A Critique on the Methodology of Avi Hurvitz

7/21/2019 A Critique on the Methodology of Avi Hurvitz

1/12

Edited by

Praveen S. Perumalla,

Royce M. Victor

&

Naveen Rao

2013

THE YOBEL SPRINGTHE YOBEL SPRINGTHE YOBEL SPRINGTHE YOBEL SPRINGTHE YOBEL SPRINGFestschrift to

REV. DR. CHILKURIVASANTHARAO

on his 50th Birthday


2/12

The Yobel Spring554 The Yobel Spring 555

GGGGGNANARAJNANARAJNANARAJNANARAJNANARAJD.D.D.D.D.

A Critique on the LinguisticMethodology ofavi hurvitzand its

Application to the Dating of Qoheleth

Introduction

Biblical linguists unanimously acknowledge that Avi Hurvitzs1

contribution to the diachronic linguistic studies has been

phenomenal and remain widely recognized in recent decades.2

According to Rooker, the individual, who has unquestionably contributed

the most to the diachronic study of Biblical Hebrew, certainly in the last

quarter of the twentieth century, is Avi Hurvitz 3 His diachronic

linguistic methodology has been extensively used by mainstream linguists

to analyze the chronological significance of multifarious linguistic features

found across the Biblical corpus and especially in the dating of texts often

considered problematic.4Needless to say, his methodology has shaped

the landscape of Biblical linguistics and wielded an unrivaled influencesince 1970s until recent years.

When Hurvitz constructed his linguistic methodology, there was a

general consensus among the mainstream scholarship that Qoheleth is a

post-exilic composition, with considerable concentration of late linguistic

features. Though he did not systemically apply his methodology to

Qoheleth until 2007, he subscribed to the then general consensus that

Qoheleth belonged to the late date, along with certain post-exilic books.

He simply states, the only working hypothesis concerning chronology is

that such books as Ezra-Nehemiah, Chronicles, Esther, Ecclesiastes, etc

of the Bible for Christian farmers in South India, we cannot but read the

Bible with new eyes, because of the listening and observing engagement

in the midst of the agricultural communities.

3. Moving Beyond

Ecumenism and Inter-faith relations has come a long way and continues

to discover new and relevant paradigms for ministry and mission.

However, paradigms cannot emerge from centres of ecumenism, but needsdecentring. As we envision our world as God creation and the possibility

of inhabiting it, the possibility of human existence with each other and in

harmony with Gods creation is becoming increasingly violent and

disturbing. It is in this context that we need to revisit Ecumenism and

Inter-faith relations from the point of hermeneutics with the broad lens

of identity and difference. Human issues cannot be divorced from the

issues of ecology, because the role of human beings in sustaining creation

is directly related to the rights of human beings. We all have a shared

history and a shared future, and we need to move beyond harmony to

engage with the other, defined by each other.

Endnotes1 Michael Kinnnamon and Brian E. Cope, The Ecumenical Movement: An

Anthology of Key Texts and Voices,(Geneva: WCC Publications, 1997), 1.2 Kinnamon and Cope, The Ecumenical Movement, 3 -43 Kinnamon and Cope, The Ecumenical Movement, 4.4 Michael Kinnamon, The Vision of the Ecumenical Movement and How It Has

Been Impoverished by Its Friends, (Missouri: Chalice Press, 2003), 106.5 Anthony C. Thiselton, New Horizons in Hermeneutics, (Grand Rapids:

Zondervan Publishing House, 1992), 48.6 Thiselton, New Horizons, 48.7Anthony C. Thiselton, The Two Horizons(Carlisle: The Paternoster Press, 1980),

xix.8 Felix Wilfred, Asian Public Theology.Crit ical Concerns in Challenging Times(Delhi: ISPCK, 2010), 213.

9David Tracy, Plurality And Ambiguity.Hermeneutics, Religion, Hope (London:SCM Press, 1987), 50.

10 Tracy, Plurality And Ambiguity, 72. See also p.7911 www.hardnewsmedia.com/2010/02 (accessed on April 4, 2012; The big five

states where farmer suicides are taking place are Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh,Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh. On n average, a farmer diesevery 30 minutes.


3/12


the preliminary notion that the Hebrew of the pre-exilic period is noticeably

different from the Hebrew of the post-exilic period is axiomatic to Hurvitzs

methodology. It was during the Babylonian exile (586 BCE), that the

increasing interaction of Hebrew with Aramaic, the official language of

the Babylonian Empire, effected in language change resulting in the

transition from Standard Biblical Hebrew (or Classical Biblical Hebrew)

to Late Biblical Hebrew and finally to Mishnaic Hebrew (or, Rabbinic

Hebrew).14Without such assumption at the core, Hurvitzs methodologywould not stand.

The four pillars of Hurvitzs paradigm, found in his 1973 article, are

briefly summarized as follows:15

1. The [linguistic] element should appear only, or mainly, in such

Biblical books as Daniel, Ezra or Esther; i.e., in books which all

scholars accept as late (Late Frequency).

2. There should be alternative elements found in earlier books which

express the same meaning (Linguistic Opposition).

3. The element in question should be vital (in regular use) in post-

exilic sources other than LBH (= Late BH) for instance, in BA (=

Biblical Aramaic) or MH (= Mishnaic Hebrew) (External sources).

4. The text will not be considered late unless it manifests numerous

late elements one or two isolated examples can always be

interpreted as a coincidence (Linguistic Accumulation).

He also outlined a similar methodology for determining the chronological

significance of Aramaisms in BH.16 His methodology became the sole

underlying principle in all of his writings as well as of those scholars who

followed the diachronic dating of Biblical texts after his lead. These

premises of Hurvitzs methodology has remained constant and been

sustained with predominant mainstream support until Youngs criticismin the recent years.

