# POLL: Did Solomon Write Ecclesiastes? Why or Why Not



## N. Eshelman (May 19, 2010)

Did Solomon write the book of Ecclesiastes? If yes, why do you think so? If not, why not?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (May 19, 2010)

The author identifies himself as a King of Jerusalem and Son of David.


----------



## MLCOPE2 (May 19, 2010)

What he said.


----------



## Grimmson (May 19, 2010)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> The author identifies himself as a King of Jerusalem and Son of David.


 
Keeping in mind the genre and assigned titles, we cannot use that identity for Solomon alone, according to Estelle of Westminster Seminary of California. Also one needs to consider the post-exile style it was written in. Personally, I don’t have an opinion since I am no expert in Hebrew or literary styles to judge that it’s a post-exile piece. But the use of the title, even if the author did not hold it, for literary effect was common.


----------



## Peairtach (May 19, 2010)

It's got so many of the things in it that Solomon got up to.


----------



## MLCOPE2 (May 19, 2010)

nleshelman said:


> Did Solomon write the book of Ecclesiastes? If yes, why do you think so? If not, why not?


 
What, pray tell, do you think?


----------



## N. Eshelman (May 19, 2010)

MLCOPE2 said:


> What, pray tell, do you think?



Michael, I think that Solomon _would_ use SermonJams....  

Seriously though, I do think that Solomon wrote the book. The first verse would be a lie not a literary device if it was not him. There is also 2.18; 12:9; and other texts that seem to point to Sol. Psalm 127, which belongs to Solomon looks a bit familiar in the light of Qohleth's book as well. 

I am quite surprised by the number of conservative, reformed scholars that deny Solomon's writing it. 

New sermon series on Ecclesiastes starts this Lord's Day. Here's an ad for the preaching.


----------



## Peairtach (May 19, 2010)

Did Solomon write Ecclesiastes before, during or after his backsliding, and how old would he have been?


----------



## Grimmson (May 19, 2010)

Solomon authorship does not account for Persian and Aramaic vocabulary in the text, or even the noun pattern usage. We need to be careful with connections we try to make by looking at our English translations. We should also consider on top of this that the author does not call himself Solomon and the poetic nature of the text. If we are to hold to Solomon authorship there we must be willing to accept a redactor modifier to the work because of such vocabulary. There are some similarities with Proverbs, but Solomon alone is not completely responsible for even that text, just like David not solely responsible for all the psalms in the Psalms. 

Son of David not much of an issue because Hezekiah is just as much a son and as a king of Jerusalem as Solomon. So the son of David can be anyone in that line of decent. Also the term king of Jerusalem can also refer to a lesser lord in comparison to the Persian King of Kings, head monarch, after the exile.


----------



## Curt (May 19, 2010)

nleshelman said:


> MLCOPE2 said:
> 
> 
> > What, pray tell, do you think?
> ...


 
Great poster!


----------



## N. Eshelman (May 19, 2010)

nleshelman said:


> Curt said:
> 
> 
> > Here's an ad for the preaching.
> ...



Thanks! The congregation is placing these in coffee shops, laundromats, college campuses, gyms, grocery stores, etc. as a way to advertise. We are in something of a 'hipster' neighborhood so Ecclesiastes will minister to some of the nihilism of the community.[/QUOTE]


----------



## MLCOPE2 (May 19, 2010)

nleshelman said:


> MLCOPE2 said:
> 
> 
> > What, pray tell, do you think?
> ...



That's ok, we're all wrong once and a while 

---------- Post added at 08:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:53 PM ----------




nleshelman said:


> MLCOPE2 said:
> 
> 
> > What, pray tell, do you think?
> ...


 
Sounds like a fun series. I'll have to have a listen.


----------



## fredtgreco (May 19, 2010)

nleshelman said:


> nleshelman said:
> 
> 
> > Curt said:
> ...


[/QUOTE]
That's a really good idea, Nathan. I'll have to think about the idea of making simple posters.


----------



## au5t1n (May 19, 2010)

Grimmson said:


> Son of David not much of an issue because Hezekiah is just as much a son and as a king of Jerusalem as Solomon. So the son of David can be anyone in that line of decent.



But Hezekiah and most of the other kings (and precious few of them were godly) ruled before the exile, and nobody after the exile would ever have had the wealth described in Ecclesiastes.



