Acceso a la Información Pública

Some scholars have argued that Deuteronomy is reminiscent of Ancient Near Eastern treaties, and that its aim is to explain the ideal relationship between the Israelites and the LORD (Niehaus 1997:537; Weinfeld 1992:169; McConville 1984:3, 4). Weinfeld emphasized the treaty form, law form and the didactic elements of Deuteronomy. All of the patterns found in the Hittite treaties of the late Bronze Age and elsewhere are found in Deuteronomy. But on the basis of the discovery of a group of treaties made between Esarhaddon124 and his eastern vassals in 672 BCE, it has been justifiably suggested that there was a continuity of tradition in the formulation of state treaties in Mesopotamia and Asia Minor, and that this traditional formulation remained substantially unchanged from the time of the Hittite Empire down through the Neo-Assyrian period. On whether or not the Hittite treaties influenced the composition of Deuteronomy, Weinfeld (1972:59-157) opined that the pattern of the Hittite state treaties was, without doubt, reflected in the covenant forms of the early biblical sources (Exod 19-24; Josh 24), but the discovery of state treaties formulated in the traditional pattern, and dating from the same period of Deuteronomy, militates against the view that the author of Deuteronomy had imitated ancient treaty forms. It was more likely that the author of Deuteronomy formulated the Covenant of the plains of Moab on the pattern of political treaties current in his own time which propagated the tradition of the Hittite treaty. Furthermore, it is in Deuteronomy rather than Exodus or Joshua that the original pattern has been preserved.

According to Niehaus (1997:537), “Although it employs ancient legal forms and ideas, the content of Deuteronomy is ultimately not derivative but revelatory. It shows God’s true standards, which Ancient Near East treaties and laws only dimly reflect.” In this section, we shall see how the Deuteronomic tithe system is associated with the form-historical patterns found in the Ancient Near East.

4.3.1.1 The Treaty form

We observed that the structure of the treaty prevalent among Ancient Near Eastern peoples was preserved in its traditional form in Deuteronomy. Weinfeld (1972:66) suggested that it is only in Deuteronomy that one encounters all the elements which characterize the Hittite and Assyrian treaties with respect to the nature and manner of the book’s composition. According to

him some of the elements point to the later neo-Assyrian and Aramean treaty pattern (Weinfeld 1972:67). Some of the features of the Ancient Near Eastern treaties were outlined as follows:

(a) Preamble. Here the perpetual validity of the treaty as binding on all generations is introduced. Preamble-like opening verses can be found in Deuteronomy (cf. 1:1-6; 5:1-6; etc).

(b) Divine Witness. Relevant deities were called to witness the treaty. In Deuteronomy, heaven and earth were called as the witnesses (4:26; 30:19; 31:28). (c) Historical relationship. Here the treaty recounts the political relationship between

the ancestors of the vassal country and the suzerain king. The benevolent acts of the overlord on behalf of the vassal are emphasized. Deuteronomy often describes the gracious acts of God towards Israel (cf.4:37-38; 7:7-11; 9:5-10:11).

(d) Stipulations. The vassal is given a list of laws to obey in order to enjoy more favour from the overlord. In Deuteronomy, the Israelites must obey some statutes and ordinances in order to inherit the Promised Land (chs. 12-26). The tithe system in Deuteronomy falls within the stipulations of the treaty.

(e) Violation Clause. There is a warning against violating the treaty (29:19, 20).

(f) Blessings and Curses. A list of blessings or curses will be outlined as an encouragement for obeying the stipulations of the treaty or as a deterrent for breaking the treaty respectively (cf. chaps. 26-28).

(g) Document Clause. The treaty documents were deposited in the sanctuary for preservation. The periodic reading of the treaty documents in the presence of the leader and the subjects was highlighted (cf. 10:1-5; 31:9-13).

