F.
Bianchi, The Language of Qohelet 21"L
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 commentaries
and articles, the book of Qohelet continues to stand as a »stumbling
'block" in biblical studies. No consensus exists among scholars about
the main issues of the book concerning its unity, structure, messagel.
Nor has Qohelet's language escaped from that situation: scholars agree
that the book can be dated mainly on linguistic grounds, because it lacks
the historic details which would allow a more precise dating. However
Qohelet's linguistic peculiarities have still not found a conclusive expla-
nation. A good number of scholars have recognized in eohelet's Hebiew
a strongly Mishnaic and Aramaic influence, others have preferred to
explain it as the result of a translation from Aramaii or as rhe
consequence of canaanite Phoenician influence. Recently some
scholars_ ha,ve argued that rhe dialectal forms in
eohelet's language must
be ascribed to a North-Israelite dialect. In our opinion the iime is ripe
for a review of all the questions concerning Qohelet's language2. such
an inquiry should be useful both to sum up the results whictr scholars
have attained and ro state problems of future researchs. '§7e will start
our review by describing research from H. Grotius to E. podechard. The
importance 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 dominant
theory 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 examination
of 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 Hebrew
university, Jerusalem, under the direction of Prof. A. Hurvitz, whom I warmly thank
for the suggestions and encouragement. The paper underwent a deep revision in §(inter
L990 and the bibliography was updated till to 1988. Thanks are arso due to prof. A.
J.
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, BLS
18, 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.
sed scriptum ferius sub illius regis, tamquam poenitentia ducti nomine.
Argumentum eius rei habeo multa vocabula, quae non alibi quam in
et interpretibus reperias'4. The importance of
Daniele, Ezra Chaldaeis
Grotiurs'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,
to his opinion, the book shared with others later books of
according-Testament.
the Old 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 book
was far removed from older Hebrew and that the language had a
clearly Aramaic colour. For this reason Ewald also judged that the book
belonged to the last century of Persian rule over Judah.
On the contrary E. Boehl and G. Vegni attempted to demonstrate
that linguistic arguments did not witness against Solomonic authorship
of Qohelet. E. Boehle tried to prove that the Aramaisms penetrated into
Hebiew from the Solomonic Age as did the Persian word pitgam (Koh
8,11) 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 them
in 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 had
shown 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 declared
that 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 F. Bianchi, The Language of Qohelet 213

aber schon befindet sich jenes neue Hebràisch, welches uns in der
Mischna und der um sie sich gruppierenden Barajtha Literatur enrgegen-
ftitt"12. Delitzsch judged that the ties between Mishnaic languagl and
that of Qohelet were proved by many facts: the use of th. ràlrtire §*,
the occurence of the demonstrative pronoun eo, the confusion in verbal
conjugation between the verbs lamed he and lamed alepb and the use
of, the participe as a presenrl3. The presence of Aramaism in
eoheret
laàguage led Delitzsch to maintain that the book was ,ein produkt der
nachexilischen Zeit und frùhestens der ezra-nehemianischennla.
- Delitzsch's analysis shaped all the following studies about eohelet's
ianguage. §7. Nowack15, C. Siegfried16, G. §fildeboerrT, y. Zapletalls
G. 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 Mishnaisms
b"peS (I(oh 5,3) or taqqen (Koh 7,13). W. Nowack20 only accepted a
dating of the book to the last part of the persian peri,od, *h...r,
Siegfried, wildeboer, zapletal, Barton chose a dating in the Hellenistic
Age' That dating was suggested mainly on the ground of historical
allusions thar these scholars thought they have disèovered in the book.
Yet no criterion is more problematic in eohelet's research than the
historical one since it is possible to find different historical allusions
behind every yerse. E. Renan represented a distinguished exception in
the first period of research. This French scholar belittled the value of
the Aramaisms and stressed the importance of the Mishnaisms which,
according to his opinion, bore wiiness to a language close to some
ancient 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 first
century B. c. E. but his opinion did nor find followers. contrary scholars
maintained that Qohelet's language was a late stage of Hebrew, rich in
Aramaisms and Mishnaisms, belonging to the tÉird cenrury B. C. E.
E. Podechard's commentaryn represents the best sratement of that
assumptions. After summarizing the evidence of previous studies, pode-
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
Kautzsch, Die Aramaismen des Alten Testament, 1902, 102. The Aramaisms
23 E. tn

Qoheletisnoteasy.E.I(autzschlistedinhisworknearlythirtyAramaisms,whereas
ù. .iflrgrr.r, Die lexikalischen und grammatikalischen Aramaismen im alttesta-
12 F. Delitzsch, ibid., 206.
mentliÀen Hebràisch, BZAW 96, 1966, found 78 Aramaisms. A study by §(.
13 F. Delitzsch, ibid, 207 C.
-208.
la F. Delitzsch, lowers
ibid., 206. Delsman, Zur sprache des Buches Koheleth, FS. van der Ploeg, 1982,342-345,
15 IM. Nowack, Der Prediger Salomo's erklzirt, KEHAI, 1883, 183-191. this number to 42.
16 C. Siegfried, Die Sprùche, Prediger
und Hoheslied, HKAT, L99g, 1.4 ZO. 2a E. Podechard, ibid., 44.
17 G. \Wildeboer Die Fùnf Megillot,
KAHAT, 1898, 113-114. XVI 4, 1932'
18 Y.Zapletal, Das Buch Kohelet, at H. \il. Hertzberg, Der Prediger, KAT
1905,62. 2à K. Galling, Die fùnf Megillot, HAT 18, 1940,48'
1e G. A. Barton, The Book
of Ecclesiastes, ICC, 1908, 52-53. 27 f). Margoliouth, Ecclesiastes, Jewish Encyclopedia v' V, 1906,32-36'
S.
20 Y/. Nowack tbid., 207 22 (1921\,22'
, - 208. 28 F'. C. Burkitt, Is Flcclesiastes a Translation?, JThS
2r E. Renan, L'Ecclésiaste, 1882, 51 54. 2') l'. (1. [ìurkitt, it]id., 23.
22 E. Podechard, L'Ecclésiaste,
1912, 44 48. 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 l,,l /rrrrtrr, ln.lln l() st:tlt'tlt;tt (lolrt'lt t's ,tttllt,rt. w:ls ',il lì;tlrylolri,rlr .lt w
Ar:rnraic. I rc rr;rirr-
tained thar it would be possible ro recover the'original llr(l sr.tvt'r'1 ;ll lltt't.«rtttl ol Atttlttottts
sion and his faith in this method was so deep th"at h.
ilìf br-..,r,,u",. s lr,, l. rr,.rv Ar,un:ur',rrr.l Alilt,r,lirln
' the rule: retroverr *;;;: ,Frere is lll.rr r\rrtr,rlri,r or-Sclcrrr'irr irr rlrc lrrsl tgtrtrtt'l'ol llr,'tlrirtl tt'rrltrry
the Hebrew to the underlylr.ri l.r-ri. ,rràrrin. ,i_.. ll t rr I lr, ,r'iliinrtl liìtìlìlrtll(' ol' tlrc l<irl.l ttl lì,;tstt'ttt
[l«rol< wrts ll
out of ten the problem will be raid bare and ìorved .i-.rlt"rr.orsly..rr. i\r,urr.rr., rllult tlì('lfxllslrìtitttt ittto IIt:brcw wrls tttatlc bclìrlc 190 lì.(l.l .

ZiSmelaann's q uorarions clearly assumed rh. p..r..r..-oirhir-ar"_ri. ,-'1111rrr't1ì.111s vit'w was soott shrtrccl by twtl inllLrcrrtill sclrollrrs, (,. (I'
original. Beyond this, Zimmermann was able io ,h.J li;h;;" lorrr.\ ,rntl I l. 1,. (ìinsbcrg. Aftcr wrrrnirtg that thc closctrcss ht'lwt:t'tr
one of
the most problematical issues in Il, l,r,rr, .rrr,l Ar:rrnaic nralccs it difficult to prove thc trartslatiott frottt rt
eohelet's la,guage: ,r,. .?.rrLr use of
the definite article. Zimmermani explained ihai ,the juts l.rrr1,.rr,r1,,, to tlrc othct C. C. Torrey noticed that "Zirnmeflnrllllì wcakclrctl
up
peculiarly when it is clearly.rrlrr...rrniy.32, yet,orr ".tllt"
r[..ifr.iir"a rfr" Irr., ,.r,,,. Iry ovcr"clr>y'r1g thc clemonstration«42. Torrcy also hcld thc vit-'w
article is lacking when it should b" p..r.rrt.-,i. lrlo."or..,-Zi**.r_"r1r, rlr.rt ()olrt.lt't's lrrtrguage sounded distinctly Aramaic and these Ar:rtrrrrit
stressed that ,erren lno{e. cogently the article ,pp."r, ,lltrtrrtls ,itl)pcar to be Aramaic idioms literally rendered in Hcbrtrw"4ì-
mysteriously in nouns followi,g one anorher irr'" r..i".J1
,rJ-aìrupp.r^
.o ,t nr,o l,,rrcy slr:rrcd Zirnrnermann's remarks which we quoted above alltl
rule seemed ar work in the use of the article. According .',1,1,.,i rlrr. observation rhat b"§el 'oler (Koh 8,17) would have retrclcrctl
to tÉe American
scholar, the erratic situation in the realm of definite,e"s, rlr,' Ar';urtrric b'dtL dt, whereas the preposition k6l umm6t was 'tnercly
ness was duc to the translaror who failed to -,,rh.
obr..u. "na-ir.ra.rir-rir._ Jì.tlrr.ri,.,, .r tl:urslrìtion of the common Aramaic preposition k6l qobel di"aa'
between the Absolute-and the Emphatic State in
Arr-ri.,,rr.
The transla_ (,irrslrcrg supported in toto Zimmermann's assumptions to which lrc
to.r created many difficulties by àddr"g or omitting the definite articre. ,r,ltlccl [urthòr remarks. He noticed that the plural pardesim (Koh 2,.5)
Zimmermann was almost successful i.-showi,g thJp..rerr." lrt.rraygcì an Aramaic influence since the plural of pardes in Aramarc is
of Aramaic
in rhe morphology ancl this is widel"y ,..àg,.,ir.a-r"àrr. C. lt,rrdasirt, bgt in post-biblical Hebrew it is pardes6ra5. Moreover, thc
iL{lyj"..
whrtley, many years,later,
f-.
-compared ma,y parallel-p".."g., from the Aprcric:rn scholar underlined that iir (Koh 7,5) did not mean »to sirìg"
book of Kings and chronicies oi fr.,,- th. Looks [rut, according to the Aramaic root, labbah, to praise46.
s;;".f;;Jch.or-
"f
icles and stated that ,chronicres has the articre where
Samuer omits it ll. Gordis was rhe fiercest opponent of the Aramaic Translation
a,d lacks the article when has it-:e. *. maintai, that the ,r-" l'hcory expounded above. Gordis first welcomed the positive contribu-
non occurs in coins coming from the Hasmonean times, fn.no-.-
when ihe articre ti<tn of Zimmermann's arguments to the understanding of some Qohelet
lppears a,d disappears without a clear reason37. errort-,.. froblem lrcculiarities such as the use of the article and the presence of Aramaisms.
focused upon by Zirnmermann's analysis was the (ìordis recognized that Qohelet would have known and spoken Aramaic
confusion between the
prorroun hit and the verb hd.wa »to beu. 7i*-ermann rlr-rrirrg his lifetime, but he dismissed the idea of an original Aramaic text
the translator confused the pronou, with the verb and
,rff,rr.a ,nr,
ur.à-'u".rr.r, larcr rranslated in Hebrew.aT. Gordis judged the translation hypothesis as
in I(oh 3,1.1. Furthermore ih" ,rrr. translator *r, ,r_,rtl. to ...rd.. ", ,visiting the sins, real or imaginary Llpon a unlucky translator. To him
correctly verbal roors such as ta'ab which he tra.sratei-io.'op rro folly or stupidity is deemed impossible"as. Once this was recognized,
1,.5)3e, or lagain which he rendered harbeh (l(oh
t«ot-,
-I,5)a0. AII these rlmarks ell that is incongruent and perplexing ir-r Qohelet's language was no

31 l.-. Zimmer:mann, '§7orld

The e,estion of Hebrew in
eohelet, ]eR 40 (1949 1950), 101. rl F-. Zinrnrermann, The Inner of Qohelet, 1973,128-131.
32 F. Zimmermann, 'fhe euestion ... 9g. Languagc of Qoheleth, JQR 38 N'S'
33 F.
1'Ì Cl. C. Torrey, The Question of Original
Zimmermann, The euestion, 9g. t949), 1s2.
:ra F. Zimmermann,
(1918 -
The euestion, 98. rr (1. C. Torrey, ibid., 153.
