Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
'
deux parties d'une victime": RHR 137 (1950) 5-25. Masson has díscussed
a great deal of classícal and modem material. M. Weinfeld in the
above mentíoned articles also deals with thís problem (pp. 197-198,
p. 469). Father Henninger's artícle was reprínted in hís Arabica Sacra
with additions (Freíburg/Gdttíngen 1981) 275-285.
4 Cf. Ch.-F. Jean, ARM II 37 (1941); ARMT II 37 (1950), ll. 5-14.
I have followed M. Held on the whole, "Phílologlcal Notes, on the Mari
Covenant Rituals": BASOR 200 (1970) 32-40. The phrase ana hayaram
qatálim. is Amurrite in Akkadían dress.
s Indeed, in the material assembled by O. Masson there is frequent
use of young dogs and of goats for the 'passing through' ritual; E. A.
Speiser, Genesis, pp. 112-113 díscusses the ritual and calls attention
to 'his artícíe in "Orientalia" 25 (1955) 9-15, where a bull, an ass and
10 sheep are used at Nuzi on solemn occasíons. Although there is no
pact making involved there, I do belíeve that the passage shows the
use of a set group of anímals far such occasíons,
6 It is important to note that this ritual is not a sacríñce, far the
parts are not dedicated to a deity or consumed by priests or laymen
in a sacral meal. This confusion may be found M. Noth's influential
essay "Old Testament Convenant-making in the light of a Text from
Mari, "The Laws in the Pentateuch and other Studies (Edínburgh-Lon-
don 1966) which first appeared in German in 1955. His remark, p. 109,
"the ass was far them clearly an animal which may be sacrificed, and
was indeed a particularly valuable sacríñcíal animal, more valuable
than any other animal of the the flock" has no basis.
AN ANCIENT TREATY RITUAL AND ITS TARGUM IC ECHO 393
fate of the lamb for if he, his sons or officials sin against the treaty,
they will then receíve the same treatment meted out to the 1amb.
The text makes the interesting and important point that the hu-
riipu. was brought for the specific point of sanctioning the treaty
and not for sacrifice, not for a banquet, not for a purchase, etc.
This is an important point, for many scholars, in discussing the
various texts, have assumed that the animals used were essentially
sacrificial animals. The other treaty is that between Bar Ga'yah
of KTK and Mati' 'el in Aramaic 13• It succinctly refers to the use
of the lamb for demonstrative purpose {Sfire IA 40):
m~¡ ¡-m,, ,~vn~ irJ, l~ mr ~?JV irJ, [,r 7,~n
"just as this lamb is cut apart, so shall Mati' ' el and his nobles
be cut apart". The verb gzr is reminiscent of geziirim for the part
of the animal in Gen. 15: 17. Finally, in the Vasal Treaties of Esar-
haddon, the cut-open ewe and lambs {11. 547-5-54) are used demon-
stratively with admonitory function in the treaty curses 14•
As was noted above, parallels were drawn between occurrences
of 'passing between the parts' of slaughtered animals ( or even of
humans) known from Hittite rituals, accounts in Classical texts
(Herodotus, Livy, etc.) ethnological reports and traveUers' stories
and the two Biblical texts under discussion. However, even though
there are typological parallels, a distinction must be made. As has
been noted, the Biblical text are part of a convenant-making ritual,
while the others are, on the whole, lustrative or purgatory by natu-
re 15 or partake, according to sorne, of a 'rite de passage' or partici-
patory funotion 16• In Gen. 15 it is God, the suzerain, in the sym-
bolic form of smoking brazier and flaming torch - the elements
of the Sínaíttc theophany - who passed through the pieces and thus
concluded the convenant with Abraham and his descendants 17• In
13 See J. A. Fitmyer, SJ, The Aramaic lnscriptions of Sefire (Rome
1967) 56-57; D. R. Hillers, Treaty Curses of the Old Testament Prophets
(Rome 1964) 20 considers thís part of a ceremony connected with treaty
makíng, But ít occurs only in vassal treaties and was simply part of
the self ímprecatíon, For a review of the various identifications of
Bar-Ga'yah and KTK, cf. A. Lemaire and J.-M. Durand, Les inscrip-
tions araméennes de Sjire et l'Assyrie de Shamshi-ilu (Geneve-París
1984).
14 D. J. Wiseman, Vassal-Treaties of Esarhaddon: "Iraq" XX (1958);
E. Reiner, ANET3, pp. 534-541. The oft-quoted oath in Livy I, 24 is
also self-imprecatory.
15 See Masson (above, n. 3), p. 18.
16 W. Robinson Smith, Religion ot the Semites (second edítíon,
1895) 480f. is one of the frequenW.y quoted advocates of thís unlíkely
interpretation.
17 See Skinner, Genesis, p. 283; Speiser, Genesis, 113-14 for com-
parative material, but without awareness of the 'theophany' element.
