Robert Rezetko

On the occasion of his sixty-fifth birthday, this Festschrift celebrates A. Graeme Auld, Professor of Hebrew Bible at the University of Edinburgh, as one of the most innovative scholars in Old Testament Studies of his generation. The contributors of the volume, colleagues, friends and former students, have written articles that touch on various aspects of Auld's work including Old Testament, historiography, Pentateuch, Deuteronomistic History, Chronicles, prophecy and prophets, Septuagint, and textual criticism.

Volume 1 introduces the field of linguistic dating of biblical texts, particularly to intermediate and advanced students of biblical Hebrew who have a reasonable background in the language, having completed at least an introductory course at the university or divinity school level, but also to scholars of the Hebrew Bible in general who have not been exposed to the full scope of issues. The book is useful to a wide range of readers by introducing topics at a basic level before entering into detailed discussion. Among the many issues discussed in this volume are: What is it that makes Archaic Biblical Hebrew 'archaic', Early Biblical Hebrew 'early', and Late Biblical Hebrew 'late'? Does linguistic typology, i.e. different linguistic characteristics, convert easily and neatly into linguistic chronology, i.e. different historical origins? A large amount of text samples are presented for study. Readers are introduced to significant linguistic features of the texts by means of notes on the passages. For use as a textbook in a classroom context, the detailed notes on the text samples provide a background, concrete illustrations, and a point of departure for discussion of the general and theoretical issues discussed in each chapter.

After a brief introduction (Chapter 1), the following chapters look in detail at the principles and methodology used to differentiate Archaic, Early and Late Biblical Hebrew (Chapters 2-5, 12), the complicating matters of dialects and diglossia and textual criticism (Chapters 7, 13), and the significance of extra-biblical sources, including Amarna Canaanite, Ugaritic, Aramaic, Hebrew inscriptions of the monarchic period, Qumran and Mishnaic Hebrew, the Hebrew language of Ben Sira and Bar Kochba, and also Egyptian, Akkadian, Persian and Greek loanwords (Chapters 6, 8-12).

Volume 2 builds on the topics outlined in volume 1. It begins with a book by book survey of scholarship on the origins of biblical sources, passages and books, with particular reference to the linguistic evidence scholars have cited in arriving at these conclusions. This is followed by an detailed synthesis of the topics introduced in the first volume, a series of detailed case studies on various linguistic issues, extensive tables of grammatical and lexical features, and a comprehensive bibliography.

The authors argue that the scholarly use of language in dating biblical texts, and even the traditional standpoint on the chronological development of biblical Hebrew, require a thorough re-evaluation, and propose a new perspective on linguistic variety in biblical Hebrew. ‘Early’ Biblical Hebrew and ‘Late’ Biblical Hebrew do not represent different chronological periods in the history of biblical Hebrew, but instead represent co-existing styles of literary Hebrew throughout the biblical period.

Volume 1 introduces the field of linguistic dating of biblical texts, particularly to intermediate and advanced students of biblical Hebrew who have a reasonable background in the language, having completed at least an introductory course at the university or divinity school level, but also to scholars of the Hebrew Bible in general who have not been exposed to the full scope of issues. The book is useful to a wide range of readers by introducing topics at a basic level before entering into detailed discussion. Among the many issues discussed in this volume are: What is it that makes Archaic Biblical Hebrew 'archaic', Early Biblical Hebrew 'early', and Late Biblical Hebrew 'late'? Does linguistic typology, i.e. different linguistic characteristics, convert easily and neatly into linguistic chronology, i.e. different historical origins? A large amount of text samples are presented for study. Readers are introduced to significant linguistic features of the texts by means of notes on the passages. For use as a textbook in a classroom context, the detailed notes on the text samples provide a background, concrete illustrations, and a point of departure for discussion of the general and theoretical issues discussed in each chapter.

After a brief introduction (Chapter 1), the following chapters look in detail at the principles and methodology used to differentiate Archaic, Early and Late Biblical Hebrew (Chapters 2-5, 12), the complicating matters of dialects and diglossia and textual criticism (Chapters 7, 13), and the significance of extra-biblical sources, including Amarna Canaanite, Ugaritic, Aramaic, Hebrew inscriptions of the monarchic period, Qumran and Mishnaic Hebrew, the Hebrew language of Ben Sira and Bar Kochba, and also Egyptian, Akkadian, Persian and Greek loanwords (Chapters 6, 8-12).

Volume 2 builds on the topics outlined in volume 1. It begins with a book by book survey of scholarship on the origins of biblical sources, passages and books, with particular reference to the linguistic evidence scholars have cited in arriving at these conclusions. This is followed by an detailed synthesis of the topics introduced in the first volume, a series of detailed case studies on various linguistic issues, extensive tables of grammatical and lexical features, and a comprehensive bibliography.

The authors argue that the scholarly use of language in dating biblical texts, and even the traditional standpoint on the chronological development of biblical Hebrew, require a thorough re-evaluation, and propose a new perspective on linguistic variety in biblical Hebrew. ‘Early’ Biblical Hebrew and ‘Late’ Biblical Hebrew do not represent different chronological periods in the history of biblical Hebrew, but instead represent co-existing styles of literary Hebrew throughout the biblical period.

This book seeks to break fresh ground in research on the history of ancient
Hebrew. Building on theoretical and methodological concepts in general
historical linguistics and in diachronic linguistic research on various ancient
Near Eastern and Indo-European languages, the authors reflect critically on
issues such as the objective of the research, the nature of the written sources,
and the ideas of variation and periodization. They draw on innovative work
on premodern scribally created writings to argue for a similar application of
a joint history of texts and history of language approach to ancient Hebrew.
The application of cross-textual variable analysis and variationist analysis in
various case studies shows that more complete descriptions and evaluations
of the distribution of linguistic data advances our understanding of historical
developments in ancient Hebrew.

Empirical models based on ancient Near Eastern literature and variations between different textual traditions have been used to lend credibility to the identification of the sources behind biblical literature and of the different editorial layers. In this volume, empirical models are used to critique the exaggerated results of identifying sources and editorial layers by demonstrating that, even though much of ancient literature had such complex literary histories, the methods are often inadequate for the task of such precise identification. Overall the volume concludes that future studies in source and redaction criticism must accept more limited goals and objectives, primarily focused on the extant texts in their textual plurality and how that plurality may illuminate the prehistory of the chosen literary text, even if only faintly.

Misusing Scripture offers a thorough and critical evaluation of American evangelical scholarship on the Bible. This strand of scholarship exerts enormous influence on the religious beliefs and practices, and even cultural and political perspectives, of millions of evangelical Christians in the United States and worldwide. The book brings together a diverse array of authors with expertise on the Bible, religion, history, and archaeology to critique the nature and growth of "faith-based" biblical scholarship. The chapters focus on inerrancy and textual criticism, archaeology and history, and the Bible in its ancient and contemporary contexts. They explore how evangelicals approach the Bible in their biblical interpretation, how "biblical" archaeology is misused to bolster distinctive views about the Bible, and how disputed interpretations of the Bible impact issues in the public square. This unique and timely volume contributes to a greater understanding and appreciation of how contemporary American evangelicals understand and use the Bible in their private and public lives. It will be of particular interest to scholars of biblical studies, evangelical Christianity, and religion in the United States.

Becking and Korpel argued that ברא should be construed as “to construct.” Van Wolde and Rezetko respond to their arguments with a critical review of earlier biblical studies, reflections on biblical and extra-biblical semantics including studies of verbs expressing “separation-events,” etymological studies including evidence from Samaritan texts, and a more complete analysis of various Biblical Hebrew verbs and proper names. These studies lead to the conclusion that Van Wolde's proposal that ברא should be construed as “to spatially separate” remains a viable explanation for the semantics of this verb.