3't F. Zirnmermann,
The Aramaic, 23. rr C. C. llbrrey, ibid., 15'1.
J6 C. F-. lWhitley,
I(ohelcth, ìlZA\(/ 1,+8, 1979,109. 'rt I I. L-. Ginsberg, Studies in Koheleth, 1950,24-25.
37 Y'Meshorer,
Ancienr Jewish coinage I, r9g2, r23 r34; we are aware ru 11. 1.. Ginsbcrg, ibid.,20-21.
thar in these
instances technicaÌ reason may have dctermined 17 Iì. (ìordrs, The Original Iranguage of Qohelcth, JQR N.S' 38 (1946-47),67 -84;67'
the choice.
3E F. Zimmermann,
The Aramaic, 3.3 34. rs lì. (ìordis, The Origrnal l-anguage, T0. At this point Gordis remembered Margoliouth's
re F. Zimnrermann, The
Aramaic,24. xttcllìpt to retfovcrt Sira's Greek text into Hebrew: when the Geniza fragmcnts werc
a0 F-. Zimmermann,
T"he euestion, g6. ,ìiscovctcd Margoliouth's text agred with Hebrew for only 1% of the words'
 216 F. Bianchi, The Language
of eohelet l': lìianchi, The Language of Qohelet 217
longer the fa'lt of,the transraror,
but it reveared a kind of Hebrew (l'. Al .)(,: ll: ,l
.t) represented a northern syntactical feature. Therefore
from Classical and ,",h;r,;1.;'rliai.nrrric far
the importa,ce of Mirh;";'H.ii.#',, Hebrew. co.di, noticed ( i,rtl,rr ,lisrrrisscd any Greek influence in favour of a northern character.
the history of the Flebrew
Ianguage; further hc,.ticed
*i*ì"ga.a to the pecuriar
r\ ll,r r1,,lrt rìrirrt:ìined that
"there is a veritable flood of allusions to
( ,rrr.r.rrritr' (l'hocnician) literature
anJ ro thc stronq in,rrencc ;i ;È;'i.rn,ri. use of the articre in Hebrew works composed between
Qoheler - rhc lrtcsr of Biblical"wrì;.r.'ir.poinr
rhrr ,rh. Irng,,rg. of tlrr' ,,t'r,t'rrtlr ,rrrcl the third century B.C."58. Dahood hypothesized that the
marks the transitior. b.r*".n-Bi[ii."i of srile and grammar ,,,rrrr,' l'lror,rrician influence entered
Qohelet's book in three ways: the
years after Gordis' statement, *a Uishnaic H"b.",i.,or. A few ,,rtlr,J,r,rlrlry, the language and the history. Dahood judged that the
Hebrew was »a vernacular ;"1r. J. c. Greenfied recog,ized that
Mishnaic ,,rtlr,1',rrrphy of the Hebrew text would have been similar to the Phoeni-
were »in the dairy preoccupatio,
;.-;"ìiterary language. whose roors ( r.ur orrc which did not make use of final or medial vowel letters.
of its speakers-agriculture, the ,,\, , r,rtlirru to his opinion »any work which was composed in the normal
crafrs, animal husbandry*sr. hand_
,.reflecrs in irs richrre_ss ffri, f""gr"*: _ according to Greenfielci _ I l, l,rt r,v orrl-rography of the fourth-third century would have been amply
and .rrrhyl pirt y, rna precise ,,rr1,;,111'11 with final and medial matres lectioneso5e,
basir'meaning carriecl f,,y ,lr. phrasirrg rhe whereas no work,
Ianguage vu r'r: ir was
ulir:'#.5;, sr. E. y. I(ursc6cr callecl rhis u,,urti llrt' starrdard Phoenician orthography would have used these spell-
Copper Scroll an,J i:
uscd-'in',;.ìr, Kochba rerrers and in rhe rrrl',,ritls. Dahood demeed from an examination of the variants that they
.yr,
arrilicinl Ianguage' which was
. i*;"s ì;;*;.*". Corrrrary, MH2 was arr .rr,,sc rrr:rinly from a text without vowei letters. Therefore the original
thc following discovery :rr ";
i;r;":;ookcn. Gordis, argumerrrs :rnd l( \t \,v()uld have written according to Phoenician orthography. The same
eumran',,t , qrh.l"r,, ,.roìì-o dated by .ulÌurìì('nts were later applied also to others books such as Job and
around Iso s.è'E'ìl'-"àJo,,,"a
ilril,rf||:rg ,r," e.,n*i. rransration l)r'ovcrbs which were thought to have originated in a northern setring
Meanwhile a new hypothesis ,rt rur cilrly clating. J. Barr has, however, clefinitely shown that a defectivc
about ,Canaanite_phoenician spcllirrg clocs not attest either the origin and the provenence of biblical
ence in Qoheler" was presentgd influ_
by À4. Dahood. Dahood,s aim l,r,.,r'l<s or an early dating for them60. Furthermore we can add thart
demonsrrare that. the bo"k was ro
;a E;i;;;'r;. *". originally composed rorrrirrg l'rom the Palestine of the fourth and third cenruries B.C.E., does
an author who wrote Hebrew by
phy and whose composirio,
bJ;;;;provec.l p'h.;;i.#'J.th,rg.r_ rrol tonfirm the description drawn by Dahood. Dahood always continuecl
shows lì;;; canaa,ire-phoenician to rlt'l:crrcl tbe orthograythical proof, whereas he developed the linguisric
e'ceos'l' C' H' Gordtn and infr,_
w. r."irrrriirrt had arreadv craiÀed ir.lìurìrcnts further. At the beginning it was recognized that Qohelet's
presence of such an influence the
i,
both i. idioms or in.lexical ,rJ a.h.il;: That influence showed itself I;rnlirr:ìgc hr.rcl an Aramaic flavour in syntax and vocabuiary as well as
;";;;i,rrti. features. C. H. Gordon ,r rrrrrrrhcr of common features with the Mishnaic Hebrew6l. Yet Ar-
lisrecl se1 ba kasep
t«"t, i.tzl I i;,,?j',; Ugariric-Epics _ :rrrnisrrs rrnd Mishnaisms would have found their way into Hebrew
idioms55; grammatical f.ntr.., among the
111hern
rcal use of adverbiar infinite f"ro*"d
*.r. ,o be found ,in the hisror_ thlou!.lr l)lrocnician. Dahood listed a number of instances which woulcl
dantlv atresred in phoeniciar*ai;ffi bf ìndipe,d.nt pronoun aboun_ lrrovt' lris "(lanaanite Phoenician hypothesis" about the North Israclitc
trsz - which appears in I(oh z,zs It. pho.,ri.ian pararer pair 'dm ;rrrtl l)hoclrician Iinguistic influence upon the author of Qohelet. Among
o-À'aìrirr. irrr..iption of Azitiwadda rlrt'rrr llrcr.c wcre 1) the demonstrative prorìoun zeb written defectively
..:r N«rrtlr lsrrrclite feature to be found in Phoenician morphologyrt-;Z)
' Thc Translatio. Thcory of llrc r.t'lrrtivc l)r"onoun irv which was not a North-lsraelite feature, Phocni-
Lrl'|*:, eoheleth reexaminate<I, ÌeR NS 40 (19.j0), , i;rrr orrr'('ì; .3) the erratical use of the article, which was, to qu()tc
j0
J. C. Greenfield, Lexicographical Notes
§r I, HUCA 29 (195g), 204.
