LINGUISTIC DATING OF BIBLICAL TEXTS - Introduction (Part 2)

The Linguistic Biblical Dating Debate: An Overview    

The debate as to whether or not we can date biblical texts on the basis of their linguistic characteristics has been carried on through scores of journal articles, conference presentations, encyclopedia entries, edited volumes and monographs, as well as scholars’ blogs and website posts. The seeds of the debate were sown in the mid 1990s but came to full view starting in 2003 with the publication of Biblical Hebrew: Studies In Chronology and Typology, edited by Ian Young.  Over the past fifteen years, scholars have attempted either to explain and defend the linguistic dating of biblical texts or to refute that theory and present alternatives.  While the two sides of this debate agree on certain aspects of Biblical Hebrew, they come to very different conclusions about the value of linguistic features for dating purposes, despite the fact they examine the same texts.

The proponents of the linguistic dating theory hold to the three-part division of Biblical Hebrew and contend that each type occupies a very specific chronological period.[1] 

1. Archaic Biblical Hebrew can be found mostly in the poetry of the Pentateuch, written in the pre-monarchic period (ca. 1200–1000 BCE). 
2. Classical Biblical Hebrew was primarily written during the monarchic period (ca. 1000–586 BCE). 
3. Late Biblical Hebrew  was the literary language of post-exilic Judea (539 BCE–70 CE).

Their theory is based on the assumption that by means of a linguistic analysis of any biblical text it can be determined which books, or portions thereof, can be attributed to each of the above periods. The proponents use the linguistic features of the biblical texts which most scholars acknowledge as having been written in the post-exilic period as features of Late Biblical Hebrew. Thus, a text that predominantly features linguistic aspects of Late Biblical Hebrew is determined to have had its origin in the post-exilic period, even if there are some features of Classical Biblical Hebrew or Archaic Biblical Hebrew in the text. Also, then, a text that is dominated by features of Classical Biblical Hebrew or Archaic Biblical Hebrew is considered pre-exilic even if there are a few features of Late Biblical Hebrew found within. (Suggestion: Read this last paragraph again.)

If this reasoning seems somewhat circular, that is exactly one of the arguments that the opponents of linguistic dating make.[3] The common debate terminology for this reasoning is that “typology equals chronology.” In other words, whatever linguistic features are predominant in a text, these are indicative of when the text was initially written. The challengers’ main critique, however, is that the specific typology of a text cannot be clearly identified. Moreover, even if a text exhibits mostly one type of Biblical Hebrew, this cannot be equated to a specific chronological period because these different types co-existed over a large part of both pre- and post-exilic periods. They acknowledge that Biblical Hebrew changed over time, but that the distinct periodization of Biblical Hebrew (see above listing), as outlined by the proponents, is faulty. They propose that in the later pre-exilic and through most of the post-exilic periods authors and redactors had multiple types of Biblical Hebrew at their disposal. For example, a text that has Classical Biblical Hebrew features cannot with certainty be dated as pre-exilic in origin because the linguistic features of all types of BH were accessible to post-exilic scribes. The challengers also stress the impact that the transmission process of biblical texts has had on the linguistic features. Even if a text was initially composed in the pre-exilic period, due to later scribal amendments, as will be discussed later, it would be impossible to determine the beginning period of any text.  The reality is that all of the biblical manuscripts we possess date from the third century BCE at the earliest and these, they contend, have been significantly impacted by scribal redaction.

The gap that exists between the two sides of the debate is clear. The proponents understand that the challengers are arguing against any convincing connection between typology and chronology.[4] And the challengers clearly state, primarily for the reasons noted above, that most linguistic features cannot be restricted to a definite time period but can be understood to be present due to other factors such as dialect and editorial or scribal variations.  

The study that follows will demonstrate that there are weaknesses and strengths in the arguments on both sides of the debate. Thus, instead of opting for an “either/or” approach regarding the usefulness of linguistic dating theory, a “both/and” methodology is more consistent with the evidence. In other words, while linguistic features alone are insufficient evidence, that does not mean that they are necessarily inconsequential in efforts to date biblical texts.