Major Conclusions of Hurvitz

Hurvitzs inherent premise is that the linguistic profiles of pre-exilic Biblical

books are different from that of the post-exilic books and that the earlier

vocabularies and constructions functioned with divergent semantics and

grammatical horizons. He perceives the Babylonian exile as a definite

influential factor in the chronological development of Hebrew language.17

He terms the language of Pre-exilic Hebrew as Standard Biblical Hebrew

were written during the Post-Exilic period. This, of course, is universally

accepted.5

As far the book of Qoheleth is concerned, its language has triggered

several controversies over the past decades.6The linguistic heterogeneity

and complexity of Qoheleth has forced scholars to construe often novel

explanations: Burkitt, Zimmermann, Ginsberg and Torrey called it as a

translation from the Aramaic original,7 Dahood identified Cananite-

Phoenician influence upon its language,8Gordis claimed the influence of

Mishnaic Hebrew upon its language9and Lohfink and Leo Perdue claimed

the influence of Greek over Qoheleth.10There is lack of consensus among

these scholars concerning the date of Qoheleth.11Mainstream scholarship

dates it well into the Hellenistic era, in line with the tradition that started

earlier with Delitzsch and Gordis, ably augmented by the recent studies

of Antoon Schoors. However, it is the underlying methodological

framework of Hurvitz that has given the mainstream position an aura of

invincibility within current scholarship. Recently, he applied his

methodology to Qoheleth and reiterated the majority position that it is a

post-exilic book.12

This paper outlines the four basic principles that are the foundational

pillars of Hurvitzs methodology, a review of the recent debate over

Hurvitzs methodology and the problems of applying this method to

Qoheleth with a concise evaluation at the end.

Methodological Rationale of Hurvitz

Hurvitzs methodology is, in general, appreciated for its emphasis on the

objective examination of the Biblical texts and its ability to assist in the

process of determining a date for difficult texts. He recognized the element

of subjectivity in prior methods used in dating problematic texts and the

pressing need for structuring rigorous criteria which promises impartial

results. He voiced his concern as follows:

Unfortunately, the theological, historical and literary criteria which havebeen used for establishing the date of chronological ly problematic textsare very often subjective. Linguistic studies likewise did not producesatisfactory results, since they were not usually based uponmethodologically reliable criteria.13

This identification of the above crisis as well as the need for a sound

methodology led him to develop his own methodology. His assumptions

and rationale show reservations in dating a problematic text hastily to a

particular period based on scantly attested linguistic features. However,


4/12


Hebrew language within Biblical books. Their methodologies combined

together came to be known as the Hurvitz-Polzin paradigm.25

Qoheleth and the Methodology Of Hurvitz

Qoheleth has often been identified as late work due to its linguistic

idiosyncrasy that is, according to the methodology of Hurvitz,

characteristic of the transitional Hebrew of LBH/MH. This section briefly

reviews the premise and the conclusions of Tylors study on the languageof Qoheleth which employed the methodology of Hurvitz and further

discusses few misleading cases from the recent studies on the language

of Qoheleth.

Tylors Application of Hurvitzs Methodology

When the consensus of dating Qoheleth to the Hellenistic era (around 250

BCE) was indisputably on the side of the mainstream scholarship, Louis

Ray Tylor undertook his doctoral dissertation in order to verify whether

such a persuasive conclusion could be arrived by the systematic application

of Hurvitzs methodology upon the language of Qoheleth.26Here, it is

important to point that there were two other similar major studies being

conducted in different parts of the world almost at the same time, each

independent of the other, tackling similar question in their research.27

Taylor stated at the outset that he would follow the methodology of

Hurvitz to approach the language of Ecclesiastes. He states,

The methodology in dating Ecclesiastes will be that of Hurvitz. If aconsiderable clustering of late features are found in Ecclesiastes, the bookwill be proved late The alleged sign of lateness in question must notonly be widely current in post-586 Hebrew, but it must also be non-existent or at least nearly so in texts which are indisputably early. 28

The above statement by Taylor is an obvious reference to the principle of

linguistic accumulation as advocated by Hurvitz. After a review of thecurrent state of the studies and survey of literature, Tylor, in his Chapter

III and IV, focuses on sixty six lexical items that were considered to be the

indications of lateness.29He does a comprehensive survey of its usage in

Biblical as well as extra-Biblical literature to come to the objective

conclusion on each of its place in the history of the Hebrew language. He

concludes that only six items were found to be definite signs of late date

(k vr already, lat domineer, h min except, z mn time, hfedelight, bal cease) nine found to be possible indications lateness (ma-

e whatever, lmm long duration, knas gather, ytr superiority,

(SBH = Classical / Early Biblical Hebrew) and the language of Post-exilic

Hebrew as Late Biblical Hebrew (LBH). The end of SBH is pointed to be

around 6thcentury BCE.18 And the book of Ezekiel is identified with the

transitional kind of Hebrew that stands between SBH to LBH. 19Hence,

the Pentateuch and the former prophets (up to the Book of Kings) are said

to be written in SBH and belongs to the period before 500 BCE, and books

like Chronicles, Ezra-Nehemiah, Esther are said to contain typical LBH

forms and features that belong chronologically to a later period. His studyfocuses mainly on the lexical features that appear in SBH books and

contrasts them with that in the LBH corpus and vice-versa in order to

determine their chronological placement. His main foundation was

lexicographical, rather than grammatical.20

Hurvitz had support from the major research of Robert Polzin who

undertook an ambitious21study of mainly tracing 19 grammatical features

in Chronicles, and P sections from Pentateuch, former prophet, Esther

and Ezra-Nehemiah to determine their Chrono-linguistic placement within

the Biblical corpus.22He proposed the order of Biblical books based on

their linguistic profiles, i.e., based on the frequency of such LBH features

in these books: the more the congruency, the book was identified withLBH; lesser the congruency, it was attributed to Classical Hebrew (JE, Dtr,

and the Court History). He identified P with transitional Hebrew and

Chronicles as an example of LBH. Like Hurvitz, he also began his research

with the assumption that Babylonian exile had serious repercussions on

Hebrew language. In several points, he affirms the works of Hurvitz, with

regard to Aramaisms, the traceability of the linguistic development within

the Biblical corpus, among others.

However, the main focus of Polzins work remained on grammatical

foundations, which he rightfully rationalized as more objective than the

lexicographical features.23While Hurvitz cites Ezekiel as an example for

transitional Hebrew, Polzin finds the transitional patterns in P. In view ofthe language of the inscriptions such as Lachish and Arad Ostraca, Polzin

takes them to be closer to LBH (but Hurvitz places them in late monarchic-

era, at the end of First Temple Period). Polzin does not detect any

archaizing tendencies in Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah [2] 24 whereas

Hurvitz affirms various degrees of archaism in all LBH books. Regardless

of these differences, the working methodologies and the conclusions of

these two scholars have provided a solid foundation for the subsequent

studies which mainly emphasized the diachronic developments of the


5/12


that is widely practiced and appreciated by the majority scholarship? -

a question deservingly in need of further elucidation.

Methodologically Misleading Cases

A few lexicographical and grammatical features, such as the use of 1cs,

relative pronoun that are often treated as late are briefly discussed below.

