Isn’t It Time to Break Up with Linguistic Dating? Rethinking Hornkohl’s Method—and What Comes NextA critique of an open-access New Book published by OpenBook Publishers which I have not yet mentioned:In the end, Hornkohl’s work represents a well-argued example of an older paradigm trying to survive in a new era. His case studies are meticulously done and worthy of attention. But until we reckon fully with the compositional and textual realities of the Hebrew Bible, linguistic dating will remain, at best, a hopeful guess—and at worst, a circular exercise in self-confirmation.
By Robert Rezetko
Independent Researcher
Research Affiliate of the Universities of Arizona, Copenhagen, and SydneyBy Ian Young
Professor of Biblical Studies and Ancient Languages
Faculty of Theology and Philosophy
Australian Catholic UniversityBy Martin Ehrensvärd
Associate Professor of Biblical Exegesis
Faculty of Theologyv University of CopenhagenBy Martijn Naaijer
Postdoctoral Researcher
Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies
University of Zurich
July 2025
Diachronic Diversity in Classical Biblical HebrewFor earlier installments of this debate, see here and links.Aaron D. Hornkohl (author)
According to the standard periodisation of ancient Hebrew, the division of Biblical Hebrew as reflected in the Masoretic tradition is basically dichotomous: pre-exilic Classical Biblical Hebrew (CBH) versus post-Restoration Late Biblical Hebrew (LBH). Within this paradigm, the chronolectal unity of CBH is rarely questioned—this despite the reasonable expectation that the language of a corpus encompassing traditions of various ages and comprising works composed, edited, and transmitted over the course of centuries would show signs of diachronic development. From the perspective of historical evolution, CBH is remarkably homogenous. Within this apparent uniformity, however, there are indeed signs of historical development, sets of alternant features whose respective concentrations seem to divide CBH into two sub-chronolects. The most conspicuous typological division that emerges is between the CBH of the Pentateuch and that of the relevant Prophets and Writings. The present volume investigates a series of features that distinguish the two ostensible CBH sub-chronolects, weighs alternative explanations for distribution patterns that appear to have chronological significance, and considers broader implications for Hebrew diachrony and periodisation and for the composition of the Torah.
Visit PaleoJudaica daily for the latest news on ancient Judaism and the biblical world.
