leviny1 at mail.biu.ac.il
Tue Aug 10 08:10:00 EDT 2004
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Kirk" <peterkirk at qaya.org>
> >That's assuming that both the Deut. History AND Qohelet are pre-exilic,
> >which most scholars would have reservations about.
> Their reservations might evaporate if they took this kind of linguistic
> evidence seriously. There are real linguistic differences between the
> clearly post-exilic books and the rest of the HB, which imply at least a
> different time of composition and suggest a period of instability
> allowing rapid language change. (On this hypothesis, Esther has to be
> explained as deliberate archaising.)
> But I won't push for a pre-exilic Qohelet.
> Peter Kirk
I agree entirely that there are differences between pre- and post-exilic
Hebrew, and I certainly don't subscribe to the "everything is late" school.
However, in this particular case, the difference between $arim and me$orerim
cannot be demonstrated to be only chronological: true that WE HAVE me$orerim
only in post-exilic books, but $arim is in both. Which is why I suggested
looking at different usages.
More information about the b-hebrew