JUNE 2014

MARKING CRITERIA

Examine the idea of covenant, including reference to modern critical views.

1. Links to royal grant and suzerainty treaties of ANE made on the basis of archaeological discovery.

2. The various types illustrated the different relationship between patrons and clients and shed light on Israel’s understanding of its relationship with God.

3. Identification by source critics of different sources/traditions in the Old Testament texts.

4. Claims that the concept of covenant originated in the 8th century as the result of contact with Assyria or in the exilic period.

5. The Abrahamic tradition as a late theological creation, intended to give Israel a sense of identity.

6. View of some Christians that Old Testament covenants prefigure the new covenant of Christ and are incomplete without New Testament insights. (The Biblical Theology Movement / Salvation History)

Students may answer in breadth or depth. Better answers may show awareness of individual scholars/scholarly movements or of the contribution of different types of biblical criticism, though neither is required.

There is no expectation that students will refer to texts other than those set for study, but credit should be given to appropriate use of other texts relating to the topic of covenant.

Maximum level 4 for answers that give no textual exemplification.Maximum top level 4 for answers that make no reference to modern critical views but just focus on the covenant.

[30 marks]

JUNE 2014

AO1: Examine the idea of covenant, including reference to modern critical views.

The idea of covenant (whether Noahic, Abrahamic and Mosaic) lies at the heart of the entire Judeo-Christian identity.

The Mosaic covenant is carefully placed in the narrative, after Yahweh miraculously frees Israel from Egypt, but before they arrive in the Promised Land. It is thus serves as a ‘societal creation narrative’ (Perry).

ANE cultures often included treaties or pacts, both personal pledges of patron and client, and national treaties between sovereign and vassal states. This is demonstrated in the form of extant Hittite treaties. Firstly, a preamble names the founder of the treaty and describes his titles and attributes. (see, Ex 20:2a, where God takes the initiative) Secondly a historical prologue recounts the sovereign’s benevolence towards the vassal. (see. Ex 20:2, recounting how God rescued the people from Egypt.) Thirdly, the articles outline specific demands of the treaty. (cf the Decalogue). Fourthly is an appeal to the gods as witnesses. (cf. Ex 20:20, appealing to the fear of God). Finally, come subsequent blessings for obedience and curses for disobedience. (Cf 20: 5, 7, 12 and Dt 28-29).

Modern critical views of covenant take two major forms. Wellhausen believed the notion of covenant must have developed much later than Moses. It was too advanced, he assumed, to have developed in the second millennium BCE and must have been learned from the more advanced cultures in the first millennium BCE. However, since Wellhausen further archaeological evidence of treaties contemporary to Moses has emerged. “These are not the crude, unsophisticated codes of unenlightened people groups, but show evidence of a far more developed civilization than was often imagined” (Drane).

Secondly, “Heilsgeschichte” separates ‘Salvation History’ into the eras of Israel, of Jesus and of the church. Some would thus see the covenant as defunct because it belonged to an era that has now passed. Wright, however, sees continuity through the stages of Salvation History, as the covenant with Abraham (to bless him with descendants) is extended to Gentiles (who become children of Abraham by faith).

The covenants of Abraham (which refer to faith and circumcision) and Moses (with an emphasis upon law) enabled Israel to commit to a God not simply for political expediency. Instead, they demonstrate a nation’s commitment that transcends the empires and epochs.

JUNE 2014

MARKING CRITERIA‘The idea of the covenant is still significant for religious believers today.’ How far do you agree?

Agree1. The views of modern scholarship, particularly if it is radical, do not

permeate to most religious believers, who often take the Old Testament covenant narratives at face value and see them as expressing the true relationship between God and the believer.

2. Scholarly views about the origins of the concept of covenant etc. do not mean that the idea itself as illustrated in Old Testament narratives cannot be a valid and useful symbol for the believer’s experience of an intimate relationship with the divine.

3. For those who believe the Bible is directly and divinely inspired, the idea of covenant is a timeless truth.

4. Religious practices of both Jews and Christians testify to the idea’s continuing significance. In a post Christendom world, whether we like it or not, the values that shape modern western culture flow largely from the covenant relationships.

Disagree1. For many, the implication of contract at the heart of the relationship

with God is at odds with their personal experience of that relationship. Contracts are to protect you from people you do not trust.

2. The insights of modern scholarship reinforce the idea that the covenant narratives are tied to a particular culture and to a way of thinking that was heavily influenced by the social and political structures of the time. They are extremely context specific, iron age pacts that cannot be applied to the complexities of modern culture.

3. Many who would count themselves as Christian have limited biblical knowledge and theological competence, so the idea of covenant is meaningless.

[15 marks]

JUNE 2014

‘The idea of the covenant is still significant for religious believers today.’ How far do you agree?

We might agree with this statement, firstly, modern scholarship suggests that covenant narratives are tied to a particular political and religious culture. They are extremely context-specific, Iron Age pacts (Gen 17:1) that cannot be applied to the complexities of life today. What can such pacts tell modern believers about smart phones, nuclear weapons and capitalism? This leads to a second major criticism: a covenant is a contract, i.e., an agreement to protect you from people you do not trust. For many, this is inappropriate as a means of relating to the God of gratuitous self-giving love, whose grace is revealed later in the OT narrative. To base God’s character on Iron Age beliefs in leaders who inflict suffering on those who fail to keep the agreement is a grotesque distortion of the God revealed throughout the full Canon of Scripture.

On the other hand, modern scholarly critiques of covenant are not conclusive. Most believers have no awareness of scholarly debate and, as shown above, archaeological findings can undermine scholarly opinion. Secondly, the ongoing strength of Christianity and Judaism today, is evidence enough that covenant relationship on which they are based transcends its Iron Age historical context. According to Perry, in a post Christendom world, the values that subconsciously shape modern western culture flow largely from Judeo-Christian covenant relationships.

In sum, despite the strengths and weaknesses of the statement, it is much easier to find peer-reviewed theological scholars who agree (rather than disagree) with the statement, despite popular intellectual opinion.

JUNE 2013

MARKING CRITERIA

Examine the Old Testament accounts of the Mosaic covenant and of the giving of the Law.

1. Similarities to formats of ANE vassal treaties: Suzerainty / vassal treaties made between suzerain and vassal, not between equal partners: God and Israel not equal partners and made through a representative (Moses).

1. Conditional nature with promises and responsibilities on both sides.2. Importance of occasions highlighted by ritual purification, limits placed

on people, storm etc.3. God taking the initiative with claim to Israel’s loyalty based on the

Exodus experience.4. Election of Israel – uniquely his, kingdom of priests, holy nation.5. Moses the mediator of the covenant.6. Israel’s obligations seen in the Decalogue – its nature as apodictic, a

mix of religious and social laws. This has led scholars such as Wellhausen to argue that the laws originate with different sources. Whilst this may well be true, it is easier

7. Unpacking of some of the laws.

No more than level 4 for purely narrative responses.There is no expectation that candidates should refer to texts other than those set for study, but credit should be given to responses that do make appropriate reference to other texts.(30 marks)

JUNE 2013

Examine the Old Testament accounts of the Mosaic covenant and of the giving of the Law.

The Mosaic covenant is carefully placed in the narrative, after Yahweh miraculously frees Israel from Egypt, but before they arrive in the Promised Land. It is thus serves as a ‘societal creation narrative’ (Perry).

ANE cultures often included treaties or pacts, both personal pledges of patron and client, and national/tribal treaties between sovereign and vassal states. This is demonstrated in the form of Hittite. Firstly, a preamble names the founder of the treaty and describes his titles and attributes. (see, Ex 20:2a, where God takes the initiative) Secondly a historical prologue recounts the sovereign’s benevolence towards the vassal. (see. Ex 20:2, where God declares that he rescued the people from Egypt.) Thirdly, the articles outline specific demands of the treaty. (cf the Decalogue). Fourthly is an appeal to the gods as witnesses. (cf. Ex 20:20, appealing to the fear of God). Finally, come subsequent blessings for obedience and curses for disobedience. (Cf 20: 5, 7, 12 and Dt 28-29).

