to summarize these parallels and suggest some exegetical implications. Weinfeld, among others, has shown that the Abrahamic texts bear marked parallels to the Grant-type treaty in distinction to the Suzerain-Vassal type. ![]() 5Too many differences exist between the classic “ Hittite ” treaty and the Abrahamic corpus. 4Some have attempted to show similar parallels between the Abrahamic covenant and the Suzerain-Vassal treaty without much success. 3Many have shown that the biblical record mapping the relations between יהוה and Israel is set in a Suzerain-Vassel treaty form, including the overall structure of Deuteronomy. ![]() Much work has been effectively done in the paralleling of the decalogue with the Suzerain- Vassel treaty form, known best to us from the Hittite treaties of Hattusas. 2We are not surprised, therefore, to see the influence of covenant structure and vocabulary upon the biblical texts itself and we must, in the process of exegesis, strive to determine the divine purpose for casting the eternal word in these forms. 1 Indeed, the continuity of the covenant structure, form(ularies) and to a surprisingly large extent, the language of these covenants is astounding, being common to the peoples of the ancient Near East from the fourth millennium down to the Hellenistic and Roman periods. Some have contented that covenant is the key word of Israelite faith and is best applied to the relation of the people with their God. The past decades have given to the biblical scholar data from covenant structure and vocabulary which shed light on the biblical text itself and upon the historicopolitical relations between the Israelites and their neighbors. Introduction The study of the ancient Near Eastern “ covenant” or “ treaty” has had far-reaching implications for Old Testament studies in general. Can Royal Grant Treaties Shed Light on the Abrahamic Covenant?ĭownload this article in PDF by Clicking Here ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |