Esarhaddon’s Succession Treaty as the Source for the

Canon Formula in Deuteronomy 13:1

Bernard M. Levinson
University of Minnesota

The purpose of this study is to propose a Neo-Assyrian origin for the so-called “canon for-
mula” found in Deut. 13:1 (lxx 12:32). Sections of Esarhaddon’s Succession Treaty, also
known as the Vassal Treaties of Esarhaddon (VTE), have previously been recognized as a
literary model for both the curses of Deut. 28 and the Deuteronomic series of three laws gov-
erning apostasy from a prophet or oneiromancer, a family member, or an entire city (Deut.
13:2–12). Here I propose a similar origin for the canon formula of Deut. 13:1, as part of Deu-
teronomy’s larger project of creative literary reworking. In what follows, I suggest that the
adjuration to loyalty of the adê provided a literary model for the authors of Deut. 13. Those
authors transformed the Neo-Assyrian formula requiring exclusive loyalty to the “word of
Esarhaddon” (abutu ša Aššur-a̮u-iddina) into one that demanded idelity to “the word”
(‫ )הדבר‬of Israel’s divine overlord, Yahweh, as proclaimed by Moses.

general introduction to the canon formula 1

Moses twice admonishes his addressees in Deuteronomy: ‫את כל הדבר אשר אנכי מצוה‬
‫“ אתכם אתו תשמרו לעשות לא תסף עליו ולא תגרע ממנו‬The entire word that I command you
shall you take care to perform; you must neither add to it nor take away from it” (Deut. 13:1
[lxx 12:32]; similarly 4:2).1 The formula makes it clear that its intent is to preclude both
literary and doctrinal innovation by safeguarding the textual status quo. The formula has its
general background in ancient Near Eastern literature, where it appears in a wide range of
literary genres and diferent cultural spheres. It appears in Egyptian wisdom literature, in

1. There is a grammatical anomaly in the construction of the canon formula at Deut. 13:1 that should be noted.
The prohibition, “You must not add . . . ,” employs negative ‫ לא‬+ a second person jussive, ‫תֹסֵף‬. That construction is
anomalous. More conventionally, the negative imperative or prohibition would require ‫ לא‬+ second person imperfect
(Ronald J. W. Williams, Hebrew Syntax: An Outline, 2d ed. [Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1978], 66, §396).
Conversely, where the jussive form is employed, to express a negative wish or vetitive, “the negative particle is usu-
ally ‫ אַל‬rather than ‫( ”לֹא‬Bruce K. Waltke and Michael Patrick O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax
[Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1990], 565, §34.1.b). For an example of this latter, more standard construction,
see ‫ׁחֵת עמך‬ ְ ַּ ‫“ אל‬May you not destroy your people . . . !” (Deut. 9:26). This anomalous combination of the jussive
of ‫ יסף‬with the negative ‫ לא‬occurs elsewhere, however: Gen. 4:12, Deut. 13:1 (here), and at Joel 2:2.
In addition, there are related unusual forms of the verb, where the shortened form, vocalized as a jussive,
follows ‫ לא‬in situations where one expects the cohortative: Deut. 18:16 (‫)לא אסף‬, Hos. 9:15 (‫)לא אוסף‬, and simi-
larly but without the negative at Ezek. 5:16. This situation has led to some discussion. The claim by Takamitsu
Muraoka that the issue is morphological, and an original qal has been misvocalized as a hipʿil, thereby yielding ‫יסֵף‬,
amounts to special pleading (Paul Joüon and Takamitsu Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, 2d ed. [Rome:
Pontiical Biblical Institute, 2003], 1: 193–94, §75f. Note the valuable revision: 3d ed. [Rome: Pontiical Biblical
Institute, 2006], 179, §75f). The simpler explanation is more persuasive: these “jussive” forms represent defective
orthography of the normal form ‫יֹסף‬ ִ (Emil Kautzsch, ed., Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, 2d ed. [Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1910], 322, §109d). The anomalous formulation is resolved in the later reworking and reception of the canon
formula at Deut. 4:2, where the plural is written defectively as ּ‫לא ת ִֹספ‬. Similarly, the author of the Temple Scroll,
in his reiteration of Deut. 13:1, employs the expected long form ‫( תוסיף‬11Q19 Col. 54, line 7) (Yigael Yadin, The
Temple Scroll [Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1977–83], 2: 243).

Journal of the American Oriental Society 130.3 (2010) 337

338 Journal of the American Oriental Society 130.3 (2010)

Babylonian epics, and in legal collections. 2 Similar phenomena are evident in archaic and
classical Greece. 3 Within the Bible, it similarly shows up in a range of literary genres and
contexts, apart from the two instances under investigation. 4 The formula played a signiicant
role in the reception of the Hebrew Bible within Hellenistic Judaism, Palestinian Judaism,
and formative Christianity. 5 Given the range of uses of the formula within the ancient Near
East and the Bible as well as the variety of its applications to new contexts in the reception
of the Bible in the Second Temple period and afterward, the question arises as to its original
function and meaning within Deuteronomy, where its fullest statement is found. An adequate
answer to that question requires recourse to the ancient Near Eastern historical and literary
milieu in which the legal corpus of Deuteronomy was composed.

methodological assumptions for recovering

the literary source of deut. 13:1
The impact of the Neo-Assyrian loyalty oath tradition upon the composition of the legal
corpus of Deuteronomy was recognized soon after Esarhaddon’s Sucession Treaty was pub-

