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, 17 Sep 2009 15:42:20 +0200

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




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page