In 2014 Avi Hurvitz published A Concise Lexicon of Late Biblical Hebrew: Linguistic Innovations in the Writings of the Second Temple Period. In the present article we offer an alternative, quantitative interpretation of the data in the Lexicon. Our main conclusions are that the late language cataloged in the Lexicon is rare and idiosyncratic in late biblical writings and accordingly the value of the late language for linguistic periodization and linguistic dating is negligible.

The intuition of established scholars often holds them back from appreciating revolutionary advances in the understanding of how the biblical texts evolved and how to view their language in that context. Kuhn’s theory of paradigm shifts helps elucidate what is currently going on in our field. We use Richard Friedman’s new book on the exodus as an example of the old paradigm and juxtapose it with the emerging paradigm that is founded on more robust data collection and analysis.

http://bibleinterp.com/articles/2017/12/ehr418003.shtml

In this essay we summarize the status quaestionis of diachronic linguistic study of Biblical Hebrew as reflected principally in some major publications of the recent several years. We reflect critically on research objectives, perspectives on sources, documentation of variation and change, and periodization issues. We also include a detailed bibliography of relevant works published since our Historical Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew (November 2014).

The intuition of established scholars often holds them back from appreciating revolutionary advances in the understanding of how biblical texts evolved and how to view their language in that context. Kuhn's theory of paradigm shifts helps elucidate the current debate regarding the linguistic dating theories of Avi Hurvitz and others. We discuss these linguistic dating theories and use Richard Friedman's book on the exodus as an example of the old paradigm. We then juxtapose it with the emerging paradigm that is founded on more robust data collection and analysis.

Can the Ages of Biblical Literature be Discerned Without Literary Analysis? Review-Essay of Ronald Hendel and Jan Joosten, How Old is the Hebrew Bible? A Linguistic, Textual, and Historical Study (The Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library; New Haven/London: Yale University Press, 2018; xvi + 221). Hendel and Joosten’s book is chock-full of insightful observations on a multitude of linguistic, textual, and cultural/historical phenomena, and they argue cogently that the best method for dating biblical writings should include all three of these data sources. Nonetheless, their answer to the question, "How Old is the Hebrew Bible?," is unoriginal because they do little more than offer a sophisticated repackaging of the traditional linguistic dating approach and results, and it is also unsatisfactory because they eschew literary criticism in the formulation of their model of consilience for determining the ages of biblical literature.

Ancient Hebrew like all natural languages evolved through time, and silhouettes of its history are traceable in the literary writings of the Hebrew Bible. But, historical linguistics is not text-dating, and the latter is what Hendel and Joosten’s How Old Is the Hebrew Bible? is largely about.

Can the Ages of Biblical Literature be Discerned Without Literary Analysis? Review-Essay of Ronald Hendel and Jan Joosten, How Old is the Hebrew Bible? A Linguistic, Textual, and Historical Study (The Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library; New Haven/London: Yale University Press, 2018; xvi + 221). Hendel and Joosten’s book is chock-full of insightful observations on a multitude of linguistic, textual, and cultural/historical phenomena, and they argue cogently that the best method for dating biblical writings should include all three of these data sources. Nonetheless, their answer to the question, "How Old is the Hebrew Bible?," is unoriginal because they do little more than offer a sophisticated repackaging of the traditional linguistic dating approach and results, and it is also unsatisfactory because they eschew literary criticism in the formulation of their model of consilience for determining the ages of biblical literature.

Summaries of our work have often suggested that we deny that ancient Hebrew developed as other natural languages do. This is diagnosed as the reason we deny the possibility of dating biblical compositions on the basis of their language, which is the major focus of scholars working in the previously dominant Masoretic Text (MT)-only paradigm for understanding the development of ancient Hebrew. In fact, as we have already explained, the choice that we have offered has never been “chronology or no chronology.” However, we have always stressed the extreme difficulties that the nature of the sources and the evidence they provide cause for attempts to make valid chronological statements about ancient Hebrew.