Alternatively, they may have paid attention in Wisdom class, found conjectural arguments to be less than conclusive, and realised the Christian tradition has nothing to fear from skeptics.
POLL: Did Solomon Write Ecclesiastes? Why or Why Not
- Thread starter N. Eshelman
- Start date
- Status
Alternatively, they may have paid attention in Wisdom class, found conjectural arguments to be less than conclusive, and realised the Christian tradition has nothing to fear from skeptics.
Grimmson
Puritan Board Sophomore
I think tradition is more at play then arguments themselves based on people's reactions to the arguments. Which is one of the reasons why they dont address these issues in their churches.
---------- Post added at 08:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:08 PM ----------
And being a seminary student, I know based on people asking for my notes near finals, that students do not always pay attention, care, or understand arguments at hand in class.
Yes, tradition is at play (actually, it is at work doing what it is called to do); it is the tradition of faith. It is a much better biblical basis to approach such questions than an attitude of anti-tradition. The reason why these "issues" are not addressed in churches is due to the fact that it is not pastorally responsible to give oneself to that which will "minister questions rather than godly edifying which is in faith."
Grimmson
Puritan Board Sophomore
I should also add we need to be careful with calling our conservative seminary profs skeptics in relation to the Christian tradition. It could be and has been used as a derogatory term against those who have devoted their lives to the in-depth study of scripture. Some of them are also in battle for biblical confessional orthodoxy. They worthy of our respect and their options should carry more weight then our own, because of their higher level of study in their choose profession. If their option was worthless then they should be removed from the teaching of our pastors. Also I think the sheer weight of the number of conservative scholars, who scholarship we generally accept, should also weigh in. If there was a smoking gun against them, then am sure based on integrity, they would change their option. Many of these proofs are actually trying to preserve and recover the Christian tradition from those that have attempted to highjack it. So in short let us be careful not imply a negative or dishonest character to those who care for those who care for us.
I think we need to make a careful distinction between a tradition of faith and that of man. It is a tradition of faith that we should bind to people’s conscience. To not address the textual concerns and ignore them is sign of fundamentalism and mockish ignorance, not a tradition of faith. It does not take long for a tradition of man to be established and used to alter a meaning of a text. Dispensationalism is a perfect example of that. We should approach these issues biblically, which means we need to look at in relation to genre and language of the scripture, which is what non-Solomon authorship uses as an approach. It is not like conservative scholars are out to destroy the Christian faith, but restore truth of faith.
These issues should be addressed in our churches by pastors, because it can become a pastorial issue. We need to be teaching textual criticism to our congregation. Specially to high school students that are going to college and going to be taught there that there are errors and untruths in the Bible. It should be part of biblical training to our young, so that they can be prepared to counteract that. I have heard stories of college professors who were prideful of destroying believer’s faith. And one of the reasons I have taught textual criticism to college students. Pastors, sheparding their folk, needs to addressing the emerging issues of scripture to prevent having to do damage control later.
Last edited:
I don't think a reformed person, not to mention a conservative, can allow implicit faith in academic popery. No person who ministers questions should be heard on such matters, however conservatively they present themselves. Let's look at this so-called conservative profession. Where is the alternative "certainty" to the traditional perspective? Has academia come to a consensus on who wrote Ecclesiastes? when? and why? A believer seeks answers, not questions. Any skeptic can find problems. A man of faith rests on certainty and finds solutions.
Grimmson
Puritan Board Sophomore
First of all I am not saying we should look at them or the academy as a Pope for that matter. There a big difference to assigning infallibility to wise judgment. We wouldn’t want to assign such infallible judgment to you or myself. Second, they have studied longer and harder these issues then you and I, that by right gives them more credibility and the right to teach. Third, the world’s not flat and we are not in a geocentric universe. The academy does have the right to communicate the findings of their research and wise members of the church to look over the arguments and accept them in correspondence to tradition of faith and not man. We are not like Rome, who allows for human tradition to take president over the evidence presented by the providence of God. Which is the very reason why ministers, even more so if they have been seen as conservative, who see evidence contrary to the tradition should be heard, it is actually within our Reformational heritage to do so, going back to even Calvin. Fourth, the issue of conservatism must emerge in relation to the Gospel and the truth of God as communicated by God. Fifth, a man of faith does rest in certainty, but not a certainty of issues like rather Galatians was written to Northern or Southern Galatia. That is a reasonable question for one of faith, who desires to pursue and understand the word of God. Likewise the same is true with Ecclesiastes and its authorship.