---

[1] Kutscher 1982, 12.

[2] Some scholars advocate for the designation of Transitional Biblical Hebrew (TBH) covering the period just prior to the exile to just after the return. See Hornkohl 2013, 322. However, others deny a specific transitional period in the development of BH.

[3] Davies 2003, 153.

[4] Hurvitz 2006, 192.

[5] Rezetko 2003, 222.

LINGUISTIC DATING OF BIBLICAL TEXTS - Introduction (Part 1)

CHAPTER 1: Introduction

Can Biblical Texts Be Dated Linguistically?

Since the beginning of critical scholarship, scholars have sought to date the text of the Hebrew Bible. Dating the text has important implications for a number of critical issues in the study of the Hebrew Bible, including understanding its historicity, transmission, authorship, intended audience, and an array of other issues. Dating the biblical text is not only important for biblical scholars, but also theologians, archaeologists, and is of great interest to the public at large, given the importance of the Hebrew Bible in Western civilization. Scholars have sought to date the biblical text in a number of ways based on the theological, historical and literary content of each text. One method that came to the forefront in the nineteenth century was to use linguistics to date the texts.[1] This generally involved an analysis of each biblical text to determine which period of Biblical Hebrew (BH) was represented by its linguistic features and on that basis to assign a date to its initial composition. While linguistic dating had been used and developed by scholars for two hundred years, in the 1990s, it came under attack. Scholars began to question the validity of this approach and offered up an alternative explanation for the linguistic variation in the Hebrew Bible that was non-chronological. The proposed weaknesses that these scholars identified has led to an ongoing scholarly debate and the question this study seeks to answer: Is it possible to use linguistic features to date the biblical texts?[2]

            It is the thesis of this study that the linguistic features of a biblical text may, in some cases, aid in dating, but that linguistic features alone are not sufficient to allow scholars to confidently date the initial composition of a biblical text.  As will be made clear, scholars on each side of the debate—the proponents and the challengers—look at the same linguistic evidence and yet come to opposing conclusions. Therefore, in this study I will examine and evaluate the arguments and evidence of the proponents (Chapter 2) and the challengers (Chapter 3).[3] In Chapter 4, I will analyze Judges 5, one of the reputedly oldest texts in the Hebrew Bible, to demonstrate that linguistic features are insufficient, in and of themselves, to date the text. In Chapter 5, I will summarize the reasons why biblical texts cannot be dated by linguistic features alone.

1.2           When Biblical Texts Were Written Does Matter

Richard Elliot Friedman’s most recent book, The Exodus: How It Happened and Why It Matters, illustrates what the linguistic dating debate is about and why it matters today. He states, “Figuring out how the Bible came to be composed—who wrote the parts, who put the parts together—has been a central question of Bible scholarship for the last two centuries.”[4]  The thesis of his book is that there is a historical reality in Israel’s past that provides the foundation, or perhaps the impetus, for the Exodus story as referenced throughout the Hebrew Bible.  His argument, in part, is based on texts that he dates as definitively pre-exilic in origin. He regards such texts as Exodus 15 (Miriam’s Song) and Judges 5 (Deborah’s Song) to be the most ancient texts in the Bible, which he contends were written in close proximity to the events they describe. Specifically, he dates these texts (along with Deuteronomy 12–26 and 32–33) to somewhere between the twelfth century and the eighth century BCE. His dating is based on linguistic features that he, along with other proponents of linguistic dating, identify as archaic in origin.[5]

When the texts of the Hebrew Bible were written is crucial to an understanding of their reliability, or usefulness, in reconstructing Israelite history.[6] Whether the biblical texts, especially the traditionally older texts, can or cannot be dated, has a significant impact on the potential historicity of these texts. In contrast to Friedman, Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman, in their book, The Bible Unearthed, date the Exodus narrative to “the second half of the seventh and the first half of the sixth century BCE.”[7] For this, and other reasons, they regard the biblical narratives as historically unreliable, as do other scholars such as Niels Peter Lemche, Philip R. Davies and Thomas L. Thompson.[8] Over the last thirty years intense scholarly attention has been given to the idea of the linguistic dating of biblical texts. The disagreement and debate among Hebrew language and Bible scholars illustrates how important it is to determine whether or not it is possible to date biblical texts by means of their linguistic characteristics.

Friedman is adamant that the current tendency to date more of the Hebrew Bible later ignores the most recent research on the Hebrew language. It is this research that convinces him that we can distinguish pre-exilic Hebrew from post-exilic Hebrew.[9]  He challenges those who disagree, and thus date all biblical texts to the post-exilic period, to defend their dates by dealing with the evidence presented by the proponents of the linguistic dating model. Friedman’s conclusions and his challenge to those who disagree demonstrate just one example of what is at stake in the linguistic dating debate. In this case, whether or not there is any historical core to the Exodus impacts our understanding of Israel’s origin story which is repeated and referenced throughout the entire Hebrew Bible.

---

[1] Young et al 2008, vol. 1:8–9, notes that the diachronic study of Biblical Hebrew began in 1815 with Wilhelm Gesenius’ publication of Geschichte der hebräischen Sprache und Schrift. Later in the century, S. R. Driver “presented a thorough analysis of the language of each book in his An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament.”

[2] Ian Young (1992), in an article regarding the Gezer Calendar (dated by many to the 10^th c. BCE), concludes that the type of Hebrew in this inscription is not so much related to the age of the text, but to its style—that of Hebrew poetry. Since then, Young, Robert Rezetko and others have challenged the idea that biblical texts can be dated linguistically. Avi Hurvitz, Jan Joosten, Robert Holmstedt and others have responded to these challenges with the result that a debate of growing intensity and divergence has been going on among Hebrew scholars for almost two decades.

[3] Rezetko and other scholars who refer to themselves as “challengers,” also refer to “proponents” such as Hurvitz, Hendel, Joosten, etc., as “consensus scholars” and/or “traditionalists” (See Rezetko 2013, http://www.jhsonline.org).

[4] Friedman 2017, 41–42.

[5] Friedman 2017, 65; 250 n. 97. Friedman is not specific as to which linguistic features are convincingly archaic Hebrew for him, but rather references numerous scholarly articles written by proponents and states that the challenges of Young, Rezetko and Ehrensvärd have been “thoroughly rejected” by Joosten, Hendel, Miller-Naudé, and Zevit.

[6] Schniedewind 2004, ch. 1. Kindle Edition. As he notes succinctly, the crucial question is not “Who wrote the Bible?” but “When was the Bible written?”

[7] Finkelstein and Silberman 2002a, 68. In addition, Finkelstein and Silberman defend their conclusions in an article responding to William Dever’s review of their book. See 2002b, 63–64.

[8] In contrast with Friedman, Finkelstein and Silberman note, “Biblical historians such as Thomas Thompson and Niels Peter Lemche of the University of Copenhagen and Philip Davies of the University of Sheffield, dubbed “biblical minimalists” by their detractors, have argued that David and Solomon, the united monarchy of Israel, and indeed the entire biblical description of the history of Israel are no more than elaborate, skillful ideological constructs produced by priestly circles in Jerusalem in post-exilic or even Hellenistic times” (2002a, 127–128).

[9] Pre-exilic Hebrew is most often known as Classical Biblical Hebrew (CBH), but also as Standard Biblical Hebrew (SBH) and sometimes as Early Biblical Hebrew (EBH). Depending on the scholar, any of the above can be considered inclusive of Archaic Biblical Hebrew (ABH) if they have concluded such a stratum/register actually exists. Post-exilic Hebrew is most often known as Late Biblical Hebrew (LBH). For some scholars, LBH is inclusive of Qumranic Hebrew (QH) and even Mishnaic Hebrew (MH), but others refer to the latter two separately from LBH. See J. Naudé 2010, 3.