Young rezetko linguistic dating review republican dating site
We are hardly completely ignorant or dismissive of historical linguistic methodology. Of course historical linguistic methodology should be applied to the Tanak!
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.
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.
We summarize the main points in LDBT, volume 2, chapter 1.
(As Robert Holmstedt said to us, Im guessing that the likes of Brian Joseph and Lyle Campbell would simply roll their eyes at what passes for methodology in historical Hebrew studies. Undoubtedly! Joostens arguments in these articles are less clear and certain than Hendel suggests, though they are important articles and offer a novel way perhaps to gain a glimpse of a few particular issues in late Second Temple Hebrew. 6-7) that he cited to demonstrate that Inaccuracies like these do not inspire confidence in Young and Rezetkos [and Ehrensvärds? 24.21 is debatable when viewed alongside synoptic 1 Chron. So, we are left with ten of twelve examples in Samuel, which are also cited by Miller (referenced by us; and she cites many other examples in EBH). English translations (and also commentaries) have both options: introductory: JPS, NASB; periphrastic: TNK, NAB, NIV, NJB, NRSV. 25.20; both are better understood as having periphrasis (e.g. There are many literary connections between the Abigail story in 1 Samuel 25 and the Michal story in 2 Samuel 6, so it is somewhat interesting that we should find the periphrasis with wehayah participle and also a following lqrt in only these two chapters in Samuel. They have no more interpretative authority than the opinions of other commentators throughout the ages. Quite the contrary, the point is that items in the table in the EBH column are used alongside the items in the LBH column in LBH. However, even Murphy says: But it is also possible to interpret it as an imperative (enter ...) parallel to watch, as most of the ancient versions and many commentators (e.g., Lohfink) have done (Murphy, Ecclesiastes , p. ] ability to deal seriously with the linguistic data. Really?! Of course we know the textual data Hendel cites, but the point we are making in the potted summary is that if one works on the basis of the MTas many recent Hebrew linguists have done, and in fact have asserted should be done, e.g.
We touch on several of his related points in LDBT (e.g. ] ability to deal seriously with the linguistic data. We feel we can safely assume he selected and discussed only these five specific examples because he was fairly clear and certain about them. Two probable mistakes do not invalidate a three page argument. But the construction sets up a parenthetical scene and thus the introductory interpretation/translation is less compelling. Endo, The Verbal System of Classical Hebrew in the Joseph Story , p. Rezetko addresses the text-critical and literary issues in his ark book. We simply cite the root in the Occurrences Elsewhere column for the sake of thoroughness, not to say that EBH had the same word/root/use. 113: We can illustrate this by gathering together all LBH lexical features in our appendix regarding which the lexeme itself or a particular late meaning, referent, stem or syntagm occurs 10 times or more in (mostly) undisputed postexilic books and not in core EBH books. Joostens eye simply must have caught the reference while skimming through this material because he completely fails to grasp the context of the argument. Hurvitz, A Linguistic Study of the Relationship Between the Priestly Source and the Book of Ezekiel (1982), p.
There are weaknesses in our books, and there are things we wish we had emphasized more or stated differently but, honestly, we are becoming tired of knee-jerk reactions to our work that reflect a superficial understanding of its content and purpose.
For example, we have seen the claim repeated that the aim of our arguments is to prove a late date of all biblical literature. We are pretty clear that we are saying that all linguistic dating arguments, both for early or late dates, dont work.
So, lets 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. 21then 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.