The issue is not who wrote Ecclesiastes in the end, but whether or not we can bear witness the truth of God. We don’t want the enemy to have a foothold by showing our hypocrisy against the truth to the people of God or to the world. You may criticize these people work, but on what grounds and authority? Do you know Hebrew like they do, or Greek, or Aramaic? Have you read all the ancient writing and looked at the supposed parallels like they have? Are you above such men in learning? If so then publish and recommend to their church denominations church discipline over them. If their willing to study these materials we should not be willing to place judgment against them. It would be like a kid criticizing their teacher and saying x=4 for x-1=5, when the teacher is right with the answer being 6.
This leads to my 6th point. The Bible like it or not is a historic document that binds us, not our traditions outside of scripture. We must see and read the books of the Bible as historical documents written in a given place and time. Not to recognize this reality is a violation of common reason and refusal of such is a violation of the 9th. Therefore there is nothing wrong to study the text as a historic document with all of the general tools to study other ancient manuscripts. If through study of genre and language it gives reason to doubt Solomon authorship and provides a explanation of why this shouldn’t be an issue, then we should not be willing to condemn a brother and his work over such. If anything it shows the power of the truth of the Gospel and the willingness of the people of God to seek his truth through special and general revelation.
We should not be fundamentalist in our traditions, but instead recognize our traditions and see their evidence. And if the majority of Christian conservative scholars says something that goes against perhaps your traditional reading then there maybe some something there that you do not see. We do not want to be like the Armenians in our approach and crys out that all means all or World means everyone in the world, when in can imply select groups of people. We don’t translate historical protestant texts or read protestant texts without realizing their historical background and meaning of word usage, likewise we should be careful not to do so with Ecclesiastes. It is just as equally as important and refusal of such is dishonest or ignorant. Refusal of such also could show us to be closed minded to God’s general revelation in his providence.
Claimer: I want it to make it clear that myself and Matthew are not at war with each other with our postings. It is not personal, its business. And we both care about the truth of God’s Word. We actually do love each other in Lord and mean no disrespect to each other personality, even though we may use rhetoric against each other’s position.
The issue is not who wrote Ecclesiastes in the end, but whether or not we can bear witness the truth of God. We don’t want the enemy to have a foothold by showing our hypocrisy against the truth to the people of God or to the world. You may criticize these people work, but on what grounds and authority? Do you know Hebrew like they do, or Greek, or Aramaic? Have you read all the ancient writing and looked at the supposed parallels like they have? Are you above such men in learning? If so then publish and recommend to their church denominations church discipline over them. If their willing to study these materials we should not be willing to place judgment against them. It would be like a kid criticizing their teacher and saying x=4 for x-1=5, when the teacher is right with the answer being 6.
This leads to my 6th point. The Bible like it or not is a historic document that binds us, not our traditions outside of scripture. We must see and read the books of the Bible as historical documents written in a given place and time. Not to recognize this reality is a violation of common reason and refusal of such is a violation of the 9th. Therefore there is nothing wrong to study the text as a historic document with all of the general tools to study other ancient manuscripts. If through study of genre and language it gives reason to doubt Solomon authorship and provides a explanation of why this shouldn’t be an issue, then we should not be willing to condemn a brother and his work over such. If anything it shows the power of the truth of the Gospel and the willingness of the people of God to seek his truth through special and general revelation.
We should not be fundamentalist in our traditions, but instead recognize our traditions and see their evidence. And if the majority of Christian conservative scholars says something that goes against perhaps your traditional reading then there maybe some something there that you do not see. We do not want to be like the Armenians in our approach and crys out that all means all or World means everyone in the world, when in can imply select groups of people. We don’t translate historical protestant texts or read protestant texts without realizing their historical background and meaning of word usage, likewise we should be careful not to do so with Ecclesiastes. It is just as equally as important and refusal of such is dishonest or ignorant. Refusal of such also could show us to be closed minded to God’s general revelation in his providence.
