The Language of Qohelet: A Bibliographical Survey,"

By Francesco Bianchi

(via F. Lusciuo 98, 1-00U4 Rom)

After three centuries of studies including a handful of commentariesand articles, the book of Qohelet continues to stand as a »stumbling'block" in biblical studies. No consensus exists among scholars aboutthe main issues of the book concerning its unity, structure, messagel.Nor has Qohelet's language escaped from that situation: scholars agreethat the book can be dated mainly on linguistic grounds, because it lacksthe historic details which would allow a more precise dating. HoweverQohelet's linguistic peculiarities have still not found a conclusive expla-nation. A good number of scholars have recognized in eohelet's Hebiewa strongly Mishnaic and Aramaic influence, others have preferred toexplain it as the result of a translation from Aramaii or as rheconsequence of canaanite Phoenician influence. Recently somescholars_ ha,ve argued that rhe dialectal forms in eohelet's language mustbe ascribed to a North-Israelite dialect. In our opinion the iime is ripefor a review of all the questions concerning Qohelet's language2. suchan inquiry should be useful both to sum up the results whictr scholarshave attained and ro state problems of future researchs.

'§7e will startour review by describing research from H. Grotius to E. podechard. Theimportance of these older works lies in the fact that modern commenta-ries rely heavily upon them3. Then we will sketch ,the Aramaic transla-tion theory", "the Canaanite-Phoenician hypothesisn and the dominanttheory that considers Qohelet's Hebrew ii.t-, i" Mishnaisms and Ar-amaisms. A final section will discuss some new trends in research.

Grotius was the first to consider that Qohelet's linguistic peculiarit-ies excluded the salomonic authorship of the book. A close examinationof the book led Grotius ro state that ,Ego ramen Salomonis non puro

" A first stage of this paper was realized as seminary work in spring 19g9 at Hebrewuniversity, Jerusalem, under the direction of Prof. A. Hurvitz, whom I warmly thankfor the suggestions and encouragement. The paper underwent a deep revision in §(interL990 and the bibliography was updated till to 1988. Thanks are arso due to prof. J. A.Soggin, O. Kaiser and J. A. Emerron who greatly improved the style of this paper.

1 All these problems have been well reviewed and summarized in two recent works: J. L.crenshaw, Ecclesiastes, orl, 1988, and M. v. Fox,eohelet and his contradictions, BLS18, 1989, t5t - 162.

2 For a previous survey of Qohelet's studies which includes the linguistic aspects cf.S. Breton, Qohelet Studies, BTB 3 (1982), ZZ-50.

3 This fact is well stressed by J.L. crenshaw, eohelet in current Research, HAR 7(1983), 41.

F. Bianchi, The Language of Qohelet 21"L

sed scriptum ferius sub illius regis, tamquam poenitentia ducti nomine.

Argumentum eius rei habeo multa vocabula, quae non alibi quam inDaniele, Ezra et Chaldaeis interpretibus reperias'4. The importance ofGrotiurs's sratement became evident in the following two centuries.

J. D. Michaeliss assigned the book to the Persian period, whereas J. C.

Dòderlein6 claimed that the late language attested an exilic age. G.Zir'kelT fully examined Qohelet's language and listed many words that,according to his opinion, the book shared with others later books ofthe Old

-Testament. Zirkel went further and listed grammatical and

syntactical peculiarities which he explained were due to Greek influence.

He concluded that the book was written in the Hellenistic Age. H' G. A.Ewalds dwelt briefly on the linguistic problems, stating that the bookwas far removed from older Hebrew and that the language had a

clearly Aramaic colour. For this reason Ewald also judged that the bookbelonged to the last century of Persian rule over Judah.

On the contrary E. Boehl and G. Vegni attempted to demonstratethat linguistic arguments did not witness against Solomonic authorshipof Qohelet. E. Boehle tried to prove that the Aramaisms penetrated intoHebiew from the Solomonic Age as did the Persian word pitgam (Koh8,11) and pardesìm (Koh 2,5). Vegnil0 explained Qohelet's language as

being due to poetic and historic reasons. Solomon would have used

*rrry r.trr,ral words for stylistic reasons and he would have found themin cognate language or in the language of his trading partners.

All th.t. arguments were swept away when Franz Delitzsch pub-

lished his .o-,r1Àt^ry. Delitzsch assumed that that previous studies hadshown that ,\7enn das B. Koheleth altsalomonisch wàre, so gàbe es

keine Geschichte der hebraischen Sprache"11. The German scholar gave

a full list of the hapax legomena that the book presented and declaredthat these words occurred mainly in Mishnaic literature. Therefore

Qohelet's language "hangt noch lose mit der alten Sprache zusammen,

a H. Grotius, Annotationes in Vetus Testamentum, t. L, 1,644, 434 - 435. Grotius' impor-

tance in Biblical studies is discussed in H. J. Kraus, Geschichte der historisch-kritischen

Erforschung des Alten Testaments, 1,969,50 53.5 Quoted in C. D. Ginsburg, The Song of Songs and Qohelet commonly called the Book

of Ecclesiastes, 1970,177 (the first edition of this useful book was printed in 1861).

s ;. C. Dòderlein, Salomons Prediger und Hohes Lied, Jena 1784,xiv-xv.z G. Zirkel, Untersuchungen ùber den Prediger, §7ùrzburg 1792,38 (lists of Aramaic or

.late words); 49 -55 (,Greeko words or influence).u H. G. A. Ewald, Die poetischen Bùcher des Alten Bundes IV, 1837, 178-779 and later

H. G. A. Ewald, Die salomonischen Schriften, 1867,268-269.e E. Boehl, De aramaismiis libri Koheleth, 1860, 45.t0 G. Vegni, L'Ecclesiaste secondo il testo ebraico, 1871, 62-66.rr [,'. Delirzsch, tlihlischer (]ommentar ùber die Poetischen llticher des Alten Testaments:

I-l<rhesliecl und Qohelet, BCAT IV, 4, 1875,197.

212 F. Bianchi, The Language of Qohelet

aber schon befindet sich jenes neue Hebràisch, welches uns in derMischna und der um sie sich gruppierenden Barajtha Literatur enrgegen-ftitt"12. Delitzsch judged that the ties between Mishnaic languagl andthat of Qohelet were proved by many facts: the use of th. ràlrtire §*,the occurence of the demonstrative pronoun eo, the confusion in verbalconjugation between the verbs lamed he and lamed alepb and the useof, the participe as a presenrl3. The presence of Aramaism in eoheretlaàguage led Delitzsch to maintain that the book was ,ein produkt dernachexilischen Zeit und frùhestens der ezra-nehemianischennla.

