Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Randall Buth <randallbuth AT gmail.com>]

vayyixtov Karl
> >>>  I would call Qohelet and
> >>> 4QMMT two different dialects of proto-mishnaic Hebrew on the one
> >>> hand, or simply 'mishnaic Hebrew' when speaking broadly.
...
>> >Are you claiming that Qohelet is a document authored
>>> during the second temple period?>>
>>
>> Yes, Qohelet is a Second Temple document.
>>
>> '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.>

Your low probablity is showing. If it's pitgam, then you need to explain
what it's doing in an alleged early 1st temple doc. Most trace this word
back to Persian dialects *pratigama but even a Persian connection
wouldn't explain the exact later form ptgm in Solomon's day.

>> '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.>

Check out the profile of this word PRDS in the Hebrew Bible, then check
out GN HMLK, then discuss probability. PRDS is only attested in clear
Second Temple docs, plus Qohelet, plus mishnaic Hebrew.

>> the preponderance of she- 'that' (70xx)
>
>Known in Hebrew before first temple, e.g. variant reading for Genesis 49:10
>also so translated LXX.

This is poor weighing of evidence. That is why I added the statistic 70 times.
I am fully aware that she-/sha- was dialectically used occasionally in
First Temple Hebrew, especially of a northern providence (e.g. Jud 5,
2Ki 6:11). Here we have 70 times.

>> 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.

So ve-qatal is a sign of spoken Hebrew?
Nice.
Because then the writers of high Hebrew during the Second Temple
tended to avoid it, correctly (except in future/habitual contexts). And then
the writers of mishaic Hebrew correctly adopted it, with the writers of the
Mishna doing this 1000 years after the alleged writing of Qohelet. Those
would be amazing philogists. Nothing like them before or since.

Again, one must ask for a weighing of probability. And one must weigh
these kinds of traits collectively, because Qohelet is one writing. And the
above is only the obvious tip of an iceberg. There are quite a few other
words whose dialect profile lines up with the Second Temple. But this
has been rehashed in intros for a couple hundred years. Words like
sof, `inyan, pesher, ra`ayon simply add the links to Second Temple and
Mishnaic Hebrew and render a First Temple origin less and less
probable with each additional thread.  And of course, these links with
Mishaic Hebrew mean that Mishanic Hebrew is valuable for discussing
and evaluating Biblical Hebrew.
heve shalom

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