[2] Cf. translations of treaties into English, contained in a comprehensive publication: J. B. Pritchard (ed.),
Ancient Near Eastern Text relating to the Old Testament, second edition, corrected and enlarged, Princeton, New Jersey 1955, third printing 1966, p. 199-206:
Egyptian and Hittite Treaties, in this: translated by J. A. Wilson:
Treaty Between the Hittites and Egypt (p. 199-201); translated by A. Goetze:
Treaty Between Hattusilis and Ramses II (p. 201-203);
Treaty Between Mursilis and Duppi-Tessub of Amurru (p. 203-205);
God List, Blessings and Curses of the Treaty Between Suppiluliumas and Mattiwaza (p. 205-206). Cf. J. B. Pritchard (ed.),
The Ancient Near East Supplementary Texts and Pictures Relating to the Old Testament. Consisting of Supplementary Materials for The Ancient Near East in Pictures and Ancient Near Eastern Text, Princeton, New Jersey 1968, p. 529-530:
Hittite Treaty, translated by A. Goetze:
Treaty of Suppiluliumas and Aziras of Amurru. Cf. also discussion of the treaty between Mursilis and Duppi-Tessub from Amurru: J. A. Fitzmyer,
The Aramaic Suzerainty Treaty from Sefire in the Museum of Beirut, “The Catholic Biblical Quarterly” 20 (1958), p. 474.
[3] This research challenged the Wellhausen’s thesis about the late, about 8th-7th century BC (in the times of prophets) origination of the idea of covenant in Israel. Cf. J. A. Fitzmyer,
The Aramaic Suzerainty Treaty from Sefire in the Museum of Beirut, art. cit., p. 445.
[4] Cf. B. S. Childs,
The Book of Exodus. A Critical Theological Commentary, Philadelphia 1974, p. 205: „The frequent attempt to see the suzerainty treaty pattern as the major analogy to the biblical understanding of covenant runs the danger of distortion through over-emphasis.”
[5] These are the areas that today belong mostly to Turkey: cf. R. Lebrun,
Religie Hetytów i Azji Mniejszej, translated by J. D. Artymowski, [in:] F. Lenoir, Y. Tardan-Masquelier (ed.),
Encyklopedia religii świata, vol. 1:
Historia, Warszawa 2002, p. 76; J. Śliwa,
Państwo hetyckie, [in:] K. M. Ciałowicz, J. A. Ostrowski (scientific preparation),
Encyklopedia historyczna świata. Volume II:
Starożytność, part 1, Kraków 2000, p. 48, 53; O. H. Langkammer,
Ogólne wprowadzenie do współczesnej introdukcji do Starego Testamentu, [in:] L. Stachowiak (ed.),
Wstęp do Starego Testamentu, Poznań 1990, p. 30; S. Wypych,
Księga Rodzaju, [in:] Ibid., p. 86.
[6] This cultural phenomenon one should notice even today: although in general, the principle of freedom of contract applies in contemporary law, there are – for specific types of commitments undertaken – established, model contractual schemes: cf. J. Jezioro,
Umowa, [in:] U. Kalina-Prasznic (ed.),
Encyklopedia prawa ², Warszawa 2000, p. 1071.
[7] Cf. T. Jelonek,
Księgi historyczne Starego Testamentu, Kraków 2006, p. 13; Idem,
Biblijna historia zbawienia ³, Kraków 1995, p. 109-115; Idem,
Medytacje przed Menorą. Specyficzny wykład historii Izraela. Part II, [in:] Idem (ed.),
Z badań nad Biblią (4), Kraków 2002, p. 93-94. Others claim it was in the 12th century BC: cf.
Biblia Poznańska ³, i.e.,
Pismo Święte Starego i Nowego Testamentu w przekładzie z języków oryginalnych ze wstępami i komentarzami. Opracował zespół tłumaczy pod redakcją ks. M. Petera (Stary Testament), ks. M. Wolniewicza (Nowy Testament), 3rd edition, Poznań 1991, vol. 1., footnote to Ex 12:40; J. Śliwa,
Izrael, [in:] K. M. Ciałowicz, J. A. Ostrowski (scientific preparation),
Encyklopedia historyczna świata. Volume II, Part 1, op.cit., p. 72.
