DEATH AND RESURRECTION IN COVENANTAL CONTEXT (Hos. VI 2)
QUARTERLY PUBLISHED BY THE
INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATION OF OLD TESTAMENT SCHOLARS
VOL. XVII, No. 2, 1967
“Come, let us return to Jahweh!
For he has torn that he may heal us;
he has stricken, and he will bind us up!
After two days he will revive us;
on the third day he will raise us up,
that we may live before him!
Let us know, let us press on to know Jahweh;
his going forth is sure as the dawn;
he will come to us as the showers,
as the spring rains that water the earth!” Hos. vi 1-3
What resurrection is spoken of in verse two of this “penitential psalm”? Down through the ages commentators have disagreed in their answer to this question. The Targum defined it as the eschatological rising of the Jewish nation. Christian Fathers arrayed the text in their apologetic arsenal of messianic prophecies concerning Christ’s resurrection. Modern authors reject both these interpretations. When offering their own explanations, however, they also go apart into opposing camps. Some maintain that there is no question of death, but of sickness, and that this sickness with its healing should be understood as a metaphor: the nation covered with the sores of sin and punishment will be restored to health by God’s mercy. Others see in our passage remnants of the struggle between life and death so exuberantly celebrated in the Canaanitic fertility cults. The people are thought to wish that their life will be renewed as Baal’s when he gains the victory in the spring time festival.
“Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.” Reckless as it may seem, we will try to propose a new solution for this problematic passage. In our opinion neither the Targum, nor the Fathers, nor the two camps of modern critics do full justice to the text. It would seem that the resurrection referred to derives from covenantal terminology. This covenantal sense may also have implications for our understanding of the New Testament passages that claim prophetic foretelling of Jesus’ resurrection after three days (Lk. xiii 32; 1 Cor. xv 3f).
Rising from Death to Life in the Fertility Cults
A number of expressions in Hos. v. 8 – vi 6 would seem to savour of Canaanitic cult terminology. The lion (v 14) could symbolize death to Hosea’s contemporaries as a well known divinity of the netherworld. Dawn (vi 3) played the role of a benevolent god begotten by ‘El, who intervened at the time of the rainy season. The dew (vi 4), Baal’s own daughter, portrayed to Canaanitic thinking either blessing or the weather’s unstability. Such references are, of course, mere conjectures. The advocates of Canaanitic cult terminology, consequently, will rest the weight of their argument on the resurrection “on the third day”. Gods “rising after three days” have been worshipped not only in the last centuries before Christ (Adonis, Osiris, Attis), but long before Hosea’s time (the Tammuz cult, as practiced in Israel, cf. Ez. viii 14). It is especially this striking resemblance in concept and terminology that inclined some commentators to accept the influence of Canaanitic thought on the people’s prayer. At times it is conceded that the expression, in spite of its cultic origin, may later on have assumed a purely proverbial significance.
What about this comparison with the cults of the dying and rising gods? However attractive it may appear, it cannot be sustained. Two serious arguments militate against admitting influence of these cults on Hos. vi 2. First, in our text there is no question of the dying and rising of a god, but of the death and resurrection of the whole people. The situation bears, therefore, no comparison with the fertility myths quoted, in which the deity undergoes the cultic transformation!
Secondly, Hosea’s whole life was dedicated to the eradication of the fertility cults. Hewould surely not have tolerated to report a prayer which contained notions directly opposed to Jahweh’s characteristic distinctness from such cults! The people’s resurrection on the third day must have derived from another context than that of the fertility rites.
Rising to Life after Sickness and Disease
A different approach is adopted by the commentators who deny any real resurrection to Hos. vi 2. The pi’el of ḥaiah does not only denote the raising to life of dead persons (Is. xxvi 19; Am. v 2), but also sparing other people’s lives or keeping them alive (Num. xxxi 15; Jos. ix 15; Is. vii 15). The qal form of ḥaiah occasionally means no more than “being cured from illness” (Jos. v 8; 2 Kgs. viii 9; xx 7). Similarly, qȗm and its hiphîl can be employed both in a true resurrection to life (Ps. Lxxxviii 11; 2 Kgs. xiii 21; Is. xxvi 19; Am. v. 2) and in the rising from the bed of sickness (Ex. xxi 19; Ps. xli 9; Job xxiv 22; Dt. viii 27). In fact, the Hebrews made no absolute distinction between disease and death; Jahweh’s healing power is often framed in terminology of “reviving”. Moreover, – it is urged – the context does not speak of death, but of sickness, wounds and stripes, of healing and binding up (Hos. v 14; vi 1). For such reasons it is claimed that “the penitential song merely expresses the expectation that the wounded national body will be cured by Jahweh!”. The phrases “after two days” and “on the third day” are taken to be nothing more than a proverbial expression for the immediate future.
It cannot be denied that this explanation of the text has found more support among commentators than the derivation from fertility cults. Yet, its solution is not fully convincing. First of all, the parallelism between disease and death, between healing and reviving, can also be turned against this view: the references to wounds and sickness do not prove that no real death is intended. Secondly, the image of the lion carrying off its prey (Hos.v 14: “and none shall rescue”) implies certain death (Am. iii 12; Jer. ii 30; Joel i 6; Mic. v 8; etc.). Thirdly, Is. xxvi 16-19 and Ez. xxxvii 1-10 adhibit the same verbs to describe the rising to life of a truly “dead” nation: in face of this comparison we do not have sufficient ground to weaken the meaning of the words denoting revival in Hos. vi 2! Finally, it would seem that the expressions “after two days” and “on the third day” are too precise to have mere proverbial value. Some more definite cultic reason would seem to be demanded by its exact formulation.
The terminology of “revival” and “resurrection” in Has. vi 2 has so far failed to find a satisfactory explanation. Derivation from fertility cults seems highly problematic; the metaphor of illness fails to do justice to the force of the terms. The deadlock of disagreement between the two opposing views, the absence of any new resolving insight in the last fifty years, the reluctance of many a scholar to commit himself to a definite statement it all goes to prove that the final solution has not yet been found. It might be fruitful to attempt an entirely new approach.
Killing a King and Dethronement
In the vassal treaty between Mursilis II and Manapa Dattas, the former reminds his subject of his troublesome past:
“You, Manapa Dattaš, were left by your father as a minor
and you were only a boy ….
your brothers tried to kill (you) frequently
and they did kill you (but you)
escaped and (they drove you) out of the (land of the River Ṣeḥa).”
Apparently, the dethronement of a king, or, perhaps, the prevention of a prince to ascend the throne is described as “killing” that person, even if bodily life be spared to him. A similar instance is provided by the vassal treaty between the same Muršiiliš II and Kupanta dkal:
“At one occasion Mašḥuiluwaš’ brothers caused him trouble.
They killed him and drove him out of the land.
He came to my father’s presence; my father did not reject him.”
Again we find the same terminology of “killing” applied to the deposition of a king.
In the accadic version of the treaty binding Hattušil III and Benrešina of Amurru, the “killing” is done by the suzerain:
“Muwatalli, my brother, killedBentešina, king of Amurru land
Bentešina had (namely) usurped the throne of the kingdom of Amurruland.
Muwatalli, my brother, removed Bentešina, king of Amurru land, from the kingship over Amurru land. He led him captive to the Hatti land.”
There may be another reference to such “killing” by the king of Hatti in the prologue of Šuppiluliuma’s treaty with Mattiwaza:
“The people of Gurtališša, of Arawanna, etc. etc ….
had made a rebellion during the time of my father.
But the Sun, Šuppiluliuma, the suzerain, the hero,
the king of Hatti, the favourite of Tešub, has
The actual defeat of the rebels is only described later in verses 19-24; the “killing” meant here would seem to refer again to the “deposition” of the vassals.
The four instances cited would seem to point to the existence of the term “killing” as a technical circumscription for “deposing a king”. The word used for killing in the third example (mi-i-it) does not easily convey the sense of defeat. Moreover, “killing” is put in perfect parallelism with “removing from the kingship”. In the first two instances, likewise, “killing” is accompanied or paralleled by “driving out of the land”. And how much this “driving out of the land” be connected with the rejection of a king can be seen from this omen: “A prince who was driven out, will return and ascend to the throne of his father!”. Also the context would bear, if not suggest, that the “killing” be taken as the legal act of deposing a king (celebrated with rites?!) rather than an armed defeat, in each of the four cases.
