Refining Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts: Methodological Considerations for Future Use

My analysis suggests that the cumulative linguistic evidence aligns most coherently with a pre-exilic dating of Isaiah 40-66. In fact, a post-exilic dating would require such extensive redating of other books that the traditional Classical vs. Late Biblical Hebrew distinction becomes unstable.

See also Linguistic dating und das Jesaja-Buch: eine Untersuchung der sprachlichen Entwicklung des Hebräischen im Jesaja-Buch sowie ihre Auswirkung auf die Datierung des Buches und auf die Verwendung des Linguistic Dating im Allgemeinen (Ph.D. dissertation, 2024).

By Samuel Koser
Part-time Lecturer
Bible Study College, Ostfildern
November 2025

Can linguistic analysis determine the date of a Biblical Hebrew text? Over the past five decades, the practice of linguistic dating has gained considerable popularity as a method for this purpose. At the same time, the method has also been widely criticized and debated for its viability.

            Just under six months ago, the article “Isn't It Time to Break Up with Linguistic Dating? Rethinking Hornkohl's Method—and What Comes Next” by Rezetko et al. appeared here on The Bible and Interpretation.

            The key question, then, is: Should greater consideration be given to the language used to date Biblical Hebrew texts? Or, on the other hand, should linguistic dating simply be abandoned?

            I was able to explore this question in my doctoral dissertation using the example of the book of Isaiah.[1] The book of Isaiah provides a particularly illuminating case study: Researchers have reached completely contradictory conclusions regarding the period in which especially Isaiah 40-66 should be categorized on the basis of language. While some say that the language is an argument for Isaiah 40-66 having been written before the exile,[2] others say that the language in Isaiah 40-66 clearly points to the post-exilic period,[3] and still others say that the language of Isaiah 40-66 can best be classified as belonging to the exilic period.[4]

            In my study, I demonstrate that there is a need for more rigorous methodological consideration of linguistic dating in certain areas.[5] Indeed, more than two-thirds of the linguistic features proposed for dating the book of Isaiah do not withstand rigorous scrutiny.[6]

            Nevertheless, there are some linguistic features that appear to support a pre-exilic or post-exilic classification of text blocks within the book of Isaiah. However, these features only do so if certain methodological and logical points are taken into account. The results of individual features always depend on the assumptions made about the dating of other books and shift depending on these assumptions.

            In the following, I would like to present and evaluate individual results of my dissertation on the book of Isaiah and linguistic dating. This will be done in two steps: First, I will give three concrete examples to illustrate three common methodological problems. Second, I will show which methodological steps I have incorporated and developed in my study in order to better classify the linguistic results on the book of Isaiah.

1. Three methodological difficulties of linguistic dating using the example of the book of Isaiah

In my study, I first compiled all the features – just under 100, depending on how they are counted – that have been cited until now for dating different parts of the book of Isaiah to different eras, and evaluated them. Many of these revealed methodological difficulties and unclear distributions. I would like to highlight three difficulties that occur more frequently, using three examples from my dissertation.

1.1. Unclear assumptions lead to wrong decisions, using the example of “gather,” ḳavats (קבץ) / asaf (אסף) or kanas (כנס)

Rooker cites one feature as evidence that Isaiah 40-66 represents pre-exilic Hebrew (Classical Biblical Hebrew or CBH): the use of different verbs for “gather”: ḳavats (קבץ) / asaf (אסף) or kanas (כנס).[7] There are two verbs that are frequently used in Biblical Hebrew for “gather”: asaf (אסף) 204 times and ḳavats (קבץ) 127 times in the entire Old Testament. According to Rooker, kanas (כנס) is used instead in post-exilic Hebrew. Kanas (כנס) does not appear at all in Isaiah 40-66, but asaf (אסף) or ḳavats (קבץ) appear 22 times.[8] According to Rooker, this indicates pre-exilic Hebrew in Isaiah 40-66.

            On closer inspection, several points stand out: 1. Overall, the theme of “gathering” and the two corresponding verbs appear particularly frequently in Isaiah in comparison to the rest of the Old Testament. 2. Kanas (כנס) is used only eleven times in the Old Testament,[9] one of which is in Isaiah 28:20. Only three occurrences are in so-called undisputed post-exilic books (Esther, Nehemiah, Chronicles). It appears twice in Ezekiel, twice in the Psalter (Psalms 33, 147), and three times in Ecclesiastes. What does this imply? Only if Ecclesiastes and the two psalms are counted among the post-exilic books would the distribution be noticeable. If these books are dated to the post-exilic period, the occurrence of kanas (כנס) is an indication of post-exilic Hebrew.

            But on the other hand, can the absence of kanas (כנס) in Isaiah 40-66 be used as an argument against post-exilic Hebrew (Late Biblical Hebrew or LBH), as Rooker argues? No, because the other two verbs for “to gather” are also regularly found in post-exilic literature. Kavats (קבץ) also occurs very frequently in LBH: five times in Ezra, five times in Nehemiah, 14 times in Chronicles (eight of which have no parallel text in Samuel/Kings), three times in Esther and twice in Zechariah.[10] The situation is similar with asaf (אסף), which appears twice in Ezra, four times in Nehemiah, 18 times in Chronicles (twelve of them without parallel text in Samuel/Kings), once in Daniel, three times in Zechariah, and six times in Ezekiel in exilic Hebrew.[11] Thus, the two verbs are not noticeably less frequent in LBH than in CBH. Therefore, the mere absence of kanas (כנס) and a few occurrences of asaf (אסף) and ḳavats (קבץ) in Isaiah 40-66 cannot be used as an argument for CBH.

            What does this example show? A great deal depends on the assumptions made about the dating of books. Esther, Nehemiah and Chronicles are undisputedly post-exilic books. But only if Ecclesiastes and the two Psalms 33 and 147 are dated to the post-exilic period can the occurrence of kanas (כנס) speak in favour of post-exilic Hebrew. At the same time, it is of course crucial to which time period Ezekiel and other books are dated. If, on the other hand, we assume in this example that one of the Psalms or the book of Ecclesiastes was written before the exile, the characteristic would vanish into thin air, as it would appear relatively quickly with equal frequency in pre-exilic and post-exilic contexts due to its few occurrences. This demonstrates clearly that the assumptions one makes about the dating of other books are crucial for assessing characteristics. Many characteristics only appear to have a clear distribution if one has corresponding assumptions about books, or, on the other hand, disappear into thin air if one no longer has these assumptions.

1.2. The distribution of a characteristic and a necessary frequency for a dating reference are not critically examined, using the example of the emphatic infinitive absolute

The previous example already illustrates a second methodological difficulty. Rooker believes that the absence of kanas (כנס) in pre-exilic Hebrew in Isaiah 40-66 speaks in favour of this. This is invalid if one considers the distribution and notes that the verb occurs only eleven times in the Old Testament and is also very rare in post-exilic books. Even in the Chronicles, the verbs asaf (אסף) and ḳavats (קבץ) are used for “to gather” except for one example (similar to the book of Isaiah). Other post-exilic books such as Daniel (in the Hebrew part) or Ezra even use only these two verbs for gathering, as does Isaiah 40-66. Thus, upon closer examination of the distribution, this characteristic for Isaiah 40-66 cannot be considered a valid characteristic for pre-exilic Hebrew.

            A critical examination of the distribution of a feature is therefore necessary in order to assess whether the feature, given its frequency in a book, actually constitutes a meaningful feature for dating it to a particular period. A second example from the book of Isaiah illustrates this point even more clearly: the emphatic infinitive absolute. In Hebrew, the verb form infinitive absolute is often used in such a way that a verb in infinitive absolute appears directly with its same verb root in a final form – this is referred to as the emphatic infinitive absolute.

            Hays argues that the use of the emphatic infinitive absolute declined in post-exilic Hebrew (LBH). Since it appears several times in Isaiah 24 (vv. 3, 19, 20), this suggests pre-exilic Hebrew (CBH).[12] This development of the emphatic infinitive absolute can be seen primarily in prose texts: while in CBH the infinitive absolute is very often used to precede a finite verb of the same verb root, presumably to reinforce it, this usage declines significantly in LBH. Overall, the emphatic infinitive absolute is used about 500 times in the Old Testament. In the prose texts of undisputed post-exilic texts, there are only eleven occurrences of this usage.[13] In Chronicles, four of the passages have parallels in Samuel/Kings.[14] Thus, only three occurrences can be considered independent in Chronicles. This shows that individual occurrences of the emphatic infinitive in prose texts cannot yet be used as an argument for CBH, but frequent occurrences certainly can.

            But what about prophetic literature? Below is a diagram showing how often the emphatic infinitive absolute is used per thousand words in some of the prophetic literature:

[15]

While Haggai and Malachi do not use the emphatic infinitive absolute at all, and Ezekiel has a rather low number of 1.3 per thousand words, there is one example in particular that significantly weakens this characteristic. In Zechariah, the emphatic infinitive absolute is used six times in this way, or 1.8 per thousand words.[16] Throughout the entire book of Isaiah, the emphatic infinitive absolute occurs 22 times (spread throughout the book).[17] Since the book of Isaiah has more than five times as many words as Zechariah, the occurrences in Isaiah per 1000 words are lower than in Zechariah: 1.3 per 1000 words in Isaiah and 1.8 per 1000 words in Zechariah. A comparison with Ezekiel, an exilic prophet, shows that the emphatic infinitive occurs 25 times, or 1.3 per thousand words, as in Isaiah.[18] Thus, the occurrence in the books of Isaiah, Ezekiel and Zechariah is very similar (also to the other prophets I have used for comparison), and the use of the emphatic infinitive absolute cannot be used as a chronological linguistic feature for CBH in prophetic books as it can in prose texts. The mere frequency of this construction does not necessarily imply that these chapters must have been written at a different time, as such examples can always occur due to random distribution and accumulation.

            What does this mean? The distribution of features must always be questioned critically and also in relation to genre. In this example, it has been shown that, although the emphatic infinitive absolute is used significantly less frequently in prose texts in the Old Testament after the exile, in prophetic texts we see little difference between the (possibly) pre-exilic prophets, Isaiah, Ezekiel and Zechariah. Jeremiah uses the emphatic infinitive absolute most frequently in relative terms among the prophetic books. Haggai and Malachi do not use it at all, but this is not particularly noticeable due to their short form, since even in the book of Isaiah, for example, there are several chapters without the infinitive absolute. Once a counterexample is found, the feature ceases to be meaningful and remains, at best, a weak indicator. In this case, Zechariah (and other prophets often classified as pre-exilic) uses the infinitive more frequently than Isaiah per thousand words. Therefore, this feature cannot be used to date Isaiah or parts of the book to the pre-exilic period.

1.3. Alternative explanations are not sufficiently considered, using the example of a preference for plural forms

A third major methodological issue is the insufficient consideration of alternative explanations for linguistic variation. Just because there is a noticeable distribution or shift in a feature does not necessarily mean that it is chronologically determined. The differences may also be due to dialects (regional language differences), sociolects (language differences of certain social groups) or idiolects (personal style preferences). In addition, a linguistic feature may be related to the chosen genre, as we saw with the latter feature in 1.2. It is also always necessary to consider whether a feature that appears is possibly an archaism (imitation or adoption of an older style), whether there has been an update (the linguistic feature has been adapted to the later style in a text revision), or whether an older text tradition has been included. An example where a linguistic difference is noticeable but should not be explained chronologically is the plural form of ḥaṭat (חַטָּאת) (“sin”). Scholars have repeatedly observed that in post-exilic Hebrew, the plural form is preferred for some nouns.

            For Isaiah 40-66, Hays cites the noun ḥaṭat (חַטָּאת), which always appears in the plural in Isaiah 40-66: 40:2; 43:24-25; 44:22; 58:1; 59:2, 12.[19] It is certainly striking that the noun appears in the singular only in Isaiah 1-39 (4x) and in the plural only in Isaiah 40-66 (7x).[20] This distribution is conspicuous and requires explanation. Can the distribution best be explained chronologically – i.e. that Isaiah 1-39 can be classified linguistically as pre-exilic and Isaiah 40-66 as post-exilic?

            What is the distribution of the plural form of ḥaṭat (חַטָּאת) in the Old Testament?

