kwrandolph at email.com
Thu Aug 12 01:26:21 EDT 2004
Neither $RYM nor M$RRYM is found in Qohelet, making that question here moot.
At least neither show up in a search in Online Bible, unpointed text.
The explanation of $RYM being found in post-Exilic literature is that that literature is historical, referring to pre-exilic actions. Though the post-exilic word would usually be used, whats to prevent a pre-exilic word from sneaking in when describing pre-exilic events?
Karl W. Randolph.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Yigal Levin" <leviny1 at mail.biu.ac.il>
> ----- 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.
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
More information about the b-hebrew