Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: [Corpus-Paul] Second Temple Judaism and Covenant

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "meta" <meta AT rraz.net>
  • To: "Corpus-Paul" <corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [Corpus-Paul] Second Temple Judaism and Covenant
  • Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2004 21:03:26 -0700

John, on your interpretation of Gen. 17:2, I disagree with you that this is
a bilateral agreement. Y says he "confirms": please pardon my ignorance of
Hebrew, but I do wonder about possible nuanced English words applicable
here--both "confirm" and "covenant", but I take this as a confirmation of a
unilateral commitment or "promise". In this instance covenant means
commitment which is unilateral, not a contract as with Moses, which is
bilateral. Covenant as contract is by definition bilateral. From my
business, I know quite a bit about contract law, but of course in modern
times. So perhaps we have to examine, if possible, what was meant in the
ANE. From what I understand from evidence throughout the ANE during this
time period, a covenant/contract required obligations with commitments from
at least two parties, benefits accrued to both in return for each one's
obligation to be performed. I do not find any mention here of any
obligation Y requires of Abram. Rather he seems to be telling Abe that he
wishes to establish a relationship in which he will benefit Abe and his
offspring, thus the beginning of a relationship with a promise, not the type
of covenant as was made with Moses, who had an obligation to perform in
return, that being complete and unquestioned obeyance, and maintaining
control of the chosen people. I believe "unilateral covenant" as a
contract, which is bilateral, is an oxymoron. So we have covenant as
unilateral promise, and we have covenant as bilateral mutual obligation.

It does appear that Abe is indeed involved in the process, but still I see
no obligation. Although he carries out the process of first-born child
sacrifice, a practice of the times, he does not complete the task, which
raises the question, would he have? But then as a practical matter, at that
time people sought the blessings of the gods, so an act of obeyance might be
a common practice, but still not evidence of a contract. If it is, then the
covenant/contract would be ubiquitous and apply to all cases in which people
wished and prayed for assistance from the gods, in which case there would be
nothing unique about it. I take the bilateral contract with Moses to be a
FORMAL specific contract situation which was approved later by "all the
people" gathered together to vote.

You said "This is a key text in terms of a comparison with other national
views of sacrifice" which makes me wonder if you are aware of this practice
in this area at this time. But I don't think the act, or even the
intention, of obeying a god is evidence of a covenant/ contract. People did
what they thought they should do, especially offer sacrifices of various
sorts, and tithes to priest/intercessors, in order to receive the blessings
of the gods. Y, a god seeking a people, offers Abe the possibility of being
the beginning of a people, and then with Moses, representing a people
seeking a god, a covenant is established (I believe Moses was an Egyptian
prince who knew these people, but had to escape the wrath of another prince
he murdered--possibly supported in Egyptian texts).

And excuse me but Torah was not present during the purported time of Abe.
Also you are mixing up apparently not just all the Tanakh, but even the NT,
in your interpretation of the Abraham situation. Not proper hermeneutics
for me, but as I understand is for fundamentalists (all parts of the Bible
interpret all the others). Also I don't think mishpat/sedeqa is tied to any
concept of covenant. In the exilic and the 2nd Temple periods, coinciding
with the "Axial Age" (Jaspers), justice was the primary consideration of
religion, all religions, and both the exiled people and the Yehud apply this
emphasized concept to righteousness itself, tying it with revered Torah,
which is what Torah is about, covenant but not dependent on covenant. After
all when Y became El, he fired all the underling gods because of their
failure to maintain justice and care for the needy (Psa. 82). Certainly I
don't see Abraham as a model for that. Those were really tough times, as
witnessed by tribes conquering others with no respect for human life,
although they do pay respect to their gods for their continual blessings (as
with Melchezideq-[sp?], apparently the primary priest of the area, and also
respected King).

There is no covenant/contract involved with Hammurabi; he sets the law,
which of course he claims is based on the will of the gods, with the
protection of the vulnerable. The primary purpose of the Torah was not to
protect the weak of society, but rather to follow Y's commandments, which
included even genocide (hardly protecting the weak of society). Don't just
pick out a verse or two, look at the whole. Israel was hardly a model for
other nations (it may not have been a "nation"); not only did it not have
the respect of the nations and empires, but it did nothing basically
different from ideas and practices of others in the area, during the
respective time periods (emphasizing time periods). I don't see the
relevance of your references to philosophers of the Enlightenment, but of
course ethics implies the necessity of obligation, and was developed through
philosophy in imputed obligation. How does this apply to our subject? Of
course the Torah is the expression and the promotion of derek, but all
religions have the same concept of "the Way," even god-less Buddhism.

I do think Israel failed completely, and was destroyed--people (those that
counted) deported. That's about it. But God relented, and established a
NEW covenant. This is the new covenant before the NT's new covenant. God
allowed Cyrus to be his messiah, who delivered the people by releasing them
to go back home--which Isaiah says was his purpose as the messiah. A new
covenant was established with the generational remnant, ratified, and acted
upon--all through Y's mercy and grace. All the ideas you mention, justice,
from the heart, etc., were common in all religions (Zoroastrian included)
during this time of the Axial Age--even in India and China.

Richard Godwin.





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page