Hurvitz argumentation

Vincent DeCaen decaen at
Tue Jun 11 09:48:06 EDT 2002

dear friends,

at the encouragement of some peers, i've decided to write up a piece on 
the hurvitz argumentation.  i hope to have a draft for review up by the end 
of the week.

in the meantime, one of the ironies of his studies, i think, is that by 
arguing against the Wellhausen scheme, and correctly (!), his results are 
also compatible with the minimalist scheme. using documents to show the 
distinction, and assuming E2=P, and that D is ca. 600, and that 
necessarily J < E:

(1) (traditional)	J < E1 < E2 < D
(2) (Wellhausen)	J < E1 < D < E2

hurvitz can be shown to be arguing that E1 < E2, necessarily, with no 
intercalation... which is probably correct.  he says that implies (1) and 
only (1).  however, (3) is also a logical possibility (and in my opinion, 
probably correct):

(3) (minimalism)	D < J < E1 < E2

just a thought for the week. ;-)

Dr Vincent DeCaen
Research Associate
Near & Middle Eastern Civilizations
University of Toronto

Hebrew Syntax Encoding Initiative (HSEI)
Have you heard the one about the accountant?

More information about the b-hebrew mailing list