Biblical Hebrew Forum

[George Athas <George.Athas AT moore.edu.au>]

Karl, again you've missed my point, and at times argue what I'm trying to 
argue. Here's my last statement on this.

- Did 'the whole world' (ie. Every man, woman, and child) come to have an 
audience with Solomon? No. It is simply rhetorical flourish. Therefore, there 
is no reason to assume that there must have been Persians who came to 
Solomon, though it is certainly possible.
- Is a visit from some Persians enough to bring Persian loanwords, influenced 
through Aramaic, into Hebrew? No t likely.
- Is Persia 'nearby' to Judah? Not in ancient times it wasn't.
- Is your etymology/context for /pitgam/ plausible? No. It is pure 
speculation with no evidence, and nothing to corroborate it. As such, it 
logically counts for virtually zip.
- Is the Persian Era a plausible context for the trading of Persian loanwords 
through Aramaic into Hebrew? Yes.
- Is the Pre-exilic era a plausible context for the trading of Persian 
loanwords through Aramaic into Hebrew? It's possible, but not likely given 
the paucity of contact (if there even was any).
- Are you willing to acknowledge the possibility that the Persian Era is a 
plausible context for the writing of Qohelet? No. We have nothing further to 
discuss.

Your argument really sounds like special pleading, Karl. You can talk about 
simplicity and Occam's razor till the cows come home, but the argument is 
often circular and based on highly speculative assumptions.

Now you can have the final say if you wish. Go to town on me if you like. I'm 
out of this one now.


Regards,

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