That is a dubious claim.
POLL: Did Solomon Write Ecclesiastes? Why or Why Not
- Thread starter N. Eshelman
- Start date
- Status
That is a dubious claim.
Grimmson
Puritan Board Sophomore
No its not, especially within a Jewish context. Remember Matthew 1:1, where our Lord Jesus is called the son of David. It the perspective of the line of descent that allowed for gaps within a family’s genealogy when a particular point was being made. It was all to common within Judaism or Jewish way of thinking. We don’t want to confuse chronology with genealogy in descendant. It is this way of thinking that we can all be called naturally children of Adam and not in just a theological context.
It is for this reason why I mentioned Hezekiah, to dispel the notion that it had to be immediately Solomon on the bases of kinghood and line; even though I don’t think he wrote. It was just an example.
One example that comes to mind in relation to gaps in the genealogies is in 1 Chronicles 3 in comparison to Matthew 1. Matthew claims that Shealtiel is the father of Zerubbabel. In 1 Choronicles, he is the son of Pedaiah, who is the son Shealtiel. So we can see that sonship is always directed in line of immediate chronological descendant, but is instead directed as somewhere being in the line, regardless of place in that line. Therefore you can be four or fourteen generations removed and still be technically classified as being the son of that person.
Yes, it is a Messianic title, which argues against the dubious claim. The matter can be easily settled by an appeal to Scripture. There were many kings which sprang from David's loins; besides his own children and Jesus Christ, where are any of them referred to as the son of David?
Grimmson
Puritan Board Sophomore
Yes, it is a messianic title when we start to approach the time of Jesus. However, one must consider the notation of under what right does a person have to reign over Judah? It is simple, being a descendant of David, which is why it evolved into a messianic title. The people wanted a re-established independence of Israel and kick the invaders out and have that kingdom be an everlasting kingdom.
I think my gap analysis of Shealtiel and Zerubbabel for the Jewish line of thinking of descent stands. One could also make the case in relation to Abraham and his son being David and his children being the Jews; which is done for historical and theologically reasons, as with the Son of David. We need to think about this in line of Near Eastern thought, and not with our Western mind set. In the Near East, who you were descended of would establish who you are and what you will or can do. Scripture would not need to repeat that each successor of Judah was of the line of David under the title “son of David,” since it was a standing requirement for rule to begin with as implied with the keeping of such genealogical data in the temple, according to Josephus.
We need to think about this according to biblical testimony and withstand the temptation to read into Scripture what is not there.
Grimmson
Puritan Board Sophomore
I did use scripture to back up my point in how can be implied in a line of descent, look yourself with the gap in Matthew 1 and in 1 Chronicles 3. Usages of descent can also be seen in Luke 3:8, Exodus 3:15, where children and fathers our not applied in the next generational chronological sense. We should also remember in the interpretative process how we ourselves are removed from the initial context and understanding of a given text to a particular people. Therefore applying we should try to study it in a manner in which they would understand a text and not by our western standards of interpretation. The following is the attempt that modern conservative scholarship attempts to apply for our benefit. It doesn’t mean that we should always agree with them, but at least listen to them and try to understand the logic of their argument based from history and studies in the original languages in a way that we do not. This would include usages of different form in varying periods of time.
We should look at it with the biblical testimony, but where was this testimony written and am referring to the OT? The answer is the Near East. To subtract this element of consideration in the interpretative process is to improperly treat and handle the text that we have been trained to preach from. Which is why we must me conscience of our own presuppositions and a culture’s presupposition of any given text. We wouldn’t try to interpret a non-scriptural historically ancient text by this means, so too should we not treat scripture as such, if we are to be consist.
We should be careful not to read something that not there, but that can occur with our own western mind, we don’t need the near east to do that. In fact I would be willing to imply that the unwillingness to consider the Near Eastern cultures would do just that, create a reading of scripture that not there.
Considerations of biblical testimony must also include the genre uses and style of a given period. Failure to do this with any text, even non-scriptural texts, can dramatically affect our interpretative process.
It comes down to a methodological choice. You are utilising an inference to argue for the explanation of an express title. All other biblical usage restricts the express title to the immediate male offspring of David or to the Messiah. The book of Proverbs specifically identifies Solomon as an author of canonical Scripture in terms of the express title. Each one will decide the matter on the basis of how Scripture regulates his thoughts.
I agree Solomon wrote it, but I want to observe that the reason "Son of David" is a meaningful messianic title is because it highlights that the Messiah must be an Anointed King in David's line. Every king of Israel was a "messiah" anointed and made king for a time, and was a son of David. Jesus is the final fulfillment of all these roles -- Messiah, King, Son of David. Do you think this is missing the mark?
Grimmson
Puritan Board Sophomore
I am not arguing against Solomon authorship in this case, but for the common usage of line of descendant beyond the immediate offspring. Once that has been recognized and established then I think that should guide us to say that relating the term son to a grandparent or a great-grandparent should not be a “dubious claim” at all in relation to scripture and the Near Eastern context that it was written in.
One methodological approach will directly affect the proper understanding of any passage, regardless of when and what language a text is written in. And we need to be very careful in critiquing various approaches of understanding, which is why I am defending Philip here from your statement.
There are some real concerns with Solomon authorship that need to be addressed, concerning vocabulary and noun usage and does have a direct effect on the dating of Ecclesiastes in it’s final form. Stylistic authorship comparisons need to be done with the works attributed to Solomon and that of Ecclesiastes. I haven’t seen a strong case for contributing a northern dialect during his time. If it is written by Solomon, then I think there a strong chance that what we have is not in his final form.
And I think we need to be careful not to have ourselves choose how we regulate our thoughts in relation to scripture, but instead based on a coherent logically structured system that would be consist with the interpretation of the original readers of the text and by the disciples themselves.
I would regard it as missing the mark because I cannot see how wicked kings as kings of the line of David are to be regarded as "messiah," that is, the one for whom the Davidic promises come to fulfilment, either partially or completely. First, Solomon (temporally) and Jesus (eternally) build the house of the Lord, 2 Samuel 7:13. Secondly, Solomon (really) and Jesus (imputatively) suffered chastisement and enjoyed steadfast love, verse 13-15; righteous kings only had that privilege by derivation and wicked kings had it not at all. Thirdly, David's earthly posterity forfeited their thone and kingdom at the exile, so the promise of perpetual rule finds its only fulfilment in the eternal reign of Christ.
Again, it is a matter of method; stylistic comparisons robbed Paul of a number of his letters and semantic studies restored them again.
Matt 1:20 may shed some light:
"But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit."
It was in view of the child to be born that the title was given. Poole: "by which compellation he lets him know he was to be the supposed and legal, though not the natural, father of the Messias, who was by the confession of all men to be the Son of David."
Grimmson
Puritan Board Sophomore
.
I think we need to be careful not to equate the anointed king with being a good or righteous king. It is for that reason why I wouldn’t have a problem with looking at all the kings of Judah and prior with the unification of Israel as being God’s anointed. I am thinking of passages like 1 Samuel 24:10 and personally seeing a close relationship to Romans 13: 6.
And thanks Philip for the citation, because it reinforces my earlier point regarding usage of the "Son of David". For some odd reason it wasn’t coming to mind
Miscommunication on my part. I meant "messiah" as "one anointed to be king," not as partial fulfillments of the promise of the coming deliverer. In other words, they were kings of Judah just as Christ would be the ultimate King, but they have nothing to do with the prophecies of Christ himself. To illustrate the point, David more than once calls Saul "the LORD's anointed." Certainly Saul was a wicked king.
My understanding was that the word messiah meant "anointed", as in one anointed to be king. I understand that the word has come to be the general title of the specific deliverer prophesied in Scripture, but when I used it above I meant it in the sense of an anointed king. I am unfamiliar with Hebrew, so please correct me if my understanding of this word is wrong.
Thanks for drawing the comparisons between Solomon and Christ. I hadn't thought of those.
