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
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.