I think we largely agree:
1. If Isaiah 40-66 is dated post-exilic (or exilic), this raises linguistic difficulties for the CBH/LBH model.
2. If Isaiah 40-66 is dated pre-exilic, this can be better reconciled with the CBH/LBH model. However, this is only the case if some other books are also dated to the pre-exilic period (such as Zephaniah, Job, or some of the Psalms). If these are dated to the post-exilic period, a pre-exilic dating of Isaiah also presents some difficulties from a linguistic point of view.
3. I also agree with your comments on TBH: specific characteristics must be identified for TBH if characteristics are to be considered indicative of this period.
What could provide possible explanations for CBH-features if Isa 40-66 is dated to the post-exilic period? In my study, I evaluated each characteristic examined in Isaiah in terms of how easily it could be archaized or imitated. In addition, based on the distribution, I considered whether the inclusion of older text passages is plausible. In my opinion, neither of these approaches proved to be a plausible solution for Isa 40-66: some of the criteria are very difficult to archaize, and the features are distributed in such a way that it does not appear that a text block with older features has been included. (See 4.3.5. in my dissertation.)
Two questions arise that I would like to consider further:
- Would a relatively uniform linguistic system of CBH and LBH possibly emerge if we follow the more traditional dating?
- Are there alternative explanations if we assume that Isa 40-66 is post-exilic and CBH and LBH cannot be represented in this way?
I think we largely agree:
1. If Isaiah 40-66 is dated post-exilic (or exilic), this raises linguistic difficulties for the CBH/LBH model.
2. If Isaiah 40-66 is dated pre-exilic, this can be better reconciled with the CBH/LBH model. However, this is only the case if some other books are also dated to the pre-exilic period (such as Zephaniah, Job, or some of the Psalms). If these are dated to the post-exilic period, a pre-exilic dating of Isaiah also presents some difficulties from a linguistic point of view.
3. I also agree with your comments on TBH: specific characteristics must be identified for TBH if characteristics are to be considered indicative of this period.
What could provide possible explanations for CBH-features if Isa 40-66 is dated to the post-exilic period? In my study, I evaluated each characteristic examined in Isaiah in terms of how easily it could be archaized or imitated. In addition, based on the distribution, I considered whether the inclusion of older text passages is plausible. In my opinion, neither of these approaches proved to be a plausible solution for Isa 40-66: some of the criteria are very difficult to archaize, and the features are distributed in such a way that it does not appear that a text block with older features has been included. (See 4.3.5. in my dissertation.)
Two questions arise that I would like to consider further:
- Would a relatively uniform linguistic system of CBH and LBH possibly emerge if we follow the more traditional dating?
- Are there alternative explanations if we assume that Isa 40-66 is post-exilic and CBH and LBH cannot be represented in this way?