Young rezetko linguistic dating review

30-Jan-2017 04:20

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.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.Once again note what we were arguing and in what context in regard to Persian loanwords.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 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.

young rezetko linguistic dating review-55

tsukasa and subaru dating

young rezetko linguistic dating review-9

dating slough

LBH forms replacing EBH ones in some texts/traditions/editions [as Hendel points out] but also EBH forms replacing LBH ones in other texts/traditions/editions. This is an issue we illustrate and discuss further in our book in progress.) Persian Loanwords.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.But what we have said here is enough to say: to understand our broader position on Persian loanwords, please read our broader work. In a subsequent response to Philip Davies, Hendel states: “there are sufficient extra-biblical linguistic data to corroborate at several points the standard model of the history of Hebrew.” We note that we have dealt with this argument extensively in LDBT, volume 1, chapter 6 (on Hebrew inscriptions; cf.