Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>]

Dear Randall,

I made some word studies at the University 
library today, and I will use one word to show 
the problems with a late dating of Qohelet on the 
basis of supposed younger words that do not occur 
in supposed first-temple writings. You mentioned 
the word ZMN (time) yourself as a typical late 
Qohelet-word, and it is also a MH word.

This word is only found in Qohelet 3:1, Esther 
9:27, 32 and in Nehemiah 2:6. On the basis of the 
no-example-in-first-temple-texts argument, these 
occurrences would show that it is a late word. 
Several scholars have argued that the Semitic 
occurrences of this word are derivatives from the 
Old Persian word jamana; so it is another Persian 
loan-word. However, in Old Babylonian we find the 
word simanu with the meanings "occation; season; 
time; moment". Because of the morhpological 
similarity with Hebrew ZMN and Old Akkadian 
simanu, and that the lexical references of the 
words are the same, it is very likely that Old 
Babylonian is the source for the "late" Hebrew 
word ZMN as well as the Old Persian word jamana.

Fortunately, in connection with ZMN we have the 
Old Babylonian examples. If these examples were 
not found, ZMN would probably have been 
interpreted as a Persian or a late Akkadian or 
Aramaic loan-word. This clearly illustrates the 
fallacy of the no-example-in-first-temple-texts 
argument. I will make a few comments on the quote 
from you below:


> This isn't quite right. the issue with Qohelet is its chronology and its place
> between BH and mishnaic Heb, while the issue of mishnaic Hebrew itself
> is a different issue. Qohelet does have mishnaic-looking features like the
> non-imperfective use of ve-qatal, and a relatively high frequency of ˜ she-
> 'that' (a feature shared with northern dialect First Temple Hebrew).
> It shares some features with 4QMMT from Qumran, (for example,
> both have she- 'that' and both have qatol inf 
> abs. as a finite verb substitute,
> something on the increase in Second Temple Hebrew) and both also have
> differences from later mishnaic Hebrew so that many/most would call
> documents like qohelet and 4QMMT kinds of proto-mishnaic Hebrew.
>
> I would also add that data has been presented on this question. It would
> be fair to characterize this as one side showing a probability of Second
> Temple features and the other side saying 'but it can't be proved
> absolutely'. So does presuppositionalism override compounded
> high probability? for some.

In the Phoenician Karatepe inscription, as 
narrative verbs with past reference we find 6 
QATALs, 2 WEQALs, and 21 infinitive absolutes, 16 
of which have prefixed waw. Thus the infinitive 
absolute is the typical narrative form. In 
addition there are also 6 QATALs and 4 WEQATALs 
of the verb KN (to be) with past reference, as 
well as 2 YIQTOLs with past reference. Thus, 
Qohelet's use of infinitive absolute with a 
following pronoun functioning as a finite verb 
resembles Phoenician and not Mishnaic Hebrew. And 
more, the 6 WEQATALs with past reference are what 
you call "non-imperfective use of ve-qatal," 
exactly as we find in Qohelet.

The following quote from J. Friedrich-W. Röllig 
"Phönisich-Punische Grammatik" 1999:72 is 
interesting:
"Das übliche Determinativ-/Relativpronomen des 
Phönisich-Punischen s (the letter sin written 
with Herbew characters; there is no difference 
between sin and shin), das offenbar mit hebr. $E 
($A) (written with Hebrew letters) und Akkad $U 
(junger $A) identisch ist." Therefore, the 
supposed MH characteristic of Qohelet - the 
extensive use of $E (67 times, against A$R, 89 
times), is identical with the much older 
Phoenician language.


Best regards,

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo