Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>]

Dear Kevin,

Your points regarding "Son of (PN)" are well 
taken. So it is bias rather than ignorance when 
so many scholars say that the writer of the book 
of Daniel erred when he says that Nebuchannezzar 
was the father of Belshazzar (5:11,13), and use 
this as evidence for a late writing of the book.
 But I still think that the claim that the text 
in the book of Qohelet "inplies" that Solomon was 
the writer ("Imply" in the sense "indicate 
without saying, hint, suggest-Webster) is correct.

It is correct as George Athas has written that we 
have no hard data, no proofs, and no evidence 
that king Solomon wrote the book, and that it is 
not a pseudipigraphic work. But the hints are 
clear, as Dave Washburn and Karl Randolph have 
written. The writer says the following things 
about himself:

1. He was son of David. That could fit many kings.

2.  He was king over Israel i Jerusalem (1:12). 
That could not fit any of the kings of Judah. But 
it could fit Saul, David, Solomon, and Rehabeam, 
but not the kings of Israel who reigned from 
Samaria.

3. The writer was (claimed to be) a "good king" (Dave)

4. He claims to have amassed wisdom above all who 
were before him (1:16-18) (Karl). That could not 
fit any other king after Solomon, because Solomon 
is described in the historical books as the 
wisest king who has lived.

5. All that the king experienced according to 
chapter 2 fit Solomon very well, according to 
what is written about him, but it hardly fits the 
description of any other king.

All these points taken together shows clearly, in 
my view, that the author, whether or not he was 
Solomon, wanted the readers to believe that he 
was Solomon.


Best regards,

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo




> Quoting Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>:
> >  The book implies that Solomon wrote it....
>
> I write:
> But this is not necessarily so.  It states "Son of David, king in
> Jerusalem" (Qoh 1.1 NRSV).  All of the kings of Judah bore the
> appellation "Son of David" just as all the rulers in Damascus bore the
> appellation "Son of Hadad" and various Aramaean dynasts bore the
> appellation "Son of (PN)" as noted in Assyrian documents.  In view of
> this, it could be attributed to any of the rulers of Judah, including
> Jehoiachin who died in Babylon in the late sixth century.
>
> For this practice, I recommend the following (I'll add other citations later):
> Hélène Sader's, _Les États Araméens de Syrie: Depuis leur fondation
> jusqu'à leur transformation en provinces assyriennes_. Beiruter Texte
> und Studien 36. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1987.
>
> Some time ago I wrote a series of blog posts on the "Son of PN"/"House
> of PN" usage in Assyrian.  Those will explain this usage:
> http://www.bombaxo.com/blog/index.php?s=b¥t-pn
>
> Qohelet neither states nor implies that Solomon is its author.  It is
> *traditional* to assign the book to Solomon through an intertextual
> reading of Ecclesiastes in light of the MT text of 1 Kings, in which a
> picture emerges of a repentant Solomon late in life providing sage
> advice to others so that they will avoid his own various earlier
> mistakes.  But he was not the only king of Judah with wealth,
> concubines, and so on, to which such reminiscences would apply.  But
> it could just as easily, and more fittingly in a linguistic sense, be
> applied to the former king Jehoiachin, revisiting his own prideful
> state as a king of however brief duration, and his direct suffering of
> the consequences of his actions and decisions, placed in context over
> the course of a difficult life, which lasted until at least about 560.
>   I suggest this as a distinct possibility.
>
> Regards,
> Kevin P. Edgecomb
> Berkeley, California
>
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew