Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

The key word Karl uses in his message is 'assume'. Yes, many people 'assume' 
Solomon wrote it, but he is nowhere named in the book. As such, it is 
misleading to assert that he is 'clearly described' as the author. Karl is 
subsuming the category of author and narrator into one by 'assuming' they are 
the same thing.

And what is missing from Karl's message is a third possibility on authorship: 
that it is not a fraud at all, but a highly crafted piece of literature 
written by someone in the Persian Era, taking on the persona of Solomon in 
the early chapters for rhetorical effect. I don't know why Karl refuses to 
acknowledge even the possibility of this third option, but there you go.


Regards,

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


________________________________
From: K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 05:36:09 +1000
To: B-Hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] qohelet

Kimmo:

> The book presents the words of Qohelet as if they are his exact words in
the first person. This is by far the largest collection of informal spoken
language written down. Most people assume that it was written down by
Solomon himself, as he is clearly described as the author of the sentiments.

Was it written down by Solomon himself? Most people assume it was. However
some verses, such as 8:2, seem to indicate that another person actually
wrote it. Other verses indicating that another person wrote it are 1:1-2.
These verses present Solomon's words in the same manner as the prophets
presented Gods words: as an exact quote but that the speaker did not wield
the pen. If another wielded the pen, it is unclear whether or not Solomon
collaborated in the writing of Qohelet. If another wrote it down, the
implications are that he was present in Solomon's court, taking down what
Solomon said.

What is not implied is that this was written far later by someone assuming
the role of Solomon as a literary device. From the way it is written, either
it was genuinely from the time of Solomon, or it is a fraud posing as
Solomon.

Karl W. Randolph.