30
CANAANITE-PHOENICIAN ILUENCE ،N ‫)؛‬OHELETH (*)
I. Recent History of the Problem
Linguistically, the Book 0‫ ؛‬Ecclesiastes, Hebrew Qoheleth, has
always been an enigma. This refractory masterpiece has resisted an
adequate explanation on the part of exegetes, who have produced a
body of literature about this brief book which no man can compass.
Even the precise significance of the title “ Qoheleth ” still eludes
scholars. This is an unusually strange situation because the Hebrew
text is in a relatively good state of preservation, as can be ascertained by a confrontation of the Massoretic text with the versions (،).
The late Professor Margoliouth of Oxford was one of the first to
(*) The following abbreviations in particular should be noted : CIS =
Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum, Pars Prima (Paris, 1881-), references by
inscription number‫ ؛‬Cooke = G. A. Cooke, A Text-Book of NorthSemitic
Inscriptions (Oxford, 1903), references by inscr. no. except where noted
otherwise; Jer. = St. Jerome, Commentarius in Ecclesiasten; K. B. Ken‫ ישיזסבו‬Fetus Testamentum hebraim cum variis lectionibus IpxowW, vnh1y١
Lidz. = M. Lidzbarski, Kanaanaische Inschriften (Heft I of Altsemitische
Texte, Giessen, 1907), reference by inscr. no. ‫ ؛‬Ephem! = Lidzbarski, Ephemeris für Semitische Epigraphik (Giessen, 1902-15); DE R. = R. B. DE Rossi,
Variae Lectioites Feteris Testament!
\.11‫ יץ‬RES = Repertoire
d’Epigraphie Sémitique (Paris, 1900‫)־‬, references by inscr. no. Abbreviations
of certain Phoenician inscriptions such as Kil. = Kilamuwa will be found
on pp. χνιι-χχιιι of ً‫ا‬٠ Friedrich, Phönizisch-Punische Grammatik (Rome,
1951), or in z. Harris, a Grammar of the Phoenician Language (New Haven, 1936), pp. 15772‫־‬. Citations of the Ugaritic texts will follow the numeration given in c. H. Gordon, Ugaritic Handbook (Rome, 1947).
(i) Cf. E. PODECHARD, L*Eccttsiaste (Paris, 1912), p. 200. In order not
to obscure the main line of development, an effort will be made to avoid
repeating wliat can be found in the standard commentaries on Ecclesiastes;
hence the restatement of the various opinions of commentators will be waived
except where a restatement is necessary for the clarification of the point
at issue.
Canaanite-Phoenician Influence in Qoheleth
31
take cognizance of this peculiar condition, and in his article on Ecclesiastes in the Jàsh Encyclopedia he reacted against the views of
those scholars who had been stressing the Aramaic and Mishnaic
Hebrew features of Ecclesiastes, and he tried to show that some of
the idioms were not so much Mishnaic Hebrew as foreign Hebrew
(e. g. 7, 24; 8,17; 12,9). The frequent use of the participial
present (δ, 14), the unintelligibility of several phrases which apparently are not corrupt (4, 17 6-12,4 ;10,15 ‫)ل‬, the want of
sharpness of some of the aphorisms (10, 9), the complete omission
of the Israelite name -for God, and the lack of reference to Jewish
matters were all adduced by Margoliouth as illustrations of the non.
Hebraic characteristics of Ecclesiastes. Furthermore, in essaying to
fix the date of the original composition, he argued that it must have
been written before 250 B. c. because such decided Neo-Hebraisms
as ‫ ‘ עסק‬business ’, ‫ ‘ שמא‬lest ’, and ‫ ‘ הרשה‬authorize ’, are not
found in the Book at all; had they been in vogue at the time of
the author he would have had constant occasion to employ these
words. Instead he used ‫חפץ‬, ‫למה‬, and ‫השליט‬, the second of which
— and this was an excellent observation on the part of Mai'goliouth
- was also found in the Phoenician inscription of Eshmunazar
dating from the fourth century B. c. Unfortunately, Margoliouth
failed to perceive the import of this Phoenician parallelism and he
went on to conclude from the foreign idioms in Ecclesiastes that the
language of the model was probably Indo-Germanic.
This revolutionary suggestion was not taken very seriously by
contemporary Biblical scholars, but it did actuate them to seek out
a new avenue of approach to some of the vexing linguistic problems
in the Book. In 1922 F. c. Burkitt published a brief analysis of
the style of Ecclesiastes in which he concluded that the style was
neither natural nor correct and therefore must be a translation from
Aramaic (٤). Bui'kitt judiciously admitted, however, that he could
not give a demonstration of this but that he proffered liis suggestion
only as a possible solution for some of the difficulties inherent in
the phraseology of Qoheleth. In recent years (since 1945) certain
scholars have set aside this reserve and have earnestly propounded
(‫ )غ‬Journal of Theological Studies 23 (1922) 22-28. It is difficult to see
why it would be more likely that the thoughts of the unconventional sceptic
should be put into form in the language of every day. Qoheleth was a
sophisticated writer who probably wrote for learned circles and hence would
have used the language of the schools.
32
Mitchell ‫ل‬. Dahood, s. ‫ل‬.
the Aramaic provenience of Qoheleth. F. Zimmermann was the
first seriously to pursue Burkitt's suggestion, and he lias been vigorously supported by c. c. Torrey and H. L. Ginsberg, but their
arguments have just as vigorously been opposed by R. Gordis (1).
The results of this controversy have not been negligible, but the
essential philological perplexities remain unsolved (2). It is at this
point that the present writer wishes to enter the controversy and in
the following discussion will attempt to demonstrate this proposition :
The Booh of Ecclesiastes ،was oniginafly composed by an author who
wrote in Hebrew but who employed Phoenician orthography, and
whose composition shows hea‫׳‬uy Canaanite-Phoenician literary in/luence.
Tine term ‘ litei'ary ’ is intended to include the morphological, syntactical, and lexical phases of the author’s style.
Since this Phoenician hypothesis represents a wholly new approac.h to the study of Ecclesiastes, some remarks by way of qualification are in order.
To maintain that there is connsiderable
Canaanite or noi'thern influennce in Qoheleth does not deny the presence of Aramaic coloring inn syntax and vocabulary. It has been
pointed otnt recently that “ it is probable that many of the grannmatical peculiarities encountered in the writinngs from Northern
Palestine are due to the influence of Aramaic in use in that region ” (3). In some respects the dialect of Galilee was more closely
related to the nneighboring Plnoenician than it was to the dialect of
Jerusalenn which is represennted by the Massoretic Hebrew of the
Bible (4). The language of North Israel differed from Judaean
Hebrew especially in vocabulary, showinng a considerable proportion
of words knnown otherwise only, or chiefly, frotn At'annaic. With the
conning of the Aramaeans and theii' conquest Arannaic gradually
replaced Phoenician everywhere except on the coast, and even here
Aramaic linguistic infiltration could not be excluded (‫زق‬. Plutarch’s
observation ‫ ן‬hat Θωρ was the Phoenician pronunciation of the word
(٤) F. Zimmermann, JQR 36 (1945) 1745‫ ;־‬Idem, JQR 40 (1949) 79-102;
C. c. Torrey, JQR 39 (1948) 151-60; H. L. Ginsberg, Studies in Koheleth
(New York, 1950) ; R. Gordis, 84-67 (1946) 37 ‫ ;ﻟﺪ‬Id., 16-103 (1949) 40 ‫ﻳﺪ‬.
(2) See the very impartial review of Ginsberg’s Studies in Koheleth and
Gordis’ Wisdom of Koheleth by H. H. Rowley, 90-87 (1951) 42 #‫ى‬.
(3) Cf. the very careful remarks of R. A. Bowman, JNES 7 (1948) 71.
(4١١ Lelug S.Hahs, a Grammar of the Phoenician Language
Haven, 1936) p. 68 (cited hereafter as Grammar).
(5) Ibid٠, p. 69.
Canaanite-Phoenician Influence in Qoheleth
33
for ‘ ox ’ indicates that the Aramaic pronunciation of this word was
used in Phoenicia in his time ‫ ًا‬the spelling ‫‘ עסר‬ten’ points to
Aramaic influence in spelling, and the adjective ‫ שגית‬is clearly an
Aramaic loan word (1).
The Phoenician hypothesis does not deny that Qoheleth’s style
shows marked similarities to Mishnaic Hebrew, for Phoenician also
shares a number of syntactical and lexical parallelisms with Mishnaic
Hebrew which are not found in Biblical Hebrew. For example,
both use the simple demonstrative pronoun without the article, as
against classical Hebrew practice (2). A few words in Phoenician
which are not found in the Bible do find a counterpart in Mishnaic
Hebrew. To mention but two: ‫‘ מזל‬fortune ’, which is found in
Phoenician inscriptions, is the same as Mishnaic ‫ מזל‬and Punic ٥٥
‘ tablet ’ is equivalent to Talmudic ‫ין‬٥٥ ‘ boards ’ (5). It is also
very instructive to observe that the Book of Proverbs, which has
been described by H. L. Ginsberg as “ Phoenicizing ”, contains a
number of similarities in language and thought to the Aramaic
Wisdom of Ahiqar, so it is not at all surprising to find a Wisdom
Book of the Bible betraying influence from several different directions
because the Biblical Wisdom literature seems to have incorporated
the best of the practical wisdom that had been accumulated over
the centuries of Near Eastern civilization (4).
(‫ )ﻟﻢ‬Ibid*) pp. 4, n. 15; 20, n. 3‫ ؛‬cf. also W. F. Albright, JPOS 6
(1926) 83, n. 16; cf. also ]. Friedrich, Phonizisch-Punische Grammatik
(.Analecta Orientalia 32, Rome. 1950), §§ 135b, 252a (henceforth cited as
Grammaiifey, 1. Udzeayh, Efhemeris /‫׳‬iir semitische Ei>igra£hife (G\ess£1\١
1915), III, p. 53, and references given there.
(?‫ י־‬Ci. ¥ιιζ، V 4kïï‫׳‬z،‫>؟‬cw١ Commentary on the Song of Songs and
Ecclesiastes (Edinburgh, 1891, trans. by M. G. Easton), p. 198.
(3) p. Schröder, Die phonizische Sprache (Halle, 1869), pp. 23.26‫־‬
4‫ا‬١ an Gvnshg, The Legend of King Keret (ASOR Snf^lement‫־‬
ary Studies 2-3, New Haven, 1946), p. 33; see also c. I. K. Story, ،، The
Booh of Proverbs and Norttiîiiest Semitic Literature ١١١fBL
‫ﻵ\ا‬4‫ؤة‬١ ‫وة־و\ة‬٠
4Vith the further elucidation of the Ugaritic texts, it is now possible to
advance beyond this study. For example, yes in Prov 8, 21 should be read
9os (notice that three of the adjoining words begin with an ‫ل‬aleph, so that
the danger of haplography of an ‫ل‬aleph was considerable, and that the pre‫־‬
ceding letter is a yôd) and translated as ‘ gift, wealth \ like Ugar. 3usn,
Arabic 3ws. Cf. Micha 6, 10 where 3s and 3ôsrôth stand in parallelism, just
as here. In Prov 8, 22 darko is to be related to Ugar. drkt and should be
translated ‘ dominion, power ’ and not ‘ way which makes no sense in this
context. Cf. also p. Nober, Verbum Domini 26 (1948) 35153‫־‬.
Biblica 33 (1952)
34
Mitchell ‫ل‬. Dahood, s. ‫ل‬.
On a priori grounds, the Phoenician hypothesis is eminently
reasonable. The other Wisdom Books of the Hebrew Bible, Job
and Proverbs, are heavily saturated with Canaanite words and forms,
as is becoming recognized more and more widely (،). The actual
composition, however, in Phoenician orthography, that is, without
any final or medial vowel letters, has no parallel in any postexilic
Biblical writing and consequently may strike the reader as imaginative.
It should therefore be recalled here that after the devastation of
Jerusalem and Southern Judah in 587 B. c. the center of Jewish
culture shifted north to Galilee, which was not devastated by the
Chaldaeansj a large number of Jews moved to the North, and it is
very likely that some took up residence in Phoenician cities (2). In
a later study it will be shown with some degree of plausibility that
a number of the historical and social allusions in Ecclesiastes are
best understandable on the supposition that Qoheleth was a resident
of a Phoenician city.
Modern commentators generally place the composition of the
Book of Ecclesiastes between the fourth and the second centuries B. c.
The objection will immediately arise that such a late work would
not be likely to manifest Canaanite-Phoenician influence, especially
since the Phoenicians at this time were on the wane as a commercial
and cultural power in the Near East. To this objection there are
two possible answers. The first solution is contained in these words
of w. F. Albright:
(*,Now, it is very remarkable that there is a veritable flood of
allusions to Canaanite (Phoenician) literature in Hebrew works composed between the seventh and the third century B. c.‫ ل‬illustrations,
which are increasing constantly in number, abound in Job, Proverbs,
Isaiah (the exilic sections and Deutero-Isaiah), Ezekiel, Habakkuk,
the Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, Jubilees, and parts of Daniel, all of
which can be dated in their present form between cir. 600 and cir.
200 B. c. ... The natural explanation is that there was ,a revival of
Canaanite literature about the seventh centtiry B. c., which brought
with it not only a renaissance of the early epic literature, but also
an unexampled diffusion of Phoenician writings ” (3).1 2 3
(1) Cf. H. L. Ginsberg, 111 (1943) 62 ‫ﺀور‬.
(2) See Eduard Mever, Article on ،، Phoenicia )) in Encyclopaedia Biblica, III, cols. 376859‫־‬.
(3) From the stone Age to Christianity (Baltimore, 1946), p. 243 : cf. also
w. F. Albright, BASOR 46 (1932) 15-20.
Canaanite-Phoenician Influence in Qoheleth
35
The second solution which may be offered, complementing the
first, is that Qoheleth, despite his originality and seemingly ‘ heterodox) ideas (the ‘ heterodoxy’ of which has been unduly exaggerated),
enshrines in his Book much material that is very ancient and which
may have been the common property of the sages of the Fertile
Crescent. For example, the famous passage in 9, 7-10 has clear-cut
analogues in the literature of both Mesopotamia and Egypt (‫)د‬, and
recently H. L. Ginsberg has called attention to the similarity existing
between Qoh 8, 1-2 and a passage in the seventh-century Wisdom
of-Afiiqar (2). It is also very hard to believe that the aphorism
in 9, 4 “ a live dog is better than a dead lion ” is of third-century
coinage, especially since the lion had been the symbol of courage
and the dog the symbol of abjection from very early times in Near
Eastern literature (3). “ In addition to the fact that Qoheleth was
wise, he also taught the people knowledge, and he composed and
sought out and arranged many proverbs” (12, 9).
