N. Eshelman
Puritan Board Senior
Did Solomon write the book of Ecclesiastes? If yes, why do you think so? If not, why not?
POLL: Did Solomon Write Ecclesiastes? Why or Why Not
- Thread starter N. Eshelman
- Start date
- Status
Backwoods Presbyterian
Puritanboard Amanuensis
The author identifies himself as a King of Jerusalem and Son of David.
What he said.
Grimmson
Puritan Board Sophomore
Keeping in mind the genre and assigned titles, we cannot use that identity for Solomon alone, according to Estelle of Westminster Seminary of California. Also one needs to consider the post-exile style it was written in. Personally, I don’t have an opinion since I am no expert in Hebrew or literary styles to judge that it’s a post-exile piece. But the use of the title, even if the author did not hold it, for literary effect was common.
MLCOPE2
Puritan Board Junior
Did Solomon write the book of Ecclesiastes? If yes, why do you think so? If not, why not?
What, pray tell, do you think?
N. Eshelman
Puritan Board Senior
Michael, I think that Solomon would use SermonJams....
Seriously though, I do think that Solomon wrote the book. The first verse would be a lie not a literary device if it was not him. There is also 2.18; 12:9; and other texts that seem to point to Sol. Psalm 127, which belongs to Solomon looks a bit familiar in the light of Qohleth's book as well.
I am quite surprised by the number of conservative, reformed scholars that deny Solomon's writing it.
New sermon series on Ecclesiastes starts this Lord's Day. Here's an ad for the preaching.
Grimmson
Puritan Board Sophomore
Solomon authorship does not account for Persian and Aramaic vocabulary in the text, or even the noun pattern usage. We need to be careful with connections we try to make by looking at our English translations. We should also consider on top of this that the author does not call himself Solomon and the poetic nature of the text. If we are to hold to Solomon authorship there we must be willing to accept a redactor modifier to the work because of such vocabulary. There are some similarities with Proverbs, but Solomon alone is not completely responsible for even that text, just like David not solely responsible for all the psalms in the Psalms.
Son of David not much of an issue because Hezekiah is just as much a son and as a king of Jerusalem as Solomon. So the son of David can be anyone in that line of decent. Also the term king of Jerusalem can also refer to a lesser lord in comparison to the Persian King of Kings, head monarch, after the exile.
Son of David not much of an issue because Hezekiah is just as much a son and as a king of Jerusalem as Solomon. So the son of David can be anyone in that line of decent. Also the term king of Jerusalem can also refer to a lesser lord in comparison to the Persian King of Kings, head monarch, after the exile.
Curt
Puritan Board Graduate
Michael, I think that Solomon would use SermonJams....
Seriously though, I do think that Solomon wrote the book. The first verse would be a lie not a literary device if it was not him. There is also 2.18; 12:9; and other texts that seem to point to Sol. Psalm 127, which belongs to Solomon looks a bit familiar in the light of Qohleth's book as well.
I am quite surprised by the number of conservative, reformed scholars that deny Solomon's writing it.
New sermon series on Ecclesiastes starts this Lord's Day. Here's an ad for the preaching.
Great poster!
N. Eshelman
Puritan Board Senior
Thanks! The congregation is placing these in coffee shops, laundromats, college campuses, gyms, grocery stores, etc. as a way to advertise. We are in something of a 'hipster' neighborhood so Ecclesiastes will minister to some of the nihilism of the community.[/QUOTE]
MLCOPE2
Puritan Board Junior
That's ok, we're all wrong once and a while
---------- Post added at 08:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:53 PM ----------
Sounds like a fun series. I'll have to have a listen.
[/QUOTE]
That's a really good idea, Nathan. I'll have to think about the idea of making simple posters.
But Hezekiah and most of the other kings (and precious few of them were godly) ruled before the exile, and nobody after the exile would ever have had the wealth described in Ecclesiastes.
Echo the above point. No "lesser lord" would have had the wealth described in Ecclesiastes.
Heidelberg1
Puritan Board Freshman
I voted that it does not matter.
I have wondered about this verse though.
(1:16) "I said in my heart, “I have acquired great wisdom, surpassing all who were over Jerusalem before me, and my heart has had great experience of wisdom and knowledge.”
"All who were over Jerusalem before me." If it was Solomon who wrote it, and he is talking about Israel's kings, than the only one over Jerusalem before him was David. It seems strange to use the word all.
Blessings,
I have wondered about this verse though.
(1:16) "I said in my heart, “I have acquired great wisdom, surpassing all who were over Jerusalem before me, and my heart has had great experience of wisdom and knowledge.”
"All who were over Jerusalem before me." If it was Solomon who wrote it, and he is talking about Israel's kings, than the only one over Jerusalem before him was David. It seems strange to use the word all.
Blessings,
SolaScriptura
Puritanboard Brimstone
Michael, I think that Solomon would use SermonJams....
Seriously though, I do think that Solomon wrote the book. The first verse would be a lie not a literary device if it was not him. There is also 2.18; 12:9; and other texts that seem to point to Sol. Psalm 127, which belongs to Solomon looks a bit familiar in the light of Qohleth's book as well.
I am quite surprised by the number of conservative, reformed scholars that deny Solomon's writing it.
New sermon series on Ecclesiastes starts this Lord's Day. Here's an ad for the preaching.
Wow! I'm impressed... that is a really good poster! Well done!
And if it were not Solomon, then the author would be saying he was wiser than Solomon. That is certainly more problematic than the word "all" which could include more than kings./.
