Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Words adopted into Biblical Hebrew Vocabulary

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: George Athas <George.Athas AT moore.edu.au>
  • To: B-Hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Words adopted into Biblical Hebrew Vocabulary
  • Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 02:15:13 +0000

Ok, Karl. I'm yet to see any hard data from you to back up your assertions.
At the moment the argument sounds like a chasing after the wind. I've given
data and given my conclusion based on them. If you think the hard data I'm
dealing with is silence, then we have nothing to talk about.

Just for the record:

* Qohelet is not a modern history book. It's an ancient philosophical
diatribe, mostly in the first person. BIG difference!
* Qohelet was not produced by a modern author who signed a contract with
a publishing house so that authorship and copyright can be legally and
factually verified.
* To project modern publication practices onto the ancient world is
either a very poor parallel from which to argue, or evidence of a naïve
handling of literature.
* Where are the 'high literature' examples that are comparable to Qohelet
from the pre-exilic era?
* Amongst Jewish literature, the closest parallels to Qohelet are Ben
Sira and Wisdom of Solomon (both Hellenistic).
* In terms of genre, the closest comparisons exist in the Hellenistic
philosophical diatribe. Teles of Megara is a very good example.
* There is plenty of evidence against your 'possibilities'. Your
possibilities cannot be be 100% disproved, but neither can the possibility
that Qohelet was an alien from a planet called Pnegamulch. You refuse to
adequately take on board the weighting of possibilities, but rather treat
them all flatly with equal weight. This is poor logic and argumentation.
Probability outweighs possibility. At the very least, the evidence you don't
want to consider (what you mystifyingly call 'silence') you discount in terms
of its logical 'weight', and privilege your preferred option (which is
largely silence) by adding undue balast to it. You're basically saying that a
feather weighs just as much if not more than a rock. Mystifying!
* Given the quality of the argument you've put up, I suspect nothing I
say will convince you.


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






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page