Grimmson said:


> Also the term king of Jerusalem can also refer to a lesser lord in comparison to the Persian King of Kings, head monarch, after the exile.


 
Echo the above point. No "lesser lord" would have had the wealth described in Ecclesiastes.


----------



## Heidelberg1 (May 19, 2010)

I voted that it does not matter.

I have wondered about this verse though. 

(1:16) "I said in my heart, “I have acquired great wisdom, surpassing all who were over Jerusalem before me, and my heart has had great experience of wisdom and knowledge.”

"All who were over Jerusalem before me." If it was Solomon who wrote it, and he is talking about Israel's kings, than the only one over Jerusalem before him was David. It seems strange to use the word all. 

Blessings,


----------



## SolaScriptura (May 19, 2010)

nleshelman said:


> MLCOPE2 said:
> 
> 
> > What, pray tell, do you think?
> ...


 
Wow! I'm impressed... that is a really good poster! Well done!


----------



## ClayPot (May 19, 2010)

It's part of the historical tradition of the church. I see no reason to doubt it.


----------



## fredtgreco (May 19, 2010)

Heidelberg1 said:


> I voted that it does not matter.
> 
> I have wondered about this verse though.
> 
> ...


 And if it were not Solomon, then the author would be saying he was wiser than Solomon. That is certainly more problematic than the word "all" which could include more than kings./.


----------



## MW (May 20, 2010)

Grimmson said:


> Solomon authorship does not account for Persian and Aramaic vocabulary in the text, or even the noun pattern usage.


 
It's been a few years since I went through Ecclesiastes, but I remember commentators noting this was not material to the discussion of authorship or dating. It was claimed that the language of Ecclesiastes does not strictly fall into any era in the development of Hebrew. Alternative suggestions include a northern dialect or even a language of pessimism.


----------



## Bern (May 20, 2010)

1. He says he's the son of David, the king.
2. That he is wiser than everyone else (perfect description of Solomon)
3. The things in the book perfectly describe the things Solomon did in his life (I'm assuming it was written right at the end of his life, where he could truly say that without God everything is vanity!
4. Its the traditional church position on the subject (or so I believe).

Regarding the language issue: Is it possible that Solomon employed the aid of writers to help him write the book. Perhaps that accounts for the language discrepancies. I know people may think this sounds uneducated, but since none of us were there at the time, how do we know exactly what language a person would have used?


----------



## JennyG (May 20, 2010)

Bern said:


> 1. He says he's the son of David, the king.
> 2. That he is wiser than everyone else (perfect description of Solomon)
> 3. The things in the book perfectly describe the things Solomon did in his life (I'm assuming it was written right at the end of his life, where he could truly say that without God everything is vanity!
> 4. Its the traditional church position on the subject (or so I believe).


- all good points


> Regarding the language issue: Is it possible that Solomon employed the aid of writers to help him write the book. Perhaps that accounts for the language discrepancies. I know people may think this sounds uneducated, but since none of us were there at the time, how do we know exactly what language a person would have used?


more than that, I often wonder what makes critics so sure a person can't use a different style at different times.
Language is so fluid apart from anything else. Has no-one else had the experience of reading a great deal of some particular author, or from a certain time in history....and then finding him/herself unconsciously imitating the style of writing? I do that all the time. Also if I pulled out an essay, say, that I wrote in my student days, I seriously doubt if it would be stylistically much like what I'm typing now


----------



## fredtgreco (May 20, 2010)

JennyG said:


> Bern said:
> 
> 
> > 1. He says he's the son of David, the king.
> ...


 Yes. This is the same kind of argument against a traditional dating of Esther or Job, both of which have proven a tempest in a teapot.


----------



## Philip (May 20, 2010)

A little groundwork here:

Is it fair to say that _The Iliad_ is by Homer even though it was written down later and edited? If we can say this, I think it's fine to attribute it to Solomon even if the final form didn't come into existence until after the exile. Authorship for the ancients wasn't as clear-cut as it is for us today.


----------



## Skyler (May 20, 2010)

I voted "yes", because, for once, I read the thread before voting. That calls for a party!


----------



## JonathanHunt (May 20, 2010)

I preach the odd chapter here and there. Last Sunday I preached Eccl 5 entitled 'Six Myths about life without God'

Those are:

Myth 1: Human beings are fair. 
Myth 2: There is no need to worry about judgment from a higher authority.
Myth 3: Super status is available to human beings. 
Myth 4: Wealth and success satisfies.
Myth 5: Increase gives ease and security. 
Myth 6: There is meaning and purpose to life without God.

Got to love Ecclesiastes.

Also preached Ecclesiastes 3 (its on sermonaudio) under the title 'Whose time is it anyway?' .... geddit?


----------



## he beholds (May 20, 2010)

nleshelman said:


> MLCOPE2 said:
> 
> 
> > What, pray tell, do you think?
> ...


 
I love the ad! What an incredible idea for Lord's Day worship! I've only seen ads for conferences and what-not, but we know that a worship service is way more important/beneficial--we should seek to bring in people then, too. Really, a wonderful idea implemented wonderfully. I will pray for you to have lots of visitors and that the Lord will speak through you.


----------



## Bern (May 20, 2010)

JonathanHunt said:


> I preach the odd chapter here and there. Last Sunday I preached Eccl 5 entitled 'Six Myths about life without God'
> 
> Those are:
> 
> ...


 

LOL at the sermon title 

I'm really growing to love Ecc more all the time, it really sums up the reality of mans life. Its so profound and contains truth that really does set you free. How many people, even Christians, are still bound by the worldly mindset that they need more money in order to be content. I love the way it tells us that it is a gift from God to be able to enjoy what we have, and be content with it.


----------



## Zenas (May 20, 2010)

fredtgreco said:


> Heidelberg1 said:
> 
> 
> > I voted that it does not matter.
> ...


 
Aye, bearing in mind that the judges ruled before the kings.


----------



## DMcFadden (May 20, 2010)

If not Solomon, someone by the same name and the Son of David. 

I do not argue that the final canonical form had to have been from him alone, however. Frankly, I do not know enough about the history of textual transmission of the book to be dogmatic. But, whether someone (under the leadership of God) freshened it up a bit for a later audience, in my mind there is only one Qoheleth (= biblical Solomon). I would preach it as the work of Solomon.


----------



## Philip (May 20, 2010)

> and the Son of David.



Remember that "Son of David" was the rightful title of anyone descended from him.


----------



## MW (May 20, 2010)

P. F. Pugh said:


> Remember that "Son of David" was the rightful title of anyone descended from him.


 
That is a dubious claim.


----------



## Grimmson (May 21, 2010)

armourbearer said:


> P. F. Pugh said:
> 
> 
> > Remember that "Son of David" was the rightful title of anyone descended from him.
> ...


No its not, especially within a Jewish context. Remember Matthew 1:1, where our Lord Jesus is called the son of David. It the perspective of the line of descent that allowed for gaps within a family’s genealogy when a particular point was being made. It was all to common within Judaism or Jewish way of thinking. We don’t want to confuse chronology with genealogy in descendant. It is this way of thinking that we can all be called naturally children of Adam and not in just a theological context. 

It is for this reason why I mentioned Hezekiah, to dispel the notion that it had to be immediately Solomon on the bases of kinghood and line; even though I don’t think he wrote. It was just an example. 

One example that comes to mind in relation to gaps in the genealogies is in 1 Chronicles 3 in comparison to Matthew 1. Matthew claims that Shealtiel is the father of Zerubbabel. In 1 Choronicles, he is the son of Pedaiah, who is the son Shealtiel. So we can see that sonship is always directed in line of immediate chronological descendant, but is instead directed as somewhere being in the line, regardless of place in that line. Therefore you can be four or fourteen generations removed and still be technically classified as being the son of that person.


----------



## MW (May 21, 2010)

Grimmson said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> > P. F. Pugh said:
> ...


 
Yes, it is a Messianic title, which argues against the dubious claim. The matter can be easily settled by an appeal to Scripture. There were many kings which sprang from David's loins; besides his own children and Jesus Christ, where are any of them referred to as the son of David?


----------



## Grimmson (May 21, 2010)

armourbearer said:


> Grimmson said:
> 
> 
> > armourbearer said:
> ...


 
Yes, it is a messianic title when we start to approach the time of Jesus. However, one must consider the notation of under what right does a person have to reign over Judah? It is simple, being a descendant of David, which is why it evolved into a messianic title. The people wanted a re-established independence of Israel and kick the invaders out and have that kingdom be an everlasting kingdom.

I think my gap analysis of Shealtiel and Zerubbabel for the Jewish line of thinking of descent stands. One could also make the case in relation to Abraham and his son being David and his children being the Jews; which is done for historical and theologically reasons, as with the Son of David. We need to think about this in line of Near Eastern thought, and not with our Western mind set. In the Near East, who you were descended of would establish who you are and what you will or can do. Scripture would not need to repeat that each successor of Judah was of the line of David under the title “son of David,” since it was a standing requirement for rule to begin with as implied with the keeping of such genealogical data in the temple, according to Josephus.


----------



## MW (May 21, 2010)

Grimmson said:


> We need to think about this in line of Near Eastern thought, and not with our Western mind set.


 
We need to think about this according to biblical testimony and withstand the temptation to read into Scripture what is not there.


----------



## Grimmson (May 21, 2010)

armourbearer said:


> Grimmson said:
> 
> 
> > We need to think about this in line of Near Eastern thought, and not with our Western mind set.
> ...


 
I did use scripture to back up my point in how can be implied in a line of descent, look yourself with the gap in Matthew 1 and in 1 Chronicles 3. Usages of descent can also be seen in Luke 3:8, Exodus 3:15, where children and fathers our not applied in the next generational chronological sense. We should also remember in the interpretative process how we ourselves are removed from the initial context and understanding of a given text to a particular people. Therefore applying we should try to study it in a manner in which they would understand a text and not by our western standards of interpretation. The following is the attempt that modern conservative scholarship attempts to apply for our benefit. It doesn’t mean that we should always agree with them, but at least listen to them and try to understand the logic of their argument based from history and studies in the original languages in a way that we do not. This would include usages of different form in varying periods of time. 

We should look at it with the biblical testimony, but where was this testimony written and am referring to the OT? The answer is the Near East. To subtract this element of consideration in the interpretative process is to improperly treat and handle the text that we have been trained to preach from. Which is why we must me conscience of our own presuppositions and a culture’s presupposition of any given text. We wouldn’t try to interpret a non-scriptural historically ancient text by this means, so too should we not treat scripture as such, if we are to be consist. 

We should be careful not to read something that not there, but that can occur with our own western mind, we don’t need the near east to do that. In fact I would be willing to imply that the unwillingness to consider the Near Eastern cultures would do just that, create a reading of scripture that not there. 

Considerations of biblical testimony must also include the genre uses and style of a given period. Failure to do this with any text, even non-scriptural texts, can dramatically affect our interpretative process.


----------



## MW (May 21, 2010)

Grimmson said:


> I did use scripture to back up my point in how can be implied in a line of descent, look yourself with the gap in Matthew 1 and in 1 Chronicles 3.


 
It comes down to a methodological choice. You are utilising an inference to argue for the explanation of an express title. All other biblical usage restricts the express title to the immediate male offspring of David or to the Messiah. The book of Proverbs specifically identifies Solomon as an author of canonical Scripture in terms of the express title. Each one will decide the matter on the basis of how Scripture regulates his thoughts.


----------



## au5t1n (May 21, 2010)

armourbearer said:


> Grimmson said:
> 
> 
> > I did use scripture to back up my point in how can be implied in a line of descent, look yourself with the gap in Matthew 1 and in 1 Chronicles 3.
> ...


 
I agree Solomon wrote it, but I want to observe that the reason "Son of David" is a meaningful messianic title is because it highlights that the Messiah must be an Anointed King in David's line. Every king of Israel was a "messiah" anointed and made king for a time, and was a son of David. Jesus is the final fulfillment of all these roles -- Messiah, King, Son of David. Do you think this is missing the mark?


----------



## Grimmson (May 21, 2010)

armourbearer said:


> Grimmson said:
> 
> 
> > I did use scripture to back up my point in how can be implied in a line of descent, look yourself with the gap in Matthew 1 and in 1 Chronicles 3.
> ...


 
I am not arguing against Solomon authorship in this case, but for the common usage of line of descendant beyond the immediate offspring. Once that has been recognized and established then I think that should guide us to say that relating the term son to a grandparent or a great-grandparent should not be a “dubious claim” at all in relation to scripture and the Near Eastern context that it was written in.

One methodological approach will directly affect the proper understanding of any passage, regardless of when and what language a text is written in. And we need to be very careful in critiquing various approaches of understanding, which is why I am defending Philip here from your statement. 

There are some real concerns with Solomon authorship that need to be addressed, concerning vocabulary and noun usage and does have a direct effect on the dating of Ecclesiastes in it’s final form. Stylistic authorship comparisons need to be done with the works attributed to Solomon and that of Ecclesiastes. I haven’t seen a strong case for contributing a northern dialect during his time. If it is written by Solomon, then I think there a strong chance that what we have is not in his final form.

And I think we need to be careful not to have ourselves choose how we regulate our thoughts in relation to scripture, but instead based on a coherent logically structured system that would be consist with the interpretation of the original readers of the text and by the disciples themselves.


----------



## MW (May 21, 2010)

austinww said:


> Every king of Israel was a "messiah" anointed and made king for a time, and was a son of David. Jesus is the final fulfillment of all these roles -- Messiah, King, Son of David. Do you think this is missing the mark?


 
I would regard it as missing the mark because I cannot see how wicked kings as kings of the line of David are to be regarded as "messiah," that is, the one for whom the Davidic promises come to fulfilment, either partially or completely. First, Solomon (temporally) and Jesus (eternally) build the house of the Lord, 2 Samuel 7:13. Secondly, Solomon (really) and Jesus (imputatively) suffered chastisement and enjoyed steadfast love, verse 13-15; righteous kings only had that privilege by derivation and wicked kings had it not at all. Thirdly, David's earthly posterity forfeited their thone and kingdom at the exile, so the promise of perpetual rule finds its only fulfilment in the eternal reign of Christ.


----------



## MW (May 21, 2010)

Grimmson said:


> Stylistic authorship comparisons need to be done with the works attributed to Solomon and that of Ecclesiastes.


 
Again, it is a matter of method; stylistic comparisons robbed Paul of a number of his letters and semantic studies restored them again.


----------



## Philip (May 21, 2010)

armourbearer said:


> Grimmson said:
> 
> 
> > I did use scripture to back up my point in how can be implied in a line of descent, look yourself with the gap in Matthew 1 and in 1 Chronicles 3.
> ...


 
Matt 1:20 may shed some light:

"But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, *son of David*, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit."


----------



## MW (May 22, 2010)

P. F. Pugh said:


> Matt 1:20 may shed some light:
> 
> "But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, *son of David*, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit."


 
It was in view of the child to be born that the title was given. Poole: "by which compellation he lets him know he was to be the supposed and legal, though not the natural, father of the Messias, who was by the confession of all men to be the Son of David."


----------



## Grimmson (May 22, 2010)

austinww said:


> Every king of Israel was a "messiah" anointed and made king for a time, and was a son of David.


.

I think we need to be careful not to equate the anointed king with being a good or righteous king. It is for that reason why I wouldn’t have a problem with looking at all the kings of Judah and prior with the unification of Israel as being God’s anointed. I am thinking of passages like 1 Samuel 24:10 and personally seeing a close relationship to Romans 13: 6.

And thanks Philip for the citation, because it reinforces my earlier point regarding usage of the "Son of David". For some odd reason it wasn’t coming to mind


----------



## au5t1n (May 22, 2010)

armourbearer said:


> austinww said:
> 
> 
> > Every king of Israel was a "messiah" anointed and made king for a time, and was a son of David. Jesus is the final fulfillment of all these roles -- Messiah, King, Son of David. Do you think this is missing the mark?
> ...



Miscommunication on my part. I meant "messiah" as "one anointed to be king," not as partial fulfillments of the promise of the coming deliverer. In other words, they were kings of Judah just as Christ would be the ultimate King, but they have nothing to do with the prophecies of Christ himself. To illustrate the point, David more than once calls Saul "the LORD's anointed." Certainly Saul was a wicked king. 

My understanding was that the word messiah meant "anointed", as in one anointed to be king. I understand that the word has come to be the general title of the specific deliverer prophesied in Scripture, but when I used it above I meant it in the sense of an anointed king. I am unfamiliar with Hebrew, so please correct me if my understanding of this word is wrong.



armourbearer said:


> First, Solomon (temporally) and Jesus (eternally) build the house of the Lord, 2 Samuel 7:13. Secondly, Solomon (really) and Jesus (imputatively) suffered chastisement and enjoyed steadfast love, verse 13-15; righteous kings only had that privilege by derivation and wicked kings had it not at all. Thirdly, David's earthly posterity forfeited their thone and kingdom at the exile, so the promise of perpetual rule finds its only fulfilment in the eternal reign of Christ.


 
Thanks for drawing the comparisons between Solomon and Christ. I hadn't thought of those.


