Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

George:

On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 9:18 PM, George Athas 
<George.Athas AT moore.edu.au>wrote:

> Karl, your dinghy example misses my point. I'm not arguing that conquest
> has to be the foundation for loanwords to start moving around. I'm arguing
> that meaningful contact does. That might be conquest, but it could just as
> easily be trade, or something else. But when it comes to Persia and Judah,
> the *most plausible* for such exchange is the Persian Era. I'm not ruling
> out the *possibility* that these words entered before the Persian Era, but
> rather that it is less likely than the Persian Era. There is proof that
> Persia and Judah had exchanges in the Persian Era, but no evidence
> whatsoever to my knowledge of anything before then. So, in terms of
> evidential likelihood, Persian Era is still more likely than any time
> before.
>
> 1 Kings 4:34, 10:24, 2 Chronicles 9:23, no reason to assume that Persians
were not among those. Considering that Solomon’s empire stretched over half
the distance between Jerusalem and Persia, all the more opportunities for
contact.


> Do you have anything substantial to point to that might indicate some kind
> of meaningful sustained contact between Judah and Persia before the Persian
> Era? If you don't, then your argument remains purely in the realm of
> speculation. In my books, that makes it much less plausible than the
> argument for a Persian Era date for Qohelet, which has some historical
> substance.
>
> What historical substance that Qohelet was written during the Persian era?
One word? Balanced against the many references that the author was either
Solomon or someone in his court quoting him. Those references cannot refer
to another king.

>
> Regards,
>
> GEORGE ATHAS
> Moore Theological College (Sydney, Australia)
> www.moore.edu.au
>

Karl W. Randolph.