Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Banyai AT t-online.de (Banyai)]

Giuseppe Regalzi wrote:

> My point is the following: if Deuteronomy (or any other book) can
> be consistently dated both on linguistic (if Vincent is right) and
> on historical grounds (e.g. the connection with Josiah's reform),
> then the burden of proof is on anyone who questions this dating by
> invoking a purely conjectural linguistic update: adfirmanti
> incumbit probatio, to use a nice latin formula...

Pure imagination. There is no basis to date the Deuteronomy to Josiahs 
reform, 
but simple speculation. Adfirmanti incumbit probatio, to use the same latin 
formula.

Since I just pointed you to at least one textual source of Deut. by far older 
than the period of kings, (my mail called "was Michael") there is no burden 
to 
last upon those asserting its quite early date. 

What concerned linguistic data, you ought have better read my mail on that 
issue, 
or if not, than answer for yourself the simple question: how do we arrive to 
text 
canonisation?

Best regards,

Michael Bányai