From the outset of their book, Hendel and Joosten admit that dating is a complicated and multidisciplinary endeavor. Accordingly, results are “not always as precise as one could wish” (p. x). Notwithstanding, it is argued (against the revisionists) that when linguistic methods are joined with other critical methods, valuable results are attainable. The authors substantiate their claim in three different ways.
First, they explain what the “historical method” is, followed by an explanation regarding its inability to produce historical insights with certainty (ch. 1). Accordingly, the historical method solely generates proposals with reasonable probability. This is because any historical method must work with the limited amount of information at hand. In effect, “Uncertainty is our condition” (p. 141). To enhance the probability of dating OT texts, a linguistic analysis must, therefore, be included. Second, the authors clarify the relation between “language change” (diachrony) and “language variation” (synchrony). Hendel...
