Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Dave Humpal" <ebedyah AT elite.net>]

The problem I see with Qoheleth is that many of the methods for dating this
book were based on theories about Hebrew language development, especially
Aramaisms, that have proven to be unreliable.  In the 19th Century many
authors were so convinced by these theories that they dated Qoheleth in the
first or second century C.E.  Then fragments were discovered dating to the
2nd or 3rd Century B.C.E.  Now, many of these ideas have proven to be
misguided.  For example, the particle sh- is no longer considered late, and
in fact may be an early form independent of asher.  Many of Keil's supposed
Aramaisms are now rejected, and Dahood and others have presented alternate
language theories which explain many of the problems of the past.  I don't
find the evidence for a post-exilic date that convincing.

Rev. Dave Humpal ebedyah AT elite.net
First Christian Church (DOC), Merced, California
Help for the Hurting Christian
http://www.elite.net/~ebedyah/PastorsHomePage.htm
First Christian Church Site
http://www.elite.net/~ebedyah/FirstChristianHomePage.htm