Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

George:

On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 4:36 PM, George Athas 
<George.Athas AT moore.edu.au>wrote:

> No James. You're only looking at half the equation. I'm simply asking when
> the most plausible time was for PERSIAN to have become a significant
> language that would send loanwords into other languages.


There is only one word that is clearly a Persian loan word. Solomon could
very easily have picked it up, in the same way as dinghy is a common English
word today, from India. Ancient Persia is far closer to Israel than India to
either England or U.S. India was a colony when dinghy came into English, so
in the same pattern, ancient Persia could proffer loan words without being
an empire, lording it over other countries.


> The Persian Era is the most plausible for that.


But not necessary.


> Before that time, Persia was not a major international player, so it is far
> less likely that Persian loanwords entered Hebrew before the Persian Era.
> Anything is possible, but not everything is probable.
>
> One word, One word! Referring to a royal structure where it is less likely
that there was a pre-existing Hebrew term for it. There is no reason to
assume that a tenth century monarch with extensive trading and diplomatic
connections would not have heard of it.

>
> Regards,
>
> GEORGE ATHAS
> Moore Theological College (Sydney, Australia)
> www.moore.edu.au
>
>
> The context of the other claimed Persian loanword raises questions as to
the validity of the argument that it is a Persian loanword. In particular,
that it is that claimed loanword.

If there were a whole slew of Persian loanwoards, questions may be raised.
But to make a song and dance about one word sounds like making a mountain
out of a molehill. In fact, it sounds like the only reason that this
argument got legs was to push a certain mythology.

I find this argument very unconvincing.

Karl W. Randolph.