Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Randall Buth <randallbuth AT gmail.com>]

First, briefly on the triple filter of Hurvitz' methodology for typing FTH 
from
STH (LBH), then the question of a verbal isogloss between Qohelet and
mishnaic Hebrew.

1. Words need to be profiled within the biblical corpus in order to see
if the word occurs with both First Temple Hebrew and Second Temple
Hebrew, or if the word/phrase/construction is only in Second Temple
texts. Naturally, at the beginning of such a methodology only clearly
Second Temple texts can be used like Ezra, Nehemiah, Chronicles,
Zecharya, Haggai, Malachi, If the pattern is 'Second temple only' then
one must ask a question if this is an accident, or if probably this word
is part of what can be called Second temple Hebrew. To help in
differentiating 'accident' from chronological layer, one can apply the
following two tests.
2. Words/phrases/constructions need to be profiled against extra
biblical texts, to see if it truly is attested in Second temple texts in a
way that would support the biblical profile. For this one can look at
Imperial and Qumran Aramaic, Qumran Hebrew, Ben Sira, and
further support can be looked for in MIshanaic Hebrew and the
targumim to the tanax, where many Second Temple words are
attested.
3. To further differentiate from accident, one must ask for whatever
word the Second Temple Hebfrew word replaces. When a new
word enters a language it causes some displacement and
rearrangement with other words in the same filed.
for example, if one were to look at iggeret 'letter' one would find in
the first text a typical 2Temple profile: 2xx Esther, 6xx Nehemya,
2xx 2Chron. so for test one it fits Second temple. If one were to
look in other 2Temple and rabbinic texts in aramaic and Hebrew
one would also find iggeret, so it fits test #2. But what would
iggeret be replacing, or in other words, what context in First
Temple documents would iggeret have fit, but where it didn't occur?
This is an important part of the methodology and helps to overthrow
accident. What do we find for 'letter' in 1Temple?
Look at 2Sam 11:14 'and David wrote a letter sefer/ספר to Yoab and
sent it by Uriya. It turns out that sefer is the 1stTemple word and
iggeret is never used in these contexts until 2Temple times.
(Incidentally, as part of the second text the targum to 2Sam 11:14
uses iggarta.)

When and if a word/phrase/contruction passes all three tests then it
is most probably a "2Temple Hebraism". these can be collected, and
eventually, some books may be added to the list of 2Temple Hebrew
in the Bible, like some of the psalms, or a book like Qohelet. That is
what Avi Hurvitz has done. It is a methodology that 'cuts in two
directions'. While a work like Qohelet (which does not explicitly claim
to be Solomon, but presents itself 'Solomonesque') ends up in the
Second Temple column, the priestly materials in the torah end up in
First Temple and cannot be Second Temple even though almost 200
years of critical scholarship has worked on such a basis.

OK-- so far for explaining the 'triple test' methodology of Hurvitz.
Many of the words,
like Persian pardes and pitgam, which fit the triple test as 2Temple,
as well as many words that are shared with Aramaic and with mishnaic
Hebrew, add to the overall character of Qohelet.

An additional feature of Qohelet is the verb system.
Rolf asked to compare Ex 33:7-11.

(the following paste has the teamim included. Use a unicode font
with teamim to see everything properly from the archives or direct
listing. the digest edition will probably print question marks or
boxes.)

Ex. 33:7
‏וּמֹשֶׁה֩ יִקַּ֨ח אֶת־הָאֹ֜הֶל
וְנָֽטָה־ל֣וֹ ׀ מִח֣וּץ לַֽמַּחֲנֶ֗ה הַרְחֵק֙  מִן־הַֽמַּחֲנֶ֔ה
וְקָ֥רָא ל֖וֹ אֹ֣הֶל מוֹעֵ֑ד
וְהָיָה֙ כָּל־מְבַקֵּ֣שׁ יְהוָ֔ה יֵצֵא֙ אֶל־אֹ֣הֶל מוֹעֵ֔ד אֲשֶׁ֖ר
מִח֥וּץ לַֽמַּחֲנֶֽה׃
‎Ex. 33:8‏
וְהָיָ֗ה כְּצֵ֤את מֹשֶׁה֙ אֶל־הָאֹ֔הֶל
יָק֙וּמוּ֙ כָּל־הָעָ֔ם
וְנִ֨צְּב֔וּ אִ֖ישׁ פֶּ֣תַח אָהֳל֑וֹ
וְהִבִּ֙יטוּ֙ אַחֲרֵ֣י מֹשֶׁ֔ה עַד־בֹּא֖וֹ הָאֹֽהֱלָה׃
‎Ex. 33:9‏
וְהָיָ֗ה כְּבֹ֤א מֹשֶׁה֙ הָאֹ֔הֱלָה
יֵרֵד֙ עַמּ֣וּד הֶֽעָנָ֔ן
וְעָמַ֖ד פֶּ֣תַח הָאֹ֑הֶל
וְדִבֶּ֖ר עִם־מֹשֶֽׁה׃
‎Ex. 33:10‏
וְרָאָ֤ה כָל־הָעָם֙ אֶת־עַמּ֣וּד הֶֽעָנָ֔ן עֹמֵ֖ד פֶּ֣תַח הָאֹ֑הֶל
וְקָ֤ם כָּל־הָעָם֙
וְהִֽשְׁתַּחֲוּ֔וּ אִ֖ישׁ פֶּ֥תַח אָהֳלֽוֹ׃
‎Ex. 33:11‏
וְדִבֶּ֨ר יְהוָ֤ה אֶל־מֹשֶׁה֙ פָּנִ֣ים אֶל־פָּנִ֔ים
כַּאֲשֶׁ֛ר יְדַבֵּ֥ר אִ֖ישׁ אֶל־רֵעֵ֑הוּ
וְשָׁב֙ אֶל־הַֽמַּחֲנֶ֔ה
וּמְשָׁ֨רְת֜וֹ יְהוֹשֻׁ֤עַ בִּן־נוּן֙ נַ֔עַר
לֹ֥א יָמִ֖ישׁ מִתּ֥וֹךְ הָאֹֽהֶל׃ ס
‎
Rolf mentioned 'past reference'  but he ignored aspect
(and by ignoring aspect the syllogisms about past were irrelevant).
Most Hebraists read this whole passage as marked for an imperfective
aspect that is being used for a habitual situation.

Throughout the passage, wherever something precedes the verb in the clause
one finds a yiqtol, yiqqaH, yetse, yqumu, yered, yedabber, yamish
and in a complementary distribution, everywhere that the verb is first
one finds a ve-qatal:
ve-nata, ve-qara, ve-haya, vehaya, ve-nitsvu, ve-hibbitu, ve-haya, ve`amad,
vedibber, vera'a, veqam, vehishtaHavu, vedibber, veshav,
This is classical biblical Hebrew and is not the way that mishanaic Hebrew
works. Mishanic Hebrew uses haya + benoni (participle) to mark habitual
pasts. haya+benoni already existed in First Temple times to be sure,
but in Second Temple times it remained, while the yiqtol/veqatal symbiosis
diminished in literary while it disappeared in colloquial.
What this means is that the vast majority of Hebraists, and the internal
massoretic tradition, clearly distinguish Ex 33:7-11 from any hint of
mishnaic Hebrew. Qohelet, on the other hand fits mishnaic Hebrew
with a reminiscient hint of classical Hebrew.
'Rolfian Hebrew' (I name it such to distinguish it from masoretic biblical
Hebrew) apparently cannot distinguish these, so he won't be able to use
the same verb test in testing Second Temple Hebrew, especially between
registers that are potentially more colloquial. However, if he were to refine
his stylistic profiling he might be able to add this since the patterns can be
quite extensive (which increases probabilistic reliability).

bottom line:
Qohelet is a special book, yes, but its character has a much better fit
with the Second Temple than the First Temple, and it is very very
unlikely to be the result of accident. Beyond this, I would refer people
to published works since the data can become long. Articles and
monographs have been devoted to the subject, going beyond the second
Temple questions and  including dialect provenance like north/south.

for the record, at our ulpan, because of aiming at basic classical Hebrew,
we avoid special Qohelet vocab like  zeman 'time/mo`ed' in our speech,
preferring `et and mo`ed, and in general prefer the first temple words/
structures over second temple stuctures and over later colloquial.
kevar becomes tricky because it didn't have a first temple single-word
counterpart, instead using phrases like "ze+time frame" in order to
discuss 'already'.

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