Grimmson
Puritan Board Sophomore
Like I said, 1:1 really isn’t good evidence for Solomon authorship for what I said before. 1:12 however is a better case internally, but not for kingship in Jerusalem, like we see in 1:1, but because it says he is king of Israel in Jerusalem. 1:1 usage for kingship could imply a later dating. The emphasis on wisdom, as seen throughout, including in 2:9 would be good evidence for a Solomon theme. In other words, written in a way where the person in mind narrating the wisdom is Solomon. Narration of authorship however is different then actually writing it himself or dictation of the text. This sort of practice was common in the ancient world. Solomon, would also be in view with aspect of wealth that has been observed. It still does not answer the question if he wrote the text. And thank you Edwin for putting us back on track, I was concerned a discussion of son usage was distracting us from the focus of the thread.
I should also add that the text implying Solomon narration, but not actually being written by him is not to make the claim that the text is lying about authorship. It is a genre literary technique. Because I recognize this possibility and some of the issues of its construction them am willing not to directly assign Solomon authorship.
I should also add that the text implying Solomon narration, but not actually being written by him is not to make the claim that the text is lying about authorship. It is a genre literary technique. Because I recognize this possibility and some of the issues of its construction them am willing not to directly assign Solomon authorship.
Perhaps you could point us to another ancient writing that exemplifies this practice, which you say is known to have been common?
Grimmson
Puritan Board Sophomore
We need to be careful with our use of tradition. Let us use the oldest and most widely accepted traditional interpretation of sons of God in Genesis 6:2 in both Christianity and Judaism. It has been classically been interpreted to refer to angels. Josephus, ancient Jewish literature, and the Septuagint, and the variant reading of Deut. 32 clearly historically points that out. They would point to Job to reinforce their point. We as a whole, do not accept that traditional reading today, because we have studied the possible uses of the phrase in scripture within varying contexts and today can reinforce the rejection of the angel reading by the use of genre and temporal phrase uses to accept either a line of Seth or a kingly interpretation set forth from scholars like the late Meredith Kline. I just wanted to put that forth in response to the use of tradition regarding authorship.
I would be happy to, the epic of Gilgamesh is one example and is an historical figure. Wenamun been debated, The Apocalypse of Baruch, 1 Enoch, the Salvonic Enoch, The Odes of Solomon, the Thanksgiving Psalm of Solomon that was discovered at Qumran, the works of Solon, The Shepard of Hermes can fall under this category along with Letter of Diognetus, and a wide range of Gnostic literature that people knew was not written by the apostles or those closest to them. I realize most of the works fall under the apocryphal realm, that because my area of personal interests is in religious context of the second and early third centuries AD.
---------- Post added at 01:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:12 PM ----------
Another example, which is perfect for this case, is the wisidom of Solomon.
---------- Post added at 01:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:33 PM ----------
What you asked is a good question, particularly since we never think or discuss this type of subject and how it plays out in wisdom literature.
I would be happy to, the epic of Gilgamesh is one example and is an historical figure. Wenamun been debated, The Apocalypse of Baruch, 1 Enoch, the Salvonic Enoch, The Odes of Solomon, the Thanksgiving Psalm of Solomon that was discovered at Qumran, the works of Solon, The Shepard of Hermes can fall under this category along with Letter of Diognetus, and a wide range of Gnostic literature that people knew was not written by the apostles or those closest to them. I realize most of the works fall under the apocryphal realm, that because my area of personal interests is in religious context of the second and early third centuries AD.
---------- Post added at 01:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:12 PM ----------
Another example, which is perfect for this case, is the wisidom of Solomon.
---------- Post added at 01:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:33 PM ----------
What you asked is a good question, particularly since we never think or discuss this type of subject and how it plays out in wisdom literature.
OK; that is a legitimate use of the word, looking at it in the bare sense of being anointed; but the need to minimise the definition only serves to demonstrate the point that "son of David" is a specific term with theological connotations which is limited in application.