- Delitzsch's analysis shaped all the following studies about eohelet'sianguage. §7. Nowack15, C. Siegfried16, G. §fildeboerrT, y. ZapletallsG. A. Bartonle closely quoted many of Delitzsch's linguistic arguments.They stated some peculiar problems, such as th. .-.ri.n.. oifi. .r"-.endings ùt, on, ion, the Aramaisms zeman (Koh 3,1), the Mishnaismsb"peS (I(oh 5,3) or taqqen (Koh 7,13). W. Nowack20 only accepted adating of the book to the last part of the persian peri,od, *h...r,Siegfried, wildeboer, zapletal, Barton chose a dating in the HellenisticAge' That dating was suggested mainly on the ground of historicalallusions thar these scholars thought they have disèovered in the book.Yet no criterion is more problematic in eohelet's research than thehistorical one since it is possible to find different historical allusionsbehind every yerse. E. Renan represented a distinguished exception inthe first period of research. This French scholar belittled the value ofthe Aramaisms and stressed the importance of the Mishnaisms which,according to his opinion, bore wiiness to a language close to someancient treatises of the Mishnah, such as 'edwyy\t, 'auot, m"gillat ta'nitzt.Renan thought that such a language was ro be dated around the firstcentury B. c. E. but his opinion did nor find followers. contrary scholarsmaintained that Qohelet's language was a late stage of Hebrew, rich inAramaisms and Mishnaisms, belonging to the tÉird cenrury B. C. E.E. Podechard's commentaryn represents the best sratement of thatassumptions. After summarizing the evidence of previous studies, pode-

12 F. Delitzsch, ibid., 206.13 F. Delitzsch, ibid, 207 -208.la F. Delitzsch, ibid., 206.15 IM. Nowack, Der Prediger Salomo's erklzirt, KEHAI, 1883, 183-191.16 C. Siegfried, Die Sprùche, Prediger und Hoheslied, HKAT, L99g, 1.4 ZO.17 G. \Wildeboer Die Fùnf Megillot, KAHAT, 1898, 113-114.18 Y.Zapletal, Das Buch Kohelet, 1905,62.1e G. A. Barton, The Book of Ecclesiastes, ICC, 1908, 52-53.20 Y/. Nowack , tbid., 207 - 208.2r E. Renan, L'Ecclésiaste, 1882, 51 54.22 E. Podechard, L'Ecclésiaste, 1912, 44 48.

chard stressed the importance of Aramaisms in the book: the French

,.lroin., relying heavily on E. Kautzsch's work about Aramaisms in the

Old T.rtr*.ni", .r*. to the conclusion that the book was "le plus

charge d,aramaìsms5.24, akhough he did not belittle the Mishnaisms in

it. V7hrreu, Podechard's arguments were later shared by H' §7' Hertz-

b.rg" and K. Galling26, some scholars began to hypothesize about a

<JiffÉrent solution for Qohelet's linguistic peculiarities: Qohelet may have

writt., this book not ìn Hebrew Éut in another language, whose influ-

ence could still be perceived in the ,translationo. The forerunner of that

it.ory was D. S. i4argoliouth2T. According to-him the. lack of many

,Neo-Hebrairmr. s,rcÈ as 'eseq' lema, hirsah, and the presence of

words and idioms such as b"i*S lammah, haslìt, considered to be

,,,foreign Hebrewo (so Margoliouth labelled them, because he considered

these "-

ones to be loan-wlrds from Phoenician) were understandable

only as result of a translation. The model for such a translation was

lndt-Germanic, but a Jewish editor added the names of God, Israel and

David to it and ,o .Àder.d acceptable the book to a Jewish public.

Wt .r.r, Margoliouth's hypothesirìoo.r fell into oblivion, many scholars

,,**pi"a to"explain eohelet's linguistic peculiarities.as having been

influenced by Aiamaic. F. C. Burkitt regarded this explanation insuffi-

.ì."i ,"a grr.rr.d that the answer to all the linguistic and stylistic

pr.Uf.-t pi.r.r,t.d by Qohelet was the hypothesis th.at "what we have

i, ;;; àriginal, b,ri "

ìr^.rrlation«28. Therefore Burkitt .on.1r;1sd: »if

it be a transl"ation, it is naturally a translation of the Aramaic..ze. Alter

a lapse of some years, F. Zimmermann developped Burkitt's suggestions

iliJ, rJr-fl.dgéd th.ory that he expounded first in some articles and

later i, , ,"g"r1". commentary. Fiist Zimmermann maintained the

friority of Bei Sira over Qohelet for stylistic reasons. These made Ben'siru,, ,tyl. in comparison with Qohelet'su easy, free running, say almost

classicai*30. Yet Zimmermann«s main argument concerned many awk-

ward words and misunderstandings that he iudged understandable as a

F. Bianchi, The Language of Qohelet 213

23 E. Kautzsch, Die Aramaismen des Alten Testament, 1902, 102. The Aramaisms tn

Qoheletisnoteasy.E.I(autzschlistedinhisworknearlythirtyAramaisms,whereasù. .iflrgrr.r, Die lexikalischen und grammatikalischen Aramaismen im alttesta-

mentliÀen Hebràisch, BZAW 96, 1966, found 78 Aramaisms. A study by §(. C.

Delsman, Zur sprache des Buches Koheleth, FS. van der Ploeg, 1982,342-345, lowers

this number to 42.2a E. Podechard, ibid., 44.

at H. \il. Hertzberg, Der Prediger, KAT XVI 4, 1932'

2à K. Galling, Die fùnf Megillot, HAT 18, 1940,48'27 f). S. Margoliouth, Ecclesiastes, Jewish Encyclopedia v' V, 1906,32-36'28 F'. C. Burkitt, Is Flcclesiastes a Translation?, JThS 22 (1921\,22'

2') l'. (1. [ìurkitt, it]id., 23.r(r [i.7,immermnnn, The Aramaic Provenance of Qohelet, JQR 36 (1945-46)'17'

)11 l;. lìi;rrrLlrr, I.lrL.l.r[r1,,tr.r1,,r.ol (Jolrr.lr.t

resLllt,of an irnperfect tr:rnslation from alì ()rigirì.,l Ar:rnraic. I rc rr;rirr-tained thar it would be possible ro recover the'original ilìf br-..,r,,u",.sion and his faith in this method was so deep th"at h. *;;;: ,Frere is' the rule: retroverr the Hebrew to the underlylr.ri l.r-ri. ,rràrrin. ,i_..out of ten the problem will be raid bare and ìorved .i-.rlt"rr.orsly..rr.ZiSmelaann's q uorarions clearly assumed rh. p..r..r..-oirhir-ar"_ri.original. Beyond this, Zimmermann was able io ,h.J li;h;;" one ofthe most problematical issues in eohelet's la,guage: ,r,. .?.rrLr use ofthe definite article. Zimmermani explained ihai ,the

".tllt" juts uppeculiarly when it is clearly.rrlrr...rrniy.32, yet,orr r[..ifr.iir"a rfr"article is lacking when it should b" p..r.rrt.-,i. lrlo."or..,-Zi**.r_"r1r,stressed that ,erren lno{e. cogently the article ,pp."r, ,rJ-aìrupp.r^mysteriously in nouns followi,g one anorher irr'" r..i".J1 .o ,t nr,orule seemed ar work in the use of the article. According to tÉe Americanscholar, the erratic situation in the realm of definite,e"s,

"na-ir.ra.rir-rir._ness was duc to the translaror who failed to obr..u. -,,rh.