Here is an exemplary case of the linguistic frequency. Qoheleths

exclusive use of n (28 times) and his total avoidance of nok(0 times)

caused much speculation. Generally, as Schoors observes, nokis more

frequent than n in the older literature, whereas in the LBH, the frequency

of the latter increases.36 Schoors moves on to conclude that all the

evidence seems to point to a late phase of BH, close to MH, as far as

Qoheleths use of the 1cs personal pronoun is concerned.37 However,

this confident conclusion of Schoors was recently disputed by Holmstedt.38

He argues that the above deduction was invalid and over-simplistic in its

treatment of n:

Does Qoheleth really exhibit a peculiar use of the pronouns, asSchoors asserts? Not at all. Qoheleths use of pronouns reflects syntactic

options that are well represented throughout the Biblical corpus ofancient Hebrew the post-verbal pronoun strategy reflects the authorsrhetorical skill and linguistic ingenuity, it is masterful use of language,neither odd nor ungrammatical.39

Here, let us discuss an example of linguistic accumulation. In Qoheleth,

the relative pronoun e occurs 68 times along with er (89 times).40For

Schoors, the increasing usage of e was diachronically important that he

concluded with respect to the relative pronoun, that Qoh belongs to a

later phase of the language, standing midway between BH and MH.41

He reasoned that being shorter in form e must have replaced er in the

LBH. There are few things to observe here: overall, there are 139

occurrences of e in the Hebrew Bible of which 68 are in Qoheleth and 32are in Song of Songs, both belonging to Solomonic corpus. The remaining

39 occurrences are scattered across the Hebrew Bible (Genesis 6:3, Jud 5:7

[twice], 6:17, 7:12, 8:26, 2 Kings 2:11) and do not provide the needed ground

to conclude that it is a traceable late feature. It has probably been attributed

to the poetic choice of the writer than of diachrony. The appearance of e

in earlier passages is suggestive that it is not a distinctively late element.42

The increasing use of e in Qoheleth and in Song of Song (30 times) might

be due to its poetical, conversational-type, swift presentation model. Hence,

it has limited significance in Qoheleth as a chronological marker. Recently,

sf end, ibbah praise, tqf overpower, malxt kingdom, and ill

if/though); one word appears only in Proverbs, Song of Songs and in

Ecclesiastes (Solomonic Corpus) q street; and two words might

indicate northern influence (zand rct).30

In Chapter V, he engages the grammar of Ecclesiastes as a criterion

for dating. Two features, he studies here are orthography and verbs. He

analyzes the orthography of hy, h briefly and spends considerable

amount of discussion on the verbs of Qoheleth: the perfective aspect,

imperfective aspect, the infinitive, the participle, waw consecutive, final-

h and final l f verbs. He makes important observations concerning the

absence of vowel letters which he supposes as the indication of early date

or Phoenician influence. As far orthography, he says, the orthography of

Ecclesiastes certainly does not accord with the spelling of MH, whose

orthography was much more plain than that of BH.31His conclusion on

the morpho-syntactic study of the verb categorizes Ecclesiastes firmly

within SBH. He also observes the lack of clear grammatical direction in

Qoheleth.32

He concedes that the tabulation of grammatical forms is ambiguous

and does not attest to any particular direction. However, he goes on to

argue that this indecisiveness is, in fact, the answer. He states,

Yet this inconclusiveness of the findings is an answer to scholars whohave assumed that the language of Ecclesiastes proves the book late.Examination of the vocabulary of Ecclesiastes yielded only six truly lateitems. This small number, a in a book of twelve chapters, does notconstitute a histabbrt nikkeret considerable clustering of late elements(Hurvitz, 1966:28f).33

Taylor also interpreted the two Persian words in Qoheleth in a different

light and did not categorize them as chronologically significant: nor would

Aramaic and Persian words in themselves prove a Post-Solomonic date,

for Solomon was a cosmopolitan king, who conducted trade andintercourse with Phoenicia and other countries (1 Kings 4:21/5:1; 4:24/

5:4; 4:34/5:14; 5:1/15; 7:13; 9:11ff; 10:1-11, 15, 22). 34

In his summary, Taylor evidently states that there is no considerable

clustering of clearly late items in Ecclesiastes, the book is not proved late.

Yet insufficient evidence was found to prove early authorship either.35

So, here we see the case that the application of the methodology of Hurvitz

on Qoheleth has led to the conclusion that it cannot be dated late based

on its language. The question resoundingly emerges here, What could be

the reason behind such indecisiveness in the application of a methodology


6/12


evoke the need for sharpening these methodologies or structuring newer

paradigms. I will proceed to briefly list six criticisms on the methodology

of Hurvitz and its application to the language of Qoheleth.

Firstly, the central assumption of Hurvitz that the pre-exilic Hebrew

(SBH) did not exist beyond exile and was replaced by LBH in the post-

exilic era has come under serious scrutiny in the recent scholarship. Dong

Hyuk Kim, in a recent dissertation from Yale, points out that it is no longer

possible to hold such an uncanny view and further states that, Hurvitz

has consistently argued that it is the exilic period that decisively separates

LBH from EBH in form and in chronology... However, our empirical

analysis suggests that we can no longer hold on to such an understanding

of the exilic period.49There is much more continuity in the language in

general than often thought or portrayed by the proponents of diachronic

method. Kim categorizes Qoheleth along with books with disputed or

undecided dates, and concurs with Young that it is difficult to date it in

late post-exilic date only based on linguistic evidence.50

Second, Hurvitz-Polzins studies were all conducted in the narrative

prose of Chronicles, Former prophets, Esther, Ezra-Nehemiah, Ezekiel,

among others. There was no complete treatment of the language of

Qoheleth, nor did any other poetical books receive comprehensive

treatment based on Hurvitz-Polzin paradigm.51 Ironically, as Qoheleth

reflects some of the supposed late features both on grammatical as well

as lexicographical levels, it has been taken for granted that Qoheleth should

be counted along with LBH books. In fact, it is worth noting that Qoheleth

is the only book which has a semi prosaic-poetical language in comparison

to the other books that are currently marked as LBH corpus. It seems like

such distinctions have not received due attention.

Third, another important factor to consider is the nature of the book

of Qoheleth. It is the only philosophical work of this kind in the HebrewBible. While Chronicles had a definite referral point in the books of Samuel-

Kings, Qoheleth has been repeatedly referred to the post-Biblical book

like Ben Sira.52Qoheleth is a unique philosophical-wisdom composition

within the Biblical corpus. The Hurvitz-Polzin paradigm that works based

on the earlier-later comparison of linguistic features did not satisfactorily

explain the peculiarities of the language of Qoheleth, as it has no early

point of reference to contrast with.

