Uploaded August 2025 | Updated September 2026, 3 weeks ago
Ian Young, Ph.D
Professor of Biblical Studies and Ancient Languages at Australian Catholic University.
PhD 1990 The University of Sydney.
Books:
Robert Rezetko and Ian Young, Historical Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew: Steps Toward an Integrated Approach, Society of Biblical Literature Ancient Near East Monographs 9 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2014; download at: sbl-site.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/9781628370461_OA.pdf)
Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts: An Introduction to Approaches and Problems (Volume 1) (BibleWorld) by Ian Young (Author), Robert Rezetko (Author), Martin Ehrensvärd (Author)
amazon.com/Linguistic-Dating-Biblical-Texts-Introduction/dp/1845530829
Biblical Hebrew: Studies in Chronology and Typology (The Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies, 369)
amazon.com/Biblical-Hebrew-Chronology-Typology-Testament/dp/0826468411
Article:
Isn’t It Time to Break Up with Linguistic Dating? Rethinking Hornkohl’s Method—and What Comes Next
https://bibleinterp.arizona.edu/articles/isnt-it-time-break-linguistic-dating-rethinking-hornkohls-method-and-what-comes-next
Aaron Hornkohl’s Diachronic Diversity in Classical Biblical Hebrewmay be sparking renewed scholarly engagementover one of the thorniest problems in biblical scholarship: whether we can use the Hebrew Bible’s language to establish when different parts of it were written. Hornkohl’s answer is a confident yes. But for those of us more skeptical of linguistic dating, the confidence is more revealing than the data itself.
Hornkohl is a major figure in the scholarly tradition that seeks to chart the development of Biblical Hebrew (BH) over time, following in the footsteps of the late Avi Hurvitz, his mentor and a giant in the field. This book takes the core premise of that tradition—that there’s a meaningful linguistic divide between Classical Biblical Hebrew (CBH), typically associated with earlier/pre-exilic writings, and Late Biblical Hebrew (LBH), typically associated with later/post-exilic writings—and pushes it further. Hornkohl argues that even within CBH, he can detect distinctions. Most notably, he claims that the Hebrew of the Pentateuch differs in significant ways from that of other early books within the Prophets and Writings. Thus he proposes an internal division within CBH itself—between what he calls a pre-monarchic Pentateuchal linguistic tradition, CBH1 (1000–800 BCE), and a monarchic linguistic tradition in the Prophets and Writings, CBH2 (800–600 BCE).
On the surface, this sounds precise—perhaps even scientific. But is it justified?
While Hornkohl is upfront about the challenges of textual transmission—the texts are late, edited, and transmitted in ways that muddy linguistic signals—he remains “far more optimistic than many” (p. 207) about what can still be gleaned. Yet he underestimates how deeply editorial and scribal processes have shaped the linguistic profiles of the biblical writings. This, we believe, is the heart of the issue.
Some illustrative examples: Although Hornkohl addresses forms more common in the Pentateuch, he largely avoids other evidence—such as lev (לֵב) versus levav (לֵבָב) for “heart,” or the paragogic nun—that defy neat classification. Likewise, alternative interpretations of similar phenomena—like our in-depth studies of tsaʿaq (צעק) versus zaʿaq (זעק) for “to cry,” or abstract nouns ending in -ūt—receive scant attention.
This brings us to a deeper concern, one that goes beyond a few data points:
We argue that Hornkohl’s methodological assumptions and limited integration of literary and textual criticism into his linguistic dating enterprise significantly undermine the reliability of his conclusions. In our view, he overestimates the capacity of diachronic linguistic data to reflect original composition, failing to fully grapple with the complex compositional and transmissional history of the Hebrew Bible. Hornkohl treats editorial and textual developments as mere “complications” (p. 9) that diachronic (linguistic) analysis must overcome, rather than recognizing them as integral to any attempt at dating biblical writings. This privileging of linguistic evidence over literary and textual factors is, we believe, methodologically flawed. It underestimates the impact of editorial and scribal interventions, which can substantially distort the linguistic profile of a text. As a result, his interpretations of orthographic developments—even concerning the names “David” and “Jerusalem”—are, in our judgment, overly confident and insufficiently attentive to the broader textual landscape.
patreon.com/GnosticInformant
Please Consider joining my Patreon to help finding scholars to bring on. Any amount helps me. Thank you existing Patrons.
2nd Channel:
youtube.com/@GnosticInformantTV
Follow me on Twitter:
https://x.com/Gnosisinformant
#gnosticinformant #hebrewbible #academia
Ian Young, Ph.D
Professor of Biblical Studies and Ancient Languages at Australian Catholic University.
PhD 1990 The University of Sydney.
Books:
Robert Rezetko and Ian Young, Historical Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew: Steps Toward an Integrated Approach, Society of Biblical Literature Ancient Near East Monographs 9 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2014; download at: sbl-site.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/9781628370461_OA.pdf)
Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts: An Introduction to Approaches and Problems (Volume 1) (BibleWorld) by Ian Young (Author), Robert Rezetko (Author), Martin Ehrensvärd (Author)
amazon.com/Linguistic-Dating-Biblical-Texts-Introduction/dp/1845530829
Biblical Hebrew: Studies in Chronology and Typology (The Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies, 369)
amazon.com/Biblical-Hebrew-Chronology-Typology-Testament/dp/0826468411
Article:
Isn’t It Time to Break Up with Linguistic Dating? Rethinking Hornkohl’s Method—and What Comes Next
https://bibleinterp.arizona.edu/articles/isnt-it-time-break-linguistic-dating-rethinking-hornkohls-method-and-what-comes-next
Aaron Hornkohl’s Diachronic Diversity in Classical Biblical Hebrewmay be sparking renewed scholarly engagementover one of the thorniest problems in biblical scholarship: whether we can use the Hebrew Bible’s language to establish when different parts of it were written. Hornkohl’s answer is a confident yes. But for those of us more skeptical of linguistic dating, the confidence is more revealing than the data itself.
Hornkohl is a major figure in the scholarly tradition that seeks to chart the development of Biblical Hebrew (BH) over time, following in the footsteps of the late Avi Hurvitz, his mentor and a giant in the field. This book takes the core premise of that tradition—that there’s a meaningful linguistic divide between Classical Biblical Hebrew (CBH), typically associated with earlier/pre-exilic writings, and Late Biblical Hebrew (LBH), typically associated with later/post-exilic writings—and pushes it further. Hornkohl argues that even within CBH, he can detect distinctions. Most notably, he claims that the Hebrew of the Pentateuch differs in significant ways from that of other early books within the Prophets and Writings. Thus he proposes an internal division within CBH itself—between what he calls a pre-monarchic Pentateuchal linguistic tradition, CBH1 (1000–800 BCE), and a monarchic linguistic tradition in the Prophets and Writings, CBH2 (800–600 BCE).
On the surface, this sounds precise—perhaps even scientific. But is it justified?
While Hornkohl is upfront about the challenges of textual transmission—the texts are late, edited, and transmitted in ways that muddy linguistic signals—he remains “far more optimistic than many” (p. 207) about what can still be gleaned. Yet he underestimates how deeply editorial and scribal processes have shaped the linguistic profiles of the biblical writings. This, we believe, is the heart of the issue.
Some illustrative examples: Although Hornkohl addresses forms more common in the Pentateuch, he largely avoids other evidence—such as lev (לֵב) versus levav (לֵבָב) for “heart,” or the paragogic nun—that defy neat classification. Likewise, alternative interpretations of similar phenomena—like our in-depth studies of tsaʿaq (צעק) versus zaʿaq (זעק) for “to cry,” or abstract nouns ending in -ūt—receive scant attention.
This brings us to a deeper concern, one that goes beyond a few data points:
We argue that Hornkohl’s methodological assumptions and limited integration of literary and textual criticism into his linguistic dating enterprise significantly undermine the reliability of his conclusions. In our view, he overestimates the capacity of diachronic linguistic data to reflect original composition, failing to fully grapple with the complex compositional and transmissional history of the Hebrew Bible. Hornkohl treats editorial and textual developments as mere “complications” (p. 9) that diachronic (linguistic) analysis must overcome, rather than recognizing them as integral to any attempt at dating biblical writings. This privileging of linguistic evidence over literary and textual factors is, we believe, methodologically flawed. It underestimates the impact of editorial and scribal interventions, which can substantially distort the linguistic profile of a text. As a result, his interpretations of orthographic developments—even concerning the names “David” and “Jerusalem”—are, in our judgment, overly confident and insufficiently attentive to the broader textual landscape.
patreon.com/GnosticInformant
Please Consider joining my Patreon to help finding scholars to bring on. Any amount helps me. Thank you existing Patrons.
2nd Channel:
youtube.com/@GnosticInformantTV
Follow me on Twitter:
https://x.com/Gnosisinformant
#gnosticinformant #hebrewbible #academia
