ÄgypTeN uNd AlTes TesTAmeNT 114

“Now These Records are Ancient”

studies in Ancient Near eastern and Biblical
History, language and Culture
in Honor of K. lawson younger, Jr.

edited by
James K. Hoffmeier, Richard E. Averbeck,
J. Caleb Howard and Wolfgang Zwickel
Zaphon
“Now These Records are Ancient”

Studies in Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical

History, Language and Culture
in Honor of K. Lawson Younger, Jr.

Edited by
James K. Hoffmeier, Richard E. Averbeck,
J. Caleb Howard and Wolfgang Zwickel
ÄGYPTEN UND ALTES TESTAMENT
Studien zu Geschichte, Kultur und Religion Ägyptens und des Alten Testaments

Band 114

Gegründet von Manfred Görg

Herausgegeben von Stefan Jakob Wimmer und Wolfgang Zwickel
“Now These Records are Ancient”

Studies in Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical

History, Language and Culture
in Honor of K. Lawson Younger, Jr.

Edited by
James K. Hoffmeier, Richard E. Averbeck,
J. Caleb Howard and Wolfgang Zwickel

Zaphon
Münster
2022
Illustration auf dem Einband: Relief mit Darstellung König Barrākib und seines Schreibers,
Sam’al (Sendschirli), Basalt, letztes Viertel 8. Jhd. v.Chr., Vorderasiatisches Museum Berlin,
VA 2817, © Staatliche Museen zu Berlin – Vorderasiatisches Museum, Foto: Olaf M. Teßmer.

Ägypten und Altes Testament, Band 114

“Now These Records are Ancient”. Studies in Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical
History, Language and Culture in Honor of K. Lawson Younger, Jr.
Edited by James K. Hoffmeier, Richard E. Averbeck, J. Caleb Howard and Wolfgang Zwickel

© 2022 Zaphon, Enkingweg 36, Münster (www.zaphon.de)

All rights reserved. Printed in Germany. Printed on acid-free paper.

ISBN 978-3-96327-190-8 (Buch)

ISBN 978-3-96327-191-5 (E-Book)
ISSN 0720-9061
 List of Contributions

K. Lawson Younger, Jr. IX

Publications of K. Lawson Younger, Jr. XI

Deuteronomy 13 and the Succession Treaty of Esarhaddon: A Fresh Investigation 1

Bill T. Arnold and Brian T. Shockey

The Meaning and Importance of “subdue” (kābaš) in Genesis 1:28 15

Richard E. Averbeck

An Inquiry into the Rendering of Hebrew sûf and yam sûf in the Early History 33
of Translation
Barry J. Beitzel

Moses Wilhelm Shapira’s “Deuteronomy” between Epigraphy and Literary Criticism 53

Koert van Bekkum

Giving Nebuchadrezzar and Ezekiel Their Due: Rethinking the Exiled Prophet’s Final 61
Word in Ezekiel 29:17–21
Daniel I. Block

The Buck Stops Here: Deer Antlers in Iron Age I Cultic Contexts at Tel Abel Beth Maacah 79
and Their Implications
Scott Booth, Ariel Shatil, Nava Panitz-Cohen, Naama Yahalom-Mack, Carroll Kobs
and Robert A. Mullins

“Attribution Displacement” and its Implications for Biblical Historiography: 109

A Methodological Discussion
Caleb T. Chow

Why Did Emar’s Diviner Hold Documents for the Sale of City-Owned Land? 119
Daniel E. Fleming

Mari’s ARM 1 6: A New Translation and Commentary 131

Walter E. Foster

Ekron of the Philistines: A Response to Issues Raised in the Literature (3) 139
Seymour Gitin

On the Origin and Meaning of ḥānīḵ in Genesis 14:14 151

Holger Gzella

Genesis 1:6–8 and Ancient Near Eastern Celestial Perspectives 159

Oliver A. Hersey

Deities in the Ammonite Personal Names 177

Richard S. Hess

The Contextual Method through the Lens of Relevance Theory 183

John W. Hilber
VI List of Contributions

Towards a Diplomatic, Contextual Reading of the Encounter Between Jacob and Esau 201
in Genesis 33
James K. Hoffmeier and Mark Janzen

Some of What’s New in the Study of Amorite 213

J. Caleb Howard

Deposit and Read! A Discursive Explanation of Peripheral Akkadian Treaty Traditions 243
and their Implications for Deuteronomy
Neal A. Huddleston

The Carmel in the Bronze and Iron Ages: A Multiperspective Approach 267
Sara Kipfer and Wolfgang Zwickel

Geometry and Psalmody: Characterization and the Role of Deborah’s Song (Judges 5) 287
Michelle Knight

East as Symbolic Space 299

Jens Bruun Kofoed

The Supposed Recycling of a Silver Statue of a God from Middle Bronze Age / 313
Old Babylonian Alalah (AlT 366 [40.05])
Jacob Lauinger

Sabaic Inscription B-L Nashq? Revisited Within its Ancient Near Eastern Context 333
André Lemaire

A Magical Aramaic Curse in Jeremiah 10:11: A Performative Sociolinguistic Solution 341

Theodore J. Lewis

“The priests, the Levites, and all the tribe of Levi, shall have no part nor inheritance with 359
Israel” (Deut 18:1): Is there Archaeological Evidence of Priests and Priesthood in Iron Age
Israel and Judah?
Aren M. Maeir

Celebrating Victory in Poetry and Prose 371

Alan Millard

The “Priests” of Ugarit: The Textual Evidence 379

Dennis Pardee

Rituals in the Gideon Narrative (Judges 6–8) 421

Jillian L. Ross

On Aramaean Identity or What is Aramaean in the Culture of Iron Age Syria? 435
Hélène Sader

Sightless in Gaza: On the Fate of Samson 443

Jack M. Sasson
 List of Contributions VII

Northern Kingdom Voices in the Hebrew Bible? Jeroboam ben Nebat and 453
Jehu ben Nimshi in the Tale of Elijah and the Prophets of Baʿal
JoAnn Scurlock

Northern Prophets and Nazirites 473

Karel van der Toorn

The Successful Divinatory Procedure of Abraham’s Servant for Singling out Rebekah 479
(Genesis 24:21)
David S. Vanderhooft and Luiz Gustavo Assis

Contributors 489

Abbreviations 491
 Deuteronomy 13 and the Succession Treaty of Esarhaddon
A Fresh Investigation*
Bill T. Arnold and Brian T. Shockey

Abstract
The following investigation reexamines the long-held argument that a connection exists between Deut 13
and Esarhaddon’s Succession Treaty (EST). Attention is given to the important role of presuppositions in
the comparative process and the relationship of similarities between the two texts with the larger corpus of
treaty documents. We will argue that, rather than a case of direct literary borrowing, Deut 13 exhibits subtle
evidence of conceptual borrowing reflecting possible awareness of the EST on the part of the Israelite
scribes.

The relationship between Deuteronomy and Esarhaddon’s Succession Treaty (EST) has remained a topic of
investigation since Donald Wiseman’s publication of the text in 1958.1 Despite over a half century of re-
search, scholarly consensus regarding the role of the EST in the composition of Deuteronomy remains elu-
sive.2 While there are, no doubt, differences of opinion regarding the significance of similarities and/or dis-
similarities between Deuteronomy and the EST, the lack of agreement in numerous cases can be attributed
to differences in the process of comparison used by scholars. Unfortunately, these methodological differ-
ences are often obscured or omitted entirely in the presentation of scholarly research. The present investiga-
tion offers a fresh evaluation of the underlying differences through a deliberate and comprehensive method-
ological process with the goal of presenting a more transparent assessment of the influence of the EST upon
Deut 13.
The comparative method proposed here is a synthesis and refinement of comparative insight developed
by practitioners over the past century.3 It consists of seven steps, which prima facie appear deceptively sim-
ple:
1. Ask a Question
2. Choose Sources
3. Examine Context

* Lawson Younger’s contributions to the comparative method are impossible to miss for all scholars of the Hebrew
Scriptures, both in practice and in the access he has provided to the primary sources in the monumental work of pro-
ducing the Context of Scripture volumes. By offering this brief study in his honor, we hereby acknowledge our indebt-
edness to him and hope to continue the conversation about Deuteronomy and its ancient context.
1
Donald J. Wiseman, “The Vassal-Treaties of Esarhaddon,” Iraq 20 (1958): 1–99. The text is now widely available;
see Simo Parpola and Kazuko Watanabe, Neo-Assyrian Treaties and Loyalty Oaths, SAA 2 (Helsinki: Helsinki Univer-
sity Press, 1988), 28–58; “Neo-Assyrian Treaties,” trans. Jacob Lauinger (COS 4.36:155–66); “Die Vasallenverträge
Asarhaddons mit medischen Fürsten,” trans. Rykle Borger (TUAT 1:160–76); and Jacob Lauinger, “Esarhaddon’s Suc-
cession Treaty at Tell Tayinat: Text and Commentary,” JCS 64 (2012): 87–123.
2
See, for example, the articles in the recent HBAI volume and the introductory summary there by Cynthia Edenburg
and Reinhard Müller, “Editorial Introduction: Perspectives on the Treaty Framework of Deuteronomy,” HBAI 8 (2019):
73–86. Specific to Deut 13, Eckart Otto long ago made comparison with the EST (especially §10) the focus of a research
program that came to full fruition in his prodigious commentary; cf. Eckart Otto, Das Deuteronomium: Politische
Theologie und Rechtsreform in Juda und Assyrien, BZAW 284 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1999), 57–88; and idem, Deutero-
nomium 12–34, HThKAT, 2 vols. (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 2016), 1259–61. And for recent refutation of the idea
that the EST was either a direct or secondary source for composing any or all of Deuteronomy, see Diana V. Edelman,
“Saying Goodbye to the Theory of the Influence of Esarhaddon’s Succession Adê on Deuteronomy 13 and 28,” in Beside
the Ark: Thinking about Deuteronomy outside the Box, eds. Diana V. Edelman, Kåre Berge, Philippe Guillaume and
Benedetta Rossi, forthcoming.
3
Including William W. Hallo’s “contextual approach,” which has been refined and advanced by our honoree, Lawson
Younger, who referred to Hallo’s approach as a “methodological watershed” (COS 4, page ix). For bibliography and
assessment, see Brian T. Shockey, “Beyond Comparison: A Process for Comparing Israelite and Ancient Near Eastern
Literature” (PhD diss., Asbury Theological Seminary, 2021).
2 Arnold / Shockey – Deuteronomy 13 and the Succession Treaty of Esarhaddon

4. Collect Data
5. Interpret the Data
6. Draw Conclusions
7. Present Results
These steps are designed to guide researchers through the process of comparison and to safeguard against
misinterpretation of the comparative data. They include several sub-steps which also aid researchers engag-
ing in specific types of comparative study (compositional, historical, exegetical, or topical inquiries). This
process intentionally separates the collection of comparative data from its interpretation to allow for greater
transparency in how a researcher’s presuppositions and purpose affect their interpretation of the data. While
disagreements may arise in stages five and six of the comparative study, it is hoped that stage four, kept
separate, will generally be common ground in the comparative endeavor, even among scholars holding to
vastly different positions. While many scholars currently embrace a ‘comparative method’ with regard to
Old Testament interpretation, the execution of the method is wildly varied and at times problematic, and few
scholars reflect self-consciously on the core principles at work in their research in order to prevent misuse
of the method. This brief study attempts to illustrate a synthesis of the core principles of comparison in a
single unified process. The approach used here has been developed and defended elsewhere, first by deline-
ating a seven-stage comprehensive process in theory, and then by applying it in practice to two case studies:
(a) the structure of Deuteronomy to ancient Near Eastern treaties generally, and (b) the literary dependence
of Deut 28 to the EST.4 This investigation turns to a further case study – that of the controversial theory of
literary dependence between Deut 13 and the EST. In order to highlight the processes at work in the ap-
proach, this research report will deliberately focus on the stages of the comparative method adopted here. In
the interest of space, comments will be restricted to aspects of the comparative process that have resulted in
significant debate among scholars.

1. Ask a Question

All comparative research begins with a question, articulated or not, which is informed by both the purpose
and the presuppositions of the researcher. In the present case, the comparison is a compositional inquiry,
examining whether the EST in some manner influenced the development of Deut 13. Formulated another
way, “Did the biblical scribes make use of the EST in the composition of Deuteronomy 13?” The purpose
of this comparative study is captured in this general question, but it is worth noting that the present investi-
gation also aims to bring clarity to the differences between the results of previous comparative studies. While
not the focus of the comparison itself, this purpose guides the investigation and the attention given to various
aspects of the study. Many studies comparing Deuteronomy and the EST are also interested in establishing
a date for the composition of the biblical text, in addition to understanding the process which led to its
formation. Although we recognize that the results of the present study may carry implications for the date of
Deuteronomy, these questions are of secondary interest and exert less influence on the study itself. It should
also be noted that other types of comparative studies, perhaps topical or exegetical inquiries, might also bear
fruit, perhaps even to a greater extent than the present investigation. Prior to this point, however, comparisons
between Deut 13 and the EST have been dominated by compositional questions, and therefore it is along
these lines that the present study must proceed.
Any question involving the compositional history of Deuteronomy must first reckon with several key
presuppositions which influence the course of the study. Failure properly to disclose and appreciate the im-
pact of presuppositions is perhaps the greatest factor contributing to the conflicting diversity of conclusions
regarding the relationship between Deut 13 and the EST. Presuppositions for this type of investigation should
be considered in three areas; first, the researcher’s understanding of the nature of the biblical text and the
processes at work in its composition; second, the researcher’s understanding of ancient Near Eastern conti-
nuity; and third, the researcher’s opinions regarding the relationship between other portions of Deuteronomy
and the EST.