[8] Cf. T. Jelonek,
Pielgrzymowanie do Ziemi Świętej, Kraków 1999, p. 16-17.
[9] Cf. T. Jelonek,
Biblia Księgą Kościoła, part I, Kraków 1983, p. 5-6; O. H. Langkammer,
Ogólne wprowadzenie do współczesnej introdukcji do Starego Testamentu, op.cit., p. 29; J. Chmiel,
Hermeneutyka biblijna, [in:] T. Gadacz, B. Milewski (ed.),
Encyklopedia religii PWN, vol. 4, Warszawa 2002, p. 378.
[10] Cf. K. Pauritsch,
Przymierze, [in:] A. Grabner-Haider (ed.),
Praktyczny słownik biblijny, translated by T. Mieszkowski, P. Pachciarek, Warszawa 1994, col. 1090.
[11] Cf. J. Synowiec,
Mojżesz i jego religia, Kraków 1996, p. 36.
[12] Cf. O. H. Langkammer,
Ogólne wprowadzenie do współczesnej introdukcji do Starego Testamentu, op.cit., p. 29-32; R. Rubinkiewicz,
Archeologia biblijna, [in:] T. Gadacz, B. Milewski (ed.),
Encyklopedia religii PWN, vol. 1, Warszawa 2001, p. 314.
[13] Cf. S. Łach,
Pięcioksiąg, [in:] S. Łach (ed.),
Wstęp do Starego Testamentu, Poznań – Warszawa 1973, p. 183.
[14] Cf. V. Korošec,
Hethitische Staatsverträge. Ein Beitrag zu ihrer juristischen Wertung, “Leipziger rechtswissenschaftliche Studien”, Heft 60, Leipzig 1931; P. Buis,
La notion de l’Alliance dans l’Ancien Testament, Paris 1976, p. 113-115: The author discusses the results of the research work of Korošec and then applies it to his biblical investigations. In that – as he states – it was preceded only by Bikerman’s work: E. Bikerman,
«Couper une alliance», Archives d’histoire du droit oriental, 5 (1950-1951), p. 133-156.
[15] Cf. G. E. Mendenhall,
Law and Covenant in Israel and the Ancient Near East, Pittsburg 1953, ²1966.
[16] Cf. D. J. Mccarthy,
Der Gottesbund im Alten Testament, Stuttgart 1966; O. H. Langkammer,
Ogólne wprowadzenie do współczesnej introdukcji do Starego Testamentu, op.cit., p. 30.
[17] Cf. R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer, B. K. Waltke,
The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, Chicago – Illinois 1980, the electronic version in
BibleWorks 6.0., point 282a (בְּרִית). The author lists the following works of M. G. Kline:
Treaty of the Great King, Grand Rapids 1963;
By Oath Consigned, Grand Rapids 1967. Kline states about Decalogue, Deut, and Josh 24 that their authors composed them according to the literary requirements of treaties of the Ancient Near East.
[18] Cf. S. Łach,
Pięcioksiąg, [in:] S. Łach (ed.),
Wstęp do Starego Testamentu, op.cit., p. 184; W. Smereka,
Przymierze, [in:] S. Grzybek (ed.),
Vademecum biblijne, vol. 4, Kraków 1991, p. 44; G. Wenham,
Przymierza i traktaty na Bliskim Wschodzie, [in:] D. Aleksander, P. Aleksander (ed.); W. Chrostowski, M. Wojciechowski (scientific consultation of the Polish edition),
Przewodnik po Biblii [
Handbook to the Bible]
8, translated by T. Mieszkowski, Warszawa 2002, p. 199. P. Buis,
La notion de l’Alliance dans l’Ancien Testament, op.cit., p. 118-120: the author profoundly considers three research hypotheses attempting to resolve the question: how did it happen that the Hittite treaties of the thirteenth century could be known to biblical writers?
[19] It is
the covenant law, highlighted here in order to make it easier to see the presence of this element of the structure in all the structures of the biblical books presented below, and also to see the other elements’ position in relation to it.
[20] Cf. J. A. Fitzmyer,
The Aramaic Suzerainty Treaty from Sefire in the Museum of Beirut, art. cit., p. 445: „though the covenant-structure can be traced to Hittite times, it was not preserved as a living form after the downfall of the great Empires of the second millennium B.C. In Israel the older form of covenant was no longer widely known after the united monarchy, though its characteristic features continued to play an important part in the later development of religious ideas.” The author refers here to the article: G. E. Mendenhall,
Covenant forms in Israelite tradition, „Biblical Archaeologist” 17 (1954), p. 67.
