Bulletin for Biblical Research 19.3 (2009) 341374

Building on Stone? Deuteronomy and Esarhaddons Loyalty Oaths (Part 1):

Some Preliminary Observations

markus zehnderuniversity of basel and ansgar theological seminary

This article addresses the question of a possible dependence that is often claimedto exist between a postulated Ur-Deuteronomium and the so-called VassalTreaty of Esarhaddon (VTE). It investigates the textual and reconstructed his-torical points of contact, concluding that the arguments brought forth in supportof the dependence theory are not strong enough to recommend it. In the contextof this investigation, the numerous important differences that separate VTE andDeuteronomy are highlighted.

Key Words: Deuteronomy, Vassal Treaty of Esarhaddon, loyalty oath, curse

Introduction

Problems in Assessing the Historical Setting of Deuteronomy

As most readers of this article will know, opinions about the origins andthe correct historical localization of the book of Deuteronomy differ widely.However, it is possible to identify a limited number of assumptions held bymost commentators. Among these, we find the view that the textual claimof a Mosaic background is fictitious and that in some way the book has tobe related to the reform of King Josiah mentioned in 2 Kgs 2223. Most au-thors also reckon with a highly complex process of composition and redac-tion, with many seeing some relation to King Hezekiah and the prophetHoshea.1

A closer look shows that even these seemingly foundational pillars arenot shared by all scholars involved. It will suffice to mention Eckart Otto,

1. See, e.g., the short overview given in Erich Zenger et al., Einleitung in das Alte Testament(4th ed.; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2001), 12637, and the bibliographical notes on pp. 12526; cf.also Eckart Otto, Das Deuteronomium: Politische Theologie und Rechtsreform in Juda und Assyrien(Berlin: de Gruyter, 1999), 114; Karel van der Toorn, Scribal Culture and the Making of the He-brew Bible (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2007), 14372.

Authors note: The core elements of this article were presented for the first time at a lecture atthe University of Greifswald in January 2007.

Bulletin for Biblical Research 19.3342

one of the big players with respect both to research on OT law corpora ingeneral and Deuteronomy in particular. With regard to the deuteronomiclaws in chaps. 1226, he states in his 1999 monograph Das Deuteronomiumthat it is more unclear than ever which literary-critical criteria can beapplied to distinguish between predeuteronomic, deuteronomic, Deuter-onomistic, and post-Deuteronomistic layers within the law sections ofDeuteronomy.2 In a situation in which even the criteria are under dispute,one cannot expect agreement about the results of these investigations.

The Recent Trend: The Vassal Treaty of Esarhaddon asHistorical Background of an Ur-Deuteronomium

In the last couple of years, the discussion about the historical setting ofDeuteronomy has been relanced, with a specific spin. If one reads ErichZengers introduction to the OT, for example, which is among the mostwidely used introductions in German speaking Europe, one finds the viewthat the deuteronomic phenomenon is the theological response to theidentity crisis of Judah as Yhwhs people in the 7th century at the time ofthe Assyrian domination over Judah. In order to cope with this crisis, thedeuteronomic theologians used the literary device of a treaty because of itshigh prestige in the dominating Neo-Assyrian culture. A copy of VTE was,according to this view, available in the royal archives in Jerusalem, andparts of it3 were used as models in the writing of Deuteronomy, sometimebetween 672 and 612 b.c. This provides us with an external point of refer-ence for the dating of Deuteronomy, and by extension, for the Pentateuchas a whole.4

One of the most prominent and influential partisans of a close relationbetween Deuteronomy and the Neo-Assyrian vassal treaties or loyaltyoaths within the German-speaking guild is Eckhart Otto. He sees the bookof Deuteronomy as a reworking of the parts of the Book of the Covenantthat existed in the 7th century, on the one hand, and identifies the originalparts of Deut 13 and 28 as the kernel or oldest layer of the literary workcalled Deuteronomy, on the other. These are formally modeled on Neo-Assyrian loyalty oaths, especially VTE, and at the same time constitute aconscious polemic replacement of these oaths as far as the receiver of theloyalty goes.5

2. See Otto, Das Deuteronomium, 3233.3. The paragraphs in question are VTE 56 and 38A42, 6365.4. See Zenger et al., Einleitung, 13536.5. In Anknpfung an Ex 22,19a wird das Hauptgesetz der Kultreinheit (Dtn 13*) als Ent-

faltung des Alleinverehrungsanspruchs Jhwhs in Analogie zum neuassyrischen Loyalittseidgegenber dem Grossknig gestaltet. Dem korrespondieren die ebenfalls unter dem Einflussder neuassyrischen Loyalittseide dtn gestalteten Flche (Dtn 28,2343*). . . . Der dtn Redaktorinterpretiert also das Reformwerk der Auslegung des BB in Dtn 1226* als Loyalittseidgegenber Jhwh (Eckart Otto, Theologische Ethik des Alten Testaments [Stuttgart: Kohlhammer,1994], 180). A very similar statement is found in Ottos study Von der Programmschrift einerRechtsreform zum Verfassungsentwurf des Neuen Israel, in Bundesdokument und Gesetz (ed.

