Rezetko et al. have published a critical review of the book, where they repeat their criticism of "linguistic dating" as unwarranted, given the complex formation and transmission histories of the texts. In the comments, Ron Hendel provides his own response to the review, which is generally supportive of Hornkohl's approach (if not all of the details of his argument).
I would not claim to be a historical linguist, and I haven't spent a lot of time in the literature. But I guess as a textual critic I have some stake in the argument. I agree, in principle, that it is not safe to just uncritically assume the MT text form for linguistic analysis. Scribes sometimes did update orthography or other linguistic features, and critical comparison of different versions sometimes helps us to restore earlier states of the text. That said, it would be wrong to imagine that updating on the scale of the (in)famous 1QIsa-a was common, when it is rather the exception to the rule. I see very little evidence of any kind of systematic linguistic leveling or updating in the tradition. Most ancient biblical manuscripts are much more conservative in their copying approach, and in general I have been impressed by the way the distinctive linguistic profiles of different works are so well preserved despite many centuries of copying. This is evident in orthography, morphology, lexicon (including loanwords), and even syntax. And bringing in traditions like the Dead Sea Scrolls and Samaritan Pentateuch is unlikely to change much, since these are precisely where we find most of the linguistic innovations, in contrast to the generally more conservative MT. My prediction is that systematic text-critical work will help reverse some linguistic changes and provide improved clarity at points, but that improved resolution will more often reinforce the more established diachronic observations of language typologists than undermine the typological distinctions.
On the question of redaction, no one doubts that many of the texts of the Hebrew Bible had long and complex editorial (pre-)histories. But there are many disagreements and uncertainties on the details of those histories, and I, for one, am hesitant to rely on proposed redactional histories as firm ground truths for dating the texts of the Hebrew Bible. If faced with a choice, I would personally much rather bring historical linguistic typology to bear as an independent control on redaction-critical models than the reverse. Linguistic typology is less dependent upon complex and subjective literary readings, and it is more easily pegged to materially datable evidence in the form of ancient inscriptions and comparative evidence. Of course, this is not to discount dating based on literary criteria entirely, and sometimes internal indications of date may be the best criteria. But too much of the tradition of dating the biblical books has been based on highly ambiguous literary data and is heavily dependent on very speculative redaction-critical theories. So I welcome attempts like Hornkohl's to provide more objective controls on literary-critical speculation. Whether the details of Hornkohl's particular arguments hold up or not remains to be seen.
HT Agade
Drew: Thank you for your engagement with our response to Hornkohl’s book. We have commented on your concerns in a comment on The Bible and Interpretation website, here: https://bibleinterp.arizona.edu/comment/2470#comment-2470. We welcome the conversation. I invite you to continue the dialogue on B&I.
ReplyDelete"I see very little evidence of any kind of systematic linguistic leveling or updating in the tradition." - Concerning orthography (and I mention this because the spelling of David and Jerusalem is commonly used as an argument) there is very systematic updating, as is well known. Not to mention this while highlighting "David" and "Jerusalem" is quite some cherry picking.
ReplyDeleteMorphology: The 3fs qatal of III infirmae is still הית in the Siloam inscription, not היתה (of course one may discuss whether this is simply a matter of defective spelling, but there is reason not to think so). Such forms are extremely rare in MT and it is questionable whether such spelling really are reflections of the older הית.
The standard form for the 1ms PPN in MT is אנחנו. The older form is נחנו, again very rare in MT, but excatly the form attested in a Hebrew inscription.
"and I, for one, am hesitant to rely on proposed redactional histories as firm ground truths for dating the texts of the Hebrew Bible" - so, I guess, the whole debate about the dating of P doesn't make sense to you bc the existence of P is based on "complex and subjective literary readings" or "based on highly ambiguous literary data and is heavily dependent on very speculative redaction-critical theories"? If not, it looks again a bit like cherry picking to me.
Sorry, forgot to enter my name. That was me.
ReplyDeleteDear Harald,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the helpful interaction.
Re: "I see very little evidence of any kind of systematic linguistic leveling or updating in the tradition." Thanks for providing these counter-examples, which I wouldn’t necessarily want to dispute. In the context I meant primarily examples of systematic updating that can be documented within the copying tradition by comparison of surviving manuscripts. Your counter-examples generally concern an earlier period of composition and/or transmission than what is (at least so far) traceable in the manuscript tradition. That’s not to say these kinds of examples of (orthographic?) differences with early inscriptions are unimportant! Just that they are not readily discernible with typical text-critical methods. Linguistic (including orthographic) differences between the CBH corpus and early inscriptions of course need to be accounted for, whether these are indicative of the date of composition or were updated in transmission. I would say orthography in particular has most frequently been updated in transmission, and it also has comparatively little impact on the meaning, which is why textual critics have traditionally cared less about reconstructing the original orthographic forms of works. Perhaps that leaves historical linguists wanting, but I don’t think the alternative of artificially trying to reconstruct a systematic, archaic orthography of the supposed date of composition would be of much use either.
Re: “dating of P.” In the case of P, I suppose part of my hesitance stems from my own level of competence and confidence, since I have not kept close tabs on recent debates about the dating of P. In principle, I’m not opposed to bringing in literary arguments for dating P or other (extant or reconstructed) compositions. Even the fact that there are considerable debates among specialists doesn’t necessarily undermine the contributions of these discussions, since this is par for the course in historical scholarship. Indeed, at times literary indications may be decisive, especially when concrete, datable events are referred to. But when dating is done primarily based on a reconstructed history of ideas, that’s when I get a bit more skeptical. General ideas, themes, expressions, and theologies seem much more difficult to me to date with precision. And it’s generally easier for me to imagine long, overlapping histories, idiosyncrasies, internal divisions within cultures, long gaps, independent emergence, etc. than it is for other forms of typology (e.g., paleography, pottery, and, yes, linguistic), which are either material in nature or have a stronger component of cultural convention. Again, I’m not trying to make an absolute rejection of literary-critical evidence, but trying to tease out what can be known most confidently and what is chronologically most indicative. That might change on a case by case basis. Hope that helps clarify.