Comments on: Dating the Bible

By: Milburn

Milburn — Fri, 01 Jan 2010 09:20:37 +0000

I feel like to express my appreciation of your writing talent and ability to make reader to read the while thing to the end. I feel like to read more of your blog posts and to distribute my outlook with you. I will be your frequent visitor, that is for sure.

By: Yoel Lerner

Yoel Lerner — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 10:47:14 +0000

I found this fascinating for two very good reasons: I had arrived at the conclusion that linguistic features can be used to date books of the Bible independently of any other scholars, with one important aspect that I need not go into here. Anyway, I conducted a study (back in the eighties of the past century) of the use of the hebrew preposition “eth” (the marker of the definite direct object), and found distinctly positive results. My findings were published in the Hebrew-language quarterly of the Israeli “Hebrew Language Academy”, “Leshonenu”. The other reason is that I am looking into the question of the locative (not in Chronicles) at the present time, and preparing to bring out a volume of my findings (on a number of points, some of which will have a bearing on the question of dating Bible texts on the basis of linguistic phenomena) hopefully within the next 12 months.

By: A Recovered Post: Biblical Studies Carnival XII « Dr Jim West

A Recovered Post: Biblical Studies Carnival XII « Dr Jim West — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 18:25:58 +0000

[...] to me) authored by one Simon (though I couldn’t find his name on his blog anywhere) titled “Dating The Bible” is certainly worth taking a look at. He thinks that the entrenched position regarding the [...]

By: Codex: Biblical Studies Blogspot » Blog Archive » Biblical Studies Carnival - Best of 2006

Tue, 09 Jan 2007 23:43:17 +0000

[...] a few), Chris Heard’s post on When did Yahweh and El merge?, Simon Holloway on the linguistic dating of the Bible, Mark Goodacre on the question of whether or not the Galatians were already circumcised (Part 1, [...]

By: Simon

Simon — Wed, 15 Nov 2006 06:48:54 +0000

I did note those sections that were synoptic, but I generally found that there were still enough differences between them to indicate that the author of Chronicles could have eschewed the suffix had he wished. I kept both synoptic and non-synoptic verses within the same tables although, had I the time, then that may have been a further differentiation that I would have placed on my results. The only real differentiation that I did place upon them, in the limited time with which I was working, was between those clauses that simply lacked the suffix and those that lacked both the suffix and the corresponding preposition. Such verses were often taken to be symbolic of the breakdown of this syntactic item, but they turn out to be equally (if not moreso) common in Early Biblical Hebrew texts as well.

By: Tyler Williams

Tyler Williams — Wed, 15 Nov 2006 06:29:52 +0000

Sounds like an interesting study. Did you differentiate between synoptic and non-synoptic portions of Chronicles? If you did, did you find much of a difference?