decaen at chass.utoronto.ca
Wed May 29 08:07:28 EDT 2002
apparently it is not fair quoting rooker (1990). okay.
so, take a look at Hurvitz, ZAW 112.2 (2000) 180ff.
the only substantive point here is making the case that P < 2Chr. so what?
the point assumes (a) 2Chr = late; (b) late = postexilic; therefore (c) P
must be pre-exilic. kind'a sad really....
"... tools at our disposal have their limitations, since they do not allow
us to proceed beyond the rather broad demarcation established between
Classical/Pre-Exilic Hebrew vs. Late/Post-Exilic Hebrew; they cannot be
utilized safely for more refined datings within each of these two general
divisions of BH." p.189 a little more justification here might've been
notice here, not the simplistic equation classical=pre-exilic, but rather
the way he forecloses on any further refinements. there is a logical
fallacy in this stipulation, but i won't pursue it....
so..., is an article dated 2000, by hurvitz himself, good enough....?
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