Jì.tlrr.ri,.,,between the Absolute-and the Emphatic State in Arr-ri.,,rr. The transla_to.r created many difficulties by àddr"g or omitting the definite articre.Zimmermann was almost successful i.-showi,g thJp..rerr." of AramaiciL{lyj".. in rhe morphology ancl this is widel"y ,..àg,.,ir.a-r"àrr. C. f-.whrtley, many years,later,

-compared ma,y parallel-p".."g., from thebook of Kings and chronicies oi fr.,,- th. Looks "f s;;".f;;Jch.or-

icles and stated that ,chronicres has the articre where Samuer omits ita,d lacks the article when has it-:e. *. maintai, that the ,r-" fn.no-.-non occurs in coins coming from the Hasmonean times, when ihe articrelppears a,d disappears without a clear reason37. errort-,.. froblemfocused upon by Zirnmermann's analysis was the confusion between theprorroun hit and the verb hd.wa »to beu. 7i*-ermann ,rff,rr.a ,nr,the translator confused the pronou, with the verb and ur.à-'u".rr.r,

",in I(oh 3,1.1. Furthermore ih" ,rrr. translator *r, ,r_,rtl. to ...rd..correctly verbal roors such as ta'ab which he tra.sratei-io.'op t«ot-,1,.5)3e, or lagain which he rendered harbeh (l(oh -I,5)a0. AII these rlmarks

31 l.-. Zimmer:mann, The e,estion of Hebrew in eohelet, ]eR 40 (1949 1950), 101.32 F. Zimmermann, 'fhe euestion ... 9g.

33 F. Zimmermann, The euestion, 9g.:ra F. Zimmermann, The euestion, 98.3't F. Zirnmermann, The Aramaic, 23.J6 C. F-. lWhitley, I(ohelcth, ìlZA\(/ 1,+8, 1979,109.37 Y'Meshorer, Ancienr Jewish coinage I, r9g2, r23 r34; we are aware thar in these

instances technicaÌ reason may have dctermined the choice.3E F. Zimmermann, The Aramaic, 3.3 34.re F. Zimnrermann, The Aramaic,24.a0

F-. Zimmermann, T"he euestion, g6.

l,,l /rrrrtrr, ln.lln l() st:tlt'tlt;tt (lolrt'lt t's ,tttllt,rt. w:ls ',il lì;tlrylolri,rlr .lt w

s lr,, l. rr,.rv Ar,un:ur',rrr.l Alilt,r,lirln llr(l sr.tvt'r'1 ;ll lltt't.«rtttl ol Atttlttotttslll.rr r\rrtr,rlri,r or-Sclcrrr'irr irr rlrc lrrsl tgtrtrtt'l'ol llr,'tlrirtl tt'rrltrryll t rr I lr, ,r'iliinrtl liìtìlìlrtll(' ol' tlrc [l«rol< wrts ll l<irl.l ttl lì,;tstt'ttt

i\r,urr.rr., rllult tlì('lfxllslrìtitttt ittto IIt:brcw wrls tttatlc bclìrlc 190 lì.(l.l .

,-'1111rrr't1ì.111s vit'w was soott shrtrccl by twtl inllLrcrrtill sclrollrrs, (,. (I'lorrr.\ ,rntl I l. 1,. (ìinsbcrg. Aftcr wrrrnirtg that thc closctrcss ht'lwt:t'tr

Il, l,r,rr, .rrr,l Ar:rrnaic nralccs it difficult to prove thc trartslatiott frottt rt

l.rrr1,.rr,r1,,, to tlrc othct C. C. Torrey noticed that "Zirnmeflnrllllì wcakclrctlIrr., ,.r,,,. Iry ovcr"clr>y'r1g thc clemonstration«42. Torrcy also hcld thc vit-'w

rlr.rt ()olrt.lt't's lrrtrguage sounded distinctly Aramaic and these Ar:rtrrrrit

,lltrtrrtls ,itl)pcar to be Aramaic idioms literally rendered in Hcbrtrw"4ì-

l,,rrcy slr:rrcd Zirnrnermann's remarks which we quoted above alltl.',1,1,.,i rlrr. observation rhat b"§el 'oler (Koh 8,17) would have retrclcrctl

rlr,' Ar';urtrric b'dtL dt, whereas the preposition k6l umm6t was 'tnercly.r tl:urslrìtion of the common Aramaic preposition k6l qobel di"aa'(,irrslrcrg supported in toto Zimmermann's assumptions to which lrc,r,ltlccl [urthòr remarks. He noticed that the plural pardesim (Koh 2,.5)

lrt.rraygcì an Aramaic influence since the plural of pardes in Aramarc is

lt,rrdasirt, bgt in post-biblical Hebrew it is pardes6ra5. Moreover, thc

Aprcric:rn scholar underlined that iir (Koh 7,5) did not mean »to sirìg"

[rut, according to the Aramaic root, labbah, to praise46.

ll. Gordis was rhe fiercest opponent of the Aramaic Translationl'hcory expounded above. Gordis first welcomed the positive contribu-ti<tn of Zimmermann's arguments to the understanding of some Qohelet

lrcculiarities such as the use of the article and the presence of Aramaisms.(ìordis recognized that Qohelet would have known and spoken Aramaicrlr-rrirrg his lifetime, but he dismissed the idea of an original Aramaic textlarcr rranslated in Hebrew.aT. Gordis judged the translation hypothesis as

,visiting the sins, real or imaginary Llpon a unlucky translator. To himrro folly or stupidity is deemed impossible"as. Once this was recognized,

ell that is incongruent and perplexing ir-r Qohelet's language was no

rl F-. Zinrnrermann, The Inner '§7orld of Qohelet, 1973,128-131.1'Ì Cl. C. Torrey, The Question of Original Languagc of Qoheleth, JQR 38 N'S'

(1918 - t949), 1s2.rr (1. C. Torrey, ibid., 153.rr C. C. llbrrey, ibid., 15'1.

'rt I I. L-. Ginsberg, Studies in Koheleth, 1950,24-25.ru 11. 1.. Ginsbcrg, ibid.,20-21.17 Iì. (ìordrs, The Original Iranguage of Qohelcth, JQR N.S' 38 (1946-47),67 -84;67'rs lì. (ìordis, The Origrnal l-anguage, T0. At this point Gordis remembered Margoliouth's

xttcllìpt to retfovcrt Sira's Greek text into Hebrew: when the Geniza fragmcnts werc

,ìiscovctcd Margoliouth's text agred with Hebrew for only 1% of the words'

216 F. Bianchi, The Language of eohelet

longer the fa'lt of,the transraror, but it reveared a kind of Hebrew farfrom Classical and ,",h;r,;1.;'rliai.nrrric Hebrew. co.di, noticedthe importa,ce of Mirh;";'H.ii.#',, the history of the FlebrewIanguage; further hc,.ticed *i*ì"ga.a to the pecuriar use of the articreanJ ro thc stronq in,rrencc ;i ;È;'i.rn,ri. rhrr ,rh. Irng,,rg. ofQoheler - rhc lrtcsr of Biblical"wrì;.r.'ir.poinr of srile and grammarmarks the transitior. b.r*".n-Bi[ii."i *a Uishnaic H"b.",i.,or. A fewyears after Gordis' statement, J. c. Greenfied recog,ized that MishnaicHebrew was »a vernacular ;"1r. ;.-;"ìiterary language. whose roorswere »in the dairy preoccupatio, of its speakers-agriculture, the hand_crafrs, animal husbandry*sr. ffri, f""gr"*: _ according to Greenfielci _,.reflecrs in irs richrre_ss and .rrrhyl pirt y, rna precise phrasirrg rhebasir'meaning carriecl f,,y ,lr. ulir:'#.5;, sr. E. y. I(ursc6cr callecl rhisIanguage vu r'r: ir was uscd-'in',;.ìr, Kochba rerrers and in rheCopper Scroll an,J i: .yr, . i*;"s ì;;*;.*". Corrrrary, MH2 was arrarrilicinl Ianguage' which was "; i;r;":;ookcn. Gordis, argumerrrs :rndthc following discovery :rr eumran',,t , qrh.l"r,, ,.roìì-o dated by

