Biblical Hebrew Forum

[decaen AT chass.utoronto.ca (Vincent DeCaen)]

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....

explicit assumption:
"... 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 
warranted.

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....?

cheers,
V-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Dr Vincent DeCaen
Research Associate
Near & Middle Eastern Civilizations
University of Toronto

Hebrew Syntax Encoding Initiative (HSEI)
http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~decaen/hsei/
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Have you heard the one about the accountant?