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.