Zehnder: Deuteronomy and Esarhaddons Loyalty Oaths 343

Others would include other parts of Deuteronomy as directly depen-dent on Neo-Assyrian models, for instance, the central commandment tolove Yhwh as formulated in Deut 6.6

If these assumptions are right, we would in fact possess a kind of his-torical anchor that permits us to date the origins of the book of Deuter-onomy and thereby perhaps even to find a safe basis for the reconstructionof the origins of the literary history of the Pentateuch as a whole.

Affinities between VTE and Deuteronomy, especially the curse sectionin Deut 28, have been noted since the original publication of VTE in 1958,and theories about a dependence of the respective deuteronomic passageson the Assyrian model were developed early on, for instance, by Frankena,Moran, and Weinfeld.7 However, these earlier authors would not go so faras to identify these passages with the Ur-Deuteronomium.8 We may also

6. See, e.g., William L. Moran, The Ancient Near Eastern Background of the Love ofGod in Deuteronomy, CBQ 25 (1963): 83. In several instances, Otto himself relates other partsof Deuteronomy to Neo-Assyrian influence; see E. Otto, Das Deuteronomium, 6162, 36263(referring to Deut 6:4); Von der Programmschrift, 93 (referring vaguely to unspecifiedGesetzesredaktionen in Dtn 1925); see also p. 98 of the same article.

As an example of the assertion of a relation between VTE and Deuteronomy beyondDeut 6, 13, and 28, we may quote Christof Hardmeier, who in a somewhat fuzzy way seemsto suggest that in principle the whole of Deuteronomy is modeled according to Neo-Assyrianloyalty oaths and possibly other vassal treaties: Es ist das Szenario von Vasallenvertrgen,wie wir sie aus neuassyrischen Loyalittseiden etwa der Zeit Asarhaddons kennen, das alsganzes auf die Rollen und Beziehungen zwischen Jhwh und seinem Volk bertragen und . . .aktual vollzogen wird (Die Weisheit der Tora [Dtn 4,58], in Freiheit und Recht [ed. ChristofHardmeier, Rainer Kessler, and Andreas Ruwe; Gtersloh: Kaiser, 2003], 244). Van der Toornclaims that the editor of the Ur-Deuteronomium,dubbed the Covenant Edition, was us-ing the Neo-Assyrian treaty texts as his model, adding, however, that the case for a literaryborrowing may not be entirely compelling(Scribal Culture, 155). The Covenant Edition, asthe kernel of Deuteronomy, is located by van der Toorn in Deut 1226*, but he sees the originalsection of blessings and curses within Deut 28 as part of it, as well as Deut 6:49 (see ScribalCulture, 15152).

7. For affinities between VTE and Deuteronomy, see, e.g., Moshe Weinfeld, Traces of As-syrian Treaty Formulae in Deuteronomy, Bib 46 (1965): 41727 passim; Rintje Frankena, TheVassal-Treaties of Esarhaddon and the Dating of Deuteronomy, in Oudtestamentische StudinXIV (ed. Pieter A. H. de Boer; Leiden: Brill, 1965), 14550. For theories about dependence, seeFrankena, The Vassal-Treaties, 145; Moran, The Ancient Near Eastern Background, 83;Weinfeld, Traces, passim.

8. Frankena already goes a long way in this direction when he states: The religious re-form of Josiah was directed against Assyria and it is therefore tempting to regard the renewedCovenant with Yahweh as a substitution of the former treaty with the king of Assyria. Judah,being no more a vassal of Assyria, becomes a vassal of Yahweh again: instead of loving theAssyrian king they will love Yahweh with whole their being (Deut. vi 5) (The Vassal-Treaties, 153). On the other hand, we may note that, in spite of some connections perceivedbetween VTE and Deut 28, Moran claims that, for the author of Deuteronomy, not VTE but

Georg Braulik; Freiburg: Herder, 1995), 98. Cf. also Eckart Otto, Political Theology in Judahand Assyria: The Beginning of the Hebrew Bible als Literature, Svensk exegetisk rsbok 65(2000): 64. See also p. 65: If we are looking for an Urdeuteronomium, then it was this loyaltyoath to Yhwh as the literary core section of Deuteronomy. It was written between 672 and 612bce and most probably during the reign of king Josiah.

Bulletin for Biblical Research 19.3344

observe that several scholars would in fact reckon with the possibility ofan influence of VTE on the Ur-Deuteronomium but at the same time as-sume that other ancient Near Eastern texts, especially treaties, were alsoamong the sources from which the authors of Deuteronomy drew. PaulE. Dion, e.g., states: This analogy between the laws of Deuteronomy 13and politica