[21] Cf. A. Millard,
Skarby z czasów biblijnych, translated by J. Wójcik, Racibórz 1994, p. 64; S. Łach,
Księga Powtórzonego Prawa. Wstęp – przekład z oryginału – komentarz – ekskursy, Poznań – Warszawa 1971, p. 41: the author states that this form occurs in the Hittite treaties up to the second millennium and in some other Aramaic treaties and also in the treatises of Esarhaddon (ruler of mighty Assyria in the seventh century BC); in other Assyrian treaties from the first millennium, the writers used to omit the historical section and blessings.
[22] Cf. J. Synowiec,
Mojżesz i jego religia, op.cit., p. 37-38.
[23] Cf. A. Millard,
Skarby z czasów biblijnych, op.cit., p. 64.
[24] Cf. S. Łach,
Księga Powtórzonego Prawa. Wstęp – przekład z oryginału – komentarz – ekskursy, op.cit., p. 41.
[26] G. Wenham,
Przymierza i traktaty na Bliskim Wschodzie, op.cit., p. 198.
[28] Cf. F.-L. Hassfeld, E. Renter,
Przymierze, translated by B. Wodecki, [in:] F. König, H. Waldenfels (ed.),
Leksykon religii, Warszawa 1997, p. 367; J. F. Craghan,
Księga Wyjścia, [in:] W. R. Farmer (ed.); S. Mcevenue, A. J. Levoratti, D. L. Dungan (coeditors); W. Chrostowski (scientific editor of the Polish edition), T. Mieszkowski, P. Pachciarek (coeditors),
Międzynarodowy komentarz do Pisma Świętego: komentarz katolicki i ekumeniczny na XXI wiek, Warszawa 2000, p. 344.
[30] Cf. Ibid., p. 344: the author notes that this ‘special possession’ (סְגֻלָּה) expresses the idea of the king’s personal property (cf. Deut 7:6; 14:2; 26:18). God is king, sovereign to Israel.
[31] G. Von Rad,
Teologia Starego Testamentu, translated by B. Widła, Warszawa 1986, p. 157: we should note and appreciate the research effort of this author: still in 1948 he was able to see only three fundamental elements (without the first one mentioned above): cf. S. Łach,
Pięcioksiąg, [in:] S. Łach (ed.),
Wstęp do Starego Testamentu, op.cit., p. 183.
[32] Cf. Ibid., p. 153; G. J. Bellinger,
Leksykon religii świata, translated by T. Kachlak, T. Pszczółkowski, Warszawa 1999, p. 185 (
Hetycka religia).
[33] Cf. S. Wypych,
Przymierze i jego odnowa. Studium z teologii biblijnej Starego Testamentu, Kraków 2003, p. 153.
[34] Cf. Ibid., p. 153: the author made a synthesis based on Ex 19:3-8; 24:3-8; Josh 24. Detailed comparison of covenant descriptions, see: P. Buis,
La notion de l’Alliance dans l’Ancien Testament, op.cit., p. 105-112.
[35] Cf. S. Wypych,
Niektóre tematy teologiczne Pięcioksięgu, [in:] L. Stachowiak (ed.),
Wstęp do Starego Testamentu, op.cit., p. 147-148: the author of the commentary mentions and discusses successive covenants in the Bible. Cf. also F. Rienecker, G. Maier; W. Chrostowski (scientific editor of the Polish edition),
Leksykon biblijny, Warszawa 1994, p. 673: the scheme of the covenant between Jacob and Laban (Gen 31:44ff).
[36] Cf. T. Jelonek,
Biblia księgą Kościoła, part I, op.cit., p. 93-98.
[37] Cf. S. Łach,
Pięcioksiąg, [in:] S. Łach (ed.),
Wstęp do Starego Testamentu, op.cit., p. 185-186.
[38] Cf. E. Zenger,
Die Sinaitheophanie. Untersuchungen zum jahwistischen und elohistischen Geschichtswerk, Würzburg 1971, p. 55-108 – this footnote is from: S. Wypych,
Przymierze i jego odnowa. Studium z teologii biblijnej Starego Testamentu, op.cit., p. 202.
[39] Cf. E. W. Nicholson,
Exodus and Sinai in History and Tradition, Oxford 1973, this footnote is from: S. Wypych,
Przymierze i jego odnowa. Studium z teologii biblijnej Starego Testamentu, op.cit., p. 203.
[40] Cf. S. Łach,
Księga Powtórzonego Prawa. Wstęp – przekład z oryginału – komentarz – ekskursy, op.cit., p. 76.
[41] Cf. T. Jelonek,
Biblia księgą Kościoła, part II, Kraków 1983, p. 34-37.
[42] To understand this text as an act of making a covenant is not possible without knowledge of the so-called ‘covenant formulas’: cf. S. Wypych,
Przymierze i jego odnowa. Studium z teologii biblijnej Starego Testamentu, op.cit., p. 157.
[43] Cf. S. Łach,
Księga Powtórzonego Prawa. Wstęp – przekład z oryginału – komentarz – ekskursy, op.cit., p. 41-42, 53: the author emphasizes the number of elements of the scheme: four.
[44] Cf. S. Wypych,
Księga Powtórzonego Prawa, [in:] L. Stachowiak (ed.),
Wstęp do Starego Testamentu, op.cit., 135.
[45] Cf. R. Jasnos,
Teologia prawa w Deuteronomium, Kraków 2001, p. 31. The author does not state which text she understands by the ‘chief injunction’; she arguably mistakenly classifies only Deut 28 to blessings and curses.
[46] Cf. G. Braulik,
Deuteronomium 1-16,17 (Die Neue Echter Bibel), Würzburg 1986, p. 7.
[47] Cf. R. Jasnos,
Teologia prawa w Deuteronomium, op.cit., p. 192.
[48] Cf. J. H. Walton, V. H. Matthews, M. W. Chavalas; W. Chrostowski (scientific editor of the Polish edition),
Komentarz historyczno-kulturowy do Biblii Hebrajskiej, translated by Z. Kościuk, Warszawa 2005, p. 178, 212. On page 178, the authors state that in ancient treaties after the point ‘treaty law,’ there were three final parts of a legal nature.
[49] Placing the Book of the Law in the Ark of the Covenant, next to the manna (Cf. Ex 16:33f) and the staff of Aaron (Num 17:25) was an essential element of the witnessing of the covenant making. In Egypt, the people usually placed the treaty documents under the feet of the deity: Cf. Ibid., p. 215.
[50] Cf. S. Łach,
Pięcioksiąg, [in:] S. Łach (ed.),
Wstęp do Starego Testamentu, op.cit., p. 185-186.
[51] Cf. Ibid., p. 184; S. Łach,
Księga Powtórzonego Prawa. Wstęp – przekład z oryginału – komentarz – ekskursy, op.cit., p. 41; T. Jelonek,
Biblia księgą Kościoła, part I, op.cit., p. 93.
[52] Cf. G. Wenham,
Przymierza i traktaty na Bliskim Wschodzie, op.cit., p. 199.
[53] Some exegetes apply the merging of the first two points to show the similarity of the literary structure of the Book of Deuteronomy to the structure of the Hittite treaties: cf. S. Wypych,
Pięcioksiąg (series: Wprowadzenie w myśl i wezwanie ksiąg biblijnych, 1), Warszawa 1987, p. 171.
[54] Cf. S. Łach,
Księga Powtórzonego Prawa. Wstęp – przekład z oryginału – komentarz – ekskursy, op.cit., p. 41; S. Wypych,
Pięcioksiąg, op.cit., p. 109; K. Pauritsch,
Przymierze, op.cit., col. 1090.
[55] It is a crucial moment for the procedure of the covenant-making: the history of the mutual relations between the two partners, as described in the ‘introduction,’ may or may not have been crowned by this sovereign (!) decision of the sovereign. Now, in point II, the sovereign announces its decision: I want to be your guardian, your ruler. In the biblical text, it is the ‘formula of the covenant’ (Ex 6:7) that expresses the moment of decision. An integral part of this decision is God’s commitment that He will give Israel-vassal the land of Canaan as hereditary property (cf. Ex 6:8; 15:17).
[56] Cf. S. Wypych,
Przymierze i jego odnowa. Studium z teologii biblijnej Starego Testamentu, op.cit., p. 153.