Fourth, a serious criticism of the methodology of Hurvitz has to do

with its somewhat fixated emphasis upon the chronological conclusion

Hurvitz conceded that the occurrences of the relative pronoun in Qoheleth

are not strictly of diachronic consequence.43

Here is an example of attestation by external sources. The phrase kl

ser hps sh (he does whatever he pleases) in Qoh 8:3 is used by

Hurvitz as a pointer of Qoheleths later date of composition. Hurvitz cites

five references (Ps 115:3, 135:6, Jonah 1:14, Isa 46:10 and Eccl 8:3) and

observes that it was used only in conjunction with God or an earthly king

and argues that it belongs to the domain of jurisprudence.44According

to him, the expression he does whatever is good in his sight is the

standard idiom before 500 BCE, whereas he does everything he desires

is the expression of choice after 500 BCE.45He contrasts Qoh 8:3 with an

Aramaic inscription, Sefire Steles from the 8thCentury BCE, to arrive at

this conclusion. Here, Youngs word of caution on the epigraphic materials

has much wisdom, however, one should hesitate to draw far reaching

conclusions on the basis of such meager evidence. 46 The problem of

relating epigraphic materials within the various phases of BH has its own

limitations, as skillfully pointed by Young.

We see an inconclusiveness and uncertainty caused by the

methodology of Hurvitz on several levels. The above brief study has

pointed how the application of the principles of Hurvitzs methodology,

such as linguistic frequency, linguistic accumulation and external sources

can be misleading. Along with these features, a host of other linguistic

features are attributed to the LBH/MH influence in the language of

Qoheleth: predominant use of participles, the presence of the two Persian

words, Aramaic influence, infrequent use of consecutive imperfects, the

wide use of direct object marker, the feminine demonstrative zh, the third

masculine plural pronominal suffix for feminine plural antecedents, and

the negation of infinitive with n (there is no).

A Critique on Hurvitzs Methodology on QohelethAt the outset, one need to be reminded of the fact that though the

methodology of Hurvitz was meticulously composed, its central emphasis

was upon the lexical elements and while applied on books such as Haggai

and Zachariah an apparent post-exilic works, it was found inadequate

to demonstrate their lateness; rather these books, according to the result

of Hurvitzs methodology showed greater resemblance to the language of

pre-exilic era.47Polzins approach based on the levels of congruence-

incongruence, also dated Zachariah to the date of Pgcorpus, not alongside

Chronicles or Ezra or N[2].48Such methodologically inconsistent results


7/12


amidst perturbing tensions in a tongue of the general populace (12:9), 61

the presence of dialects, and more specifically, how the dialectal presence

shaped the language of the entire discourse is yet to be explored at length.

And such legitimate questions fall beyond the methodological delineations

of Hurvitz, an intrinsic weakness of his methodology requiring serious

reworking.

These criticisms recognize the important methodological flaws within

the diachronic model of linguistic dating and account for the indecisive

results it produced when applied to Qoheleth. Employing this model to

evaluate the language of Qoheleth in itself should be deemed, at best,

insufficient, and should call for the serious revision of the existing model

or the formation of alternative linguistic methodologies in the near future.

Conclusion

It has to be pointed out that Avi Hurvitz constructed his diachronic

methodology to date Biblical texts mainly through the study of prose-

narrative works. And his research was conducted using the techniques of

linguistic contrast between the early-late literatures of pre-exilic

(Deuteronomic History) and post-exilic works (Chroniclers History),primarily on the lexical level. Systematic application of Hurvitz

methodology on the study of Qoheleth by Taylor was unable to

convincingly establish the late date for Qoheleth. The reason that emerged

from the current study is that Qoheleths language, being distinctive from

a prose narrative work and without any early point of reference to its

genre, presents challenges to the Hurvitzs diachronic model and reveals

its inadequacy to date Qoheleth with certainty.

On the other hand, the non-chronological model proposed by Young

and others, reading Qoheleth with its inherent monarchic background,

recognizes the presence of colloquialism, influence of genre, and assigns

a date in the late monarchy. The approach of Youngs synchronicmethodology was extremely critical of the prevalent method to the point,

casting a whiff of doubt upon the entire enterprise of diachronic linguistic

dating. It has to be deemed that such is the overstatement of the scenario.

I would like to concur with John Cook that tracing the diachronic linguistic

change is an objective phenomenon and linguistics offers usable models

and methods for discerning diachronic differences in the language of the

Biblical text.62Yet, my contention is that applying the diachronic model

of Hurvitz without adjusting its parameters towards unique works like

Qoheleth tends to produce indecisive results, as it does not take into

for linguistic variations in the text. This approach, ipso facto, denies the

plausibility that a Biblical author could have employed a peculiar style of

language for a specific reason. It tends to confine the text strictly within

the world of a chronological stratum. This issue has been ably raised by

Young and Rezetko, Is chronology the only or best explanation for

linguistic variety in Biblical texts? To what degree do other (strictly

speaking) non-chronological factors, such as dialect and diglossia, account

for the different linguistic profiles of Biblical texts?53

There should bespace for allowing such flexibility, which is not plausible within the current

paradigm of Hurvitz. Ironically, the assumed objectivity of this

methodology turns out to be its inevitable Achilles heel as well. 54

Fifth, from the perspective of the diachronic Hebrew model, it is being

widely believed that the extra-Biblical inscriptions and epigraphical

materials from various periods from the history of Hebrew languages serve

as external controls to date the Biblical books into various periods.55Such

delineations not only underlie the earlier works but are also found as part

of Hurvitzs methodology itself.56The assumption that epigraphic Hebrew

corresponds to the Biblical Hebrew of various periods was challenged

recently.57Young holds that the inscriptions show a more diverse linguisticstratum than BH in general. More important is his observation on the

scarcity of inscriptions, Inscriptional Hebrew is best seen as an

independent corpus within ancient Hebrew There is a large gap in our

external sources for Hebrew between the last inscriptions dated to the

early sixth century BCE, and the first Dead Sea Scrolls in the third century

BCE.58If such a view is accepted, then utilizing the external epigraphic

materials as controls become a daunting premise to affirm the dates of the

Biblical texts as early or late. It directly deprives the Hurvitzs methodology

of its significant pillar, something on which Hurvitz repeatedly relied upon.