Claimer: I want it to make it clear that myself and Matthew are not at war with each other with our postings. It is not personal, its business. And we both care about the truth of God’s Word. We actually do love each other in Lord and mean no disrespect to each other personality, even though we may use rhetoric against each other’s position.
David, I'd ask you to step back and contemplate a couple of things.
(1) Karl Barth, for one, was very learned. He was driven by a desire to overcome the sterility of the churches of his time and yearned to bring people to a living faith. So his motives could be called commendable. Yet what was the result of his "wise judgment?" I think we can fairly say that the result was primarily confusion.
(2) Higher criticism proceeds empirically and has a sceptical worldview from the start. That starting point is just as likely to lead to errors of bias as anything the so-called fundamentalist would come up with. In other words, the higher critic's complaint against a "fundamentalist" can be applied to himself as well.
I may be misreading you, but here is what I get from your arguments:
Ignorant folks should not voice their opinions about matters of biblical text. If an expert says something contrary to what the church has taught, well, ignorant people should listen to the expert and not be afraid of where it will lead.
Doesn't this attitude ring a bell?
Perhaps it would be better to realize that scholars who focus on a narrow line of inquiry are quite apt to have blinders on--in fact, it's a requirement for certain specialized fields because the human mind is not capable of grasping all the consequences of its conclusions--it would be too much of a distraction.
In general, I'd be cautious to go down the road against tradition without fully understanding why the tradition was there in the first place.
There may be many very plausible explanations for the anomalies found by the experts, and I haven't seen those ruled out. For example, (although my lack of formal training probably disqualifies me from discussion under your guidelines) I've looked at the very issues that Jacobus mentioned and found them all interesting, but not dispositive of anything. Sure, the switch from asher and the addition of nuns in some books is notable. But does that tell us any more than it is possible that a later scribe rewrote old works so that people could understand them? Have we completely ruled out the possibility of parallel developments in literary Hebrew that could have different styles occuring simultaneously?
Empirical studies won't be able to rule these things out, because there is always the possibility that some new discovery will tip them over.
So, I suggest caution in placing too much weight on whatever the latest research may show--it will probably change again in just a few years.
(1) Karl Barth, for one, was very learned. He was driven by a desire to overcome the sterility of the churches of his time and yearned to bring people to a living faith. So his motives could be called commendable. Yet what was the result of his "wise judgment?" I think we can fairly say that the result was primarily confusion.
(2) Higher criticism proceeds empirically and has a sceptical worldview from the start. That starting point is just as likely to lead to errors of bias as anything the so-called fundamentalist would come up with. In other words, the higher critic's complaint against a "fundamentalist" can be applied to himself as well.
I may be misreading you, but here is what I get from your arguments:
Ignorant folks should not voice their opinions about matters of biblical text. If an expert says something contrary to what the church has taught, well, ignorant people should listen to the expert and not be afraid of where it will lead.
Doesn't this attitude ring a bell?
Perhaps it would be better to realize that scholars who focus on a narrow line of inquiry are quite apt to have blinders on--in fact, it's a requirement for certain specialized fields because the human mind is not capable of grasping all the consequences of its conclusions--it would be too much of a distraction.
In general, I'd be cautious to go down the road against tradition without fully understanding why the tradition was there in the first place.
There may be many very plausible explanations for the anomalies found by the experts, and I haven't seen those ruled out. For example, (although my lack of formal training probably disqualifies me from discussion under your guidelines) I've looked at the very issues that Jacobus mentioned and found them all interesting, but not dispositive of anything. Sure, the switch from asher and the addition of nuns in some books is notable. But does that tell us any more than it is possible that a later scribe rewrote old works so that people could understand them? Have we completely ruled out the possibility of parallel developments in literary Hebrew that could have different styles occuring simultaneously?
Empirical studies won't be able to rule these things out, because there is always the possibility that some new discovery will tip them over.
So, I suggest caution in placing too much weight on whatever the latest research may show--it will probably change again in just a few years.
This is a healthy attitude for you to have (and me, for that matter), but how do you know it is true of the person you are debating? I have always gotten the impression that Rev. Winzer is at least as studied as a seminary professor on theological issues.
Actually, on that latter point, you may find it interesting to search the board for threads about geocentrism in which Rev. Winzer has participated.
On the text of Ecclesiastes, I am happy to concede that an OT scholar has likely spent more time studying it in the original than I have. What I can't acknowledge is the idea that a longer, more detailed study of a text must necessarily lead to more authoritative answers. If a scholar refuses to accept clear internal markers in the text then his intricate and prolonged study might be likened to a man wandering endlessly through the bush because he refuses to follow the signs which point to the way out.
Grimmson
Puritan Board Sophomore
I think you have to some degree you misread me. Either that or am not making myself clear. I am not saying that ignorant people shouldn’t voice their option. I think they should from a pedagogical perspective. The issue here is over the wisdom of what they apply and how. We all to some degree will not allow some to teach a opinion that is contrary to our understanding of scripture and our confession due to their own ignorance. Now the issue arises regarding those who are learned in the church going against the tradition of the church. There are many examples of traditions that arose in the church that Luther and other reformers had to counteract, one being the Roman Catholic sacrament of confirmation, another being semi-pelagian medieval system of merit, and later geocentrism (even though the focus in this case was science and not the reformers, and I did notice Rev. Winzer admitted to be ). The job of teachers of the faith is to handle the scriptures properly, but not strictly based on the tradition, otherwise we would still be in Rome today and holding to grievous errors. Instead, scripture is handled and interpreted by it’s word/phrase usage, author usage, genera usage, literary and historical context, and application of texts by other biblical authors. There needs to be a clear distinction of tradition categorically implied between God established tradition as indicated in his Word and that of men in the church. If the New Testament said for example that Solomon wrote Ecclesiastes, then we could easily bypass the argument of narrated implied authorship, where the actual author wants for affect to think of another or desires to write in the name of another, towards a God given tradition. It does not though. It is not like the conservative scholarship is driving people away from Christ, in fact I would make the case it could be used apologetically to strengthen one’s faith. To not listen to such people is to prove the liberals right on the church’s unwillingness to listen to facts and make decisions without critically examining the case there of in relation to the truth.
God has given man two kinds of revelation that we should not be afraid to use. The first being special, found only through the scriptures. The second is through general revelation, which we should not be afraid to use. Like it or not general revelation does impact, as it should, the special.
Higher criticism in the late 18-20 centuries may been influenced by a skeptical worldview, which I have no doubt, but it does not necessarily begin as a skeptical world view. Higher critical research is to study the variants and determine what is the likely proper reading of the text in relation to how the text was copied over time. The issue in this case in the tenacity of scripture, that God has preserved the reading of the text over time as we can see with the misspellings, different word orders, and added words for clarification sake. Therefore, there a recognition that what is taught now was taught at the beginning. Erasmus and other people were not involved because they wanted to disprove the bible or show there were errors. He did what he did to begin a standardized work, for the church’s profit (but I should also say probably for his personal gain).
I agree, the problem in this case is we don’t have a clear picture of the develop of the tradition. There were many traditions that were around during the first and second centuries that were erroneous, like the angel case I mentioned earlier in this string, and that we do not know the history of their development. Because we don’t know, I see no problem to question it, particularly when it is not adding or subtracting the usefulness and doctrine from Ecclesiastes and not directly affecting our doctrine of scripture and justification, which is the two major doctrines I judge the conservatism of the scholar and the reason why I reject Barth; despite of his learning. Besides he not being used as a language scholar in this case.
Now I have no problem of “ignorant people” being “afraid of where” certain ideas “will lead.” I think it is a realistic concern. But we should not be making our theological and historical decisions based on a slippery soap model. But instead it should be on what God has revealed in both general and special revelation has revealed in truth. Like it or not the experts do know more then us and some in good conscience revealed such. If they have a interesting argument, then we should listen. If we disagree then we should have the guts to disagree with them and publish finding against their findings on the same level. To not do so is to disvalue the truth. If one cannot then that implies more study is needed so that one can reach that point. However, if such study was to take place the issue should not be to try to prove someone wrong but to be willing to be open minded to the truth so that we are not proved to be Pharisees. If we deny the truth, including a series of facts, based on where it will lead then we have violated the 9th just as much as the liberals who deny the Christian Bible is the word of God and as equally as much as Barth’s view of scripture. We should never be afraid of the truth based on the slippery slope or line of argument. But instead establish boundaries of the truth so that to far on either side doesn’t fall into error. Even a heretic can have good academic work and we should be willing to accept it when it comes our way, because in some cases their not trying to prove one thing or another in regards to the Christian or Jewish faith. Now there are cases where that not true, but wisdom must always be exercised. If people were doing crappy, illogical work, then they will be peered reviewed by someone.
The issue addressed is not purely theological, but a recognition of how scripture was written and set up. Knowing theology should not be want purely drives us, but the text in how it was written, which means we need to learn the biblical languages and how they are used, which falls under the realm of general revelation. Let us make use of the wonderful resources that God has given to us in the world, like science and create a burning bridge against the sciences of study by our behavior against their study, especially for those who are in the truth. The unwillingness to deal with the science of those who study this and criticize them screams a desire not seek after the truth. If there a parallel develop during the time of Solomon then go out and prove it. Find the story why we have the accepted text as we have it today.
More careful study always leads to a better understanding of the subject and a better appreciation for the mystery of more study. And this is the case in any discipline. You may know more about the construction and history of the Westminster Confession then I do, because you have studied it longer in a greater depth.
I know that the person am debating is knowledgeable based on the recognition of the facts and arguments and willing to interact with the facts of the arguments objectively. Also by their level of study of study in that field as well. Another marker would be the quality of the work that being produced.
I have real concern when one person make internal marker claims, because it can be looked at under subjective terms and we should be open to objective facts and not be quick to cast aside certain ideas because we don’t like what we hear; but instead provide evidence against the argument at hand. If a person has more information on an issue then us, then we may be the ones who are wandering because we lack that knowledge.
Last edited:
Dear Friends,
At long last I bought the Dictionary of the Old Testament: Wisdom, Poetry & Writings (2008, Inter-varsity Press). To be honest this discussion brought me to this decision. It contains an excellent article on the history of Ecclesiastes' interpretation. From this article it is clear that the earliest Jews saw Solomon as the writer. In the Mishnah, rabbi Tanhum of Nave is quited saying,
The article quotes the Targum's rendering of Ecclesiastes 1:12,
The first to contest that the book of Ecclesiastes was written by Solomon, was the jew, Rashbam (1080-1160 AD).
Christian interpretation mostly followed the Jewish understanding of the book.
Ironically, it was the Reformation that changed the traditional interpretation of Ecclesiastes, the later Historical Criticism built on it. In his Table Talk, Luther is questioned about the authorship of Ecclesiastes. He is quoted saying,
After Luther, Gortius (died 1645) denied Solomon as author.
It does seem that those denying the authorship of Ecclesiastes is also so 16-17th century.
Regards
At long last I bought the Dictionary of the Old Testament: Wisdom, Poetry & Writings (2008, Inter-varsity Press). To be honest this discussion brought me to this decision. It contains an excellent article on the history of Ecclesiastes' interpretation. From this article it is clear that the earliest Jews saw Solomon as the writer. In the Mishnah, rabbi Tanhum of Nave is quited saying,
The article quotes the Targum's rendering of Ecclesiastes 1:12,
The first to contest that the book of Ecclesiastes was written by Solomon, was the jew, Rashbam (1080-1160 AD).
Christian interpretation mostly followed the Jewish understanding of the book.
Ironically, it was the Reformation that changed the traditional interpretation of Ecclesiastes, the later Historical Criticism built on it. In his Table Talk, Luther is questioned about the authorship of Ecclesiastes. He is quoted saying,
After Luther, Gortius (died 1645) denied Solomon as author.
It does seem that those denying the authorship of Ecclesiastes is also so 16-17th century.
Regards
LeeJUk
Puritan Board Junior
My view of these things is that if Solomon himself did not write it then at least some people operating under his authority wrote it. I view the Torah in very much the same way, that if Moses did not write all of it then the parts which are doubtful at least were done under his authority and therefore Jesus could say Moses wrote or said. I mean saying someone wrote a text in the biblical world didn't necessarily mean them but could mean their descendants, followers or people under there authority.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
