deuteronomy, liz, response

Giuseppe Regalzi regalzi at
Mon Mar 12 08:11:52 EST 2001

Peter Kirk wrote:

> Others have questioned your historical grounds, so I won't
> repeat their arguments.


> But I still want to question the linguistic grounds. Vince's
> datings are at best relative (not even that if the ordering of
> his stages cannot be proved) unless there are firm historical
> anchors for it. But, if we allow for the possibility of
> orthographic updating during copying, those historical anchors
> become very uncertain - all the more so if we allow such
> updating to continue into the DSS period. The most we can say is
> to date the texts as not earlier than the events descibed in
> them (and even that principle may have to be modified for
> prophetic passages). To put it another way, how do we know that
> Vince's stages are not simply the preferences of individual
> copyists in (say) the 1st century BCE?

If I have understood correctly, Vincent doesn't base his dating on
orthographic details only. I have already shown what reasons lead
me to think that thorough linguistic reworkings were but rarely
undertaken (if at all).

If Vince's relative dating will match other independent datings --
even if only in part -- then we should consider his findings
seriously. Let's wait.



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

More information about the b-hebrew mailing list