EBH should thus be understood to denote a kind of inclination toward conservatism in linguistic choices, favoring a relatively small core of traditional literary forms which were used throughout the biblical period, not merely in early times (e.g., during the Israelite monarchy).
By contrast, so-called LBH represents a more flexible style in which biblical-era authors and scribes felt free to adopt a greater variety of linguistic forms throughout Israel’s history and not merely the exilic or post-exilic period.
Perhaps we should explain why we summarized his comment and did not simply reproduce it in toto.
First, a practical issue is the length, especially when our responses were inserted.
Knoppers -- Obeisance in the biblical stories of David / Lydie KucováSince the beginning of critical scholarship, biblical texts have been dated using linguistic evidence.
For many scholars, the latter has direct implications for scholarly evaluations of the possible dating of biblical literature.A prophet in king's clothes: kingly and divine re-presentation in 2 Kings 4 and 5 / W. Hunter -- Exodus 20.24b: linchpin of Pentateuchal criticism or just a further link between the Decalogue and the Book of the Covenant?Brian Aucker -- Historiography and theodicy in the Old Testament / John Barton -- The books of Chronicles and the scrolls from Qumran / George J. / Willliam Johnstone -- Cutheans or children of Jacob?dating of features, and the texts in which they cluster, is possible if the analysis is carried out with a sound linguistic and philological methodology.To assert otherwise, to put it bluntly, represents an extreme historical and linguistic skepticism that we find hard to justify.These conclusions in their first volume left not a few scholars (e.g., Ronald Hendel, Jan Joosten) wondering if Young and Rezetko had figured out anything useful about the history of biblical Hebrew, because their conclusions were essentially negative.