Subject: Re: Qoheleth

From: "Kevin W. Woodruff" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 1996 20:15:47 -0400 (EDT)

Dear Jim:

Traditionally,  (at least until the 19th century) Ecclesisastes was regarded
to be of Solomonic authorship,  by the Jews in the Talmud (Megilla 7a,
Shabbath 30). 
Internally the book seems to speak of one who:

1. Was of royal lineage (1:1)
2. Had great wisdom (1:16)
3. Had  great wealth (2:8)
4. Was involved in great building projects (2:4-6)
5. Posessed a huge retinue of servants (2:7)

Gleason Archer and Walter Kaiser are both two who argue for Solomonic
authorship for the book, along with Merrill Unger.

At 03:56 PM 10/3/96 -0400, you wrote:
>A fellow I know keeps inisisting that there is MSS evidence which attributes
>Qoheleth to Solomon.  This is, of course, pure poppycock.  Yet in an effort
>to be thorough I thought I would throw out the line and see if anyone has
>ever heard of any such manuscript evidence.
>
>Thanks,
>
>
>Jim
>
>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>Jim West
>Petros TN
>
>
>

Kevin W. Woodruff
Reference Librarian
Cierpke Memorial Library
Temple Baptist Seminary
Tennessee Temple University
1815 Union Ave.
Chattanooga, TN 37404
423/493-4252 (phone) 423/493-4497 (FAX)
[email-masked]

---

From: Tyler Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 1996 08:37:58 -0400 (EDT)

First, there has been no new (or old) manuscript evidence that attributes 
Qohehet to Solomon.

In regards to the tradition that associated Solomon with Qohelet (Kevin's 
post), this move was clearly part of a larger movement that associated 
Moses with the Torah and David with the Psalms, and associated wisdom 
with Solomon. What is significant is that the identification is only 
implicit in Qohelet; the author never comes right out and says he's 
Solomon (as opposed to the headings in Proverbs and Song of Songs, and 
the much later Wisdom of Solomon), and the allusions to kingship, etc., 
stop after the second chapter (though I would argue that we are supposed 
to keep reading the book as Solomonic because of the implicit 
identification of Solomon with Qohelet in 1:1). To me it seems clear that 
the author adopts the persona of Solomon to make his point--and who 
better to test the limits of wisdom than the sage par excellance? (akin 
to fictional Akkadian autobiography, if you follow Longman's analysis). 
In regards to the views of Archer, Kaiser, and Unger who still maintain 
Solomonic authorship, I think that they would even be a minority among 
conservative scholars (though I could be wrong). The language  and 
thought of the book clearly place it in the late Persian or Hellenistic 
period.

-Tyler
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Tyler F. Williams
     Wycliffe College, Toronto School of Theology, University of Toronto 
 Phone:(416) 963-9082 * Fax:(416) 979-0471 * E-mail:[email-masked]
              http://www.chass.utoronto.ca:8080/~twilliam 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------