Actually, I would disagree with your description of what is “generally accepted.” One of our central points—both in the earlier article and in our broader work—is that the approach which elevates linguistic dating as the decisive criterion is not broadly embraced, either within biblical studies as a whole or across other historical disciplines. As we wrote:
“Continuing the theme of integration highlighted above, this is a subject we have explored and emphasized for decades. Yet many scholars remain entrenched in the conventional linguistic-dating paradigm, often overlooking the need for an approach that fully integrates historical, cultural, social, literary, textual, linguistic, and conceptual dimensions when tracing the compositional history of the Hebrew Bible.”
The issue is not that linguistic dating is the consensus in biblical studies — it isn’t. Rather, it persists as a significant and influential minority approach, one that continues to shape debate and methodology, despite its methodological limitations. And this stands in contrast with other historical disciplines, where linguistic evidence is generally treated as one strand among many, not as the primary or determinative factor. In that broader context, the insistence on linguistic priority appears even more anomalous.
Actually, I would disagree with your description of what is “generally accepted.” One of our central points—both in the earlier article and in our broader work—is that the approach which elevates linguistic dating as the decisive criterion is not broadly embraced, either within biblical studies as a whole or across other historical disciplines. As we wrote:
“Continuing the theme of integration highlighted above, this is a subject we have explored and emphasized for decades. Yet many scholars remain entrenched in the conventional linguistic-dating paradigm, often overlooking the need for an approach that fully integrates historical, cultural, social, literary, textual, linguistic, and conceptual dimensions when tracing the compositional history of the Hebrew Bible.”
The issue is not that linguistic dating is the consensus in biblical studies — it isn’t. Rather, it persists as a significant and influential minority approach, one that continues to shape debate and methodology, despite its methodological limitations. And this stands in contrast with other historical disciplines, where linguistic evidence is generally treated as one strand among many, not as the primary or determinative factor. In that broader context, the insistence on linguistic priority appears even more anomalous.