M. Weinf.eld, (above, n. 1) 196 believes that the torch and the oven
AN ANCIENT TREATY RITUAL AND ITS TARGUMIC ECHO 3·95
Jer. 34, it is the 'people' who pass through the parts and are be-
sworn. It is díffícult to see how the Biblícal passages fit wíth the
other incidents.
The remark of the Syrian church father Ephrem is of interest.
His work is a storehouse of information, not only about theologi-
cal trends and traditions, but also concerning both the religious
past and present of the Syriac speaking world of the fourth cen-
tury in whích he lived 18• In the third century, the pagan cults were
widespread in Edessa and in the majar cities of the regíon as ma-
terial, both literary and archaeologícal, from Edessa, Haran, Pal-
myra, Dura-Europos and Assur makes amply clear 19• In his com-
mentary on Genesis 15, he reports: "the Chaldeans would solemníze
a pact by passing through the dissected parts holding torches" 20•
I do not believe that this an extrapolation from the Biblical text,
but was in all likelihood based on more than hearsay, The fami-
líaríty of Ephrem and other Syrian church-fathers with the pagan
background of the area is known 21•
The other references to pacts and treaties in Genesis are not
characterized by overt symbolic actions, unless Abraham's gift of
seven ewes to Abimelech (Gen. 21: 2.7-30) as an 'eda is to be seen
in this light 22• In the pact between Isaac and Abimelech (Gen.
2·6:29-31) we have what may well be a convenant meal (v. 30),
Jollowed by an oath (v. 31) 23• In the encounter between Jacob
were part of the procedure of oath-takíng. But it is the torch and oven
which passed through in this story.
18 For recent bibliography and study see Robert Murray, Symbols
of Church and Kingdom, A Study in Early Syriac Tradition (Cambridge
1975) and T. Kronholm, Motifs from Genesis 1-11 in the Genuine Hymns
of Ephrem the Syrian (Lund 1978). The subtítle of Kronholm's book
is "with particular reference to the ínñuence of Jewish tradition".
19 For Palmyra, cf. J. Teixidor, The Pantheon of Palmyra (Leiden
1979); for Edessa, cf. H. J. W. Drijvers, Cults and Beliefs at Edessa
(Leiden 1980), and before him J. B. Segal, Edessa 'the Blessed City'
(Oxford 1970) who díscusses relígíon (pp. 43-'61) and pagans in the
fourth cent. at Edessa and Harran (pp. 104-109). R. Browning, The
Emperor Julian (Berkeley 197,6) in his chapter on "Julian and the
Christians" (158-186) discusses pagan survívats in the fourth century.
See too J. Teixidor, The Pagan God (Princeton 1977).
20 Quoted by Zachariae (above n. 2). The passage is not in the
edítíon · of the Commentary on Genesís edited by R.-M. T-onneau (Lou-
vain 1955).
21 E. g. Jacob of Serug's, "Discourse about the Fall of the Idols"
edited by- J. Martín: ZDMG 29 (1875) 107-147 and the díscussíon by
B. Vandenhoff: "Oriens Christianus" 5 (1915) 251-257.
22 Note the theme of seven in the Sfire curse formula (I A 11. 21-24).
It is difficult not to assocíate 'edi'i with Heb. *'·i'idim "treaty" Aramaic
'dy' and Akkadían tuié.
23 The sharing of food and drink was a sign of amanee in
the Ancíent Near East. Note the material assembled by S. A. Kauf-
396 J. C. GREENFIELD
and Laban {Gen. 31: vs. 46-54 for the pact) beside the erection of
the gal/ma$$ebii which served also as an 'édá, we are informed in
v. 54 of the convenant meal which sealed the pact. It is, however,
in the Targum to Gen. 26:31 that a reflex of the rite discussed
above is to be found. Instead of the simple oath found in the Heb-
rew text, the Pseudo-Jonathon preserves an ínterestíng tradition:
"they arose in the morning and swore one to the other ufsag mauui
déhamréh. wiyhab pisgii tuui léhom lesahádü we$alli 'alayahon
yi$haq we'itrewa!J,ü ioé'aluiimon. yi{l,!J,aq ... and he (scil. Isaac?) cut he
rein of his donkey and gave eme piece to them as a witness and
he prayed over them and they were relieved and Isaac accompa-
nied them" 24• Although a reading matrui "loin" would make better
sense in light of the material assembled above, the reading matqii
détuimréh. is confirmed by examíníng a photograph of the Lon-
don manuscript and the editio princeps 25• It is also confirmed by
the story in Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliezer, chap. 36: "What did Isaac
do, he took a cubit of the rein of the donkey upon which he rode
and gave it to him (Abímelech) so that there be a pact between
them". The story in Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliezer adds the word 'ammat
"cubit of", since it used the tale in a secondary fashion in relation-
ship to II Samuel 8: 1, where David takes the enigmatic meteg
ha-'amma from the Philistines. The passage in Pirqe de-Rabbi Elie-
zer serves as confirmation of the reading and for the relative anti-
quity of the tale 26•
What stands behind the use of the 'reín 0! the donkey'? It is
1
JONAS C. GREENFIELD