Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Randall:

On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 2:44 PM, Randall Buth <randallbuth AT gmail.com> wrote:

> >>  I would call Qohelet and
> > 4QMMT two different dialects of proto-mishnaic Hebrew on the one
> > hand, or simply 'mishnaic Hebrew' when speaking broadly.
> >
> >You have made this statement a few times, and I am just now getting around
> to calling you on it.
> >Are you claiming that Qohelet is a document authored
> during the second temple period?>
>
> Yes, Qohelet is a Second Temple document.
>

In other words, you deny its historical references to have been written by a
king who was quite rich and wise.


> 'pitgam' is Second Temple,
>

Look at the context of Qohelet 8:11, it is not clear that that is the
Aramaic word PTGM and not an otherwise unknown word PTG with the 3rd masc.
plural suffix.


> 'pardes' is Second Temple.
>

Not necessarily. True it is a Persian loan word, but it referred to a
particular type of royal garden, and it is possible that Solomon imported
the word along with the concept.


> the preponderance of she- 'that' (70xx)
>

Known in Hebrew before first temple, e.g. variant reading for Genesis 49:10
also so translated LXX.


> and the frequent use of ve-qatal (50xx) instead of vayyixtov is 'low
> dialect' not just
> Second Temple, and lines up with mishnaic Hebrew.
>
> Or the structure of spoken first temple era Hebrew is less known than we
like to boast.


> -
> Randall Buth, PhD
> www.biblicalulpan.org
> randallbuth AT gmail.com
> Biblical Language Center
> Learn Easily - Progress Further - Remember for Life
>

Karl W. Randolph.