Hebrew Diachrony and Jonah

Despite uncertainties and disagreements, there is broad agreement on the heuristic value of recognizing chronologically distinct language varieties within Biblical Hebrew. The distinction between Classical and Late Biblical Hebrew is based on the linguistic profiles of compositions that prototypically represent their respective categories. Not all texts are prototypical, though. Some deviate from more standard profiles in anomalous ways. One such work is Jonah. Early on assigned by critics to the post-exilic period based on certain linguistic peculiarities, disagreement over Jonah’s linguistic periodization persists. Many assess Jonah’s language as late, whereas others attribute its departures from classical style to non-diachronic factors, including dialect, literary artifice, and early contact with cognate languages. Few biblical compositions are the subject of opinions simultaneously characterized by such divergence and confidence. The present study surveys past attempts to periodize Jonah’s language, highlights methodological challenges and pitfalls in mainstream approaches, proposes a methodological refinement to distinguish between more and less probative evidence without over- or underestimating the value of the latter, and, in rigorous adherence to accepted methodology, pronounces a verdict based on a more comprehensive evidentiary basis than has hitherto been offered

Convention · Divergence (linguistics) · Hebrew · Mainstream · Periodization · Quantifier (linguistics) · Style (visual arts) · Subject (documents) · Value (mathematics) · Archaeology and Historical Studies · Biblical Studies and Interpretation · Freedom of Expression and Defamation

• Biblische Exegese und hebräische Lexikographie

  Stefan Schorch, Ernst-Joachim Waschke•Biblische Exegese und Hebräische…•2013

  Add to list

• The Date of the Prose-Tale of Job Linguistically Reconsidered

  Open Access•Avi Hurvitz•Harvard Theological Review•1974

  Add to list