ilril,rf||:rg around Iso s.è'E'ìl'-"àJo,,,"a ,r," e.,n*i. rransrationMeanwhile a new hypothesis about ,Canaanite_phoenician influ_ence in Qoheler" was presentgd by À4. Dahood. Dahood,s aim was rodemonsrrare that. the bo"k ;a E;i;;;'r;. *". originally composed byan author who wrote Hebrew bJ;;;;provec.l p'h.;;i.#'J.th,rg.r_phy and whose composirio, shows lì;;; canaa,ire-phoenician infr,_e'ceos'l' C' H' Gordtn and w. r."irrrriirrt had arreadv craiÀed thepresence of such an influence i, a.h.il;: That influence showed itselfboth i. idioms or in.lexical ,rJ ;";;;i,rrti. features. C. H. Gordonlisrecl se1 ba kasep t«"t, i.tzl I i;,,?j',; Ugariric-Epics _ among the

111hern idioms55; grammatical f.ntr.., *.r. ,o be found ,in the hisror_rcal use of adverbiar infinite f"ro*"d bf ìndipe,d.nt pronoun aboun_dantlv atresred in phoeniciar*ai;ffi It. pho.,ri.ian pararer pair 'dmtrsz - which appears in I(oh z,zs o-À'aìrirr. irrr..iption of Azitiwadda

' Lrl'|*:,

Thc Translatio. Thcory of eoheleth reexaminate<I, ÌeR NS 40 (19.j0),j0

J. C. Greenfield, Lexicographical Notes I, HUCA 29 (195g), 204.§r .L,C-.

_Crecniicì,1. ibirJ., Zt+. ,." ,f.. J. ;;;;;,,.- _olcl

restamc,',t, tcoà,'zzs- zsz. tparative Philoìogv and the Text of

'/ F. Y. l(nrseher. A Hisrory,ol rhe_ Hcbrcw langu.rgc. 1982, ll5.5r J. Muilenburg, A eoheleth Scroll fronr qr,r,rlrlìosoR 135 (1954), 20_28.5a M. Dahood, Canaanite-pho.ni.ion tnfì,,Jrl-"'rr'qinr.,n, Bib 33 (tgsz),32.:' ! I L.ri611. trgaririr. Li,"rr,r.., ir;;. ;';' "(u C. H. Curdun, ibirl.i7 C. FI. Gordon. ibiri_

l': lìianchi, The Language of Qohelet

(l'. Al .)(,: ll: ,l .t) represented a northern syntactical feature. Therefore( i,rtl,rr ,lisrrrisscd any Greek influence in favour of a northern character.r\ ll,r r1,,lrt rìrirrt:ìined that "there is a veritable flood of allusions to( ,rrr.r.rrritr' (l'hocnician) literature in Hebrew works composed betweentlrr' ,,t'r,t'rrtlr ,rrrcl the third century B.C."58. Dahood hypothesized that the,,,rrrr,' l'lror,rrician influence entered Qohelet's book in three ways: the,,rtlr,J,r,rlrlry, the language and the history. Dahood judged that the,,rtlr,1',rrrphy of the Hebrew text would have been similar to the Phoeni-( r.ur orrc which did not make use of final or medial vowel letters.,,\, , r,rtlirru to his opinion »any work which was composed in the normalI l, l,rt r,v orrl-rography of the fourth-third century would have been amply,,rr1,;,111'11 with final and medial matres lectioneso5e, whereas no work,u,,urti llrt' starrdard Phoenician orthography would have used these spell-rrrl',,ritls. Dahood demeed from an examination of the variants that they.rr,,sc rrr:rinly from a text without vowei letters. Therefore the originall( \t \,v()uld have written according to Phoenician orthography. The same.ulÌurìì('nts were later applied also to others books such as Job andl)r'ovcrbs which were thought to have originated in a northern setring,rt rur cilrly clating. J. Barr has, however, clefinitely shown that a defectivcspcllirrg clocs not attest either the origin and the provenence of biblicall,r,.,r'l<s or an early dating for them60. Furthermore we can add thartrorrrirrg l'rom the Palestine of the fourth and third cenruries B.C.E., doesrrol tonfirm the description drawn by Dahood. Dahood always continueclto rlt'l:crrcl tbe orthograythical proof, whereas he developed the linguisricir.lìurìrcnts further. At the beginning it was recognized that Qohelet'sI;rnlirr:ìgc hr.rcl an Aramaic flavour in syntax and vocabuiary as well as,r rrrrrrrhcr of common features with the Mishnaic Hebrew6l. Yet Ar-:rrrnisrrs rrnd Mishnaisms would have found their way into Hebrewthlou!.lr l)lrocnician. Dahood listed a number of instances which woulcllrrovt' lris "(lanaanite Phoenician hypothesis" about the North Israclitc;rrrtl l)hoclrician Iinguistic influence upon the author of Qohelet. Amongrlrt'rrr llrcr.c wcre 1) the demonstrative prorìoun zeb written defectively..:r N«rrtlr lsrrrclite feature to be found in Phoenician morphologyrt-;Z)llrc r.t'lrrtivc l)r"onoun irv which was not a North-lsraelite feature, Phocni-, i;rrr orrr'('ì; .3) the erratical use of the article, which was, to qu()tc

'i \\/. l, Àllrrilihr, lirolrr tlrc Srorrc Agc «r Chrisrianity, 1946,243.'' À1. I);tlr,rorl, (l:ttt:trtttitr:-ì)hocttici:rn Inf]rrcncc,.ì(r: it is worth strcssirrg, tlrrt, wlrt,rt.rrs

| . ,/ttttrrrtnt,rttrt's ltyPolhtsis vrsitcd tttistrlns]etions rurd rrrvkwrrrrl Pr>irrts orr tlrc lrrursl.rt,r'r slronltlt.rs, l)rrlroorl lrrrnsl'r.rlctl thenr to ill rnrsl(illo(l scrilx:.

'r I ll.rrr,Illl,rtrv()r'tlrr1,,r:rplryrur(ltlì(llooliol:.lob,.lSS.ì0(19.55),.1.ì ì.1.

'l Àl I ).rlr,,orl. ('.rrr,rrnill l'lror.niiirrn lrrllrrcrrr.t. .ì2 .ì.ì.' ' Nl I t,rlr,,,,,l, ('.rrr.r,rrritr' l'll('( rri( iillì lrrllrrr.nr't., .1,1.

" A,l l ),llr(,(irl, (,rn,r.trrrtr. l'lrocni, irrrr lrrllrrr.n. r,,,l:.

217

lr lli,rtrrlri,'l lrt, Lrpr1,,rr;r13. el (]9lrt.lt.t

Dahoocl's words, »a cogcrt proof f()r the l)h,e,icilrr sy,ctlcrical i,flrr-crrec i, thc book, ,uppoirect t y p"rrìì.t ;_",;,;ì"ì,;;il",, ìi, i,ì"ìi,,.crrici,rrrInscriprionsoa' Nor'i;,r ,t. t;"Irsiiì., escape rhis rnethod. Crear Ar_amaisms such as !ùq (r{oh 1;:4)";;;,r".ù;ii";,,j,i;; *lL ;,,ag.a ,ohave entered Hebrew thro.fui piloJr-ri.irn6. as well' as ùsron (Koh2.2t) which is, ro Dalo.;\-:y"r,:"ni.rìrrUf, ,r loan Érom Canaanire(Hehrew), on. Dahood,lJy*i'ìnr,.''in"'.o,,parison wirh the Ugariric

l:1ffi ::no,Xf fl "'' Q ohllet ""à,ì.a " r,"ig.,,- u..'

"r òi,.,"n,,r,-,

e o r r e ie r ",

; i ;' ; h i ;: :il, :T,#j;: :i ; : .,-,,,.,i.

:: ;*:* "-,

Ui, j1Tirrdeperrdenr personaJ

,pronoun in 'riì.

irrr,or". case ((oh e]t0)ur, ,h.enclrtrc mem and the lamcd "*ptri, i,rrir,ur. Orher elleged Cenaanismswcre neverrheless well arresrecl ;, gi"Éii.;l

,Hebrew ,;;h";; À.,,,,d.p.,,-de.t pronoun in a ..trtlu" -.t"rrl'i,,..lar.*

lrr" .*. pJrt. r,:11,rhe periphrasric [rrrure- (Gen. rs,izj,'r[. infinirir. ,broiut".plus anindependent pronoun fr-"r. à,zt."orr'ii,..r' g_r-ouncl the three volumesof Ras Shamra para,eis.* tir'òt;';;;i;*rntTo.proposed one hundredparallels berween t.rgaritic rir.."ìr..-r.,i q"rr.réi. iJii.i''w.,ia.r,.irrquiry has shown ,i",

"nty ì"i:;,,";.;r.*nr a suitable parallel an«Jbear wirness ro a common rise,,f *o.,Jr,r,,d ;;.il;;;;,fiÀ. on,lo_sophical and historicrL f.r_.*.rf. "" *i,Jf, Dahoìd based his-,canaan_ire Phoenician Hvnothetir" r"qriì"". ,'i# conrmenrs. rn his arrcmpr roexplai, rhe Canaan,t. ri"g"rrtìJ'i;;*r--

.eoheret, Dahood assumedrhe eristcnce of a phoeniiian wisdor'i."arrio,, es we, ,, rh" prescnceof school of philosooh, i,, nf-,".r.ìr'irr,l* ,n. f"r.,n ,r;r,ili;,cenruryB'c'E' Howcver' ,,.irhl. , pn.."ì.irr";;;i". traditionT2, nor rhe irru_

- ,-rr.t, Canaaniti:phoenician Influence II, Bib 33 O'SZ), 197 _198; 198.6r M. D:huorl. Canearrirc_pho",,,.,r, i"ii""r.) ii, ar, r,.r.a M. D:houJ. Canaarrire phrerrician r,rrir",,ì. ;;, ;;;l .. ,

67 M. Dahood, e«rheleth and North l'.rì ,.,.,,,.-*,lldorr, I\ib 43 (1g62),3i,. J. cle§'aard' The tansJaror and the r""r"rì'a*r.r.-, uro uo (1g7g),S12clefinies this anclother examples as »66 e,.," compelling.. This forncorrected by alì the u".rio,rr. r anses from a scribal mistake later68 M' Dah.od' The rndipendent personar pr.noun in rhe tlbrique case in Hebr:ew, cBe34 (1972)' 87 - go' Even in this instance n.t,r*.ìil M,]ror rhe versions offerto Dahood's hypothesis. support6e M' Dahood, canaanite-Phoenìcian Infruen ce Ir, 1.92-19j. About rhese discoveries seeJ. Barr's sounJ juclgrnenr.in hi, Comparr,,ì"'ni,l"l*y ..., j l JJ.0 Res Shamre paraltets r,- ttre Otd ,.r;';.;;i;#,r,. rr), rrrr._rnr*.?1 C. F. Vhirley, Koheleth ancl.Ugarit nrr"ff.ll, Lì.'i, f rrrrt BI1 -824.72 G. Saade, La vie intellectrell.. It f,rrr.,ri"..i à àrg"rir, 69 70,in: Ascribe to theLord lriblical an. other studies in nn".r".,

"ì i à. c.oigi., 19Bg, has pubrished trreonly sapiential text found l, u*".i, -l.t.ii"*"rì)o,O"Oda

giusto sofferente, AO 1

ffi;.llj;ilo,::o'"'* a strons influence of Babvtonian wìsdom upon syrian and

l'. llt.rrr,lrr, I lrt l..ìrrlinrrl,,( .1 ()olrtllt / lt)

rrrrt .l I'lr,r lr!r.rn 1,lriloso1,ltr''ts tt;lt,tt tlrt,st'ol (itt't'lis lt,ts s,, l;tt lrt't'ttgrr.r,I ì Al,rrrt':,, lt,,l,rts lt'tolittizcrl tlr;rl ,, 1)ltltot,tl's lrylrotlrt'sis rlrtl tr,rt,.nr\ tlr, ,1.u . l.ur,l tlrt'olrjt'r'liotrs litist'tl :tgrtirrsl il st rt'tt1',l lt,'tt,',.1 (ittl,lis', .1,1 111,11rrrlr ,l (]olrt'lt'l lirry.rristic: Pt'etrlirrritit's. (iorrlis slt't'sst'tl tlt,' ,ll,lilr rtrrn lrr trlllrr tlrt' lrot'izotttlrl rtrrtl thc vt'rtit'ltl llsl')('(-ls ol lltt' l,tlrlitt:t|,t',r,, rr, ll ,r,, llrt' lrrr'st'rrr-t'ol tlil'ltcrcrrt lirrgrristic pltcttotttcttrt itt tlt.'lr<,r,k"1.tl1,,,r ,rr,,,, lr,rrr l)r.oto Mishrrrrir:, Ariunrric rncl lìihlic:rl llt'llrcw. llrisIIrlr,,,,,l l.rl,', 1 lo rt't'ogtrizt:.'l'lrcrcforc 1ccrtlrirr c()nsclìisr.rs st't'tttr',1 lo lrt'r, r, lr,,l I'r' rlr,' sclrolrrrs irì rìccord:ìrìcc witlr (ì<>rclis' positiort. Ilowt'vt't'lr rlr, I,r,,t ,lr.t:rtlt'it lrrrs bccrr rlucstiortccl rtltcw.'lwo ltalirrrr sr'ltolrtt'sr\r rr rlr, lrrsl t() ci-ìst cloLrbt upon thc ir-rflucncc thrtt Mishrriric llclrrt'w,,'rrl,l lr.rvc lrrrtl on (]ohclct's lar.rguagc, 1,. cli l"onztl stlrtc(l tlìrìt »ic()sttttlli,,nrr,rr r( r, lili rrrrrnaisnri, lc scclte lcssicali c frasc«rltlgichc cli (]olrt'lt'tri r,l,l,, r,r tlovuto lasciarc piil rilevanti tracce rrci libri srtcri cottlt'tttlrtrr,ilrr'r ('piri r:stcsi dcl nosrro, posto il medcsimo at'nbicntr'"/6. Wlì('l'(';tsI ,lr l,orrzo rrraiutained the traditional dating atrd sctting, li. l'iotti orr

llr,' , orrlrilry cxpoLllrdecl a different theory. F. Piotti sharcd l);rlroo,l's, ,,rrt lrsir>tì rrbout thc presence of Canaarrisms in Qohclct's lrtttgtt:t11t' rttttl,r, t ortlittgly c1r-rotcd many of Dahood's arglrrnctlts. Thcrcftrtt ()olrt'lct'sl.rrr1,,u;rgr'woulcl lravc been Hebrew, marked by a rrorth wcst Scrtritic:tnrlAr.iurì;ri(' irrllucnce. 'l-his kind of language would havc bcctt ,piri scrrrplit t't.rrrrrrr'rlirrto di quella letteraria, come lo é un dialetto risl.rcttt> rrllrr linp,rr,r

rrllit i:rle ,,77. 'fhis verr-racular language would lravc cmcrgcd itr tht' lroslrrili,. :rgc as the consequence of zr mixture bctwcctt tw<l tlifft:r'crrt l:trr

l,,urrll(': thc l'ìcbrew spoken by the exiles who have rctrtrtrcd frorrr lllrbylorr,rrr..l llrc rlialcct, alcin to the language of 'Aidod, which wrs rlsttl by tltr'pt'opk who lracl remained in Palestine during tlre cxilic pcri«r«178.'lwtrl;rtts strrrrrl out against Piotti's suggestions: 1) we c1o not l<trow rrttytltirll',,rlrorrt this Ashclodite language, except the allusion in Nch I4, l4 tlrrrtl)iolti rlrrolctl;2) the alleged Canaanisms that Piotti tool< frtitrr l):th«rorl'sworlts lrrrvc iu the meantime revealed to be fictitious atrcl iltragirtrrry. AIt'w yclrs Irrter C. F. '\)7hitley, in his commetltary, trtrclcrt<ttll< :ì ll(^w

irnrrlysis of ()ohelet's language in order to Iowcr thc clating of thc lroolilowrrrrls tlre nriddle of the second centlrry B.C.E. Whitlcy 1-rttilrrctl otrl

'I l\il, llohlerrz, Dic Stoa,.l94B,31.'r ()l(l I'cslrrìrcnr Survey, \X/.S. I-a Sor, D. A. llubbartJ, lj. W. I',trsch ttls., l9uJ., 58lt.

Allcatly (1. ì l. (ìordorr, North lsraclitc lnfluencc on Pr>st lixilic I lcblcw, Ili.l t, (19.\r,),

8/ tlisrrrissc<l l);rhood's hypothesis in favonr of l'llanritc or lìabylorriarr scttirrg,.

' l{. (,orrlis, 1ù(/ls (]ohclcth rr l'hocnicirtr?, Jlll.74 (19.5.5), 103 104.'" l tli lìorrzo, l,'licclcsìrrstc, 1967 2.5.

l. l)ioLti, l,rr lirrtr,,ue tìclì'li,cclcsiastc c lo sviluppo storico tlcll'Flbluico, lìt'() 1.5 (197.ì).

I I'i.

rr l'. l'iotli, l.rr Iirrg,trrr, 194 19.5.

'/ /.\) l. llirrrrtlrr" l,lrt. l,rrrr1,,rrrr1,,r, pl (]6lrr.lr.t

that Qo[re'[cr's lellqtlage Llsecl both worcls a,cl iclionrs si,riler.t() th()sc ()tthe old T*t"-"""t or words ur,r u..b, frorn Ara'raic ancr MishraicHebrewTe. This Brirish schorar ".ri."J-ìrrr, eoheler sharecl rhis la*ergrouping exclusivery with Ben sira. ihat .,bì.rr"tior--iJ-wnirt.y ,,,examine the affinities between eoheret and B"r si* rrJìo'd.ny thrtthe latter knew eoheJ",'. *ork. ù.ìÀi"L i, rd.r.

"rJ ro.iurrr' provesthe priority of eohelet, *h...ul ,..".ii"g to rflhitrey, the contrary isproved lor thc following. reas.rrss0: ll È.n Si, .sed the .*o,)-rà-rr"rurirr,

the preposition 7 and t*h" ..lrtlu" -,;"*"

whereas eohelet macle use ofthe consrruction waw hibbwr of", p.lf..r, the prepos ition lamed and,the relarive ia'. Frrrtherr"* q.rr.ri,ìr'ìa.", ..#-i;;;;; rlrrn., rt,"orthodox view of B-en sira r"à,r.-ìi""ì of ...,rr.e*ion of ?he dead,proclaimed in Daniel I2,2. eohele, ,r.Jìo.a, like peieror preposirionslike 'ad dìbrat which are à;r; i;;; n" 4,,14R1. According ro Whitley,Qohelet was wri*en ,ft". Orni.l, ìrr', t"nguage close to MishnaicHebrew' since borh of them rrrr..a ."o.a] ,,r.h as bét '6ram, ben h6rìm,' i ni an and grammarical f.rtr..r.- e_.ri" rrr. h;,.;"§À;;i", "r,ra..rir.athe use of the article appearing and dislppea*ng both in the Mishnahand in rhe Dead sea scroirs. rlJ."ro.. wiì,r"y-rrrured rhar. irr compari-son with eohelet's ranguage, that of {;*;, xra;ii ^riir,. ir*t r".,beneditions was more .rl*iJri ,rd;;.;"cient. since these rwo workswere composed earrv in the third ce.rtury B.c.E., Qoheret was writrenberwcen tSZ - t4S s.c E -, w;,;il;;;ik encounrcrcd srrong criticismfrom S. C. Reif who defcncled,h;.1r;;;;.rt ora.. eohelcr_Bcn Sira and,,derlined the fact that 'fine .h"rrg;';; ancienr language cannor bedete*ed at a distance-of over t*o mirTerrria.and -."ru.Ji ii "ir...,.r.,of within ren vears'«83' s' c. n.riJ."[rìhe possib,ity of dating someparts of .fewish liturgy more accurately than to say that they werewrirten in the first rwo centuries B.c.E. During the last three years fournew commenraries have been produced o, qot

"t.t *fri.f, l.ii*irf, ir,Iinguistic peculiarities as wer. Arso tro ,irdres entirery discussing thisspecific problem have been fo.rt.o*irg. B. Isaksson,s work aims toprovide a specific survey of some ry"li"-.ti.rr- and grammaticar pointsconcerning eohelet's ranguage with the ar,i of ,r.u.-r*"iìri.".orr..o,r.Isaksson maintains that ]the",."i .r-ò.ir.ret srems from a diarectical

7e C. F. lWhitley, Kohelet, 119_120.80 C. Fl rWhitley, Kohelet, 727 _129-81 C. F. \)fhitley, I(ohelet, 135_138.82 c' F whitley, I(oheret, 144: R. H. pfeiffer, Int::oduction to the old Tcstamcnt, 1952,731' and H' Rabin, The Hisroricar ,"t,,ng or q,,-ì1,, H.br.*, scripta Hier.solimitanarv (1958), 1.r2_ 1.r3.83 S. C. Reif, rec. on C. l-. Whirley,s l(ohelet, V^f 31 (l9g)), 124.

