argumentation in diachronics
decaen at chass.utoronto.ca
Fri May 24 20:11:44 EDT 2002
i've been asked to explain my beefs with hurvitz/hurvits, rendsburg, et
al. so..., i think the main problem is this. the framework assumes a black
and white distinction:
"early" (= pre-exilic) vs. "late" (= post-exilic)
period. therefore, if it doesn't look like ecclesiastes, it's "early" and
therefore "pre-exilic". end of story. QED. game over.
i except the dichotomy as useful, as a heuristic, but incredibly
mickey-mouse. rooker (1990) doesn't challenge it, he reinforces it.
the mistake is associating a specific date with the dichotomy. compare (a)
and (b) vs. (c):
(a) early < exile < late (conventional assumption)
(b) early < transitional < exile < late (rooker)
(c) early_1 < early_2 < early_3 < exile < early_4 < early_5 < late
in other words, it is possible to (1) not look like ecclesiastes, and (2)
still be post-exilic. if you grant this possibility, then all the hoo-ha
about P in hurvitz and rendsburg may be a lot of hot air....
does this make sense? what part doesn't?
and is it because P is "torah" that "late-dating" gets the blood pressure
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