[57] Cf. T. Jelonek,
Biblia księgą Kościoła, part I, op.cit., p. 94.
[58] In Ex 1-18, this ‘moment’ lasts three days – as long as the time of passing from the place of consumption of Passover to the place of singing the song on the other side of the Sea of Reeds.
[59] Ex 15:1-21 is the discussed point. In light of earlier analyses of this pericope, it turned out that the Lord’s People sing the song which describes not only the events that have just taken place but also those that are supposed to take place historically. This cultic participation (anticipation) of Israel in the fulfillment of God’s promise to give the land of Canaan (Cf. Ex 6:8 and 15:13-17) to them, the People of the Lord, is significant: thanks to it this ‘covenant hymn’ concludes the main procedure of the covenant making. The next point is merely a supplement to the essential act of the covenant-making: it speaks about the consequences of respecting the covenant just made.
[60] Cf. P. Buis,
La notion de l’Alliance dans l’Ancien Testament, op.cit., p. 108: the author points out that in Josh 24:22 is a significant fact that God gave the People the role of a witness of the covenant.
[61] One needs to introduce this item based on the analyses of the pericope VI, carried out in the first chapter of the whole dissertation.
[62] Placing a covenant treaty document in the temple was one of the final elements of the Hittite covenants: cf. K. Pauritsch,
Przymierze, op. cit., col. In the case of the Passover/Exodus covenant, this ‘record’ is specific, which we will discuss in the further analyses.
[63] Cf. T. Jelonek,
Biblia księgą Kościoła, part I, op.cit., p. 98; B. W. Anderson,
Przymierze, [in:] B. M. Metzger, M. D. Coogan (ed.); W. Chrostowski (consultation of the Polish edition),
Słownik wiedzy biblijnej, Warszawa 1996, p. 666: the author gives an example of the covenant between Jacob and Laban (Gen 31:44-45). Cf. J. Drozd,
Ostatnia Wieczerza nową Paschą, Katowice 1977, p. 66.
[64] The wording of this point may raise objections: after all, Israel has not yet reached the Promised Land! However, the analyses of the liturgical anthem, conducted in the first chapter, indicated the existence of the fragment in it, which by the power of the liturgy makes the events of the real (i.e., historical) future as the events which are already now present (this anthem anticipates them). The discussion of this issue will be carried out a bit below.
[65] It may come as a surprise to mention the Tables of the Covenant and the Ark of the Covenant at this point since historically ones have not yet made these elements. Discussing this issue is a bit further. Here it is only worth to notice that the hagiographer did not fear this apparent ‘ahistoricism’ or – as it is commonly said – ‘anachronism.’ Cf. Ex 16:32-34.
[66] Cf. P. Buis,
La notion de l’Alliance dans l’Ancien Testament, op.cit., p. 113-114.
[67] Cf. Ibid., p. 114: „Certains textes font allusion aux rites de malédiction figurée qui accompagnaient le serment: dépeçage d’un animal, statuette de cire transpercée ou jetée au feu (textes III et IV).” Cf. also J. A. Fitzmyer,
The Aramaic Suzerainty Treaty from Sefire in the Museum of Beirut, art. cit., p. 445: the author indicates that if we want to understand covenants in the Old Testament, it is particularly important to know about the symbolic killing of an animal; he also brings up the article: G. E. Mendenhall,
Covenant forms in Israelite tradition, art. cit, p. 50-75.
[68] Cf. R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer, B. K. Waltke,
The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, op.cit., point 282a (בְּרִית): M. G. Kline points out that blessings are the fourth point of the treaties: „Swearing of allegiance with curses and blessings, that is Covenant Ratification.”
[69] Cf. P. Buis,
La notion de l’Alliance dans l’Ancien Testament, op.cit., p. 113: „promesse. Le suzerain promet au vassal et à sa dynastie de le protéger, de défendre l’intégrité du territoire
qu’il lui a attribué, et plus généralement de lui faire du bien.”
