Dating Biblical Texts by Linguistic Means: Holmstedt & Cook vs. Young & Rezetko

    Over at Rob and John’s excellent blog, one can find echoes of a debate that bedevils contemporary scholarship: the problem of dating biblical texts by linguistic means. My own take: Ian Young and Robert Rezetko have formulated their point of view in terms such that they will be understood to be impersonating the role of “minimalists” in a debate dominated by “middle-of-the-roaders” and an occasional maximalist. I don’t see how this works in their favor. The notion that state-of-the-art linguistic analysis of ancient Hebrew texts – on its way thanks to Holmstedt and Cook – will be unhelpful to the adventure of dating said texts is counter-intuitive, precisely to someone with knowledge of the importance of text-critical data.

    For example, anyone with linguistic training who has worked with the medieval versus the Masada Ben Sira materials will recognize the value of the differing linguistic profiles of the late versus the early sets of data for an understanding of the history of the Hebrew language and for a snapshot of the profile of a variety of early second century BCE non-classicizing ancient Hebrew before it was classicized in the history of the transmission of Ben Sira in the rabbinic period. Data sets of this kind allow historical linguists to set up benchmarks by which to evaluate texts the linguistic profile of which is uncertain in whole or in part.

    It is not a question of linguistic analysis being relevant or irrelevant to the dating of biblical texts. The only question is: at what point in the assembly line of knowledge should the discipline and strategies of historical linguistics impact our understanding of the range of possible dates of provenance of particular features of language, and sets of such features, in a particular text?

    My first answer: at every point along the way, in a continuous feedback loop with judgments made on the basis of other criteria, text-critical and historical-critical, relevant to the dating of texts. My second answer: a judicious use of the work of text-critics, much of it only now coming online thanks to projects such as BHQ, OHB, and HUBP, will save the historical linguist from many a false step. Whenever I notice that a linguistic analysis of a biblical text has been made on the basis of the Tiberian Masoretic text without reference to what we can reconstruct of the history of the phonology, morphology, syntax, and lexicon of the Hebrew language from a global examination of all available data, I cringe. My third answer: a judicious use of sound historical linguistic analysis of biblical materials, for example of qal passives and infinitive absolutes, will save the text-critic from false agnosticism.

    The dating of biblical texts is an interdisciplinary adventure, or it is a sham. This is a hard saying in an age of specialization. It is a true saying none the less.

Comments

[Robert Holmstedt]

Thanks for the contribution, John.

"a continuous feedback loop" -- couldn't have said it better myself!

[Cristian Rata]

John - have you really worked with the Hebrew of the Masada Ben Sira materials? I will be looking at this soon (as I recently acquired a copy of The Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew), but I wonder if you are aware of a study that compares the Hebrew of Ben Sira with that of Qoheleth?

[JohnFH]

Hi Cristian,

I have worked with the Hebrew of Masada Ben Sira. But the comparative analysis I have done revolves around a comparison of Masada Ben Sira Hebrew with Geniza Ben Sira Hebrew. A comparison reveals that Geniza Ben Sira Hebrew has undergone normalization in the direction of biblical Hebrew.

Helpful discussion is found at various points in:

W.Th. (Wido) van Peursen, The Verbal System in the Hebrew Text of Ben Sira (Studies in Semitic Languages and Literatures 41; Leiden: Brill, 2004).

Reviews: Beentjes, P.C., Bijdragen: International Journal in Philosophy and Theology 66 (2005) 221–222; Elwolde, J.F., Journal of Semitic Studies 51 (2006) 397–409; Di Giulio, M., Materia giudaica. Rivista dell’associazione italiana per lo studio del giudaismo 10 (2005) 188–190; s.a., New Testament Abstracts 49 (2005) 455.

I have not made a point-by-point comparison of Masada Ben Sira Hebrew with the Hebrew of Qohelet (which cannot be identified with MT Qohelet Hebrew; attention to the text-critical conclusions of BHQ Qohelet casts a dark shadow over facile attempt to describe the linguistic profile of the book of Qohelet on the basis of MT Qohelet alone). It is possible that someone has made a point-by-point comparison, but I am unaware of it. I know who to ask and will make inquiries if you wish.