Josef Schubert, in an interesting book arguing for a very early dating of the book of Deuteronomy, write the following about the purportedly late dating for Deuteronomy due to parallels between other ANE covenants and treaties:
The Deuteronomy Description of the Covenant Displays the Style of Hittite Treaties
The language of Assyrian vassal treaties shows many striking similarities with the language of Deuteronomy. For example, in the loyalty oaths of Esarhaddon, quoted by Römer, we find:
You shall love Assurbanipal . . . king of Assyria, your lord, as yourself.
You shall hearken not to whatever he says and do whatever he commands, and you shall not seek any other king or other lord against him. This treaty . . . you shall speak to your sons and grandsons, your seed and your seed’s seed which shall be born in the future.
The parallels with Deuteronomy 6:4-7 are obvious. Similarly,
If you hear any evil, improper, ugly word which is not seemly or good to Assurbanipal . . . from the mouth of your brothers, your sons, your daughters, or from the mouth of a prophet, an ecstatic, an inquirer of oracles, or from the mouth of any human being at all, you shall not conceal it, but come and report it to Assurbanipal . . . If you are able to seize them and put them to death, then you shall destroy their name and their seed from the land.
The same language is used in Deuteronomy 13. Finally, the curses of Deuteronomy 28:24, 26-28 are found in the vassal treaty of Esarhaddon.
On the basis of such similarities, scholars have concluded that Deuteronomy was composed in the seventh century BCE, either during the time of Hezekiah (eight century, minority opinion) or during the time of Josiah (the prevalent assumption). The authors of Deuteronomy had access to copies of Assyrian treaties (for example, a copy of the treaty between Syria and Judah under Manasseh). The report of the finding of the Torah of Moses was a “pious lie,” based on similar stories from other countries: “The Neo-Assyrian period (more specifically the seventh century BCE) should be regarded as the starting point for the Deuteronomistic literary production.” Kitchen demonstrated that the form of the Pentateuch covenants (Exodus/Leviticus as well as Deuteronomy) follows the style of Hittite vassal treaties (1400-1200 BCE) in the Near East. The elements of these treaties are as follows: the treaty starts with the title (generally the name of the suzerain king), followed by a historical introduction. Then follow the main stipulations of the treat (including the injunction against serving another overlord). Then comes the report of the deposition of the treaty (generally in the temple), of public reading, of the naming of witnesses, and finally a list of blessings and curses. This framework is also found in the Pentateuch descriptions of the covenant. It opens with a title, which is followed by a historical prologue: “Then God spoke all these words: I am YHWH your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery” (Exod 20:1-2); “These are the words that Moses spoke to all Israel . . . to expound this law as follows” (Deut 1:1, 5). Then follow the basic stipulations of the covenant—e.g., the Decalogue (Exod 20:1-17; Deut 5:6-21, as well as the law codices). This is followed by a report on depositing the document in the Ark, by the official reading (calling out aloud) of the treaty’s provision, and by the naming of witnesses, blessings, and curses.
Assyrian treaties, on the other hand, only include the title, witnesses, stipulations, and curses. There is no historical prologue, no public reading of the treaty stipulations, and there are no blessings. This poses no problem for Römer:
Since treaties occur already under the Hittite emperors (second half of the second millennium BCE), some scholars have used this analogy to claim a second-millennium date for Deuteronomy. This apologetic view is impossible: there is no social location during the second part of the second millennium BCE for editing such a document in Judah or Israel (which do not even exist at the time).
Römer is clearly aware of the Hittite treaties. His basic, unproven assumption is that Judah or Israel did not even exist at this time. This premise permits him to ignore the evidence. Römer does not cite the work of Kitchen, who is a noted Egyptologist and documents his statements by citing his sources (Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament, 562 n. 104).
The Deuteronomy list of curses is comprehensive. No other Middle Eastern treaty lists all of them. Let us assume that the Deuteronomy treaty was composed during the reign of Josiah. How was this done? It must have been composed by an extraordinarily gifted author (or authors) who knew Assyrian treaties (presumably a copy of the treaty between Esarhaddon and Manasseh). They copied the seven curses from that treaty, assuming that these curses were standard formulas; then added eighteen more curses which appear in Hittite documents. It would be an extraordinary coincidence if all these old curses were independently invented by those presumed authors. Do we claim that there existed copies of treaties of defunct Hittite civilizations in the royal archives in Jerusalem? This would enable the scribes to copy the fashionable style of the middle and late twelfth century BCE, write historical introductions, describe the ritual of deposing the book in the ark, and also invent some blessings. Such a scenario is, of course, absurd. It is more plausible to assume that the Deuteronomy covenant was established during the sojourn of the desert and that it stresses the solemnity of the occasion by citing all the curses known at that time. The very fact that the covenant versions of the Pentateuch adopt the style of the Hittite treaties and do not use the style of Assyrian treaties proves that they were not written in the seventh century BCE, but during the late second millennium BCE. Of course, this does not imply that the Assyrians copied their treaties from Deuteronomy. Both used a generally known style. (Josef Schubert, Dating Deuteronomy: The Wellhausen Fallacy [Eugene, Oreg.: Wipf and Stock, 2018], 35-37)
