...

[StephenGoranson]

Offered non-Josiah-reliant examples, you them fundamentally unwelcomed.

Maybe P. R. Davies described some views, not mine.

Paleo-Hebrew date ranges you (circularilly?) chose the conceivably latest...a priori.

[neilgodfrey]

...

[neilgodfrey]

...

[StephenGoranson]

In this case, if (big if) his paleo-Hebrew analysis is valid, I would not assume the earliest possible date range of the oldest proposed ms, but consider the most probable, i.e., before your unnamed (Gmirkin) asserted date.

[neilgodfrey]

...

[neilgodfrey]

...

[neilgodfrey]

...

[StephenGoranson]

I was surprised to read the following sentence:

"by neilgodfrey » Mon Feb 19, 2024 5:24 pm

There is more to the Hellenistic provenance thesis than the simple fact of the circularity of the methods of dating the OT books by the past conventional scholarship -- something that so far not even SG has denied."
~~~~
I have repeatedly denied validity to the "Hellenistic provenance thesis." I, here, today, deny it again.
(That is, deny that claim for "ALL" OT texts. Some OT text, different matter.)

There is some ambiguity in the "more to [it] than" claim. More what? According to whom? If, for example, more grievance, such would not be credit to dating rationale. Plus, I don't even recall affirming the offered "fact," as described (by PRD or NG), of circularity, as accurate--much less my own way.

Anyway, I have given multiple reasons why some TaNaK portions predate the Hellenistic era.

So the quoted sentence appears to be, concerning my views, a misrepresention.

NG is free to give his views. But not mine.

Dating "ALL" OT books as Hellenistic can be "taken seriously" as an assertion that is false, a mistake.

It I do deny.

[neilgodfrey]

...

[neilgodfrey]

...