.L,C-. ibirJ., Zt+.
_Crecniicì,1. ,."
,f.. J. ;;;;;,, tparative Philoìogv and the Text
restamc,',t, tcoà,'zzs- zsz. of 'i \\/. l, Àllrrilihr, lirolrr tlrc Srorrc Agc «r Chrisrianity, 1946,243.
.-
'/ _olcl
F. Y. l(nrseher. A Hisrory,ol '' À1. I);tlr,rorl, (l:ttt:trtttitr:-ì)hocttici:rn Inf]rrcncc,.ì(r: it is worth strcssirrg, tlrrt, wlrt,rt.rrs
5r rhe_ Hcbrcw langu.rgc. 1982, ll5.
J. Muilenburg, | . ,/ttttrrrtnt,rttrt's ltyPolhtsis vrsitcd tttistrlns]etions rurd rrrvkwrrrrl Pr>irrts orr tlrc lrrurs
A eoheleth Scroll fronr qr,r,rlrlìosoR
5a M. Dahood, Canaanite-pho.ni.ion 135 (1954), 20_28. l.rt,r'r slronltlt.rs, l)rrlroorl lrrrnsl'r.rlctl thenr to ill rnrsl(illo(l scrilx:.
tnfì,,Jrl-"'rr'qinr.,n, Bib 33 (tgsz),32.
L.ri611. 'r I ll.rrr,Illl,rtrv()r'tlrr1,,r:rplryrur(ltlì(llooliol:.lob,.lSS.ì0(19.55),.1.ì ì.1.
:' C.
(u I Curdun, trgaririr. Li,"rr,r.., ir;;. ;';' "
! H. 'l Àl I ).rlr,,orl. ('.rrr,rrnill l'lror.niiirrn lrrllrrcrrr.t. .ì2 .ì.ì.
ibirl.
i7 C. FI. Gordon.
ibiri_
' ' 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:.
 lr lli,rtrrlri,'l lrt, Lrpr1,,rr;r13. el (]9lrt.lt.t
l'. llt.rrr,lrr, I lrt l..ìrrlinrrl,,( .1 ()olrtllt / lt)
Dahoocl's words, »a cogcrt
proof f()r the l)h,e,icilrr sy,ctlcrical
crrec i, thc book, ,uppoirect i,flrr-
t y p"rrìì.t ;_",;,;ì"ì,;;il",,
ìi, i,ì"ìi,,.crrici,rrr rrrrt .l I'lr,r lr!r.rn tlrt,st'ol (itt't'lis lt,ts s,, l;tt lrt't'tt
1,lriloso1,ltr''ts tt;lt,tt
Inscriprionsoa' Nor'i;,r
amaisms such as !ùq (r{oh
,t.
t;"Irsiiì., escape rhis rnethod. Crear grr.r,I ì Al,rrrt':,, lt,,l,rts lt'tolittizcrl tlr;rl ,, 1)ltltot,tl's lrylrotlrt'sis rlrtl tr,rt
1;:4)";;;,r".ù;ii";,,j,i;;
*lL ;,,ag.a ,o
Ar_ ,.nr\ tlr, ,1.u . l.ur,l tlrt'olrjt'r'liotrs litist'tl :tgrtirrsl il st rt'tt1',l lt,'tt,',.1 (ittl,lis'
have entered Hebrew thro.fui piloJr-ri.irn6. , .1,1 111,11rrrlr ,l (]olrt'lt'l lirry.rristic: Pt'etrlirrritit's. (iorrlis slt't'sst'tl tlt,' ,ll,
2.2t) which is, ro Dalo.;\-:y"r,:"ni.rìrrUf, as well' as ùsron (Koh
,r loan Érom Canaanire
(Hehrew), on. Dahood,lJy*i'ìnr,.''in"'.o,,parison lilr rtrrn lrr trlllrr tlrt' lrot'izotttlrl rtrrtl thc vt'rtit'ltl llsl')('(-ls ol lltt' l,tlrlitt:t|,t'
wirh the Ugariric ,r,, rr, ll ,r,, llrt' lrrr'st'rrr-t'ol tlil'ltcrcrrt lirrgrristic pltcttotttcttrt itt tlt.'lr<,r,k"1.
l:1ffi ::no,Xf fl "'' Q ohllet r,"ig.,,- u..' òi,.,"n,,r,-, tl1,,,r ,rr,,,, lr,rrr l)r.oto Mishrrrrir:, Ariunrric rncl lìihlic:rl llt'llrcw. llris
""à,ì.a "
.,-,,,.,i. "r IIrlr,,,,,l l.rl,', 1 lo rt't'ogtrizt:.'l'lrcrcforc 1ccrtlrirr c()nsclìisr.rs st't'tttr',1 lo lrt'
r i ;' ; ;*:*((oh
:T,#j;: :i 'riì.
