Biblical Hebrew Forum

[George Athas <George.Athas AT moore.edu.au>]

That's my point exactly, James. The Babylonian Talmud is so much later than 
Solomon, I find it difficult to see how it could have accurate knowledge of 
the author of Qohelet. Whether the tradition links it to Solomon or not, the 
tradition in the Talmud is late, and therefore of questionable value.

But besides, what does it mean for Solomon to be the author of Qohelet, and 
yet the book be written down much later? What does 'much later' mean here? 
Would it not mean that Solomon is not really the author? Or does 'much later' 
mean 'in Solomon's final years'? If so, then the problem I've mentioned above 
is magnified even more.

To summarise: The tradition connecting Qohelet to Solomon is old, but not old 
enough to offer anything of real value. At best, the tradition simply tells 
us what people thought of Qohelet around the turn of the era - nothing more.


Regards,

GEORGE ATHAS
Moore Theological College (Sydney, Australia)
www.moore.edu.au