Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Bryan.Bibb AT furman.edu]

Bogdan,

I would call your attention to the argument made recently by CL Seow in his
AB commentary on Ecclesiastes, pp. 15-21.

First, with reference to the Aramaisms, he recognizes that the old theory
has been thoroughly debunked.  However, there is still something to be said
about the high frequency of the Aramaisms, which may correlate with the
time in which Aramaic was the vernacular in commerce and administration (a
language realm from which Qohelet borrows heavily).  Seow lists several
specific Aramaic words in the book (primarily economic terms) that are
paralleled specifically in Persian Period texts.

Another argument that seems particularly strong to me concerns the
occurrence of two Persian loan words, pardEs (2:5) and pitgAm (8:11).
Persian loanwords seem only to occur in post-exilic texts.  In fact, there
aren't any Persian words or names attested in early post-exilic texts, but
only in Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, and Daniel.

Finally, Seow has a nice section discussing the relative merits of apparent
differences between pre-exilic and Late Biblical Hebrew.  The differences
are certainly not as clear-cut as Delitzsch and others supposed, and many
of the differences have to do with dialect (e.g. the occurrence of she- in
northern texts) or stylistic variation.  However, the  basic "theory of
Hebrew language development" is still sound, though it must of necessity be
more nuanced than in the past.  There are certain things that distinguish
early and late Hebrew texts, and combined with conceptual, historical, and
theological concerns, they can help us construct a model for Israel's
literary development.  This argument is crucial not only for countering
certain non-critical readings of the text, but also for responding to the
minimalists who would have everything be from the same period and milieu.

Cordially,
Bryan


Bryan Bibb
Dept. of Religion
Furman University
Greenville, SC
-----------------------------------------



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




---
You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: [Bryan.Bibb AT furman.edu]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to
$subst('Email.Unsub')
To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu.