Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Qohelet

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Qohelet
  • Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 08:35:42 +0200

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





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page