There began a wave of excitement sometime in the 1950s when a number of scholars thought that—if they could think of Deuteronomy as a covenant/treaty document, which, in one sense it was—they could more accurately date the composition of the book by comparing it with the different ANE suzerain-vassal treaties available.1 Two particular kinds of such treaties were seen as important for this task. There was, first, the Hittites treaties from the 12th-11th Cent BC, the time when Moses was thought most likely to have lived. The second were the Assyrian treaties from the 8th Cent BC, during which time Assyria was the major world super-power in the region. If Deuteronomy resembled the Hittite treaties more closely than the Assyrian's then we can be certain that it was composed earlier than what most scholars then dated the book (which was late in the 7th-6th BC).
The debate went back and forth for a while. Conservative scholars tended to see similarities between Deuteronomy and the Hittite ones; the more unorthodox argued the other way round. Despite K. A. Kitchen's still optimistic insistence that Deuteronomy was formulated along Hittite model,2 the debate has largely has turned out results that are ambiguous at best, most scholars are no longer as confident as they used to be. As David Firth points out, ". . . there are problems with any attempt to align Deuteronomy's structure too closely with either Hittite or Assyrian treaties, and it is better to see these as part of the general background material which has been reshaped in the final presentation of Deuteronomy, so that covenant is a ruling metaphor rather than the formal guide to the structure of the book."3 We agree with J. G. Millar in his assertion, "To summarize the debate, it seems fair to say that attempts to establish a distinct ANE treaty genre into which Deuteronomy fits neatly have not succeeded . . . On balance, I am convinced that it is best to abandon attempts to identify Deuteronomy with particular international treaty documents . . ." 4
There are at least two good reasons for this.
First, nowhere in the book of Deuteronomy is Yahweh depicted as a suzerain or Israel as a vassal.
Second, Deuteronomy is cast in the form of a series of homilies, not a formal treaty. Though the idea of a covenant is central to the book, the book self-consciously refers to itself as "the words Moses spoke" and as 'expositions,' rather than a covenant. Recasting Deuteronomy, even if only conceptually, as a treaty document seems like a well-intentioned but misguided idea from the beginning.
Covenant relationship, to be sure, lies at the heart of Deuteronomy; similarities between the book and other ancient treaties should not surprise us. For just as Israel lived surrounded by cultures steeped in idol worship, so she lived also in a world saturated with concepts of covenant and treaty-making. But Deuteronomy was never a treaty document in the same way that the Hittite and Assyrian documents were. Deuteronomy was authoritative for Israel but that authority worked in a dynamic relationship of grace and giving in ways treaties could never hope to, and never did, accomplish.
Low Chai Hok
©Alberith, 2016