Dating Archaic Biblical Hebrew Poetry : : A Critique of the Linguistic Arguments / / Robyn C. Vern.

• Superior document: Title is part of eBook package: De Gruyter Gorgias Press Backlist eBook-Package 2001-2013
• VerfasserIn: Vern, Robyn C.,
• Place / Publishing House: Piscataway, NJ : : Gorgias Press, , [2011]; ©2011
• Year of Publication: 2011
• Language: English
• Series: Perspectives on Hebrew Scriptures and its Contexts
• Physical Description: 1 online resource (302 p.)
• Other title: Frontmatter --; TABLE OF CONTENTS --; LIST OF TABLES --; FOREWORD --; PREFACE --; ABBREVIATIONS AND EDITORIAL APPARATUS --; PART I --; CHAPTER 1. THE ISSUE --; CHAPTER 2. LINGUISTIC EVIDENCE AND DATING OF TEXTS --; CHAPTER 3. AN ‘EARLY’ POETIC CORPUS --; CHAPTER 4. MORPHOLOGICAL ARCHAISMS AND AN ‘EARLY’ CORPUS --; CHAPTER 5. SYNTACTIC ARCHAISMS AND AN ‘EARLY’ CORPUS --; CHAPTER 6. TEXTUAL COMPARISONS --; CHAPTER 7. TEXTUAL EMENDATION AND AN ‘EARLY’ CORPUS --; PART II --; CHAPTER 8. THE EVIDENCE --; CHAPTER 9. THE UGARITIC CASE SYSTEM --; CHAPTER 10. THE CASE SYSTEM OF THE AMARNA LETTERS --; CHAPTER 11. THE CASE SYSTEM AND ARCHAIC BIBLICAL HEBREW --; CHAPTER 12 UGARITIC EVIDENCE FOR THE 3mp PREFORMATIVE t- OF THE PREFIX CONJUGATION --; CHAPTER 13 THE AMARNA EVIDENCE FOR THE 3mp PREFORMATIVE t- OF THE PREFIX CONJUGATION --; CHAPTER 14 BIBLICAL HEBREW EVIDENCE FOR THE PURPORTED USE OF THE 3mp PREFORMATIVE t- OF THE PREFIX CONJUGATION --; CHAPTER 15 THE 3fs SUFFORMATIVE -at OF THE SUFFIX CONJUGATION IN UGARITIC, AMARNA CANAANITE AND ARCHAIC BIBLICAL HEBREW --; CHAPTER 16 REVIEW AND DISCUSSION ARCHAIC LINGUISTIC FEATURES: A POETIC STYLE, NOT A DATING TOOL --; BIBLIOGRAPHY --; INDEX
• Format: Mode of access: Internet via World Wide Web.
• ISBN: 9781463224202; 9783111024141; 9783110663037
• DOI: 10.31826/9781463224202
• Access: restricted access
• Hierarchical level: Monograph
• Statement of Responsibility: Robyn C. Vern.

The dating of some Archaic Biblical Hebrew poems to the late second millennium – early first millennium BCE on the basis of a handful of linguistic forms in common with second millennium Ugaritic and Amarna-Canaanite texts is brought into question. This critique highlights the problems with the arguments and hypotheses presented in the literature, and concludes that there is no compelling evidence to support the use of linguistic data for dating purposes.