Young rezetko linguistic dating review dating online temple
Therefore, the argument we are formulating in a book in progress, Diachrony in Biblical Hebrew: Steps Toward an Integrated Approach, is that historical linguistic research on biblical Hebrew (setting aside the anomalous and unsound matter of linguistic dating, what our previous books were all about and sought to discredit) must more carefully and fully integrate historical, literary, textual and linguistic disciplines, the latter including also corpus linguistics, a variationist approach, and typological linguistics. Actually, there are indications in the review that Joosten did not read both volumes of LDBT completely and carefully. 1, the LBH usage of qbl, Piel, to receive,... We do not assert what Joosten deduces from his shallow reading. The possibility of an imperative is discussed elsewhere in the literature, e.g. English translations have both options: substantive: TNK, NJB, NRSV; imperative: JPS, NAB, NASB, NIV.
The book is historical linguistic in scope and makes extensive use of historical linguistic research on other languages as comparisons to what is done and what should be done in the study of biblical Hebrew. Misinformation and disparagement aside, we have written responses to most of his criticisms, but here we will only discuss briefly his five examples of supposed weakness (unevenness) in philological analysis (pp. 1, the syntax of 2 S ... Apart from Joostens text-critical oversight most likely the LXX translators were translating wayehi and not wehayah as Joosten assumes (cf. 6.16 this is probably not introductory wehayah (and it happened...) but rather a periphrastic construction (and was...entering). We are not trying to say that the items in that column prove that EBH had the same words/roots in similar uses etc. 1, dat, law... See the remarks below on Persian loanwords. Crenshaw, Murphy, Seow, and considered a possibility, but then set aside in favor of the substantive option. So it is quite amazing that Joosten should pick this example to demonstrate our lack of ability in philological analysis. So, in summary, on the basis of his presentation of only these five specific examples Joosten states: Inaccuracies like these do not inspire confidence in Young and Rezetkos [and Ehrensvärds?
No, not yet in our opinion, not in the light of what we know now about the Tanaks 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.
Actually, though, a thorough and accurate analysis of the distribution of occurrences of malkut and mamlakah and several other related nouns (and their uses) using a corpus-linguistic and variationist approach to all ancient writings is quite interesting and instructive, and this is something that has never been undertaken until recently, as far as we know, so stay tuned.
(Interestingly, mamlakah-malkut variation has traditionally been considered one of the clearest and strongest pieces of evidence for diachrony in biblical Hebrew, thus it is often cited as a classic illustration [e.g.
We were first of all countering the claims made by MT-only scholarship that it is a very significant result that no Persian words are found in early sources.
We think a particularly instructive topic would be scholarship on P, and the different kinds of (chronological) conclusions that have been reached by biblical commentators/literary critics, historians of religion, and Hebraists.
We summarize the main points in LDBT, volume 2, chapter 1.
The place of P in the debate on the chronological relationship of different varieties of Hebrew needs a lot more work. Should historical linguistic methodology be applied to ancient Hebrew?
(We know of some ongoing linguistic-oriented work, and we will add our contribution soon.) In summary: 1. Yes, of course, all natural languages have histories! Yes, why not, and we have never said or intimated otherwise. Has historical linguistic methodology been effectively applied to biblical Hebrew? Can biblical Hebrew texts be dated on a linguistic basis? We will be very clear about this: The point of Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts was not to write a history of biblical Hebrew, nor to develop a historical linguistic approach to biblical Hebrew, but to confront head-on recent attempts to assign dates of origin to biblical writings on the basis of linguistic data.
Youngs article on Pesher Habakkuk in JHS 2008).