The Decalogue itself outlines the detailed articles of the treaty. It draws together religious laws and moral laws. (The first four appear to be addressed to relationship with God and the remaining six upon their relationship to fellow Israelites). Wellhausen saw this as evidence that the ten articles of the Decalogue draw upon older sources where religion and morality were separate. However, the social and religious aspects even of individual commandments are not easily separated. Blasphemy, for instance, is not merely a religious offence. It is the claim that one has divine authority for committing human injustice (Perry). The line between religious and social requirements is thus blurred.

Finally, since Israel is called to be a “Kingdom of Priests, a Holy Nation” there is a ritual aspect to the giving of the laws, which required Moses to ‘mediate,’ the priests had to sanctify themselves, and the mountain had to be divided into boundaries (19:22-23). The solemnity of the covenant is thus clearly emphasised in the narrative. All in all the giving of the Mosaic Covenant and the Law, woven into the story of the Exodus and Sinai, provides Israel with a unique blend of self-understanding, societal cohesion and religious devotion.

JUNE 2013MARKING CRITERIA

‘The Law of Moses has no relevance for the 21st century.’ How far do you agree?

No relevance:1. Whole Judaeo- Christian basis of many cultures is weakening and laws

against murder, theft, etc. have a secular basis.2. Ban on graven images not needed.3. Concept of Sabbath rest impractical and outdated.4. Law relating to coveting particularly unrealistic in today’s materialist

world.5. Concept of a relationship with God based on regulations repellent to

some.

Some relevance:1. Mosaic Law central to Judaism.2. Social commandments form basis of Judaeo-Christian cultures.3. Materialism a form of idolatry.4. Respect for families important in a society where dysfunctional families

are common and where elderly parents are often seen as a burden.5. Negative effects of the relaxation of controls on Sunday activities with

life becoming even more hectic – the Sabbath law a pointer to the need for balance.

(15 marks)

JUNE 2013

‘The Law of Moses has no relevance for the 21st century.’ How far do you agree?

The 21st century West is a post-Christendom society, where Judeo-Christian scriptures are no longer influential and in which laws and morals have an increasingly secular basis. Nobody in contemporary society bows down to graven images (Ex 20:4). Equally problematic in our capitalist society is the law against coveting (Ex. 20:17). The entire advertising industry trades upon promoting covetousness, for products to sell, businesses survive and economies to function. Finally, it is repulsive to modern secular society, that our laws should be based upon a relationship with God forged in a barbaric age. What kind of people need a deity to prevent them from committing murder (cf. Ex 20:13)?

Liberation Theologians might argue that Moses’ laws are radically anti-capitalist, challenging the 24-7 mentality as dehumanising to weaker members of society. In this light, Sabbath law demands a liberating political alternative by ensuring weaker members of society are not overworked. Similarly, Barth argued that secularism still worships graven images (e.g., referring to cars as ‘she’). Perry, looks at the damage inflicted by modern advertising, in which he claims that modern citizens are subtly commanded to buy their way out of social unworthiness just as (with indulgences) medieval peasants bought their way out of guilt. Covetousness, in this light, is a relevant prohibition.

In sum, the Law of Moses is largely concerned with human interaction. As such, the issues it raises remain relevant in any society seeking social cohesion.

JAN 2013Outline the features of covenants in the ANE and examine their similarities to OT covenants.

2. Suzerainty / vassal treaties made between suzerain and vassal, not between equal partners: God and Israel not equal partners and made through a representative (Moses).

3. Starts with emphasis on suzerain’s superiority through list of titles: Decalogue begins,‘I am the Lord your God’; God’s superiority stressed in ritual requirements, boundaries set and dramatic nature of theophany.

4. Reminder of goodness show in past as basis on which demands are to be made: reference to Exodus event in 19:4; 20:2.

5. No promise made by suzerain; vassal simply expected to trust overlord on the basis of past history.

6. Conditions on vassal of exclusive loyalty (often in practice seen in annual tribute payment and in provision of military support): requirement in 19:5 (‘obey my voice and keep my covenant’) set out in detail in Decalogue.

7. Formal oath made by vassal: Israel’s assertion 19:8 (also 24:3,7).8. Gods and forces of nature seen as witnesses to covenant.9. Formal structure to treaties:language of Ex 19:3-8 & 20:1-17 also

formal.10.Treaty to be documented and kept in temple with public reading.11.Lists of blessings and curses attaching to keeping / breaking treaty:

hint of this in 20:5-6,12.12.Ceremonial sealing of treaty.13.Royal grant treaties made between king and favoured individual: God

and Abraham.14.King named, along with his titles: God identified as El Shaddai, a title

always connected in Genesis with fertility and promise of descendents.15.Loyalty of the individual is the reason for the grant.16.Nature of loyalty described: ‘walk before me and be blameless’ similar

to language describing individual’s loyalty in royal grant treaties.17.Treaty above all concerned with promises relating to land and dynasty:

promise to Abraham of innumerable descendants and of land of Canaan.

18.Land surveyed, described and list of witnesses / surveyors.19.Land given to future generations, typical language being ‘He sealed it

and gave it to him forever’, and correct identification of them was very important: promise made to Abraham and his descendants; circumcision is the sign of this, seen as delineating who the descendants are.

20.King pledges to protect individual from any who would seize the land; the curses are directed towards them and not him.

21.Disloyalty on part of individual will be punished, but land not taken away from his descendants: continued obedience demanded of Abraham, but covenant is ‘everlasting’.

Maximum marks may be given for answers that deal with only one type of treaty.Although reference to material outside the set texts is not expected, credit should be given appropriate use of texts other than Exodus 19-20, e.g.

the sealing of the covenant in Exodus 24, the list of blessings and curses in Deuteronomy, the J version of the covenant in Genesis 15 and the prelude to the covenant in Genesis 12:1-3. Maximum of low low Level 4 if only an outline of covenant features is given. (30 marks)

Outline the features of covenants in the ANE and examine their similarities to OT covenants.

There were two main types of ANE treaty between states. The first is between states of similar size and power, who seek mutual peace and allegiance against outside enemies. The second is between two unequal parties where one (the suzerain) has power over the other (the vassal). The most relevant ANE covenants are those of the Hittites. Thompson identifies five significant features of these treaties:

Firstly, a preamble names the founder of the treaty and describes his titles and attributes. (see, Ex 20:2a, where God takes the initiative) Secondly a historical prologue recounts the sovereign’s benevolence towards the vassal. (see. Ex 20:2, where God declares that he rescued the people from Egypt.) Thirdly, the articles outline specific demands of the treaty. (cf the Decalogue). Fourthly is an appeal to the gods as witnesses. (cf. Ex 20:20, appealing to the fear of God). Finally, come subsequent blessings for obedience and curses for disobedience. (Cf 20: 5, 7, 12 and Dt 28-29). The most distinctive feature is the ‘apodictic’ (timeless and objective) nature of biblical commands (Ex 20), very different to casuistic (specific to context) requirements found in ANE parallels. This suggests a transcendent quality to biblical covenants and the divine suzerain they seek to honour.

The formal structure of a treaty does not fit directly with the Abrahamic covenant (Gen 15-17), although the features identified above are all present. The preamble, (“I am the Lord your God,”) and the historical prologue (“who brought you from Ur”) are both found in the Genesis 15 (or ‘Yahwistic’) account of the Abrahamic covenant where God takes the initiative. The articles of the covenant are clear enough regarding circumcision (Gen 17:9-14) and the curses and blessings are frequently articulated as Abraham will become the father of many nations. This is somewhat unusual for a suzerain, who being more powerful is under no compulsion to make promises to his inferiors. This distinctive aspect of the Abrahamic covenant does at least hint towards the uniqueness of Yahweh’s relationship with his people.

