Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

George:

On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 5:05 PM, George Athas 
<George.Athas AT moore.edu.au>wrote:

> 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.


This is a common idiom that crosses many languages, meaning that people from
all over the world came to Solomon. That would include Persia, which was
relatively close compared to other countries.


> Therefore, there is no reason to assume that there must have been Persians
> who came to Solomon, though it is certainly possible.
>

The question is not, was there contact between the Medo-Persians and Israel
during the time of Solomon, but how much and how influential? They were
close enough that Judea later was well within the Persian empire.


> - Is a visit from some Persians enough to bring Persian loanwords,
> influenced through Aramaic, into Hebrew? No t likely.
>

Why influenced through Aramaic? Why not directly from Medo-Persian?

This is an à priori argument with no basis in history. Further, it is only
one word. Yet you admit that it is possible. And the moment you admit that
it is possible, your whole argument falls apart.


> - Is Persia 'nearby' to Judah? Not in ancient times it wasn't.
>

See above. Longer trips were not unheard of in those days.


> - Is your etymology/context for /pitgam/ plausible?


Who said anything about etymology? Not I.


> No. It is pure speculation with no evidence, and nothing to corroborate it.
> As such, it logically counts for virtually zip.
>

Did you even look at the context?


> - Is the Persian Era a plausible context for the trading of Persian
> loanwords through Aramaic into Hebrew? Yes.
>

Irrelevant to the question at hand. The question here is: is it possible
that a term concerning a particular type of garden favored by Medo-Persian
royalty was adopted by a newly rich king of the Israeli empire who set about
to build the same type of garden? The answer is yes, it is possible.
Probability counts only if it is zero, and here it clearly is not zero. The
next question connected with this is: did it happen? The answer is, we can’t
tell. We have to look at other clues. The presence of that one word in and
of itself is proof of nothing.


> - 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).
>

So you admit the possibility, with the implications as I mentioned above.

This is speculation that there was no contact, without any evidence to back
it up. Not only that, it actually contradicts what is known about ancient
trading routes.


> - Are you willing to acknowledge the possibility that the Persian Era is a
> plausible context for the writing of Qohelet?


I am still awaiting for evidence other than one word that could have been
transmitted during Solomon’s time. How do you expect to convince with no
evidence?


> 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.
>
> Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!


> 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
> ___________________
>

You make an argument based on the presence of only one “Persian” word in the
text, and no other evidence, that that proves that Qohelet is a text from
the Persian Empire period. There is no record of when that term came into
Hebrew, but with no evidence you insist that it could not have been prior to
the Persian Empire. You claim that that one piece of evidence allows you to
discount all other evidence to the contrary. That sounds like special
pleading to me.

Karl W. Randolph.