----------



## Blue Dog (May 22, 2010)

Yes, "the lineage (1:1);Kingship in Jerusalem (1:12); unsurpassed wisdom (1:16); and unrivaled wealth (2:4-9).


----------



## Grimmson (May 22, 2010)

Like I said, 1:1 really isn’t good evidence for Solomon authorship for what I said before. 1:12 however is a better case internally, but not for kingship in Jerusalem, like we see in 1:1, but because it says he is king of Israel in Jerusalem. 1:1 usage for kingship could imply a later dating. The emphasis on wisdom, as seen throughout, including in 2:9 would be good evidence for a Solomon theme. In other words, written in a way where the person in mind narrating the wisdom is Solomon. Narration of authorship however is different then actually writing it himself or dictation of the text. This sort of practice was common in the ancient world. Solomon, would also be in view with aspect of wealth that has been observed. It still does not answer the question if he wrote the text. And thank you Edwin for putting us back on track, I was concerned a discussion of son usage was distracting us from the focus of the thread. 

I should also add that the text implying Solomon narration, but not actually being written by him is not to make the claim that the text is lying about authorship. It is a genre literary technique. Because I recognize this possibility and some of the issues of its construction them am willing not to directly assign Solomon authorship.


----------



## au5t1n (May 22, 2010)

Grimmson said:


> Narration of authorship however is different then actually writing it himself or dictation of the text. This sort of practice was common in the ancient world.


 
Perhaps you could point us to another ancient writing that exemplifies this practice, which you say is known to have been common?


----------



## Grimmson (May 22, 2010)

We need to be careful with our use of tradition. Let us use the oldest and most widely accepted traditional interpretation of sons of God in Genesis 6:2 in both Christianity and Judaism. It has been classically been interpreted to refer to angels. Josephus, ancient Jewish literature, and the Septuagint, and the variant reading of Deut. 32 clearly historically points that out. They would point to Job to reinforce their point. We as a whole, do not accept that traditional reading today, because we have studied the possible uses of the phrase in scripture within varying contexts and today can reinforce the rejection of the angel reading by the use of genre and temporal phrase uses to accept either a line of Seth or a kingly interpretation set forth from scholars like the late Meredith Kline. I just wanted to put that forth in response to the use of tradition regarding authorship. 


austinww said:


> Grimmson said:
> 
> 
> > Narration of authorship however is different then actually writing it himself or dictation of the text. This sort of practice was common in the ancient world.
> ...


 
I would be happy to, the epic of Gilgamesh is one example and is an historical figure. Wenamun been debated, The Apocalypse of Baruch, 1 Enoch, the Salvonic Enoch, The Odes of Solomon, the Thanksgiving Psalm of Solomon that was discovered at Qumran, the works of Solon, The Shepard of Hermes can fall under this category along with Letter of Diognetus, and a wide range of Gnostic literature that people knew was not written by the apostles or those closest to them. I realize most of the works fall under the apocryphal realm, that because my area of personal interests is in religious context of the second and early third centuries AD.

---------- Post added at 01:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:12 PM ----------

Another example, which is perfect for this case, is the wisidom of Solomon.

---------- Post added at 01:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:33 PM ----------

What you asked is a good question, particularly since we never think or discuss this type of subject and how it plays out in wisdom literature.


----------



## MW (May 23, 2010)

austinww said:


> Miscommunication on my part. I meant "messiah" as "one anointed to be king," not as partial fulfillments of the promise of the coming deliverer.


 
OK; that is a legitimate use of the word, looking at it in the bare sense of being anointed; but the need to minimise the definition only serves to demonstrate the point that "son of David" is a specific term with theological connotations which is limited in application.


----------



## Elimelek (May 24, 2010)

I was wondering what the reason for this question would be? 

In 1983, the Afrikaans Verklarende Bybel (Explanatory Bible), prof. J.F.J van Rensburg said the following,


> The Preacher probably lived in the post-exilic period when Palestine was under the rule of the Ptolemiac kings (5:7). As a wisdom sage (12:9) he had a special place in the wisdom thought of his time. ... (own translation)



This Bible is seen by many in South Africa as quite conservative. The commentator is a member of the Gereformeerde Kerke in Suider-Afrika (the Reformed Churches in Southern Africa), probably the most conservative of the reformed denominations in South Africa.

