Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Randall:

On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 3:27 PM, Randall Buth <randallbuth AT gmail.com> wrote:

> vayyixtov Rolf
> >If Old ! Babylonian then it was
> already in Hebrew throughout OT times and one must deal with
> the third test of Hurvitz: why is `et and mo`ed used exclusively
> in torah and prophets? There was extensive literary contextual
> opportunity for zeman. But it wasn't ever used.
>
>
> As a lexicographer, look at the uses of ZMN, (T and MW(D and we find that
they all have distinct meanings that are different.

MW(D is from the same root as Y(D meaning *to convoke, call out to a meeting
* so as a noun it has almost the same meaning as εκκλησια in Greek.

(T is used extensively with a wide meaning similar to “time” in English when
referring to temporality.

ZMN as a participle used as an adjective modifying (T is used in Ezra 10:14,
Nehemiah 10:34, 13:31. That indicates that its root meaning is different
from (T.

ZMN as a noun is found only four times: Esther 9:27, 31, Nehemiah 2:6 and
Qohelet 3:1. In Qohelet it is used in parallel with (T indicating that it
has a distinctly different though similar meaning to (T.

>From all these contexts (contexts not discussed in detail here for brevity)
we see that ZMN has the emphasis of appointing or setting of a time, with
the noun usage of appointed or set time.

So, why was ZMN not widely used by pre-Babylonian prophets? Could very well
be that they never saw the need for that particular concept in their
writings even if they knew the term itself,

ZMN is used so seldom, even in post-Babylonian Exile writings, in uses that
do not supplant either MW(D or (T, that we cannot establish a pattern
whether it was an early or late comer into Biblical Hebrew language, if not
a word that was in the language all along. Rolf reports that a similar word
is known from cognate languages, even from early times, so Hurvitz’s tests
fail, all of them, in this case. Therefore its use in Qohelet cannot be used
as an indicator of late authorship.

Is this another case where, by knowing later Hebrew usage and cognate
languages, that you fail to filter out these other uses when looking at
Biblical Hebrew? Where ZMN has a different meaning than found in Biblical
Hebrew, and you are reading the Biblical texts using this other meaning?

Karl W. Randolph.