[71] It is essential to note the very close connection between God’s covenant with Abram/Abraham and what happened in Egypt. God in both cases announced: the close relationship of the human partner with Him (formula: ‘I will be your God’), the giving of the land of Canaan, the numerous offspring / numerical growth (Ex 3:8.17; 13:5, where the phrase ‘the land flowing with milk and honey’ indicates the abundance leading to prosperity – cf. Deut 31:20). The biblical scholars see this
threefold problematic as
fundamental to the theology of covenant in Hexateuch: cf. G. von Rad,
Teologia Starego Testamentu, op. cit., p. 115. Hence the indirect proof that God has already made a covenant with Israel in Egypt.
[72] Cf. the summary of the pericope II, contained in the point 1.5.2.5 of the whole dissertation.
[73] Gen 46:8-11: at the beginning: “These are the names of the sons of Israel who came into Egypt;” then they are mentioned: Ruben, the firstborn of Jacob (Israel), with 4 sons; Simeon with 6 sons, whereby about the last one the information is as he is ‘the son of a Canaanite woman;’ Levi with 3 sons.
Ex 6:14-16: at the beginning: “These are the heads of their fathers’ houses;” then they are mentioned: Ruben, the firstborn of Israel, with 4 sons; Simeon with 6 sons, whereby about the last one the information is as he is ‘the son of a Canaanite woman;’ Levi with 3 sons.
[74] S. Wypych,
Przymierze i jego odnowa. Studium z teologii biblijnej Starego Testamentu, op.cit., p. 157.
[75] Cf. the summary of the first chapter of the whole dissertation.
[76] In these three verses there is an identical phrase: וְנִכְרְתָה הַנֶּפֶשׁ הַהִוא (and that soul will be cut-out – precisely that soul), a phrase that describes the necessity of removing the one who does not fulfill one of the two requirements of the covenant: circumcision or non-eating acid. The same phrase is then used in the Sinai Covenant (cf. Ex 31:14): anyone who works on the Sabbath is to be cut-out from the Lord’s People. Other places: Lev 7:20f.27; 19:8; 22:3; Num 9:13; 15:30; 19:13.20.
[77] In the indicated Hebrew text the first three words are in
status constructus, so the translation means ‘the whole convocation of witnesses’ and not ‘the whole convocation, witnesses.’ The word עֵדָה can mean
congregation,
community,
witness,
testimony: cf. P. Briks,
Podręczny słownik hebrajsko-polski i aramejsko-polski Starego Testamentu, 3rd edition, Warszawa 2000, p. 252: עֵדָה.
[78] It is worth remembering again what Buis pointed out: in some of the found Hittite texts, the ritual of entering into the obligations of the treaty was connected with cutting-apart the animal, piercing the wax statue or throwing it into the fire: P. Buis,
La notion de l’Alliance dans l’Ancien Testament, op.cit., p. 114.
[80] Cf. J. Drozd,
Ostatnia Wieczerza nową Paschą, op.cit., p. 59.
[81] Cf. T. Jelonek,
Biblia księgą Kościoła, part II, op.cit., p. 38: the author discusses here the ‘Hymn of Moses,’ contained in Deut 32:1-43.
[82] Cf. H. Matthew,
Commentary on the Bible, Chester 1706-1721, the electronic version in
BibleWorks 6.0: a commentary to Deut 32:22-30.
[83] Cf. Deut 31:19. The Hebrew text does not contain the phrase ‘the witness
against the children of Israel,’ but ‘the witness
among the children of Israel’ (לְעֵד בִּבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל), which Vulgate expresses similarly: ‘pro testimonio inter filios Israhel.’
[84] Cf. also the importance of Deut 32:1-43: M. Thiessen,
The Form and Function of the Song of Moses (Deuteronomy 32:1-43), “Journal of Biblical Literature” 123/3 (2204), p. 401-424.
[85] Cf.
Biblia Poznańska ³, vol. 1, p. 114, footnote to Ex 15:12: in the text between line 12 and 18, there is the anticipation of future events.
[86] Cf. G. Wenham,
Przymierza i traktaty na Bliskim Wschodzie, op.cit., p. 198: The author claims that in the treaties were phrases characterizing the vassal’s behavior, expected by the sovereign: follow your master, fear your’ master, listen to the voice of your master.