This technical meaning of “killing” a king may underlie a number of other frequent turns of speech in treaty terminology. “To seek to kill the king” and “to want to have another Lord” are absolutely equivalent. “Kill your Lord and let another replace him” is the revolutionary slogan feared even in later days. The hittite Overlord frequently stressed that his vassals should not say in a period of revolution: “I am bound by the treaty; but whether the enemy kills him or he kill the enemy I cannot know.” The phrase may express indifference regarding the suzerain’s military successes or failures, but may it not also signify: “Bound as I am by treaty I will not depose the suzerain; but whether he is no longer recognized as king by his enemy or his enemy by him is none of my business!”
The actual death of a king or his military defeat are, of course, so intimately linked with his official dethronement, that it is difficult to draw a clear-cut line of distinction between them. In fact, the origin of the expression might derive from the connection between the official decision to dethrone the king and the violent steps taken to put
this decision into effect. Both stages of the dethronement would seem to fall under “killing a king”.
Raising a Dead Vassal to Life
Bentešina, king of Amurru, had rebelled against the hittite Overlord. Muwatalli, then suzerain of Hatti, “killed” him (see text above) and led him away as captive. Hattušil III, Muwattali’s brother, restored Bentešina to the royal status and gave him his own daughter as queen. In a letter to the suzerain Bentešina is then quoted as making the following acknowledgement:
Me, a dead person, ( ) in the Amurru land
on the throne of my father you have restored me ….
You raised me to life.”
The context and the parallel phrases prove beyond dispute that the restoration of a vassal to his throne is described as “raising him from death to life”.
Tušratta, king of Mitanni, had been involved in a war with Hatti. After Tušratta’s downfall in a local revolution, his son Mattiwaza, who had been involved in the rebellion, was forced to leave the country on account of the military action of Šuttarna, son of Artatama, Overlord of Harri. Mattiwaza flees to Šuppiluliuma and requests to be restored to his royal dignity as a vassal of Hatti:
“If you, my Lord, raise me to life and the gods
come to my support, may then the Suzerain, king of Hatti land …. not change Artatama from the throne of his kingdom. But I want to put myself under (the Suzerain’s) service and govern the Mitanni land.”
The king of Hatti granted the request and made the following promise:
Tesub has decided his judgement case.
I will lift Mattiwaza …. with my hand and make him sit on the throne of his father.
In order that Mitanni, that great country, may not perish, the Suzerain, the Icing of Hatti, has raised the Mitanni land to life for the sake of his
daughter (Mattiwaza’s wife)”.
The fulfilment of the promise is recorded in similar terms:
“and I, the Suzerain, king of Hatti, the dead country Mitanni I raise to life; I restore it to its old position!”
The vassal and his country which had been “dead” to the king on account of the rebellion, are reinstated in the royal favour. This reconciliation, this restoration of vassal relationship is covered by the term: “raising the dead vassal (or country) to life”.
Two more instances of this terminology are found. In one fragmentary text Šuppiluliuma seems to say: “Tette …. him, a dead person, (I raise to life); to his country I let him go”. In another text we read:
“And when Tušratta, the king, had died, Tešub decided the judgement case in favour of Artatama and
his dead son Artatama he raised to life.”
The implication seems to be that Artatama sought reconciliation with the king of Hatti after Tusratta’s death. It was granted him after a favourable oracle from Tešub.
The Resurrection of the Vassal and Fertility
It should not be supposed that the “raising of the dead vassal to life” be equivalent to “granting him life”. The latter expression seems to refer to the more immediate preservation of a rebel’s life in the course of the war. In this way Manapa Dattaš is “granted life” by Muršiliš II. Ashurbanipal grants life to rebels such as Necho, Abate and Uate, of whom only the first two are restored to kingship. The same implication might be in Jarim-Lim’s words to Jašub Jaḥad : “I gave life to your country and to yourself’” and in Hammurabi’s titles: “Who gave life to Adab …. to Maškanšabrim”. In all these cases life in the sense of bodily integrity seems to be the centre of interest.
