deuteronomy, liz, response

Giuseppe Regalzi regalzi at
Sun Mar 11 16:12:51 EST 2001

Liz Fried 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...
>If I understand Vincent correctly, these two "grounds" don't
>agree with each other.


why not? Vincent wrote:

>what i appear to have at this point is the following: the bulk of
>kings is linguistically similar to amos/isaiah ca.700; whereas,
>the bulk/core of deuteronomy is similar to ezekiel/jeremiah

Hilkiah `found' the Book of the Law in 621 BCE (2Kings 22:3-8).



Giuseppe Regalzi
Via dei Velieri, 83
00121 ROMA RM
regalzi at
Resources for Jewish Studies:

More information about the b-hebrew mailing list