[21]

The plural form of ḥaṭat (חַטָּאת) occurs 71 times in the Old Testament, but mainly in pre-exilic Hebrew. It appears only five times in undisputedly post-exilic books (once in Chronicles and four times in Ezra-Nehemiah), but most frequently in the book of Kings (22x). Therefore, there is no evidence from this plural form to derive an indication of LBH. For the striking distribution in the book of Isaiah and the difference between Isaiah 1-39 and Isaiah 40-66, an explanation other than the chronological one must be sought, since the plural form of ḥaṭat (חַטָּאת) is not used more frequently in LBH. There may be a contextual explanation for why the author changed. Or it may be due to an idiolect: if two different authors had written Isaiah 1-39 and 40-66, this could also explain the difference. A detailed discussion of this lies beyond the scope of this article. However, it has been shown that the plural form of ḥaṭat (חַטָּאת) in Isaiah 40-66 cannot be an indication of post-exilic Hebrew, and an alternative explanation must be found for the striking difference within the book of Isaiah.

            This example again demonstrates that the distribution of the feature as a whole has not been carefully examined. Although it is striking that there is a change from the singular to the plural of ḥaṭat (חַטָּאת) between Isaiah 1-39 and Isaiah 40-66, overall there is no shift from pre-exilic to post-exilic Hebrew in this noun. Thus, the change in Isaiah must be explained differently and an alternative explanation sought.

1.4. Interim conclusion

The examination of three representative linguistic features in Isaiah has shown that the methodological foundations of linguistic dating require far greater precision than is often assumed. First, the dating of individual features is deeply dependent on prior assumptions about the chronological placement of other biblical books – assumptions that are frequently unstated and rarely tested. Second, even supposedly clear linguistic markers lose their force when their overall distribution, frequency, and genre sensitivity are examined critically. Third, linguistic variation can arise from multiple factors other than chronology, including genre, dialect, sociolect, idiolect, archaism, updating, or the incorporation of older textual traditions. Taken together, these observations reveal that a substantial proportion of the linguistic arguments traditionally used to date Isaiah do not withstand close scrutiny. Yet this does not invalidate the potential of linguistic dating altogether. Rather, it highlights the need for more carefully articulated assumptions, more nuanced evaluation of the strength of features, and more systematic consideration of alternative explanations. With these difficulties in view, the next step is to ask how linguistic dating might continue to be practiced responsibly. In the following section, I propose three methodological refinements designed to address the problems identified so far – clarifying assumptions, assessing the strength of features more rigorously, and integrating alternative explanations into the interpretive process. These steps, taken together, offer a pathway toward a more reliable and fruitful application of linguistic analysis in the dating of biblical texts, including the book of Isaiah.

2. Three proposed solutions for how the linguistic dating method can continue to be fruitful in the future

The first part highlighted three common methodological difficulties of linguistic dating: unclear assumptions, distribution of linguistic markers, and alternative explanations. In this section, I would like to present three proposed solutions for how these methodological weaknesses can be avoided in the future in order to conduct linguistic dating on a better basis.

2.1 Clarifying assumptions and adopting flexible models as safeguards against cognitive closure

Since linguistic dating is always based on assumptions, these should be clearly stated. Which biblical (or non-biblical) books are assigned to which era in order to discover linguistic features that differ chronologically? It also helps to keep models flexible, which is becoming increasingly easier thanks to computer analysis. For example, if 20 linguistic features are examined in Isaiah, it is possible to consider retrospectively: Under which assumptions are these features meaningful or meaningless, and for which period do they speak? For example, the verb כנס may indicate post-exilic Hebrew if both certain Psalms and Ecclesiastes are also dated to the post-exilic period. As soon as one of the Psalms or the book of Ecclesiastes is not post-exilic, the verb can no longer be an indication of post-exilic Hebrew due to its overall rarity.

            If one takes into account the dependence of the characteristics on the dating of certain books, one can consider in retrospect: Under what conditions do which characteristics speak for which epoch? What linguistic challenges do certain dates pose? And which dates result in the most “uniform system” possible?

            In my dissertation, I used the example of Isaiah 40-66 to show that pre-exilic, exilic and post-exilic dating of most of the text presents certain linguistic challenges that need to be explained. Depending on how other books are dated, these linguistic features can be explained and classified more easily or with greater difficulty. If one dates Isaiah 40-66 as pre-exilic, one must deal with a few linguistic features that tend to favour a post-exilic date. However, these are all also linked to the dating of controversial books.

