Book Notices: “Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts, Volumes 1-2”

Young, R. Rezetko and M. Ehrensvärd, Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts. Volume 1: An Introduction to Approaches and Problems. Volume 2: A Survey of Scholarship, a New Synthesis and a Comprehensive Bibliography. London: Equinox Publishing, October 2008.

In the last few years a challenge has been mounted to the consensus view that biblical Hebrew (BH) can be divided into two discrete historical periods, Early Biblical Hebrew (EBH) and Late Biblical Hebrew (LBH). The starting point for this challenge was the publication of a volume that I. Young edited, Biblical Hebrew: Studies in Chronology and Typology (2003). The above two volumes, Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts, continue this argument.

EBH, according to the most widely held view, is the language of the pre-exilic or monarchic period, down to the fall of the kingdom of Judah to the Babylonians in 586 B.C.E. The exile in the sixth century BCE marks a transitional period, the great watershed in the history of BH. After the return from exile in the late sixth century B.C.E., we have the era of LBH. Thus, EBH developed into 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 the transition to LBH.

Young, R. Rezetko and M. Ehrensvärd 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 post-exilic period, which is exactly the opposite of what its proponents have claimed. This may in fact be a conclusion which is congenial to some, but other scholars would not find this agreeable, so Young, Rezetko and Ehrensvärd offer a way out of this conclusion by arguing that the presuppositions of the chronological approach are undermined by the evidence. On the contrary, they argue that the best model for comprehending the evidence is that ‘Early’ BH and ‘Late’ BH, so-called, represent co-existing styles of Hebrew throughout the biblical period. They deal with the objection that Persian loanwords are an irrefutable proof that the chronological approach is correct. More generally, they address the question of the presuppositions involved in the dating—by linguistic or other means—of the books of the Hebrew Bible.