Young rezetko linguistic dating review

Finally we will step back and ask some hard questions about the presuppositions involved in the dating— by hnguistic or other means— of the books of the Hebrew Bible. Chronology Leads to Late Dating It is the work of the great Israeli scholar Avi Hurvitz which has established sounder methodological principles and therefore decisively advanced the study of LBH in recent decades.One major advance is to put to rest older scholars' insistence that 'Aramaisms'— or Summaiy of Young, Rezetko & Ehrensvard, Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts Aramaic-like forms— are necessarily evidence of a late date.After the return from exile in the late sixth century BCE, we have the era of LBH. Hebrew biblical texts can, therefore, be dated on linguistic grounds because LBH was not written early, nor did EBH continue to be written after tiie transition to LBH.We suggest that following through the logic of this chronological approach to BH actually leads inevitably to the conclusion that all the biblical texts were composed in the postexilic period, which is exactly the opposite of what its proponents have claimed.We illustrate these first of all by several quotes from his early work on the Prose Tale of Job.

Now at this point the uninitiated might be a bit puzzled by the argument.EBH, according to the most widely held view, is the language of the preexilic or monarchic period, down to the fall of the kingdom of Judah to the Babylonians in 586 BCE.The exile in the sixth century BCE marks a transitional period, the great watershed in the history of BH.Contrast for example, Otto Eissfeldt's argument regarding Song of Songs— Aramaisms and a Persian word equals late— with John Collins, who only mentions the Persian word.It is therefore not inappropriate if we concentrate on Hurvitz's methodology and presuppositions here.

Leave a Reply