The expression “raising a dead vassal to life” certainly includes the preservation of bodily health too. Yet, its fuller meaning- may rather derive from the suzerain’s function of communicating fertility to the vassal’s land. J. GRAY has drawn attention to the king of Ugarit’s function of dispensing fertility to his land. The kings of Sumeria, Babylon, Assyria and Egypt enjoyed priestly functions in rites ensuring the prosperity and fertility of the land. In an account justifying Cyrus’ claim on the throne, Marduk is said to look for a good ruler who will preside over the New Year’s Festival. For the actual ruler neglected his feasts and the “inhabitants of Sumer and Accad had had become like dead”. After Cyrus’ peaceful conquest of Babylon, his reception is described as follows: “Happily they greeted him as a master through whose help they had come (again) from death to life”. The ruler’s first task, consequently, was to dispense “life”; the reconciling power of Cyrus, the new king, raised the people from death to life! Also the king of Hatti was chief priest. His presence at the main fertility festival, called purulliyas, was so necessary that Muršiliš II interrupted a campaign and returned to his capital to preside over it in person. At this festival cult legends of the death and revival of nature were enacted. The hittite king himself, when performing cultic rites, wore the distinctive costume of the Sun god, who was one of the main fertility gods. In short, the king was generally believed to dispense life and prosperity to his subjects.
This mediating function had also political importance. It gave the king special power over his subjects. Rebellion against the king is thought to bring about the king’s curse of disease, infertility and death, as the Soldiers’ Oath clearly illustrates. The ceremonies of the oath pronounce an “a priori” authoritative curse in case of disobedience. The vassal treaties – which have essentially the same thought pattern as the oath – are likewise sanctioned by series of authoritative blessings and curses, which – as the case may be – will spell fertility or infertility. “Raising a dead vassal to life” would, consequently, imply that the suzerain, reinstating him as the ruler of the vassal country, grants him the full blessing of life and fertility that he as sovereign can communicate to his subjects. This is especially evident when there is mention of “raising a dead country to life”. Physical death is well-nigh excluded in this case: the expression refers to the life of fertility and prosperity inherent in the vassal relation to the suzerain!
Covenantal Resurrection in Hos. vi 1-3
The brief public prayer preserved in Hos. vi 1-3 should – we submit – be understood in the light of this ancient, international covenant terminology. The people express the hope that in spite of their defection Jahweh will “revive them again” by renewing the pact. Internal evidence of the passage itself supports this suggestion.
The whole context of the passage concerns the treaty with Jahweh. In the Syro-Ephraemitic war Israel did not turn to the Lord for help, but called in Tiglath Pileser. Hosea says scornfully: “Ephraim sent to the “malki rib” “(suzerain?)”. The implication is obvious: Israel left Jahweh, its legitimate Overlord in the Covenant, to seek recognition from this new “suzerain”. Such action is high treason for a vassal! Small wonder that the legitimate sovereign indignantly decides to “kill his vassal”: “I will be like a lion to Ephraim!” (Hos. v.14).
The peculiar features of the prayer also suggest that its contents have a covenantal bearing. K. BALTZER has illustrated that confessions of sins spoken by the whole people find a natural setting in the renewal of the Covenant after a breach. The characteristics of such covenantal prayers for renewal: confession of guilt, acknowledgement of the suzerain’s justice, recalling his former benefits, requesting forgiveness and help in the present emergency, seem all, at least implicitly, contained in the text. Or, perhaps with more precision one could state that our passage constitutes the exhortation that preceded the actual confession of guilt, closely resembling the exhortation preceding public prayer in Joel ii 13-17.
The covenantal import of the passage is, moreover, borne out by the terminology employed. There is the term sub, “to return”, which is the classical expression for a change of loyalty on the part of Israel or God. In covenantal usage it may either denote apostacy or repentance when said of Israel. Here the context demands the sense of reconciliation: “Let us return to Jahweh” (vi 1), which, therefore, could be rendered as: “Let us submit again to Jahweh’s Covenant”. “Let us know (yadaᶜ) Jahweh” (Hos. vi 3) runs parallel to the former expression. The main contents of this knowledge of J ahweh is made up by the covenant and its implications. The much disputed phrases “after two days” – “on the third day” (Hos. vi 2) may derive from the covenantal custom of celebrating the pact “in the morning on the third day”. Equally covenantal may be Hos. vi 5 if we take the verse to make an allusion – to the Decalogue: “Therefore I engraved it (i.e. the Decalogue) by the prophets, I instructed them by the words (debarim) of my mouth!”. The “words” of a covenant are its stipulations.