2. Moshe Weinfeld provides a wide range of Near Eastern and Egyptian parallels in Deuteronomy and the
Deuteronomic School (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972), 261–65. He regards the formula as evidence for the literary
impact of wisdom literature upon the composition of Deuteronomy. So dominant is the latter concern of the analy-
sis, however, that a more direct source of inluence is overlooked: the violation clauses of the nearly contemporary
Neo-Assyrian state treaties, whose impact upon Deuteronomy he has done pioneering work in helping trace (ibid.,
94–129).
3. For similar phenomena in the world of archaic and classical Greece, see Karl-Joachim Hölkeskamp, Schieds-
richter, Gesetzgeber und Gesetzgebung im archaischen Griechenland (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 1999); id., “(In-)
Schrift und Monument: Zum Begrif des Gesetzes im archaischen und klassischen Griechenland,” ZPE 132 (2000):
73–96 (at 84–87); and Anselm C. Hagedorn, Between Moses and Plato: Individual and Society in Deuteronomy and
Ancient Greek Law (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004), 76–78, 163.
4. In the Bible, see Jer. 26; Prov. 30:6; Qoh. 3:14; 12:12–13; cf. Sir. 18:6; 42:21; Rev. 22:18–19. Adducing
comparative material, see Johannes Leipoldt and Siegfried Morenz, Heilige Schriften: Betrachtungen zur Religions-
geschichte der antiken Mittelmeerwelt (Leipzig: Harrassowitz, 1953), 53–65 (stressing the origins of the formula
in Egyptian wisdom literature); Nahum M. Sarna, “Psalm 89: A Study in Inner Biblical Exegesis,” in Biblical and
Other Studies, ed. Alexander Altmann (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1963), 29–34, reprinted in id., Studies
in Biblical Interpretation (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2000), 377–94 (stressing precedents in cunei-
form literature); Michael Fishbane, “Varia Deuteronomica,” ZAW 84 (1972): 349–52; Eleonore Reuter, “‘Nimm
nichts davon weg und füge nichts hinzu’: Dtn 13,1, seine alttestamentlichen Parallelen und seine altorientalischen
Vorbilder,” BN 47 (1989): 107–14; Christoph Dohmen and Manfred Oeming, Biblischer Kanon: Warum und Wozu?
Eine Kanontheologie (Freiburg: Herder, 1992), 68–89; and Bernard M. Levinson, Legal Revision and Religious
Renewal in Ancient Israel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 12–14.
5. For Josephus, it is invoked as an apologia to defend the innovative enterprise represented by his Jewish
Antiquities. He pointedly airms that its innovative reordering and regrouping of the laws and narratives of the Bible
remained nevertheless consistent with the source texts in question: “The precise details of our scriptural records
will, then, be set forth, each in its place, as my narrative proceeds, that being the procedure that I have promised to
follow throughout this work, neither adding (προσθεὶς) nor omitting (παραλιπών) anything.” In Christian scripture,
the formula is remarkably adapted in the Epilogue of the Revelation to John, where it now extends to the apocalyptic
vision of the eschaton: “I warn everyone who hears the words (τοὺς λόγους) of the prophecy of this book: if anyone
adds to (ἐπιθῇ ἐπ᾽) them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this book; if anyone takes away from
(ἀφέλῃ ἀπὸ) the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away that person’s share in the tree of life and
in the holy city, which are described in this book” (Rev. 22:18–19, nrsv). The literary report of the parity treaty
concluded between the Maccabees and the Romans for mutual alliance in case of attack by a third party seems to
acknowledge this formula even as it allows for mutual future renegotiation: “If after these terms are in efect both
parties shall determine to add or delete (προσθεῖναι ἢ ἀφελεῖν) something, they shall do so at their discretion, and
any addition or deletion (προσθῶσιν ἢ ἀφέλωσιν) that they may make shall be valid” (1 Macc. 8:30, nrsv).
 Levinson: Esarhaddon’s Succession Treaty 339

lished in 1958. 6 Rintje Frankena and Moshe Weinfeld played pioneering roles in recognizing
the relation between this material and several key sections of Deuteronomy. 7 Of particular
interest is the legal corpus of Deuteronomy (chs. 12–26), which concludes with a series of
blessings for obedience and curses for disobedience (chs. 27–28) to the terms of the covenant
that Israel is to swear to Yahweh (ch. 27 and 30). Moshe Weinfeld made a particularly strong
argument for the direct literary dependence of the treaty curses of Deut. 28, as well as the
apostasy laws of Deut. 13, upon Esarhaddon’s Succession Treaty, which stipulates that those
vassals who fail to maintain steadfast allegiance to the Assyrian monarch will be subjected
to a series of curses.
Weinfeld argued that the sequence of a particular group of curses at the conclusion of
the legal corpus (Deut. 28:27–35) could only be understood as derived directly from VTE
§§39–42 (lines 419–24). This biblical unit (Deut. 28:27–35) stands out due to the lack of
logical rationale for its sequence of curses: skin ailments (v. 27), blindness (vv. 28–29), loss
of one’s wife (v. 30a), displaced progeny (vv. 30b, 32), foreign military occupation (v. 33),
and, again, but this time in inverted order, blindness (v. 34) and skin ailments (v. 35). When
read on its own terms, or within the context of the Hebrew Bible as a whole, the particular
sequence of curses and illnesses in Deut. 28:27–35 appears to be random. There are no bibli-
cal parallels that would explain the order. Take, for example, the particular combination of
leprosy (28:27) and “judicial” blindness (28:28–29) in Deuteronomy. 8 Weinfeld showed,
however, that the paired motifs of “leprous diseases” and “darkness and lawlessness,” as
well as the identical topical sequence of the other curses in the unit (Deut. 28:29–35), are
attested in VTE §§39–42 (lines 419–30), where the logic for the order is at once clear: the
order follows the hierarchy speciically of the Neo-Assyrian pantheon. 9 For example, the
chief Babylonian gods Sin (associated with the “plague of leprosy”) and Shamash (“the sun
god as well as the god of law and justice”), who “almost always appear together,” appear
at the beginning of the curses in VTE §§39–40 (lines 419–24). The curses associated with
Sin and Shamash appear in the same order in Deut. 28:27–29. 10 Weinfeld developed these
insights into a compelling argument for the literary dependence of Deut. 28:27–35 upon VTE
§§39–42 (lines 419–30).
The insights of Frankena and Weinfeld have since been extended and consolidated by
a number of other scholars. According to Paul E. Dion, “[T]he closer to 672 BC one plac-
es the composition of Deuteronomy, the easier to understand are its precise contacts with
the vassal treaties of Esarhaddon.” 11 Hans Ulrich Steymans has also argued for the literary
dependence of Deuteronomy’s treaty curses upon Esarhaddon’s Succession Treaty. Stey-
mans understands the connection to take place through an Aramaic translation of VTE and

