Thank you for your reply. I am not sure if my methodological improvements have been correctly understood in some respects.
Regarding point 1, I agree that linguistic dating faces the challenge of circularity. That is why I collected as many characteristics as possible, to see if I could produce the most coherent picture possible using a system. This is not proof, but an indication that this 'dating model' aligns relatively well with the linguistic findings.
Regarding point 2, I cannot agree with the general thesis that not a single book was composed at a single moment in time. This is clearly the case with many books, as stated in the texts themselves. For example, the historical books, such as Kings, Samuel and Proverbs, are clearly the work of multiple authors. With other books, however, it is controversial and open to debate how much can be attributed to a single author. In the case of the Book of Isaiah, for example, there are minimalists and maximalists: some attribute the entire book, or almost the entire book, to the pre-exilic prophet Isaiah. Others attribute nothing or almost nothing to this prophet.
However, this is precisely what I investigated methodically in my dissertation. I tested the extent to which the linguistic features could be explained by assuming multiple revisions or compilation of different sections. My assumption was that individual blocks in Isaiah 40–66, for example, contain more CBH because earlier texts were simply incorporated. However, this has not been confirmed. The CBH features in Isaiah 40–66 are completely irregular and widely scattered. At the very least, this is difficult to reconcile with text blocks from different periods.
Regarding point 3: that's correct – it is not possible to assign absolute dates without certain prerequisites. Any linguistic dating is based on assumptions about how other books (whether biblical or non-biblical) are dated. However, based on these assumptions, it is certainly possible to assign absolute dates, or, as I suggest, to retrospectively consider in which cases a uniform system emerges.
Re 4:
As a scholar, I believe that one should always be critical and question even established models. This is why I have tested a variety of models (literary-critical, editorial-critical, traditional and synchronous) in my work, to see how easily and to what extent the linguistic features identified can be incorporated into Isaiah. This is, of course, possible with every model. With some, however, it is more challenging than with others.
I know this does not correspond with the mainstream view today, but I was surprised at how few linguistic problems the traditional dating of the book presents with regard to Isaiah alone.
Your argument is: 'If one dates texts as desired and reasons in a closed circle, a tidy system naturally results.'
But that was not the case with Isaiah. I expected to find LBH characteristics in Isaiah 40–66 (i.e. linguistic features that also occur especially in the undisputed LBH books, such as Ezra, Nehemiah, Daniel, Esther, Chronicles, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi). But that was not the case at all! To me, this was an exciting indication that the 'traditional' dating methods are not completely at odds with the language, as is sometimes claimed, but can in fact be combined with CBH/LBH. This is not purely circular reasoning, because the linguistic features that appear in the LBH books I listed could well support the LBH dating of Isaiah 40–66.
Re 5:
The language can never provide clues for a single name or individual verses. Therefore, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the language is consistent with a broad pre-exilic dating of Isaiah 40–66. Dating most of it to the post-exilic period would raise a few more linguistic problems. The language says nothing about whether individual verses or the name Cyrus, for example, were added later, but of course this can still be assumed.
And one question remains: What is a good alternative explanation for the linguistic features and their distribution in Isaiah? I am open to specific suggestions =)
Thank you for your reply. I am not sure if my methodological improvements have been correctly understood in some respects.
Regarding point 1, I agree that linguistic dating faces the challenge of circularity. That is why I collected as many characteristics as possible, to see if I could produce the most coherent picture possible using a system. This is not proof, but an indication that this 'dating model' aligns relatively well with the linguistic findings.
Regarding point 2, I cannot agree with the general thesis that not a single book was composed at a single moment in time. This is clearly the case with many books, as stated in the texts themselves. For example, the historical books, such as Kings, Samuel and Proverbs, are clearly the work of multiple authors. With other books, however, it is controversial and open to debate how much can be attributed to a single author. In the case of the Book of Isaiah, for example, there are minimalists and maximalists: some attribute the entire book, or almost the entire book, to the pre-exilic prophet Isaiah. Others attribute nothing or almost nothing to this prophet.
However, this is precisely what I investigated methodically in my dissertation. I tested the extent to which the linguistic features could be explained by assuming multiple revisions or compilation of different sections. My assumption was that individual blocks in Isaiah 40–66, for example, contain more CBH because earlier texts were simply incorporated. However, this has not been confirmed. The CBH features in Isaiah 40–66 are completely irregular and widely scattered. At the very least, this is difficult to reconcile with text blocks from different periods.
Regarding point 3: that's correct – it is not possible to assign absolute dates without certain prerequisites. Any linguistic dating is based on assumptions about how other books (whether biblical or non-biblical) are dated. However, based on these assumptions, it is certainly possible to assign absolute dates, or, as I suggest, to retrospectively consider in which cases a uniform system emerges.
Re 4:
As a scholar, I believe that one should always be critical and question even established models. This is why I have tested a variety of models (literary-critical, editorial-critical, traditional and synchronous) in my work, to see how easily and to what extent the linguistic features identified can be incorporated into Isaiah. This is, of course, possible with every model. With some, however, it is more challenging than with others.
I know this does not correspond with the mainstream view today, but I was surprised at how few linguistic problems the traditional dating of the book presents with regard to Isaiah alone.
Your argument is: 'If one dates texts as desired and reasons in a closed circle, a tidy system naturally results.'
But that was not the case with Isaiah. I expected to find LBH characteristics in Isaiah 40–66 (i.e. linguistic features that also occur especially in the undisputed LBH books, such as Ezra, Nehemiah, Daniel, Esther, Chronicles, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi). But that was not the case at all! To me, this was an exciting indication that the 'traditional' dating methods are not completely at odds with the language, as is sometimes claimed, but can in fact be combined with CBH/LBH. This is not purely circular reasoning, because the linguistic features that appear in the LBH books I listed could well support the LBH dating of Isaiah 40–66.
Re 5:
The language can never provide clues for a single name or individual verses. Therefore, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the language is consistent with a broad pre-exilic dating of Isaiah 40–66. Dating most of it to the post-exilic period would raise a few more linguistic problems. The language says nothing about whether individual verses or the name Cyrus, for example, were added later, but of course this can still be assumed.
And one question remains: What is a good alternative explanation for the linguistic features and their distribution in Isaiah? I am open to specific suggestions =)