Taking into account both the extra-biblical evidence and the indications in the passage itself, it seems justified to conclude that the resurrection spoken of in the passage has to be interpreted as covenantal language. In Hos. vi 2 Jahweh is said to “revive” and “raise” his people when “on the third day” he will renew his covenant with them. This renewal is called a “raising from death to life” because it will restore the reign of blessing and fertility that are consequent on and inherent in good covenantal relations. Just as the king is considered to be for his subjects
“like rain that falls on the mown grass,
like showers that water the earth,” (Ps. lxxii 6)
so Jaweh will again come to Israel
“as the showers,
as the spring rains that water the earth”. (Hos. vi 3).
This covenantal interpretation of the text provides a very acceptable solution for the enigmatic phrases “to revive” and “on the third day”. It also does full justice to the context. It harmonizes well with the allusions to fertility. It fits in with Hosea’s theological themes.
Death and Resurrection as Covenantal Terminology
The covenantal implication of the words “to die” and “to live”, to “kill” or “to raise to life”, may also be transparent in other prophetic texts. It certainly may underlie Hosea’s exclamation: “Ephraim …. incurred guilt through Baal and died” (Hos. xiii 1), or in passages speaking of Jahweh’s “killing” Israel (Hos. ii 3; ix 15) or “redeeming it from death” (Hos. xiii 14). In a parody on a well known song of mourning Amos also may be singing of the people’s covenantal death and the revival promised to those who seek Jahweh in a renewed covenant (Am. v 2, 4, 6, 14). Renewal of the covenant would seem the object of prayers requesting the “revival” of the nation (Ps. lxxxv 7; Ps. lxxx 19; Ez. xxxiii 10-16; Ezra ix 8f.). Particularly the two divine promises of a national resurrection (Is. xxvi 19; Ez. xxxvii 1-14) would seem to speak of the New and lasting Covenant to be concluded in messianic times. Prudent and detailed research may be able to trace other remnants of this ancient terminology.
We cannot refrain from pointing out another possible consequence that may flow from recognizing covenantal terminology in Hos. vi 1-3. It has been proved beyond doubt that the ancient treaty formulary was still known and practiced in Christ’s days. The New Testament shows that the Saviour’s death and resurrection were seen as the accomplishment of the New Covenant. Other early Christian writings confirm this. Besides, it was maintained that all those baptized partook of Christ’s death and rose with him (Rom. vi 1-11; 1 Cor. xv 20ff; etc.). Small wonder then that Christ’s rising “on the third day” was considered of paramount importance (18 times in the NT): apart from it being the natural day to conclude the covenant, it was in harmony with the prophecy of Hos. vi 1-3 which held out the promise of the messianic revival “on the third day”!. In spite the absence of explicit references to Hos. vi 1-3, the New Testament may well presuppose this prophecy whereever it mentions Christ’s resurrection on the third day. And it may be they did have Hos. vi 2 in mind when they claimed that it happened “in conformity with the scriptures” (Lk. xxiv 46; 1 Cor. xv 4)!
 R. MARTIN-AcHARD, From Death to Life, Edinburgh 1960, p. 78.
 “He will cause us to live again on the Day of Consolation appointed for the dead. On the Day of Resurrection he will make us stand up”. Cf. R. MARTIN- ACHARD, ib., p. 86, note 22.
 Tertullian, Augustine, Cyprian, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory the Great, cf. KNABENBAUER-HAGEN, Commentarius in prophetas minores , 1924, vo1. I, pp. 102f.; S. V. McCASLAND, “The Scripture basis of ‘On the Third Day’,” ].B.L. 48, 1929, pp. 124-137. Some more recent authors who defended some kind of “prophetic” sense: C. F. KEIL, Die Zwölf kleinen Propbpten, Leipzig 18883, p. 68; L. C. FILLION, La Sainte Bible Commetée, Paris 1898, 19215, vol. VI, p. 362.
 A fuller expose with further literature is provided by R. MARTIN-AcHARD, o. c., p. 84.
 W. VON BAUDISSIN, Adonis und Esmun, Leipzig 1911, pp. 403 ff.; S. H. LANGDON, Tammuz and Ishtar, Oxford 1914; W. F. ALBRIGHT, “The Goddess of Life and Wisdom”. A.J.S.L. 36, 1920, pp. 258-294; A. BAUMGARTNER, “Der Auferstehungsglaube im alten Orient”, Z. M. R. xlviii 1933, pp. 103-214; F. NOTSCHER, “Zur Auferstehung nach drei Tagen”, Bibl. 35, 1954, pp. 314 ff.; W. F. ALBRIGHT, From the Stone Age to Christianity, Anchor 19572, pp. 192 ff.
