Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Bryant J. Williams III" <bjwvmw AT com-pair.net>]

Dear Rolf,

Thanks for the info from the Phoenician period.

You may also want to add that Solomon's sphere of influence stretch all the 
way
to the Euphrates River. Just how far down the River is not mentioned in the
text, but even if it just was in Syria it would be easy for Hebrew traders to
come in contact with Persians, etc. Furthermore, the Phoenicians were used in
the building of the First Temple.

Rev. Bryant J. Williams III
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Rolf Furuli" <furuli AT online.no>
To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2009 6:42 AM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Qohelet


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. Rllig
"Ph nisich-Punische Grammatik" 1999:72 is
interesting:
"Das bliche Determinativ-/Relativpronomen des
Ph nisich-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
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew


-- 
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.3/696 - Release Date: 02/21/2007 
3:19
PM