Young rezetko linguistic dating review

Young’s article on Pesher Habakkuk in JHS 2008).There we include a variety of other considerations about the difficulties of using Persian loanwords in linguistic dating, such as the fact that absence of Persian loanwords is characteristic of various definitely post-exilic works, and hence the argument from absence for an early date is not compelling, or the evidence that Hebrew came into contact with Iranian languages before the exile.No, not yet in our opinion, not in the light of what we know now about the Tanak’s composition/editorial/transmission history, not without a substantial amount of circular reasoning, and not in recent times largely because of increased specialization in Hebrew and Hebrew Bible studies which has often kept historians, historians of religion, literary critics, textual critics, and linguists from working together and addressing particular issues in unison. This is pretty clear in the full title/subtitle to volume 1: Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts: An Introduction to Approaches and Problems.In other words, we were reviewing scholarship up to that point and indicating and expanding on problems that had emerged in recent discussion.Hurvitz, Rooker], but even this pillar of diachrony is far less persuasive when the whole truth is told.) (Finally, by the way, and this takes us back to the issue of textual criticism, textual evidence shows that there were multiple directions of linguistic modification, e.g.

But there are some big problems, routinely addressed in historical linguistic literature, that many Hebraists have often neglected, such as the issue of authentic and localized (in time and place) manuscripts and the issue of composite texts.But we are willing to set forth again some of our main ideas and a few points of detail, so here are some boiled down responses. We agree with Hendel wholeheartedly when he says elsewhere: “ In the case of the Hebrew Bible it is difficult to define what the ‘original’ means, since each book is the product of a complicated and often unrecoverable history of composition and redaction.The ‘original text’ that lies somewhere behind the archetype is usually not the product of a single author, but a collective production, sometimes constructed over centuries, perhaps comparable to the construction of a medieval cathedral or the composite walls of an old city” (Hendel, “ The Oxford Hebrew Bible: Prologue to a New Critical Edition” [2008], p. Of course we are aware of the complexity of the formation of the books of the Tanak, and that the historical linguistics of biblical Hebrew should not be separated from other disciplines such as literary criticism and textual criticism.We think Hendel will agree that we have nothing close to authentic (or “original”) manuscripts and that most and perhaps all biblical writings are composite. Rezetko has also recently sent for publication a very detailed review-article of a monograph that has a similar line of argumentation.This does not mean that historical linguistic methodology cannot be applied to the Tanak, but it does mean that that should be done with more sophistication and integration of various disciplines, including also a realistic understanding of the complex nature of the Tanak’s composition/editorial/transmission history. As for the book review by Jan Joosten that is cited by Hendel, we found it very disappointing. 2, Eccl ...” Callaham, in his dissertation/monograph on the modality of the verbal infinitive absolute, takes the infinitive as an imperative, as we say, though Ehrensvärd himself was uncertain in earlier publications (2003, 2006).So, let’s take a quick look at the five specific examples he discusses. 1, the syntax of 2 Chr 30:1, 5...” We agree that Joosten is probably right about 1 Sam. 21—then it is clear that malkut was an available option for writers in the pre-exilic period. We are aware of different kinds of explanations for this “late” word in the “early” Balaam oracles (e.g.(To fully understand the issues involved we refer readers to Joosten’s review and the discussions and literature cited in LDBT.) 1. As Hendel himself says: “ The [sic - they, meaning Young, Rezetko and Ehrensvärd] rightly note that if the word occurs in early texts, then the word cannot be an indicator of late language. Therefore LBH features aren’t necessarily late.” Hendel seems to have overlooked Num. poetic usage, foreign speech), but, however it is to be explained, it would seem at least to “occur in an early text” (to paraphrase Hendel’s words) and thus to have at least been an option for some early writers.We pointed out that this is a circular argument, since the various Persian words in the MT are explained away on the assumption that early texts can’t have Persian words! This leads to a discussion of how dubious the use of individual linguistic elements like loanwords to date the original composition of a text is, in the light of the fluidity of the biblical text during its scribal transmission.We were very clear about what we were doing: “ The main purpose of compiling this list is rather to counter the suggestion that such a list cannot be made” (LDBT, vol. 303), and there is “no doubt that Persian elements do occur in the current text of EBH books” (LDBT, vol. In this context, among other points, we mention how a good case can be made that Isa. Please understand what we are arguing, and read the detailed discussion of Persian loanwords (as well as Egyptian, Akkadian, Greek and other loanwords) that lies behind the specific argument in our “potted summary,” in chapter 11 of volume 1 of LDBT (and cf.Yes, absolutely, “textual criticism is entirely compatible with historical linguistics, and, indeed, ..two pursuits are necessary adjuncts.” See chapter 13 in volume 1 of Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts (LDBT), and other publications by us cited in the bibliography in volume 2 related to literary criticism and textual criticism.It seems almost unbelievable to us that Hendel actually claims “ The authors’ argument evinces a tenuous grasp of the practice and implications of textual criticism.” Historical Linguistics.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

One thought on “young rezetko linguistic dating review”

  1. And if they find out that I've changed my view on that, I can't even imagine what they'll do to me. Fun fact: if we gave out awards for Most Complicated and Sensitive Question Ever, this one would win, hands down.