deuteronomy, liz, response

Banyai Banyai at t-online.de
Sun Mar 11 08:05:11 EST 2001


Giuseppe Regalzi wrote:

> My point is the following: if Deuteronomy (or any other book) can
> be consistently dated both on linguistic (if Vincent is right) and
> on historical grounds (e.g. the connection with Josiah's reform),
> then the burden of proof is on anyone who questions this dating by
> invoking a purely conjectural linguistic update: adfirmanti
> incumbit probatio, to use a nice latin formula...

Pure imagination. There is no basis to date the Deuteronomy to Josiahs reform, 
but simple speculation. Adfirmanti incumbit probatio, to use the same latin 
formula.

Since I just pointed you to at least one textual source of Deut. by far older 
than the period of kings, (my mail called "was Michael") there is no burden to 
last upon those asserting its quite early date. 

What concerned linguistic data, you ought have better read my mail on that issue, 
or if not, than answer for yourself the simple question: how do we arrive to text 
canonisation?

Best regards,

Michael Bányai





More information about the b-hebrew mailing list