Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>]

Dear George,

The only linguistic argument used by Randall, is that he has compared 
the WEQATALs of Qohelet with the (WE)QATALs of Mishnaic Hebrew. The 
QATAL  form in MH has i most cases past reference. In BH, also in 
writings that Randal view as pre-exilic, the QATAL form with and 
without prefixed WAW can have past reference. Therefore, QATAL and 
WEQATAL in BH is used in the same way as in MH, the difference being 
that the BH forms are aspectual while the MH forms are temporal. So, 
Randall's arguments do not relate to quality, but to number- an 
exceptional great number of QATALs with prefixed WAWs are found in 
the same book. But that is not necessary a linguistic argument-the 
reason may be genre, target group, or personal style.

The arguments regarding Persian loan-words may be termed historical, 
depending of the meaning of that term. But I see a parallel in the 
arguments of paleontologists regarding the ancestry of mankind. 
During the last 60 years, every time a piece of bone or a piece of a 
skull have been found, the ancestry tree of mankind has been 
rewritten. True, the evidence is historical, but because so little 
has been found, can we trust the present interpretations? Regarding 
the loan-words, we simply do not know whether they originated in 
Persia, or whether the Persians got them from an older language.

Regarding historical data, the following observations can be made:

1) Qohelet explicitly says that its author was a son of king David 
and king over Israel. One can reject this as a pseudepigraphic 
statement, but still the statement itself is historical.

2) We find some words in Qohelet supposed to be of Persian origin and 
some words that are found in Mishnaic Hebrew but not in writings 
supposed to be pre-exilic. Here we also have historical data.

3) The two supposed Persian loan-words have counterparts in old 
Sankrit, which could suggest that their origin is much older than 
Persian times. Again do we have historical data. (The rejection of 
the parallel between the Sanskrit word PRATIGAMA and Qohelets word 
PITGAM because the latter lacks "r" is weak indeed. We may compare 
"Nebuchadnezzar" and "Nebuchadrezzar" (Nabu-kudurru-utsur) and ask if 
they were two different kings. And we may also keep in mind the great 
difference between the Persian and Hebrew ways of writing names.

4) The most important historical arguments are found in Dahood's 
article, regarding the great similarity between Qohelet and Phenician 
/Ugaritic writings. Looking at this article, I count more than 150 
examples of similarities in vocabulary, expressions, 
orthography/morphology, grammar, and syntax. These parallels should 
be carefully studied and addressed in connection with arguments 
regarding the time of writing of Qohelet. If Dahood's arguments are 
sound, the case for an old dating of Qohelet is much stronger 
(because of the numerous parallels) than a young date based on a few 
similar words.

 Dahood's observation that there are parallells between Mishnaic 
Hebrew and Phoenician that are not found in the Tanakh also deserves 
to be studied. Do we find Proto-Mishnaic traits in Phonician?


Best regards,

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo



> Randall's argument is both a combination of linguistics AND 
> historical details. It does not lean purely on the etymology of two 
> words. Therefore, those who are describing Randall's argument as 
> purely linguistic are, I believe, missing the point of his argument 
> and, as a result, its weight. Randall's argument that the Persian 
> Era is the one most likely to have seen the transfer of Persian 
> loanwords through Aramaic and into Hebrew is eminently plausible. So 
> far, I haven't seen those arguing for a date before the Persian Era 
> provide such a solid historical framework for this. Randall's 
> argument, in my opinion, has far more explanatory power.
>
> But, of course, that's just my opinion.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> GEORGE ATHAS
> Moore Theological College (Sydney, Australia)
> www.moore.edu.au
>
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew