seeker

In a recent debate on another site I took the position that The Pentateauch was actually written during the Persian period by an author who fused Judean, Persian and Babylonian legends using Babylonian and Persian historical documents and language to give them credibility. My opponent brought up the notion that form criticism suggests that the Sinai covenant is written in the form of a mid second millenium Hittite suzerrein vassal treaty which suggests a 13th or 14th century date for Deuteronomy.

I'm curious what others here think of this form critcal approach to dating that text.

Just FYI I argued that the 'classic' period of Hittite suzerrein vassal treatis also coincides with the New Empire periond during which the Hittites ruled Babylon with just such a treaty, providing a possible source for a later Persian writer.

rob117

I believe it has been pointed out somewhere that the Hittite vassal treaty has a long post-Hittite history in the Near East and was still in use in Neo-Assyrian times. And Deuteronomy specifically resembles the Neo-Assyrian form of the vassal treaty. So the Persian period is still too late IMO, but it's closer to the truth than the Late Bronze date your opponent suggests.

Terminology can be used to fool people. The vassal treaty format is called Hittite because the earliest and best-known examples of it are Hittite; in reality it was a generic Near Eastern tradition.

gregor

Hold on, there. You're mixing terms.

The Pentateuch is the first five books.

Do you want to discuss the entire documentary hypothesis for the Pentateuch or just Deuteronomy?

And do you want to discuss Dtr1 (written during Josiah's reign) or Dtr 2 (written thereafter)? The answer according to some is 640 to 609 BCE ref. Friedman/Albright [admittedly subject to challenge].

seeker

rob117 - There are some differences between the Neo-Assyrian version of the first millenium and the Hittite versions of the classic treaty period (mid second millenium).

The classic treaty followed the format:

1) The preamble or titulary
2) The historical prologue or antecedent history
3) The stipulations or covenant terms
4) Provision for deposit in the temple and periodic public reading
5) A God's list or list of witnesses
6) The curses and blessings
7) The taking of an oath.

Neo Assyrian treaties used:

1) Preamble
2) Gods List
3) Stipulations
4) Curses(blessings)

Even Wienfeld had to acknowledge that The Sinai covenent closely resembled the second millenium treaty.

I think you are right though that it's usage was widespread. The Hittites dominated the northern part of the Middle East for a period and Spread the format around but it degenerated over time.

seeker

For right now just Deuteronomy. I'm not so sure though that the DH is still a dominant paradigm in biblical scholarship though. More and more I'm seeing sources talk about a single author working from multiple sources with later redactions.

I like the Persian period for this because it gives the author the widest access to Babylonian history and both Persian and babylonian myths which I contend make up a lot of the Pentateuch and theology of the Jews.