For the past few decades a growing number of scholars have attempted to overthrow the traditional Wellhausian view that the so-called 'Yahwist' or 'J' source of the Pentateuch is the oldest of the four major sources. These scholars have argued that J was composed during the exilic or post-exilic periods of ancient Israel. Their arguments have focused on the literary, historiographic, and theological characteristics of 'J'. This book attempts to re-evaluate on linguistic grounds such efforts to place the Yahwist source in the exilic or post-exilic periods. The study employs the methodology developed most prominently by Avi Hurvitz for identifying characteristic features of post-exilic Hebrew ('Late Biblical Hebrew'). This divides the language of the Hebrew Bible into three main chronological stages: Archaic Biblical Hebrew (ABH), Standard Biblical Hebrew (SBH), and Late Biblical Hebrew (LBH). Wright examines 40 features of J for which useful comparisons can be made to LBH and finds no evidence of LBH in the entire Yahwist source. Therefore it is unlikely that J was composed during the post-exilic period. Moreover since Hurvitz has shown that the exilic period was a time of transition between SBH and LBH such that late features began to occur in exilic texts, the author concludes on linguistic grounds that J was most likely composed during the pre-exilic period of ancient Israel.

In the historical-critical analysis of the Hebrew Bible, the so-called "Yahwist" ("J") source of the Pentateuch has been regarded by most scholars as the oldest of the four major sources of the Pentateuch. Most scholars since Wellhausen have dated "J" to the pre-exilic period, particularly to the 10th century B.C.E.

For the past few decades a growing number of scholars have attempted to overthrow the traditional Wellhausian view that the so-called 'Yahwist' or 'J' source of the Pentateuch is the oldest of the four major sources. These scholars have argued that J was composed during the exilic or post-exilic periods of ancient Israel. Their arguments have focused on the literary, historiographic, and theological characteristics of 'J'. This book attempts to re-evaluate on linguistic grounds such efforts to place the Yahwist source in the exilic or post-exilic periods. The study employs the methodology developed most prominently by Avi Hurvitz for identifying characteristic features of post-exilic Hebrew ('Late Biblical Hebrew'). This divides the language of the Hebrew Bible into three main chronological stages: Archaic Biblical Hebrew (ABH), Standard Biblical Hebrew (SBH), and Late Biblical Hebrew (LBH). Wright examines 40 features of J for which useful comparisons can be made to LBH and finds no evidence of LBH in the entire Yahwist source. Therefore it is unlikely that J was composed during the post-exilic period. Moreover since Hurvitz has shown that the exilic period was a time of transition between SBH and LBH such that late features began to occur in exilic texts, the author concludes on linguistic grounds that J was most likely composed during the pre-exilic period of ancient Israel.

Since the beginning of critical scholarship biblical texts have been dated using linguistic evidence. Until now there has been no introduction to and comprehensive overview of the field. Volume 2 of Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts contains an extensive overview of dates attributed to different books and corpora of the Hebrew Bible in modern scholarship, demonstrating the lack of consensus on the dating of biblical texts. A synthesis of the main arguments of the work is presented, drawing also on many points from volume 1, followed by 50 pages of case studies, a list of linguistic features attributed to LBH in earlier research, a bibliography of 70 pages and several indexes.

The Judean monarch Hezekiah remains one of the most significant figures in biblical studies. For all of his greatness, however, there is little about him that may be stated with certainty. This study provides a detailed reexamination of this enterprising ruler. It commences with data outside the biblical text from Assyrian records and ancient Near Eastern archaeology which may be brought to bear in reconstructing the historical Hezekiah, and subsequently proceeds to augment this picture based on his portrayal in the books of Kings, First Isaiah, and Chronicles. Its focus is on those issues that either remain contentious in biblical scholarship, or else have been resolved into a general consensus that needs to be called into question.

Leading Hebrew language scholars outline various views on the phenomenon of variation in biblical Hebrew and its significance for biblical studies. An important question that is addressed is whether "late biblical Hebrew" is a distinct chronological phase within the history of biblical Hebrew. Articles explore both chronological and non-chronological interpretations of the differences between "early biblical Hebrew" and "late biblical Hebrew". These discussions have an important contribution to make to the wider field of biblical studies, not only to the history of the Hebrew language.