 W. VON SODEN, “Sterbende und Auferstehende Getter”, R.G.G.3, vol. I, pp. 688 f.; H. G. MAY, “The fertility cult in Hosea”, A.J.S.L. 48, 1931/32, pp. 73-78; T. H. ROBINSON, Hosea (HAT 14), Tubingen 1938, p. 25 (“das sich vielleicht aus der Kultus des Adonis erklärt”); A. WEISER, Hosea (ATD 42), Göttingen 1949, p. 44 (“die aus der Kult der sterbenden und wiederauferstehenden Vegerationsgötter entlehnt zu sein scheint”).
 W. BAUDISSIN, O.C., p. 410; R. MARTIN-ACHARD, O.C., p. 83; H. W. WOLFF, Dodekapropheton (BK 14), Neukirchen 1961, p. 150.
 F. NOTSCHER, o.c. (see note 5), p. 313 ff.; H. W. WOLFF, O.C., p. 151 ff.
 D. DEDEN, De kleine profeten, Roermond 1953, p. 48; cf. also A. WEISER, o.c. (see note 6), ib.
 H. W. WOLFF, o.c. (note 7), p. 149.
 D. DEDEN, O. c. (note 9), ib.;; K. MARTI, Das Dodekapropheton (KHC 13), Tübingen 1904, p. 53; J. J. STAMM, “Eine Erwägung zu Hos. vi 1-2”, Z.A.W. 57, 1939, pp. 26 ff.
 K. MARTI, ib.; H. W. WOLFF, ib., p. 149; according to F. KONIG (“Die Auferstehungshoffnung bei Osee 6/1-3”, Z.K.Th. lxx 1948, pp. 94-100, here p. 96f.) qȗm itself never indicates rising to life, but the “standing up” that necessarily accompanies it. Dying and falling to the ground, being alive and standing on one’s feet are inseparably linked in the Hebrew mind. See also D. DEDEN, l.c. (note 9).
 R. MARTIN-ACHARD, O.C. (note 1), p. 60.
 G. OSTBORN, Yahweh and Baal. Studies in the book of Hosea and related Documents, Lund 1956, p. 75.
 D. DEDEN, O.C. (note 9), ib.
 H. W. WOLFF, O.C. (note 7), p. 150; see also J. WELLHAUSEN, Die kleinen Propheten, 1898, p. 115; K. MARTI, O.C .. p. 53; A. BERTHOLET, The American Journal of Theology XX 1916, pp. 9 fr.; J. J. STAMM, Z.A. W. 57, 1939, pp. 26 ff.; D. DEDEN, O.C. (note 9) ib.
 J. J. STAMM, H. W. WOLFF, D. DEDEN, l.c.; they refer to Jan. i 17; 2 Kgs. xx 5; 1 Sam. xxx 12.
 R. MARTIN-ACHARD, O.C. (note 1), p. 81.
 S. L. BROWN, The Book of Hosea, London 1932, p. 56.
 F. NOTSCHER, Altorientalischer und alttestamentlicher Auferstehungsglaube, Wurzburg 1926, p. 145.
 J. FRIEDRICH, S taatsuerträge des Hattireiches in hethitischer Sprache, (MV AG 34,1), vol. n, Berlin 1930, p. 21 f.; par. 1, v. 2-6.
 Another possible translation might be “a sick person”; cf. K.U.B. I 16 = 2 Bo Tu 8 I 2, where “irmalaš” refers to illness; FRIEDRICH, l.c., p. 21.
 FRIEDRICH translates it as an unfulfilled clause: “sie hatten dich auch getotet'”; but he admits that this translation is only to suit the context, p. 22.
 FRIEDRICH, o.c., vol. I 1926 (MVAG 31, 1) pp. 107 f.; par. 2, D3-D5.
