Hittite treaty form and proposal for class restructuring

Talking to the students who dropped by my office hours yesterday (thanks to those of you who did!) and after class with others, together with reading the first reflection paper submissions has made me think about what I can do to help you all assimilate this difficult and complicated material we've been covering. I've got a couple of ideas: some ideas for class structuring, a couple of notes on the importance of Hittite treaty forms (the lecture got cut short there yesterday), and finally, some notes to introduce the readings for tomorrow's class, so you know what you're looking for.

First on the class. I'd like to start to include regular ways to summarize what we've learned so far in the class and how it all fits together, maybe including an example. There are a couple of possible ways we could do this. I could set aside ~20 minutes of class time periodically (every two weeks?) to summarize the class so far and discuss how it all fits together and relates to our ultimate goal (thinking theologically about Christian texts). Alternatively, I could write up a post every week, maybe on Fridays, on here and we could all pitch in on the comment thread (hint, hint). :) (Q1) What do you guys think would work better?

On a related note, I've gotten so much positive feedback about this section on historical criticism and the Bible that I'm considering extending it for another week and cutting out something else later on in the syllabus. (Q2) Anybody in favor of, or very much against, this idea? If you have an opinion, post ASAP because I'm reworking the syllabus this afternoon and tonight. At the same time, if you have a part of the Bible you're interested in talking about that we haven't got into (some examples from the Old Testament: psalms, creation stories, wisdom literature, apocalyptic literature like Daniel, and the apocrypha; New Testament: I think Acts and Revelation aren't on the syllabus at the moment), (Q3) this is the time to tell me what it is and we might cover it!

If you post a comment or send me an email responding to these questions, include the numbers so I can keep all the responses straight. Q4 is at the bottom of the post! A test to see if you read the whole thing! :)

On to the lecture topic from yesterday. We talked about oral literature and how scholars believe there is a layer of oral tradition behind the written sources that source criticism has discovered. In other words, the theory is that when J (or E, or whoever) sat down to write up his history of God's dealings with the nation of Israel-Judah, he didn't start from scratch but from some oral traditions that were pretty much common knowledge (hence the great similarity, despite the noticeable differences, between the Song of the Sea, the JE version of the Red Sea, and the P version, as well as the D versions, for example this one, which we didn't read in class, and Psalm 78). The oral traditions of the Pentateuch are a topic I didn't manage to cover yesterday, but I plan to talk about it tomorrow. If we add a week on the Old Testament, we may cover it in more detail.

What we did discuss is a different kind of oral tradition, which stands behind all the recordings of the covenant at Sinai that we have in the Old Testament: the Hittite treaty form (no wikipedia article! somebody want to make one as a reflection paper? ask me!). The Hittite treaty form has 6 parts, which we put up on the board:

1. Preamble or declaration of identity of the makers of the treaty
   
2. Historical prologue
   
3. General and/or specific stipulations of the treaty
   
4. Documentation and/or ritual for ratification of the treaty
   
5. Witnesses, divine and/or human
   
6. Consequences for observing and for failing to observe the terms of the treaty
   

This is form criticism because it provides a structure (form) which is similar in a whole class of documents (a genre) and which can be used to help (1) identify the oral literature layers in the final text, (2) determine the cultural context for the oral literature and (2) interpret what the author(s) and their community would have thought about the piece.

In the case of our class discussion, we talked about how the covenant at Sinai presented in Exodus and Deuteronomy records all these pieces of a Hittite treaty (although sometimes the order seems a bit mixed up, possibly as a result of editing the written texts later). This doesn't just help us realize (1) that behind the Sinai covenant is an old oral tradition (in fact, many scholars think it is one of the oldest oral traditions behind the Old Testament, even though it's pretty impossible to pick out exactly what words the oral tradition might have had). It also can be used to show us (2) that since the Hittite treaty form was a technical legal document, the early Israelite community who used this form thought very seriously about the "law of the LORD" and considered it a real, binding, legal commitment -- a true contract between YHWH and their ancestors (and, by extension, themselves). Morality and legality were a single concept together in their "law of the LORD," which is why the consequences of disobedience could be stunning and amnesty was difficult, if not impossible, to obtain.

Finally, we know that the Hittite treaty form developed when the Near East was composed of overlords or emperors and kings of smaller regions or towns who owed loyalty to the emperors. (This system is called suzerainty.) At its largest, the Hittite treaty form referred to an emperor and underking's mutual obligations to one another (although it was also used for interpersonal contracts like marriages, as we discussed in class). The arrangement would typically include loyalty and mutual aid between the two, tribute to be paid by the lesser entity and guarantees of freedom in conducting certain affairs in the small region. Thus we can conclude (3) that the Israelites saw YHWH as their overlord and the kings of Israel and Judah -- later on, all the people of Israel -- as owing certain obligations to God but also having autonomy in certain other matters. This explains why political allegiance and religious faithfulness are so often mixed in the Old Testament (for example, the prophets are dead set against Israel making alliances with more powerful nations such as Egypt -- because YHWH is their emperor and not Egypt's, the stipulations of a treaty with Egypt are likely to conflict with the overarching loyalty demanded by the covenant).

That finally brings me to the prophetic forms we are going to talk about tomorrow. Prophetic form criticism has not been as well researched as the Pentateuch, but there are several forms of prophetic utterances that are well documented. I'm going to introduce some here so you can look for them while you read tonight, and the rest we will talk about tomorrow.

First, there is one kind of prophetic word you should look out for: symbolic names. Think about how the Hosea chapters you are reading uses symbolic words and symbolic actions to speak to Israel. These symbolic names contained a great deal of meaning in a word or two, making them ideal for transmitting the prophet's message orally.

On to the two more complicated forms you'll be looking at in your reading for tomorrow. First, look again at the passage from 2 Kings that we read in class yesterday: the prophetic oracle to Judah and King Josiah. This follows an established form called a prophecy of disaster:

1. Summons to hear: "Tell the man who sent you to me"
   
2. Accusation, often introduced with "because" or a similar connective: "Because they have abandoned me and have made offerings to other gods, so that they have provoked me to anger with all the work of their hands"
   
3. Connective word, usually "therefore": "therefore"
   
4. Messenger formula, "thus says the LORD": In some cases, including this one, this formula gets displaced to the beginning of the accusation, notice how it's doubled here
   
5. Prediction of disaster: "my wrath will be kindled against this place, and it will not be quenched." It seems like part of this might have been displaced to the beginning of the prophecy too ("I will indeed bring disaster on this place and on its inhabitants—all the words of the book that the king of Judah has read"); still, there is definitely a recognizable structure.
   

Now look at the second half of the prophecy. This has the same structure, but is prophesying good for the king. Verify the parts. This is called a prophecy of salvation (although, as we discussed in class, "don't worry, you'll die before it all happens" is a pretty weak salvation).

Look for examples of the prophecy of disaster in your readings. Can you identify the parts?

There's also an oracle of salvation, particularly characteristic of Second Isaiah, which we'll be talking about in class tomorrow. Its parts are:

1. A statement of God's care in the past
   
2. A promise, usually starting with "fear not"
   
3. A description of the results of God's promised intervention
   
4. An explanation of why God is acting.
   

See if you can identify these in the reading from Isaiah. We'll be talking about parts (2) and (3) of form criticism for these readings in class.

(Q4) Was this helpful? Should I do it more often?