[87] Here, the word ‘
testimony’ – עֵדוּת – stands for the tables of testimony, i.e., the tables of covenant. In the same sense, this one word appears in Ex 25:16. 21: “You shall put into the ark the Testimony which I shall give you.” The term ‘the tables of testimony’ (לֻחֹת הָעֵדֻת) appears in Ex 31:18; 32:15; 34:29; ‘the tables of the covenant’ (לֻחֹת הַבְּרִית) in Deut 9:9.11.15. In other cases, the word עֵדוּת itself may mean the ark of the covenant – cf. Ex 27:21; 30:36. This ark is in the Bible called ‘the ark of testimony’ (אֲרֹן הָעֵדֻת – cf. Ex 25:22; 30:6; 39:35), the ark of the covenant (אֲרוֹן־הַבְּרִית – see Josh 3:6.8.11.14; 4:9), the Ark of the Lord’s Covenant (אֲרוֹן בְּרִית־יְהוָה – see Num 10:33; 14:44), the Ark of God (אֲרוֹן אֱלֹהִים – 1Sam 3:3; 4:11; 5:7f.10f; 6:3; 1Chr 13:3). One should note that as in the hymn of the covenant (Ex 15:1-21) there is a cultic recall of the events that will come later in history, so it is in the description of the placing of the vessel of manna in the Ark of the covenant, next to the tables of the Sinai covenant. This consistent method of the hagiographer has the same goal: to inform the reader about the closure of the Passover/Exodus covenant within the framework of this pericope, without the need to refer to the covenant made in Sinai.
[88] Cf. K. Pauritsch,
Akt przymierza, [in:] A. Grabner-Haider (ed.),
Praktyczny słownik biblijny, op.cit., col. 23; Idem,
Arka Przymierza, [in:] ibid., col. 62; J. Synowiec,
Mojżesz i jego religia, op.cit., p. 45: The placing of Decalogue tables in the Ark is accordant with the custom of that time to place the important religious and political documents in the sanctuary. The author points out (p. 36) six elements of the Hittite covenant-making, the fourth of which is the vassal’s obligation to preserve the document of the covenant.
[89] The word ‘Horeb’ itself – חֹרֵב – also refers to the desert in the middle of the cut-apart waters of the sea. According to Ex 14:21, these waters have been changed into the desert – חָרָבָה. Both words have the same root, חרב. The word from Ex 14:21 ends with ה, as the feminine nouns do. There are very expressive two other nouns of the same root: חֹרֵב dryness, drought, heat, desert; חֶרֶב sword, knife, dagger, chisel. Hence, the root חרב contains both the idea of ‘being a desert’ and ‘being cut-apart.’ Cf. P. Briks,
Podręczny słownik hebrajsko-polski i aramejsko-polski Starego Testamentu, op.cit., p. 126.
[90] We searched with
BibleWorks 6.0, giving the command for WTM: .קרא
[91] In the Ancient Near East, the people used to seal covenants in the sanctuary within the framework of a cultic feast; they believed that the deity participates in it as a witness to the covenant: cf. K. Pauritsch,
Przymierze, op.cit., col. 1089. In that reality presented by the Holy Bible, not a deity invented by men, but a real and only God initiates and witnesses the covenant with Israel as His people.
[92] The point 1.5.1 of the whole dissertation presents other essential issues announced in part I and fulfilled in part VI.
[93] Cf. analysis of the law pericope, performed in the point 3.4.3 of the whole dissertation.
[94] The headers of columns 2. and 3. of the table give the commands entered in Command Center in
BibleWorks 6.0 for WTM.
[95] Cf. J. Synowiec,
Gatunki literackie w Starym Testamencie, Kraków 2003, p. 37; M. Kantor,
Struktury dośrodkowe i odśrodkowe w poezji biblijnej (Ps 120-134), Kraków 1988, p. 80-83; R. Yudkowsky,
Chaos or Chiasm? The Structure of Abraham’s Life, “Jewish Bible Quarterly” 35/2 (2007), p. 109: the author distinguishes between the structure of type A B C A’ B’ C’ (parallelism) and the structure A B C C’ B’ A’ (chiasmus); on page 11. he shows a chiasmus composed of sixteen elements!
[96] In the Hittites’ treaties, there was an introduction in the beginning, in which the king-sovereign was introducing himself, and then there was a historical prologue, describing the history of mutual relations, the gifts of the sovereign for the vassal, and often the ingratitude of the vassal to the sovereign.
[97] Cf.
W. Kosek, Pierwotny ryt Paschy w świetle schematu literackiego Księgi Wyjścia 1-18, op.cit., p. 286-378.