Dear Martin
This is an important point, because we have argued that there is in fact no method to discover late use of early language in the Bible. The traditional stance, oft repeated in e.g. Avi Hurvitz' writings, is that later authors would invariably betray their lateness by not mastering the classical language, using newer words, expressions, and syntax now and then. This stance is puzzling to us, not only because of text-critical problems. How could we tell if someone did write perfect classical Hebrew after the exile? Besides, there are words, expressions, and syntax considered characteristic of late Hebrew in all texts in the Hebrew Bible, the main difference being one of accumulation. In order for e.g. Hurvitz to declare a text late, there needs to be a number of late features in it.
Your point about addressing important matters in classical language is also correct. Specifically the prophetic genre, which mostly uses classical language. We have post-exilic books such as Third Isaiah, First Zechariah, Haggai, Joel, and Malachi, which in their use of language align with classical biblical Hebrew, without clear late features. Pentateuchal literature is another example. P is seen by most scholars as postexilic, with the notable exception of many language scholars who on the strength of its classical language alone date P early. The book of Ruth is another such example.
Linguistic daters claim that there are no non-biblical examples of postexilic classical biblical Hebrew, or at least no extensive ones, and that it was therefore not feasible to write classical biblical Hebrew in the postexilic period without betraying one’s late origin with slip-ups. But take a look at Ian Young’s work on Pesher Habakkuk, ‘Late Biblical Hebrew And The Qumran Pesher Habakkuk,’ Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 8 (2008) (https://jhsonline.org/index.php/jhs/article/view/6223). Young shows that the pesher is written in classical biblical Hebrew plus Qumran dialectal features. In other words, it is not written in late biblical Hebrew.
It really comes down to dating criteria: Linguistic daters privilege language, others consider a variety of data. We also point out that the linguistic data that is harnessed for dating is already based on preconceived notions of what writings are already early and late, so the entire linguistic dating paradigm is circular.
Dear Martin
This is an important point, because we have argued that there is in fact no method to discover late use of early language in the Bible. The traditional stance, oft repeated in e.g. Avi Hurvitz' writings, is that later authors would invariably betray their lateness by not mastering the classical language, using newer words, expressions, and syntax now and then. This stance is puzzling to us, not only because of text-critical problems. How could we tell if someone did write perfect classical Hebrew after the exile? Besides, there are words, expressions, and syntax considered characteristic of late Hebrew in all texts in the Hebrew Bible, the main difference being one of accumulation. In order for e.g. Hurvitz to declare a text late, there needs to be a number of late features in it.
Your point about addressing important matters in classical language is also correct. Specifically the prophetic genre, which mostly uses classical language. We have post-exilic books such as Third Isaiah, First Zechariah, Haggai, Joel, and Malachi, which in their use of language align with classical biblical Hebrew, without clear late features. Pentateuchal literature is another example. P is seen by most scholars as postexilic, with the notable exception of many language scholars who on the strength of its classical language alone date P early. The book of Ruth is another such example.
Linguistic daters claim that there are no non-biblical examples of postexilic classical biblical Hebrew, or at least no extensive ones, and that it was therefore not feasible to write classical biblical Hebrew in the postexilic period without betraying one’s late origin with slip-ups. But take a look at Ian Young’s work on Pesher Habakkuk, ‘Late Biblical Hebrew And The Qumran Pesher Habakkuk,’ Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 8 (2008) (https://jhsonline.org/index.php/jhs/article/view/6223). Young shows that the pesher is written in classical biblical Hebrew plus Qumran dialectal features. In other words, it is not written in late biblical Hebrew.
It really comes down to dating criteria: Linguistic daters privilege language, others consider a variety of data. We also point out that the linguistic data that is harnessed for dating is already based on preconceived notions of what writings are already early and late, so the entire linguistic dating paradigm is circular.
See also Martin Ehrensvärd, 'Why Biblical Texts Cannot Be Dated Linguistically,' Hebrew Studies 47 (2006), 177-89 (https://www.academia.edu/30537634/Martin_Ehrensva_rd_Why_Biblical_Texts…).