Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Trevor Peterson <06PETERSON AT cua.edu>]

>===== Original Message From "Martin A. Shields" <mshields AT mail.usyd.edu.au> 
=====
>It is important to note that Longman is only arguing that there is formal
>correspondence (i.e. the form of the text), not that the "meaning" of
>Qohelet reflects that of any of the Akkadian texts.

I'm not sure what you mean by this, but clearly he does use this formal 
correspondence as partial justification for his decision (as an Evangelical) 
to treat the book as fictional. I'm not trying to argue for Solomonic 
authorship, but I don't think his perceived parallel with the Akkadian texts 
in his dissertation does much to justify calling Qohelet fictional.
>

[snipped]

>If I recall he doesn't appeal
>much to the Akkadian material when discussing the date, but does say that
>the linguistic evidence is not a strong basis upon which to establish a date
>because it is not possible to rule out updating the language during the
>early stages of transmission.

He may not appeal directly to the Akkadian material, but the most he says 
about dating the book is based on his conclusion that it is a fictional 
autobiography of Solomon.

Trevor Peterson
CUA/Semitics