Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Stephen Shead <srshead+bh AT gmail.com>]

Hi Kirk (and Karl, as it turns out),

One small correction, if I may:

> But "all the kings before me"
> would only refer to David and Saul if Solomon was speaking.

Actually, he says "all those before me over Jerusalem" in 1:16. Saul, of
course, was king neither over Jerusalem nor in it. David did the conquering.
That would leave "all those" as David alone - unless we appeal to the
Jebusites, as Karl did, which seems very much clutching at straws to me. (My
opinion, of course ... but what do earlier Jebusite rulers have anything to
do with anything in Israelite thinking?)

An extra little complexity for the "literally Solomon" view, which I forgot
to mention, is in 1:12: Qohelet says "I, Qohelet, was/have been (HYYTY) king
over Israel in Jerusalem". Why the perfect, given that Solomon died in
office?

OK, I've started down this path, I might as well blunder on (hence the
change of subject)...

While we're at it, I have other problems, based on internal evidence (since
we've thrashed the borrowed words horse), with the identification of
Solomon, or any other king of Judah for that matter, as the author. (None of
these observations is original, by the way.) The basic issue is that after
the first two chapters, there is nothing in the rest of the book which even
hints at a royal identification - and several passages which sound downright
strange if we take them to be coming out of the mouth of the annointed
davidic king; for example, strong critiques of those in power, and
consistent 3rd-person references to the king/ruler:

4:1, "Again, I observed all the acts of oppression being done under the sun.
Look at the tears of those who are oppressed; they have no one to comfort
them. Power is with those who oppress them; they have no one to comfort
them."

5:8-9, "If you see oppression of the poor and perversion of justice and
righteousness in the province, don't be astonished at the situation, because
one official protects another official, and higher officials protect
them. The profit from the land is taken by all; the king is served by the
field" (or however that should be translated)

8:2-5, advice on obeying the king, how to react to his word, etc. - all in
the third person

10:5-7, the evil the author has observed "as an error proceeding from the
presence of a ruler", which has to do with appointing fools to positions of
authority.

10:20, warning against cursing the king.

So why the obvious allusions and "I am the king" references - without ever
using the king's name - in chapters 1 & 2, and then nothing for the rest?
The reason, in my view, seems to be 2:12: "for what will the man be like who
comes after the king? He (or They) will do what has already been done."

That is, if the great Solomon himself can't find meaning and purpose and
durability in these things, with all his wealth and resources and wisdom,
then it can't be found.

Of course, if the book was written in the 10th century, all of this is very
problematic. Was it Solomon, or someone pretending to be Solomon? The former
has difficulties, as shown above ... but if the latter, did they expect
their readers to "get it", or were they really trying to fool people?
Wouldn't we read in Kings about how some chap was arrested for impersonating
the king and thrown in prison? (ok, that wasn't a serious question...)

HOWEVER, if this were written some centuries later (later in the monarchic
period, after the exile, whatever), then it would be blatantly obvious to
all that this is a literary device, whereby Qohelet the wisdom teacher is
putting on the persona of the greatest and wisest king in history, for the
purpose of philosophical testing of all the potential "meaning-makers" in
life "under the sun". It would be neither cryptic nor deceitful - no less
than if I were to write a playful little piece on the English language,
presenting myself as a well-known English Bard observing with horror the
modern atrocities that have been committed with my plays...

By the end of chapter 2, Qohelet has finished that little exercise, and the
persona is dropped. Thus, in the rest of the book (that is, in the other
teachings of Qohelet which the narrator has collected), he speaks as the
"ordinary", non-royal person that he is, critiquing, observing, advising,
etc.

So-that's-perfectly-clear-glad-we-all-agree-on-it...

<ducking for cover>

Stephen Shead
Centro de Estudios Pastorales
Santiago, Chile