> Dear Randall,
>
> Thank you for your clear answers to my questions. In connection with
> any attempt to date texts on linguistic grounds, it is extremely
> important to keep in mind the limitations of any method. The
> material
> (texts) we have at our disposition is limited, and all the auxiliary
> hypotheses that are needed for a theoretical dating approach are
> questionable. On the one hand I do not agree with the extreme
> skepticism of the Copenhagen school (Lemche and Thompson), but on
> the
> other hand I am very skeptical to Martin Noth's theory of
> Deuteronomistic history and the Graf-Wellhausen hypothesis about
> "J,E.P. and D". Therefore, when you say that Hurwitz have found that
> P is pre-exilic, my reaction is as follows: The existence of "P" in
> contrast with J, E. and D is an auxiliary hypothesis (for the
> theoretical framework of dating), and I reject the whole scheme as
> very doubtful. So, the dating of a supposed "P" does not tell me
> much.
I have to say that I quite agree with Rolf on all three of these. The
Copenhagen view is
untenable, IMTUO, as far as I could see Noth never actually *showed* the
existence of a
Deuteronomic History, he merely said it, and JEPD needs to be put to bed once
and for all.
Thanks to Rolf for stating these things so well.