Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

George:

On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 11:18 PM, George Athas 
<George.Athas AT moore.edu.au>wrote:

> Karl,
>
> You've raised the issue of pseudepigraphy and appear to imply two things:
>
> (1) It is a device intended to deceive the reader into thinking that it was
> written by someone famous, when in fact it wasn't.
>

We have numerous examples throughout history from ancient times to today,
from short essays to whole books, where this exact deception is deliberate.


> (2) Any use of a different persona in writing is necessarily deceptive in
> the ancient world.
>
> I did not say that.

Just as in modern times where that practice is used as a literary device,
clues are added to show that it is a literary device and not deliberate
deception, so we find in ancient documents similar clues are added.
Therefore my question: if Qohelet is a late document where the use of
affecting a different persona as a literary device is practiced, which and
where are the clues that tell us that pretending to be Solomon is a literary
device and not either a genuine document from Solomon’s pen or a deliberate
attempt to deceive?

The identification of QHLT as Solomon is from the actions he claims to have
done (consistent with other pre-Babylonian Exile Hebrew literature), as well
as his self identification as a “son” of David. The two together fit no
other person known from history. Context tells us that this was not a given
name. It is speculation how widely outside of this book that this name was
used to refer to Solomon, as no documents have survived.


> The first implication is quite widely accepted, but I don't think it has
> been thought through very well. I don't believe pseudepigraphy was used to
> deceive people (at least not originally) and so create a false authority,
> but rather to secure a wide readership.


That is deception.

To give modern examples, there are books published written by “ghost
writers” who did all the work—getting the idea, working out the thesis,
doing the research, writing, etc.—where then a famous person appends his
name so that the book will sell well, but the true author does not get any
credit whatsoever. I can name a couple of names. This is deception. (In the
modern examples, it is also stealing from the true authors in that the true
authors are not invited to give speeches and attend conferences to discuss
their ideas and it is more difficult for them to publish under their true
names later.)

Ancient examples, e.g. “Gospel of Peter”, are equally deceptive.


> That is, people were more likely to read a work if it was told from the
> perspective of someone they knew and loved and respected. We do the same
> kind of thing today when we get celebrities to host/narrate things like
> documentaries; the words they say are not their own, but a familiar face
> will appeal to us.
>
> That’s why this deception is practiced. (The use of celebrities, mostly
known actors (a contextual clue that the idea is not the narrator’s) can
backfire, should the celebrity attempt to publicize his own ideas.)


> As for the second implication above, I disagree entirely.
>
> Why? What are the clues you can point to?


> Final thought: I'm not arguing that Qohelet is pseudepigraphic. I think the
> use of a different persona is a little more subtle than that. It's a
> rhetorical device that, I believe, the author switches out of very quickly.
> That is, I don't think the persona of Solomon is maintained throughout
> Qohelet. I think it serves a purpose only in the early chapters, and is then
> set aside.
>
> You then have to claim that he returns to it in the final chapters.

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

Can you point to other ancient documents where the affecting of another’s
persona was a literary device (not an attempt to deceive) and what are the
clues used by the author that indicate so?

Karl W. Randolph.