I was wondering what the reason for this question would be?
In 1983, the Afrikaans Verklarende Bybel (Explanatory Bible), prof. J.F.J van Rensburg said the following,
This Bible is seen by many in South Africa as quite conservative. The commentator is a member of the Gereformeerde Kerke in Suider-Afrika (the Reformed Churches in Southern Africa), probably the most conservative of the reformed denominations in South Africa.
A Dutch popular commentary in the series Tekst en Toelichting called Prediker, Een praktische bijbelverklaring by prof J.A. Loader (1984, Uitgewerij Kok), also denies Solomon to be the writer of Ecclesiastes. It indicates that it is protest wisdom, that reacts on the more traditional wisdom literature like Proverbs.
I find it interesting that quite conservative theologians supports the idea that Solomon did not write Ecclesiastes. My own stance is to pull up my shoulders. I cannot say he did not write Ecclesiastes. Yet, to say the authorship of Ecclesiastes does not matter, is problematic.
If Solomon wrote the book, it must be placed in his time. The situation of his day is the context from which we must interpret what he then says. I haven't seen any commentaries that has made it a point to do just this. If there are any, please let me know.
On the other hand, if Solomon is not the writer of Ecclesiastes, the Aramaisms like the relative pronoun "shé" (Aramaic) (only once or twice) instead of "asher" (Hebrew), in some places must be taken into account. (In the Qoheleth text from cave 4 of Qumran, only "shé" is used, thus the possibility exist that the Qumran text was either Aramaisized, or the Hebrew Bible text Hebrewised.) Also the Persian loan words is to be taken into account. The wisdom of Ecclesiastes, then reacts on the traditional notions of Israelite wisdom, like If you are rich, God has blessed you, if you are poor, it means God's judgment is upon you."
I am prepared to consider both stances, either Solomon is the author or somebody else. In both cases the author holds a legitimate key to the interpretation of the text. However, when making up one's mind about who wrote Ecclesiastes, seems important to read the wisdom literature in the Bible first. I shall start with it again today.
In 1983, the Afrikaans Verklarende Bybel (Explanatory Bible), prof. J.F.J van Rensburg said the following,
This Bible is seen by many in South Africa as quite conservative. The commentator is a member of the Gereformeerde Kerke in Suider-Afrika (the Reformed Churches in Southern Africa), probably the most conservative of the reformed denominations in South Africa.
A Dutch popular commentary in the series Tekst en Toelichting called Prediker, Een praktische bijbelverklaring by prof J.A. Loader (1984, Uitgewerij Kok), also denies Solomon to be the writer of Ecclesiastes. It indicates that it is protest wisdom, that reacts on the more traditional wisdom literature like Proverbs.
I find it interesting that quite conservative theologians supports the idea that Solomon did not write Ecclesiastes. My own stance is to pull up my shoulders. I cannot say he did not write Ecclesiastes. Yet, to say the authorship of Ecclesiastes does not matter, is problematic.
If Solomon wrote the book, it must be placed in his time. The situation of his day is the context from which we must interpret what he then says. I haven't seen any commentaries that has made it a point to do just this. If there are any, please let me know.
On the other hand, if Solomon is not the writer of Ecclesiastes, the Aramaisms like the relative pronoun "shé" (Aramaic) (only once or twice) instead of "asher" (Hebrew), in some places must be taken into account. (In the Qoheleth text from cave 4 of Qumran, only "shé" is used, thus the possibility exist that the Qumran text was either Aramaisized, or the Hebrew Bible text Hebrewised.) Also the Persian loan words is to be taken into account. The wisdom of Ecclesiastes, then reacts on the traditional notions of Israelite wisdom, like If you are rich, God has blessed you, if you are poor, it means God's judgment is upon you."
I am prepared to consider both stances, either Solomon is the author or somebody else. In both cases the author holds a legitimate key to the interpretation of the text. However, when making up one's mind about who wrote Ecclesiastes, seems important to read the wisdom literature in the Bible first. I shall start with it again today.
Peairtach
Puritan Board Doctor
Assuming Solomon was the writer of Ecclesiates, and he wrote it after his backslidings, it is no encouragement to us to do the same.
But does it show that a believer can be far gone in sin, e.g. marrying 1,000 wives one after another, and worshipping false gods, and not look and walk like a true believer, and yet be a true believer still?
Is Solomon a great testament to the grace of God in putting up with extremely wayward but true believers in Him? Having said that, although I haven't done what Solomon did, I find much waywardness in my heart and life.
---------- Post added at 12:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:35 PM ----------
Grimmson
But in Luke 3:38, "Son of God" refers to Adam. Does this inspired writer's approach bear no weight?
---------- Post added at 12:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:43 PM ----------
This is no problem. Saul and David were kings before Solomon. Plus you've got Absalom's usurped monarchy and all the kings of the Jebusites -Jerusalem was once known as Jebus. David took possession of this "Citadel" ( I believe this is the possible meaning of "Tsiyown, Zion")
But does it show that a believer can be far gone in sin, e.g. marrying 1,000 wives one after another, and worshipping false gods, and not look and walk like a true believer, and yet be a true believer still?
Is Solomon a great testament to the grace of God in putting up with extremely wayward but true believers in Him? Having said that, although I haven't done what Solomon did, I find much waywardness in my heart and life.
---------- Post added at 12:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:35 PM ----------
Grimmson
But in Luke 3:38, "Son of God" refers to Adam. Does this inspired writer's approach bear no weight?
---------- Post added at 12:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:43 PM ----------
This is no problem. Saul and David were kings before Solomon. Plus you've got Absalom's usurped monarchy and all the kings of the Jebusites -Jerusalem was once known as Jebus. David took possession of this "Citadel" ( I believe this is the possible meaning of "Tsiyown, Zion")
Last edited:
Grimmson
Puritan Board Sophomore
I don’t think you got my argument. I wasn’t trying to explain how we are to interpret sons of God, but to show how we need to be careful about the use of tradition in relation to scripture, which includes authorship. Genesis 6:2 was just an example of how we have a different interpretation today compared to an earlier majority view which within Judaism and Christianity.
Dear friends
What do we do with Ecclesiastes 12:9-14? Was this also written by Solomon? It seems to me that it was written by another person evaluating the Preacher (Ecclesiastes). I was wondering, for what reason would the first commentator of Ecclesiastes not name Solomon's name? In what type of situation would Solomon be, if he was the writer, to not want his name to be mentioned?
Ecclesiates 12:9-14 in the ESV reads
What do we do with Ecclesiastes 12:9-14? Was this also written by Solomon? It seems to me that it was written by another person evaluating the Preacher (Ecclesiastes). I was wondering, for what reason would the first commentator of Ecclesiastes not name Solomon's name? In what type of situation would Solomon be, if he was the writer, to not want his name to be mentioned?
Ecclesiates 12:9-14 in the ESV reads
That seems to me to be a pretty small issue. Can't you imagine Solomon, a King without earthly equal, refering to himself in the third person? Especially when he balances it with the humble title of "preacher?"
It shows a good sense of literary flair, I think. I have always enjoyed the image of a great king sitting down his son and saying, in effect, "Son, you know me as a King, and you know me as a Father, now I speak to you as neither, but as a mere preacher subject to and bound by a higher authority."
Peairtach
Puritan Board Doctor
By this time Solomon may have had a greater self-knowledge of himself and have realised more fully the wickedness of his own heart, especially if it was after his gross and open backslidings.
When we read Ecclesiastes in this context we may realise why Solomon was ashamed to mention his name, or thought it was not worth mentioning although he was inspired by the Spirit to write down what he had learned through his backslidings that he could not have learned otherwise.
Maybe during his backslidings he had got carried away with his wisdom and read material that was unprofitable or harmful to him (?)
As happens among evangelicals and the Reformed in our day.
Maybe this is partly a warning against reading theological and other rubbish purely out of curiosity and not without a valid reason (?)
