Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Thomas L. Thompson" <tlt AT teol.ku.dk>]

        Yes, I had an exchange with Avi Hurvitz on the dating of Late
Biblical Hebrew in a seminar in Jerusalem last year. I was not terribly
aware of any discomfort, however, Hurvitz and I seem to agree on a number of
issues: a) While Late Biblical Hebrew seems late, classical biblical Hebrew
has not a clearly datable ad quem and can not be identified clearly as
early.
        b) What you refer to as "layers" are not clearly tied to absolute
chronology, but could be partially do to geographic and social factors.
      c) The chronology which Hurvitz uses is not an absolute chronology,
but one based on classical historical criticism, which relative chronology,
however, is still under serious debate (e.g., Schmid, Van Seters, etc.)

        Now there are also a number of disagreements as well, including
something so nebulous as the term "minimalists" when referring to very
different scholarly discussions and arguments.

p.s. I am unaware of anything devastating that Rainey has written (Do you
have a reference?).

Thomas

Thomas L. Thompson
Professor, University of Copenhagen


> have you seen and interacted with avi hurvitz' criticism of 'minimalist'
> history? 
> (anson rainey had a pretty devastating review somewhere, too.)
> 
> hurvitz has pointed out the impossibility of late second temple writers
> producing chronologically layered material. linguistically, the material
> is
> much older than minimalists are usually comfortable in admitting.
> 
> when qumran writers tried there hand at re-writing, e.g. temple scroll,
> the
> second temple hebrew that resulted was clear.
> 
> braxot
> randall buth
> 
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: TLT AT teol.ku.dk
> To unsubscribe, forward this message to
> $subst('Email.Unsub')
> To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu.
>