Finally, an often insufficiently treated element in the diachronic study

of language of Qoheleth is the influence of northern dialects. 59 Suchpresence of dialects within pre-monarchial Palestine is found in Judges

12 (Shibboleth story).60How does the methodology of Hurvitz tackle

the issue of dialectical influence? The comparison of pre-exilic and post-

exilic books is often helpful in tracing the linguistic changes in lexical levels,

yet it does not make concessions to consider the influences that cause such

changes in its methodology. In fact, the structure of written language, in

general, is more polished compared to conversational language. In a

philosophical work like Qoheleth where he conversantly discusses the

issues on the intricacies of life, laborious quest for its elusive meaning


8/12


Seow, C. L. Ecclesiastes. Anchor Bible Commentary. New York: Double Day,1997.

Tylor, Louis Ray. The Language of Ecclesiastes as a Criterion for Dating . AnnArbor, MI: UMI, 1988.

Young, Ian. Diversity in Pre-exilic Hebrew. Tbingen: JCB Mohr, 1993.

Young, Ian (ed.). Biblical Hebrew: Studies in Chronology and Typology. New York:T&T Clark International, 2003.

Young, Ian, Robert Rezetko, and Martin Ehrensvrd. Linguistic Dating of BiblicalTexts. 2 Vols. London: Equinox, 2009.

Articles

Adams, William James Jr. and L. La Mar Adams, Language Drift and TheDating of Biblical Passages. Hebrew Studies 18(1977): 160-164.

Burkitt, F.C. Is Ecclesiastes a Translation? JHS 22(1921): 22-23.

Cook, John. Detecting Development in Biblical Hebrew using DiachronicTypology, In Dictionary in Biblical Hebrew. eds. Cynthia Miller-Naudeand Zinoy Zevit (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns): 1-51. Forthcoming.

Dahood, Mitchell. Canaanite Words in Qoheleth 10.20. Biblia 46 (1965): 210-212.

. Canaanite-Phoenician Influence in Qoheleth. Biblia 33(1952):30-52.

. Qoheleth and North West Semitic Philology,Biblia 46(1962):349-365.

. Qoheleth and Recent Discoveries. Biblia 39(1958): 302-318.

. The Language of Qoheleth CBQ 14(1952): 227-232.

. The Phoenician Background of Qoheleth. Biblia 47(1966):264-282.

Davila, James R. Qoheleth and Northern Hebrew. MAARAV 5-6 (Spring1990): 69-87.

Gordis, Robert. The Original Language of Qoheleth. JQR 38(1946-47): 83;

. Was Qoheleth a Phoenician? Some Observations on theMethods of Research JBL 74(1955): 103-114.

Hill, A.E. Dating Second Zachariah: A Linguistic Reexamination, HAR 6(1982): 105-134.

Holmstedt, Robert D. n belibb: The Syntactic Encoding of the CollaborativeNature of Qoheleths Experiment. Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 9:19(2009): 2-27.

. The distribution of er and eC in Qoheleth. SBLWashington D.C(2006): 1-15.

consideration the influence of dialectal presence, for instance, in its

restrictive equation. Synchronic explanations of Young and others, though

promising, would need time to evolve into a full-fledged field of study,

if they are successful in incorporating and working out their arguments

into a systematic methodology.

One of the major challenges for future language studies on Qoheleth

is how to move forward beyond this methodological impasse and labor

towards synthesizing the methodological parameters of the diachronicmodel (Hurvitz) with the synchronic model (Young). Both have to be

interwoven into forming a more complete methodology to analyze a Book

like Qoheleth. Nevertheless, the challenge here is how one defines the

features belonging to genre influence, dialectal influence, scribal additions,

etc. That being said, its time for Biblical linguists to admit the limitations

of the application of Hurvitzs methodology to non-prosaic works in

general and Qoheleth in particular.

Bibliography

Books and Commentaries

D, Gnanaraj. The Language of Qoheleth: An Evaluation of the Recent ScholarlyStudies. New Delhi: ISPCK, 2012.

Fredericks, Daniel C. Qoheleths Language: Re-evaluating Its Nature and Date.Ancient Near Eastern Texts and Studies 3. Lewiston, N.Y.: EdwinMellen, 1988.

Fredericks, Daniel C and Daniel J. Estes. Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs.ApollosOT Commentary 16. Nottingham, England: Apollos, 2010.

Ginsburg, H.L. Koheleth. Tel Aviv: M. Newman, 1961.

Hurvitz, Avi.A Linguistic Study of the Relationship of the Priestly source and theBook of Ezekiel. Cahiers de la Revue Biblique. Paris: Gabalda, 1982.

Isaksson, Bo. Studies in the Language of Qoheleth: With Special Emphasis on the

Verbal System. Th.D diss., Uppsala University, 1987.

Perdue, Leo G. The Sword and The Stylus: An Introduction to Wisdom in the Ageof Empires. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008.

. Wisdom Literature: A Theological History. Louisville:Westminster John Knox Press, 2007.

Polzin, Robert. Late Biblical Hebrew: Toward an Historical Typology of BiblicalHebrew Prose . Missoula: Scholars, 1976.

Schoors, Antoon. The Preacher Sought to Find Pleasing Words: A Study of theLanguage of Qoheleth Part I and II. Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters, 1992 and2004.


9/12


Zimmermann, F. The Aramaic Provenance of Qohelet, JQR 36 (1945-46):17-45.

. The Inner World of Qoheleth. New York: Ktav Publishers, 1973.

Endnotes1 Avi Hurvitz is a Casper Levias Professor Emeritus of Ancient Semitic

Languages at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem (HUJ) where he was aprofessor since 1967. He widely contributed on the historical development of

the Hebrew Language and its relationship with other Semitic languages duringthe biblical and post-biblical periods. Further information on Hurvitz can befound in the HUJ website: http://www.huji.ac.il/dataj/controller/ihoker/MOP-STAFF_LINK?sno=299674&Save_t (Accessed on Oct 7, 2012).

2 Young respectfully acknowledges, In recent decades, the contribution ofAvi Hurvitz to this field has outweighed all his contemporaries. In numerousbooks and articles, he has advanced and, indeed, shaped the current discourseon the topic of diachronic variation in BH. Ian Young (ed.), Biblical Hebrew:Studies in Chronology and Typology (New York: T&T Clark International, 2003),1.

3 Mark F. Rooker, Diachronic Analysis and the Features of Late BiblicalHebrew, Bulletin for Biblical Research 4 (1994), 136.

4Hurvitz methodology appeared in two important articles in 1968 and 1973

in English. See, Avi Hurvitz, The Chronological Significance of Aramaisms inBiblical Hebrew, Israel Exploration Journal 18:4 (1968): 234-240; LinguisticCriteria for Dating Problematic Biblical Texts, Hebrew Abstracts 14 (1973): 74-79.

