Esarhaddon's Succession Treaty as the source for the canon formula in Deuteronomy 13:1.

• Author: Levinson, Bernard M.

The purpose of this study is to propose a Neo-Assyrian origin for the so-called "canon formula" found in Deut. 13:1 (LXX 12:32). Sections of Esarhaddon's Succession Treaty, also known as the Vassal Treaties of Esarhaddon (VTE), have previously been recognized as a literary model for both the curses of Deut. 28 and the Deuteronomic series of three laws governing apostasy from a prophet or oneiromancer, a family member, or an entire city (Deut. 13:2-12). Here I propose a similar origin for the canon formula of Deut. 13:1, as part of Deuteronomy's larger project of creative literary reworking. In what follows, I suggest that the adjuration to loyalty of the ade provided a literary model for the authors of Deut. 13. Those authors transformed the Neo-Assyrian formula requiring exclusive loyalty to the "word of Esarhaddon" (abutu sa Assur-ahu-iddina) into one that demanded fidelity to "the word" [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] of Israel's divine overlord, Yahweh, as proclaimed by Moses.

GENERAL INTRODUCTION TO THE CANON FORMULA (1)

Moses twice admonishes his addressees in Deuteronomy [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] "The entire word that I command you shall you take care to perform; you must neither add to it nor take away from it" (Deut. 13:1 [LXX 12:32]; similarly 4:2). (1) The formula makes it clear that its intent is to preclude both literary and doctrinal innovation by safeguarding the textual status quo. The formula has its general background in ancient Near Eastern literature, where it appears in a wide range of literary genres and different cultural spheres. It appears in Egyptian wisdom literature, in Babylonian epics, and in legal collections. (2) Similar phenomena are evident in archaic and classical Greece. (3) Within the Bible, it similarly shows up in a range of literary genres and contexts, apart from the two instances under investigation. (4) The formula played a significant role in the reception of the Hebrew Bible within Hellenistic Judaism, Palestinian Judaism, and formative Christianity. (5) Given the range of uses of the formula within the ancient Near East and the Bible as well as the variety of its applications to new contexts in the reception of the Bible in the Second Temple period and afterward, the question arises as to its original function and meaning within Deuteronomy, where its fullest statement is found. An adequate answer to that question requires recourse to the ancient Near Eastern historical and literary milieu in which the legal corpus of Deuteronomy was composed.

METHODOLOGICAL ASSUMPTIONS FOR RECOVERING THE LITERARY SOURCE OF DEUT. 13:1

The impact of the Neo-Assyrian loyalty oath tradition upon the composition of the legal corpus of Deuteronomy was recognized soon after Esarhaddon's Sucession Treaty was published lished in 1958. (6) Rintje Frankena and Moshe Weinfeld played pioneering roles in recognizing the relation between this material and several key sections of Deuteronomy. (7) Of particular interest is the legal corpus of Deuteronomy (chs. 12-26), which concludes with a series of blessings for obedience and curses for disobedience (chs. 27-28) to the terms of the covenant that Israel is to swear to Yahweh (ch. 27 and 30). Moshe Weinfeld made a particularly strong argument for the direct literary dependence of the treaty curses of Deut. 28, as well as the apostasy laws of Deut, 13, upon Esarhaddon's Succession Treaty, which stipulates that those vassals who fail to maintain steadfast allegiance to the Assyrian monarch will be subjected to a series of curses.

Weinfeld argued that the sequence of a particular group of curses at the conclusion of the legal corpus (Deut. 28:27-35) could only be understood as derived directly from VTE [section][section]39-42 (lines 419-24). This biblical unit (Deut 28:27-35) stands out due to the lack of logical rationale for its sequence of curses: skin ailments (v. 27), blindness (vv. 28-29), loss of one's wife (v. 30a), displaced progeny (vv. 30b, 32), foreign military occupation (v. 33), and, again, but this time in inverted order, blindness (v. 34) and skin ailments (v. 35). When read on its own terms, or within the context of the Hebrew Bible as a whole, the particular sequence of curses and illnesses in Deut. 28:27-35 appears to be random. There are no biblical parallels that would explain the order. Take, for example, the particular combination of leprosy (28:27) and "judicial" blindness (28:28-29) in Deuteronomy. (8) Weinfeld showed, however, that the paired motifs of "leprous diseases" and "darkness and lawlessness," as well as the identical topical sequence of the other curses in the unit (Deut. 28:29-35), are attested in VTE [section][section]39-42 (lines 419-30), where the logic for the order is at once clear: the order follows the hierarchy specifically of the Neo-Assyrian pantheon. (9) For example, the chief Babylonian gods Sin (associated with the "plague of leprosy") and Shamash ("the sun god as well as the god of law and justice"), who "almost always appear together," appear at the beginning of the curses in VTE [section][section]39-40 (lines 419-24). The curses associated with Sin and Shamash appear in the same order in Deut. 28:27-29. (10) Weinfeld developed these insights into a compelling argument for the literary dependence of Deut. 28:27-35 upon VTE [section][section]39-42 (lines 419-30).

