Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Peter Kirk" <Peter_Kirk AT sil.org>]

The problem we then have is that we have no evidence (apart from very
limited archaeological material which is mostly arguing from silence) about
your historical Solomon, if he is not the same as the Solomon presented in
the Bible. In fact we don't even know which historical age to put him in,
unless we take the datings in Kings very literally. The more conventional
dating is Iron Age IIA, but one scholar has suggested Late Bronze IIA, a
contemporary of Pharaoh Haremheb. This earlier dating might be a better
setting for the author of Proverbs and Qoheleth.

I accept that there is the possibility of arguing on linguistic grounds that
Kings does reflect the historical Solomon but Qoheleth does not, but any
argument that Qoheleth does not match a reconstructed historical Solomon
falls immediately on the speculative nature of that reconstructed Solomon.

To put it simply, in the absence of extra-Biblical evidence, either (as Dave
Washburn seems to hold) the historical Solomon is the same as the literary
Solomon; or else (as Thomas Thompson seems to hold) we have no historical
Solomon, only a literary one. I don't see a tenable middle ground.

Peter Kirk

-----Original Message-----
From: Raymond de Hoop [mailto:rdehoop AT keyaccess.nl]
Sent: 22 May 2001 15:21
To: Biblical Hebrew
Subject: Re: Qoheleth


At 22-05-2001 15:43 Dave Washburn <dwashbur AT nyx.net> wrote:

> Solomon is said to have
> been a master of proverbs as well as politics, so the picture we
> have of him is at least as philosophical as it is concerned with
> politics.

Dave, that is the picture the Hebrew Bible wants us to have from him. That
is not necessarily the same as the historical picture. Try e.g. to compare
the Jerusalem from the biblical picture (in DtrH) with the archaeological
picture.

Regards
Raymond