5 Hurvitz: Linguistic Criteria, 75.6 For a summary of the recent debates on the language of Qoheleth, see:

Gnanaraj D, The Language of Qoheleth: An Evaluation of the Recent Scholarly Studies(New Delhi: ISPCK, 2012). Forthcoming . Mark Boda, Tremper Longman III andCristian Rata, Fresh Perspectives on Qohelet (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns).

7 F. C. Burkitt, Is Ecclesiastes a Translation? JHS 22 (1921), 22-23. F.Zimmermann, The Aramaic Provenance of Qohelet, JQR 36 (1945-46): 17-45.F. Zimmermann, The Inner World of Qoheleth(New York: Ktav Publishers, 1973),128-131. C.C. Torrey, The Question of Original Language of Qoheleth,JQR 39(1948-49), 152. H.L. Ginsburg, Koheleth (Tel Aviv: M. Newman, 1961).

8 Mitchell Dahood, Canaanite-Phoenician Influence in Qoheleth, Biblia 33(1952), 30-52; The Language of Qoheleth CBQ 14 (1952), 227-232; Qohelethand Recent Discoveries, Biblia 39 (1958), 302-318; Qoheleth and North WestSemitic Philology, Biblia 46 (1962), 349-365; Canaanite Words in Qoheleth10.20, Biblia 46 (1965), 210-212; The Phoenician Background of Qoheleth,Biblia 47 (1966), 264-282

9Robert Gordis, The Original Language of Qoheleth, JQR 38 (1946-47), 83;Robert Gordis, Was Qoheleth a Phoenician? Some Observations on the Methodsof Research JBL 74(1955): 103-114.

Hurvitz, Avi. Linguistic Criteria for Dating Problematic Biblical Texts,Hebrew Abstracts 14 (1973): 74-79.

. The Chronological Significance of Aramaisms in BiblicalHebrew, Israel Exploration Journal 18:4 (1968): 234-240.

. The Historical Quest for Ancient Israel and the LinguisticEvidence of the Hebrew Bible: Some Methodological Observations.VT 47/3(1997): 301-315.

. The History of a Legal Formula: kl ser hps sh VT 32(1982): 257-267.

. The Recent Debate on Late Biblical Hebrew: Solid Data,Experts Opinions and Inconclusive Arguments. Hebrew Studies 47(2006): 191-210.

Hurvitz, Avi. The Language of Qoheleth and Its Historical Setting withinBiblical Hebrew. in Berlejung A. and P. van Hecke (eds.,). The Languageof Qohelet in Its Context: Essays in Honour of Prof. A. Schoors on the Occasionof His Seventieth Birthday(Leuven: Peeters, 2007): 23-34.

Joosten, Jan. The Syntax of Volitive Verbal Forms in Qoheleth in HistoricalPerspective, in The Language of Qoheleth in context(Leuven: Peeters,2007): 47 - 61.

Kim, Dong Hyuk. Early Biblical Hebrew, Late Biblical Hebrew and LinguisticVariability: A Sociolinguistic Evaluation of the Linguistic Dating of BiblicalTexts. Yale University Dissertation, 2011.To be published by Brill inNov 2012.

Rooker, Mark F. Diachronic Analysis and the Features of Late BiblicalHebrew, Bulletin for Biblical Research 4(1994): 135-144.

Schoors, Antoon. The Pronouns in Qoheleth.Hebrew Studies 30 (1989):

Seow, C.L. Linguistic Evidence and the Dating of Qoheleth, JBL115/4(Winter, 1996): 643-666.

Torrey, C.C. The Question of Original Language of Qoheleth.JQR 39(1948-49): 151-160.

Young, Ian. Evidence of Diversity in Pre-exilic Judahite Hebrew. HS 38(1997): 7-20.

. Late Biblical Hebrew and Hebrew Inscriptions in BiblicalHebrew, 276-311.

. The Style of the Gazer Calendar and Some Archaic BiblicalHebrew Passages. VT XLII, 3 (1992): 362-375.

. Diversity in Pre-Exilic Hebrew. Tubingen: Coronet Books Inc,1993.

Zevit, Ziony. What a Difference a Year Makes: can biblical texts be datedlinguistically?Hebrew Studies 47(2006): 83-91.


10/12


Hebrew and Aramaic in the Biblical Period: The Problem of Aramaisms inLinguistic Research of the Hebrew Bible, in Young, Biblical Hebrew, 34-37.

17 Avi Hurvitz, The Recent Debate on Late Biblical Hebrew: Solid Data,Experts Opinions and Inconclusive Arguments,Hebrew Studies47 (2006), 191.

18 Avi Hurvitz, Evidence of Language in Dating the Priestly Code: ALinguistic Study in Technical Idioms and Terminology. Revue Biblique 81 /1(1974), 26.

19Avi Hurvitz, A Linguistic Study of the Relationship of the Priestly source and

the Book of Ezekiel, Cahiers de la Revue Biblique (Paris: Gabalda, 1982), 113.20 Zevit observes about the emphasis of Hurvitz, he settled primarily on a

contrastive analysis of lexical items and some syntax Zevit: What a difference,85.

21 Quoting the words of Zevit here: complementing Hurvitzs earlylexicographical work, was a single, ambitious study by Robert Polzin. Hegives the example for a situation where the combination of Hurvitz-Polzinparadigm was applied and tested. Zevit: What a Difference, 86-87. R. Polzin,Late Biblical Hebrew: Toward an Historical Typology of Biblical Hebrew Prose(Missoula: Scholars, 1976).

22 It is said that Polzins monograph went on to become the most widelycited publication on Late Biblical Hebrew in general. Young and Rezetko,Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts, 25.

23 Polzin remarked, it appears to me that grammatical/syntactical featuresare more efficient chronological indicators than are lexical features.. Polzin,Late Biblical Hebrew, 15f, 123f.

24 Generally, N2 identified with Nehemiah 7.6 12.26. N1 is identified withNehemiah 1.1-7.5; 12.27-13:31.

25 Zevit uses this phrase in his presentation at NAPH session (NationalAssociation of Professors of Hebrew) that met during 2005 SBL meeting and ayear later the same was published in Hebrew Stud ies. This describes the currenttrend in biblical studies well. See, Ziony Zevit, What a Difference a YearMakes: can biblical texts be dated linguistically? HS 47 (2006), 89.

26 Tylors doctoral dissertation, supervised by Prof. Aaron Bar-Adon, wassubmitted to the University of Texas in 1988. Unpublished dissertation: Louis Ray

Tylor, The Language of Ecclesiastes as a Criterion for Dating (Ann Arbor, MI: UMI,1988).

