argumentation in diachronics
ButhFam at compuserve.com
Sun May 26 07:20:25 EDT 2002
>(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?<
OK, you asked:
the straw-man swipe at Avi doesn't make sense. He does not equate
'late' with Qohelet. In fact, if a student wrote the above I would assume
that they hadn't read Hurvitz.
Avi Hurvitz is famous for his three-strand argument.
1. biblical profile, 2. extrabiblical profile, and most importantly,
3. the replacement or innovation criterion. (like iggeret for sefer)
He wants to keep accidents and dialectical stuff out of true
diachronic stuff, and to do so methodologically. He would be happy for
a finer-meshed sieve, but so far he has had enough trouble just getting
people to understand 1st temple H versus 2nd temple H.
More information about the b-hebrew