The central claim of these scholars is stated clearly:"the linguistic patterns found in the MT (or other sources) are more likely the result of later editorial and scribal activity than of earlier stages of composition." This is certainly a possibility, among many other possibilities (e.g. the infamous monkeys in a room hypothesis) But the standard model is more probable and more consonant with the evidence. Should we abandon the discipline of historical linguistics of biblical Hebrew? Surely not (as I have argued elsewhere). Hornkohl's book is an important contribution to the state of the art, which may be old (begun in the modern period by Gesenius) but not yet superannuated.
The central claim of these scholars is stated clearly:"the linguistic patterns found in the MT (or other sources) are more likely the result of later editorial and scribal activity than of earlier stages of composition." This is certainly a possibility, among many other possibilities (e.g. the infamous monkeys in a room hypothesis) But the standard model is more probable and more consonant with the evidence. Should we abandon the discipline of historical linguistics of biblical Hebrew? Surely not (as I have argued elsewhere). Hornkohl's book is an important contribution to the state of the art, which may be old (begun in the modern period by Gesenius) but not yet superannuated.