 FRIEDRICH translates “ku-en-nir”: “sie schlugen ihn”, i.e. they beat him, defeated him. In a note on p. 152 he admits that the normal meaning of “ku-en” is “to kill” (cf. Laws Il 85 fr, A.N.E.T. p. 193), although it might also mean “to defeat” (on the strength of K.Bo III 4 i 28 and this text). He derives this double meaning from the indogermanic root guhen with the double signification of θεινειν to beat and πεφνειν to kill. He also points to the parallel use of the word “daku” in accadic. It would seem, however, that in the light of the parallel terminology there is not sufficient reason to deviate from the first meaning “to kill”.
 E. F. WEIDNER, Politische Dokumente aus Kleinasien, Die Staatsverträge in akkadischer Sprache aus dem Archiv uon Boghazköi, Leipzig 1923, p. 127, Recto 11-13.
 The accadic text reads “mi-i-it”. WEIDNER translates: “hat ihn fur tot erklärt”‘, i.e. he declared him to be dead. He justifies this rendering with a reference to BÖHL, Th.Tijd. L., p. 208 (which is not available to me), but he admits its uncertainty. In verse 22 of the same treaty Bentešina says: “me, a dead person, you raised to life”. Although “to declare dead” surely conveys the meaning, we prefer the simple translation “to kill” for the comparison of terminology.
 WEIDNER, o.c., p. 5, Recto 11, 13 f.
 “Daku” literally means “to kill”. It is true, however, that the context occasionally seems to require the meaning “to defeat”, cf. K. B( 7 I 30 (A.N.B.T. p.202).
 KuB VIlli II 7 f; cf. FRIEDRICH, vol. I (note 24), p. 167.
 The treaty of Muršiliš II and Targušnalliš, FRIEDRICH, vol.I (cf. note 24), pp. 59 ff., par. Viii 41-45; the treaty of Muwattalliš and Alakšanduš, FRIEDRICH, vol. Il (cf. note 21), p. 57, par. A 60-68.
 The treaty of Bar-ga’ayah with Mati’el, stele III 22; cf. D. J. MCCARTHY, Treaty and Covenant, Rome 1963, p. 194; cf. also pp. 192 ff. Striking is also the parallelism in the submission made by Yam: “I am dead. Baal will reign” (text 68 : 32 and 34; “ym lmt bᶜIrn ymlk”; A.N.E.T. p. 131). H. L. Ginsberg observes that the Sea actually did not seem to be dead, as we still find him active afterwards (ib.). Here again we may have an example of a king (Sea) being called “dead” because he has been dethroned. The perfect parallelismus membrorum of Ugaritic verse seems vindicated once more (see C. H. GORDON, Ugaritic Text- book, Rome 1965, p. 2)!
 Muršiliš II – Duppi Tešub, FRIEDRICH vol. I (note 24), p. 30, par. ix; Hattušil III – Bentešina, WEIDNER, p. 133, Verso 7-11; Šuppiluliuma – Tette, WEIDNER, p. 63, col. Il 26-29.
 A. GOETZE understands it in this way, A.N.E.T. p. 204.
 Hattušil III – Bentešina, WEIDNER, pp. 127 f., Recto 16-12.
 WEIDNER, p. 129, Recto 22-24; the introductory formula shows it to be the quotation from a letter, cf. WEIDNER, ib. note 5.
 “(d)u-ub-ta (al-l)i-ta-an-ni”.
 Mattiwaza – Šuppiluliuma, WEIDNER, p. 43, Recto 28-30.
 Šuppiluliuma – Mattiwaza, WEIDNER, p. 19, Recto 56 f.
 Raising to life: uh-ta-al li-iz-za”.
 Šuppiluliuma – Mattiwaza, WEIDNER, p. 25, Verso 22.
 “mat Mi-it-ta-an-i-i mi-ta u-hal-lu-zu”.
 Šuppiluliuma – Tette, WEIDNER, p. 67, Col. III v57 f.
 “u mar-su Ar-ta-ta-ma mi-ta uh-ta-al-li-iz-zu'”; Šuppiluliuma – Mattiwaza, WEIDNER, p. 15 f, Recto 48 f.
 FRIEDRICH, vol. Il (see note 21), p. 9, col. I 41 f.
 Rassencylinder, cf. A.N.E.T. pp. 295, 298, 300.
 The Letter of Jarim Lim, v. 10; G. DOSSIN, Syria XXXIII 1956, p.66.
 The Code of Hammurabi, Prol. III 64, IV 1; A.N.B.T. p. 165.
