I think if this subject were studied carefully conservative people would be very concerned with scholars borrowing ideas from archaeology. First, the archaeologists aren't fully agreed on their discoveries. Second, the scholars themselves can't reach a consensus as to how these impact biblical interpretation. Third, from a reformed perspective, the most archaeology could tell us is that there was a common literary form; to jump to the idea that this common literary form tells us something about the content of biblical revelation is liberal. Besides, there are now so many different types of treaty documents which have been discovered, that the scholar can take his pick which one suits his purpose and squeeze the biblical data into the mould of his choice. E.g., the book of Joshua is now called a "land grant."

Kline didn't prove an early date for Deuteronomy. The treaty form dates as far back to Abraham and as far forward as the first century. The most one could determine is that the treaty form is early enough to make an early date for Deuteronomy credible, if in fact Deut. can be shown to possess the same literary features.

__________________
Yours sincerely,


"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."