II. Orthography
The essential difference between Hebrew and Phoenician orthography, a difference which was greatly heightened in the postexilic period, was the use of final and medial vowel letters by Hebrew
and the total lack of them in standard Phoenician spelling. The
medial matres lectiones were introduced into Biblical Hebrew about
the sixth century B. c. under Aramaic influence (4), and the use of
them became more and more abundant with the passing of centuries
until by the time of the Dead Sea Scrolls, dating from the second
(‫ )ع‬Por a full discussion of this point see ÏÏ. w. Hertzberg, Der
Prediger (Qokelei) übersetzt und erklärt (U\pz\‫؟‬f١(2،١ \٩‫>؟‬،١ pp.
(2) “ The Words of Ahiqar ”, in Ancient Near Eastern Texts, ed. James
B. Pritchard (Princeton, 1950), p. 428, n. 10. See also his Studies in
Koheleth, p. 34. The writer arrived independently at the same reading by
the application of the principles of Phoenician orthography.
(3) R. Gordis is correct in his insistence upon the antiquity of much
of the content of Ecclesiastes; at the same time one cannot fully endorse
his sociological approach to some of the problems of Hebrew Wisdom literature. See his interesting study “ Quotations as a Literary Usage in
Biblical, Oriental and Rabbinic Lileratwre” *m Hebrew Onion College ‫ه‬nual, XXII (Cincinnati, 1949), pp. 157-221.
(4) w. F. Albright, JBL 51 (1932) 81 ; see also Gesenius-Kautzsch,
Hebrew Grammar (28th ed.), 2h.
Mitchell ‫ل‬. Dahood, s. ‫ل‬.
36
and first centuries B. c., vowel letters were often employed to represent even short vowels (1).2 Accordingly, any work which was
composed in the normal Hebrew orthography of the fourth-third
centuries B. c. would have been amply supplied with final and
internal matres lediones so that the danger of confusing, for example,
the singular and the plural of a noun followed by a pronominal
suffix would have been reduced to a minimum, and the inconcinnities
between plural subjects followed by verbs in the singular would
generally have been avoided. On the other hand, a work composed
in the standard Phoenician orthography of the corresponding period
would not have been equipped with these spelling aids, and the
possibility of confusing the singular and the plural of nouns in the
construct chain would have been great unless the context clearly
pointed to one of the several possible translations as correct.
An examination of the variant readings in Qoheleth reveals
that they are mostly of the type which would arise from the editing
or the copying of an original text which lacked all vowel letters.
An enumeration of the more important variants will show that the
only adequate explanation for these divergencies is an underlying
original which was composed in Phoenician orthography.
1,10
5 MSS K.
DE
M ‫לעלמים אשר היה‬
R. ‫לעלמים אשר היו‬
Podechard has attempted to justify the singular verb on the
gi'ound that the Hebrew Bible is not always, exact in the agreement
between the subject and the verb, even when the subject comes
first (2). The singular of the verb perhaps might be justified if
‫ עלמים‬were to be understood as a plural of extension, but the context
seems to require a real plural. There are far too many discrepancies
of this kind to ascribe them to the grammatical imprecision of the
author‫ ؛‬it is much more reasonable to suppose, in view of numerous
other examples to be cited, that the original reading was a purely
consonantal ‫ הי‬which could have been taken as the singular or as
the plural.
1,13
M ‫בל אשר נעשה‬
G (‫א‬٨) V ‫כל אשר נעשו‬
The original may have read ‫ נעש‬which is ambiguous.
(1) Cf. E. Arbez, CBQ 12 (1950) 173-78.
(2) UEccUsiaste> p. 244 ‫ أ‬Gesenius-Kautzsch, 145 u.
Canaanite-Phoenician Influence in Qoheleth
1,16
M 1
‫ כל אשר היה‬MS
DE
37
R. G s V ‫כל אשר היו‬
c.
Ginsburg bas tried to defend the reading of the singular
verb !٦٩٦ on the supposition that the plural antecedent was taken
distributively in the writer’s mind (‫)د‬. It is much more plausible to
attribute this grammatical blunder, not to the original writer who no
doubt knew that the antecedent of ‫ אשד‬was plural in number, but
to the copyist who, working mechanically, would have been inclined
to put down the singular ‫ היה‬as the simplest form of the consonants
‫ הי‬. Errors of this nature could only have been avoided if the scribe
stopped to ascertain whether the antecedent of ‫ אשד‬was singular or
plural.
2,2
Mil
7 MSS K.
DE
R. 7
‫ זאת‬MSS K. ‫?ו‬
These variants could scarcely have arisen if Qoheleth had been
composed in the scriptio plena of fourth-third century Hebrew orthography. In Phoenician spelling the masculine and the feminine
demonstrative pronoun ‘ this ‫ י‬appeared merely as f.
2,7
3 MSS K.
DE
M ‫ובני בית היה לי‬
R. G s ‫ובני בית היו לי‬
According to Gesenius-Kautzsch (145 u), the singular verb is
supposed to begin the sentence anew : “ and servants born in my
house... there fell to my lot ”, a sort of casus pendens construction.
It is very difficult to defend the singular verb for two reasons ; first,
the subject is personal, and secondly the subject precedes the verb.
Arabic, which is ‫؛‬very partial toward the use of the singular verb
when precedingga plural subject, even when personal, would hardly
tolerate the present grammatical anomaly. König came very close
to the correct solution when he observed that the singular ‫ היה‬was
the result of the attraction exerted by the immediately preceding
singular noun 2) ‫)ביה‬. This attraction would not have been exerted
upon the author who realized that a plural personal subject, especially
when prepositive, required a plural predicate, but upon the editor
or copyist who saw that the contiguous ‫ בית‬was singular and consequently interpreted the purely consonantal ‫ הי‬as singular.
(!١ CoJieleik, Commonly Called the Book of Eccleslasles (Lowckm, \1‫יי‬
p. 273.
(2) F. E. König,' Lehrgebäude, III, § 344 g.
38
2, 7
Mitchell ]. Dahood, s. j.
M Aq. Ar. G Sym. Til. V ‫מכל שהיו‬
87 MSS K. DE R. ‫מכל שהיה‬
10 MSS K. DE R. ‫מכל אשר היה‬
These variants can best be explained on the basis of defective
spelling in the Vorlage.
2.9
M ‫מכל שהיה‬
Aq. Ar. G Sym. Th. V ‫מכל שהיו‬
In contrast with 2, 7 where the versions are aligned with the
Massoretic reading, the versions here diverge from M and read the
plural ‫היו‬. Tliis is exceedingly strange because the phrase and its
meaning are exactly the same as in 2, 7. Such inconsistency must
have been the result of translating from a text lacking final vowel letters
which in this era would have been peculiar to a “ Phoenician ‫ ״‬text.
2,24
M 20
‫ גם ؛ה‬MSS
7 MSS K.
2,24
M ‫היא‬
DE
DE
R. ‫גם זה‬
R. ‫גם זו‬
more than 100 MSS K.
DE
R. ‫הוא‬
In Plioenician spelling both tlie masculine and feminine third
personal pronouns are written ‫הא‬, and since in this context either
gender is grammatically justifiable, tlie present divergence resulted.
3,16
M 2
‫ הצדק‬MSS K. G(B) T ‫הצדיק‬
If the Vorlage had been provided with vowel letters, at least when
their insertion was necessary to avoid misunderstanding, this variant
would most likely not have arisen. Ihe following verse is correctly
transmitted by the manuscripts and correctly translated by the versions
where ‫ צדיק‬stands in the same context as in the present verse.
4.10
M Aq. G K SH Sym. Th. ‫יפלו‬
S(A) T V ‫יפל‬
Podechard (p. 270) attributed the variants to the carelessness
with which the final maires lectionis were added or omitted. This
suggestion may be correct, but other evidence indicates that no final
vowel letters were written at all, and since the context is here ambiguous, some versions chose the singular and others preferred the
plural.
4,10
M G K L
s
SH V ‫ואילו‬
T ‫ואלו‬
The Targum. followed by Graetz, confused ‫ אילו‬with ‫ אלו‬of
Qoh 6, 6. The interjection ‫אי‬, which occurs only here and at 10, 16,
Canaanite-Phoenician Influence in Qoheleth
39
has been equated with the interjection ‫ אי‬which is found in the
Mishnaj however, an identification with the classical Hebrew ‫אוי‬,
written defectively, remains possible. Cf. Isa 3, 9. 11 ‫ ًا‬Ezek 13, 18.
4.16
M G(K) SH Sym. T ‫לכל אשר היה‬
G (except ‫ )א‬K s ٧ ‫לכל אשר היו‬
The antecedent of ‫ אשר‬is ‫ כל‬which here might be understood
as a singular or as a plural. Hence there is a divergence which
may be due partly to translating ad sensum and perhaps partly
because the original text, not being written fully, permitted a choice.
If tlie original had been written ‫ היו‬it does not appear probable
that M and tlie versions listed would liave deliberately changed it
to the singular, especially since the context does not warrant such
a change.
4.17
M 130
‫ רגליך‬MSS K.
DE
R. G K s SH 3١ V ‫רגלך‬
Gesenius-Kautzsch (91k) observes that too much stress must
not be laid on the fact that the yodh is sometimes omitted in forms
of the plural nouns with suffixes, and a number of examples are
cited which bear out this statement. It is quite true that the writing
of internal vowel letters was often a matter of choice on the part
of the scribe (‫)ﻟﺞ‬. However, a distinction must be made. In postexilic times the general tendency favored the scriptio plena so that
by the Maccabaean period full writing was almost carried to extremes.
As an illustration of the difference between pre-exilic and post-exilic
orthography the following example may be cited : in chaptei21 ‫ ־‬of
the pre-exilic Book ofjosue ‫ מגרשה‬is written without yodh in 42 out
of the 43 occurrences, whereas in the parallel account given in postexilic 1 Chron 6, 40-66 this same plural noun is written ‫מגרשיה‬,
with the yodh, in all of the 41 occurrences. If Qoheleth wrote in
the normal Hebrew orthography of tlie post-exilic period, it is very
difficult to explain why some of the manuscripts and the versions
read the singular noun instead of the plural found in M.
5,3
M Th.
‫את אשר הדר‬
Aq.
G
K
s ‫אהה אשר הדר‬
This variant seems to indicate that the translators worked with
a defective text ‫ ل‬otherwise they would scarcely have taken it upon
‫\ا‬١ CivsnkK D. GmmG, Introduction to the Massoretico-Critical
Edition of the Hebrew Bibte (loudow, ‫ו‬1١‫ י‬p. 1.
Mitchell ‫ل‬. Dahood, s. ‫ل‬.
40
themselves to expand an original ‫ את‬into ‫אתה‬. In Phoenician
spelling the consonants ‫ את‬could represent ‫ את‬as well as ‫אתה‬.
δ, s
M 8
‫ מעשה ידיך‬MSS K. Ar. G K SH T V ‫מעשי ידיך‬
Hertzberg (p. 106) thinks that one of the two readings is a
Hörfehler. It is much more likely that these variants go back to
an original ‫ מעש‬which could stand for either the sing'ular or plural
in the scriptio defectiva.
δ, 1δ
M ‫בל עמת‬
G K s SH
JER.
‫כי לעמת‬
To judge from the variants, the original consonantal text seems
to have been ‫כלעמת‬. The versions, not understanding this compound
preposition, incorrectly analyzed it into ‫כי לעמת‬, which analysis
strongly indicates that they worked with an archetype in which
simple ‫ כ‬could also stand for ‫כי‬٠
7,6
-M ‫כי כקול‬
G (B«) K ‫כקול‬
The omission of ‫ כי‬by the versions can be explained by the
supposition of a pi-irely consonantal text in wliich tlie conjunction ‫כי‬
would be written as simple ‫כ‬, and since the following word also
began with a kaph tlie danger of haplography was greater.
7,13
7,18
M ‫מעשה‬
M 66
7,22
JER. ‫מעשי‬
DE R. ‫ידיך‬
G K s SH V
‫ ידך‬MSS K.
M ‫את‬
The spelling ‫( את‬without ‫ )ה‬occurs five times in the Bible,
always as kethibh, with ‫ אתה‬as qerê (GeseniusKautzsch 32g). Podechard has suggested that tliis spelling may possibly have been
favored by the Judaeo-Aramaic pronunciation ‫ את‬٠
It is more
plausible that this represents another case of Phoenician spelling in
which the second person singular pronoun appeared merely as ‫; את‬
the Hebrew editor failed to supply the vowel letter.
7,24
M ‫מה שהיה‬
G KS SH
VJER.
‫משהיה‬
Podechard (P. 383) has made the keen observation that the
variant is due to a Hebrew Vorlage wliich lacked the vowel letter
‫ ה‬in ‫מה‬٠ In a defectively written text the indefinite neuter would
be written as ‫ מ‬which in the composite expression ‫ מש‬was misun­
Canaanite-Phoenician Influence in Qoheleth
41
derstood by the versions and translated as the preposition with the
assimilation of the nun to the following consonant.
8,1-2
17 MSS K.
DE
M ‫עז פניו ישנא אני‬
R. ‫עז פניו ישנה אני‬
As admitted by many grammarians and exegetes ‫ ישנא‬really
stands for ‫( ישנה‬٤)‫ ًا‬the pfel vocalization is to be preferred, and the
translation would read: “and pride changes his visage". The use
of the same expression in Job 14,20 strongly favors this translation.
How, then, did the present confusion between the lamedh he and
laniedh aleph forms arise? Perhaps as a result of dittography be‫־‬
cause in Phoenician spelling the reading would have been ‫ ישנאנ‬and
the ‫ א‬was written twice. This mistake seems to go back to the
Hebrew editor who added the vowel letters to the original text
because Ben Sira, in imitating this same expression (13, 25), re‫־‬
produced a text into which the dittography had already found its
way since his reading is also 2) ‫שנא‬١).
