We value the engagement of such a distinguished textual critic. As we have previously addressed the concerns he raises, we will briefly summarize his objections and point to several earlier discussions where we have dealt with them in more detail.
Longacre acknowledges occasional scribal updates in biblical texts but emphasizes that such changes are typically unsystematic, with the MT tradition in particular remaining largely conservative. We agree. The challenge, however, is that the linguistic dating approach developed by Hurvitz, Hornkohl, and others focuses precisely on relatively minor changes and uncommon forms—features that we have demonstrated in detail tend to fluctuate between CBH and LBH writings, across MT parallel texts, and between the MT and other textual traditions. For further discussion, see our comments on the documentation of variation and change (pp. 37-67), especially the section on common vs. uncommon language (pp. 41-42), in our “Currents” article (above, n. 3), as well as our detailed treatment of cross-textual variation in HLBH (pp. 117-210, 413-591; above, n. 3). (See also our quantitative analysis of distinctive late vocabulary at https://doi.org/10.5508/jhs.2016.v16.1.)
Longacre’s second point is that, while redactional histories of the Hebrew Bible are broadly acknowledged, they often remain uncertain and speculative. As a result, he favors “historical linguistic typology,” which he views as grounded in more objective evidence and thus a more reliable method for dating biblical writings than redaction-critical approaches. It is not uncommon for scholars of biblical Hebrew—though in this case, Longacre speaks as a textual critic—to claim that linguistic criteria are more objective than literary or other criteria for tracing the compositional history of the Hebrew Bible. The core issue, however, is that everything hinges on the nature of the sources involved. We have examined this matter in depth. See, for example, our discussions of source-related challenges within the framework of historical linguistics in “Currents” (pp. 14-37) and HLBH (pp. 21-45). Nonetheless, we would like to expand here on the claim that linguistics provides a “more objective control.”
Linguistics encompasses both highly objective and more interpretive domains of research. Fields such as phonetics are grounded in empirical data and formalized methods; measuring acoustic properties or articulatory movements yields testable, replicable results. By contrast, historical linguistics often relies on fragmentary evidence and reconstructed data, where human judgment and methodological choices play a more significant role. The nature of the sources—often indirect or incomplete—is further complicated by whether they are inscriptional or literary, unedited or editorially-scribally mediated, with each type presenting distinct challenges in reliability and interpretation. Thus, while some linguistic subfields approach the rigor of the natural sciences, others resemble historical or interpretive disciplines, where conclusions are more tentative and shaped by subjective evaluation, theoretical commitments, and evidentiary constraints. This subjectivity is even more pronounced when the sources are editorially-scribally mediated (i.e., texts that have been edited and copied), as opposed to inscriptional sources (i.e., original, unaltered inscriptions, which, sadly, are scarce for ancient Hebrew). Therefore, asserting the objectivity of “historical linguistic typology”—particularly in biblical studies—as a secure and independent control over literary-critical models is problematic. Both approaches are interpretive in nature and demand careful, critical engagement rather than hierarchical privileging. This is the raison d’être for our pursuit of a more integrated methodology for dating biblical writings, a point of agreement also acknowledged in Ron Hendel’s comments earlier.
Drew Longacre at his OTTC blog raises some valid concerns about our response to Hornkohl’s book.
https://oldtestamenttextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2025/07/diachronic-di…
We value the engagement of such a distinguished textual critic. As we have previously addressed the concerns he raises, we will briefly summarize his objections and point to several earlier discussions where we have dealt with them in more detail.
Longacre acknowledges occasional scribal updates in biblical texts but emphasizes that such changes are typically unsystematic, with the MT tradition in particular remaining largely conservative. We agree. The challenge, however, is that the linguistic dating approach developed by Hurvitz, Hornkohl, and others focuses precisely on relatively minor changes and uncommon forms—features that we have demonstrated in detail tend to fluctuate between CBH and LBH writings, across MT parallel texts, and between the MT and other textual traditions. For further discussion, see our comments on the documentation of variation and change (pp. 37-67), especially the section on common vs. uncommon language (pp. 41-42), in our “Currents” article (above, n. 3), as well as our detailed treatment of cross-textual variation in HLBH (pp. 117-210, 413-591; above, n. 3). (See also our quantitative analysis of distinctive late vocabulary at https://doi.org/10.5508/jhs.2016.v16.1.)
Longacre’s second point is that, while redactional histories of the Hebrew Bible are broadly acknowledged, they often remain uncertain and speculative. As a result, he favors “historical linguistic typology,” which he views as grounded in more objective evidence and thus a more reliable method for dating biblical writings than redaction-critical approaches. It is not uncommon for scholars of biblical Hebrew—though in this case, Longacre speaks as a textual critic—to claim that linguistic criteria are more objective than literary or other criteria for tracing the compositional history of the Hebrew Bible. The core issue, however, is that everything hinges on the nature of the sources involved. We have examined this matter in depth. See, for example, our discussions of source-related challenges within the framework of historical linguistics in “Currents” (pp. 14-37) and HLBH (pp. 21-45). Nonetheless, we would like to expand here on the claim that linguistics provides a “more objective control.”
Linguistics encompasses both highly objective and more interpretive domains of research. Fields such as phonetics are grounded in empirical data and formalized methods; measuring acoustic properties or articulatory movements yields testable, replicable results. By contrast, historical linguistics often relies on fragmentary evidence and reconstructed data, where human judgment and methodological choices play a more significant role. The nature of the sources—often indirect or incomplete—is further complicated by whether they are inscriptional or literary, unedited or editorially-scribally mediated, with each type presenting distinct challenges in reliability and interpretation. Thus, while some linguistic subfields approach the rigor of the natural sciences, others resemble historical or interpretive disciplines, where conclusions are more tentative and shaped by subjective evaluation, theoretical commitments, and evidentiary constraints. This subjectivity is even more pronounced when the sources are editorially-scribally mediated (i.e., texts that have been edited and copied), as opposed to inscriptional sources (i.e., original, unaltered inscriptions, which, sadly, are scarce for ancient Hebrew). Therefore, asserting the objectivity of “historical linguistic typology”—particularly in biblical studies—as a secure and independent control over literary-critical models is problematic. Both approaches are interpretive in nature and demand careful, critical engagement rather than hierarchical privileging. This is the raison d’être for our pursuit of a more integrated methodology for dating biblical writings, a point of agreement also acknowledged in Ron Hendel’s comments earlier.