4
Shockey, “Beyond Comparison.”
 Arnold / Shockey – Deuteronomy 13 and the Succession Treaty of Esarhaddon 3

We approach Deuteronomy as a text with both theological and historical value. As with other ancient
sources, efforts will be made to respect the probable (reconstructable) history depicted by the text, allowing,
of course, for issues of genre, rhetoric, and ancient literary practices. These depictions will not be pressed
beyond what the data affords. We assume partial continuity throughout the cultures of the ancient Near East,
recognizing the presence of common traditions among proximate cultures but also the distinctiveness of
Israel’s own culture. Finally, although we recognize the potential for Neo-Assyrian influence upon the text
of Deuteronomy, we do not find the so-called treaty form argument or the evidence from Deut 28 to be
sufficient to support widespread influence upon the biblical text. Despite the vast amount of literature on the
form of Deuteronomy, at present the corpus of ancient Near Eastern treaty texts is inconsistently distributed
and marked by many temporal and geographical gaps. While it is possible that these gaps represent cultures
which did not possess a treaty tradition, it seems more likely that this information has not yet been recovered
through archaeological means and is unavailable to modern researchers. It is not possible to assess the com-
positional history of Deuteronomy against such an incomplete grid of data with any confidence. To be sure,
Deuteronomy contains an extensive historical prologue and blessing section, similar to second millennium
Hittite treaties; it also contains an extensive curse section similar to the Neo-Assyrian treaty texts. The ex-
tensive gaps present in the ancient Near Eastern material, however, make these similarities, although tanta-
lizing, ultimately of limited value for determining the compositional history of the book.5
Further, the evidence from Deut 28 is less convincing than often assumed.6 High confidence parallels
between the two sources are isolated to Deut 28:20–33 and lines 414–30 of the EST. Even in this limited
section any borrowing appears to have occurred at the conceptual, rather than literary level. It may even be
possible that a Judahite scribe made use of the Neo-Assyrian material unconsciously in the composition of
the biblical curse section.7 While the shared curse order between these two sections is exclusive to the two
sources, this type of conceptual borrowing seems more consistent with two sources which rely on a common
tradition. At this time, however, no additional evidence exists to support the common textual tradition argu-
ment. The limited and conceptual nature of the borrowing in Deut 28 also seems to refute suggestions that
the biblical scribes were engaged in some type of subversive transformation of the Neo-Assyrian material.
Were this to be the case, one would expect clear signaling and more widespread evidence of borrowing. The
evidence of conceptual borrowing in Deut 28 then, although the most probable interpretation of the data for
that section of text, is less effective in supporting the notion of scribal borrowing in other parts of the book,
such as Deut 13.8
This final presupposition, the researcher’s opinion of other connections between Deuteronomy and the
EST, often proves to be predictive with regards to how a researcher will interpret the supposed similarities
between Deut 13 and the EST. Scholars who have aligned Deuteronomy more generally with Hittite material
by its form will be inclined to support Hittite parallels and question Neo-Assyrian influence. Likewise, schol-
ars who have asserted widespread Neo-Assyrian subversion by the biblical scribes will be more likely to

5
For a recent reconstruction of the book’s compositional history, see Bill T. Arnold, “Innovations of the Deuteronomic
Law and the History of Its Composition,” in Deuteronomy in the Making: Studies in the Production of Debarim, eds.
Diana Edelman, Benedetta Rossi, Käre Berge and Philippe Guillaume, BZAW 533 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2021), 163–94,
esp. 185–87; and cf. further Bill T. Arnold, “Number Switching in Deuteronomy 12–26 and the Quest for Urdeuterono-
mium,” ZABR 23 (2017): 163–80, esp. 176–80.
6
For some of what follows, see Shockey, “Beyond Comparison,” 223–71.
7
What is sometimes lost or overlooked in this discussion is the role of memory in the formation of written texts, and
the likelihood that Israelite scribes often worked from memory in incorporating earlier texts in “a process of writing-
supported memorization,” resulting in less precision in the transmission from one tradition to the next than we might
expect; cf. David M. Carr, The Formation of the Hebrew Bible: A New Reconstruction (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2011), 4–7 and 57–65; cf. also idem, Writing on the Tablet of the Heart: Origins of Scripture and Literature
(New York: Oxford University Press, 2005).
8
The inability to support arguments of literary borrowing based on the available evidence does not rule out the possi-
bility of such interaction between Israelite scribes and Neo-Assyrian literature and culture. Rather, it simply indicates
that the evidence is insufficient to support the argument with certainty. Therefore, all subsequent arguments and further
reconstructions based upon that evidence must be made with caution. Unfortunately, although many researchers present
their conclusions with caution, later arguments built upon those conclusions are not often advanced with the same degree
of caution.
4 Arnold / Shockey – Deuteronomy 13 and the Succession Treaty of Esarhaddon

confirm their suspicions via the perceived evidence in Deut 13. While it is tempting to label this an instance
of confirmation bias, the reality is much more nuanced. In both cases, scholars are seeking to build an argu-
ment by compiling evidence which supports their claim. They have not predetermined their conclusions, but
their presuppositions cause them to interpret data in keeping with one interpretive stream, when in reality
multiple options may be available. Scholars seeking to hold a moderate position are not excused from this
tendency, as they will likely be tempted to withhold judgement until additional evidence can be offered. This
is the unfortunate reality of biblical studies, where the benefits of drawing conclusions must be balanced
with the limitations of the available evidence.

2. Choose Sources

The research question above easily identifies the sources for comparison, Deut 13 and the EST. Other sources
will likely be needed to establish the exclusivity of any assessed similarities if literary borrowing is sus-
pected. What is less clear at the present time is the specific portions of the EST that should be included in
the comparison. While the majority of scholars use EST §10 as a base for comparison, it is not uncommon
to see others reach to §§4, 12, and 57 for parallels.9 This raises questions about the nature of literary borrow-
ing in the ancient world and the process of comparison, which are difficult to answer. Should we assume
that it was common for an ancient scribe to borrow from different, isolated, sections of a document in their
own process of composition? Moreover, how much “jumping around” should be allowed before we assume
that the scribe is composing something new rather than borrowing from another source? Comparison for
compositional inquiry is most effective when assessing isolated, consecutive portions of text. This allows
for a clear evaluation of similarities and differences within an intentionally limited scope. This scope can
always be expanded or modified in subsequent studies in order to examine other portions of the EST that
may have a connection to Deuteronomy. While this investigation focuses on §10, we will attempt to address
the arguments of other scholars working on Deut 13 by also examining similarities and differences within
§§4–12 of the EST. We will not consider §57, which seems less relevant despite its lexical connections
because it lies outside the immediate context of the other material.
The boundaries of the biblical source are also a matter of discussion, although for very different reasons.
Several scholars first engage in source criticism to establish what they believe to be an earlier form of Deut
13 and then use this hypothetical form for comparison. While these early forms often yield compelling results
when compared to the EST, at the present time they remain hypothetical.10 As such, these versions of Deut
13 add additional variables into the comparative endeavor which significantly lower the certainty of any
results drawn from the study. Because of this, we have chosen to use the canonical form of Deut 13 for
comparison since it is the only version of the text available to us with complete certainty. While it is possible
that parallels may have appeared more clearly in earlier versions of the text, lacking any archaeologically
recovered “early versions” it is impossible to engage in this type of comparison with any degree of confi-
dence. We must work with the comparisons available to us, limited though our sources may be.
Source selection involves an examination of seven source criteria, including scope, proximity, pathway,
genre, content, quality, and quantity.11 Since the majority of scholars agree regarding these aspects of the
EST and Deuteronomy, we will limit our comments here to matters of pathway and quality. The primary
argument against using the EST as a comparative source has to do with its availability to Judahite scribes.12

9
E.g., Hans U. Steymans, “Deuteronomy 13 in Comparison with Hittite, Aramaic, and Assyrian Treaties,” HBAI 8
(2019): 101–32, esp. 122–25; and Otto, Das Deuteronomium, 59–61.
10
E.g., Steymans, “Deuteronomy 13 in Comparison,” 106–11; William Morrow, “Have Attempts to Establish the De-
pendency of Deuteronomy on the Esarhaddon Succession Treaty (EST) Failed?” HBAI 8 (2019): 140–43; Paul Dion,
“Deuteronomy 13: The Suppression of Alien Religious Propaganda in Israel during the Late Monarchical Era,” in Law
and Ideology in Monarchic Israel, eds. Baruch Halpern and Deborah W. Hobson, JSOT.SS 124 (Sheffield: JSOT Press,
1991), 167–92.
11
Shockey, “Beyond Comparison,” 123–31.
12
For discussion of the use of Akkadian and Aramaic by the Assyrian Empire see William Morrow, “Cuneiform Literacy
and Deuteronomic Composition,” BO 62.3–4 (2005), 207–10; Morrow, “Have Attempts,” 137–39; Shawn Z. Aster,
“Treaty and Prophecy: A Survey of Biblical Reactions to Neo-Assyrian Political Thought,” in The Southern Levant
 Arnold / Shockey – Deuteronomy 13 and the Succession Treaty of Esarhaddon 5

The argument, as traditionally framed, suggests that most of copies of the EST were found further to the east
and there is little evidence that a copy was displayed in Jerusalem. Further, scholars holding to this view
question whether Judahite scribes would have been able to read the EST, even if it were present in Jerusalem.
Opposing voices have in recent years pointed to the copy of the EST at Tell Tayinat as evidence of the
westward distribution of the document and suggested that Judah’s vassal status would have ensured that at
least some scribes were able to read and write cuneiform for the purpose of maintaining healthy relationships
with the empire.13 Various other arguments have also been raised including the possibility of an Aramaic
translation of the EST, or perhaps a shared Northwest Semitic cultural heritage.14 For the present comparison,
however, what is needed is not certainty of pathway, but reasonable possibility of pathway. While the hypo-
thetical nature of this pathway must be factored into the final conclusions (and limits their certainty), the
possibility of a pathway is sufficient to engage in comparison with the EST. As noted above, the potential
for Neo-Assyrian influence is recognized as a presupposition of the present researchers and will affect our
interpretation of the data.
The quality of both texts is generally good, although it should be noted that the relevant passages are
damaged or missing in the Tell Tayinat exemplar. Text-critical issues for the biblical text are minor, except
for the differences between the MT and LXX versions of Deut 13:10[LXX 13:9].15 Since these differences
have previously been resolved via comparative evidence and are relevant for the discussion of similarities
and differences between the two sources, they will be addressed in detail below.

3. Examine Context

There is general agreement on the literary context of both Deut 13 and the EST. The social context of the
EST likewise finds little debate among researchers. On the other hand, the uncertainty regarding Deuteron-
omy’s compositional history makes it difficult to achieve a consensus view for its social context, which is to
be expected for compositional inquiries of documents that do not possess a clear compositional date. Since
there is little debate regarding the literary and cultural context of these sources (with the exception of the
social context of Deuteronomy), this topic does not require extensive treatment in the current investigation.
One lingering point of debate concerning the literary context of Deuteronomy 13 is the role of Deut 13:1.
Bernard Levinson and Eckart Otto are inclined to see Deut 13:1 as inherently connected to the verses which
follow and include the verse in their assessment of evidence of borrowing.16 William Morrow sees Deut 13:1
and 13:19 as a framework marking the insertion of verses 2–18. He further points to the Masoretic pǝtûḥâ
(open paragraph) as indicative of a textual division following Deut 13:1 and excludes the verse from com-
parison.17 Hans Steymans, somewhat following Paul Dion, uses a hypothetical version of Deut 13, which
also excludes Deut 13:1 from the discussion.18 While the so-called canon formula will be discussed further
below, we will note, for the moment, that we are not convinced by arguments to include this verse in discus-
sions of literary borrowing.

Under Assyrian Domination,eds. Shawn Z. Aster and Avraham Faust (University Park, PA: Eisenbrauns, 2018), 89–96,
esp. 90; Angelika Berlejung, “The Assyrians in the West: Assyrianization, Colonialism, Indifference, or Development
Policy,” in Congress Volume Helsinki 2010, ed. Martti Nissinen (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 21–60.
13
E.g., Hans U. Steymans, “Deuteronomy 28 and Tell Tayinat,” Verbum et Ecclesia 34 (2013): 1–13.
14
E.g., Laura Quick, Deuteronomy 28 and the Aramaic Curse Tradition (New York: Oxford University Press, 2018);
Melissa D. Ramos, “A Northwest Semitic Curse Formula: The Sefire Treaty and Deuteronomy 28,” ZAW 128 (2016):
205–20.
15
For the sake of convenience, we refer to textual references in Deut 13 by the Masoretic versification except where
otherwise noted.
16
E.g., Bernard M. Levinson, “Esarhaddon’s Succession Treaty as the Source for the Canon Formula in Deuteronomy
13:1,” JAOS 130.3 (2010): 345–46. For an opposing view see Laura Quick, “ ‘But You Shall Surely Report Concerning
Him’: In Defense of the Priority of LXX Deuteronomy 13:9,” ZAW 130.1 (2018): 86–100.
17
Morrow, “Have Attempts”, 141.
18
Dion, “Deuteronomy 13,” 156–59; Steymans, “Deuteronomy 13 in Comparison,” 104.
6 Arnold / Shockey – Deuteronomy 13 and the Succession Treaty of Esarhaddon

4. Collect Data

The analysis of Deut 13 and EST §10 reveals several similarities and differences. Both texts address a situ-
ation of covenant infidelity, whereby the vassal has overheard the negative speech or seditious plans of
another party. Both documents use a similar, four-part conditional form to describe this scenario, although
these parts occur in a slightly different order depending on the scribe’s choice of verb. The four parts include
the conditional phrase itself, the identity of the offending party, the actions of the offending party, and the
expected response of the vassal to the situation. The biblical text divides the covenant mandate into three
parallel cycles while the EST includes only a single cycle. The contents of these cycles are summarized
below:

Cycle EST §10 Cycle Deut 13

A If you hear… A If ___ arises and says
A not good word from Let us go after other gods
Enemies/allies; family members; man- Mantic practitioners
tic practitioners; anyone
You shall report it You shall purge the evil from among you
B If ____ entices you
Let us go serve other gods
Family members; friends
You (and the community) shall kill him
C If you hear
That ____ enticed a city to follow other gods
Unnamed (anyone?) + Unfaithful City
You shall investigate and, if true, you shall
destroy the city