            I have examined this from every angle and will show here just one example of how this is possible:

            If one wishes to classify large parts of Isaiah 40-66 as post-exilic, there are certain difficulties with some linguistic features that tend to appear in pre-exilic Hebrew (again, depending on other dating, of course). 17 such features have been confirmed in my work and tend to favour pre-exilic Hebrew in Isaiah 40-66. For example, if one were to classify large parts of the book of Proverbs as post-exilic, this would greatly weaken or completely eliminate six of these 17 features, because they would then also be found in the post-exilic Proverbs. If one were to classify many of the Psalms as post-exilic, this would affect four more features. This shows that all linguistic features that could indicate a specific date are strongly dependent on the dating of other books. If Isaiah 40-66 is dated to the post-exilic period, but many of the “controversial” books are dated to the pre-exilic period (such as Proverbs or many of the Psalms), then difficulties arise with the language in Isaiah 40-66 that need to be explained. However, if one dates Proverbs and many of the Psalms, as well as Ruth and Job, for example, to the post-exilic period, there are hardly any linguistic difficulties in classifying Isaiah 40-66 as post-exilic. However, due to the many “classical” pre-exilic features found in Isaiah 40-66, one would then have to consider whether the chronological division into CBH (pre-exilic Hebrew) and LBH (post-exilic Hebrew) is tenable at all.

            The guiding principle should therefore always be: What are my assumptions? What linguistic features for dating arise from them? And in retrospect, we must consider: How do these features change when the assumptions shift? Are there variants in which a coherent linguistic development model emerges and others in which the linguistic differences are, at least so far, more difficult to explain?

            In my dissertation, I came to the conclusion that, based on the book of Isaiah and specifically Isaiah 40-66, the division into CBH and LBH must be fundamentally questioned if Isaiah 40-66 is classified as post-exilic. On the other hand, a pre-exilic classification of Isaiah 40-66 can best be justified from a linguistic point of view if books such as Job, Ruth, Proverbs, Zephaniah and many of the Psalms are also classified as pre-exilic – if this is not done, a pre-exilic classification of the book is rather challenging from a linguistic point of view. Classifying some of the debated books, along with Isaiah 40-66, as pre-exilic would better demonstrate pre-exilic linguistic features and a chronological development of the Hebrew linguistic styles CBH and LBH.

2.2. The significance and strength of the characteristics must be examined and determined in order to be able to make a reliable assessment at the end

The second methodological weakness can be remedied by critically examining whether, depending on both the underlying assumptions and the frequency with which the feature occurs, a linguistic feature can be said to indicate a particular era.

            It can also be helpful to assign different levels of significance to the linguistic features, as not every linguistic feature is equally meaningful. For example, if a word that is used more frequently in the pre-exilic period but also in the post-exilic period appears several times in the section under investigation, this is only a weak indication of a pre-exilic date. On the other hand, if a word that is only found in the pre-exilic period also appears in the section under investigation, this is a very meaningful argument. In my study, I have divided the features into four categories based on forensic linguistics: from “very significant” to “significant,” “less significant” to only a “weak indication” (or none at all, in which case these features can be discarded). I assigned numbers (from 1 to 4) to this classification in my work so that I could summarise retrospectively how strongly all the characteristics together support classification in a particular era. Of course, it is impossible to assign an exact significance to a linguistic feature; for example, a linguistic feature with a strength of four is not exactly four times as significant as a linguistic feature with a strength of one. So does it make sense to divide them into four different strengths? Yes, because even if linguistic features cannot be assigned an exact significance, it is still possible to say roughly whether a feature is only a weak indication, not very significant, significant or very significant. In contrast to the previous approach, in which features were usually simply counted, without regard to their relative strength, the division into four different categories is definitely more accurate. For example, my study has shown that (depending on assumptions, of course) in Isaiah 40-66, 17 linguistic features with a strength of 42 point to pre-exilic Hebrew, while 7 linguistic features with a strength of 15 point to post-exilic Hebrew. It would be incorrect to conclude from this that Isaiah 40-66 is best classified as exilic, since features of both periods do not appear in the same way in the exilic period – but I cannot go into this in more detail here.

2.3. All alternative explanations should be examined and weighed up

To address this third methodological challenge, in the future, for each linguistic feature examined, consideration should be given to the extent to which an alternative explanation is conceivable.

            The first thing to consider is: Could the feature have been easily archaicized or updated? For example, in the case of syntactic or some grammatical features whose shift was not yet complete, archaization and deliberate imitation are very unlikely, as it cannot be assumed that the author at the time was aware of this subtle shift in language. If this is considered for each feature, it is possible to reflect afterwards on whether a large proportion of the features identified can be explained by archaization. If only a few of them can be explained well by archaization, this is not a good objection to the language classification.

