SOURCE: Anbar, Moshe. “‘Thou Shalt Make No Covenant with Them’ (Exodus 23.32).” In Politics and Theopolitics in the Bible and Postbiblical Literature, edited by Henning Graf Reventlow, Yair Hoffman, and Benjamin Uffenheimer, pp. 41-48. Sheffield, England: JSOT Press, 1994.

[In the following essay, Anbar uses Exodus 23.32 to illustrate how prophecy figured into politics.]

The Mari texts cover a highly eventful period of numerous political upheavals in which a role was played by monarchs of powerful kingdoms and rulers of small city-states. Political events of worldwide impact, as well as the everyday life of the ruling classes and the common people, are reflected in the texts.

The Mari archive contains some fifty ‘prophetic texts’. Since 1947, the time when Georges Dossin presented Adolphe Lods with the first Mari prophetic text, Mari prophecy and its relation to biblical prophecy has become an essential part of the discussion of the origins of Near Eastern prophecy in general and of biblical prophecy in particular.

Here I shall discuss one theme that appears in these texts, namely the desire of prophets to influence the foreign politics of the state. To illustrate this, I choose one episode from the history of Mari, prophecies opposing the alliance with Ešnunna. Sammetar, a high official at Mari, wrote the following to his lord Zimri-Lim in the year 1770 bce:

²Say ¹to my lord: ³Thus (says) Sammetar ⁴your servant: ⁵Lupāhum, the āpilum of Dagān ⁶came to me from Tuttul. These are the ⁷instructions (tēmum) that my lord ⁸gave him in Saggarātum: ‘⁹“Entrust me” to Dagān of Terqa’. These instructions ¹⁰he brought, and thus they answered him: ‘¹¹Wherever you go, success (“good heart”) ¹²will meet you. A battering ram ¹³and a siege tower are given to you. They will march ¹⁴at your side. They will help you.’ ¹⁵This message (tēmum) ¹⁶they gave him in Tuttul. ¹⁷And as soon as he returned from Tuttul, I sent him to Dīr, and he brought to Dirītum ¹⁸my bar (of a city-gate). ¹⁹Previously he brought a širānum-vessel and said (to the goddess): ‘²⁰the širānum-vessel is not in good repair, as a result, the water ²¹leaks. Strengthen the širānum-vessel’. ²²Now, he brought my bar (of a city-gate) ²³and this is the message (the goddess) sent him with: ‘²⁴God forbid that you will trust the peace (salīmum) ²⁵of the man of Ešnunna, and because of that ²⁶be negligent. ²⁷Your guards ²⁸should be stronger than previously’. ²⁹And (Lupāhum) said to me: ³⁰‘God forbid that the king ³²should make peace (napištam lapātum “touch the throat”) ³¹with the man of Ešnunna without asking the god’. As previously, ³³when the Bini-Yamina descended ³⁴and settled in Saggarātum and I told the king: ³⁵‘Do not slaughter a foal (ḥâram qatālum) of the Bini-Yamina. ³⁶Because of the noise made by the members of their tribes, ³⁷I will expel them and the river will finish them for you. ³⁸Now, without asking the god, ³⁹he must not make peace’. ⁴⁰This is the message (tēmum) that Lupāhum told me. ⁴¹After him, the next day, ⁴²a qammatum of Dagān of Terqa ⁴³came to me and thus she said to me: ‘⁴⁴Beneath the straw the water flows! ⁴⁵They write [you] continuously regarding peace (salīmum) proposal. They send you continuously ⁴⁶their gods while they are planning ⁴⁸in their heart ⁴⁷a second lie! ⁴⁹The king ⁵⁰must not make peace (“touch his throat”) without asking the god’. ⁵²She asked for ⁵¹one simple laḥrum-garment and a nose-ring and I gave it to her and ⁵³in the temple of Bēlet-Ekallim ⁵⁴she handed over her prophecy (wûrtum) to the high priestess Inibšina. The message [that (…)] ⁵⁵she told me ⁵⁶I sent to my lord. My lord should take counsel, and act according ⁵⁷to his great kingship.¹

The letter sent by Sammetar dates to the month of Heshwan of the sixth year of Zimri-Lim (1770 bce). We know the exact date thanks to a small tablet stating that on the seventh of this month Lupāhum received one sickle of silver ‘when he went to Tuttul’ (M. 11436).² In the previous year an Ešnunnean expeditionary force marched to the south of Jebel Sinjar and the triangle of the Habur, Idamaraṣ, reaching Šubat-Enlil (Tell Leilan) in the month of Heshwan.³ After a short period they were driven, with the help of Zimri-Lim, from this area and returned to their country, whence Ešnunna sent another expeditionary force, this time to the south of Mari, conquering its border fortresses. But this force was also driven back to its country. Following these events, in the months of Ab (1770 bce) peace negotiations began between Ešnunna and Mari. This period of negotiations is reflected in our letters.

Line 5. Lupāhum was an āpilum of the god Dagān. āpilum⁴ is derived from the root apālum, ‘to answer a question, to respond’; he is an ‘answerer’. We know of an āpilum, āpiltum of the gods or goddesses Dagān, Adad, Ninhur-saga, Nin-egal, Hišamītum, Marduk, Dirītum and Šamaš. An āpilum can undertake missions in state affairs, he can bring forward the demands of a deity in questions of patrimony, and he can prophesy against foreign nations. The āpilum explains the signs of the extispicy, and prophesies while drunk. His prophecies could be verified through the sending of the hair and hem. A bārûm-diviner verifies the credibility of the āpilum by divination performed in the presence of the hair and hem of the āpilum.

Lines 7-15. Zimri-Lim sent Lupāhum to Tuttul asking him to consult Dagān, the god of the Middle Euphrates, regarding a war Zimri-Lim is going to face. The answer is favourable for Zimri-Lim.

Lines 17-23. On arriving from Tuttul Lupāhum is sent to Dīr in the southern part of the district of Mari. Every time he goes to the goddess of Dīr, Dīritum, he brings with him a symbolic object. In the past he brought a leaking vessel, symbolizing the unstable situation of the country; now he brings the bar of a city, probably Mari, symbolizing the need to strengthen the defence of the city and kingdom.

Line 22. ‘… he brought my bar (of a city-gate)’: this repeats the image of line 18.⁵

Lines 24, 31-32, 39, 45, 50. By good chance, we possess the text of the treaty between Ibāl-pī-El II, the son of Dādūša, the king of Ešnunna, and Zimri-Lim, the king of Mari. This document is called ‘the big tablet’ or ‘the tablet of the life of the god’ (tuppum rabûm, tuppi nīš ilim).⁶ In this treaty Zimri-Lim qualifies Ibāl-pī-El as his father, abī (A.361.11.15′, 111.1′, 3′, 8′, 10, 12′⁷). A treaty between two parties is concluded in two stages: in the first stage ‘small tablets’ or ‘tablets of the touching of the throat’ (tuppum ṣehrum, ṭuppi lipit napištim) are exchanged and each king is ‘touching his throat’, napištam lapātum, as we read in a letter sent by a servant of Zimri-Lim who was sent by him to Ešnunna: ‘now our lord sent to his father (the king of Ešnunna), his gods, his big standards (with divine symbols) and us, his servants, to make the touching of the throat and to tie forever the fringe of father and son (sissikti abim u mārim)’ (A.3354+.17-20⁸). When two parties who intend to conclude a treaty stay in their own countries without meeting each other, each party sends its gods to the other party to take an oath in their presence.

In the second stage ‘big tablets’ are exchanged and each party swears by the life of the god (nīš ilim), as we learn from another letter sent to Zimri-Lim: ‘The Prince [that is, the king of Ešnunna] has just sworn by the life of the gods. My lord should be happy. After this letter, I will lead to my lord the gods of my lord, the gods and the messengers of the Prince … and we will organize the oaths by the life of the gods’ (A.2028.4-12⁹).

Lines 23-28. Presumably he is conveying to the goddess Dīritum, whose city is located in the south of Mari, the message he got in Tuttul from Dagān urging her not to trust the peace proposals of the man of Ešnunna and not to neglect the defence of the southern borders of the kingdom of Mari, from where an eventual attack by Ešnunna could come.

Lines 29-32, 33-40. The question is to what sort of oracle the āpilum is referring. One has the impression that he is referring to extispicy. If this is the case, we have a very important indication, namely, that divination is held in higher regard than prophecy.

Lines 32-37. Lupāhum is referring to a previous prophecy concerning the Amurrite tribe Bini-Yamina. He is referring probably to the negotiations following the suppression of their rebellion in the third year of Zimri-Lim (1773-1772).¹⁰ The peace treaty he is mentioning is accompanied by a symbolic act of slaughtering a foal (hâram qatālum). This practice is mentioned a few times in the Mari texts; for example, we read in a letter about a treaty concluded between the Bini-Yamina and the kings of Zalmaqum (the region in the north of Harrān): ‘Asdi-takim (the king of Harrān) and the kings of Zalmaqum and the sugāgū (the sheiks) and the elders of the Bini-Yamina have slaughtered a foal in the temple of Sîn of Harrān’.¹¹ In our letter the āpilum promises, in the name of the god, to get rid of the Bini-Yamina. The reason for their extermination is not without interest, because the same reason for a punishment is given in Atramhasis (for example II.i.4¹²): ‘The god got disturbed with their uproar’.

Lines 41-50. A qammatum-prophetess¹³ also warns Zimri-Lim against an alliance with Ešnunna; he should not conclude a treaty without first asking the god.

Lines 51-52. The qammatum-prophetess is paid for delivering the message in the same way that a messenger is paid.

Lines 53-54. The prophetess had also communicated her prophecy to the priestess Inibšina. Now, it so happens that we possess the letter of Inibšina containing this message:

Say to my Star: Thus (says) Inibšina: … Now, a qammatum of Dagān of Terqa came to me ¹⁰and thus she said to me: ‘The peace (salīmātum) (proposals) of the man of Ešnunna are treacherous, because beneath the straw the water flows! And into the net ¹⁵that he is weaving I will gather him. I will destroy his town and I will indeed destroy his property, dating from old age’. ²⁰This she told me. Now, guard yourself, without a divination (têrtum) ²⁵do not enter the city. ²⁵Thus I heard saying: by himself … Do not … by yourself.¹⁴

In the Mari archive we find another prophecy against the peace with Ešnunna:

Say to my Lord: Thus (says) Kānisān your servant: ⁵My father Kibri-Dagān [wrote me] to Mari [say]ing: [I heard] the things [that] were done [in the temple of Dagān], thus they/he s[aid to me]: ¹⁰‘Bene[ath the straw] the water flows! He went, the god of my lord, he delivered his enemies into his hands’. Now ¹⁵a muhhum is calling repeatedly in the same way as before. This Kibri-Dagān wrote me …¹⁵

Line 5. Kibri-Dagān is the governor of Terqa.

Line 15. muhhūtum, muhhûm¹⁶ is from the root mahûm, ‘to become frenzied, to go into trance’.¹⁷ The word is equated in a commentary of šumma ālu with šegû: to be wild, to rave.¹⁸ Indeed, in a passage from Hosea we read (Hos. 9.7): ‘The prophet is mad, the inspired fellow is raving’.

Let us sum up the information we have gathered from the three letters concerning the prophecies against a peace with Ešnunna. The prophecies are delivered by three kinds of prophets of Dagān of Terqa: a qammatum, an āpilum and a muhhum, who promise that Zimri-Lim will defeat his enemy. The prophecies were delivered in Terqa and Tuttul. The question I would ask here is why the clergy of Dagān object to the peace treaty with Ešnunna. As we are dealing with pagans nobody will pretend that ‘The secret things belong unto the Lord our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and our children for ever’ [Deut. 29.28]. There must be a logical explanation for their objection. It would be out of the question to suppose that they had better information than the king of Mari, or that they had spies in the court of Ešnunna, who revealed to them the real intentions of the king of Ešnunna. In the documents published so far I have found no explanation for their attitude. The only explanation I can suggest is based on the fact that the prophets insist that Zimri-Lim will act only after he has consulted the god. It seems to me that the clergy of Dagān, the god of the Middle Euphrates, wants to insure its influence on Zimri-Lim by obliging him to act only after having consulted the god through them and thus securing the prominent position of their temple in the Kingdom of Mari.

Future events show that the prophets were right and that Zimri-Lim was wrong. After few years of peace between Ešnunna and Mari, in 1765-1764 bce Ešnunna accompanied Elam in once again invading the area in the south of Jebel Sinjar.¹⁹

Let us turn now to the Bible. Here we find many examples of prophets trying to intervene in the foreign affairs of the state. I will look at one in particular which has some similarity with the Mari case. In 1 Kings 20 we read that Ben-Hadad, the king of Aram who besieged Samaria, offers Ahab, the king of Israel, a treaty, whereby Ahab will become his vassal (vv. 3, 18). Ahab rejects this offer, a war breaks out and Aram is defeated by Israel. The next year Ben-Hadad goes up to Aphek to fight Israel and again he is defeated by the king of Israel, who captures the city of Aphek. The king of Aram pleads for peace and the king of Israel replies ‘he is my brother’ (v. 32), that is to say a partner in a treaty between equals. The representatives of Ahab reply using the same term, ‘Thy brother Ben-Hadad’ (v. 33). Ahab concludes the conversation with the words ‘I will send thee away with this covenant’. And we read: ‘So he made a covenant with him, and sent him away’ (v. 34). But the prophets opposed this covenant, saying, ‘Thus saith the Lord. Because thou hast let go out of thy hand a man whom I appointed to utter destruction, therefore thy life shall go for his life, and thy people for his people’ (v. 42). Future events showed that once again, as in the Mari case, the prophet proved to be right.