The features of the Ancient Near Eastern treaty outlined above may have been very informative in establishing the trend of thought and ideas in Deuteronomy. We agree with the contention of some scholars that, whereas the treaty form in the Ancient Near East was mainly political in nature, the Deuteronomic treaty is theological. The Deuteronomic treaty is not a treaty between two persons as such, but a loyalty oath imposed by the sovereign on the vassal (cf. Weinfeld 1991:7-9; Niehaus 1997:169). The suzerain-vassal treaty is not a completely adequate model for biblical covenant metaphor since it belongs to the realm of international relations, creating a relationship between a foreign sovereign and his subjects. Such treaties are concerned only with the vassal’s loyalty to the suzerain and are comparable to those provisions of God’s

covenant with Israel that deals with worship and loyalty to God. They do not provide a model for God’s concern for justice and human welfare as expressed in God’s legislation concerning Israel’s internal relations, the social laws and moral regulations that make up so much of the biblical law. Deuteronomy does not limit itself to the covenant metaphor to describe Israel’s relationship with the LORD (Tigay 1996: xv).

4.3.1.2 The Law form

The law form can be seen as a substructure within the treaty pattern, which is the dominant pattern. The legal material functions as the ‘stipulations’ of the treaty pattern. Some scholars think that Deuteronomy 12-26 relate to the commandments of the Decalogue, more or less in order (Wright 1996:5; Levinson 1997:11-13; Tigay 1996: xiv). In analysing the relationship between covenant and law in the Ancient Near East, Weinfeld (1972:148-154) concluded that the structure of the Old Babylonian law codes had a framework very similar to that of a treaty, namely preamble, historical prologue, laws, blessings and curses. Therefore, he concluded that the analogy between Deuteronomy and the Mesopotamian law codes might be more apt than the analogy between Deuteronomy and the political treaties. He made a comparison of the Deuteronomic law with the reform code of Urukagina and the code of Hammurabi. Both Deuteronomy and Urukagina texts were reform texts. Deuteronomy reforms the previous law code (the Covenant Code), and attempts to bring about political, religious and social transformation.

Tigay (1996: xvi) reported that the laws presented in Deuteronomy are not a complete, systematic code that could have sufficed to govern the entire life of ancient Israel. Certain areas of life, such as commercial transactions, civil damages, and marriage are not mentioned; only a part of the existing laws have been selected, perhaps to illustrate certain ideal principles of social justice and religious devotion. Even in the topics that are covered, practical details of how the law was to be applied are rarely spelled out. Deuteronomy devotes more attention to the basic provisions of its laws than to their practical details. The practical details must have been provided by custom, by an interpretive tradition developed by courts (17:8-12), as in post-biblical times, and perhaps by administrative agencies.

The tithe law in Deuteronomy falls within the stipulations of the covenant pattern of the book. To many interpreters, the tithe law in Deuteronomy seems to differ radically from

corresponding laws elsewhere in the Pentateuch or in the Old Testament. One of the reasons for this could be because of the reformist agenda of the book of Deuteronomy, which sought to integrate theological reforms with political, religious and social considerations, an aspect which apparently was absent in the earlier form of the law. According to Hoppe (2000:343), “Deuteronomy is not simply a repository for ancient laws; law is a living reality.” He argued that the book’s great achievement was how it adapted ancient legal tradition to new situations. For example, in the Ancient Near East and ancient Israel sacrifices made in temples were consumed by the gods and their priests (cf. Num 18:15-21). In Deuteronomy, it was the donor of the sacrifices who consumed them, inviting the poor to share in the sacrificial meal (14:22-29; 15:19- 23). The result of Deuteronomy’s interpretation of ancient legal tradition was often the humanization of ancient laws.

4.3.1.3 The Didactic form

The didactic tendency of the book of Deuteronomy is similar to the trend found in the Ancient Near Eastern treaties. The didactic functions were coined to inform or teach the vassal state the demands of the treaty with the suzerain king. In the case of Deuteronomy, it was to educate the Israelites on what the LORD demanded from them in different situations. McConville (1984:84-86) reported that the tithe laws in Deuteronomy provided an answer in terms of a general Deuteronomic tendency. Everywhere in Deuteronomy, we find the command to ‘remember’ (cf. 5:15; 7:18; 9:7; 16:3; 24:9; etc). He argued that the book of Deuteronomy stood between the past (Egypt and the desert) and the future (life in the land), not in the sense of containing a superficial fiction of Mosaic authorship, but in its very language and theology. The purpose of the Deuteronomic tithe was said to be “that you may learn to fear the LORD your God” (14:23b).