Well, Ian Young is a fine scholar indeed, and has already published
widely on the subject. However, I could not accept his
arguments. To take one example, he holds that
Qohelet was indeed written in the time of Solomon. The content
alone would belie such an argument, since the book reflects certain
aspects of Hellenistic philosophy. And this apart from the strong
LBH features of its language.
The above is only one of many examples.
The subject is too involved to discuss here in greater detail. Young, and
those who follow him have taken their stand in response to the more
customary position, that yes, there is indeed a diachronic development
in biblical style with certain poetry being the most ancient, and
reflecting Canaanite predecessors. Avi Hurvits ( no relations of mine)
is a prominent exponent of the diachronic approach.
One has to add that of course language is not mathematics and
that exceptions will occur, and most importantly, that late editing
had a harmonizing effect on SBH which forms the largest part
of the texts.
Uri Hurwitz Great Neck NY,
George Athas wrote:
Actually, dating a book on linguistic grounds is very perilous indeed.
The old distinction between Early Biblical Hebrew (EBH) and Late
Biblical Hebrew (LBH) can no longer be sustained on chronological
factors. They are distinct types of Hebrew, yes. However, close
analysis reveals that both existed at the same time. You can find
features of both types of Hebrew in books associated with both the
pre-exilic and post-exilic eras. In other words, they were
contemporary of each other, one being perhaps the more conservative
(EBH) and the other a bit freer (LBH). But we probably need to find
some new terminology to talk about these types of Hebrew.
Look out for a book on this topic next year by Young & Rezetko, and a
follow-up volume by Young, Rezekto & Ehrensvärd.
Best Regards,
GEORGE ATHAS
Moore Theological College (Sydney)
1 King St, Newtown, NSW 2042, Australia
Ph: (+61 2) 9577 9774
On 10/29/07, Isaac Fried <if AT math.bu.edu> wrote:
> Karl,
>
> I think I start to understand you now. You are wishing for a witness
> or an attestor to "accurately indicate what Hebrew was like before
> Hebrew was written down". What about circumstantial evidence, will
> this not do?
>
> Isaac Fried, Boston University
>
Or more accurately, a written record, yes.
Cognate languages already make up one sort of circumstantial evidence,
and it is one that I treat as secondary at best. As far as I
understand your position, you reject it. Without a written record, we
don't know if the cognate languages split, or did Hebrew combine? Many
modern scholars teach that Hebrew combined phonemes. As I understand
you, you teach that Hebrew split, and the other languages split more.
So the answer is, circumstantial evidence is not enough, therefore No,
it will not do.
Karl W. Randolph.
[b-hebrew] linguistic dating,
Uri Hurwitz, 10/29/2007