Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>]

Dear Randall,

You wrote:
> So I would add the Qohelet verb to the two Persian words, some mishnaic
words, etc. (asuppot, ra`ayon, shilton, ben-Horim, pesher, kvar, zman ...)

ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE IS NOT EVIDENCE OF ABSENCE! 
This important principle is often ignored in 
dating attempts of books such as Qohelet and 
Daniel. We can apply the principle to the time of 
Solomon in the following way:

1) We have very few writings, if any at all, that 
can tell us anything about spoken or written 
Hebrew in the days of Solomon.

2) If we suppose that some of the writings we 
possess reveal something about the language in 
Solomon's time, and the word R(YWN, or any other 
word, is not found, it would be ridiculous to 
conclude that words not found in the writings 
were not known.

We may illustrate the principle with a few syllogisms.

1) All lions are yellow.
    Cheta is a lion.
    Cheta is yellow.

2) All lions are yellow.
    Cheta is yellow.
    Cheta is a lion.

Why is 1) valid and 2) invalid? Because there are 
many other animals than lions that are yellow.

3) All existing Mishnaic Hebrew words are found 
in the Mishna and in no other writing.
    The word R(YWN is found in the Mishna.
    The word R(YWN is Mishnaic Hebrew.

4) The word R(YWN is found in the Mishna and is Mishnaic Hebrew.
    The word R(YWN is found in Qohelet.
    Qohelet includes Mishnaic Hebrew (or Proto-Mishnaic Hebrew).

Example 3) is factually wrong, but is logically 
valid, and 4) is factually right but logically 
invalid. Example 4) resembles 2), because a word 
that is found in Mishnaic Hebrew may be much 
older than Mishnaic Hebrew. Below I present a 
study of the word R(YWN.

I use the following Lexicons: Koehler-Baumgartner 
"The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old 
Testament: del Olmo Lete-Sanmartin: A Dictionary 
of the Ugaritic Language in Alphabetic 
Tradition"; Black-George-Postgate "A Concise 
Dictionary of Akkadian"; Leslau "A Comparative 
Dictionary of Ge´ez". Jastrow: "Dictionary of the 
Targumim, Talmud Bavli, Yerushalmi, and Midrashic 
Literature".

R(YWN ("Striving"). This word is found 3 times in 
Qohelet and in no other book of the Tanakh. It is 
believed to be an Aramaic loan word, but we know 
nothing about its origin. In Ugaritic we find 
R(Y, which refers to a shepherd. The same root is 
found in Akkadian as RE'UM. Akkadian has also a 
word written in a similar way with the meaning 
"angry". In Ethiopic we find the word RA(AYA with 
the meaning "herd" and "shepherd". The Ge´ez 
lexicon connects RA(YA with Aramaic RYWN) with 
the meaning "thought". This Aramaic word is found 
in Daniel 2:29; 5:10. The word is found in the 
DSS. In Mishnaic Hebrew R(YWN is used in the 
meaning "desire," "thought," and "greed".

Is the R(YWN in Qohelet taken from the root R(Y 
whose core meaning is "shepherd" and "herd? That 
is possible. While "striving" is far away from 
"shepherd," very different meanings may go back 
to the same root. Just think of QRN whose core 
meaning is "horn". The sense "ray of light," and 
the modern Hebrew sense "fund" (=a place where 
money is put, just as liquids were stored in 
horns) seem to be far away from the core meaning 
"horn", but still the origin is the same.

So what is the origin of the root R(Y? The 
Ugaritic and Akkadian evidence show that the root 
existed in the days of Solomon. What its core 
meaning and references were in the Hebrew 
language in the 10th century B.C.E. we simply do 
not know. Could this root or a similar one have 
been used in the sense "striving" in the 10th 
century? That can of course not be ruled out. To 
use R(YWN in Qohelet as evidence for a 
post-exilic origin of the book, and of a 
Proto-Mishnaic language, simply is unwarranted. 
That is a violation of the principle that 
"absence of evidence is not evidence of absence," 
and it represents an invalid syllogism.

BTW. I have not found R(YWN in the sense 
"striving" or "chasing" in Mishnaic Hebrew. Are 
there any examples of this meaning?

The other words that you use in favor of a 
post-exilic origin can be treated in exactly the 
same way as R(YWN. We do not know their origin, 
and they may have been used in the senses found 
in Qohelet in the days of Solomon. The 
description of Qohelet  in chapter only fits king 
Solomon. Thus, the book explicitly says that he 
was the author. My arguments above neither defend 
nor reject a 10th century writing of Qohelet. 
They simply show that the arguments for a 
post-exilic date are weak and invalid.
So, until we have proofs that the book was 
written at another time, I see no compelling 
reason to treat the book as a Pseudepigraphic 
work. I will return to WEQATAL later.

Best regards,

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo