THE YOBEL SPRING

Festschrift to

REV. DR. CHILKURI VASANTHA RAO

on his 50th Birthday

Edited by
Praveen S. Perumalla,
Royce M. Victor
&
Naveen Rao

2013

554

The Yobel Spring

The Yobel Spring

555

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 needs
decentring. 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.
Endnotes
1

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 -4

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.
7 Anthony C. Thiselton, The Two Horizons (Carlisle: The Paternoster Press, 1980),
xix.
3

8 Felix Wilfred, Asian Public Theology.Critical Concerns in Challenging Times

(Delhi: ISPCK, 2010), 213.
9 David Tracy, Plurality And Ambiguity. Hermeneutics, Religion, Hope (London:
SCM Press, 1987), 50.
10

Tracy, Plurality And Ambiguity, 72. See also p.79

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 dies
every 30 minutes.
11

GNANARAJ D.

A Critique on the Linguistic

Methodology of avi hurvitz and its
Application to the Dating of Qoheleth

Introduction
iblical 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.4 Needless to say, his methodology has shaped
the landscape of Biblical linguistics and wielded an unrivaled influence
since 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

556

The Yobel Spring

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.6 The 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 CananitePhoenician influence upon its language,8 Gordis claimed the influence of
Mishnaic Hebrew upon its language9 and Lohfink and Leo Perdue claimed
the influence of Greek over Qoheleth.10 There is lack of consensus among
these scholars concerning the date of Qoheleth.11 Mainstream 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 have
been used for establishing the date of chronologically problematic texts
are very often subjective. Linguistic studies likewise did not produce
satisfactory results, since they were not usually based upon
methodologically 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,

The Yobel Spring

557

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).14 Without such assumption at the core, Hurvitzs methodology
would 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 postexilic 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 criticism
in 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

558

The Yobel Spring

(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 6th century BCE.18 And the book of Ezekiel is identified with the
transitional kind of Hebrew that stands between SBH to LBH.19 Hence,
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 study
focuses 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 ambitious21 study 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.22 He 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 with
LBH; 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.23 While Hurvitz cites Ezekiel as an example for
transitional Hebrew, Polzin finds the transitional patterns in P. In view of
the language of the inscriptions such as Lachish and Arad Ostraca, Polzin
takes them to be closer to LBH (but Hurvitz places them in late monarchicera, 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

The Yobel Spring

559

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 language
of 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.26 Here, 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 a
considerable clustering of late features are found in Ecclesiastes, the book
will be proved late The alleged sign of lateness in question must not
only be widely current in post-586 Hebrew, but it must also be nonexistent 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 the
current 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.29 He 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, hfe
delight, bal cease) nine found to be possible indications lateness (mae whatever, lmm long duration, knas gather, ytr superiority,

560

The Yobel Spring

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 (z and 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, finalh 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.31 His 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 who
have assumed that the language of Ecclesiastes proves the book late.
Examination of the vocabulary of Ecclesiastes yielded only six truly late
items. This small number, a in a book of twelve chapters, does not
constitute 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 and
intercourse 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

The Yobel Spring

561

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, nok is 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, as
Schoors asserts? Not at all. Qoheleths use of pronouns reflects syntactic
options that are well represented throughout the Biblical corpus of
ancient Hebrew the post-verbal pronoun strategy reflects the authors
rhetorical 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).40 For
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 32
are 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,

562

The Yobel Spring

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.44 According
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.45 He contrasts Qoh 8:3 with an
Aramaic inscription, Sefire Steles from the 8th Century 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 Qoheleth
At 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.47 Polzins approach based on the levels of congruenceincongruence, also dated Zachariah to the date of Pg corpus, not alongside
Chronicles or Ezra or N [2].48 Such methodologically inconsistent results

The Yobel Spring

563

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 postexilic 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.49 There 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 Hebrew
Bible. While Chronicles had a definite referral point in the books of SamuelKings, Qoheleth has been repeatedly referred to the post-Biblical book
like Ben Sira.52 Qoheleth 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