The insights of Frankena and Weinfeld have since been extended and consolidated by a number of other scholars. According to Paul E. Dion, "[T]he closer to 672 BC one places the composition of Deuteronomy, the easier to understand are its precise contacts with the vassal treaties of Esarhaddon." (11) Hans Ulrich Steymans has also argued for the literary dependence of Deuteronomy's treaty curses upon Esarhaddon's Succession Treaty. Steymans understands the connection to take place through an Aramaic translation of VTE and demonstrates a combination of shared motifs, sequence, and structural similarities between Deut. 28:20-44 and VTE [section] 39, 40, 42, 56, 63, 64. (12)

Of course, there have been some significant challenges to the idea of direct literary dependence in the case of Deuteronomy and VTE. The idea that Judean scribes might have had training in cuneiform in the Neo-Assyrian period has been challenged. (13) However, such a capacity is very plausible. (14) The ability of Syro-Palestinian scribes to work in cuneiform is evident in the eighth-century bilingual inscription from Tell Fekherye in north-east Syria, with Neo-Assyrian on the front and Aramaic on the back. A scribal school was established by the Neo-Assyrian empire in Syro-Palestine, at Huzirina, not far from Harran.

Contrary to Liverani, the loyalty oath was not restricted to the eastern vassals or the royal guard. (15) The recent discovery by Canadian archaeologists of what seems to be a copy of VTE, dating to 672 B.C., at Tel Tacyinat on the Orontes Riven near Turkey's border with Syria, confirms the penetration of this tradition into Syro-Palestine. 'This tablet preserves an oath imposed by Esarhaddon on the governor of the province of Kinalia on, most likely, the 18th day of the second month of the year 672 B.C."--the same date as the "Vassal Treaties" of Esarhaddon, familiar from the Nabu temple at Nimrud in the heart of the empire. (16) The tablet is a formal display copy, drilled through vertically for mounting and rotation. It would originally have been elevated on a platform in the cella of the temple, opposite the altar, near where it was found during the excavation. A recent study by Karen Radner demonstrates how Judean scribes could have come into contact with the Neo-Assyrian treaty tradition: (1) already in the eighth century, Ahaz (735-715 B.C.E.) became a vassal to Assyria, so as to gain support during the Syro-Ephraimite war; Hezekiah (715-687) maintained that foreign policy; (2) the Assyrians normally appointed a qepu (17) or senior administrative official in the bureaucracy of their vassal states, who was responsible to the Assyrian monarch; and (3) a written copy (tuppi ade) of the loyalty oath that bound the treaty partners was normally provided to the vassal state. (18) Elsewhere, too, there is strong evidence for a direct literary relationship between biblical law and cuneiform law, which is best explained as deriving from the Neo-Assyrian period. (19) Eckart Otto, who has made invaluable contributions in this regard, goes several steps further, to argue that "Die Texte Dtn 13,2-10*; 28,15 *.20-44 * sind Ubersetzungen aus den VTE ... "; he reconstructs their original form as a cohesive text representing a Judean loyalty oath. (20) This latter concept of direct translation, with its attendant reconstruction of the compositional history of the legal corpus, goes beyond the available evidence. (21) A model of selective adaptation and creative transformation, as proposed here, provides a more compelling explanation. Surprisingly, despite the extensive attention paid to the Neo-Assyrian material as providing a literary resource for the authors of Deuteronomy, even in the context of chapter 13, the relevance of this material for understanding the origins and function of the canon formula has escaped attention.

JOSIAH'S REFORM AND ESARHADDON'S SUCCESSION TREATY

The composition of Deuteronomy was determined in part by the reform movements of King Hezekiah (2 Kgs. 18:3-6, 22; 727/715-698/687 B.C.E.) and, especially, of King Josiah (2 Kgs. 22-23; 640-609 B.C.E.) - The historical background of Josiah's reforms was the increasing threat of imperial domination. The Northern Kingdom of Israel had fallen under Neo-Assyrian invasion a scant century before (722 B.C.E.; 2 Kgs. 17). Continuing Assyrian incursions down the coastal littoral had all but reduced Judah to a rump-state (2 Kgs. 18:13). In a desperate bid...