BH diachronics and P
decaen at chass.utoronto.ca
Mon May 20 08:35:29 EDT 2002
maybe some out there can help me with trying to understand the literature
i've been trying to understand why the obvious linguistic developments are
being ignored to the detriment of a simple and coherent picture. in my
recent work on nunation, i kept coming across this mental block: e.g.,
hoftijzer 1985 can't bring himself to recognize the implications of his
work: a natural and coherent diachronic sequence. the problem is that
this puts P into the latest stratum of the series: therefore, he has to
backtrack. he can't make strong claims and therefore, his results are
ultimately meaningless, theoretically---in my opinion.
(2) over and over again, the impediment is that parts of the torah would
be late---too late for the ideology of the researchers. e.g., hurvitz and
rendsburg have their own ideas about the development of israelite
religion. the priestly source must be the earliest, and at least
pre-exilic: regardless of the simple linguistic facts...
(3) the thing that worries me is the simplistic argumentation. take a
gander at Rendsburg JBL 121.1 (2002). for him it's an either/or, either
standard BH or late BH, period. no shades, just black and white. he then
equates late BH with "postexilic" and "persian". therefore, if genesis 24
doesn't look like ecclesiastes (postexilic and persian/hellenistic), then
it cannot be postexilic and persian. whoa...! am i missing something? and
is this the best we can do in BH dialectology?
Dr Vincent DeCaen
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