This isn't quite right. the issue with Qohelet is its chronology and its place
between BH and mishnaic Heb, while the issue of mishnaic Hebrew itself
is a different issue. Qohelet does have mishnaic-looking features like the
non-imperfective use of ve-qatal, and a relatively high frequency of she-
'that' (a feature shared with northern dialect First Temple Hebrew).
It shares some features with 4QMMT from Qumran, (for example,
both have she- 'that' and both have qatol inf abs. as a finite verb substitute,
something on the increase in Second Temple Hebrew) and both also have
differences from later mishnaic Hebrew so that many/most would call
documents like qohelet and 4QMMT kinds of proto-mishnaic Hebrew.
I would also add that data has been presented on this question. It would
be fair to characterize this as one side showing a probability of Second
Temple features and the other side saying 'but it can't be proved
absolutely'. So does presuppositionalism override compounded
high probability? for some.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.