Dating archaic biblical hebrew poetry
Since its basic methodological principles and philological guidelines are largely rejected by the non-diachronic school of BH, as openly revealed in their publications (see especially Young, Rezetko, and Ehrensvärd 2008), the gulf between the two opposing parties is hardly bridgeable. The intention of this policy of omission certainly seems to be friendly and pragmatic, two qualities that we applaud.
Indeed, no common ground for a potentially meaningful dialogue in this connection seems to be in sight at the moment. But referring to our work as “non-diachronic” reveals a deep misunderstanding of the whole point of it.
The term "Hebrew" was not used for the language in the Bible, and spoken Hebrew persisted through and beyond the Second Temple period, which ended in the siege of Jerusalem (CE 70).
It eventually developed into Mishnaic Hebrew, spoken until the second century CE.
Biblical Hebrew possessed a series of "emphatic" consonants whose precise articulation is disputed, likely ejective or pharyngealized.
Earlier Biblical Hebrew possessed three consonants which did not have their own letters in the writing system, but over time they merged with other consonants.
They agree that scholarship entails dialogue, debate, self-criticism, evaluation, correction, and so on. Now, the unfortunate thing is that certain major scholars have started ignoring this recent progress, giving rise to a remarkable and unsettling divide in the study of the Hebrew Bible between old-fashioned linguistic dating and modern-day historical linguistics. Schniedewind, Social History of Hebrew: Its Origins through the Rabbinic Period (AYBRL; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2013) (references to debate: p.
But when it comes down to how this looks in practice, misunderstandings have become abundant and a very unfortunate situation has developed in the field. A case in point is the recently published magnum opus of A. Cohen, The Verbal System in Late Biblical Hebrew (trans. Aronsky; HSS; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2013) (references to debate: none); W.
This was retained by the Samaritans, who use the descendent Samaritan alphabet to this day. Tracing Syntactic Diversity in Biblical Hebrew Texts” ( van Cranenburgh, “LAF-Fabric: A Data Analysis Tool for Linguistic Annotation Framework with an Application to the Hebrew Bible,” Computational Linguistics in the Netherlands Journal 4 (2014): 105-120 ( R. Naaijer, “An Alternative Approach to the Lexicon of Late Biblical Hebrew,” forthcoming in JHS (separate from the review article cited in note 6); and Naaijer’s and others’ work as part of the project, “Does Syntactic Variation reflect Language Change?Martin Ehrensvärd, Robert Rezetko, and Ian Young  Sessions of the Society of Biblical Literature in 2001 (Rome), 2004 (San Antonio), 2005 (Philadelphia), 2007 (Vienna), 2009 (New Orleans), 2010 (Atlanta), and 2015 (Atlanta), plus many additional conference papers. Young (ed.), Biblical Hebrew: Studies in Chronology and Typology (JSOTSup 369; London: T&T Clark, 2003); I. Notarius, The Verb in Archaic Biblical Poetry: A Discursive, Typological, and Historical Investigation of the Tense System (SSLL 68; Leiden: Brill, 2013); A. Hornkohl, Ancient Hebrew Periodization and the Language of the Book of Jeremiah: The Case for a Sixth-Century Date of Composition (SSLL 74; Leiden: Brill, 2014); R. Young, Historical Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew: Steps Toward an Integrated Approach (ANEM 9; Atlanta: SBL Press, 2014); and various forthcoming volumes cited in note 8. Hendel, “Unhistorical Hebrew Linguistics: A Cautionary Tale,” The Bible and Interpretation (September 2011; R. Jacobs, Statistics, Linguistics, and the “Biblical” Dead Sea Scrolls (JSSSup; Oxford: Oxford University Press, forthcoming); B. Noonan, Foreign Words in the Hebrew Bible: Linguistic Evidence for Foreign Contact in Ancient Israel (LSAWS; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, forthcoming); and various projects of M. Naaijer, “The Common Nouns in the Book of Esther: A New Quantitative Approach to the Linguistic Relationships of Biblical Books” (M. These volumes approach the subject in a creative and forward-thinking style, providing a forum in which leading scholars in the field can make their views and research available to a wider audience.” In particular, the volume “The Companion to Ancient Israel offers a multifaceted entry into ancient Israelite culture. This shift is apparent when reviewing conference papers and publications from recent years. Hurvitz, and so on, with its inherent assumptions and weaknesses, to the more widespread, robust, and descriptive approach of historical linguistics.  For examples of what a methodologically rigorous historical linguistic treatment of features of Biblical Hebrew can look like, see Rezetko and Young, Historical Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew, cited in note 2, and available free of charge at https:// The presentations are rounded out by useful summary histories of linguistic diachrony in Aramaic, Ugaritic, and Akkadian, the three languages related to and considered most crucial for Biblical research.See Also: Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts Unhistorical Hebrew Linguistics: A Cautionary Tale A Very Tall “Cautionary Tale”: A Response to Ron Hendel By Martin Ehrensvärd Associate Professor Faculty of Theology University of Copenhagen Robert Rezetko Research Associate Radboud University Nijmegen & University of Sydney Ian Young Associate Professor Department of Hebrew, Biblical and Jewish Studies University of Sydney February 2016 Most ancient Hebrew language scholars probably agree broadly about what scholarship and scholarly method are and should be. Far fewer publications now rely solely on the traditional method, while many (younger) scholars are looking for new ways to take the field forward. However, the Aramaic alphabet gradually displaced the Paleo-Hebrew alphabet for the Jews, and it became the source for the modern Hebrew alphabet.All of these scripts were lacking letters to represent all of the sounds of Biblical Hebrew, though these sounds are reflected in Greek and Latin transcriptions/translations of the time.