Show description

Once a number of such distinctive linguistic features have been identified, it is possible to localize texts of unknown geographical provenance based on their linguistic profile. A text is to be considered northern only if (d) it contains a concentration of distinctively northern linguistic features. While there is little doubt that BH as represented in the Tiberian Masoretic tradition conceals viable linguistic phenomena especially typical of northern users of ancient Hebrew, and while Rendsburg’s methodology certainly provides for some measure of scientific rigor, for a number of reasons it cannot promise the same degree of objectivity offered by Hurvitz’ diachronic approach.

It mechanically counts features without sensitivity to frequency (characteristic versus uncharacteristic use) or to the full and complex array of factors contributing to linguistic diversity in ancient Hebrew. Further, it does not distinguish between clear-cut cases and exegetical/linguistic cruxes. Since the interpretations of the latter are invariably characterized by some measure of subjectivity, the statistics that represent them must not be viewed with the same certainty as those representing unambiguous examples.

But both labour under a radical defect: they number words instead of weighing them; and when individual cases are examined, some cause which cannot be tabulated may appear for the presence or absence of a given word in a particular writing. In other words, the ostensible cause, apparent from the table or the enumeration, may not be the real cause which led to the employment of the word or phrase [emphasis in the original]. 4 The Significance of Loanwords In the course of the history of the diachronic approach to BH a strong emphasis has been placed on the significance of loanwords as a reliable indicator of lateness, especially loans from Aramaic, Akkadian, and Persian (and, in a few doubtful cases, from Greek).