8,11
M
‫מעשה‬
G K s SH
JER. ‫מעשי‬
These variants may have originated in a purely consonantal ‫מעש‬٠
8,14
91 ‫׳‬
M ‫מעשה‬
M ‫ולבור את כל זה‬
٧‫מעשי‬
GKSSH ‫ולבי ראה את כל זה‬
According to Friedrich Delitzsch (3), these variants go back to
a consonantal text which read ‫ולבראתכלז‬.
9,3
M ‫זה רע‬
The paseq indicates that ‫ זה הרע‬is to be read. There is no
need to suppose the haplography of a ‫ ה‬because in Phoenician
spelling ‫ זהרע‬is the equivalent of normal Hebrew ‫זה הרע‬.
(‫ )ل‬König, Lehrgebäude, I, p. 532 ‫ ًا‬Gesenius-Kactzsch, 75 rr. The
objection of Hertzberg (p. 140) to Winckler’s reading yesannê and to his
translation ‘ Roheit entstellt sein Angesicht ’ on the ground that such a
translation is elsewhere uncertified overlooks the passage in Job‫ ؛‬it is the
pu'al of the Massoretic text which is unexampled.
(2) For a balanced discussion of the relationship between Qoheleth and
Ben Sira, see T. NOldekk, za w 20 (1900) 81-94.
(‫ י‬Die Lese- id Sdireib/ehier des Alien Testaments
awd Uupzig, 1920), p. 19.
Mitchell ‫ل‬. Dahood) s. ‫ل‬.
42
10,1
Μ ‫זבובי מות‬
The present Massoretic reading has occasioned innumerable
emendations and translations. As it stands, the text is incorrect
because the plural subject does not agree with the two predicates in
the singular and because the plural reading destroys the parallelism
with the preceding half verse where the emphasis is on the destructiveness of “ one sinner
In a purely consonantal text the five
consonants ‫ זבבמת‬could be interpreted in tliree different ways :
1.
2.
3.
‫“ זבוב מות‬a death-bringing fly”
‫ ” זבובי מות‬death-bringing flies ”
‫“ זבוב מת‬a dead fly’»
For grammatical and aphoristic reasons the last reading is to
be preferred, as also recommended by Kittels Biblia Hebraica
(3rd ed.). In Phoenician orthography the consonants ‫ מת‬could
stand for the participle ‫ מת‬or for the Hebrew absolute noun ‫؛מות‬
Phoenician did not develop segholate forms as is evidenced by
Ugaritic mt and Greek Μουθ, which renders mut for mot.
10,20
M ‫משכבך‬
11.5
M ‫מעשה‬
11.6
11, 9
M 68
M 139
G ‫משכביך‬
GKSSHVjER. ‫מעשי‬
DE
‫ ידך‬MSS K.
‫ מראי‬MSS K.
DE
R. ‫ידיך‬
R، All Versions ‫מראה‬
As pointed out by Fl'iedrich Delitzsch, the singular reading is
correct because the plural form is not otherwise attested 0).
12,1
12,5
M 283
M
95
‫ בוראיך‬MSS K.
‫ יראו‬MSS K.
DE
DE
R. T
G K SH Sym. ‫יךאו‬
R. ‫בוראך‬
V Jer.
‫ייראו‬
s ‫יירא‬
This fourfold deviation between the roots ‫ ירא‬and ‫ ראה‬would
have been much less possible in a text equipped with vowel letters.
12,7
In the opinion of s. R. Driver, this incorrect vocalization of
the Massoretic text is the result of defectiva scriptio and he believes
that ‫ב‬۴‫ וישוב = וי‬sliould be read (2).
(٤) Ibid.) p. 48.
‫؟‬١ A Treatise on the Use o/ the Tenses in Hebrew i01io1d١ \ ‫ו‬١١ % VH.
Canaanite-Phoenician Influence in Qoheleth
43
This enumeration of the principal variants indicates quite clearly
that the original text lacked all matres lectionis. Since the only
Canaanite orthography which did not employ vowel letters at this
late period (fourth-third century B. c.) was Phoenician, it necessarily
follows that Qoheleth used Phoenician orthography.
III. Morphology
1. Pronominal Suffixes
The preference in Hebrew for the masculine pronominal suffix
‫ "הם‬over the feminine ‫ ״הן‬is abundantly attested by Biblical usage
(Gesenius- Kautzsch, 135 0; 145 u). König (III, § 14) has given a
lengthy enumeration of such gender inconsistencies; however, a large
number of these cases in which a masculine plural suffix is used
with a feminine antecedent can be explained as the result of dissimilation (Prov 6,21; Ruth 1, 19; Lam 2,20). Even in view of
this preference, it remains very strange that within the brief compass
of twelve chapters Qoheleth employs the masculine plural suffix with
a feminine antecedent no less than five times, and equally strange
is the fact that the feminine tilird person plural suffix is not to be
found at all in the Book.
2, 6 ‫ מהם‬refers back to feminine antecedent ‫ברבות‬.
2‫ ا‬10 ‫ מהם‬is used with feminine dual ‫){( עיני‬.
10, 9 ‫ בהם‬syntactically agrees with feminine ‫אבנים‬.
11,8 ‫ בלם‬has as its antecedent feminine ‫שמם‬.
12,1 ‫ בהם‬refers back to ‫שנים‬.
To explain isolated incongruencies on the general principle of
the Hebrew preference for the masculine third plural suffix, especially
in popular language wher'e the gender distinction became attenuated,
is a valid procedure, but to employ the same principle to justify
five anomalies within such a brief scope can only lead to very unsatisfying results. There must have been a more fundamental reason
why. the author consistently avoided the use of the feminine plural
suffix. Although it is not possible to determine what this reason
was with any degree of certainty, it is possible within the Phoenician
framework to hazat'd a plausible suggestion. Phoenician probably(i)
(i) D. c. Siegfried, Prediger und Hoheslied (Gottingen, 1898), p. 34.
44
Mitchell ‫ل‬. Dahood, s. ‫ل‬.
never had a separate suffixal form for the third person feminine plural
but used the masculine form for both genders. This last statement
must necessarily be most tentative because of the relative paucity of
Phoenician texts, but there is positive evidence which renders this
suggestion quite plausible. In a tilird-century Phoenician inscription
from Cyprus (Lidz. 3b. 5) the independent masculine plural pronoun
‫ המת‬has as its antecedent the feminine plural noun ‫שנת‬, and Cooke
has observed that the masculine form ‫ המת‬was evidently used for
both genders (1). This observation of Cooke becomes more plausible
in view of the fact that the demonstrative pronoun ‫ ז‬was also used
for both genders in Phoenician-Punic, which constitutes a dialectal
specialization in this branch of Northwest Semitic (12). Since ‫המת‬
was used for both genders, it is reasonably safe to infer that the
pronominal suffix ‫ ־הם‬was also used for both genders.
2. The Demonstrative Pronoun
The feminine demonstrative pronoun ‫ ؛ה‬is found independently
8 times in the Bible and 6 of these occurrences are in Qoheleth.
S. R. Driver has described ‫ ؛ה‬as a North Israelite peculiarity (3).
The normal Hebrew feminine demonstrative ‫ ?את‬is not found'a single
time in Ecclesiastes, a peculiarity which has never been explained (*)٠
The solution for this morphological singularity is to be found in the
direction of Phoenician morphology where ‫ ן‬was used for botli the
masculine and the feminine demonstrative, and a form with the
characteristic ‫ ־ת‬is not attested except in Plautine syth, i. e. 5) ‫)זת‬.
3. The Relative Pronoun
As has been pointed out by such authorities as s. R. Driver,
Brockelmann, and Bauer-Leander, the Hebrew relative pronoun ‫ ש‬is
(1) Text-Book of North-Semitic Inscriptions, p. 85‫ ؛‬see also M. LidzAltsemitische Texte‫ ר‬I, P. 34.
(2) Friedrich, Grammatik) § 115.
ً ١ Introduction to the Literature 0/ the Old Testament ٢ً‫ ا‬1\\ ‫ﻫﺔ‬٠ YAYn‫ﺣﺎ‬
burgh, 1898), p. 18811. Cf. also Brockelmann, Grundriss, I, p. 321.
(4) In Qoh 2, 2 several MSS K. DE R. have the reading z3t4 instead of
Massoretic zôh, but this is obviously a scribal correction.
(‫ )ة‬Friedrich, Grammatik, §115‫ ؛‬cf. also w. F. Albright,-67 ‫وﻫﻤﺮ‬
(1947) 156, η. 31, who shows that the putative z3t in the Yehimilk inscription
is actually the emphatic demonstrative and personal pronoun h3t.
BARSKI,
Canaanite-Phoenician Influence in Qoheleth
45
a North Israelite peculiarity (i). ‫ ש‬is not normal Hebrew, nor is it
Aramaic ‫ ًا‬rather it is to be identified with Phoenician-Punic ‫ אש‬both
in form and approximately in usage (2). Qoheleth uses 89 ‫ אשר‬times
and 67 ‫ ש‬times Î these figures fit in with the present contention that
Qoheleth was a Jew who wrote his work in Hebrew but who was
more familiar with the Phoenician language and consequently betrayed
all types of Phoeni^anisms in his morphology and style.
4. The Indefinite Pronoun
The development of the indefinite pronominal combination ‫מהש‬
is peculiar to Ecclesiastes. In 1, 914 ,10 ‫ ًا‬3, 15. 22‫ا‬
ً 8‫ا‬7‫ ًا‬it has
the meaning id quod, which would be expressed in classical Hebrew
by ‫ אשר‬and in 6, 10 and 7, 24 it signifies quidquid, which in normal
Hebrew would be ‫בל אשר‬. Gesenius-Buhl (s. V. ‫ )מה‬describes the
combination ‫ מה ש‬in 3, 22 as aramaisierend, but epigraphic discoveries of recent decades cast a somewhat different light on the problem.
The Kilamuwa inscription of the ninth century B. c. contains the
etymologically identical compound ‫מאש‬, which has the meaning
٤ that whicli and it has been equated by Lidzbarski and others
with ‫ מה ש‬in Qoheleth ‫ ًا‬there can be little doubt about the correctness of tlie identification (3).
5. The Article
Commentators have been content to explain the non-syncopation
of the article in 6, 10 3 ,10 ‫ ًا‬8, 1 ‫ ًا‬as a Late Hebrew development,
(1) Driver, Introduction, p. 449, n. has this interesting observation on
dialects : “It seems that, as the language of Moab, while nearly identical
with Judaic Hebrew, yet differed from it dialectically (...) in one direction,
so the language of North Israel differed from it slightly in another : especially in vocabulary, it sh‫؟‬wed a noticeable proportion of words known
otherwise only, or chiefly, from the Aramaic, while in the use of s it approximated to the neighboiiring dialect of Phoenicia, in which the relative
was 3s
1 2)*. See also Bauer-Leander, Historische Grammatik, p. 29, in whose
opinion s was originally at home in North Israel and only later did it find
wider extension. The second half of their judgement seems to be an attempt to explain the use of s in Canticles and Ecclesiastes, whose northern
origins were not recognized by Bauer-Leander.
(2) The origin of the ٥aleph in Phoenician 3s is not certain. Harris
(Grammar, p. 55, n. 21) calls attention to the use of a prothetic 3aleph before a sibilant followed by a consonant in some individual Semitic and
especially Phoenician words.
(3) M. Lidzbarski, Ephemeris, III, p. 227.
46
Mitchell ‫ل‬. Dahood, s. ‫ل‬.
even though it was pointed out by Driver over fifty years ago that
the non-syncope of the article was a North Israelite peculiarity (‫)ﻟﺞ‬.
This phenomenon is also found five times in the Neo-Punic inscriptions, dating from the last tliree centuries before Christ (2).
Cooke 56. 3
Cooke 57. 7
CIS 149.3
Leptis
Leptis
‫להחים‬
‫להרעת‬
‫להרבת‬
1.2 ‫להמינכד‬
5.3
‫בהשת‬
٠
Although one cannot argue ftom this evidence to a connection
with the similar development in Qoheleth, it is germane to note
that Punic and Neo-Punic did continue many linguistic peculiarities
which had begun in Phoenicia proper (‫ ل)ح‬at least one must leave
open the possibility of an influence other than that of Late Hebrew.
6. Nominal Formations
The noun ‫ משלחת‬in 8, 8 represents an uncommon formation in
Hebrew ‫ ل‬elsewhere in the Bible tliis noun is found only at Ps 78, 49.
Mandelkern 0. V.) has noticed the rarity of this formation and has
accordingly suggested ‫ משלחה‬as the correct reading. Since this word
is found in the Midrash to Numbers, Barton labeled it an Aramaism,
but in this he was mistaken because slh already meant ‘ send ’ in
Ugaritic and because tlie Hebraically unusual formation of this noun
is perfectly normal in the province of Phoenican morphology wliere
at least a dozen nouns of this type have been found. It is very
instructive to compare ‫ משלחת‬with the following nouns in Phoenician :
,‫ מחנת‬, ‫ מלאכת‬, ‫ ממלחת‬, ‫ מתנת )ממלכת‬, ‫ מצבת‬,‫ משאת‬,‫ מפלת‬, ‫ממלת‬
‫מםפנת‬,‫מפחרת‬,‫מתכת‬.
The noun ‫ מתת‬which appears at 3, 13 and 5, 18 is also found
in a seventh-century Phoenician inscription from Ur (4). The much
more common noun for ، gift ’ in the Bible is ‫מתנה‬.
The noun ‫ נחת‬is found 7 times in the Bible and 3 of these
occurrences are ‘in Ecclesiastes : 4, 6 5 ,6 ‫ ل‬and 9, 17. This is a very
(‫ ף‬Introduction, p. ‫ יו‬ÏÏ. a. ‫؟‬CVso G. A. TkTO^, The JBoofe of Ecclesiasles cICCy New York, 1909), pp. 5253‫־‬.
(2) Friedrich, Grammatik, § 1Î9.
(3) Harris, Grammar, p. 9.
(4) w. F. Albright, BASOR 99 (1945) 15, n. 43. E. Burrows, s. J٠
‫( ﻛﺪ‬1927) 791.
Canaanite-Phoenician Influence in Qoheleth
47
exceptional nominal formation for Hebrew ‫ ًا‬the only other noun
exhibiting such a development is ‫שחת‬. From the root ‫ נוח‬one
would expect some such formation as ‫ נוחה‬or ‫נוחה‬, as is illustrated
by the noun ‫ שוחה‬from the root ‫שוח‬. Morphologically, ‫ נחת‬is a
Phoenicianism. As is well known, the fominine noun in Phoenician
ended in ‫ ״ת‬and not in ‫־ה‬, as in Hebrew. The noun ‫ נחת‬is found
7 times in the Phoenician inscriptions and the .root nwh occurs ‫ة‬
times in Ugaritic (‫)د‬.
7. Prepositions
One of the more striking morphological peculiarities of Ecclesiastes is encountered in the compound preposition ‫ על דברת‬which
occurs three times: 3, IS 14 ,7 ‫ ًا‬and 8, 2 (2). The only other passage
containing this prepositional phrase is Ps 110,4. Commentators
generally explain the form as a late development of the Hebrew
compound prepositions ‫ על דבר‬and ‫על דברי‬. The source of this
development is not to be sought in its ‘ lateness ’, but rather in
Phoenician morphology, where prepositions with the final ‫ ת‬element
exist alongside of the simple forms. Thus by the side of ‫ על‬there
is ‫ עלת‬Î together with ‫ לפן‬there is ‫פנת‬, and ‫ בתכת‬is found in the
sense of ٤ in ’ (3). It is ‫־‬evident that ‫ על דברת‬fits into the Phoenician
prepositional pattern. This explanation is to be applied to the controverted ‫ בל עמת‬at 5, 14, and to ‫ לעמת‬at 7, 14. The protagonists
of the Aramaic theory are free to insist that 14 ,7) ‫ )על דברת ש‬is
a translation of Aramaic ‫על דברת די‬, but then they will find it hard
to explain why the Peshitta rendered the phrase so badly (4). The
Greek literal translation περί λαλιάς is excusable, but the same
leniency cannot be granted to the Syriac ‫ ﻻم‬V. They are
also entitled to proclaim that 15 ,5) ‫ )כל עמת ש‬is an imitation of
Aramaic ‫כל קבל די‬, but it remains none- the less remarkable that
Qoheleth chose to do his imitating in a Phoenician mold. It should
(٤) Harris, Grammar, p. 123‫ ؛‬see also JA OS 67 (1947) 156, n. 26.
In the Azitawadd inscription nht is found 3 times.
(2) At Qoh 3, 18 ; 7, 14 the Septuagint has περί λαλιάς and at 8, 2 it
translated by περί λόγου, both of which are good literal renditions, but
which miss the precise connotation of eal divrath, which is perhaps an indication that the phrase is less Aramaizing than supposed.
(3) Brockelmann, Grundriss, I, p. 498 ; Harris, Grammar, pp. 62-63.
(4) H. L. Ginsberg, Studies in Koheleth, p. 28.
48
Mitchell ‫ل‬. Dahood, s. ‫ل‬.
be noted here that there is a Phoenician word ‫ ‘ עמת‬people ’ in
addition to the common Hebrew word ‫עם‬, and that both ‫ לעמת‬and
‫ על דברת‬are found in the same verse, which is a rather heavy
concentration of prepositional phrases with the final ‫ ת‬element for
normal Hebrew or Aramaic. Compare the Phoenician prepositional
phrases ‫ למדת‬, ‫ כמדת‬, and ‫למתת‬.
s.
Adverbs
The meaning of the adverbs 2 ,4) ‫ )עדגה‬and 3 ,4) ‫ )עדן‬is clear
from their contexts, but their etymology is not altogether certain.
Grammarians and exegetes who discuss these words invariably explain
them as contractions of ‫ עד הבה‬and ‫עד הן‬. The expression ‫עד הגה‬
is used 13 times in the Bible and nowhere does contraction take
place except in these supposed instances in Qoheleth. Why should
contraction occur here and not elsewhere? Hence it is permissible
to seek another etymology, and Ugaritic provides what may be the
correct answer. In Ugaritic the root εέ occurs both as a noun and
as a verb in the following texts :
51:ν:68
51:ν:69
cdn mtrh
/،/« cdn
‘his appointed time for rain’
، he appoints a fixed time’
Thus ‫( עדן‬Massoretic vocalization probably incorrect) would be
an adverb based on the word cdn of Ugaritic and ‫ עדגה‬would represent the form with the terminative suffix, just as ‫ع‬Imh in Ras
Shamra connotes ‘ to eternity ’. This root is reflected in Old Babylonian hadianu which is really of “ Amorite ” origin (1).2 3
9. Conjunctions
The concessive conjunction 17 ,8) ‫)גם אם‬, which is found only
here in the Bible, finds its semantic parallel in the Phoenician conjunction ‫{ אף אם‬CIS 3. 6), as pointed out by KOnig and reiterated
by Barton (2). The identity of the Biblical conjunction with that of
Phoenician will be perceived more readily if it be recalled that the
pure Canaanite ‫( גם‬Hebrew, Moabite, Jahidi) has not yet been attested in Phoenician-Punic (3).
(1) For another view, see G. R. Driver, Die Welt des Orients (1950)
412. Cf. also the older study by p. Jensen, ZA 7 (1892) 215.
(2) Lehrgebäude, III, § 394 fj Barton, Ecclesiastes, p. 158.
(3) Friedrich, Grammatik, § 257 b.
Canaanite-Phoenician Influence in Qoheleth
49
The conjunction 6 ,6) ‫ )אלו‬is found once elsewhere in Biblical
Hebrew (Esth 7, 4). It is quite common in Mishnaic Hebrew,
Aramaic, and Syriac, and consequently has been categorized as an
Aramaism (‫)ل‬. H. L. Ginsberg not only maintains that it is an
Aramaic loan word, but also uses it as linguistic evidence that Ec‫־‬
clesiastes was composed in the third century B. c. (2). This judgement
must now be reconsidered in the light of epigraphic discoveries of
the past few decades. The conjunction ‫ אל‬is found in the Ahiram
inscription, dating from about 1000-975 B. c., with precisely the
same meaning and usage as in Qoheleth. When the inscription was
first published, there was some uncertainty about the meaning of
this word because some scholars confused it with the Hebrew preposition ‫אל‬, but now the rendering ‘if’ is accepted by most translators,
although there is no agreement as yet concerning its etymology (5).
IV. Syntax
1. The Infinitive Absolute
One of the most noteworthy similarities between Phoenician
syntax and that of Qoheleth, to which attention has been called by
various scholars, is the use of the infinitive absolute followed by the
independent personal pronoun in 4, 2 as a substitute for the construetion with the finite verb (4). The only other Biblical parallel is at
Esth 9, 1, as first pointed out by Ewald (‫)ة‬. In view of the Amarna
and the Phoenician evidence for this construction, it is no longer
necessary to explain ‫ שבח‬as a shortened piel participle, and the
emendation to ‫שבחתי‬, as at 8, 15, is also to be rejected (‫)ج‬. The
(‫ )ل‬Cf. E. Kautzsch, Die Aramaismen im Alten Testament (Halle, 1902),
p. 21 ‫ ؛‬Bauer-Leander, Historische Grammatik, p. 652.
(2) Studies in Koheleth, pp. 4042‫־‬.
(3) See w. E. Albright, 79 (1926) 6 ‫ وﻫﺺ‬ff. ; Idem, A1947) 67 ‫)وه‬
155, η. 23 ; Friedrich, Grammatik, § 253 c.
(4) See the discussion of this construction by c. H. Gordon, JNES 8
(1949) 112ff. and by A. Dupont-Sommer, RA 42 (1948) 182, and references
given there.
٣١ Aws/tihriidies Lehrbuch, der hebräischen Sprache des Alien Bundes,
(6th ed. Leipzig, 1855), § 351 c.
(6) Cf. w. L. Moran, Journal of Cuneiform Studies 4 (1950) 16972‫־‬.
In view of the evidence which Moran has collected from the Byblos letters
Biblica 33 (1952,
50
Mitchell ‫ل‬. Dahood, s. ‫ل‬٠
discovery of the Ugaritic literature, tlie Dead Sea Scrolls, and the
Idrimi inscription enhance our respect for the consonantal text of
the Hebrew Bible (‫)ع‬. A further confirmation of the correctness of the
Massoretic reading is to be found in Qoheleth’s frequent employment
of the infinitive absolute as a surrogate for the classical waw conversivum. This penchant for the infinitive absolute may be asci'ibed to
Phoenician syntactical influence rather than to the mere ‘ lateness ’
of the language, because none of the other late books of the Bible
evinces sucli a marked tendency. Other examples of the infinitive
absolute are at 4, 17 11 ,9 ‫ ًا‬8, 9 ‫ل‬, and 12, 10, where ‫ כתוב‬is to be
read, as recommended by Kittels Bible, in place of the present
grammatically impossible vocalization.
Another example of the infinitive absolute immediately followed
by the personal pronoun, which lias hitherto remained unrecognized,
IS found at 9, 1‫ ة‬: ‫ומלט הוא את העיר‬. As stressed by H. L. Ginsberg,
the addition of tlie pei'sonal pionoun to the verb is troublesome (2).
Tlie rule is that with a finite verb the pronominal subject is only
added foi‫ ־‬emphasis. Here it is not the subject but the verb that
is empliatic. The solution to this troublesome piece of syntax is not
to presuppose an Aramaic original witli Ginsberg, but rather to leave
the consonantal text wholly intact, and merely to cliange the VOcalization so as to read the infinitive absolute of tlie piel conjugation
‫מלט‬. This vocalic alteration gets rid of the syntactic awkwardness
and provides a perfect parallel to the construction in 4:2, even ind\án% tk ‫ ¡ﻻﻵ‬cottjunctiim ‫\ﻵ‬١‫ ة‬l\\e nota accasatfot, K\tkn‫\\>؛؟‬
there is not as yet clear evidence in tlie Phoenician inscriptions for
the infinitive absolute with the personal pronoun of the third person,
because most of the inscriptions are in the first person, tliere is clear
evidence for this usage in the Amarna letters, as first pointed out
by w. L. Moran, s. J.-(o). To cite but one example: EA 113.
40-42 : ύα-ta-ri-ma su-ut ‘ if he leaves
of Amarna, there can no long‫؟‬r be any reasonable doubt about tlie nature
of the qtljyqtl )ik construction in the Karatepe inscriptions.
(٤) For tlie bearing of the recently published Idrimi ins-cription on Bib.
lical studies, see w. F. Albright, BASOR 118 (1950) 15-16, n. 13.
Studies in Koheteth, pp. 2،(‫>؛‬-،‫ י· ךי‬c. H. H. Might, Ecclesiastes in
Relation to Modern Criticism and Pessimism (\‫ل‬0\\‫ه‬0\\١ \1‫ יי‬p. ‫؟‬Λ9.
(3) Loc. cit., p. 171.
Canaanite-Phoenician Influence in Qoheleth
51
2. The Periphrastic Future
3,15
‫אשר להיות‬
The ‫ ל‬with the infinitive construct has been described as the
“ periphrastic future ”, expressing “ that which is to be ” (1). This
construction was accepted in the older books of the Bible and found
even wider usage in tlie later Biblical writings. Three close parallels to this passage in Qoheleth are also found in three Punic
inscriptions from Carthage (2).
CIS
165.14
CIS 3784.1‫־‬2
‫ اى‬3785.6.7
‫כל זבח אש אדם לזבח‬
‫כל אש לגנב‬
‫כל אש לסר‬
Although this construction has not as yet appeared in any
inscriptions from Phoenicia proper, it is difficult to suppose that it
is a purely Punic development‫ ؛‬Punic would scarcely tend to become
more Seiuitic than Phoenician.
3. The Accusative of Time
8,9
‫עחאשר‬
In the opinion of the majority of commentators, ‫ עת‬is to be
understood as an advei'bial accusative ‘ at the time when ’ just as at
Jer 51, 33, and not as construed by Symmachus and Aquila, and
among modern exegetes, by McNeile (‫زج‬. This uncommon piece of
syntax perplexed some of the ancient translators who, unable to
make sense out of tlie passage, changed ‫עת‬, which is supported by
M. Aq. S Sym. T V, to ‫את‬, which is found in K SH Jer., and
this reading is followed by Zapletal. This same syntactic peculiarity
is found twice in Punic inscriptions from Carthage :
CIS 165.1
CIS 17‫ن‬. 1
‫משאת עת ]ר חלין[ בעל‬
‫משאת עת רב בעשלך‬
٤))
Driver, Hebrew Tenses$ § 204.
‫?ا‬١
Cooke, ρ. ν2Λ،١ Η. Οκλτζ, Kohe'lel oder der Salomonische Prediger
(Leipzig, 1871), p. 71, was thoroughly baffled by this seemingly odd piece
of syntax, so he suggested that some such word as hul or ،âthîd should be
inserted, which usage in Mishnaic Hebrew signifies the future. The Punic
parallels make such an emendation unnecessary.
(‫ وو‬Delitzsch, Commentary, p. 344 ‫ ؛‬Gesenius-Kautzsch, 118Í.
52
Mitchell ‫ل‬. Dahood, s. ‫ل‬., Canaanite-Phoenician Influence in Qoheleth
There is also a striking similarity between the phraseology in
Qoh 7, 17 ‫ למה תמות בלא עתך‬and lines 2.3 of the Eshmunazar
inscription ‫)د( ג״לת בל עתי‬.
4. The Accusative of Place
11,3
‫מקום שיפול‬
Here ‫ מקום‬is an accusative of place used instead of the more
classical Hebrew ‫במקום‬. A similar usage is probably to be found
in the Incantation from Arslan Tash (2):
line 5 f. ‫בת אבא בל תבאן‬
Mitchell ‫ل‬. Dahood,
s.
‫ل‬٠
fTo be coniitied١
‫اا‬١ CL ‫اﻻ‬. Uwz،MWS¥L\١ Handbuch der nodsenddschen E۶igra£hife lNNk"\mar, 1898), p. 347 ‫ ؛‬Cooke, p. 33.
(2) Friedrich, Grammatik) § 280 a, b.
ATLV
Copyright and Use:
As an ATLAS user, you may print, downioad, or send articles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by u.s. and international copyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.
No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(s)’ express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.
This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission
from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of ajournai
typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific
work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).
About ATLAS:
The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously
published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS
collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association
(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.
The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American
Theological Library Association.