The second article in the forum published in Hebrew Studies is entitled, “Biblical Texts Cannot Be Dated Linguistically” and is written by Ian Young. Young’s argument, as can be seen from the title, is that linguistic evidence is not decisive in arguments concerning the dating of ancient texts. He states that we cannot be sure if the text that has survived to this day was the actual product of the original author–the text have have undergone minor spelling revisions or wholesale alteration and significant editing.

This is not a controversial argument. I agree that we need to be cautious about our use of linguistic evidence for dating books. Young’s more controversial points include his thesis that Standard Biblical Hebrew continued to be used in the post-exilic period. Normally (some) scholars think that Standard Biblical Hebrew–the Hebrew used in pre-exilic periods writings–was used in this period and transitioned into Late Biblical Hebrew. Furthermore, Young believes that Late Biblical Hebrew was also used during the pre-exilic period but that it was a less formal dialect; Standard Biblical Hebrew was a “‘High’ prestige language.”

Therefore, since Young argues that both dialects were spoken simulaneously he states that linguistics cannot be used to date biblical texts. I agree more with Joosten’s article than Young’s. While I agree with Young that scholars have traditionally have put too much emphasis on linguistics for dating purposes, I do think that linguistic features can help in forming general, relative dates. Languages naturally develop, and we see this development in comparing biblical texts to inscriptional evidence. Furthermore, there is internal evidence of development of the language within the biblical corpus. Some biblical texts use a higher register of language than others but does not mean that Standard and Late Hebrew were spoken completely simultaneously.

Furthermore, one form of evidence that Young points to are some similarities between vocablulary and certain structures between what is traditionally categorized as Standard and Late Hebrew. It appears to me that he used an electronic search program in order to do this study and that he has cherry picked his examples to prove his point. Electronic evidence gathering can only get us so far. We must also use our sense of the text as Landsberger stated for Akkadian studies. Certain structures and vocabulary appear because languages do not entirely morph from one stage to the other, and the biblical text has undergone at least one modernization redaction. So, in some aspects it will have the appearance of standardization while subtle clues remain that point to Standard Biblical Hebrew’s older age.

What do you think?

I just recieved the latest issue of Hebrew Studies last week. This volume contains the preceedings from a forum in 2004 concerning the dating of texts through historical linguistics and comparative Semitic studies. It’s a very interesting discussion and I will summarize and reflect upon one essay every few days.

Jan Joosten states that vocabulary can be easily manipulated to make a document seem older than it is, but syntactical structure is more difficult to simulate. Therefore, when atempting to date texts upon linguistic features, one should primarily look at the syntax and not the vocabulary of the text. Joosten also demonstrates several features of syntax that develop over time. For instance, over time the prefix form, yiqtol, moves from representing present tense in Classical Hebrew to mainly representing modal forms in Late and Mishnaic Hebrew. In Late Hebrew the predicative participle takes over the present tense function.

In light of this, one might be able to make general observations about the relative (not absolute) date of a text. Since syntactical development clearly took place, Joosten concludes:

Biblical scholars–not just one or other maverick, nor just a school of minimalists–have become too liberal in the matter of dating, particularly with regard to Pentateuchal texts. Paraphrasing Delitzsch, one is tempted to say: “If the Pentateuch were of postexilic origin, then there is no history of the Hebrew language.”

Joosten’s article is very interesting and I largely agree with it. I think the minimalist camp has definitely gone overboard with their historical reconstructions. These reconstructions are largely based upon the ideological content of texts and overlook syntactical features and devalue cross cultural comparisions. The syntactical development of Northwest Semitics in general and biblical Hebrew in particular is definitely an area that deserves more study (a glimmer of hope is seen when comparing Lipinski’s volume on comparitive Semitic grammar, 2nd ed. 2001, which includes a section on syntax and Moscati’s volume, 1969, which does not include syntax–progress is being made) and Joosten is apparently producing a monograph on this subject. In the meantime, check out the article, it’ll be worth your while.

Semitic Languages
Outline of a Comparative Grammar
2nd Edition
Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta – OLA 80
by Edward Lipinski
Peeters Publishers,2002
780 pages,English
Cloth
ISBN: 9042908157
List Price: $99.00
Your Price: $89.10
www.eisenbrauns.com/wconnect/wc.dll?ebGate~EIS~~I~LIPSEMITI

(I don’t know why Eisenbrauns lists this volume as from 2002, I own a copy of the 2nd. ed. and the copyright printed inside it says 2001. I also own Moscati’s volume which has been out of print for a while, but you can still find used copies–as per Jim’s comment, Eisenbrauns has corrected the date of printing on Lipinski’s volume and I’m pleased to hear that Moscati’s volume is still in print, so follow the link and pick up a copy today!.)

An Introduction to Comparative Grammar of Semitic Languages
Phonology and Morphology
Porta Linguarum Orientalium – PLO 6
by Sabatino Moscati
Harrassowitz Verlag,1980
vii + 185 pages,English
Paper
ISBN: 3447006897
Your Price: $59.00
www.eisenbrauns.com/wconnect/wc.dll?ebGate~EIS~~I~MOSINTROD