The identities of the offending parties are remarkably similar, although the biblical text divides them up
over two of the three cycles. Only the enemies/allies group is omitted from the biblical text in the immediate
context. Levinson notes that the order of the offending parties is reversed in the biblical text, with the mantic
practitioners preceding the group of family members.19 The presence of numerous translational equivalents
strengthens this parallel, such as the EST’s inclusion of aḫḫēkunu, mārēkunu, mārātekunu, “your brothers,
your sons, your daughters” (cf. Deut 13:7).20 While these three nouns occur in the same order in both texts,
they are quite common, and are interrupted by additional individuals in both texts (the addition of uncles and
father’s family line in EST §10; the addition of wife and friend in Deut 13:7). More interesting is the simi-
larity between the mantic figures listed in both texts. While the biblical term nābîʾ is common, the use of
ḥōlēm ḥălôm to refer to an official position is rare. Unfortunately, difficulty in defining mantic terms prevents
us from clearly assessing whether the professional dreamer referenced in the biblical text is a clear parallel
to any of the three terms (raggimu, maḫḫû, or šā’ilu) used in the EST.21
Differences between the two texts occur in the other three areas of the conditional form: the conditional
phrase itself (cycles A and B), the description of the offender’s action, and the expected response of the
vassal to that action. While the EST envisions a scenario where the vassal hears some language that is abutu

19
Levinson, “Esarhaddon’s Succession Treaty,” 346.
20
EST §10, lines 115–116: ŠEŠ.MEŠ-ku-nu DUMU.MEŠ-ku-nu DUMU.MÍ.MEŠ-ku-nu.
21
On defining mantic terms see Jonathan Stökl, Prophecy in the Ancient Near East: A Philological and Sociological
Comparison (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 7–26, 103–27; Martti Nissinen, Prophets and Prophecy in the Ancient Near East, 2nd
ed., WAW 41 (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2019), 1–12; Ben Wiggershaus, “The Man of Opened Eye: Ancient Near Eastern
Revelatory Convention and the Balaam Cycle (Numbers 22–24)” (PhD diss., Asbury Theological Seminary, 2021), 13–
83. Note that although šā’ilu is used with dream interpretation and may appear to match the biblical term, it has a
semantic range which can also refer to other types of divination.
 Arnold / Shockey – Deuteronomy 13 and the Succession Treaty of Esarhaddon 7

lā ṭābtu lā deʾiqtu lā banitu – “a word that is not favorable, not beautiful, and not good” – by the offender,22
the conditional phrase and following description of the offender’s action in the biblical text is much more
explicit. Here the offender, rather than the vassal, is understood as the subject of the conditional phrase, in
both cases enticing the vassal to follow after other gods. In cycle A (vv. 2–7) this enticement appears to be
connected to the signs and wonders performed by the mantic practitioners while in cycle B (vv. 7–12) it is
tied to the strength of the relationship between the vassal and his close family/friends. In both cases the
charge is clearly that of inciting rebellion against YHWH, rather than the more generalized term used in the
EST. The expected response of the vassal also varies considerably from the EST to Deut 13, with the vassal
being expected to report the negative speech to Assurbanipal in the EST and to enact punishment (here death)
of the offending party in the biblical text.23 Even if one assumes that reporting an offense to Assurbanipal
would ultimately result in the death of the offending party, in the biblical text it is the vassal who overhears
who is ultimately responsible for the punishment of the offense they witnessed.
On the other hand, the conditional phrase of cycle C (vv. 13–18) of the biblical text matches that of the
EST, although the remainder of the cycle does not find a parallel in §10.24 The offender is not named in the
biblical text, so the reported speech of Deut 13:14 could technically have been spoken by anyone. In this
way, the section is similar to the catch-all terminology found in the EST. It differs, however, upon closer
inspection, as the group overheard differs from the group who incites the rebellion. Moreover, there are
actually two groups of offenders; the first, those who incited the city to turn away from Yhwh; the second –
those who actually receive the punishment, the inhabitants of the rebellious city. The third cycle also con-
cludes with an admonition for the vassal to destroy the guilty parties, although here the punishment is framed
not just as execution but as ḥērem. While the vassal still participates in the punishment, the judgment is more
severe and its consequences more far-reaching.
Summarizing the similarities and differences between Deut 13 and §10, then, reveals a general similarity
regarding the offending parties but differences in the language, offense, and required response of the vassal.
If the comparison is expanded to include §§4–12, a number of other similarities and differences may be
assessed. An initial similarity may be identified between the closing portion of §4 (line 57) and Deut 13:1,
both of which reference changes to the conditions of the document. The EST refers to changes or alterations
to the word of Esarhaddon while Deut 13:1 refers to adding or taking away from the commands of God
conveyed through Moses. While both describe changes to the documents, there are some notable differences
between them. The EST uses two largely synonymous terms (tennāni and tušannāni), while the biblical texts
has opposite terms (ysp and grʿ), perhaps as a merism. While the general thrust of the verse is the same, the
logic used by the documents is somewhat different. Further, the biblical text is presented as first-person
speech while the EST is represented in the third person, as a scribe conveying the words of Esarhaddon with
respect to Assurbanipal. Thus, Deut 13:1 and EST §4, line 57 display both similarities and differences.
The ensuing portion of the EST, §§5–9 displays some conceptual similarity with Deut 13 with respect to
the language of rebellion against the ruler. It should be noted however, that Deut 13:1 moves directly from
the command to obey and not modify the commands to the three conditional cycles with no additional ma-
terial in between. Some of the material in the EST finds no parallel in the biblical text. In particular, §5 which

22
EST §10, lines 108–109: a-bu-tú la DÙG.GA-tú la de-iq-tú la ba-ni-tú.
23
The difference between the vassal’s responsibility in the biblical and Neo-Assyrian texts both contributes to and is
affected by discussion of text-critical issues surrounding Deut 13:10. See Levinson, “Esarhaddon’s Succession Treaty;”
Quick, “‘But You Shall Surely Report Concerning Him.”’ As noted by Quick, earlier studies by Weinfeld and Dion
advocated for the LXX version of this passage to increase the strength of the parallel with the EST. Even with this
change, similarity between the vassal’s responsibility would only be present in the second conditional cycle of the
biblical text. The presence of capital punishment in the first and third cycles could also be understood as evidence to
support the MT reading of the middle cycle.
24
This section of the text is often discussed in connection with CTH 133. For the initial argument, see Joshua Berman,
“CTH 133 and the Hittite Provenance of Deuteronomy 13,” JBL 130.1 (2011): 25–44. For discussion see Bernard M.
Levinson and Jeffrey Stackert, “Between the Covenant Code and Esarhaddon’s Succession Treaty: Deuteronomy 13
and the Composition of Deuteronomy,” JAJ 3 (2012): 123–40; Joshua Berman, “Historicism and Its Limits: A Response
to Bernard M. Levinson and Jeffrey Stackert,” JAJ 4 (2013): 297–309; and Bernard M. Levinson and Jeffrey Stackert,
“The Limitations of ‘Resonance’: A Response to Joshua Berman on the Comparative Method,” JAJ 4 (2013): 310–33.
8 Arnold / Shockey – Deuteronomy 13 and the Succession Treaty of Esarhaddon

discusses the protection of Assurbanipal against efforts to steal the throne by his brothers and §7 which
concerns succession upon Esarhaddon’s premature death differ greatly from the biblical materials. EST §8
also finds little similarity in Deut 13, although its concerns of covenant fidelity are reflected in other parts
of Deuteronomy. The biggest similarities between these intervening sections and Deuteronomy 13 are found
in §6 and §9. EST §6, is similar to §10 and deals with the vassal’s obligation to report negative speech
against Assurbanipal, similar to the obligation in the biblical text to address rumors of sedition. In this case,
however, the category of mantic practitioners is missing from the EST and is replaced with government
officials and scholars. As §6 adds no additional similarities beyond those reported with §10, it will not be
addressed further here. EST §9 adds the element of rebellion and sedition, which is clearly found in Deut 13
and had been missing from §10. In this case however, it is the vassal who is the object of the covenant
mandate to refrain from rebellion and negative speech against the ruler. While this section reveals a similar
interest in rebellion against the ruler, the structure of §9 is markedly different from Deut 13 and contains no
conditional elements nor mention of reported speech.

