Young rezetko linguistic dating review
Hurvitz and others have since responded to Young, Rezetko, and...
Since the beginning of critical scholarship biblical texts have been dated using linguistic evidence.
That need provided a springboard for the book here reviewed, whose relatively neutral title, This is a book neither for generalists, nor for beginning or intermediate Hebrew students.
These conclusions in their first volume left not a few scholars (e.g., Ronald Hendel, Jan Joosten) wondering if Young and Rezetko had figured out anything useful about the history of biblical Hebrew, because their conclusions were essentially negative.Kim aims at overcoming the impasse that the debate on the linguistic dating of biblical texts has been moving towards in the last few years, after Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensvärd’s volume (2008) in which they attacked Avi Hurvitz’s model and methodology for dating biblical texts.They do not deny the variation in the text, but instead of explaining it as the result of (recognizable) change over time they argue that other factors such as style are more likely explanations for the variation in forms that have been identified.The book examines the principles and methodology used to differentiate Archaic, Early and Late biblical Hebrew; the relationship between linguistic characteristics and linguistic chronology or historical origins; the effects of dialects and diglossia on textual criticism; and the significance of extra-biblical sources. In that volume, they argued that the two styles of biblical Hebrew usually referred to as Early Biblical Hebrew (EBH) and Late Biblical Hebrew (LBH) are misleading, as is also the case with similar categorizations such as SBH (Standard Biblical Hebrew).