In each of the cases listed above, God’s power is supreme and requires loyalty, just as the suzerain does of his subjects.

JUNE 2012

To what extent does an understanding of ANE covenants enrich the understanding of OT covenants?

Enriches:1. Suggests that the structure is an artificial creation to reflect Israel’s

experience of God and conviction of being the elect people of God – this deals with the impression otherwise given of a remote God.

2. Helps with understanding the very different nature of the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants.

3. Study of ANE suzerainty treaties highlights the distinctive OT ideas about God’s relationship with Israel.

Does not enrich:1. No place for this type of study in fundamentalist circles.2. There is no universal acceptance of the theories linking OT covenants

to suzerainty treaties and/ or royal grant treaties and theories are often adapted / amended / replaced, so such a study is not helpful.

3. The OT accounts of the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants can be fully understood and appreciated at a deep level as they are simply by thoughtful reading of the text.

(15 marks)

JUN 2012

To what extent does an understanding of ANE covenants enrich the understanding of OT covenants?

The extent to which ANE covenants enrich understanding depends upon one’s hermeneutical approach to the OT.

For fundamentalists the ANE covenants would simply form part of the “historical wrapping” which must be discarded in order to access the divine voice in the Biblical text. Similarly, Heideggerian existentialists (like Bultmann and Barth) would see the OT text as ‘witness’ to the living God with whom the reader is invited to engage, and the historical genre is secondary. In neither case could understanding ANE covenants enrich their understanding of Covenants designed to draw them into direct encounter with the living God (Ex.20:2). Historical questions evaporate in the light of such an encounter.

Others would argue however, that the Bible is a historical document, and consciously or otherwise, understanding historical genres and contexts will always enrich our understanding to a very great extent.. This is demonstrated by the apodictic (timeless and objective) nature of biblical commands (Ex 20), very different to casuistic (specific to context) requirements found in ANE parallels. The Hebrew people, it seemed, employed pagan political practices, in an unprecedented way – making Yahweh himself (rather than a political leader) their ultimate sovereign. This reveals the seriousness with which Hebrews took their relationship with God, and the uniqueness of their relationship with him. Such revelations show understanding ANE parallels enriches our understanding of the OT to the fullest extent. However, Barth claimed that the point of Biblical Law is not only to understand it, but to obey it.

JAN 2012MARKING CRITERIAExamine the concept of covenant found in the Old Testament traditions about Abraham and Moses.

Students might refer to the meaning of the term and/or to Ancient Near Eastern vassal treaties, but the main focus should be on the idea as exemplified in the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants. There is no expectation that students should refer to texts other than those set for study, but credit should be given to appropriate use of other texts.

Abraham1. Initiated by God.2. Covenant with an individual – extending to his family.3. Promissory – land and descendants.4. Father of nations – change of name.5. Depending on understanding of circumcision requirement,

unconditional or conditional.6. Circumcision as the sign of the covenant or as a requirement to be

fulfilled.7. God’s test of Abraham’s faith (demand to sacrifice Isaac) leads to

confirmation of covenant promises.Moses

1. Initiated by God.2. Covenant with the whole people.3. Conditional. 4. Election –seen in act of deliverance and now to be ratified.5. Israel’s obligations laid out in the Decalogue.

No more than Level 4 for purely narrative responses.No more than Level 5 for answers that omit either Abraham or Moses.

(30 marks)

JAN 2012

Examine the concept of covenant found in the Old Testament traditions about Abraham and Moses.

Treaties between sovereign and vassal states, commonplace in ANE, often followed a formal structure. Firstly, a preamble names the founder of the treaty and describes his titles and attributes. (see, Ex 20:2a, where God takes the initiative) Secondly a historical prologue recounts the sovereign’s benevolence towards the vassal. (see. Ex 20:2, where God declares that he rescued the people from Egypt.) Thirdly, articles outline specific demands of the treaty. (cf the Decalogue). Fourthly is an appeal to the gods as witnesses. (cf. Ex 20:20, appealing to the fear of God). Finally, come subsequent blessings and curses. (Cf 20: 5, 7, 12 and Dt 28-29).