Ui, j1T
e o ;:
r re ie
", personaJ
irrdeperrdenr
; hi
:il, ;: :: r, r, lr,,l I'r' rlr,' sclrolrrrs irì rìccord:ìrìcc witlr (ì<>rclis' positiort. Ilowt'vt't'
,pronoun in
enclrtrc mem and the lamcd irrr,or".case "-,e]t0)ur,
,h. lr rlr, I,r,,t ,lr.t:rtlt'it lrrrs bccrr rlucstiortccl rtltcw.'lwo ltalirrrr sr'ltolrtt's
i,rrir,ur. Orher elleged Cenaanisms r\r rr rlr, lrrsl t() ci-ìst cloLrbt upon thc ir-rflucncc thrtt Mishrriric llclrrt'w
"*ptri,
wcre neverrheless well arresrecl
;, gi"Éii.;l
de.t pronoun in a ..trtlu" -.t"rrl'i,,..lar.* ,Hebrew ,;;h";; À.,,,,d.p.,,- ,,'rrl,l lr.rvc lrrrtl on (]ohclct's lar.rguagc, 1,. cli l"onztl stlrtc(l tlìrìt »ic()sttttlli
lrr" .*. pJrt. ,,nrr,rr r( r, lili rrrrrnaisnri, lc scclte lcssicali c frasc«rltlgichc cli (]olrt'lt't
rhe periphrasric [rrrure- (Gen. r,:11,
independent pronoun
rs,izj,'r[. infinirir. ,broiut".plus an
ri r,l,l,, r,r tlovuto lasciarc piil rilevanti tracce rrci libri srtcri cottlt'tttlrtr
fr-"r. à,zt."orr'ii,..r' g_r-ouncl the three r,ilrr'r ('piri il medcsimo at'nbicntr'"/6. Wlì('l'(';ts
r:stcsi dcl nosrro, posto
of Ras Shamra para,eis.* volumes
parallels berween t.rgaritic tir'òt;';;;i;*rntTo.proposed one hundred I ,lr l,orrzo rrraiutained the traditional dating atrd sctting, li. l'iotti orr
irrquiry has shown ,i",
rir.."ìr..-r.,i q"rr.réi. iJii.i''w.,ia.r,. llr,' , orrlrilry cxpoLllrdecl a different theory. F. Piotti sharcd l);rlroo,l's
bear wirness ro a common "nty
ì"i:;,,";.;r.*nr a suitable parallel an«J , ,,rrt lrsir>tì rrbout thc presence of Canaarrisms in Qohclct's lrtttgtt:t11t' rttttl
rise,,f *o.,Jr,r,,d
sophical and historicrL f.r_.*.rf. ;;.il;;;;,fiÀ. on,lo_
,r, t ortlittgly c1r-rotcd many of Dahood's arglrrnctlts. Thcrcftrtt ()olrt'lct's
ire Phoenician Hvnothetir" r"qriì"". *i,Jf, Dahoìd based his-,canaan_ l.rrr1,,u;rgr'woulcl lravc been Hebrew, marked by a rrorth wcst Scrtritic:tnrl
"" ,'i# conrmenrs.
explai, rn his arrcmpr Ar.iurì;ri(' irrllucnce. 'l-his kind of language would havc bcctt ,piri scrrrplit t'
rhe Canaan,t. ri"g"rrtìJ'i;;*r-- ro
rhe eristcnce of a phoeniiian .eoheret, Dahood assumed
wisdor'i."arrio,,
t.rrrrrrr'rlirrto di quella letteraria, come lo é un dialetto risl.rcttt> rrllrr linp,rr,r
of school of philosooh, i,, nf-,".r.ìr'irr,l* es we, ,, rh" prescnce rrllit i:rle ,,77. 'fhis verr-racular language would lravc cmcrgcd itr tht' lrosl
,n. f"r.,n ,r;r,ili;,cenrury rrili,. :rgc as the consequence of zr mixture bctwcctt tw<l tlifft:r'crrt l:trr
B'c'E' Howcver' ,,.irhl. , pn.."ì.irr";;;i". traditionT2, nor rhe irru_ l,,urrll(': thc l'ìcbrew spoken by the exiles who have rctrtrtrcd frorrr lllrbylorr
- ,-rr.t, ,rrr..l llrc rlialcct, alcin to the language of 'Aidod, which wrs rlsttl by tltr'
Canaaniti:phoenician Influence
6r M. D:huorl. II, Bib 33 O'SZ), 197 _198; 198. pt'opk who lracl remained in Palestine during tlre cxilic pcri«r«178.'lwtr
Canearrirc_pho",,,.,r, i"ii""r.)
a M. D:houJ. Canaarrire phrerrician ii, ar, r,.r.
.. , l;rtts strrrrrl out against Piotti's suggestions: 1) we c1o not l<trow rrttytltirll',
r,rrir",,ì. ;;, ;;;l
67 M.
Dahood, e«rheleth and North ,rlrorrt this Ashclodite language, except the allusion in Nch I4, l4 tlrrrt
l'.rì ,.,.,,,.-*,lldorr, I\ib 43 (1g62),3i,.
§'aard' The tansJaror and the
r""r"rì'a*r.r.-, J. cle l)iolti rlrrolctl;2) the alleged Canaanisms that Piotti tool< frtitrr l):th«rorl's
uro uo (1g7g),S12clefinies this
other examples as »66 e,.,"
compelling.. This forn r anses ancl worlts lrrrvc iu the meantime revealed to be fictitious atrcl iltragirtrrry. A
from a scribal mistake later '\)7hitley,
corrected by alì the u".rio,rr.
68 M' Dah.od'
It'w yclrs Irrter C. F. in his commetltary, trtrclcrt<ttll< :ì ll(^w
The rndipendent personar pr.noun
in rhe tlbrique case in Hebr:ew, irnrrlysis of ()ohelet's language in order to Iowcr thc clating of thc lrooli
34 (1972)' 87 - go' Even in cBe
this instance n.t,r*.ìil M,]ror
rhe versions offer support lowrrrrls tlre nriddle of the second centlrry B.C.E. Whitlcy 1-rttilrrctl otrl
to Dahood's hypothesis.
6e M' Dahood,
canaanite-Phoenìcian Infruen
ce Ir, 1.92-19j. About rhese
J. Barr's sounJ juclgrnenr.in hi, Comparr,,ì"'ni,l"l*y discoveries see 'I l\il, llohlerrz, Dic Stoa,.l94B,31.
0 Res Shamre paraltets ..., j l JJ.
r,- ttre Otd ,.r;';.;;i;#,r,. 'r ()l(l I'cslrrìrcnr Survey, \X/.S. I-a Sor, D. A. llubbartJ, lj. W. I',trsch ttls., l9uJ., 58lt.
?1
C. F. Vhirley, Koheleth ancl.Ugarit rr), rrrr._rnr*.
72 G. nrr"ff.ll, Lì.'i, f rrrrt BI1 Allcatly l. (ìordorr, North lsraclitc lnfluencc on Pr>st lixilic I lcblcw, Ili.l t,
(1. ì (19.\r,),
Saade, La vie intellectrell..
It f,rrr.,ri"..i à àrg"rir, 69-824. 8/ tlisrrrissc<l l);rhood's hypothesis in favonr of l'llanritc or lìabylorriarr scttirrg,.
Lord lriblical an. other studies 70,in: Ascribe
only sapiential text found
in nn".r"., i à. c.oigi., 19Bg, has pubrishedto trre
-l.t.ii"*"rì)o,O"Oda
"ì
the ' l{. (,orrlis,
'" l tli
1ù(/ls (]ohclcth rr l'hocnicirtr?, Jlll.74 (19.5.5), 103 104.
l, u*".i, giusto sofferente, AO 1 lìorrzo, l,'licclcsìrrstc, 1967 2.5.
a strons influence of Babvtonian l. l)ioLti, l,rr lirrtr,,ue tìclì'li,cclcsiastc c lo sviluppo storico tlcll'Flbluico, lìt'() 1.5 (197.ì).
ffi;.llj;ilo,::o'"'* wìsdom upon syrian and
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
rrl (']olrllr'l ')'t l
I l"l.llr( lll, l l" l 'tlt1',tttt1"'
that Qo[re'[cr's lellqtlage Llsecl both
worcls a,cl iclionrs si,riler.t() th()sc ()t
hrrlr, tr l,r,,1rlr tlr, rrr.illrsll,t.rilil 0l tlrt. I lr,lrr'.,w lirrllrristit
the old T*t"-"""t or words ur,r ,lt'vt'l,,P.trr,'ltl""-1,
u..b, frorn Ara'raic ancr Mishraic ()olrt'lt'l's lrtttlltt:t1:,t'collt:litts Misllrr;tistrrs
HebrewTe. This Brirish schorar 111 r,qrlt r t! rlr,,lrrr.,,, rlr,.r,lt.,r tlrlrt
,llrt'iltttttt'tlst'rtst'.l irt'
grouping exclusivery with Ben ".ri."J-ìrrr, eoheler sharecl rhis la*er
sira. ihat .,bì.rr"tior--iJ-wnirt.y r lrr llrt., l*,1tt tlr,.5r,r,,.,lislr..l',,r1,r. cl,tiltls tlrlrt
i,, tl,, 11,,,,1. ,,1 (J,lrt.lr.tlr 1rr..lr,rlrly is tltrc t, tht'irr(ltrcrrct'll rt
examine the affinities between ,,, Ngrl lrt't'tl
eoheret and B"r si* rrJìo'd.ny thrt ()rigirruE\. AltI()trglr :lrr Arrtlrl:ric ittl'ltt-
the latter knew eoheJ",'. *ork. 1l1 1,1' * ,lr.rlr, r tl rr6t ;r rr'.rr.tlrt'r-rr
ù.ìÀi"L i, rd.r. ro.iurrr' proves bcirrg tltlt:-ttl lt
the priority of eohelet, *h...ul "rJ r tì, , t,! il!,t rlt,,ilìllis(',1, tlrt' r'xpllrnatiotr 11f -{a{l lìs .tttlt'lllt'l'tt
proved lor thc following. reas.rrss0:
,..".ii"g to rflhitrey, the contrary is
.*o,)-rà-rr"rurirr, irrllrr, rr, I t,, !, rl.l ,,1ri,,i,rrr i,'r,,.1".1g,rt. lrlj thc iìf8tlllìclìts irllqcrl s(1"()lìgly
ll È.n Si, .sed the
the preposition 7 and t*h" ..lrtlu" -,;"*" r,, rll ilrr r rtt rrl;rr.iry tlrrrt A. llLirvitz. signallccl with rcg:rrcl t..tltc: Ar-
the consrruction waw hibbwr
whereas eohelet macle use of
1,1 lr..nr., rrr l,rl,lir,rrl i.,,l,,lis8(,. lsal<ss<>t.r c1.cs not cxplain wl.rcthcr thc rlthcr
of", p.lf..r,
the relarive ia'. Frrrtherr"* q.rr.ri,ìr'ìa.",the prepos ition lamed and, ilru tlrt nur rrrsl;ìlì('t's ol -{rtr ill biblical Helrrew are to hc coltsitlcrctl
orthodox view of B-en sira r"à,r.-ìi""ì ..#-i;;;;; rlrrn., rt," l'.lt,ttl,r'nu"ttt.\,.()t', :ls scclrls logical, whether they bcar wittlcss to tllc
of ...,rr.e*ion p,o,]ottt which finally founcl-its wrry itlltr
proclaimed in Daniel I2,2. ,r.Jìo.a, like peieror preposirions
of ?he dead, 1,r,,,,rr,, ,rl ,ttto(ltt'r',,§rrr. tclrrtivc
in lsal<sson's bricf
like 'ad dìbrat which are eohele,
à;r; i;;; n" 4,,14R1. According ro Whitley, ll, 1,,,,,. ,lrr,Il,rt.irrg We find the sarne problem
,1r,,, rr',',r,,,, ,,1 ,l',.' j.,.,,,r,r.t,, 'unì, which closes witb tbe suggesticsn thtt "tt
Qohelet was wri*en ,ft". Orni.l, ìrr', t"nguage ',,7,i as a characteristic of tlrc'
Hebrew' since borh of them rrrr..a close to Mishnaic li ,,,,lrt,,rtr ,,,,,,1y,,,j
may also be regarded
."o.a] ,,r.h as bét '6ram, ben h6rìm, Ì 1,,, rl,,.r ,r I l.ll,r'r.w rlielcctuiT. Yct how does Isaksson
explainthc s<lttthcrtr
ni an and grammarical f.rtr..r.-
rrr. h;,.;"§À;;i", "r,ra..rir.a
'i

the use of the article appearing and

e_.ri" rr \r,, \vlil( ll rlisplry ",ni?ltseems that Isaksson is unaware of thc remarks
dislppea*ng both in the Mishnah the lrlattcr'
and in rhe Dead sea scroirs. rlJ."ro.. rlr,rr l{.l,,,lzirrBl rrncl li. J. I(utscher8g have made concerning
wiì,r"y-rrrured rhar. irr compari- Ay',,,,,, tlrc ttsc,,f ,r.ricic in Qohelet seems so puzzling that Isakssotr
son with eohelet's ranguage, that
of {;*;, ir*t r"., xra;ii ,,11ì', t, (i,t.tlis's rtrgtllnents ,ù y.,, at the same
time' refrains frotll
beneditions was more .rl*iJri
were composed earrv in the third
,rd;;.;"cient. since^riir,.