I l"l.llr( lll, l l" l 'tlt1',tttt1"' rrl (']olrllr'l ')'t l

hrrlr, tr l,r,,1rlr tlr, rrr.illrsll,t.rilil 0l tlrt. I lr,lrr'.,w lirrllrristit ,lt'vt'l,,P.trr,'ltl""-1,

111 r,qrlt r t! rlr,,lrrr.,,, rlr,.r,lt.,r tlrlrt ()olrt'lt'l's lrtttlltt:t1:,t'collt:litts Misllrr;tistrrs

r lrr llrt., l*,1tt tlr,.5r,r,,.,lislr..l',,r1,r. cl,tiltls tlrlrt ,llrt'iltttttt'tlst'rtst'.l irt'

i,, tl,, 11,,,,1. ,,1 (J,lrt.lr.tlr 1rr..lr,rlrly is tltrc t, tht'irr(ltrcrrct'll rt Ngrl lrt't'tl

1l1 1,1' * ,lr.rlr, r tl rr6t ;r rr'.rr.tlrt'r-rr ()rigirruE\. AltI()trglr :lrr Arrtlrl:ric ittl'ltt-

r tì, , t,! il!,t rlt,,ilìllis(',1, tlrt' r'xpllrnatiotr 11f -{a{l lìs bcirrg tltlt:-ttl lt .tttlt'lllt'l'ttirrllrr, rr, I t,, !, rl.l ,,1ri,,i,rrr i,'r,,.1".1g,rt. lrlj thc iìf8tlllìclìts irllqcrl s(1"()lìgly

r,, rll ilrr r rtt rrl;rr.iry tlrrrt A. llLirvitz. signallccl with rcg:rrcl t..tltc: Ar-

1,1 lr..nr., rrr l,rl,lir,rrl i.,,l,,lis8(,. lsal<ss<>t.r c1.cs not cxplain wl.rcthcr thc rlthcr

ilru tlrt nur rrrsl;ìlì('t's ol -{rtr ill biblical Helrrew are to hc coltsitlcrctl

l'.lt,ttl,r'nu"ttt.\,.()t', :ls scclrls logical, whether they bcar wittlcss to tllc

1,r,,,,rr,, ,rl ,ttto(ltt'r tclrrtivc p,o,]ottt which finally founcl-its wrry itlltr

ll, 1,,,,,. ,lrr,Il,rt.irrg ',,§rrr. We find the sarne problem in lsal<sson's bricf

,1r,,, rr',',r,,,, ,,1 ,l',.' j.,.,,,r,r.t,, 'unì, which closes witb tbe suggesticsn thtt "ttli ,,,,lrt,,rtr ,,,,,,1y,,,j ',,7,i may also be regarded as a characteristic of tlrc'

Ì 1,,, rl,,.r ,r I l.ll,r'r.w rlielcctuiT. Yct how does Isaksson explainthc s<lttthcrtr

rr \r,, \vlil( ll rlisplry ",ni?ltseems that Isaksson is unaware of thc remarks

rlr,rr l{.l,,,lzirrBl rrncl li. J. I(utscher8g have made concerning the lrlattcr'

Ay',,,,,, tlrc ttsc,,f ,r.ricic in Qohelet seems so puzzling that Isakssotr

,,11ì', t, (i,t.tlis's rtrgtllnents ,ù y.,, at the same time' refrains frotll

.',,,'1,,rrr1', l)rrltoocl's c<rnclusions' Finally Isaksson's treatement lacks a

t,,ll ,l,.,ii,rri.,rr of rhe noun in Qohelet and the use of the qitlòn pattcrrt

rlr.rr 5 l. rlil lrlcssiseo briefly sketched. Isaksson concluded his study irr

,, 1,,,,,1.:,,, w,ty: he wrote tirat 'our knowledge of the Hebrew spokcn

,rrr,l r,r,r'ittr'tt tltrtt was current in various regions and in several period of

l,rlrli,,rl litrr(, ls yct too limited to permil a dating and, geographical

,;r't(itt1,, otr pttrcly lirrguistic groundsuel,' Nevertheless' the ar€luments

,,,,,,t,,,,,,',1 .l',,,r" r..il.d .tr4',g enough for Isaksson to lead him to(ln(^sti()rì tlrt'tlrtirrg of Qohelet to the third century B'C'E' and to favour

,r t:rtlit't'tlrrtirrg t,r*nrdì the fifth or fourth centlrry B'C'E" G' Ogden's

( (rrìrìr(',lirl'y, ,,n tl"r. ground of the Persian loanwords pardes andpìtgam

.rrr,l ol"tlrc Ar:rnraisJr.hor. once again a dating between the third and

'rl li. ln,rli-rsorr, Studics in the Language of Qohelet, A'U'U'S'S' LO'1987'17'rL 1", ls:tlissott. Stuclrcs itr the Language "' 161'

rl,.A.llrrrvilz,fcc.t()M'\il/agner,DielexikalischenundgrammatikalischenArarnaismetl

rilt rtllt|sl;trttctrtlichcn Hebràisch, BZA\W 96, h IEJ 19 (1969)' 182- 183'

" l',. lsrtkssott, Sttrdics in thc Language "', 142'

'r' lì.1'olzirr, l.rrrc lliblical H.b,.*' Towards a Historical Typology of Biblical Hebrew

l'r,rr;t, llSM 12, 1975,126'r" L \. hrttselrt'r, IlistorY ..., 30.'',, '. I. ilrr l'lcssis, Aspc-s oi Morphological Peculiarities in the Languagc of Qoheleth'

rrr, lli litrttltt Oris Suo, IìS. A' Van Selms, 1971' 164-167'

'i ll. lrrrlirsort. Sttrtlics ìtl thc l-lnguage, .'' 197'

)))F'. Bianchi, The Language of eoheler

rhe second centuricl<s ro a;ù.i,:'I

B'c'E'o2. Another srucly, dedicared by D. C. Freder-proposes,r,. arr;Jlnguage,,torally que:or se ve n,h ..,;;,;'B rit HI, flj 1;;: r;jt

:l1lfi,l i:',1;::[]:1t i.";*,1;'?fli.':::'r^"r'i''*'r,i.il'n8"g'

wourd t"u' l"'n a kInd

rhey wourd hr,. i^1.'.h: p".,ìri,- ;;:':? ry""

dominant th"'.lrtiu.''s*irhe Mishnair*, ,J1"'],

in ,use nt."ràr"'i,n"

article' As for the A ramaisms

endings ion and ,'! 'h-,1:lt li;;;;1' ttr pre-eXilic times' FrrrthermorJ

wotrld have beronpf r*or,o ;r;;"#";..pecurrariries such n* ,h. ,orn

+iH tr I ffinl m;uu t',:'# Ti:lL :,",,1 -r,i, I i ;, x,t

5enrires a,r.J Indo-Fl11an Ase' r"t,I'r"" I

were iudged to h'-ut enrered

rarer wrore: ,,rr"a.rllll"'nI *orìa".*r1"t' Periode+' The ries b.,*..iand rry ro show rhrr'!u' 'pptn,J*ir';J'r''''

these loans' As M' v' Fox

thar eoheler wrore ^'r to'là rt'"

