b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum
List archive
- From: "Peter Kirk" <Peter_Kirk AT sil.org>
- To: "Biblical Hebrew" <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
- Subject: RE: deuteronomy, liz, response
- Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 16:53:30 -0000
Well, don't forget the point made recently that the surface form of such
details indicated not the original composition but the latest redaction. So
Vince's observation need mean no more than that Deuteronomy was copied by a
scribe "ca.600" who modernised the orthography, whereas Kings was not copied
at that time or copied by a more conservative scribe.
And then of course that date, always speculative, loses its only anchor with
reality if it is not necessarily the time of composition of Jeremiah and
Ezekiel but only of their final redaction. Indeed, I'm not sure what
guarantee there is even that the different phases have been put in the
correct chronological order.
I don't mean to say this to rubbish Vince's work, which may be very
important. But this caution must always be borne in mind.
Peter Kirk
-----Original Message-----
From: Liz Fried [mailto:lizfried AT umich.edu]
Sent: 09 March 2001 15:17
To: Biblical Hebrew
Subject: RE: deuteronomy, liz, response
>
> hi liz,
>
> can i ask what your particular interest is in deuteronomy? just curious.
Hi Vincent,
I just had always thought that the story about Josiah and centralization
followed Deut. 12, it's strange to think of it going the other way.
Liz
>
> what i appear to have at this point is the following: the bulk of kings is
> linguistically similar to amos/isaiah ca.700; whereas, the bulk/core of
> deuteronomy is similar to ezekiel/jeremiah ca.600.
>
> but there is material in deuteronomy that is late: e.g., chs. 31-32. also
> much of samuel, especially surrounding saul-to-david, especially 2 Samuel,
> is tentatively strata IV-V: e.g., using the first person sequential, parts
> of 2 Samuel stick out like a sore thumb. ;-)
>
> what i'm currently working on is the distribution of nunated nonpasts that
> characterizes deuteronomy.
>
> cheers
> V --
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-
> Dr Vincent DeCaen <decaen AT chass.utoronto.ca>
> c/o Near and Middle Eastern Civilizations, 4 Bancroft Ave., 2d floor
> University of Toronto, Toronto ON, CANADA, M5S 1A1
>
> Hebrew Syntax Encoding Initiative, www.chass.utoronto.ca/~decaen/hsei/
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-
> Love work. Hate authority. --Shemaiah, from Avot
>
-
deuteronomy, liz, response,
Vincent DeCaen, 03/09/2001
- <Possible follow-up(s)>
- Re: deuteronomy, liz, response, Raymond de Hoop, 03/09/2001
- RE: deuteronomy, liz, response, Liz Fried, 03/09/2001
- RE: deuteronomy, liz, response, Peter Kirk, 03/09/2001
- Re: deuteronomy, liz, response, Giuseppe Regalzi, 03/09/2001
- Re: deuteronomy, liz, response, Banyai, 03/09/2001
- RE: deuteronomy, liz, response, Peter Kirk, 03/10/2001
- Re: deuteronomy, liz, response, Giuseppe Regalzi, 03/11/2001
- Re: deuteronomy, liz, response, Banyai, 03/11/2001
- RE: deuteronomy, liz, response, Liz Fried, 03/11/2001
- Re: deuteronomy, liz, response, Giuseppe Regalzi, 03/11/2001
- RE: deuteronomy, liz, response, Peter Kirk, 03/11/2001
- RE: deuteronomy, liz, response, Peter Kirk, 03/11/2001
- Re: deuteronomy, liz, response, Giuseppe Regalzi, 03/12/2001
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.