these rwo works .',,,'1,,rrr1', l)rrltoocl's c<rnclusions' Finally Isaksson's treatement lacks a

ce.rtury B.c.E., Qoheret was writren t,,ll ,l,.,ii,rri.,rr of rhe noun in Qohelet and the use of the qitlòn pattcrrt
berwcen tSZ - t4S s.c E -, w;,;il;;;ik his study irr
from S. C. Reif who defcncled,h;.1r;;;;.rt
encounrcrcd srrong criticism rlr.rr 5 l. rlil lrlcssiseo briefly sketched. Isaksson concluded
,, 1,,,,,1.:,,, w,ty: he wrote tirat 'our knowledge of the Hebrew spokcn
,,derlined the fact that 'fine .h"rrg;';; ora.. eohelcr_Bcn Sira and regions and in several period of
dete*ed at a distance-of over t*o
ancienr language cannor be ,rrr,l r,r,r'ittr'tt tltrtt was current in various
l,rlrli,,rl litrr(, ls yct too limited to permil a dating and, geographical
of within ren vears'«83' s' c. n.riJ."[rìhe -."ru.Ji ii "ir...,.r.,
mirTerrria.and
possib,ity of dating some ,;r't(itt1,, otr pttrcly lirrguistic groundsuel,' Nevertheless' the ar€luments
parts of .fewish liturgy more accurately him to
wrirten in the first rwo centuries B.c.E.
than to say that they were ,,,,,,t,,,,,,',1 .l',,,r" r..il.d .tr4',g enough for Isaksson to lead
During the last three years four (ln(^sti()rì tlrt'tlrtirrg of Qohelet to the third century B'C'E' and to favour
new commenraries have been produced or B'C'E" G' Ogden's
Iinguistic peculiarities as wer.
o, qot *fri.f, l.ii*irf, ir, ,r t:rtlit't'tlrrtirrg t,r*nrdì the fifth fourth centlrry
Arso tro ,irdres "t.t
entirery discussing this ( (rrìrìr(',lirl'y, ,,n tl"r. ground of the Persian loanwords
pardes andpìtgam
specific problem have been fo.rt.o*irg. again a dating between the third and
provide a specific survey of some B. Isaksson,s work aims to .rrr,l ol"tlrc Ar:rnraisJr.hor. once
ry"li"-.ti.rr- and grammaticar points
concerning eohelet's ranguage
with the ar,i of ,r.u.-r*"iìri.".orr..o,r.
Isaksson maintains that ]the",."i ln,rli-rsorr, Studics in the Language of Qohelet, A'U'U'S'S' LO'1987'17'
.r-ò.ir.ret srems from a diarectical 'rl li.
rL 1", ls:tlissott. Stuclrcs itr the Language "' 161'
rl,.A.llrrrvilz,fcc.t()M'\il/agner,DielexikalischenundgrammatikalischenArarnaismetl
7e C. F. lWhitley,
Kohelet, 119_120. rilt rtllt|sl;trttctrtlichcn Hebràisch, BZA\W 96, h IEJ 19 (1969)' 182- 183'
80 C. Fl rWhitley,
Kohelet, 727 _129- " l',. lsrtkssott, Sttrdics in thc Language "', 142'
a Historical Typology of Biblical Hebrew
'r' lì.1'olzirr, l.rrrc lliblical H.b,.*' Towards
81 C. F. \)fhitley,
I(ohelet, 135_138.
82 c' F whitley,
I(oheret, 144: R. H. pfeiffer, Int::oduction l'r,rr;t, llSM 12, 1975,126'
to the old Tcstamcnt, 1952, r" L \.
731' and H' Rabin, The Hisroricar
,"t,,ng or q,,-ì1,, H.br.*, scripta hrttselrt'r, IlistorY ..., 30.
rv (1958), 1.r2_ 1.r3.
Hier.solimitana '',, '. 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'
83 S. C. Reif, rec. on C. l-. Whirley,s l(ohelet,
V^f 31 (l9g)), 124.
'i ll. lrrrlirsort. Sttrtlics ìtl thc l-lnguage, .'' 197'
 )))
F'. Bianchi, The Language
of eoheler
rhe second centur l. [rrlirrri, Die Abfassungszeit der
icl<s ro
B'c'E'o2. Another
srucly, dedicared
Chronik 22\
a;ù.i,:'I
proposes,r,. que:
by D. C. Freder-
'rll,§., !rl',r" ,r rlr.
arr;Jlnguage,,torally lrrrssir.rg of time,
we have no alternative but qu.tirrpi
or se ve n,h ..,;;,;'B rit HI, flj 1;;: r;jtt"u' l"'n a kInd
:l1lfi,l
wourd
i:',1;::[]: tJ*lir.lir N.r (.vr.rì;ì srl!ìe can ger ro the bottom;ii;,;;;;hc
1,.r,, ,t,,r(. s()« lrioh S,t7 ,, ,.n,rrlrr.d
srys
by rh;'N.il' j.rrr.l"i,,
1t i.";*,1;'?fli.':::'r^"r'i''*'r,i.il'n8"g'
p".,ìri,- ;;:':? ry""
dominant th"'.lrtiu.''s*i ll;i:i, 1,,
rhey wourd hr,. i^1.'.h: article' As for the
in nt."ràr"'i,n" A ramaisms
rhe Mishnair*,
,J1"'], ,use li;;;;1' ttr pre-eXilic times' FrrrthermorJ
endings ion and llri" ;' r1"'r rrr.vr'ys .rd cvaruates the inquiry about
,'! 'h-,1:lt
wotrld have beronpf r*or,o ;r;;"#";..pecurrariries
such n* ,h. ,orn r' ri r'l \r rrr,r'i,rrr rrrrtr Misrrntrisms in the book marked eoheret,s ranguage.
-fhc
trisr..
th. firrt phrr."of ih.