27 Isakksons dissertation, submitted at the University of Uppsala andpublished in 1987, focused on the Verbal system of Qoheleth and concludedthat the verbal system of Qoheleth remains within Biblical Hebrew than closerto Mishnaic Hebrew. Daniel C. Fredericks, in an independent monographpublished in 1988, vigorously criticized the consensus of majority to the languageof Qoheleth and decisively dated it in Pre-exilic period. Bo Isaksson, Studies inthe Language of Qoheleth: With Special Emphasis on the Verbal System . Th.D diss.,at Uppsala University, 1987; Daniel C. Fredericks, Qoheleths Language: Re-evaluating Its Nature and Date. Ancient Near Eastern Texts and Studies 3.

10 Leo G. Perdue, Wisdom Literature: A Theological History (Louisville:Westminster John Knox Press, 2007), 177-179. Norbert Lohfink, Qoheleth , AContinental Commentary (trans. Sean McEvenue; Minnepolis: Fortress Press,2003). Its a translation of a German original published in 1980. ThoughQoheleths dating is still a contentious issue, mainstream scholars assumeHellenistic philosophical traces in Qoheleth. Fredericks observes this trend andstates it is primarily a presupposition of a Greek philosophical influence onEcclesiastes that has caused some to identify native Hebrew words and phrasesto Graecisms. Daniel C. Fredericks and Daniel J. Estes, Ecclesiastes and Song ofSongs, Appollos OT Commentary 16 (Nottingham, England: Apollos, 2010), 61.Norbert Lohfink, Qoheleth, A Continental Commentary (trans. Sean McEvenue;Minnepolis: Fortress Press, 2003). Its a translation of a German originalpublished in 1980. Concerning Graecisms in Qoheleth, Schoors is ratherambiguous. He says, I am less sure about lexical Graecisms. There are nocompelling arguments to accept an important Greek influence on Qohsvocabulary. However, the few acceptable parallels may strengthen the force ofGreek parallels in the domain of contents and thus be favourable to a date inthe Hellenistic period. Antoon Schoors, The Preacher Sought to Find PleasingWords, Part II: Vocabulary (Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters, 2004), 501.

11Bo Isaksson, Studies in the Language of Qoheleth: With Special Emphasis on theVerbal System. Th.D diss., at Uppsala University, 1987; Daniel C. Fredericks,Qoheleths Language: Re-evaluating Its Nature and Date. Ancient Near Eastern

Texts and Studies 3. (Lewiston, N.Y.: Edwin Mellen, 1988); Antoon Schoors, ThePreacher Sought to Find Pleasing Words: A Study of the Language of Qoheleth PartI and II (Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters, 1992 and 2004); C. L. Seow, Ecclesiastes .Anchor Bible (New York: Double Day, 1997); Linguistic Evidence and theDating of Qoheleth, JBL115/4 (Winter, 1996): 643-666. Ian Young, Diversity inPre-Exilic Hebrew (Tubingen: Coronet Books Inc, 1993); Ian Young, RobertRezetko, and Martin Ehrensvrd, Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts. 2 Vols.(London: Equinox, 2009).

12 In his recent article in the Festschrift of Schoors, he affirms the finger-prints of LBH in Qoheleth. See, Avi Hurvitz, The Language of Qoheleth andIts Historical Setting within Biblical Hebrew, in Berlejung A. and P. van Hecke(eds.,), The Language of Qohelet in Its Context: Essays in Honour of Prof. A. Schoorson the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday (Leuven: Peeters, 2007): 23-34.

13 Hurvitz: Linguistic Criteria, 74.14Rooker quotes from Blount and Sanches who argue that external factors

such as invasions, conquests, contact, migrations, institutional changes,restructuring and social movements produce language change. Rooker:Diachronic Analysis, 143. See also, Ben G. Blount and Mary Sanches, Socio-cultrual Dimensions of Language Change (New York: Academic Press, 1977), 4.

15Hurvitz: Linguistic Criteria, 76-77.16 Hurvitz is against the simplistic conclusion that the very presence of

Aramaisms point to the later date for any Biblical literature. Hurvitz, TheChronological Significance of Aramaisms in Biblical Hebrew, 234 240;


11/12


Evaluation of the Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts, (Yale, 2011), 270-271. Thisdissertation is slated for publication by Brill in November 2012.

50 Kim, Dating of Biblical Texts, 139.51Hurvitz had responded to Youngs non-chronological proposal in his recent

article on Qoheleths language. Its a limited lexical study, not a comprehensivestudy on Qoheleths language. See, Avi Hurvitz, The Language of Qohelethand Its Historical Setting within Biblical Hebrew, in The Language of Qohelethin context (Leuven: Peeters, 2007): 23-34. Also see, J. Joosten, The Syntax of

Volitive Verbal Forms in Qoheleth in Historical Perspective, in The Languageof Qoheleth in context (Leuven: Peeters, 2007): 47-61.

52 See, Fredericks, Qoheleths Language, 111-117.53 Young and Rezetko, Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts, 3.54 Philip R. Davies argues that Hurvitzs methodology provides a nave

explanation of a complicated problem. He is radical in his criticism of Hurvitzsmethodology, because in its pseudo-scientific arrogance, it attempts to dismissother views as inadmissible. Philip R. Davies, Biblical Hebrew and the Historyof Ancient Judah: Typology, Chronology and Common Sense, in Young, BiblicalHebrew, 163.

55 William James Adams, Jr., L. La Mar Adams state that since the datingof the parts of the Old Testament is much debated, it was decided to analyze allavailable Hebrew inscriptions which date to Old Testament times as control text .

[Emphasis added]. Their idea that Hebrew was replaced by Aramaic as avernacular during the post-exilic period is now abandoned. Currently, Hebrewwas believed to have been spoken well into the first C.E. They were so confidentthat the inscriptions point to the certain chronological periods in the historyHebrew language: a) Early date level (900-700 BC) Mesha Stone, SiloamInscription, Samaritan Calendar; b) Middle date level (700-586 BC) LachishLetters, Arad Ostraca, etc; c) Late date level (586-458 BC) no inscriptions; d)verylate level (458-100 BC) Manual of Discipline and DSS. William James Adams, Jr.,L. La Mar Adams, Language Drift and The Dating of Biblical Passages, HS 18(1977), 160-164. Such optimism is no more plausible in current scholarship, especiallywith regards to the epigraphic materials.

