argumentation in diachronics

Vincent DeCaen decaen at
Fri May 24 20:11:44 EDT 2002

dear b-haverim,

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
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