Linguistic evidence and the dating of qoheleth
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.
It is, therefore, not inappropriate if we concentrate on Hurvitz's methodology and presuppositions here.
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.
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.
Now, this may in fact be a conclusion which is congenial to some.But others will not find this agreeable, so we will offer a way out of this conclusion by arguing that the presuppositions of the chronological approach are undermined by the evidence.The starting point for this challenge was the publication of a volume Young edited with―in the words of one reviewer―the "yawn-invoking title" of EBH, according to the traditional view, is the language of the preexilic or monarchic period, down to the fall of the kingdom of Judah to the Babylonians in 586 BCE.The exile in the sixth century BCE marks a transitional period, the great watershed in the history of BH.
While ancient Hebrew underwent linguistic change, as do languages in general, the biblical texts seem not to reflect this chronology in a way that makes any kind of linguistic dating of the texts possible – in contrast to the consensus prevailing among Hebrew linguists until about a decade ago.By Ian Young Associate Professor, Department of Hebrew, Biblical and Jewish Studies, The University of Sydney By Robert Rezetko Assistant Professor, Faculty of Religious Studies, Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen Honorary Research Associate, Department of Hebrew, Biblical and Jewish Studies, The University of Sydney By Martin Ehrensvärd Part-time Lecturer, Department for the Study of Religion, University of Aarhus Lecturer, Department of Biblical Exegesis, The University of Copenhagen July, 2010 In the last few years, a challenge has been mounted to the consensus view that Biblical Hebrew (BH) can be divided into two discrete historical periods: Early Biblical Hebrew (EBH) and Late Biblical Hebrew (LBH), or early Hebrew and late Hebrew.