Behind | Workbook: Treaties in the Ancient Near East

Grab your Workbook Journal!

[Record your answers in the workbook provided at the beginning of this course.]

7. You have been introduced to Hittite treaties from the 15-13th centuries and Neo-Assyrian treaties from the 7th century. We’ve discussed their differences in general terms. Hittite treaties encouraged respectful gratitude and substantial loyalty, while Neo-Assyrian treaties were based on terror. With this in mind, fill the right column of the chart below, indicating which components of Neo-Assyrian treaties were the same as Hittite treaties and which were absent.

8. As you compare these two types of treaties, offer a brief explanation and some observations regarding the three missing components in the later treaties.

8. As you compare these two types of treaties, offer a brief explanation and some observations regarding the three missing components in the later treaties. 

Treaties in the Ancient Near East

When a treaty is simply about military might, it is not really describing a relationship but terms of surrender, and when the relationship doesn’t matter, there’s no purpose for a “Historical Prologue.” Any “Blessings” or “Provisions to Continue” also become obsolete as, rather than a covenantal bond, the treaty becomes a contract dictated by the convenience of the greater power. Any benefits to the smaller nation, its incentives or options to continue the agreement, are irrelevant. The treaty will happen simply because the greater power wants it to, and it will last for as long as that power wants. The differences between these treaties makes it all the more tragic that Israel would leave the older style treaty with YHWH, based on love and a relational history, to accept more brutal and domineering agreements with other nations. The comparison also helps reinforce our understanding of the 2nd millennium dating for the Pentateuch and the historicity of its author Moses.