9

Franz Delitzsch is famously quoted as saying:

If the book of Koheleth were of old Solomonic origin, then there is no history of the Hebrew Language.

His argument seems to be that the Hebrew is characteristic of a much later era, with substantial Aramaic influence. On the other hand, a long tradition asserts Solomonic authorship, and some modern commentaries object to Delitzsch’s conclusions. The New American Commentary, for instance, says:

The peculiar Hebrew of Ecclesiastes cannot be evidence for a late date since it does not fit anywhere in the known history of the language. In no way, for example, does it specifically resemble the Hebrew of Malachi, Esther, or of the Chronicler.

Is the Hebrew of Ecclesiastes indeed characteristic of a later (post-exilic) period, or is there a better explanation for its idiosyncrasies?

Susan
  • 26,287
  • 19
  • 92
  • 290
  • Horse's mouth: "Hugo Grotius (1644) is the first who, like Luther, rejects its Solomonic authorship, erroneously supposing, with him, that it is a collection of diverse sayings of the wise, περὶ τῆς εὐδαιμονίας; but on one point he excellently hits the nail on the head: Argumentum ejus rei habeo multa vocabula, quae non alibi quam in Daniele, Esdra et Chaldaeis interpretibus reperias. This observation is warranted. If the Book of Koheleth were of old Solomonic origin, then there is no history of the Hebrew language." – Dɑvïd May 14 '15 at 20:55
  • C.L. Seow, "Linguistic Evidence and the Dating of Qohelet", Journal of Biblical Literature 115 (1996): 643-666. Lots of relevant literature cited in his notes. Conclusion: "The language of the book of Qohelet clearly belongs to the postexilic period" (p. 665). (Seow authored the Anchor Bible commentary on Ecclesiastes.)
  • – Dɑvïd May 14 '15 at 20:58