"-"r""a

rake every feature indiuidually

J. L. crensh, * ll u,,p,:, l.r.J ;;;;,Jrtlffi *: ;l:", _ assumi ng

su.rvey. Crenshawo6 rrt^110 .Fox's commer

I"l : *o *,, * ;, r, q o Ài?l I ?,r:

r r' *' h;' ;;;"iJIl X"i !;'à.' i,:, J :§ J il:arguments ,,r.oncìr"ri]lr s ltnguistic peculi

use ot rhe idiom *;u,l^1d."\I *nt-'[ì"'inarrtres' He iudged o't.'t'oJ:'

n:rÉ#,*r;i: ;:r:f=r, Èl;*flt:l §i:i i}:'à:ffi'Ér5 iil: I

'ues.,. arthc,ush h" .,,.'l...rptrì,rr'i# ""ià:.6T.-rt'r":ì;::l ?:iYf1rr,1l. Iiries.,. alt hougi hì,'

"' Jd,rc ex plararion of eoh.t.r,, _ii"irffi ;::;ff1:rheory ,rrr,-r"lr"' nii's he is "attracted to

rheory wou rc, .1rr,g-b1l*'"*, i, ;' ;;;:'t'*merman n's a nd c r nsber!'s

re.cognizes rhar it isy thr unde.rso'airi'"'J"ton from Ararnaic'%' Th-'l

I he-aurhor would *::"ll" tr-,i'it "i'"?r'lr

n)anv obscure points' but Foìrh e ro urrh to rhi rd l:;;;h:il ;',; ff ;',',: ; # *il:i :f ru;' ftew words on rh. "L^^^ - . .rn order to end t''- lll"t-:hTe o[furure ispeculiar ph"ron-,"nr'rricle'. Éut"" jroii,rìt''"t of the research are neecled

patrern qirlòn,,h" .T q"r'"[ì"ì";';l'l'should deal wirh some of the

nm*,l:i*J, i,*1p,,*",r ,#:i,H'#iHij

___ Lrrdrr a century of inquiry which

li I g*j.,,, eohcrer. te87, ts

". p C Fredericks.eohe

.: fl ? fl1"à:;: §,iI:,ì ilff;: ::,";j.l;!:,,j1 *,,u,. anr, Da e ,e88 263

.: I I :'."i;;, ;::,:;:,:isCon'lr:<Jic'lio",',,,

.^ J. L. LreDshau, TheExr

"I,y J l:;. ;;li:ig';;ii::,l'1l.'ff.1,,1,:l.o-* Bibre Vrr6 (re86),-4 278

hrs Conrradr'crions, Ii.§

l. [rrlirrri, Die Abfassungszeit der Chronik 22\

'rll,§., !rl',r" ,r rlr. lrrrssir.rg of time, we have no alternative but qu.tirrpitJ*lir.lir N.r (.vr.rì;ì srl!ìe can ger ro the bottom;ii;,;;;;hc srys

ll;i:i, 1,, 1,.r,, ,t,,r(. s()« lrioh S,t7 ,, ,.n,rrlrr.d by rh;'N.il' j.rrr.l"i,,

llri" ;' r1"'r rrr.vr'ys .rd cvaruates the inquiry about eoheret,s ranguage. -fhc trisr..r' ri r'l \r rrr,r'i,rrr rrrrtr Misrrntrisms in the book marked th. firrt phrr."of ih. ^-r."r.1.,"..Lr' r rlr' '\r.,rrr'rrt rì:rrrsrntiorr theory r.rhcilcd eoheret a rralrsrrtion fronr Arlln;rrr. irrr,ll'l'r' ri I lrr' ( .rrr;rrrrir. phoenician hypothesiì nrru-.,r that eoheret macle usc ,r.rrrt.

l.l:,;: ,,,i

:1,' ,rrrlr.Jir;rphy arrcl .f a Northern Hebrew dialect. A .ìo." ,..;;;;'.lirn,irn,,,r"'|ilr "r rrr'r"r r rrrr'rrr.rri,rs and confirmsthatAramaicandMishnaicFlebrewh".r

" r,r,,,,11trrllrr, rr,, lrr (]olrllct"s lrrng,uage.

I)it' Abfassungszeit der Chronik _und perspektiven

Vrrr Isaac I(alimi

(7/.ì8 l)iskir St., Jerusalem 92473)

Forschungsstarrcl

l)'rs lrilrlischc ,uch der crrronik behandelt zwar inder Hauprsircrrt.rlrr'(it'stlrir'lrt. clcr israelitiscrren Kònige zur zeit cles E,rstc,,rcrrr1r.ls,,rl','r z*'t'ilt'llrs ist cs 'zor zeit des Zweiten Tempers verfa8t w'rcrcrr rrrrrr1',r'lr,r'r zrr ,lt'rr sl.rriteren biblischen schriften. Fiir die sp;ìtc zcirricrrt./\rrrl'rrrr|, sPrcchen ilr, ersrer Linie sprachliche In.Lzie,r,'-v.ì-*.,,,,1,,,,1,,r'r'rr;rst lrt'r' wii'tcr, Ei,flu8 des Reichsaramàische,, .rrr" R,rri.lhcrr rrri."r

lrr,rrst lrt', SP'achgebrauchs, die sich ,ui sril Lrnd orrh,grrryrrrit, tr.sllrr' lrt's,rrswirl<c,. nazu kommt die Erwah;.,;;"r;r'.,,.L,,1,",,,,,,,rl.r.rlirrisst'rr rrrrs pcrsischer Zeit (2.B. Ichr 3,19, vicilcicrrt lrrcrr il clrritr.'l l.)r, lrr rlcr liorschung umsrrirten ist .rie .rr'ragc, i,, *ì,i.ìrì..,,,, ,r",t,'r',, lrit',lt'rrc'rr Zcirràunre i,nerharb der Epoche a", l*.i,",,':i,i,lì.t, .1,,,.l!rr, lr vcrlrrlil sci.

' \r,l ,l,rrrr: l. /,urv. l)ic.gottcsdienstlichcrr Vortràgc dcr.)rrrlc1, (l8.l.l), rlgg-1, t., t,l;\ l'r"1''11' l)i. Syrrrax tlcs Aurors cicr (ìh*rrrik, ryz.,rw lo, r909; ri. L. arrr.r rs A. ^,

Alr'l"r rr' r\ ( lritir'rrÌ rtrtd lìxcgctical (ìorrrllcrrrirr:y 0rr thc lir.ks .{' Ilrr.rrirlrr, lr)10,' l"' 11' A r ' rirrrrsric, Trrc rJo<>ks orr chroricrcs, r9r6, XXrr r{. r,,rzirr, l,;rrr. *irrrir.rrIl' l'r' ir l,rr'.11,1 ,,, rIisr.ricrLrylxrr.gy .f rtihricar rrr.rrrcw r)r.sr., r97(r; A. rrrrrvirz,ll, rr l,r,,r,rr ir.l,norr, 1972, l.\ lr, (hclrr.); irlt.rrr. h;rl.rriorr lrrr.ivlir l,r,li,rIrl,r lr;rIrrrul,trt I I l'trlttt.t (ttl.), Ir;t I lisr.ril sclrtl Arrr lslrrt,l, Siv:rt Zi.rr ,l(.rrr.s(lrilt.rl l,.rr,rr,1,,5t..,1.1 .ll\.