6. Donald J. Wiseman, The Vassal-Treaties of Esarhaddon (London: British School of Archaeology in

Iraq, 1958).
7. Rintje Frankena, “The Vassal-Treaties of Esarhaddon and the Dating of Deuteronomy,” OtSt 14 (1965):
122–54; Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (1972), 94–129.
8. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 120.
9. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 119.
10. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 119.
11. Paul E. Dion, “Deuteronomy 13: The Suppression of Alien Religious Propaganda in Israel during the Late
Monarchical Era,” in Law and Ideology in Monarchic Israel, ed. Baruch Halpern and Deborah W. Hobson (Shef-
ield: JSOT Press, 1991), 147–216 (at 204–5). See further, Bernard M. Levinson, “‘But You Shall Surely Kill
Him!’: The Text-Critical and Neo-Assyrian Evidence for MT Deut. 13:10,” in Bundesdokument und Gesetz: Studien
zum Deuteronomium, ed. Georg Braulik (Freiburg: Herder, 1995), 37–63 (reprinted and cited according to id., “The
Right Chorale”: Studies in Biblical Law and Interpretation [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008], 166–94); and many
studies by Eckart Otto, especially, “Treueid und Gesetz: Die Ursprünge des Deuteronomiums im Horizont neuassy-
rischen Vertragsrechts,” ZABR 2 (1996): 1–52.
340 Journal of the American Oriental Society 130.3 (2010)

demonstrates a combination of shared motifs, sequence, and structural similarities between

Deut. 28:20–44 and VTE §§39, 40, 42, 56, 63, 64. 12
Of course, there have been some signiicant challenges to the idea of direct literary depen-
dence in the case of Deuteronomy and VTE. The idea that Judean scribes might have had
training in cuneiform in the Neo-Assyrian period has been challenged. 13 However, such a
capacity is very plausible. 14 The ability of Syro-Palestinian scribes to work in cuneiform is
evident in the eighth-century bilingual inscription from Tell Fekherye in north-east Syria,
with Neo-Assyrian on the front and Aramaic on the back. A scribal school was established
by the Neo-Assyrian empire in Syro-Palestine, at Huzirina, not far from Harran.
Contrary to Liverani, the loyalty oath was not restricted to the eastern vassals or the royal
guard. 15 The recent discovery by Canadian archaeologists of what seems to be a copy of
VTE, dating to 672 b.c., at Tel Taʿyinat on the Orontes River, near Turkey’s border with
Syria, conirms the penetration of this tradition into Syro-Palestine. “This tablet preserves an
oath imposed by Esarhaddon on the governor of the province of Kinalia on, most likely, the
18th day of the second month of the year 672 b.c.”—the same date as the “Vassal Treaties”
of Esarhaddon, familiar from the Nabû temple at Nimrud in the heart of the empire. 16 The
tablet is a formal display copy, drilled through vertically for mounting and rotation. It would
originally have been elevated on a platform in the cella of the temple, opposite the altar, near
where it was found during the excavation. A recent study by Karen Radner demonstrates
how Judean scribes could have come into contact with the Neo-Assyrian treaty tradition:

12. Hans Ulrich Steymans, Deuteronomium 28 und die adê zur Thronfolgeregelung Asarhaddons: Segen und
Fluch im Alten Orient und in Israel (Fribourg, Switzerland: Universitätsverlag, 1995), 284–312.
13. See William S. Morrow, “Cuneiform Literacy and Deuteronomic Composition,” BO 62 (2005): 204–13
(reacting especially against Eckart Otto’s claim that the Middle Assyrian Laws inluenced the composition and
structure of the legal corpus of Deuteronomy). A number of scholars question the direct dependence of Deuter-
onomy upon VTE from a diferent perspective and postulate an independent Aramaic treaty-tradition as intermedi-
ary. The treaties from Seire may indeed point to an Aramaic treaty tradition in Northwest Semitic that cannot be
directly derived from Neo-Assyrian models. See William S. Morrow, “The Seire Treaty Stipulations and the Meso-
potamian Treaty Tradition,” in The World of the Aramaeans III: Studies in Language and Literature in Honour of
Paul-Eugène Dion, ed. P. M. Michèle Daviau, John W. Wevers, and Michael Weigl (Sheield: Sheield Academic
Press, 2001), 83–99; and Christoph Koch, “Zwischen Hatti und Assur: Traditionsgeschichtliche Beobachtungen zu
den aramäischen Inschriften von Sire,” in Die deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerke: Redaktions- und religions-
geschichtliche Perspektiven zur “Deuteronomismus”-Diskussion in Tora und Vorderen Propheten, ed. Markus
Witte et al. (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2006), 379–406; id., Vertrag, Treueid und Bund: Studien zur Rezeption des
altorientalischen Vertragsrechts im Deuteronomium und zur Ausbildung der Bundestheologie im Alten Testament
(Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2008). Steven W. Holloway also questions the direct inluence of VTE upon Deuter-
onomy and claims instead that “we have excellent evidence that curse clauses circulated extensively throughout the
Fertile Crescent, probably through the medium of Imperial Aramaic rather than Akkadian” (review of Eckart Otto,
Das Deuteronomium: Politische Theologie und Rechtsreform in Juda und Assyrien, Journal of Near Eastern Studies
66 [2007]: 205–8 [at 206]).
14. See the more developed defense of this position provided by David P. Wright, “The Laws of Hammurabi as
a Source for the Covenant Collection (Exodus 20:23–23:19),” Maarav 10 (2003): 11–87 (at 58–67); and Bernard
M. Levinson, “Is the Covenant Code an Exilic Composition? A Response to John Van Seters,” in In Search of
Pre-Exilic Israel: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar, ed. John Day (London: T. & T. Clark, 2004),
272–325 (at 294–97); reprinted and cited according to idem, “The Right Chorale,” 276–330 (at 304–6). The latter
article provides the necessary bibliography on Tell Fekherye and Huzirina.
15. Contra Mario Liverani, “The Medes at Esarhaddon’s Court,” JCS 47 (1995): 57–62.
16. On the archaeology of the ind, see Timothy P. Harrison, “Assyrians in the West: Recent Discoveries at Tell
Taʿyinat on the Plain of Antioch,” Journal of the Canadian Society for Mesopotamian Studies 6 (2011), forthcom-
ing. On the text and its interpretation, see Jacob Lauinger, “Some Preliminary Thoughts on the Tablet Collection in
Temple XVI from Tell Taʿyinat,” Journal of the Canadian Society for Mesopotamian Studies 6 (2011), forthcoming
(from which the quote is taken). Lauinger’s article valuably articulates the key interpretative issues associated with
the discovery.
 Levinson: Esarhaddon’s Succession Treaty 341

(1) already in the eighth century, Ahaz (735–715 b.c.e.) became a vassal to Assyria, so as to
gain support during the Syro-Ephraimite war; Hezekiah (715–687) maintained that foreign
policy; (2) the Assyrians normally appointed a qēpu 17 or senior administrative oicial in the
bureaucracy of their vassal states, who was responsible to the Assyrian monarch; and (3)
a written copy (ṭuppi adê) of the loyalty oath that bound the treaty partners was normally
provided to the vassal state. 18 Elsewhere, too, there is strong evidence for a direct literary
relationship between biblical law and cuneiform law, which is best explained as deriving
from the Neo-Assyrian period. 19 Eckart Otto, who has made invaluable contributions in this
regard, goes several steps further, to argue that “Die Texte Dtn 13,2–10*; 28,15*.20–44*
sind Übersetzungen aus den VTE . . .”; he reconstructs their original form as a cohesive text
representing a Judean loyalty oath. 20 This latter concept of direct translation, with its atten-
dant reconstruction of the compositional history of the legal corpus, goes beyond the available
evidence. 21 A model of selective adaptation and creative transformation, as proposed here,
provides a more compelling explanation. Surprisingly, despite the extensive attention paid to
the Neo-Assyrian material as providing a literary resource for the authors of Deuteronomy,
even in the context of chapter 13, the relevance of this material for understanding the origins
and function of the canon formula has escaped attention.

josiah’s reform and esarhaddon’s succession treaty

The composition of Deuteronomy was determined in part by the reform movements of
King Hezekiah (2 Kgs. 18:3–6, 22; 727/715–698/687 b.c.e.) and, especially, of King Josiah
(2 Kgs. 22–23; 640–609 b.c.e.). The historical background of Josiah’s reforms was the
increasing threat of imperial domination. The Northern Kingdom of Israel had fallen under
Neo-Assyrian invasion a scant century before (722 b.c.e.; 2 Kgs. 17). Continuing Assyrian
incursions down the coastal littoral had all but reduced Judah to a rump-state (2 Kgs. 18:13).

17. Qēpu is the Neo-Assyrian spelling. The standard Akkadian form is qīpu. See CAD Q, 264–68 (2d).
18. See Karen Radner, “Assyrische ṭuppi adê als Vorbild für Deuteronomium 28,20–44?” in Die deuteronomis-
tischen Geschichtswerke (n. 13 above), 351–78 (esp. 374–75). Reinforcing her arguments, Neo-Assyrian evidence
strongly implies that Manasseh (687–642 b.c.e.), as tribute payer and as military ally, would have sworn a loyalty
oath. See Hans-Ulrich Steymans, “Die literarische und historische Bedeutung der Thronfolgevereidigung Asarhad-
dons,” in Die deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerke, 331–49 (esp. 344–49).
19. This claim has also been made about the dependence of the Covenant Code upon the Laws of Hammurabi
by John Van Seters who, however, dates this inluence to the Neo-Babylonian period (A Law Book for the Diaspora:
Revision in the Study of the Covenant Code [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003], 96–99, 173–74). The evidence
for that dependence has been expanded by David Wright who, however, compellingly argues that the Neo-Assyrian
period provides a more logical historical context (“Laws of Hammurabi as a Source for the Covenant Collection,”
58–67); see further Levinson, “Is the Covenant Code an Exilic Composition?” 302. Wright’s arguments concern-
ing such dependence have received a pointed challenge from Bruce Wells, “The Covenant Code and Near Eastern
Legal Traditions: A Response to David P. Wright,” Maarav 13:1 (2006): 85–118. Wright provides a defense of his
approach in “The Laws of Hammurabi and the Covenant Code: A Response to Bruce Wells,” Maarav 13:2 (2006):
211–60. See further id., Inventing God’s Law: How the Covenant Code of the Bible Used and Revised the Laws of
Hammurabi (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009), 98–110.
20. See Eckart Otto, Das Deuteronomium: Politische Theologie und Rechtsreform in Juda und Assyrien (Berlin:
Walter de Gruyter, 1999), 68. Similarly, “eine direkte Übertragung”; id., “Die Ursprünge der Bundestheologie im
Alten Testament und im Alten Orient,” ZABR 4 (1998): 1–84 (37).
21. See the well-considered article by Udo Rüterswörden, expressing such methodological cautions, “Dtn 13 in
der neueren Deuteronomiumforschung,” in Congress Volume Basel 2001, ed. André Lemaire (Leiden: E. J. Brill,
2002), 185–203. See further Pakkala, “Der literar- und religionsgeschichtliche Ort von Deuteronomium 13,” 125–37
(with further bibliography on this issue). I disagree, however, with Pakkala’s counter-argument that Deut. 13 should
be dated to the exilic period. Given its focus upon Deut. 13, the article overlooks the evidence brought to bear (as
regards Deut. 28) by Hans-Ulrich Steymans, “Die neuassyrische Vertragsrhetorik der ‘Vassal Treaties of Esarhad-
don’ und das Deuteronomium,” in Das Deuteronomium, ed. Georg Braulik (Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2003), 89–152.
342 Journal of the American Oriental Society 130.3 (2010)

