Quote:
Originally Posted by R. Scott Clark  Is there something else going on here, behind the question, or is it really just the idea that Moses appropriated ANE treaty forms that troubles?
rsc |
Nothing behind it other than curiosity. I understand what you're saying better. I'm not arguing against terminology for the sake of terminology. I didn't express my concern well.
I do understand what you're saying and can't say that I completely object to it. My concern is that a grammatico-historical process can also be abused as I've seen with some that want to import cultural ideas from Corinth to over-ride what Paul's point is. The culture informs but if the author was being "counter-cultural" in a certain instance then whatever you might learn from the culture might misinform as to the intent.
I think what I was trying to get at with the treaty is that the simililarity in form might be interesting and
might shed new light on the way a portion of Scipture is to be understood but, since it is coming from an outside source and we can't really go back and interview Moses as to why or if he borrowed certain forms or maybe even "cleaned them up" that it could lead to some improper conclusions.
So, when I read about the Royal Grant and Suzerain Treaty stuff I see mostly this kind of formula:
1. This is how the Hittites understood the Royal Grant/Suzerain Treaty.
2. The OT Covenants seem to be cast with a form similar to the ANE treaties.
3. Therefore, we ought to understand the Scriptures the same way the Hittites understood the Royal Grant/Suzerain Treaty.
I just don't see why the conclusion follows as a necessary inference from the premises. Is it not possible that the Hittites and the Scriptures have similar forms but that there is a different manner of understanding underlying the forms.
I'm really not trying to get your hackles up and I don't operate with hidden agendas.