Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Stephen Shead <srshead+bh AT gmail.com>]

Hi all,

Donald Vance said:
> It, in fact reads very much exilic and
> post-exilic, to the degree that a text can be dated on style.

In this whole discussion, I'm surprised nobody has mentioned (unless I
missed it?) the issues raised in recent years by Ian Young and others on
linguistic dating of texts, including Persian loan words. I'm certainly not
an expert on the issue (despite the fact that he was my doctoral
supervisor!), but a summary of his general approach and argument can be
found at http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/yount357913.shtml.

In a nutshell, they argue that the existence of a Persian loanword or two
does not count for much in terms of dating a text as early or late
(especially for dating the original text as written by the author). The same
can be said for "late" BH features. Young argues that "early" and "late" are
really two contrasting styles of writing which were evident through the
entire biblical period.

For those who are familiar with this recent "movement" (if I can call it
that) -- or those who'd care to read up on it -- I'm very interested to know
what you think of their arguments, especially regarding the possibility of
earlier Iranian / Median influences.

And one extra little question for Karl, on his assertion that 1:1 refers to
Solomon (which I almost agree with - at least it implies him, though perhaps
provocatively?), and thus clearly dates Qohelet to Solomon's reign (which I
don't agree with):
Karl, what do you make of 1:16, with "...wisdom more than *all* who were
before me over Jerusalem..."? Who are "all" these kings?

Regards,
Stephen Shead
Centro de Estudios Pastorales
Santiago, Chile