Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Randall Buth <randallbuth AT gmail.com>]

A couple of items in a recent thread caught my eye as good
examples for teaching about words, etymology, and relations
with the larger language communities in antiquity.
We will look at the etymologies, and after both words are
discussed, look at the broader picture.


>> רעיון 'thought' Q 2.22 and in mishnaic Hebrew
>[Karl:]
> This is a common ending to change a verb or adjective
> to a noun, ... Also found in 1:17 and
> 4:16, and all three times meaning “displeasure”
> from the root רעע R((.

Here is a recourse to etymology, though the etymology
is linguistically wrong. The root should be specified as ר.ע.י
r.`.y., 'to guide to pasture; to join with', not ר.ע.ע  r.`.`.

The point here, of course, is that etymology is a very
subjective matter, and not a good way or reliable way to
go about establishing contextual meaning, especially if the
word was in common use in the continuing language
community, and in the surrounding linguistic communities.

This word may have more than one meaning.
Qoh 2.22 appears to refer to 'the considerations of the
mind (heart), thoughts'
(Old Greek προαιρεσις 'decisions/purposings')
This meaning may fit ra`yon ruaH, too, where the
'thoughts of the wind' would be another metaphor for
worthlessness. However, this is also a wordplay
with רעות רוח r`ut ruaH 'joining the wind,
striving after the wind'.

In addition, we find the word in use in Aramaic, even in the
Bible, Dan 2.29, where it refers to thoughts and meditation.
That too, is helpful information that can be weighed. It
certainly lines up with the meaning 'thoughts, consideration'
and not with the mis-etymologized and invented
'displeasure'.

[For interest, modern Hebrew has developed another,
related meaning: "idea". This does not determine earlier
meaning, but it does show how a trajectory of a word
may work through a language. Tracing a trajectory is
helpful, because it may be part of a chain and is helpful
for studying vocabulary in every language.]

What we see with ra`yon is the positive value in knowing
a. the context, b. the correct root(s), c. ancient testimony,
d. community use, and e. ancient cognate use. All of these
line up in this case to paint a unified picture. The data on
ra`yon could be expanded, but this outlines the principles
and corrects "displeasure".

>> ענין 'affair' 8xx Q and in mishnaic Hebrew
>
>This has a suffix that changes a verb to a noun, also used by דמין
> DMYN, פדין PDYN, קנין QNYN, and its uses fit the meaning of
> humiliating, being humbled from the verb ענה (NH.

Here is a word that is fairly frequent in Qohelet, ענין `inyan. It
apparently meant 'business, activity' Qoh 2.26 where it refers to
business interests
and activity.
In 5.13 someone loses their wealth through bad `inyan, through bad
business (contextually, this would not be through 'evil business,
fraud',
but to 'unlucky' business losses. Qoh is dealing with examples that are
sometimes outside of a cause-and-effect morality).

Again, it is useful to trace the historical trajectory of this word.
In Mishnaic Hebrew it continued with this meaning and developed an
additional meaning "subject matter", the "activity under discussion".
Incidentally, the word was also common in Aramaic `enyan, where it
also meant "concern, affair".

On the other hand, Karl  proposed that it meant 'humiliation'
based on etymology with one of the verbs/meanings `.n.y.
Now etymology is a very subjective matter, and not a good way
to go about establishing contextual meaning, especially if the word
was in common use in the continuing language community, and in
the surrounding linguistic communities. The verb(s) `.n.y. (probably
homonyms, in some cases from different roots with two kinds
of `ayin) can mean 'respond, answer; sing; suffer; to deal with
something, work with; and possible 'to sprout' (Hos 2.17, 24);
also in pi`el 'to afflict, do violence against; hif`il humiliate, and more.

As far as I'm aware, no one in the ancient community ever
used `inyan as 'humiliation'. The Old Greek translators used
'busy-ness, distracting activity'. Mishnaic Hebrew commonly
used it, and it is still used today for "acitvity, subject matter,
interest'. Again, as with ra`yon, Aramaic used it with a similar
meaning. `inyan is not considered one of the 'unknown words'
that needs guess work to re-establish a new meaning in the Bible.
'Humiliation' does not fit the context as well, and does not explain
how and why the language community dropped the alleged
meaning, only to use the word in a different meaning. Plus,
this meaning fits the cognate language Aramaic.
So 'business' does not create an extra, unnecessary, and
unanswered question.


So what do we see in Qohelet?
We see two words whose meanings fit a context and were
preserved in the Hebrew community and that were also
in use in the Aramaic community. Neither word made it
into the Bible outside of Qohelet, (though ra`yon does
occur in Daniel in Aramaic), but both words were
considered 'common' and well known in later Hebrew and
in Aramaic.

They do NOT PROVE that Qohelet was a 2T work, I agree
with Karl on that.
But they certainly fit an expected profile if it were true that
Qohelet was 2T. Karl should probably agree with that.
They are two strands that can be used in making a much
stronger rope.
By themselves, they are two strands, but joined with a
long list they become a stronger and stronger argument.
Never absolute proof, just stronger and stronger. It is
certainly remarkable that if the document were written in
the tenth century BCE, that it would have so many features
that accidentally pattern as 2T (See commentaries for
discussion at length.) People may consider at what point
they re-consider their interpretation of the contents and
the intention of the author to most easily fit these pictures.

But back to language, these two words show value and
consistency when interpreted within the text, within the
fuller and correct linguistic matrix (with the multiple,
correct etymological possibilities), with the ancient
communities using the text, with the later direct
descendent of the language community (Mishnaic Hebrew),
and the cognate language communities known to be in
very close and even bilingual contact over a millenium
(Aramaic). (PS: even Solomon could easily have known
OldAramaic, though we don't know exactly when `inyan
developed in either Hebrew or Aramaic. My guess is
that he understood Hirom's Phoenician in any case.)

The point is that the above two words have a consistent and
unified meaning attested multiple times and in multiple ways
that cannot and should not be thrown out and replaced by
imaginative and unnecessary etymology, whether in
error (r.`.`.) or overly restrictive ('humiliation').

It is easier to process all of this if one would internalize a
BH dialect, but that is separate thread. That remains my
recommendation to any wanting to read, appreciate, and
work with BH, or with any dialect of Hebrew. Certainly,
Isaiah or Zechariah would have had negligible difficulty, if
any at all, with Ben Sira, though with the developed low
language (Mishnaic Hebrew) they would have probably
had their ears jostled at the beginning of their contact.

ילמדו כלם שפת כנען       yilmedu kullam sfat Kna`an
או עברית ככנות בן סירה   o `ivrit kexannot ben sira.

ברכות
יוחנן Randall Buth


-- 
Randall Buth, PhD
www.biblicallanguagecenter.com
Biblical Language Center
Learn Easily - Progress Further - Remember for Life