Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Randall:

On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 5:39 AM, Randall Buth <randallbuth AT gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.`.`.
>

Don’t be so quick, as that suffix is attached to another double ayin verb
that I listed. More importantly, “feeding” fits none of the instances where
this form is used in Qohelet. But the idea of “displeasing” fits all three
instances. In this case, meaning trumps your proposed etymology.

>
> 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,


Which is why I repeatedly warn that context and meaning must be consulted
before even considering any possible etymology. Further, any proposed
etymology that does not find support in meaning and context is to be
rejected.

In this case, we find a known suffix used for other words (watch out, this
is not always a suffix), similar in use to the English -(t)ion suffix (which
too is not always a suffix), used in a context by one author who used the
exact same form other times in the same document in the same context for one
meaning, and we are to accept that here it had a different meaning? C’mon!


> especially if the
> word was in common use in the continuing language
> community, and in the surrounding linguistic communities.
>

Is this not another linguistic error? Does the later adoption of a loan word
from a cognate language by a language community indicate how we should read
a text for its time period?

>
> This word may have more than one meaning.
>

Is this not a case of wishful thinking over probabilities?


> …
> In addition, we find the word in use in Aramaic,


I know the word is in Aramaic, but just because it (or any word for that
matter) is in Aramaic, is it incumbent that it has the same meaning in
Hebrew?


> …
>
> >> 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.
>

Context? Where is business activity in this context?


> 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).
>

Why limit it to business in this context? This context refers to any
activity that brings a person down, not just business.

>
> 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".
>

Just because a word has a certain meaning at one time, does that mean that
it always had the same meaning?

>
> 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.
>

Context! Context! Context! “Sprout”? ……????

Two different kinds of ayin? Talk about speculating in etymology! Why not
just admit they were homonyms?

>
> 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.
>

Were the Greek speaking translators of the LXX experts in Biblical Hebrew?
Who knew the exact meaning of each and every term? Or did they struggle over
terms whose meanings had been forgotten, and others where the meanings had
changed from Biblical Hebrew as it changed to Mishnaic Hebrew?

There were two terms, homonyms, that had the spelling ענה (NH, and both of
them had broader meanings than any equivalent single term in English. One
had the broad meaning of answering, the other being discussed here referred
to anything that diminished a person, which included humbling, humiliation,
or even just brought down to poverty or by troubles.

>
> 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.
>

What I see looking at the contexts and looking at the linguistic patterns
that existed in pre-Babylonian Exile Biblical Hebrew, are meanings that fit
the contexts yet are different from Aramaic.

This is one more evidence that Hebrew ceased to be spoken as a primary
language during the Babylonian Exile with the last native speakers dying
shortly thereafter. Then later generations who spoke Aramaic as their
primary language, attributed Aramaic meanings to lesser used Hebrew terms,
having not learned the original Hebrew meanings.

>
> 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.
>

If you showed the patterns, I would agree. But did you do so?

Did you not weaken your argument by your appeals to the cognate languages
Aramaic and Mishnaic Hebrew?


> 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.
>

The more you explain Mishnaic Hebrew (which I have admitted that I don’t
know it), the more differences I see between Qohelet and Mishnaic Hebrew.
Could it be that you think that Ben Sira is more linguistically facil in his
writing than Qohelet, is because you have been trying to fit the Biblical
Hebrew writing of Qohelet into Mishnaic Hebrew, and it doesn’t fit (a square
peg in a round hole)?

>
> …
> ברכות
> יוחנן Randall Buth
>
> Karl W. Randolph.