The Origin of Canonicity Old Testament

“accusation” against the disloyal vassal. 52 Moreover, according to D. Hillers, the prophetic maledictions or
doom-oracles are related to ancient Near Eastern treaty curses. 53 It is true that “ancient curses and prophetic
oracles of doom describe evils and calamities which were part of common human experience.” 54 However,
there are sufficient parallels between the contents of the prophetic maledictions and the treaty curses to
enable Hillers to conclude that they are not accidental; the resemblance is due to the fact that pre-exilic Israel
“shared with her neighbors a common legal form, the treaty, and that this form was adopted as a basic
element in Israel’s religion.” 55 Hillers also believes that the prophets, in using these traditional threats, were
conscious of their association with the covenant. 56 H. B. Huffmon further strengthens the connection of the
work of the prophets with ancient Near Eastern treaty forms in a study of prophetic use of the term “know”
(3$*). In the treaties, the expression “know” is used as a technical terra with reference to mutual legal
recognition on the part of the suzerain and the vassal, and also as a term for the recognition of the treaty
stipulations as binding. 57 This usage appears also in the prophets. In Am. 3:2, Yahweh declares, “You only
have I known (*;3$*) of all the families of the earth.” According to Huffmon, this means, “You only have
I recognized by covenant,” i.e., entered into a treaty relationship. In Hos. 4:6, knowledge of the covenant
obligation is lacking, leading to the dissolution of the relationship. 58
The fact that “the prophets indicted Israel along lines suitable to the treaty tradition” is taken by D. J.
McCarthy as “perhaps the strongest indication that the prophets were indeed concerned with the covenant,
even though they avoid the use of the word.” 59 Muilenburg summarizes the role of the prophets by declaring
that “they are sent from the divine King, the suzerain of the treaties, to reprove and to pronounce judgment
upon Israel for breach of covenant.” 60 The prophets appear as spokesmen for the God of the covenant and
employ literary forms associated with the festival of the renewal of the covenant, the covenant formulary
itself being ultimately related to the ancient treaty form. Thus the prophetic literature originated in the
adaptation and expansion of certain elements of the covenant-festival pattern, particularly the “stipulations”
(in. the negative sense of the declaration of their violation), the “calling of witnesses,” and the “curse”
section. The characteristic and often predominant tone of the prophetic literature, that of judgment and
pronouncement of sentence upon the community, is therefore no obstacle to the acceptance of the utterances
of the prophets as canonical. Indeed, this characteristic tone of the prophetic writings appears also within the
covenant formulary itself, and stamps the prophetic literature as belonging to the same treaty-covenant
tradition. The words of the prophets assumed an authority in ancient Israel not only because of the role of
the prophets as mediators of the covenant, but also because the prophetic speech forms were recognized as
corresponding, both in form and content, to the covenant-festival formulary or portions thereof.
The prophets, however, speak not only about the broken covenant, but also about the restored covenant;
it is likely that the prophetic “salvation oracle” bears a relationship to the “blessing” element of the covenantfestival
pattern, much as the prophetic judgment speech represents a development from the liturgical
statement of covenant obligations followed by the covenant curse. G. Westermann has outlined three basic
52 Harvey, especially 180-188.
53 D. Hillers, Treaty Curses and the Old Testament Prophets, BiblOr, No. 16 (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute,
1964), especially 43-79.
54 Ibid., 43.
55 Ibid., 88.
56 Ibid.
57 H. B. Huffmon, “The Treaty Background of Hebrew Y~da‘,” BASOR, No. 181 (February 1966), 31-33.
58 Other passages cited by Huffmon include Hos. 2:22, 4:1, 5:4, 8:2, 13:4-5; Jer. 22:15-16, 24:7. 31:34. In most of
these instances the term 3$* indicates recognition of Yahweh by Israel.
59 McCarthy, “Covenant in the Old Testament,” 232.
60 Muilenburg, “The ‘Office’ of the Prophet,” 97.
123