The Mosaic covenant is given after Yahweh miraculously frees Israel from Egypt, but before they arrive in the Promised Land. It is thus serves as a ‘societal creation narrative’ (Perry). The same is true of the Abrahamic covenant, even though it involves only an individual. This is because Abraham is the founder of an entire nation, as God promises to make Abraham “extremely numerous”. (Gen 17:2). The very existence of the people of Israel is the fulfilment of a covenant promise.

The change of the recipient’s name (from Abram to Abraham) demonstrates Yahweh’s authority over the individual and thus, of his innumerable offspring (cf Christine Hayes). The formal structure of the Hittite treaty does not fit directly with the Abrahamic covenant (Gen 15-17), although the features are all present. The preamble, (“I am the Lord your God”) and the historical prologue (“who brought you from Ur of the Chaldeans”) are both found in the Genesis 15 (or ‘Yahwistic’) account. The demands are for circumcision (Gen 17:9-14) and the blessings state that Abraham will become the father of many nations (e.g., 17:2, 6, 7).

It is unusual for a suzerain to promise blessings to vassals, who being more powerful is under no compulsion to make promises to his inferiors. According to Bright, this is because God shows grace and favour, to a people still unborn and is thus less ‘conditional’ than the Mosaic covenant.

The covenants of Abraham (which refer to faith and circumcision) and Moses (with an emphasis upon law) enabled Israel to commit to a God not simply for political expedience. Instead, they demonstrate a nation’s commitment that transcends the empires and treaties, and as such were unique in the ANE.

JAN 2012MARKING CRITERIAThe ideas about God found in the traditions about Abraham have no relevance in the 21st century.’ Assess this claim.

Agree1. Idea of God speaking directly to someone/working miracles alien to

21St century thinking.2. Abrahamic traditions full of anthropomorphism.3. Primary concern with ritual purity in Genesis 17 – ‘blameless’ (tamid)

a cultic word and requirement of circumcision.4. Demand to sacrifice Isaac suggests a cruel, capricious and insecure

God.

Disagree1. Transcendence and holiness essential divine attributes.2. Divine mercy seen in the promises made and kept.3. Personal nature of the relationship between God and individuals.4. Universalism – God’s concerns go beyond Abraham and his

descendants.

(15 marks)

JAN 2012The ideas about God found in the traditions about Abraham have no relevance in the 21st century.’ Assess this claim.

Many scholars have argued that the belief in God speaking (to Abraham) and performing miracles (i.e., childbirth in old age) is incompatible with the scientific age, which disregards such stories as irrelevant fairy tales.

Secondly, Abrahamic tradition is yet another example of anthropomorphism, of endorsing a human policy by claiming it has divine provenance. This is demonstrated by the requirement for circumcision (Gen 17), common to several ANE cultures. Its meaning has never been fully understood but it became an absolute requirement for an entire nation.

Thirdly, the Abrahamic story is rooted in a bygone barbaric age. This is shown by God’s requirement for human sacrifice (of Isaac in Gen 22). Dawkins, would see this as cruel and capricious as the God of the NT sacrificing his own son – irrelevant to a world with enlightened sensibilities.

Alternatively, some might claim that since the Abrahamic story speaks of God’s care for future generations (Abraham’s descendants) it therefore transcends its own context. According to Salvation Historians, the texts of the NT narrate how the promise to Abraham extends to Gentiles, and the Abrahamic gene is found not only in the bloodline of Jews but in the faith of all believers. This path from individualism (a personal covenant with Abraham) to universalism (the nations included in that covenant) is the most important aspect of Abrahamic tradition.

There are three Abrahamic faiths in the world today, numbering many millions, all of whom would root their identity in the Abrahamic covenant. There is no validity in the claim that Abrahamic tradition has no relevance today.