 J. GRAY, “Canaanite Kingship in Theory and Practice”, V.T. II 1952, pp. 192-220; “Cultic affinities between Israel and Ras Shamra”; Z.A.W. 62, 1949/50 pp. 214 ff.; “The Rephaim”, P.E.Q.S. 1949, pp. 127-139.
 C. J. GADD, Ideas of Divine Rule in the Ancient East, London 1948, pp. 39 ff.
 A.N.E.T., pp. 315 f.
 O. R. GURNEY. The Hittites, London 1962, pp. 152 ff.; cf. 65 ff.
 The myth of Illuyankas, and perhaps also the Telepinus myth, cf. O. R. GURNEY, O.C., pp. 180 ff.; A.N.E.T., pp. 125 ff.
 O. R. GURNEY, o. c., p. 66.
 O. R. GURNEY, o.c., pp. 137, 162, 184 ff.
 A.N.E.T., pp. 353 f.
 G. M. TUCKER, “Covenant Forms and Contract Forms”, V.T. XV 1965, pp. 487-503, esp. 495: “the treaty form is a refined oath formula”.
 Treaty of Šuppiluliuma with Mattiwaza, Recto 56 f, Verso 22; E. F. WEID- NER, o.c. (see note 26), pp. 19 and 25.
 A. ALT, “Hosea 5.8 – 6.6. Ein Krieg und seine Folgen in prophetischer Beleuchtung”, N.K.Z. XXX 1919, pp. 537-568; also in: Kleine Scbriften, vol. II, München 1953
 At least if we vocalize the text “as malki rabh”, as many commentators do (cf. also Ps. xlviii 3).
 K. BALTZER, Das Bundesformular, Neukirchen 1960, p. 64 if.; see also J. HARVEY, “Le ‘Rib-Pattern’, Requisitoire sur la rupture de l’Alliance”, Bibl. 43, 1962, pp. 172-196, here pp. 194 ff.
 J. WI]NGAARDS, The Formulas of the Deuteronomic Creed, Tilburg 1963, pp. 50 f.
 W. L. HOLLADAY, The Root Šubh in the Old Testament with particular reference to its usage in covenantal context, Leiden 1958, Chapter iv, esp. p. 116.
 H. W. WOLFF, ” ‘Wissen um Gott’ bei Hosea als Urform von Theologie”, Ev. Th. xii 1952/53, pp. 533-554.
 W. BRUEGGEMANN, “Amos iv 4-13 and Israel’s covenant worship”, V.T. XV 1965, pp. 1-15, esp. pp. 6 ff.
 H. SCHMIDT, “Hosea 6/1-6”, Sell in Festschrift, 1927, p. 120.
 W. BEYERLIN, Herkunft und Geschichte der ältesten Sinailraditionen, Tübingen 1961, pp. 63,93 ff.; see also the distinction between “debarîm” (apodictic law) and “mišpaṭîm” (profane law) worked out by J. L’ HOUR, “L’ Alliance de Sichem”. Rev. Bib. 49, 1962, pp. 364 ff.
 K. BALTZER (o.c., see note 63, pp. 105-183) traces the treaty formulary in seven documents round the start of the Christian era (including the Didache, the letters of Barnabas and Clement).
 For explicit references see Mt. xxvi 28; Mk. xiv 24; Lk. xxii 20; 1 Cor. xi 25; Hebr. vii – x.
 The Letter of Barnabas (136 AD?) contains this phrase: “Our Lord Jesus was ordained to liberate from the darkness our souls which were a prey of death and subject to the iniquities of ignorance, and to establish in us the Covenant through his word.” (xiv 5). The context speaks of Christ’s death and resurrection; notice how the liberation from the darkness of death and the Covenant go hand in hand. See also iv 7 f., v 1 f., v 6 f.; D. FRANSES, De Apostolische Vaders, Hilversum 1941, pp. 21 ff.
 It would seem that Hos. vi 3 is quoted in the Qumranic Hymn iv 6 in immediate connection with the Covenant; cf. TH. H. GASTER, The Dead Sea Scriptures, New York 1956, p. 142.
 S. V. MCCASLAND (l.c. (see note 3)) has pointed out that neither the First Century Jews nor the earliest Christians ever linked Hos. vi 2 explicitly to the resurrection. At least, no evidence of such a connection has been found.