Conclusion

The book investigates whether the linguistic and orthographic features that differentiate the Tiberian Torah from the non-LBH Prophets and Writings signify inner-CBH diachronic development. Scholars generally agree that the composition of the CBH corpus occurred over centuries, from approximately 1000 BCE to 600 BCE, but the effects of inner-CBH evolution have been obscured by various factors, including the transition from oral to written traditions, the complexities of the writing system, scribal practices, and the influence of oral reading traditions. Although the limited sample size of the Tiberian biblical corpus poses challenges, it is argued that these obstacles can be navigated through careful analysis of the evidence, considering alternative explanations, and recognising the implications of findings, ultimately asserting that such factors do not entirely hinder diachronic investigation.

The study addresses two major methodological issues: the potential for extant distinctions between CBH texts to represent secondary developments and the challenge of distinguishing between orthographic variation and linguistic significance. It recognises the need for a nuanced understanding of biblical literature’s periodisation, particularly regarding the Documentary Hypothesis and the CBH-LBH dichotomy. The author posits a schema of ABH-CBH1-CBH2-TBH-LBH, tentatively associating CBH with 1000–600 BCE and dividing it into CBH1 (representing 1000–800 BCE) and CBH2 (reflecting 800–600 BCE). Despite uncertainties inherent in the evidence, the author expresses optimism about the potential for understanding the development of ancient Hebrew and the composition and transmission of the Hebrew Bible through principled use of the data and their integration in plausible narratives that account for inner-CBH variation.