            Secondly, the question must be asked: Could the feature be traced back to the use of an older text tradition? To this end, it is always necessary to consider the extent to which linguistic features occur only in individual chapters or sections, and ultimately, when all the features have been compiled, it can be considered whether the chronological attribution is only meaningful for certain sections that may have been taken from earlier textual traditions. Generally speaking, nothing can be said about individual words, verses or smaller sections on the basis of the language alone. If, for example, earlier Hebrew features appear specifically in one chapter or section of Isaiah 40-66, this could well be explained by the use of an older text tradition at that point. If the pre-exilic features appear scattered throughout Isaiah 40-66, this alternative explanation is unlikely.

            Finally, we must consider whether an alternative explanation is possible through dialect, sociolect or idiolect. This must be evaluated individually for each feature based on its distribution. For parts of the book of Isaiah, one could assume a southern Hebrew dialect or attribute some formulations to the dialect of an upper class, as the book of Isaiah probably belonged to this class. However, there is little supporting evidence for the former, and in the latter case, it is important to keep in mind whether a formulation or feature can be specifically attributed to this class. Sociolect is closely linked to genre. Therefore, it is always necessary to consider whether a feature is only applicable in prose texts or whether it actually applies to prophetic literature as well. With regard to idiolect, it must be considered to what extent the accumulation in parts of Isaiah could also be explained as idiolect due to its distribution throughout the Bible. In other words, based on its distribution in other biblical books, consider whether an alternative explanation for the feature is equally plausible. If, for example, a feature occurs only in Isaiah 1-39 and Amos, it is just as possible that it is due to the personal style of the two authors and does not necessarily indicate that they wrote at the same time. Only when several books from the same period frequently use a word or construction is a chronological explanation obvious.

3. Conclusion for Isaiah and outlook for linguistic dating

3.1. Linguistic dating of Isaiah

Although I remain methodologically cautious, my analysis suggests that the cumulative linguistic evidence aligns most coherently with a pre-exilic dating of Isaiah 40-66. This conclusion is not absolute; it depends on clearly stated assumptions about the dating of other biblical books. Nevertheless, when the strength, distribution, and possible alternative explanations for each linguistic feature are assessed together, a pre-exilic profile introduces far fewer difficulties than an exilic or post-exilic one. In fact, a post-exilic dating would require such extensive redating of other books that the traditional CBH/LBH distinction becomes unstable. For these reasons, a pre-exilic classification emerges as the linguistically most consistent model, even as I remain open to other outcomes.

3.2. Outlook for linguistic dating

What does this mean for the future of linguistic dating? In my research, I came to the conclusion that previous work has often been methodologically inconsistent or insufficiently rigorous, perhaps because people wanted to obtain very good or very consistent linguistic results. Nevertheless, in my view, linguistic dating has a future if the method is refined and the work is carried out thoroughly. It is essential, however, to remain open to all outcomes – including the possibility that no distinct chronolects can be established.

            To better ensure this in the future, three methodological steps are very important: (1) The assumptions must be clearly stated, and it is important to review afterwards which assumptions and dates shift the linguistic results in which way. This allows us to consider how the “best” result is achieved purely linguistically. (2) It is important to critically examine the significance and strength of the characteristics and then classify them in a differentiated manner – not every characteristic is equally significant. If only two weak characteristics speak for a particular era, this must be dealt with differently than if there are two very strong characteristics that can hardly be explained in any other way. And (3) alternative explanations should be considered and weighed up for each feature. Could the feature also be explained by archaism, updating, recorded textual tradition, genre dependence, dialect, sociolect or idiolect? Once each feature has been classified, we can ultimately consider whether the majority of the features examined can be better explained in ways other than chronolect.

            I hope that linguistic dating will not be discarded simply because of its past difficulties. When grounded in sound methodology, linguistic dating can and should continue to play a valuable role. It may well yield completely new results in the future. A unanimous consensus will likely remain elusive – as it so often does in human inquiry – on how Biblical Hebrew developed and how Biblical Hebrew can be used to date biblical books. Nevertheless, scholars should continue to reflect on how linguistic data can inform their models and dating hypotheses.