Another example in the Torah of evidence of second millennium authorship rather than first millennium is the form of treaties that were used in Moses day recorded by Moses in the Book of Deuteronomy. George Mendenhall, in 1954, published an article in which he described the ancient suzerainty (sovereign) treaties. In this article he described the similarities between these treaties and the treaty forms described in the Book of Deuteronomy. A typical Hittite Suzerainty treaty of the second Millennium B.C. contained the following information:

1. Preamble or title, identifying the author of the covenant.

2. Historical prologue or retrospect, mentioning previous relations between the two parties involved; past benefactions by the suzerain are a basis for the vassal’s gratitude and future obedience.

3. Stipulations basic and detailed; the obligations laid upon the vassal by the sovereign.

4. (a). Deposition of a copy of the covenant in the vassal’s sanctuary and

   (b). Periodic public reading of the covenant terms to the people.
   

5. Witnesses, a long list of gods invoked to witness the covenant.

6. (a). Curses, invoked upon the vassal if he breaks the covenant and,

(b). Blessings, invoked upon the vassal if he keeps the covenant.

Nearly all the known treaties of the fourteenth/thirteenth centuries B.C. follow this pattern closely^235/92-93 as did the Sinai Covenant in the Book of Deuteronomy which contains the following:

1. Preamble- 1:1-5

2. Historical prologue- 1:6-3:29

3. Stipulations - 4-11 (basic); 12-26 (detailed)

4. (a). Deposition of text - 31:9, 24-26

(b). Public reading - 31:10-12

5. Witnesses - since pagan gods are excluded here, ancient oriental godlists are absent. Moses’ song could have been the witness (31:16-30; 32:1-47), as Kitchen suggests.

6. Curses and Blessings - 28:1-14 (blessings); 28:15-68 (curses); the sequence here is blessings—curses—witness as opposed to the witness—curses—blessings sequence of ancient oriental treaties, possibly due to the different nature of the witness here in Deuteronomy.^235/96-97

K. A. Kitchen, in an article titled, "Ancient Orient, ‘Deuteronism’ and the Old Testament," from his book, New Perspectives on the Old Testament, states:

"There can be no serious doubt. . . that the greater bulk of Deuteronomy coincides very closely indeed with the fourteenth and thirteenth century treaties, even more strikingly than do Exodus and Joshua. The essential difference in literary nature is that the Near Eastern documents are formal legal documents of the covenants concerned, whereas Deuteronomy is cast as the report of an actual ceremony of renewing a covenant in acts and speech."^255/8

Meredith G. Kline, in an article titled,"Dynastic Covenant," expresses the same conclusions:

"In the light of the evidence now surveyed, it would seem indisputable that the Book of Deuteronomy, not in the form of some imaginary original core but precisely in the integrity of its present form, the only one for which there is any objective evidence, exhibits the structure of the ancient suzerainty treaties in the unity and completeness of their classic pattern."^240/41

D. J. McCarthy has done the most thorough examination of the ancient treaties in his scholarly work titled, Treaty and Covenant. He identifies himself more with the radical critics, but on this subject of the treaties he said the following:

"Is there, therefore, a text in the Old Testament which exemplifies with sufficient fullness the treaty form? For an affirmative answer we need only look at the basic elements of the Book of Deuteronomy."^{256/ 110}

Why am I focusing so much on the treaty form of the second millennium? The Documentarians date Deuteronomy around the seventh century B.C. What is the problem with this? The treaties of the seventh century have no relationship or comparison with the treaties of the second millennium as described in Deuteronomy. The point of this is that the Torah cannot possibly have been written in the seventh century B.C. but shows every evidence of having been written in the second millennium B.C.

As early as 1954, Mendenhall recognized that the covenant type which is found in the second millennium B.C. in Deuteronomy

". . . cannot be proven to have survived the downfall of the great empires of the late second millennium B.C. When empires again arose, notably Assyria, the structure of the covenant by which they bound their vassals is entirely different. Even in Israel, the writer submits that the older form of covenant was no longer widely known after the united monarchy."^242/30

These differences can be outlined as follows:

1. Order

1. The earlier form almost invariably places divine witnesses between stipulations and curses; this is never found in later treaties.^235/95

2. The highly consistent order of the earlier treaties is replaced by more randomness.^235/96

2. Content

1. The customary historical prologue of the second millennium B.C. is totally absent in the later treaties, ^235/95

2. The first millennium B.C. treaties are also lacking in the earlier usage of blessings in conjunction with the cursings.^235/96

What does this all mean? Kline concludes:

"Accordingly, while it is necessary to recognize a substantial continuity in pattern between the earlier and later treaties, it is proper to distinguish the Hittite treaties of the second millennium B.C. as the ‘classic’ form. And without any doubt the Book of Deuteronomy belongs to the classic stage in this documentary evolution. Here then is significant confirmation of the prima facie case for the Mosaic origin of the Deuteronomic treaty of the great King."^240/43

Josh McDowell states,

"Many scholars will allow that archaeology has demonstrated the ‘essential reliability’ of many historical facts within the biblical record, but they still contend that these facts, along with legend and myth were passed ‘orally’ for a millennium or more. But Deuteronomy’s form demonstrates that it had to be written in the middle of the second millennium B.C. Otherwise no account can be given for its literary format."^35/103

All the evidence presented in this book gives strong support for an early date for the authorship of the Torah by Moses and especially for the Book of Genesis within his life time and even previously up to Adam concerning the sources that Moses drew from in putting together the Book of Genesis. This information also confirms that the Genesis creation and flood accounts are the original accounts of these events and that they were not derived from other cultures like the polytheistic (many gods) Babylonian accounts. This evidence also supports the fact that monotheism (one God) was the original religious belief and practice, not a later evolutionary refinement from earlier polytheism. This evidence also falsifies the widespread idea that Genesis 1 and 2 give conflicting accounts of Creation. Also the evidence in this book shows clearly that higher critical later dates for Genesis are not supported by historical andarchaeological documents of cultures of the first millennium B.C. but are more than amply supported by historical and archaeological documents of cultures of the second and even third millenniums B.C. All historical and archaeological evidence points to Moses being the author of the Torah Absolutely.

There are hundreds of examples like this found in archaeology which do not support the Documentary Hypothesis, but do support second millennium authorship of the Torah. But space in this book prevent me from going on to these examples such as geography, practices of worship, diction, names of Egyptian kings, archaisms in language and more which all point to second millennium authorship, not first millennium. Many of these facts are documented in Josh Mcdowell’s book, Evidence That Demands a Verdict, Volume 2.^35/95-120 Not an easy book to read through, but necessary for the honest intellectual and person looking for the truth about the Documentary Hypothesis and what it postulates and what the facts of tangible sciences like Archaeology support concerning the Torah and Moses’ authorship.

1. Lubenow, Marvin L. Bones of Contention. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, © 1992 by Marven L. Lubenow.
2. McDowell, Josh. Evidence That Demands a Verdict. Vol 1. San Bernardino: Heres Life Pub., 1979.
3. McDowell, Josh. Evidence That Demands A Verdict, Vol. 2. San Bernardino: Here’s Life Publishers, 1981.