In the Mari case there is not the slightest doubt that the actual order of events was as I have described. In the example from the Bible, on the other hand, it is very likely that we are dealing with a fictitious prophecy, composed perhaps years after the events in order to transmit a theological message: ‘the prophets of the God of Israel are true prophets. They proved that they can predict the future, so, Children of Israel, listen to them and be guided by their instructions’.

Concerning the attitude of the classical prophets to Israel's international treaties, I would like to quote from A. Rofé's Introduction to the Prophetic Literature:

Seeing that the Lord had appointed Assyria as the instrument by which He was to castigate Israel, the Assyrian threat should obviously not be countered by a military pact against her, above all not by an alliance with Egypt (Isa. 28:14-22; 30:1-5, 6-7, 8-14, 15-18: 31:1-3). Isaiah was consistent in his opposition to all political treaties. As early as the year 733 bce, in the days of Ahaz, when the king was about to turn to Assyria for help (Isa. 7-8), the prophet contested this move. The majority of prophets through the generations share this standpoint: Hosea, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, down to Trito-Isaiah who proclaims the sending of envoys and tributes to foreign kings as a sin of the past (Isa. 57:9). This attitude, no doubt, reflects a certain lack of realism on the prophets' part: they demand the state to be administered not by politics but by faith. And even if the end of Israel and Judah seems to have justified the prophetic demand for ‘splendid isolation’, nevertheless it was the coalition headed by Achab which in 853 halted the Assyrian onslaught, thus giving Israel and Judah a respite of some hundred years.²⁰

In this paper I have examined aspects of the role of prophecy in two cultures, second-millennium bce Mari and first-millennium bce Israel, in the belief that such a comparison can lead us towards a better understanding of the phenomenon of prophecy in both these particular contexts and in general.

Notes

1. J.-M. Durand, Archives épistolaires de Mari I/1 (ARMT, 26.1; Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1988), pp. 426-29.

2. In Durand, Archives épistolaires de Mari I/1, p. 396.

3. M. Anbar, Les tribus amurrites de Mari (OBO, 108; Freiburg/Göttingen: Universitätsverlag/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991), pp. 61-62.

4. Cf. Durand, Archives épistolaires de Mari I/1, pp. 396-98.

5. Cf. M. Anbar, ‘La “Reprise”’, VT [Vetus Testamentum] 38 (1988), pp. 385-98; idem, ‘La Reprise’, NABU 103 (1989); add. XXVI 199.30-32, 38-39, 384.19′, 24′; 480.11, 16; A.1025.4, 10 (MARI, VI, p. 337); A.4002.19, 22 (MARI, VI, p. 79 n. 205); A.4026.15-16 (MARI, VI, pp. 49-50); Deut. 1.1, 5; 1 Sam. 6.15; Josh. 24.27; 2 Sam. 24.17 (//1 Chron. 21.17; 2 Chron. 6.12-13; 1 Kgs. 18.31-32a).

6. Cf. ‘La petite tablette’ and ‘la grande tablette’, NABU 98 (1991).

7. D. Charpin, in Marchands, diplomates et empereurs: Etudes sur la civilisation mésopotamienne offertes à Paul Garelli (Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1991), pp. 141-45.

8. Charpin, in Marchands, diplomates et empereurs, p. 163 and n. 60.

9. Charpin, in Marchands, diplomates et empereurs, p. 163 and n. 62.

10. Anbar, Les tribus amurrites de Mari, p. 59.

11. XXVI. 24.10-12.

12. W. G. Lambert and A. R. Millard, Atra-hasīs (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1969), pp. 72-73.

13. Durand, Archives épistolaires de Mari I/1, p. 396.

14. XXVI. 197.

15. XXVI. 202.

16. Durand, Archives épistolaires de Mari I/1, pp. 386-88.

17. CAD, pp. 115b-116a.

18. AHw, p. 1208b.

19. Anbar, Les tribus amurrites de Mari, pp. 67-68.

20. A. Rofé, Introduction to the Prophetic Literature (Hebrew; Jerusalem: Academon, 1992), p. 70 (this is an ‘Authorized Version’, done by the author himself, whom I would like to thank for this translation).