Karl egrapse > One of the things that I noticed about pre-Babylonian Exile writings > are the extensive oblique statements where the reader has to think > about what is said and to fill in data to make sense of the statements. > Often that is accompanied by a large vocabulary ... Isaiah ... ... > Post-Babylonian Exile authors apparently generally lacked the vocabulary > and facility with the language to make these literary flourishes, evidence > that Hebrew was for them a second language, not their primary language.
Thank you, Karl, for a criterion, it is something that can be discussed. It is of course, quite subjective, but at least it's a start. A first comment must be made about your comparison of poetry (Isaiah) with the narrative of most of the 'core' 2T (LBH, post-exilic) works. Poetry depends on literary flourish, narrative to a much lesser degree. A second comment on your 'modern hubris' that the 2T writers were not capable of literary flourish: What do you say about Ben Sira|? He wrote on this very theme around 180 BCE, who says in 33.16 [Greek numbering, = 36:16 +30:25 in Heb Lang Academy edition]: גם אני אחרון שקדתי וכמו עולל אח[רי בוצרים] ב[ברכ]ת אל גם אני קדמתי וכבוצר מלאתי [יקב He uses agriculture and God's grace to include himself among Israel's teachers of wisdom. And implies that he has some choice wine still to offer. Do we use the flourish criterion to place Deuteronomy in 2T because so much of the language is plain and clear (I'm not speaking about the poetry towards the end of the book.)? Genesis, too, is it late because most of it is plain and clear? It is interesting that Fitzmyer used the same criterion to disparage the Hebrew version of Tobit, he complained that the Hebrew was too convoluted. But he failed to notice that the Aramaic Tobit lacked the edayin style of 2T Aramaic narrative, and he could not easily explain the examples of narrative qatol as a main verb being part of a translator's work from simpler Aramaic qtal verbs. So I conclude (with more evidence not mentioned here) that Hb Tobit was the original to Ar Tobit, contra Fitzmyer. But back to Ben Sira. it is poetic, which explains some flourishings. (Qohelet, is a wisdom essay, and though it is not poetic, it is not plain narrative, either, which can explain flourishings.) Despite BenSira's 'classic' style, he shares features with MishHeb: 51.48 elu va-elu אלו ואלו 'these and these'. (but lacking in Gr and Syr, so textually uncertain.) BenSira's use of sh- ש "that" splits statistically with אשר, very similarly to what is seen in Qohelet. bSira 40 asher/15 she-, while Qohelet is 89 asher/ 68 she-. The exact numbers are irrelevant, of course, but the large numbers and the mix of both in the same document is interesting in the history of the Hebrew language. bSira also has shel 'yours' in 33:25 [H.L.Academy 30:29], something like what is found in Song of Songs 1:6, 8:12 and ubiquitous in Mishnaic Hebrew. Qohelet has be-shel asher 8.17. (be-shel also occurs in foreigner's speech in Jonah, while Jonah says be-asher le-) bSira uses the classical BH style with "indefinite implied pronoun": (one example among several) עד עת ימלא לבו בי "until [a] time [that] his heart will be filled in me" but also uses the common Mishnaic structure bSira 33:33 [33:37]אי זה once: באיזה דרך תבשקנו "in which way would you search for him?" Qohelet also uses אי זה 'whichever' 2:3, 11:6. [A predecesor to such a structure is found in 2Kings 3.8, where the definite article is used with the following noun. In bSira, and Qohelet, and commonly in Mishnaic Hebrew, we find this without the definite article.] As for bSira's freedom in language use, he has a long list of vocabulary and verbs that are not attested in canonical BH, many of these are not attested in Aramaic either. See M.Z. Segal's commentary on bSira, p 21-22 (Hebrew). While we can assume that at such a date (180 BCE) there was a register distinction between high Hebrew and low Hebrew (proto-Mishnaic) and that bSira's mother tongue was probably the low Hebrew, we cannot say that his literary creativity was restricted like a second language user. The situation was much more complicated and needs much more nuancing than Karl's criterion accounts for. We certainly don't say that Swiss Germans are incapable of literary finesse just because they may write a piece in high German. So I would ask Karl to read Ben Sira and to consider finding other criteria for placing Qohelet. Even the few bits in this email again point to a good fit with the SECOND TEMPLE period for Qohelet. from the other thread "Style and Qohelet" I add the following in order to avoid two threads: > Here are a some linguistic examples: > > אספות asuppot Q 12.11 occurs only here and in mishnaic Hebrew. כבר kevar only in Qohelet and mishnaic Hebrew. לוה "accompany" Q 8.15 and in mishnaic Hebrew. ענין 'affair' 8xx Q and in mishnaic Hebrew רעיון 'thought' Q 2.22 and in mishnaic Hebrew > > ש she- "that" is interesting because of its frequency in Qohelet and in mishnaic Hebrew. It has been argued to have come from a northern dialect because of its occurrences in Judges and perhaps Jonah. Of course, a northern origin would not help a Solomonic authorship claim. Since "she-" 'that' cannot be easily explained as Judean in the pre-exilic period, it adds considerable weight to the post-exilic perspective. > > > Another remarkable feature of the book is the use of w+suffix verb in contexts that are parallel with other suffix verbs. All twenty-one occurrences are accented as mil`el in the MT. This is remarkable because the rabbinic tradition was that Solomon wrote the book, but the "mishnaic Hebrew" accentuation of this book is without any parallel in the Hebrew Bible for its absolute consistency. In the rest of the Heb Bible, non-pausal forms 1s and 2s suffix conjugation tend to have a final syllable accent as part of the sequential verb system. > > > The features above are not 'silence' and they do, in fact, support the otherwise strong probability that pitgam and pardes were borrowed into Hebrew when there was strong Aramaic pressure from on top--during the Persian period. > This list, of course, is just a start, as can be seen by comparing this email to the earlier one "Style and Qohelet". braxot Randall Buth -- Randall Buth, PhD www.biblicallanguagecenter.com Biblical Language Center Learn Easily - Progress Further - Remember for Life _______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