Cycle EST §12 Cycle Deut 13

A If you hear…
Rebellion and insurrection
anyone
You shall bring them before Assurbanipal,
kill them, or report them
A If ___ arises and says
Let us go after other gods
Mantic practitioners
You shall purge the evil from among you
B If ____ entices you
Let us go serve other gods
Family members; friends
You (and the community) shall kill him
C If you hear
That ____ enticed a city to follow other
gods
Unnamed (anyone?)
You shall investigate and, if true, you shall
destroy the city

The paragraphs following §10 also display additional similarities and differences to Deut 13. EST §11,
as with §9, contains an injunction directed toward the vassal to refrain from rebellion and negative speech/ac-
tion against Assurbanipal. In §11 this action is further specified to include seizing, ousting, handing over, or
swearing allegiance to a king other than Assurbanipal. EST §12 contains similar language of rebellion but
returns to the reporting language of §10. EST §12 adheres to the same conditional formula as §10, with some
similarities and differences to the biblical text.
Note that unlike §10, here the similarities lie between the reported offense and required response of the
vassal. Note too that as in the biblical text, the vassal is given the responsibility of exacting punishment upon
the offender. Unlike the biblical text, accommodations are made in case the vassal is unable to fulfill this
responsibility. Once again, the third cycle of the biblical text seems to be framed differently than the material
in the EST (and in Deut 13 itself). Here, unlike §10 and Deut 13, no specific information regarding the
offenders is given.

5. Interpret the Data

As noted above, the purpose of this investigation is to take up again the compositional history of Deut 13
and to determine to what extent (if any) biblical scribes may have borrowed from the EST in the development
of this chapter. Before drawing conclusions, however, we would like to suggest that other uses of the com-
parative method, perhaps in this case for topical inquiry around cases of sedition, may ultimately be of greater
value in examining these two sources rather than the discipline’s too-often narrow focus on composition and
date. As will be shown below, determinations of date and possible literary borrowing can rarely be advanced
 Arnold / Shockey – Deuteronomy 13 and the Succession Treaty of Esarhaddon 9

with any certainty, leading the authors to caution against expecting too much from this type of inquiry. That
said, the question as posed, is properly before us and the evidence must be evaluated with the stated purpose
in mind.
Determination of literary borrowing requires researchers to engage in specific aspects of the comparative
process that are less important for other studies. It is important that source questions of pathway are suffi-
ciently addressed, and it is necessary to, at minimum, examine both lexical and structural similarities be-
tween the two sources. If evidence is found which suggests literary borrowing, these similarities must be
tested for exclusivity.25 Unfortunately, suspected literary borrowing involving common literary elements or
lacking specific lexical/structural elements can rarely be advanced beyond a possible or plausible level of
certainty. Variables earlier in the comparative process as well as scholarly presuppositions also impact de-
terminations of literary dependence, often requiring the researcher to acknowledge that literary borrowing is
possible if one accepts certain pre-conditions.
Before interpretation of the evidence can continue, we must first address the question of Deut 13:1 and
its relationship to EST §4. While we recognize the presence of similarities between these two passages as
well, we contend the distance between §4 and the subsequent similarities in §10 warrants against including
this section in any assessment of borrowing.26 We acknowledge that scribes were not prevented from freely
borrowing from various portions of one work in the development of another, although the argument that
biblical scribes would skip over sections describing covenant fidelity and loyalty to address rumors of sedi-
tion is less than fully compelling.27 In all likelihood then, the similarities between the order of §4 and §10
and Deut 13:1 and Deut 13:2–12 should not be considered a structural parallel and should not be further
evaluated as a potential case of literary borrowing.
Based on the similarities identified above, the primary candidates for compositional influence are §10
and §12. We would stress at this point, that the differences in these passages are also significant, and neither
present as strong candidates for literary borrowing. These elements are summarized below:

Element Deut 13 EST §10 EST §12

Overheard an offence (theme) X (A, B, C) X X
Offenders Named X (A, B, C) X
Mantic Practitioners X (A) X
Family Members X (B) X
Enemies/Allies X
City X (C)
Offender Reported X X
Offender Killed X (A, B, C) X
Community Punished X (C) X
Investigation of Charges X (C)
Rebellion/Sedition Specified X (A, B, C) X
Offense as a test of loyalty X (A)
Historical Background X (A, B)
Communal Response X (B, C) X (if needed)
Punishment ensures future fidelity X (B)

25
Similarities between two sources may occur for a variety of reasons. In order to advance an argument for literary
borrowing with confidence, it must be shown that these similarities occur only between the two sources in question. The
test for exclusivity is an evaluation of other sources to determine if the similar elements occur elsewhere. See Shockey,
“Beyond Comparison,” 153–62. See also, Meir Malul, who describes this as the test for coincidence; The Comparative
Method in Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical Legal Studies (Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker, 1990), 93.
26
See also the arguments made by Drew Holland, “On the Commonalities of Deuteronomy 13 with Ancient Near East-
ern Treaties,” JESOT 5.2 (2016–2017): 141–66, esp. 149–50.
27
Contra Levinson, “Esarhaddon’s Succession Treaty,” 345–46; Nicholas O. Polk, “Deuteronomy and Treaty Texts: A
Critical Re-examination of Deuteronomy 13, 17, 27, and 28” (PhD diss., The University of Chicago, 2010), 61.
10 Arnold / Shockey – Deuteronomy 13 and the Succession Treaty of Esarhaddon

Examining lexical evidence, §10 contains six key terms which would qualify as translational equivalents.
The first is the cognate verb “to hear” used in EST §10 (line 119) and in Deut 13:9, 12, and 13. Of these
uses, the verb is only coupled with the conditional in the third cycle of Deut 13 (verse 13) which offers the
clearest parallel to the EST. Conceptual parallels to “hearing” also occur in the conditionals of the first two
cycles of Deut 13, but the verbal forms and structure of these sections differ. The remaining five terms occur
within the list of offending parties, three in the group of family members and two among the mantic practi-
tioners as noted above. However, unlike the EST where these terms occur in close proximity, they are divided
between cycles A and B of the biblical text. None of the remaining shared terms occurs in cycle C, suggesting
that the use of the cognate term there may simply be a matter of coincidence given the shared themes of the
sections. The significance of the family terminology for brother, son, and daughter (see above) is somewhat
reduced by the commonality of the terms, but the common ordering of the three will be important to check
against other ancient texts. The mantic terms are more interesting, especially due to the rarity of ḥōlēm ḥălôm
in the biblical text. It is unclear however, how the biblical nābîʾ maps to the three Akkadian terms and
whether ḥōlēm ḥălôm should be viewed as equivalent to šā’ilu. These questions aside, it seems clear that
there is a parallel present between these terms, even if we cannot be exactly certain of what that parallel
actually is. The presence of five translational equivalents in a relatively small portion of EST §10 is sugges-
tive but is complicated by the separation of these terms in the biblical text. While the inverted order of these
groups (mantic/family) seems plausible, one wonders whether a scribe who was borrowing from the text
itself would have reconfigured it in such an extreme manner. It is also puzzling that only certain portions of
the mantic and family groups are repeated in Deut 13. It seems more likely that a biblical scribe, familiar
with these common categories, may have seen fit to include them in their own composition in keeping with
their own agenda.
Complicating the picture further is the reality that the remainder of the four-element conditional cycles
in Deut 13 varies significantly from its Neo-Assyrian counterpart. Were one to argue that the logical structure
of the EST, involving mantic practitioners, was imported into Deut 13, one would also expect other aspects
of Deut 13’s structure to display signs of that same logical influence. Instead, it appears that the biblical
writer is using a very different logic to address a different concern than the writers of the EST. The biblical
emphasis on purging the evil from the midst of the community suggests an interest in the holiness of the
community, not protection of the authority of the ruler. The EST, on the other hand, is concerned with pre-
serving Assurbanipal’s authority and role in the empire. In the Israelite cultural purview, God has no need
to preserve his authority, only to instruct his people how to live productively within it. Thus, we conclude,
without external corroborating evidence, there is little or no reason to see any evidence of literary borrowing
between §10 and Deut 13. The overall structure of the passages is different, and while both include cases
where the vassal overhears information, the specific offenses differ (speech vs. rebellion), as does the re-
quired response (reporting vs. death), and the ultimate interest of the sections (preserving Assurbanipal’s
reign vs. holiness). The unique term, ḥōlēm ḥălôm may legitimately be considered a blind motif, and may
be an intentional reference to the Neo-Assyrian cultural context, but by itself, it is not evidence of literary
borrowing. While it is possible to argue for a case of conceptual borrowing here, this seems an unnecessary
and unlikely course based on the available evidence within Deut 13 alone.
EST §12 appears to present a slightly better case for a relationship, but the lack of specific lexical con-
nections limits the strength of this parallel. The perceived offense described in EST §12 and Deut 13 is more
similar than the offense described in §10. Here it is clear that the offenders have turned away from Assurba-
nipal, presumably to follow another king, just as the Israelites had turned away from YHWH. While similar
in concept however, contextual differences between the royal concerns of the EST and religious concerns of
Deut 13 prohibit clear translational equivalents. A similar scenario is found when examining the expected
actions of the vassal in response to the offender. The Neo-Assyrian text describes three possible actions for
the vassal in connection with the punishment: seize and present, seize and kill, or report and partner with the
state to administer justice. The first, where the offender is brought before Assurbanipal, finds no parallel in
the biblical text because there is no idol in the religious system to signify the presence of the deity. The
second, which indicates the death of the offender, does seem similar to the biblical command. The extension
of the punishment beyond the immediate offender, however, is only found in the third cycle of the biblical
text, and even there seems more clearly connected to corporate or communal rebellion. The third, occurring
 Arnold / Shockey – Deuteronomy 13 and the Succession Treaty of Esarhaddon 11

when the vassal is unable to mete out justice with his own hands, indicates that he is to involve the state in
administering the required punishment. This scenario is also not reflected in the biblical text in any way.
Broad conceptual parallels, like those present between EST §12 and Deut 13, although interesting for the-
matic study, are insufficient for determining literary dependence. The many differences between these pas-
sages further support this assessment. Thus, EST §10 remains a better potential source for Deut 13.
While it is possible that a scribe borrowed conceptually from both sections §10 and §12, merging them
together into what became the biblical text of Deut 13, this line of reasoning overly complicates the situation
and presses the evidence beyond its limits. It is simply enough to recognize that although there are thematic
similarities between the two texts, there are also significant differences which suggest that this is not a case
of literary borrowing but rather two exemplars of ancient documents concerned with the vassal’s allegiance
to their Lord.28
If one assumes that the overarching structure of Deuteronomy, Deut 13:1 and Deut 28 already represent
cases of confirmed literary borrowing by the biblical scribes, it becomes possible to use these prior cases to
strengthen an argument (complicated though it may be) for further evidence of borrowing here. Because of
this, we will proceed to test the inverted structural parallel of offenders (brother, son, daughter, mantic prac-
titioners) for exclusivity. We maintain from the outset, however, that it is questionable whether the evidence
from a comparison of EST §10 and Deut 13 alone sufficiently warrants interpretation as a case of possible
literary borrowing.
The shared structural order of offenders found in EST §10 and Deut 13 (inverted) may now be examined
against other relevant literature throughout the ancient Near East to determine whether this structure exists
in other places.29 The textual corpus for exclusivity will include extant treaty texts from the ancient Near
East which include sections offering instructions for vassals who have overheard offenses against their
king.30 The best documents for comparison might include texts which address overheard reports of rebellion
or relate to the succession of a ruler. Since this would result in a relatively small data set, select documents
which address general reported offenses or include reports of offenses will also be included. The majority of
evidence is clustered around the Neo-Assyrian and Hittite cultural environments, in keeping with the nature
of the extant treaty corpus. The following chart summarizes the extant comparative data for the exclusivity
of the parallel between Deut 13 and EST §10, both of which are included for reference.

28
Cf. Markus Zehnder, “Building on Stone? Deuteronomy and Esarhaddon’s Loyalty Oaths (Part 1): Some Preliminary
Observations,” BBR 19.3 (2009): 351, although he downplays the exclusivity of the parallel elements.
29
While it is at times cumbersome to include all the comparative data used to test for exclusivity, it is nevertheless an
important and needed part of any comparison seeking to advance claims of literary dependence. Compare the approach
adopted here with the general approach of Steymans (“Deuteronomy 13 in Comparison,” 112) and the selective data
shared by Markus Zehnder (“Building on Stone? Deuteronomy and Esarhaddon’s Loyalty Oaths [Part 2]: Some Addi-
tional Observations,” BBR 19.4 [2009]: 514).
30
General inventories of the extant ancient Near Eastern “treaty corpus” vary slightly depending on the researcher’s
purpose, definition of a treaty, and approach to fragmentary material. The present corpus is a subset of these larger
collections based on the specific criteria mentioned above. For examples of the larger collections see Neal A. Huddle-
ston, “Ancient Near Eastern Treaty Traditions and Their Implications for Interpreting Deuteronomy,”in Sepher Torath
Mosheh: Studies in the Composition and Interpretation of Deuteronomy, eds. Daniel I. Block and Richard L. Schultz
(Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2017), 70–77; Kenneth A. Kitchen and Paul Lawrence, eds. Treaty, Law and Covenant in
the Ancient Near East, vol 1. (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2012) [=TLC in the chart below]; Amnon Altman,
‫בריתות מדיניות במזרח הקדום‬, Biblical Encyclopedia Library 34 (Jerusalem: Bialek Institute, 2018).
12 Arnold / Shockey – Deuteronomy 13 and the Succession Treaty of Esarhaddon

Possible Offenders List

Brother, son, daughter

Rebellion mentioned
Specific Offender(s)