In a desperate bid to preserve the nation’s autonomy, Hezekiah had already made a pact
with Assyria (2 Kgs. 18:13–18). Subsequently, Judah’s political and religious independence
seemed to hover uncertainly between the threats presented by Assyria and resurgent Babylon
(2 Kgs. 20:12–15). In this context, Josiah’s religious reforms—restriction of all sacriicial
worship of God to Jerusalem and removal of foreign elements from the cultus—represented
an important bid for Judean cultural, political, and religious autonomy. The monarch extend-
ed his reforms into the area of the former Northern Kingdom of Israel and thus implicitly
into territory under Assyrian control (2 Kgs. 23:15–20). Deuteronomy, apparently written at
some time during this historical crisis, likewise relects the desire to preserve Judean cultural
and religious integrity. The law in Deuteronomy is presented as a covenant between God
and nation, which the people take an oath to uphold, upon penalty of sanctions, while main-
taining unconditional loyalty to their God. As we have seen, that covenant structure closely
corresponds to the Neo-Assyrian state treaties that have been recovered from this period,
most importantly to Esarhaddon’s Succession Treaty, dating to 672 b.c.e. 22
In this treaty, the Assyrian overlord, Esarhaddon, stipulated that, after his death, power
was to be transferred to his son, the crown prince Assurbanipal. One prominent motif in the
treaty is the risk of conspiracy against the royal scion arising either from his own family or
that of the addressee of the loyalty oath. This motif almost certainly relects Esarhaddon’s
own too bitter experience. Shortly after his father Sennacherib had promoted Esarhaddon
over his older brothers as heir (681 b.c.e.), a major civil war ensued, contesting his legiti-
macy. On that basis, Esarhaddon employed the treaty as a “loyalty oath” (adê) 23 to secure
the succession of Assurbanipal as his own heir (669 b.c.e.). 24
The loyalty oath imposed by Neo-Assyrian monarchs on their vassals and citizens pro-
vided the model for much of the material in Deuteronomy 13 (especially vv. 2–6, 7–12).
The model’s prohibitions against incitement and warnings against disloyalty in the political
sphere were reworked by Deuteronomy’s authors into laws addressing disloyalty to Yahweh
as the “Overlord” of Judah: that is, to prohibit apostasy. 25 In the process of reworking VTE
for its own legal and literary purposes, Deuteronomy also subverted its source by replac-
ing Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal with Yahweh as the object of the demand for exclusive
loyalty. The instrument of Neo-Assyrian imperialism, as transformed by the Judean authors
of Deuteronomy, thereby supported an attempt at liberation from imperial rule; the literary
reworking came in the service of a bid for political and cultural autonomy. 26

the deuteronomic canon formula as a transformation

of selected elements of esarhaddon’s succession treaty §4
One important component of this overall scenario has not been recognized. The treaty
demanded exclusive loyalty to the word of Esarhaddon. As VTE §4 stipulates: šumma abutu

22. This text is a composite reconstructed from eight fragmentary manuscripts. According to Simo Parpola, “the
only signiicant diferences lie in the treaty preamble, where each manuscript has a diferent ‘city ruler’ as the other
contracting partner” (Simo Parpola and Kazuko Watanabe, eds., Neo-Assyrian Treaties and Loyalty Oaths [Helsinki:
Helsinki University Press, 1988], xxix–xxx).
23. The spelling adê represents the Neo-Assyrian form of the term. The lemma form is adû; see CAD A/I,
131–34.
24. Bernard M. Levinson, “Textual Criticism, Assyriology, and the History of Interpretation: Deuteronomy
13:7a as a Test Case in Method,” JBL 120 (2001): 237 n. 75; reprinted and cited according to id., “The Right
Chorale,” 139 n. 75. See also Parpola and Watanabe, Neo-Assyrian Treaties, xxviii–xxxi.
25. Levinson, “Textual Criticism,” 138.
26. Therefore, Eckart Otto, for example, can speak correctly of “the subversive reception” of VTE by Judean
authors.
 Levinson: Esarhaddon’s Succession Treaty 343

Esarhaddon’s Succession Treaty §4 Deuteronomy 13:1

A šumma abutu ša Aššur-a̮u-iddina šar B′ ‫את כל הדבר אשר אנכי מצוה‬
māt Aššur tennâni tušannâni ‫אתכם אתו תשמרו לעשות‬
B šumma Aššur-bāni-apli marʾa šarri A′ ‫לא תסף עליו ולא תגרע ממנו‬
rabiʾu ša bēt ridūti . . . ̮annûma lā
tadaggalāni. . . .
A You shall neither change nor alter the B′ The entire word that I command
word of Esarhaddon, king of Assyria you shall you take care to perform
B but heed this very Assurbanipal, the A′ you must neither add to it nor take
great crown prince designate away from it

Fig. 1. Deuteronomy’s Chiastic Citation of VTE.

ša Aššur-a̮u-iddina šar māt Aššur tennâni tušannâni šumma Aššur-bāni-apli marʾa šarri
rabiʾu ša bēt ridūti . . . ̮annûma lā tadaggalāni. . . . “You shall neither change nor alter the
word of Esarhaddon, king of Assyria, but heed this very Assurbanipal, the great crown prince
designate. . . .” 27 The injunction takes the form of a double prohibition against any change,
using two synonyms in the Akkadian: enû ‘to revoke or change’, and the D-stem of šanû ‘to
change’ (transitive), ‘to alter’. 28 That which is to be preserved intact is abutu ša Aššur-a̮u-
iddina “the word of Esarhaddon” as the speaker of the treaty. The prohibition is immediately
contrasted with the positive requirement for obedience: “but heed this very Assurbanipal”
(the royal scion).
That injunction corresponds closely in both form and content to the “canon formula”:
‫“ את כל הדבר אשר אנכי מצוה אתכם אתו תשמרו לעשות לא תסף עליו ולא תגרע ממנו‬The entire
word that I command you shall you take care to perform; you must neither add to it nor
take away from it” (Deut. 13:1). The Hebrew formula has the same structure as the Akka-
dian stipulation but in reverse order: a requirement for obedience to ‫“ הדבר‬the word” of
the overlord, followed by a double prohibition against amending the sworn terms of the
treaty. Chiastic or inverted citation (Seidel’s Law) was a common ancient Near East-
ern scribal technique for formally marking textual reuse. 29 The chiastic structure (AB ::
B′A′) of Deuteronomy’s reverse citation of Esarhaddon’s Succession Treaty is indicated
in Figure 1. The new formulation of Deut. 13:1 is arranged as a casus pendens, with the
object (B′, ‫ )הדבר‬now placed irst for the sake of emphasis. There is evidence that the
authors of Deuteronomy were reworking their source creatively. This is not a slavish
translation. Whereas the presumed source employs two asyndetic synonyms to prohibit

