Biblical Hebrew Forum

[James Read <J.Read-2 AT sms.ed.ac.uk>]

Hi,

you've raised a lot of interesting points George. I think we've  
established that this tradition is old. The question is how old? We  
can't trace this with any kind of accuracy because all we have is  
fragmental evidence in the transmission chain of the tradition.

However, one question I would like to ask you is this. How old do you  
date the traditions found in the Babylonian Talmud? I was sure we have  
quite old fragments of the Talmud and a post-exilic authorship of  
Qohelet seems less and less likely.

I think the only things we can say for sure are:

1) It could not have been authored any later than the 3rd century BCE  
because it is extensively quoted in late 2nd century BCE.

2) It could not be any older than David because the author claims to  
be the son of David.

3) We have a tradition that it was originally authored by Solomon but  
the Babylonian Talmud gives us the impression that it was Hezekiah and  
his mob that actually put pen to paper.

4) It's presence in the LXX translation may also be significant to the  
dating debate.

5) Existence of targum versions of Qohelet may also be relevant to the  
discussion.


All in all, I think there are far more clues to be considered than the  
presence of a couple of words of debatable foreign origin.

James Christian

Quoting 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew



--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.