Mantic practitioners

Capital Punishment
Generic Offender31

Report the Offense

Overheard offense
Document Name

Multiple Cycles
Reference

SAA2.6 EST §10 X X X X X

Deut 13 vv. 2–18 X X X X X X X
SAA2.3 Sennacherib’s Succession X X X
Treaty
SAA2.4 Accession Treaty of X X X
Esarhaddon
SAA2.8 Zakutu Treaty X X X X X32 X
SAA2.13 A Vassal Treaty X X X
(unknown; fragmentary)
SAA16.60 More of the Conspiracy X X X X
of Sasî (fragmentary)
SAA18.36 Precautions Against X X X X
Rebellion
SAA18.80 Report on Uruk X X X
SAA18.81 Obliged to Report X ? X
(fragmentary)
SAA18.83 Reporting on Crimes in Uruk X X X
SAA19.147 Sedition in Dilbat X X X X
CTH26/ Treaty between a King X X X
HDT1 of Hatti and Paddatissu
of Kizzuwatna
CTH133/ Treaty between Arnuwanda I X X X33 X
HDT1A of Hatti and the men of
Ismerika
CTH41/ Treaty between Tudhaliya II X X X
HDT2 of Hatti and Sunashshura
of Kizzuwatna
CTH42/ Treaty between Suppiluliuma X X X34 X
HDT3 I of Hatti and Huqqana of
Hayasa
CTH67/ Treaty between Mursili II X X X X
HDT10 of Hatti and Targasnalli
of Hapalla
CTH68/ Treaty between Mursili II of X X X X X
HDT11 Hatti and Kupanta-Kurunta of
Mira-Kuwaliya

31
Offenders associated with a location but not assigned a rank or relationship (i.e., enemies from a specific nation) are
included in the generic category.
32
According to the Zakutu treaty, capital punishment is recommended only in the final cycle where it is specified that
the vassal not only hears but also knows that the offense has taken place. This is reminiscent of the final cycle of Deut
13:14 where the Israelites are instructed to investigate and determine the truth of what has been heard.
33
This treaty mentions children but does not list sons and daughters as individual offenders.
34
Rebellion seems clearly in view in this treaty, although it is framed generally as actions against the king.
 Arnold / Shockey – Deuteronomy 13 and the Succession Treaty of Esarhaddon 13

Possible Offenders List

Brother, son, daughter

Rebellion mentioned
Specific Offender(s)

Mantic practitioners

Capital Punishment
Generic Offender31

Report the Offense

Overheard offense
Document Name

Multiple Cycles
Reference

CTH76/ Treaty between Muwattalli II X X X X

HDT13 of Hatti and Alaksandu
of Wilusa
CTH166/ Letter from Ramses II of X X X
HTD22D Egypt to Kupanta-Kurunta
of Mira-Kuwaliya35
CTH80/ Tudkhalia IV / Suppiluliuma X X X
TLC80 and the Rulers of Alasia
CTH135/ Tudkhalia II? Of Hatti and X X X36
TLC52 Lab’u and the Elders of
Tunip
ARET Ebla and Martu X X X
XIII.20/
TLC6
Sefire I Treaty of Bar-Ga’yah of X X X
KTK and Mati’el of Arpad
Sefire III Treaty with the King of X X X
Arpad

An examination of the wider comparative scope leads to several interesting observations. First, mantic
practitioners and sons and daughters (individually listed) are only included among the offender lists of the
EST and Deut 13.37 Moreover, categorical lists of offending parties seem largely (although not exclusively)
located within the Neo-Assyrian context. Letters, as expected, address specific situations and specific of-
fenders. The Hittite texts seem to favor a generic offender, which is in some cases linked to a specific nation.
Also of note is that the responsibility of the vassal in cases of overheard offenses toward the king is over-
whelmingly recognized throughout the ancient Near East as reporting, rather than capital punishment as in
the biblical text. The only exception to this is the Zakutu treaty, where as noted, the vassal has the additional
responsibility to investigate the crime prior to exacting punishment. The structural relationship between Deut
13 and EST §10, then, passes the test for exclusivity despite other factors that argue against literary borrow-
ing.

6. Conclusion

What then should we conclude from the conflicting evidence for the relationship between Deut 13 and EST
§10? It is our opinion that the exclusive structural connection between the family groups and mantic practi-
tioners in these two texts indicates (at minimum) an awareness of the EST by biblical scribes. It is possible,
due to the commonality of the terms involved and the limited scope of the connection, to argue that this

35
In this letter, the vassal is refuting a report that they had broken their oath of fidelity.
36
Passages where the vassal is advised to “seize” the offender and/or bring the offender before the king are recorded
here under the reporting category unless specific mention is made of capital punishment.
37
Cf., Morrow, “Dependency of Deuteronomy of the EST,” 144; Polk, “Deuteronomy and Treaty Texts,” 63–64.
14 Arnold / Shockey – Deuteronomy 13 and the Succession Treaty of Esarhaddon

similarity is the result of coincidence or similarities present in the social context of the two cultures.38 How-
ever, the rarity of these categorical lists in the extant corpus suggests these interpretations should be given
low confidence. Moreover, the possible blind motif, ḥōlēm ḥălôm, used as a categorical identifier in the list
of offenders supports the possibility of an external influence for this section of text.
Literary borrowing, however, is not supported by the comparative evidence as a whole. Significant dif-
ferences in the structure and themes of the two texts, the consistent use of capital punishment in the biblical
text, combined with the limited nature of the connection and commonality of terms mentioned above, all
argue against a direct literary connection. There is also little evidence suggesting that Deut 13 is a deliberate
reworking of the Neo-Assyrian text for subversive means, although this cannot be ruled out as a possibility.
Instead, we suggest that general familiarity with the categories of offenders used in the Neo-Assyrian
text informed a conceptual grid in the mind of the biblical scribe, which was subsequently represented in the
biblical text. This may be considered a case of unconscious conceptual borrowing, similar to the connection
found in Deut 28.39 The comparison between Deut 13 and the EST sheds little light on the compositional
history of the remainder of the book. Even within Deut 13, only a small portion of the text displays signs of
Neo-Assyrian influence. It does, however, suggest that some scribal activity took place after the enactment
of the EST in 672 BC, while the Neo-Assyrian document would have still been relevant to the community.
This investigation, then, finds support for limited redactional updating in Deut 13 subsequent to 672 BC
and the promulgation of the EST based on the comparative evidence. It further supports the case for plausi-
ble, perhaps unconscious, conceptual borrowing limited to the groups of mantic and family offenders listed
in both texts. The biblical scribes, however, have significantly developed and reconfigured the categories
found in the Neo-Assyrian text for their own theological purposes, rendering their specific source unrecog-
nizable to the general audience.40 We recognize that those holding different presuppositions may be inclined
to interpret the similarities between the biblical and Neo-Assyrian text differently. However, we hold that
this is the most plausible interpretation of the comparative evidence found when considering solely Deut 13
and EST §10.

38
E.g., Holland’s argument that similarities should be attributed to Deuteronomy’s “cultural milieu”; Holland, “On the
Commonalities,” 142.
39
Shockey, “Beyond Comparison,” 267–70.
40
Cf. Holland, who proposed a unique Israelite treaty form based on his own investigation of the comparative evidence.
While we see evidence of Neo-Assyrian cultural influence in the biblical text, our study is generally complementary to
Holland’s work in its affirmation of distinctive Israelite treaty elements; “On the Commonalities,” 161–66.