So I would add the Qohelet verb to the two Persian words, some mishnaic
words, etc. (asuppot, ra`ayon, shilton, ben-Horim, pesher, kvar, zman ...)
ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE IS NOT EVIDENCE OF ABSENCE!
This important principle is often ignored in
dating attempts of books such as Qohelet and
Daniel. We can apply the principle to the time of
Solomon in the following way:
1) We have very few writings, if any at all, that
can tell us anything about spoken or written
Hebrew in the days of Solomon.
2) If we suppose that some of the writings we
possess reveal something about the language in
Solomon's time, and the word R(YWN, or any other
word, is not found, it would be ridiculous to
conclude that words not found in the writings
were not known.
We may illustrate the principle with a few syllogisms.
1) All lions are yellow.
Cheta is a lion.
Cheta is yellow.
2) All lions are yellow.
Cheta is yellow.
Cheta is a lion.
Why is 1) valid and 2) invalid? Because there are
many other animals than lions that are yellow.
3) All existing Mishnaic Hebrew words are found
in the Mishna and in no other writing.
The word R(YWN is found in the Mishna.
The word R(YWN is Mishnaic Hebrew.
4) The word R(YWN is found in the Mishna and is Mishnaic Hebrew.
The word R(YWN is found in Qohelet.
Qohelet includes Mishnaic Hebrew (or Proto-Mishnaic Hebrew).
Example 3) is factually wrong, but is logically
valid, and 4) is factually right but logically
invalid. Example 4) resembles 2), because a word
that is found in Mishnaic Hebrew may be much
older than Mishnaic Hebrew. Below I present a
study of the word R(YWN.
I use the following Lexicons: Koehler-Baumgartner
"The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old
Testament: del Olmo Lete-Sanmartin: A Dictionary
of the Ugaritic Language in Alphabetic
Tradition"; Black-George-Postgate "A Concise
Dictionary of Akkadian"; Leslau "A Comparative
Dictionary of Ge´ez". Jastrow: "Dictionary of the
Targumim, Talmud Bavli, Yerushalmi, and Midrashic
Literature".
R(YWN ("Striving"). This word is found 3 times in
Qohelet and in no other book of the Tanakh. It is
believed to be an Aramaic loan word, but we know
nothing about its origin. In Ugaritic we find
R(Y, which refers to a shepherd. The same root is
found in Akkadian as RE'UM. Akkadian has also a
word written in a similar way with the meaning
"angry". In Ethiopic we find the word RA(AYA with
the meaning "herd" and "shepherd". The Ge´ez
lexicon connects RA(YA with Aramaic RYWN) with
the meaning "thought". This Aramaic word is found
in Daniel 2:29; 5:10. The word is found in the
DSS. In Mishnaic Hebrew R(YWN is used in the
meaning "desire," "thought," and "greed".
Is the R(YWN in Qohelet taken from the root R(Y
whose core meaning is "shepherd" and "herd? That
is possible. While "striving" is far away from
"shepherd," very different meanings may go back
to the same root. Just think of QRN whose core
meaning is "horn". The sense "ray of light," and
the modern Hebrew sense "fund" (=a place where
money is put, just as liquids were stored in
horns) seem to be far away from the core meaning
"horn", but still the origin is the same.
So what is the origin of the root R(Y? The
Ugaritic and Akkadian evidence show that the root
existed in the days of Solomon. What its core
meaning and references were in the Hebrew
language in the 10th century B.C.E. we simply do
not know. Could this root or a similar one have
been used in the sense "striving" in the 10th
century? That can of course not be ruled out. To
use R(YWN in Qohelet as evidence for a
post-exilic origin of the book, and of a
Proto-Mishnaic language, simply is unwarranted.
That is a violation of the principle that
"absence of evidence is not evidence of absence,"
and it represents an invalid syllogism.
BTW. I have not found R(YWN in the sense
"striving" or "chasing" in Mishnaic Hebrew. Are
there any examples of this meaning?
The other words that you use in favor of a
post-exilic origin can be treated in exactly the
same way as R(YWN. We do not know their origin,
and they may have been used in the senses found
in Qohelet in the days of Solomon. The
description of Qohelet in chapter only fits king
Solomon. Thus, the book explicitly says that he
was the author. My arguments above neither defend
nor reject a 10th century writing of Qohelet.
They simply show that the arguments for a
post-exilic date are weak and invalid.
So, until we have proofs that the book was
written at another time, I see no compelling
reason to treat the book as a Pseudepigraphic
work. I will return to WEQATAL later.