27. See Parpola and Watanabe, Neo-Assyrian Treaties and Loyalty Oaths, 31 (§4, lines 57–60). I here correct
their translation of line 60. For the normalization of the Akkadian, I follow Kazuko Watanabe, Die adê-Vereidi-
gung anlässlich der Thronfolgeregelung Asarhaddons (Berlin: Gebr. Mann, 1987), 146. A semantic issue should
be noted. Because of the conjunction šumma, which normally marks a protasis (“if”), some editions have rendered
such constructions as conditional statements. In the Neo-Assyrian treaties, however, the combination of šumma with
positive verb in the subjunctive (marked by the particle -ni) is best translated as a prohibition, as here (where the two
positive verbs are asyndetically coordinated). This approach clariies the semantics, since the conditional statement
has its logically expected apodosis delayed to the end of the treaty, in the curse section. For a more complete dis-
cussion of the construction, see Parpola and Watanabe, Neo-Assyrian Treaties and Loyalty Oaths, xxxviii–xli. Note
the alternative approach advocated by Mario Liverani, “The Medes at Esarhaddon’s Court,” 57–62 (at 59 n. 20).
28. CAD E, 174 (1d); and CAD Š, 406 (4c), with citation.
29. On textual reuse as formally marked by chiastic citation (Seidel’s Law), see Bernard M. Levinson, Deu-
teronomy and the Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), 17–20. Also see
Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 504 n. 11.
344 Journal of the American Oriental Society 130.3 (2010)

“altering, changing” the word of Esarhaddon (tennâni tušannâni), the authors of Deuter-
onomy select two antonyms so as to create a merism expressing totality. Any change to
the word of Moses, whether by addition or by subtraction, is prohibited: (A′), ‫לא תסף עליו‬
‫ולא תגרע ממנו‬. Deuteronomy has transformed the loyalty oath of VTE and, in the process,
subverted the treaty’s demand to not alter the “word” of Esarhaddon. That requirement, now
altered, here assures loyalty to the Judean counter-treaty as the construction of a Mosaic
speaker.

the deuteronomic apostasy series as transformation of selected

elements of esarhaddon’s succession treaty §10
The analogy between the two formulae is the more striking since in both the Neo-Assyrian
and the Deuteronomic contexts the formula comes shortly before additional treaty stipula-
tions that require the addressee to report disloyalty. Here too, it is all but certain that the
authors of Deuteronomy drew upon the Neo-Assyrian model. 30 Deuteronomy’s apostasy
series presents three paradigmatic test cases: incitement originating from the sphere of public
religious authority (a prophet or oneiromancer in 13:2–6); from the sphere of intimate private
life which is, as such, out of the public domain (13:7–12); or incitement which has already
succeeded, to the extent of winning over an entire city to false worship (13:13–18). In all
cases, the punishment is capital; individual in the irst two cases, group execution by means
of the ban in the third. 31
The tenth paragraph of Esarhaddon’s treaty (VTE §10) is especially concerned (as is
the whole treaty) with ensuring loyalty to Esarhaddon and his son Assurbanipal, the crown
prince designate. It identiies as possible sources of disloyalty either the royal or addressee’s
own family, as well as three diferent groups of diviners. Wherever the disloyalty originates,
the treaty partner must report it. 32 In the reference to the prophet, there is a clear overlap with
Deut. 13:2–6; and in the reference to the members of the addressee’s family, there is an over-
lap with Deut. 13:7–12. 33 Esarhaddon’s treaty requires that the addressee immediately report
any incitement to disloyalty, even should it be heard from a̮̮ēkunu marʾēkunu marʾātēkunu

30. On the reuse and transformation of Neo-Assyrian material in Deuteronomy 13, with further literature, see
Levinson, “Textual Criticism,” 112–44 (at 138–43); id., “But You Shall Surely Kill Him!” 166–94; and id., “Recov-
ering the Lost Original Meaning of ‫( ולא תכסה עליו‬Deuteronomy 13:9),” JBL 115 (1996): 601–20; reprinted in id.,
“The Right Chorale,” 145–65.
31. Levinson, “But You Shall Surely Kill Him!” 166.
32. If incited by a close member of the family to worship gods other than Yahweh, Deuteronomy’s addressee
is forbidden to heed the inciter, and is commanded: “But you shall surely kill him!” (‫( )הרג תהרגנו‬Deut. 13:10).
The law’s requirement for lynch justice has long raised questions because of its inconsistency with Deuteronomy’s
own normal requirements for due process (Deut. 17:2–7; 19:6). Accordingly the Septuagint variant has long been
preferred: ἀναγγέλλων ἀναγγελεῖς περὶ αὐτοῦ “You shall report him” (lxx Deut. 13:9; see Dion, “Deuteronomy 13,”
154). The Neo-Assyrian stipulation to report incitement (VTE §10) has been proposed in support of the lxx vari-
ant, as if it provided objective external evidence for it. That analysis overlooks important evidence. VTE possesses
an incremental structure whereby disloyalty is deined and acted against in speciic stages. Paragraphs 8 and 9 lay
the groundwork, requiring loyalty and prohibiting disloyalty respectively. Then the terms of §§8–9 are logically
extended in §10: the addressee must prove his loyalty by reporting disloyalty from any third party whatsoever.
When disloyalty is deined in fairly general terms as abutu lā ṭabtu “an evil word” (§§9–10), then the addressee is
required to do nothing more than lā taqabbâni “you shall report” (§10). In VTE §11, however, the level of threat
has now advanced to the point where assassination is mentioned. The imminent risk now requires a proportionately
more severe response to eliminate the threat: lā taṣabbatāšanūni lā tadukkāšanūni “seize them and kill them” (§12,
lines 139–40; similarly §26, lines 302–17). That mandate for summary execution provides the precedent and literary
model for mt Deut. 13:10. For a detailed discussion of both the text-critical and comparative issues, see Levinson,
“But You Shall Surely Kill Him!” 166–94 (esp. 184–90).
33. Levinson, “But You Shall Surely Kill Him!” 184–85.
 Levinson: Esarhaddon’s Succession Treaty 345

lū ina pī raggime ma̮̮ê mār šāʾili amāt ili “your brothers, your sons, your daughters, or
from the mouth of a prophet, an ecstatic, an inquirer of oracles” (§10, lines 108–20). These
stipulations recur nearly verbatim, once again in reverse order, in the incitement laws of
Deuteronomy 13: 34
. . . ‫כי יקום בקרבך נביא או חלם חלום‬ Should a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arise in your midst
. . . (Deut. 13:2; English, 13:1)

. . . ‫ או בנך או בתך‬. . . ‫ כי יסיתך אחיך‬Should your brother . . . or your son, or your daughter . . .
incite you (Deut. 13:7; English 13:6)

From its template (VTE §10), Deuteronomy creates two consecutive legal paragraphs.
The irst (Deut. 13:2–6) envisions the incitement to disloyalty against Yahweh as coming
from “a prophet or oneiromancer”; the second (Deut. 13:7–12) as arising from the immedi-
ate family of the addressee (“brother,” “son,” “daughter,” adding “wife” and “friend,” each
term with second person pronominal suix). In each case, the challenge to loyalty thus arises
precisely from those whom one is most likely to trust. 35 The retention of the two motifs
together as a literary cluster (both the “canon formula” and the disloyalty provisions)strongly
suggests that the Deuteronomic authors were working with Neo-Assyrian exemplars. 36 The
reverse order of the elements further suggests literary dependence according to Seidel’s Law.

deuteronomy 13:1–12 as a structural reworking

of selected elements of esarhaddon’s succession treaty
The canon formula introduces the series of cases concerned with apostasy in Deut. 13.
Deuteronomy, in efect, selectively reworked and juxtaposed what it considered the key ele-
ments of two legal paragraphs (§§4, 10) from VTE in its own bid to demand exclusive
loyalty to the word of Moses. Figure 2 (shown on the following page) demonstrates Deuter-
onomy’s chiastic or inverted citations of VTE §§4 and 10.
Figure 2 (shown on the following page) also shows that Deuteronomy saw no need to
draw upon the intervening material (§§5–9) from VTE. That material was integral to §§4 and
10 in VTE, which logically progressed from the general demand for “idelity to the word” to
“sanctions against disloyalty” concerning that “word.” 37 Nonetheless, in the present context
that material would have been considered, for Deuteronomy’s purposes, either superluous
(§§7 and 11) or redundant (§§5, 6, 8, 9). For example, VTE §6 stipulates that one must report
any untoward word regarding Assurbanipal’s kingship. Paragraphs 6 and 10 both mention the
possibility of treasonous words among the king’s own family members and the necessity of
the second person addressee to report such words. The critical diference between these two
paragraphs is that the latter paragraph expands upon the former by expressly mentioning that

34. Similarly, Otto, Das Deuteronomium, 58.

35. Levinson, “Textual Criticism,” 140.
36. Furthermore, beyond the inverted citation of these key terms in Deut. 13:2 and 13:7, other key elements of
the Assyrian source are redeployed in the rest of the apostasy series (Deut. 13:2–19). The characteristic / ‫בקרבך‬
‫“ מקרבך‬in/from your midst” (Deut. 13:2, 6, 12, 14, 15) corresponds precisely to Akkadian ina birtūkunu in the
Zakutu Treaty (Parpola and Watanabe, Neo-Assyrian Treaties and Loyalty Oaths, 64 [line 20]). The injunction to
summary execution ‫“ כי הרג תהרגנו‬But you shall surely kill him” (Deut. 13:10), which is employed only here in
Deuteronomy and whose originality has therefore been challenged, actually precisely represents Akkadian duāku
‘to kill’. That verb is well attested in the Vassal Treaty of Esarhaddon, where, paired with ṣabātu, it prescribes the
addressee’s duty summarily to “seize and kill” traitors (lines 126–27, 138–39, 139–40, 160, 246, 254–55, 305–6,
306–7). For further examples, see Otto, “Treueid und Gesetz,” 29–42.
37. Levinson, “But You Shall Surely Kill Him!” 186–90.
346 Journal of the American Oriental Society 130.3 (2010)

§§ Esarhaddon’s Succession Treaty Deuteronomy 13 Verse

4 Fidelity to the “Word” of Overlord Fidelity to “Word” of Moses 1
(imposing the vassal treaty) (mediating legal corpus as treaty)

A Double Prohibition B′ Requirement for

against Alteration Obedience
(Merism)
A′ Double Prohibition
B Requirement for
against Alteration
Obedience
(Merism)
5 Obligation to Protect Heir38
6 Obligation to Report Opposition to Suc- Thematic overlap with §10; incor-
cession within Ruling Family porated into 13:7–12
7 Succession at Esarhaddon’s Untimely
Death
8 Deinition of Loyalty
9 Prohibition of Disloyal Conduct
10 Sanctions against Disloyalty Sanctions against Disloyalty
Eliminate incitement even from Eliminate incitement even from

X Family member Y′ Prophet 2–6

Y Prophet X′ Family member 7–12

Fig. 2. Structural Parallels between VTE and Deut. 13.

the second person addressee must report even one’s own family members. VTE §6 focuses
on reporting the treasonous words of Assurbanipal’s own family members. It is hard to see
how this would it in the monotheistic system model of Deut. 13, where the deity to whom
loyalty is owed lacks a pantheon. Furthermore, VTE §10 goes beyond §6 in its mention of
religious authorities such as prophets as possible sources of incitement to disloyalty, which
would have been much more relevant to the political and religious structure envisioned in
Deuteronomy. It is, accordingly, those elements of VTE §10 that Deuteronomy juxtaposes in
its reworking of VTE §4.38

conclusions
The prohibitions against disloyalty in Esarhaddon’s Succession Treaty (VTE §10) have
previously been recognized as an inluence upon the Deuteronomic apostasy series (Deut.
13:2–12). Here I have proposed a similar origin for the canon formula of Deut. 13:1, as part
of the larger project of creative literary reworking. The implication of this model is that the
canon formula, in form-critical terms, represents part of the adjuration to loyalty found in the
literary model of the adê. Its origins in literary history emerge as consistent with other key
elements of chapter 13. This approach provides a more economical explanation than viewing
it simply as a scribal colophon, since, by deinition, one would expect to ind the colophon at

38. The headings here for VTE §§5–9 follow Parpola and Watanabe, Neo-Assyrian Treaties and Loyalty Oaths,
31–33.
 Levinson: Esarhaddon’s Succession Treaty 347

the end of a literary unit or at the conclusion of the legal corpus, not at the juncture between
units (as is here the case, where it stands between chapters 12 and 13). 39 As evident both in
the Temple Scroll and the mt, a strong tradition emerged in the Second Temple period that
construed Deut. 13:1 as marking the conclusion to chapter 12, and severed its original con-
nection to chapter 13. 40 The Septuagint, where the verse appears as Deut. 12:32, relects a
similar exegetical tradition. This, however, belongs to a separate stage of the compositional
and redactional history of chapters 12 and 13, and, as such, is beyond the scope of this paper.
The authors of Deuteronomy 13 transformed two legal paragraphs (4 and 10) of VTE.
They reworked the treaty’s adjurations requiring exclusive loyalty to the word of the Assyr-
ian overlord, Esarhaddon, regarding his designated heir, Assurbanipal, and put the reworked
adjurations into new service as a demand for idelity to the word of God as mediated by
Moses. The formula’s original focus—dynastic succession —now addresses legal succes-
sion. 41 It now demands loyalty to the Deuteronomic Torah as the designated heir to the
Covenant Code. Paradoxically, the canon formula is asserted precisely at the point where a
substantial alteration to law has taken place.

39. Thus Eleonore Reuter, “‘Nimm nichts davon weg und füge nichts hinzu,’” 112, correctly pointing out that
the formula would be expected at the end of laws or treaties, not at the beginning, and thereby complicating her own
model of explanation.
40. The present system of chapter divisions, which places 13:1 at the beginning of chapter 13, is of course late;
they originate with the Latin Bible of the thirteenth century (see George F. Moore, “The Vulgate Chapters and the
Numbered Verses in the Hebrew Bible,” JBL 12 [1893]: 73–78; reprinted in The Canon and Masorah of the Hebrew
Bible, ed. Sidney Z. Leiman [New York: Ktav, 1974], 815–20). In contrast, the mt treats the same verse as the
conclusion to chapter 12, and marks that division by placing an open paragraph marker after the verse, so that 13:2
begins a new line, and marks a new unit. That division is evident in the Palestinian division of the text into ‫סדרים‬
“lessons” for triennial reading, where a new “lesson” begins with 13:2; and also in the Babylonian annual lection,
where a(n) ‫“ פסקא פתוחא‬open paragraph” precedes 13:2. The same division is also clearly marked in the Temple
Scroll (11QTemplea = 11Q19). In the latter case, the canon formula, preceded by a closed paragraph interval, is
connected to the preceding larger unit, the Temple Scroll’s rendering of chapter 12 (which concludes with a com-
plexly edited literary join of material concerned with vows, consisting of Deut. 12:26–28 + Deut. 23:22–24 + Num.
3–16). The canon formula is, however, distinctly separated from what follows by an open paragraph. Although there
are only two words on the line (the last two words of Deut. 13:1), Deut. 13:2 begins on a new line, marking the
new thematic unit. See the photograph in Yigael Yadin, The Temple Scroll (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society,
1977–83), plate 69 in vol. 3. While Yadin is sensitive to the complexity of the editing of Deut. 13:1 in antiquity, his
analysis contains a signiicant confusion. Speaking of the just-mentioned re-organization of Deut. 12 in the Temple
Scroll, he continues: “Deut xiii:1 was appended to the previous chapter as a ‘closed paragraph’ in and of itself, in
contrast with MT, which divides the verse from the others in the chapter by an ‘open paragraph’ space” (ibid., vol.
2, 237; emphasis added). In fact, mt places the ‫ פסקא פתוחא‬after 13:1, not before it, and thus divides the verse from
the following chapter (13:2–19), not the previous one.
The relevant portion of the Temple Scroll is extant only in 11Q19. Neither Deut. 13:1 nor 4:2 is preserved
in 11QTb and 11QTc (=11Q20 and 11Q21). For the latter two texts, see Florentino García-Martínez, Eibert J. C.
Tigchelaar, and Adam S. Van Der Woude, Qumran Cave 11. II (11Q2–18, 11Q20–31) (Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1998), 357–414. On the Palestinian “lessons” and the more complex Babylonian division of the Hebrew text, see
Bleddyn J. Roberts, The Old Testament Text and Versions (Cardif: University of Wales, 1951), 37; and, most com-
prehensively, Israel Yeivin, Introduction to the Tiberian Masorah (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1980), 39–42.
41. I am grateful to my colleague Jefrey Stackert for suggesting this analogy and for his helpful comments
on this manuscript. Thanks also to David P. Wright (Brandeis) and Jacob Wright (Emory) for their insightful read-
ings. Drawing upon and expanding the ideas here, see Bernard M. Levinson, “The Neo-Assyrian Origins of the
Canon Formula in Deuteronomy 13:1,” in Scriptural Exegesis: The Shapes of Culture and the Religious Imagina-
tion (Essays in Honour of Michael Fishbane), ed. Deborah A. Green and Laura Lieber (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2009).