564

The Yobel Spring

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 be
space 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. 55 Such
delineations not only underlie the earlier works but are also found as part
of Hurvitzs methodology itself.56 The assumption that epigraphic Hebrew
corresponds to the Biblical Hebrew of various periods was challenged
recently.57 Young holds that the inscriptions show a more diverse linguistic
stratum 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.58 If 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 Such
presence of dialects within pre-monarchial Palestine is found in Judges
12 (Shibboleth story).60 How does the methodology of Hurvitz tackle
the issue of dialectical influence? The comparison of pre-exilic and postexilic 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

The Yobel Spring

565

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 prosenarrative 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 synchronic
methodology 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.62 Yet, 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

566

The Yobel Spring

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 diachronic
model (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 Scholarly
Studies. 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.: Edwin
Mellen, 1988.

The Yobel Spring

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

1997.
Tylor, Louis Ray. The Language of Ecclesiastes as a Criterion for Dating. Ann
Arbor, 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 Biblical
Texts. 2 Vols. London: Equinox, 2009.

Articles
Adams, William James Jr. and L. La Mar Adams, Language Drift and The
Dating 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 Diachronic
Typology, In Dictionary in Biblical Hebrew. eds. Cynthia Miller-Naude
and Zinoy Zevit (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns): 1-51. Forthcoming.
Dahood, Mitchell. Canaanite Words in Qoheleth 10.20. Biblia 46 (1965): 210212.
. 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.

Fredericks, Daniel C and Daniel J. Estes. Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs. Apollos
OT Commentary 16. Nottingham, England: Apollos, 2010.
Ginsburg, H.L. Koheleth. Tel Aviv: M. Newman, 1961.

567

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

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

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

Davila, James R. Qoheleth and Northern Hebrew. MAARAV 5-6 (Spring

1990): 69-87.

Isaksson, Bo. Studies in the Language of Qoheleth: With Special Emphasis on the
Verbal System. Th.D diss., Uppsala University, 1987.

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

Perdue, Leo G. The Sword and The Stylus: An Introduction to Wisdom in the Age
of Empires. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008.
. Wisdom Literature: A Theological History. Louisville:
Westminster John Knox Press, 2007.

. Was Qoheleth a Phoenician? Some Observations on the

Methods of Research JBL 74 (1955): 103-114.
Hill, A.E. Dating Second Zachariah: A Linguistic Reexamination, HAR 6
(1982): 105-134.

Polzin, Robert. Late Biblical Hebrew: Toward an Historical Typology of Biblical

Hebrew Prose. Missoula: Scholars, 1976.

Holmstedt, Robert D. n belibb: The Syntactic Encoding of the Collaborative

Nature of Qoheleths Experiment. Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 9:19
(2009): 2-27.

Schoors, Antoon. The Preacher Sought to Find Pleasing Words: A Study of the
Language of Qoheleth Part I and II. Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters, 1992 and
2004.

. The distribution of er and eC in Qoheleth. SBL

Washington D.C (2006): 1-15.

568

The Yobel Spring

The Yobel Spring

569

Hurvitz, Avi. Linguistic Criteria for Dating Problematic Biblical Texts,

Hebrew Abstracts 14 (1973): 74-79.

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

17-45.

. The Chronological Significance of Aramaisms in Biblical

Hebrew, Israel Exploration Journal 18:4 (1968): 234-240.

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

. The Historical Quest for Ancient Israel and the Linguistic

Evidence 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 within
Biblical Hebrew. in Berlejung A. and P. van Hecke (eds.,). The Language
of Qohelet in Its Context: Essays in Honour of Prof. A. Schoors on the Occasion
of His Seventieth Birthday (Leuven: Peeters, 2007): 23-34.
Joosten, Jan. The Syntax of Volitive Verbal Forms in Qoheleth in Historical
Perspective, in The Language of Qoheleth in context (Leuven: Peeters,
2007): 47 - 61.
Kim, Dong Hyuk. Early Biblical Hebrew, Late Biblical Hebrew and Linguistic
Variability: A Sociolinguistic Evaluation of the Linguistic Dating of Biblical
Texts. Yale University Dissertation, 2011. To be published by Brill in
Nov 2012.
Rooker, Mark F. Diachronic Analysis and the Features of Late Biblical
Hebrew, 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, JBL 115/4
(Winter, 1996): 643-666.
Torrey, C.C. The Question of Original Language of Qoheleth. JQR 39 (194849): 151-160.
Young, Ian. Evidence of Diversity in Pre-exilic Judahite Hebrew. HS 38
(1997): 7-20.
. Late Biblical Hebrew and Hebrew Inscriptions in Biblical
Hebrew, 276-311.
. The Style of the Gazer Calendar and Some Archaic Biblical
Hebrew 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 dated
linguistically? Hebrew Studies 47 (2006): 83-91.

Endnotes
1

Avi Hurvitz is a Casper Levias Professor Emeritus of Ancient Semitic

Languages at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem (HUJ) where he was a
professor since 1967. He widely contributed on the historical development of
the Hebrew Language and its relationship with other Semitic languages during
the biblical and post-biblical periods. Further information on Hurvitz can be
found in the HUJ website: http://www.huji.ac.il/dataj/controller/ihoker/MOPSTAFF_LINK?sno=299674&Save_t (Accessed on Oct 7, 2012).
2 Young respectfully acknowledges, In recent decades, the contribution of
Avi Hurvitz to this field has outweighed all his contemporaries. In numerous
books and articles, he has advanced and, indeed, shaped the current discourse
on 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 Biblical
Hebrew, Bulletin for Biblical Research 4 (1994), 136.
4 Hurvitz methodology appeared in two important articles in 1968 and 1973
in English. See, Avi Hurvitz, The Chronological Significance of Aramaisms in
Biblical Hebrew, Israel Exploration Journal 18:4 (1968): 234-240; Linguistic
Criteria for Dating Problematic Biblical Texts, Hebrew Abstracts 14 (1973): 7479.
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 and
Cristian 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; Qoheleth
and Recent Discoveries, Biblia 39 (1958), 302-318; Qoheleth and North West
Semitic Philology, Biblia 46 (1962), 349-365; Canaanite Words in Qoheleth
10.20, Biblia 46 (1965), 210-212; The Phoenician Background of Qoheleth,
Biblia 47 (1966), 264-282
9 Robert Gordis, The Original Language of Qoheleth, JQR 38 (1946-47), 83;
Robert Gordis, Was Qoheleth a Phoenician? Some Observations on the Methods
of Research JBL 74 (1955): 103-114.

570

The Yobel Spring

10

Leo G. Perdue, Wisdom Literature: A Theological History (Louisville:

Westminster John Knox Press, 2007), 177-179. Norbert Lohfink, Qoheleth, A
Continental Commentary (trans. Sean McEvenue; Minnepolis: Fortress Press,
2003). Its a translation of a German original published in 1980. Though
Qoheleths dating is still a contentious issue, mainstream scholars assume
Hellenistic philosophical traces in Qoheleth. Fredericks observes this trend and
states it is primarily a presupposition of a Greek philosophical influence on
Ecclesiastes that has caused some to identify native Hebrew words and phrases
to Graecisms. Daniel C. Fredericks and Daniel J. Estes, Ecclesiastes and Song of
Songs, 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 original
published in 1980. Concerning Graecisms in Qoheleth, Schoors is rather
ambiguous. He says, I am less sure about lexical Graecisms. There are no
compelling arguments to accept an important Greek influence on Qohs
vocabulary. However, the few acceptable parallels may strengthen the force of
Greek parallels in the domain of contents and thus be favourable to a date in
the Hellenistic period. Antoon Schoors, The Preacher Sought to Find Pleasing
Words, Part II: Vocabulary (Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters, 2004), 501.
11 Bo Isaksson, Studies in the 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. (Lewiston, N.Y.: Edwin Mellen, 1988); Antoon Schoors, The
Preacher Sought to Find Pleasing Words: A Study of the Language of Qoheleth Part
I and II (Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters, 1992 and 2004); C. L. Seow, Ecclesiastes.
Anchor Bible (New York: Double Day, 1997); Linguistic Evidence and the
Dating of Qoheleth, JBL 115/4 (Winter, 1996): 643-666. Ian Young, Diversity in
Pre-Exilic Hebrew (Tubingen: Coronet Books Inc, 1993); Ian Young, Robert
Rezetko, 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 fingerprints of LBH in Qoheleth. See, Avi Hurvitz, The Language of Qoheleth and
Its 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. Schoors
on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday (Leuven: Peeters, 2007): 23-34.
13

Hurvitz: Linguistic Criteria, 74.

Rooker 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, Sociocultrual Dimensions of Language Change (New York: Academic Press, 1977), 4.
15Hurvitz: Linguistic Criteria, 76-77.
14

16

Hurvitz is against the simplistic conclusion that the very presence of

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

The Yobel Spring

571

Hebrew and Aramaic in the Biblical Period: The Problem of Aramaisms in

Linguistic 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 Studies 47 (2006), 191.
18 Avi Hurvitz, Evidence of Language in Dating the Priestly Code: A
Linguistic Study in Technical Idioms and Terminology. Revue Biblique 81 /1
(1974), 26.
19 Avi 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 early
lexicographical work, was a single, ambitious study by Robert Polzin. He
gives the example for a situation where the combination of Hurvitz-Polzin
paradigm 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 widely

cited 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 features

are more efficient chronological indicators than are lexical features.. Polzin,
Late Biblical Hebrew, 15f, 123f.
24 Generally, N 2 identified with Nehemiah 7.6 12.26. N1 is identified with
Nehemiah 1.1-7.5; 12.27-13:31.
25

Zevit uses this phrase in his presentation at NAPH session (National

Association of Professors of Hebrew) that met during 2005 SBL meeting and a
year later the same was published in Hebrew Studies. This describes the current
trend in biblical studies well. See, Ziony Zevit, What a Difference a Year
Makes: can biblical texts be dated linguistically? HS 47 (2006), 89.
26 Tylors doctoral dissertation, supervised by Prof. Aaron Bar-Adon, was
submitted 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 and
published in 1987, focused on the Verbal system of Qoheleth and concluded
that the verbal system of Qoheleth remains within Biblical Hebrew than closer
to Mishnaic Hebrew. Daniel C. Fredericks, in an independent monograph
published in 1988, vigorously criticized the consensus of majority to the language
of Qoheleth and decisively dated it in Pre-exilic period. Bo Isaksson, Studies in
the Language of Qoheleth: With Special Emphasis on the Verbal System. Th.D diss.,
at Uppsala University, 1987; Daniel C. Fredericks, Qoheleths Language: Reevaluating Its Nature and Date. Ancient Near Eastern Texts and Studies 3.

572

The Yobel Spring

(Lewiston, N.Y.: Edwin Mellen, 1988). It is particularly of interest due to the

independent 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.

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-syntactical
features of Ecclesiastes. Taylor, Language of Ecclesiastes, 294-295.
33 Tylor, Language of Ecclesiastes, 300.
34 Tylor, Language of Ecclesiastes, 300.
31

35

Tylor, Language of Ecclesiastes, vii.

Antoon Schoors, The Pronouns in Qoheleth, Hebrew Studies 30 (1989), 71.
Rooker also lists the use of n and nok as one of the commonly proposed
LBH features. Rooker: Diachronic Analysis, 144.
37 Schoors: The Pronouns in Qoheleth, 72.
38 See, Robert D. Holmstedt, n b elibb: The Syntactic Encoding of the
Collaborative Nature of Qoheleths Experiment, Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 9/
19 (2009): 2-27; the distribution of er and eC in Qoheleth, SBL Washington
D.C, (2006): 1-15.
39 Holmstedt: Syntactic Encoding, 20.
40 Isaksson 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 on
it is used more sparingly. er shows the highest frequency in ch. 7-9. Its
frequency is relatively high also 1 Ch. 3-5. Isaksson, Studies, 149.
41 Schoors, Pleasing Words, Vol 1, 56.
42 There 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: 31-32
44 Avi 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 the
comparative study of this Hebrew phrase with Aramaic helped him to pinpoint
its lateness to Persian period. However, its predominant appearance with God
might 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.
36