56 Hurvitz argued, [Non-biblical] sources provide us with the externalcontrol required in any attempt to detect and identify diachronic developments

within BH.... by and large, there is a far-reaching linguistic uniformity underlyingboth the pre-exilic inscriptions and the literary bibli cal texts written in ClassicalBH. Avi Hurvitz, The Historical Quest for Ancient Israel and the LinguisticEvidence of the Hebrew Bible: Some Methodological Observations, VT 47/3(1997), 307-308. This similar idea is also found in his methodology, point 3.Rooker, following Hurvitz asserted that the observations from linguistic contrastand linguistic distribution] may be reinforced when extra-biblical parallels fromthe Dead Sea Scrolls or rabbinic materials are considered. Rooker: DiachronicAnalysis, 137.

57For the comprehensive treatment of extra-biblical inscriptions, see Young,Diversity, 97-121. I. Young, The Style of the Gazer Calendar and Some ArchaicBiblical Hebrew Passages, VT XLII, 3 (1992): 362 375. I. Young, Late Biblical

(Lewiston, N.Y.: Edwin Mellen, 1988). It is particularly of interest due to theindependent nature of their research and relatively similar conclusions.

28 Tylor, Language of Ecclesiastes, 14-15.29 Tylor, Language of Ecclesiastes, 39-275.30 Tylor, Language of Ecclesiastes, 299.31 Taylor, Language of Ecclesiastes, 280.32 His views are sympathetic to that of Dahood and Archer in this regard

allowing the possibility of a Phoenicianizing tendency in the morpho-syntacticalfeatures of Ecclesiastes. Taylor, Language of Ecclesiastes, 294-295.

33 Tylor, Language of Ecclesiastes, 300.34 Tylor, Language of Ecclesiastes, 300.35 Tylor, Language of Ecclesiastes, vii.36Antoon Schoors, The Pronouns in Qoheleth,Hebrew Studies 30 (1989), 71.

Rooker also lists the use of n and nok as one of the commonly proposedLBH features. Rooker: Diachronic Analysis, 144.

37 Schoors: The Pronouns in Qoheleth, 72.38 See, Robert D. Holmstedt, n belibb: The Syntactic Encoding of the

Collaborative Nature of Qoheleths Experiment, Journal of Hebrew Scrip tures 9/19(2009): 2-27; the distribution of er and eC in Qoheleth, SBL WashingtonD.C, (2006): 1-15.

39 Holmstedt: Syntactic Encoding, 20.40Isaksson observes that in Qoheleth a kind of equilibrium is at hand: er

57%, e against 43%... e is used more often in chapters 1 and 2. From ch.3 onit is used more sparingly. er shows the highest frequency in ch. 7-9. Itsfrequency is relatively high also 1 Ch. 3-5. Isaksson, Studies, 149.

41 Schoors, Pleasing Words, Vol 1, 56.42There are suggestions that e belong to either northern origin or a vernacular

element. However it also appeared in non-Northern texts as Gen 6:3.43 Hurvits: The Language of Qoheleth: 31-3244Avi Hurvitz, The History of a Legal Formula: kl ser hps sh VT 32

(1982): 257-67.45

Hurvitz: History of Legal Formula, 267. Hurvitz believes that thecomparative study of this Hebrew phrase with Aramaic helped him to pinpointits lateness to Persian period. However, its predominant appearance with Godmight imply a religious language borrowed into court procedures later.

46 Young: Late biblical Hebrew and Hebrew Inscriptions, 310-311.47 Zevit: What a Difference, 86.48 See, A.E. Hill, Dating Second Zachariah: A Linguistic Reexamination,

HAR 6 (1982): 105 -134.49 Kim sees the necessity to revise the traditional understanding of the

divide of BH, or the watershed moment in the history of BH. Dong Hyuk Kim,Early Biblical Hebrew, Late Biblical Hebrew and Linguistic Variability: A Sociolinguistic


12/12


BBBBBETHELETHELETHELETHELETHELKKKKKRUPARUPARUPARUPARUPAVVVVVICTORICTORICTORICTORICTOR

Witnessing Christ Today inLocal Congregation:Feminist Perspective

Introduction

In simple terms local congregation is a body of Christian believers,

consisting of members of all categories and age groups. The local

congregation plays a prominent role in promoting kingdom values

towards the transformation of the society. It is a widely accepted fact that

the local congregation is sustained by women and womens work is the

backbone to this body of Christ. Women take active part in all the activities

of the church. However, their work and efforts, and talents are not

recognized or utilized fully. In general, womens services to the church

are considered as an extension of the housewifes role of women, and

thus these tasks are taken for granted and unrecognized. In history, we

read of women who were engaged in a wide spectrum of ministries andmuch of the ministry of the women was in mission a gift of love, given

in a voluntary capacity. However, the Bible shows clearly that witnessing

to Christ is a spiritual responsibility of women in the local congregation.

The Christian gospel would not have been proclaimed if the women

disciples kept silent. It has reached the ends of the earth because they

took up the responsibility of sharing the love of God through Jesus Christ

and witnessed it. At the local congregational levels, culture, tradition,

language, customs, practices and beliefs are the basic elements through

which they can actively participate in Gods Mission. Witnessing to Christ

Hebrew and Hebrew Inscriptions in Biblical Hebrew, 276-311. I. Young,Evidence of Diversity in Pre-exilic Judahite Hebrew, HS 38 (1997), 8. Youngmakes this perceptive observation, we should not, of course, dogmaticallyassert that the inscriptions give us the full range of possible early Hebrews.Nevertheless, the best reading of the evidence at hand would place the Bible inits current form no earlier than the Persian period However, one shouldhesitate to draw far reaching conclusions on the basis of such meager evidence.Young: Late biblical Hebrew and Hebrew Inscriptions, 310-311.

58

Young: Biblical Texts, 344.59 See, James R. Davila, Qoheleth and Northern Hebrew, MAARAV 5-6(Spring 1990):69-87. Davila is positive that the dialect of Qoheleth wasinfluenced by northern Hebrew; however, he hopes that further discoverieswill give us more information in this regard. Davila: Qoheleth and Hebrew,87.

60 Tylor cautions to treat the subject of dialectal influence and the presenceof northern Aramaisms carefully since the identified northern forms are few.Tylor, Language of Ecclesiastes, 4

61 Seow: Linguistic Evidence, 666.62Forthcoming. John Cook, Detecting Development in Biblical Hebrew using

Diachronic Typology, In Dictionary in Biblical Hebrew, ed., Cynthia Miller-Naudeand Zinoy Zevit (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns), 2. http://

ancienthebrewgrammar.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/cook-diachtypo-finaldraft.pdf(Accessed on Oct 10, 2012).

A Critique on the Methodology of Avi Hurvitz

Documents

Transcript of A Critique on the Methodology of Avi Hurvitz