Linguistic evidence and the dating of qoheleth

Posted by / 09-Aug-2020 06:19

Linguistic evidence and the dating of qoheleth

It is, therefore, not inappropriate if we concentrate on Hurvitz's methodology and presuppositions here.We illustrate these first of all by several quotes from his early work on the Prose Tale of Job.Even demonstrating, using Hurvitz's careful methodology of distribution-opposition-external attestation (as discussed below), that a particular linguistic feature is LBH does not lead to the classification of the text in which it is found as LBH.As Hurvitz admits, LBH linguistic elements are found in EBH texts.Surely, if these are really "late" linguistic items, the appearance of any one of them should indicate a late date for the passage in which it appears.

Here, however, we note a striking fact about the argument.One of his many important advances is to put to rest older scholars' insistence that "Aramaisms"―or Aramaic-like forms―are necessarily evidence of a late date.Contrast, for example, Otto Eissfeldt's argument regarding Song of Songs―Aramaisms and a Persian word equals lateness―with John Collins, who only mentions the Persian word.Thus is used widely in later Aramaic dialects and in Tannaitic literature like the Mishnah.This last criterion, however, promises more than it delivers.

linguistic evidence and the dating of qoheleth-31linguistic evidence and the dating of qoheleth-55linguistic evidence and the dating of qoheleth-77

The starting point for this challenge was the publication of a volume Young edited with―in the words of one reviewer―the "yawn-invoking title" of EBH, according to the traditional view, is the language of the preexilic or monarchic period, down to the fall of the kingdom of Judah to the Babylonians in 586 BCE.