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

The Yobel Spring

573

Evaluation of the Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts, (Yale, 2011), 270-271. This
dissertation is slated for publication by Brill in November 2012.
50 Kim, Dating of Biblical Texts, 139.
51 Hurvitz had responded to Youngs non-chronological proposal in his recent
article on Qoheleths language. Its a limited lexical study, not a comprehensive
study on Qoheleths language. See, Avi Hurvitz, The Language of Qoheleth
and Its Historical Setting within Biblical Hebrew, in The Language of Qoheleth
in context (Leuven: Peeters, 2007): 23-34. Also see, J. Joosten, The Syntax of
Volitive Verbal Forms in Qoheleth in Historical Perspective, in The Language
of Qoheleth in context (Leuven: Peeters, 2007): 47-61.
52

See, Fredericks, Qoheleths Language, 111-117.

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 Hurvitzs
methodology, because in its pseudo-scientific arrogance, it attempts to dismiss
other views as inadmissible. Philip R. Davies, Biblical Hebrew and the History
of Ancient Judah: Typology, Chronology and Common Sense, in Young, Biblical
Hebrew, 163.
53

55

William James Adams, Jr., L. La Mar Adams state that since the dating
of the parts of the Old Testament is much debated, it was decided to analyze all
available Hebrew inscriptions which date to Old Testament times as control text.
[Emphasis added]. Their idea that Hebrew was replaced by Aramaic as a
vernacular during the post-exilic period is now abandoned. Currently, Hebrew
was believed to have been spoken well into the first C.E. They were so confident
that the inscriptions point to the certain chronological periods in the history
Hebrew language: a) Early date level (900-700 BC) Mesha Stone, Siloam
Inscription, Samaritan Calendar; b) Middle date level (700-586 BC) Lachish
Letters, Arad Ostraca, etc; c) Late date level (586-458 BC) no inscriptions; d)very
late 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, especially
with regards to the epigraphic materials.
56

Hurvitz argued, [Non-biblical] sources provide us with the external

control required in any attempt to detect and identify diachronic developments
within BH.... by and large, there is a far-reaching linguistic uniformity underlying
both the pre-exilic inscriptions and the literary biblical texts written in Classical
BH. Avi Hurvitz, The Historical Quest for Ancient Israel and the Linguistic
Evidence 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 contrast
and linguistic distribution] may be reinforced when extra-biblical parallels from
the Dead Sea Scrolls or rabbinic materials are considered. Rooker: Diachronic
Analysis, 137.
57 For the comprehensive treatment of extra-biblical inscriptions, see Young,
Diversity, 97-121. I. Young, The Style of the Gazer Calendar and Some Archaic
Biblical Hebrew Passages, VT XLII, 3 (1992): 362 375. I. Young, Late Biblical

574

The Yobel Spring

The Yobel Spring

Hebrew and Hebrew Inscriptions in Biblical Hebrew, 276-311. I. Young,

Evidence of Diversity in Pre-exilic Judahite Hebrew, HS 38 (1997), 8. Young
makes this perceptive observation, we should not, of course, dogmatically
assert 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 in
its current form no earlier than the Persian period However, one should
hesitate 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 was
influenced by northern Hebrew; however, he hopes that further discoveries
will give us more information in this regard. Davila: Qoheleth and Hebrew,
87.
60 Tylor cautions to treat the subject of dialectal influence and the presence
of northern Aramaisms carefully since the identified northern forms are few.
Tylor, Language of Ecclesiastes, 4
61 Seow: Linguistic Evidence, 666.
62 Forthcoming. John Cook, Detecting Development in Biblical Hebrew using
Diachronic Typology, In Dictionary in Biblical Hebrew, ed., Cynthia Miller-Naude
and Zinoy Zevit (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns), 2.
http://
ancienthebrewgrammar.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/cook-diachtypo-finaldraft.pdf
(Accessed on Oct 10, 2012).

575

BETHEL KRUPA VICTOR

Witnessing Christ Today in

Local Congregation:
Feminist Perspective

Introduction
n 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 and
much 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