Lr' r rlr' '\r.,rrr'rrt rì:rrrsrntiorr theory r.rhcilcd
tr I ffinl m;uu
^-r."r.1.,"..
t',:'# Ti:lL -r,i, I ;, x,t ll'l'r' ri I lrr' ( .rrr;rrrrir. phoenician hypothesiì eoheret a rralrsrrtion fronr Arlln;rrr. irrr,
+iH
5enrires a,r.J Indo-Fl11an Ase' r"t,I'r"" I
:,",,1
were iudged to i
h'-ut enrered ,,,i ,rrrlr.Jir;rphy arrcl .f a Northern Hebrew
nrru-.,r that eoheret macle usc ,r.rrrt.
dialect. A .ìo." ,..;;;;'.lirn,irn,,,
rarer wrore: ,,rr"a.rllll"'nI *orìa".*r1"t' these loans' ries b.,*..i
Periode+' The l.l:,;:
r"'|ilr :1,'
"r rrr'r"r r rrrr'rrr.rri,rs and confirmsthatAramaicandMishnaicFlebrewh".r
r,r,,,,11
As M' v' Fox trrllrr, rr,, lrr (]olrllct"s lrrng,uage. "
and rry ro show 'pptn,J*ir';J'r''''
rake every
thar eoheler wrore
rhrr'!u' to'là rt'" feature indiuidually
^'r u,,p,:, l.r.J"-"r""a _
J. L. crensh, * ll ;;;;,Jrtlffi
*: ;l:", assumi ng
su.rvey. Crenshawo6 commer
rrt^110 .Fox's r' *'
*,, * ;, r, q o Ài?l I s?,r:ltnguistich;' ;;;"iJIl X"i
r

il: I)it' Abfassungszeit der Chronik _

I"l : *o
arguments ,,r.oncìr"ri]lr peculi !;'à.' i,:, J :§ J
He iudged o't.'t'oJ:'
Forschungsstarrcl
use ot rhe idiom *nt-'[ì"'inarrtres' und perspektiven
*;u,l^1d."\I
n:rÉ#,*r;i: ;:r:f=r,
"' Jd,rc ex Èl;*flt:l
plararion
§i:i i}:'à:ffi'Ér5 iil: I
Vrrr Isaac I(alimi
iries.,.
'ues.,. arthc,ush hì,'.,,.'l...rptrì,rr'i#
alt hougi h" of eoh.t.r,, _ii"irffi
?:iYf1rr,1l. (7/.ì8 l)iskir St., Jerusalem 92473)

rheory ,rrr,-r"lr"'
nii's
he is "attracted ""ià:.6T.-rt'r":ì;::l
to n's nd
;::;ff1: I

rheory wou i, ;' ;;;:'t'*merman a c nsber!'s r l)'rs lrilrlischc ,uch der crrronik behandelt
zwar inder Hauprsircrrt.
rc,.1rr,g-b1l*'"*,
thr unde.rso'airi'"'J"ton from Ararnaic'%' Th-'l rlrr'(it'stlrir'lrt. clcr israelitiscrren Kònige zur
re.cognizes
it isy
rhar n)anv obscure points' but Foì zeit cles E,rstc,,rcrrr1r.ls,
I he-aurhor would *::"ll" tr-,i'it ,rl','r z*'t'ilt'llrs ist cs 'zor zeit des Zweiten
Tempers verfa8t w'rcrcrr rrrrrr
rh e ro urrh
to rhi rd l:;;;h:il ff ;',',: ; # *il:i
;',;"i'"?r'lr
:f ru;' f 1',r'lr,r'r zrr ,lt'rr sl.rriteren biblischen schriften. Fiir
/\rrrl'rrrr|, sPrcchen ilr, ersrer Linie sprachliche die sp;ìtc zcirricrrt.
tew words on rh. In.Lzie,r,'-v.ì-*.,,,,1,,,,1,,
-. .
"L^^^ o[furure
rn order to end r'r'rr;rst lrt'r' wii'tcr, Ei,flu8 des Reichsaramàische,, .rrr"
t''- lll"t-:hTe
peculiar ph"ron-,"nr'rricle'. Éut""
is
jroii,rìt''"t of the research are
neecled lrr,rrst lrt', SP'achgebrauchs,
R,rri.lhcrr rrri.
q"r'"[ì"ì";';l'l'should deal wirh some of "r die sich ,ui sril Lrnd orrh,grrryrrrit, tr.s
patrern qirlòn,,h"
.T ,#:i,H'#iHij
the llrr' lrt's,rrswirl<c,. nazu kommt die
l.r.rlirrisst'rr rrrrs pcrsischer Zeit (2.B. Ichr
Erwah;.,;;"r;r'.,,.L,,1,",,,,,,,r
nm*,l:i*J, i,*1p,,*",r
a Lrrdrr century of inquiry
itr.'l l.)r, lrr rlcr liorschung umsrrirten ist .rie 3,19, vicilcicrrt lrrcrr il clrr
t,'r',, lrit',lt'rrc'rr Zcirràunre i,nerharb der Epoche
.rr'ragc, i,, *ì,i.ìrì..,,,, ,r",
___ which a", l*.i,",,':i,i,lì.t, .1,,,.
l!rr, lr vcrlrrlil sci.
li pI g*j.,,, eohcrer. te87, ts
C Fredericks.eohe
".
.: fl ? fl1"à:;:
§,iI:,ì ilff;:
::,";j.l;!:,,j1 *,,u,. anr, Da e ,e88 263 ' \r,l ,l,rrrr: l. /,urv. l)ic.gottcsdienstlichcrr Vortràgc dcr.)rrrlc1, (l8.l.l),
\ l'r"1''11' l)i. Syrrrax tlcs Aurors cicr (ìh*rrrik, ryz.,rw
rlgg-1, t., t,l;
lo, r909; ri. L.
arrr.r rs A.
.: I I :'."i;;, ;::,:;:,:isCon'lr:<Jic'lio",',,, Alr'l"r rr' r\ ( lritir'rrÌ rtrtd lìxcgctical (ìorrrllcrrrirr:y
0rr thc lir.ks .{' Ilrr.rrirlrr, lr)10, ^,
.^ J. L. LreDshau, TheExr ' l"' 11' A r ' rirrrrsric, Trrc rJo<>ks orr chroricrcs, r9r6, XXrr r{. r,,rzirr,
Bibre Vrr6 (re86),-4 Il' l'r' ir l,rr'.11,1 ,,, rIisr.ricrLrylxrr.gy .f rtihricar l,;rrr. *irrrir.rr
"I,y J l:;. ;;li:ig';;ii::,l'1l.'ff.1,,1,:l.o-* 278
ll, rr l,r,,r,rr ir.l,norr, 1972, l.\ lr, (hclrr.);
rrr.rrrcw r)r.sr., r97(r; A. rrrrrvirz,
hrs Conrradr'crions, irlt.rrr. h;rl.rriorr lrrr.ivlir l,r,li,rIrl,r lr;rIrrrul,
Ii.§
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\.