It's been a few years since I went through Ecclesiastes, but I remember commentators noting this was not material to the discussion of authorship or dating. It was claimed that the language of Ecclesiastes does not strictly fall into any era in the development of Hebrew. Alternative suggestions include a northern dialect or even a language of pessimism.
Bern
Puritan Board Freshman
1. He says he's the son of David, the king.
2. That he is wiser than everyone else (perfect description of Solomon)
3. The things in the book perfectly describe the things Solomon did in his life (I'm assuming it was written right at the end of his life, where he could truly say that without God everything is vanity!
4. Its the traditional church position on the subject (or so I believe).
Regarding the language issue: Is it possible that Solomon employed the aid of writers to help him write the book. Perhaps that accounts for the language discrepancies. I know people may think this sounds uneducated, but since none of us were there at the time, how do we know exactly what language a person would have used?
2. That he is wiser than everyone else (perfect description of Solomon)
3. The things in the book perfectly describe the things Solomon did in his life (I'm assuming it was written right at the end of his life, where he could truly say that without God everything is vanity!
4. Its the traditional church position on the subject (or so I believe).
Regarding the language issue: Is it possible that Solomon employed the aid of writers to help him write the book. Perhaps that accounts for the language discrepancies. I know people may think this sounds uneducated, but since none of us were there at the time, how do we know exactly what language a person would have used?
- all good points
more than that, I often wonder what makes critics so sure a person can't use a different style at different times.
Language is so fluid apart from anything else. Has no-one else had the experience of reading a great deal of some particular author, or from a certain time in history....and then finding him/herself unconsciously imitating the style of writing? I do that all the time. Also if I pulled out an essay, say, that I wrote in my student days, I seriously doubt if it would be stylistically much like what I'm typing now
Yes. This is the same kind of argument against a traditional dating of Esther or Job, both of which have proven a tempest in a teapot.
A little groundwork here:
Is it fair to say that The Iliad is by Homer even though it was written down later and edited? If we can say this, I think it's fine to attribute it to Solomon even if the final form didn't come into existence until after the exile. Authorship for the ancients wasn't as clear-cut as it is for us today.
Is it fair to say that The Iliad is by Homer even though it was written down later and edited? If we can say this, I think it's fine to attribute it to Solomon even if the final form didn't come into existence until after the exile. Authorship for the ancients wasn't as clear-cut as it is for us today.
JonathanHunt
Puritan Board Senior
I preach the odd chapter here and there. Last Sunday I preached Eccl 5 entitled 'Six Myths about life without God'
Those are:
Myth 1: Human beings are fair.
Myth 2: There is no need to worry about judgment from a higher authority.
Myth 3: Super status is available to human beings.
Myth 4: Wealth and success satisfies.
Myth 5: Increase gives ease and security.
Myth 6: There is meaning and purpose to life without God.
Got to love Ecclesiastes.
Also preached Ecclesiastes 3 (its on sermonaudio) under the title 'Whose time is it anyway?' .... geddit?
Those are:
Myth 1: Human beings are fair.
Myth 2: There is no need to worry about judgment from a higher authority.
Myth 3: Super status is available to human beings.
Myth 4: Wealth and success satisfies.
Myth 5: Increase gives ease and security.
Myth 6: There is meaning and purpose to life without God.
Got to love Ecclesiastes.
Also preached Ecclesiastes 3 (its on sermonaudio) under the title 'Whose time is it anyway?' .... geddit?
he beholds
Puritan Board Doctor
Michael, I think that Solomon would use SermonJams....
Seriously though, I do think that Solomon wrote the book. The first verse would be a lie not a literary device if it was not him. There is also 2.18; 12:9; and other texts that seem to point to Sol. Psalm 127, which belongs to Solomon looks a bit familiar in the light of Qohleth's book as well.
I am quite surprised by the number of conservative, reformed scholars that deny Solomon's writing it.
New sermon series on Ecclesiastes starts this Lord's Day. Here's an ad for the preaching.
I love the ad! What an incredible idea for Lord's Day worship! I've only seen ads for conferences and what-not, but we know that a worship service is way more important/beneficial--we should seek to bring in people then, too. Really, a wonderful idea implemented wonderfully. I will pray for you to have lots of visitors and that the Lord will speak through you.
Bern
Puritan Board Freshman
LOL at the sermon title
I'm really growing to love Ecc more all the time, it really sums up the reality of mans life. Its so profound and contains truth that really does set you free. How many people, even Christians, are still bound by the worldly mindset that they need more money in order to be content. I love the way it tells us that it is a gift from God to be able to enjoy what we have, and be content with it.
Zenas
Snow Miser
Aye, bearing in mind that the judges ruled before the kings.
DMcFadden
Puritanboard Commissioner
If not Solomon, someone by the same name and the Son of David.
I do not argue that the final canonical form had to have been from him alone, however. Frankly, I do not know enough about the history of textual transmission of the book to be dogmatic. But, whether someone (under the leadership of God) freshened it up a bit for a later audience, in my mind there is only one Qoheleth (= biblical Solomon). I would preach it as the work of Solomon.
I do not argue that the final canonical form had to have been from him alone, however. Frankly, I do not know enough about the history of textual transmission of the book to be dogmatic. But, whether someone (under the leadership of God) freshened it up a bit for a later audience, in my mind there is only one Qoheleth (= biblical Solomon). I would preach it as the work of Solomon.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
