セフイレ碑文における神々の機能

Abstract

To define the correlation of ‘treaty’ with ‘covenant’, the functions of the gods in the Aramaic Inscriptions from Sefire (Sf) are investigated from the religious-historical point of view. It is stated in stele IA lines 7-14 that this treaty was concluded in the Presence of the gods of the contracting parties and the names of the gods as witnesses are listed. In the first half of these lines (11. 7-10) the gods of KTK, an unknown city or territory, are enumerated in pairs, showing clearly the influence of the Babylonian pantheon. The construction of these lines suggests that the Babylonian culture exerted a remarkable influence on KTK. The latter part of the same enumeration lists the gods in Arpad as witnesses (11. 10-12). There both western semitic gods, such as Hadad, 'El and 'Elyon, and natural phenomena were worshipped. Unlike the former enumeration, there is no pair consisting of a god and his consort. To enumerate gods as witnesses in such a way was very prevalent in the Ancient Near Eastern traditions. In Sf natural phenomena were adored as well as gods, but in the OT phenomena listed were limited to only heaven and earth (e. g. Dt. 31:28 etc.). In addition, God appears as the witness to the treaty between Laban and Jacob (Gen. 31:50). These examples show that the function of the gods in Sf is similar to that of God in the OT. There was a traditional thought in Ancient Orient that the transgressors of the treaties were cursed and doomed to extinction by the treaty-gods. A similar type of curses appears in stele IA lines 14-35, in which Hadad plays quite an important role and most curses are closely related with his character as the storm-god. Furthermore, it was essential that the gods themselves conclude the treaty, which means, they were not only witnesses but also parties to the treaty. The following verbal usages are discussed in detail here: sym and nsr. Frequent appearances of the expression 'lhy ‘dy’ or ‘treaty-gods’ emphasize the inseparable connection of Sf with the OT and Ugaritic Literature. My final conclusion is: although there may be no direct borrowings on the part of the OT from Sf, the covenant thought in the OT and the treaty thought in Sf are closely related each other.