Linguistic evidence and the dating of qoheleth

Finally we will step back and ask some hard questions about the presuppositions involved in the dating―by linguistic or other means―of the books of the Hebrew Bible.It is the work of the great Israeli scholar Avi Hurvitz that has established sounder methodological principles and therefore decisively advanced the study of LBH in recent decades.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.After the return from exile in the late sixth century BCE, we have the era of LBH. Hebrew biblical texts can, therefore, be dated on linguistic grounds because LBH was not written early, nor did EBH continue to be written after the transition to LBH.exilic period, which is exactly the opposite of what its proponents have claimed.

Here, however, we note a striking fact about the argument.On the contrary we will argue that the best model for comprehending the evidence is that "Early" BH and "Late" BH, so-called, represent co-existing styles of Hebrew throughout the biblical period.Then we will deal with the objection that Persian loanwords are an irrefutable proof that the chronological approach is correct.We use cookies to offer you a better experience, personalize content, tailor advertising, provide social media features, and better understand the use of our services.To learn more or modify/prevent the use of cookies, see our Cookie Policy and Privacy Policy.

Search for linguistic evidence and the dating of qoheleth:

linguistic evidence and the dating of qoheleth-82

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

One thought on “linguistic evidence and the dating of qoheleth”