When we read Ecclesiastes in this context we may realise why Solomon was ashamed to mention his name, or thought it was not worth mentioning although he was inspired by the Spirit to write down what he had learned through his backslidings that he could not have learned otherwise.
Maybe during his backslidings he had got carried away with his wisdom and read material that was unprofitable or harmful to him (?)
As happens among evangelicals and the Reformed in our day.
Maybe this is partly a warning against reading theological and other rubbish purely out of curiosity and not without a valid reason (?)
Grimmson
Puritan Board Sophomore
One of the thing in which may be helpful for this debate is perhaps bring on two educated people in the area of Hebrews studies as it relates to Ecclesiastes, and am not talking about someone that has just read Ecclesiastes a few dozen times, but that knows the language and the major issues of the debate. You can find many commentaries, regardless of the biblical text, where the commenter really does not have the level of educated experience to really deal with the historical and lingual concerns of the text, but instead focuses on a surface level reading as it relates to their own tradition. I would like to see such conservative men hash out the major concerns, and I think it maybe more profitable then us commenting as a whole, who do not have the full tools and experience of study in this area and lean on some who have not studied some of these major issues of genre, and language. The issue of commentary usage/writing and education in biblical interpretations as it relates to tradition maybe another thread of interesting discussion for us sometime. I also want to point out that none of us deny here that Ecclesiastes should be scripture, so please do not make Solomon authorship a demand of conservative scriptural orthodoxy and a gateway to liberalism/ denial of inerrancy and clarity of scripture. I have not seen anyone doing it, but that does not mean such a desire does not lurk in the minds of some. It is just a general warning.
If anyone knows of one such formal debate among conservative OT scholars let me know. I like to read a transcript or see a video recording of such over this summer. And I think it would also be profitable for the rest of us to see as well.
If anyone knows of one such formal debate among conservative OT scholars let me know. I like to read a transcript or see a video recording of such over this summer. And I think it would also be profitable for the rest of us to see as well.
Hello David
I agree with you that bringing in people who are knowledgeable about the language as well as the book Ecclesiastes. I think it should be extended to people who have studied the wisdom tradition of Israel as well as of the Ancient Near East. (The reason I am saying this, is that a work of wisdom from Egypt, the Instruction of Amen-em-ope (1250 b.c. according to the ESV Study Bible), and Proverbs 22:17-24:22 are for most part similar or in many places identical. It indicates that Israel was part of a larger wisdom tradition. In both texts there are 30 proverbs. This means that Israel was influenced by the work, or vice versa. Those saying that the Instruction of Amen-em-ope was first, build their argument partly on Proverbs 24:12,
The Egyptian god, Thoth, is often depicted in iconography as standing beside a dead person. He judges the dead. In one of his hands there are scales with a human heart. It is argued that this image used for Thoth, is made applicable to the Lord (YHVH). In Proverbs 24:12 the Lord “weighs the heart,” watch over the soul like Thoth standing beside the dead person. The counter argument maintains that certain types of metaphoric language in the Ancient Near East was so common, that it is purely a coincidence both the Lord and Thoth are described with the same metaphor. The most significant difference according to the ESV Study Bible between the two texts are Proverbs devotion to the Lord (YHVH). The various stances in this debate obviously have a great influence on the interpretation of Proverbs, the identification of the period(s) in which Proverbs was written and the way one perceives the Word of God.)
Since this thread was started, I realised that the only commentaries I have on my book shelve, are taking the stance that Ecclesiastes was not written by Solomon, but that the practice of honorary authorship was used. This includes the most conservative commentaries I have. (The exception is the ESV Study Bible that temporises the problem.) Honorary authorship is a phenomenon found in oral cultures. In Israel and the rest of the Ancient Near East, it is estimated that less than 10% of people were literate. Literate people in the form of scribes were mostly found in the courts of kings or at temples, the exception being some settlements having one scribe to tend to the community’s need to send and receive letters. Court scribes would write documents in the name of their lord, the king or in the name of a high priest.
Be it as it may, the issue of language in Ecclesiastes is very important. I concur with the idea that there are three layers of Hebrew in the Old Testament. The oldest agree, interestingly enough with the Moabite and Ammonite inscriptions found in the Southern part of Israel. (It is sometimes difficult to date parts of the Bible according to this layer, as some texts were purposely written in a more archaic form. Two general trademarks of this layer of Hebrew, is the absence of the definite article and the occurrence of nunation, putting a nun (n-sound) consonant at the end of the 3 person plural and declensions. Most of the Old Testament is written in middle Hebrew. There are a few books (eg. Daniel, Ezra & Nehemiah) where the Aramaic influence, which became the lingua franca of the Jewish people, is very clear. Some trademarks of this late form of Biblical Hebrew, is the aleph and ayin that is easily confused, the relative particle, asher, that was replaced by shé in narrative texts (there is only two uses in early texts of this pronoun, Genesis 6:4 & Judges 5:7 – very much the same as Ugaritic’s usage) and confusion between mem (m-sound) and nun (n-sound). Furthermore the infinitive absolute form of verbs became prominent. It is wholly absent in the earliest Hebrew, and very seldom if ever used in middle Hebrew.
The Jerome Bible Commentary (a Roman Catholic one volume commentary) says that Ecclesiastes’ language resembles Mishnah Hebrew. Mishnah Hebrew is an early from Rabbinic Hebrew. One well-known trademark is that it doesn’t use asher at all, only shé.
In the Hebrew Old Testament, the word shé appears 139 times. It is used 63 times out of the 139 in Ecclesiastes. Song of Songs also has quite a few. This might mean that Ecclesiastes is a very early book, written before the Israelite kingdoms existed or a very late book, written just before rabbis became prominent in the Jewish religion.
The best however would be an in-depth study of Ecclesiastes to try to gain a proper understanding of the language arguments and its validity. Another, maybe easier thing to do, is to compare Ecclesiastes with traditional proverbs ascribed to Solomon found in the book of Proverbs.
Regards
I agree with you that bringing in people who are knowledgeable about the language as well as the book Ecclesiastes. I think it should be extended to people who have studied the wisdom tradition of Israel as well as of the Ancient Near East. (The reason I am saying this, is that a work of wisdom from Egypt, the Instruction of Amen-em-ope (1250 b.c. according to the ESV Study Bible), and Proverbs 22:17-24:22 are for most part similar or in many places identical. It indicates that Israel was part of a larger wisdom tradition. In both texts there are 30 proverbs. This means that Israel was influenced by the work, or vice versa. Those saying that the Instruction of Amen-em-ope was first, build their argument partly on Proverbs 24:12,
The Egyptian god, Thoth, is often depicted in iconography as standing beside a dead person. He judges the dead. In one of his hands there are scales with a human heart. It is argued that this image used for Thoth, is made applicable to the Lord (YHVH). In Proverbs 24:12 the Lord “weighs the heart,” watch over the soul like Thoth standing beside the dead person. The counter argument maintains that certain types of metaphoric language in the Ancient Near East was so common, that it is purely a coincidence both the Lord and Thoth are described with the same metaphor. The most significant difference according to the ESV Study Bible between the two texts are Proverbs devotion to the Lord (YHVH). The various stances in this debate obviously have a great influence on the interpretation of Proverbs, the identification of the period(s) in which Proverbs was written and the way one perceives the Word of God.)
Since this thread was started, I realised that the only commentaries I have on my book shelve, are taking the stance that Ecclesiastes was not written by Solomon, but that the practice of honorary authorship was used. This includes the most conservative commentaries I have. (The exception is the ESV Study Bible that temporises the problem.) Honorary authorship is a phenomenon found in oral cultures. In Israel and the rest of the Ancient Near East, it is estimated that less than 10% of people were literate. Literate people in the form of scribes were mostly found in the courts of kings or at temples, the exception being some settlements having one scribe to tend to the community’s need to send and receive letters. Court scribes would write documents in the name of their lord, the king or in the name of a high priest.
Be it as it may, the issue of language in Ecclesiastes is very important. I concur with the idea that there are three layers of Hebrew in the Old Testament. The oldest agree, interestingly enough with the Moabite and Ammonite inscriptions found in the Southern part of Israel. (It is sometimes difficult to date parts of the Bible according to this layer, as some texts were purposely written in a more archaic form. Two general trademarks of this layer of Hebrew, is the absence of the definite article and the occurrence of nunation, putting a nun (n-sound) consonant at the end of the 3 person plural and declensions. Most of the Old Testament is written in middle Hebrew. There are a few books (eg. Daniel, Ezra & Nehemiah) where the Aramaic influence, which became the lingua franca of the Jewish people, is very clear. Some trademarks of this late form of Biblical Hebrew, is the aleph and ayin that is easily confused, the relative particle, asher, that was replaced by shé in narrative texts (there is only two uses in early texts of this pronoun, Genesis 6:4 & Judges 5:7 – very much the same as Ugaritic’s usage) and confusion between mem (m-sound) and nun (n-sound). Furthermore the infinitive absolute form of verbs became prominent. It is wholly absent in the earliest Hebrew, and very seldom if ever used in middle Hebrew.
The Jerome Bible Commentary (a Roman Catholic one volume commentary) says that Ecclesiastes’ language resembles Mishnah Hebrew. Mishnah Hebrew is an early from Rabbinic Hebrew. One well-known trademark is that it doesn’t use asher at all, only shé.
In the Hebrew Old Testament, the word shé appears 139 times. It is used 63 times out of the 139 in Ecclesiastes. Song of Songs also has quite a few. This might mean that Ecclesiastes is a very early book, written before the Israelite kingdoms existed or a very late book, written just before rabbis became prominent in the Jewish religion.
The best however would be an in-depth study of Ecclesiastes to try to gain a proper understanding of the language arguments and its validity. Another, maybe easier thing to do, is to compare Ecclesiastes with traditional proverbs ascribed to Solomon found in the book of Proverbs.
Regards
Last edited:
Wannabee
Obi Wan Kenobi
There is precedent for this in the Pentateuch as well, where we read of the death of Moses. Do we deny Mosaic authorship because of this?
Grimmson
Puritan Board Sophomore
Thanks Jacobus. It is helpful information like this that most Christians ( see Jacobus’ prior posting if your wondering what am referring to), even pastors are unaware of. Either become they did not pay attention to their Wisdom class or because of their tradition shying away from such information as profitable for the church. I think we all need to be aware of such and not allow such information to be used against the church in regards to reliability of authorship. If a young person sees this evidence by a social science instructor, we must prepare them not to rely their faith to such human tradition and say things such as if the text isn’t written by Solomon then the Bible is lying and thus lose their faith in scripture. It is that kind of fundamentalism and strict traditionalism (not directly associated with Ecclesiastes, but to other subjects) which is driving some of our people away because of our focus on read on your own, lack of genre, experiential Anabaptist, you are king, non-bible training interpretive approach. Because our focus then isn’t on what God has spoken in the text as it relates to an objective historical-grammatical- apostolic- redemptive interpretation, but on a surface reading of the text which is absent from the lens of that the text was meant to be read in and increases the risk of a false interpretation and unnecessarily binding the conscience of the church to what the church was not to bound as orthodox to begin with and not a gospel issue. I think we do a disservice we don’t address such critical issues in our churches and prepare them for such battles a head and not hide aspects of truth from them, but instead drive them to the truth of God so that on could not make the claim that we hide the truth or violate the 9th. It is our job to drive people to the point of the text and the gospel, to prepare them in faith to what they will encounter, not allowing for the enemy to have a foothold for one person in the minds of our churchmen by the grace and providence of God.
Sorry, there I go ranting again.
I do, but only for Chapter 34. It only a partial denial, not complete.
Sorry, there I go ranting again.
I do, but only for Chapter 34. It only a partial denial, not complete.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
