Young rezetko linguistic dating review
Their point is that relating so-called Early Biblical Hebrew with so-called Late Biblical Hebrew in terms of chronology does not do justice to the evidence, involves circular reasoning and thus pervants that nature of linguistic diversity in the Hebrew Bible.
Kim discusses several of the foundational ideas of sociolinguistics (the discipline dealing with the relationship between language and society) and historical sociolinguistics, such as linguistic variation and variationist analysis, and he explains how he will apply such concepts to the corpus of BH.
Now, this may in fact be a conclusion which is congenial to some.
But others will not find this agreeable, so we will offer a way out of this conclusion by arguing that the presuppositions of the chronological approach are undermined by the evidence.
Late Biblical Hebrew: Critique of Principles Chapter 4 Early vs.
Late Biblical Hebrew: Critique of Methodology Chapter 5 Early vs.
(In the present context, a simplified definition of the variationist approach might be a quantitative analysis of two or more linguistic variables, or ways of saying the same thing, as a way of detecting language change.) Chapter 2 ( Linguistic Dating of Biblical Hebrew Texts: A Survey of Scholarship) reviews research on the linguistic development of BH, beginning with the period from Wilhelm Gesenius (usually considered the father of the diachronic study of BH) to Yechezkel Kutscher (Hurvitz's teacher), followed by a discussion of the work of Robert Polzin and a longer treatment of the work of Hurvitz, and their followers, and continuing with a summary of the work of scholars who have challenged various fundamental presuppositions and methods in previous scholarship.