Biblical Hebrew Forum

[jimstinehart AT aol.com]

David Steinberg:

1.  In a short article on the Internet, “Linguistic Dating of Biblical 
Texts“, Ian Young rhetorically remarks:  

“Once it is admitted that the language of the biblical texts has been changed 
in scribal transmission, the claim that the language of the current texts is 
evidence of the date of the original authors is thrown into serious doubt.”

Do you agree?

2.  Ian Young considers, and often attacks/refutes, the following possible 
bases for dating a Biblical text:

(a)  Presence of Early Biblical Hebrew linguistic features

(b)  Presence of Late Biblical Hebrew linguistic features

(c)  Presence of Persian loanwords

(d)  Presence of Aramaic features.

You will note that Ian Young  n-e-v-e-r  considers whether the presence of 
Hurrian proper names should be given any consideration whatsoever in dating a 
Biblical text.  He doesn’t even refute such an idea.  Why?  Why are 
university scholars so certain, apparently without ever having given the 
matter a moment’s thought, that the presence of Hurrian proper names should 
be totally ignored for all purposes in dating a Biblical text?  When I 
mention the presence of 6 Hurrian-based names for the Hurrians at Genesis 15: 
19-21, why isn’t that at least worth considering as a factor in dating the 
composition of the Patriarchal narratives?  In particular, if 
Qa-a-ni-ya/QYN-Y and Qa-ni-zi-ya/QN-Z-Y at Genesis 15: 19 are the only two 
names in the entire Bible that are Akkadian-based names with Hurrian 
characteristics, why isn’t that a critical clue in dating the Patriarchal 
narratives?

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois