Thank you for the further explanations. For me, the central issue is that linguistic dating cannot be reconciled with mainstream literary-critical scholarship: named authorship in biblical books is a discourse convention rather than historical evidence, and the MT reflects a long process of growth, revision, and linguistic updating. The distribution of linguistic features in Isaiah—both salient and non-salient—is readily explained as the cumulative result of successive authors, editors, and scribes over centuries rather than the product of a single compositional moment. I’ve appreciated the exchange, and this seems a good place to leave the discussion.
Thank you for the further explanations. For me, the central issue is that linguistic dating cannot be reconciled with mainstream literary-critical scholarship: named authorship in biblical books is a discourse convention rather than historical evidence, and the MT reflects a long process of growth, revision, and linguistic updating. The distribution of linguistic features in Isaiah—both salient and non-salient—is readily explained as the cumulative result of successive authors, editors, and scribes over centuries rather than the product of a single compositional moment. I’ve appreciated the exchange, and this seems a good place to leave the discussion.