A Dutch popular commentary in the series _Tekst en Toelichting _called _Prediker, Een praktische bijbelverklaring_ by prof J.A. Loader (1984, Uitgewerij Kok), also denies Solomon to be the writer of Ecclesiastes. It indicates that it is protest wisdom, that reacts on the more traditional wisdom literature like Proverbs. 

I find it interesting that quite conservative theologians supports the idea that Solomon did not write Ecclesiastes. My own stance is to pull up my shoulders. I cannot say he did not write Ecclesiastes. Yet, to say the authorship of Ecclesiastes does not matter, is problematic. 

If Solomon wrote the book, it must be placed in his time. The situation of his day is the context from which we must interpret what he then says. I haven't seen any commentaries that has made it a point to do just this. If there are any, please let me know.

On the other hand, if Solomon is not the writer of Ecclesiastes, the Aramaisms like the relative pronoun "shé" (Aramaic) (only once or twice) instead of "asher" (Hebrew), in some places must be taken into account. (In the Qoheleth text from cave 4 of Qumran, only "shé" is used, thus the possibility exist that the Qumran text was either Aramaisized, or the Hebrew Bible text Hebrewised.) Also the Persian loan words is to be taken into account. The wisdom of Ecclesiastes, then reacts on the traditional notions of Israelite wisdom, like If you are rich, God has blessed you, if you are poor, it means God's judgment is upon you."

I am prepared to consider both stances, either Solomon is the author or somebody else. In both cases the author holds a legitimate key to the interpretation of the text. However, when making up one's mind about who wrote Ecclesiastes, seems important to read the wisdom literature in the Bible first. I shall start with it again today.


----------



## Peairtach (May 25, 2010)

Assuming Solomon was the writer of Ecclesiates, and he wrote it after his backslidings, it is no encouragement to us to do the same.

But does it show that a believer can be far gone in sin, e.g. marrying 1,000 wives one after another, and worshipping false gods, and not look and walk like a true believer, and yet be a true believer still?

Is Solomon a great testament to the grace of God in putting up with extremely wayward but true believers in Him? Having said that, although I haven't done what Solomon did, I find much waywardness in my heart and life.

---------- Post added at 12:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:35 PM ----------

*Grimmson*


> We need to be careful with our use of tradition. Let us use the oldest and most widely accepted traditional interpretation of sons of God in Genesis 6:2 in both Christianity and Judaism



But in Luke 3:38, "Son of God" refers to Adam. Does this inspired writer's approach bear no weight?

---------- Post added at 12:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:43 PM ----------




Heidelberg1 said:


> I voted that it does not matter.
> 
> I have wondered about this verse though.
> 
> ...



This is no problem. Saul and David were kings before Solomon. Plus you've got Absalom's usurped monarchy and all the kings of the Jebusites -Jerusalem was once known as Jebus. David took possession of this "Citadel" ( I believe this is the possible meaning of "Tsiyown, Zion")


----------



## Grimmson (May 25, 2010)

Richard Tallach said:


> *Grimmson*
> 
> 
> > We need to be careful with our use of tradition. Let us use the oldest and most widely accepted traditional interpretation of sons of God in Genesis 6:2 in both Christianity and Judaism
> ...


 
I don’t think you got my argument. I wasn’t trying to explain how we are to interpret sons of God, but to show how we need to be careful about the use of tradition in relation to scripture, which includes authorship. Genesis 6:2 was just an example of how we have a different interpretation today compared to an earlier majority view which within Judaism and Christianity.


----------



## Elimelek (May 25, 2010)

Dear friends

What do we do with Ecclesiastes 12:9-14? Was this also written by Solomon? It seems to me that it was written by another person evaluating the Preacher (Ecclesiastes). I was wondering, for what reason would the first commentator of Ecclesiastes not name Solomon's name? In what type of situation would Solomon be, if he was the writer, to not want his name to be mentioned?

Ecclesiates 12:9-14 in the ESV reads


> Besides being wise, the Preacher also taught the people knowledge, weighing and studying and arranging many proverbs with great care. The Preacher sought to find words of delight, and uprightly he wrote words of truth. The words of the wise are like goads, and like nails firmly fixed are the collected sayings; they are given by one Shepherd. My son, beware of anything beyond these. Of making many books there is no end, and much study is a weariness of the flesh. The end of the matter; all has been heard. Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man. For God will bring every deed into judgment, withevery secret thing, whether good or evil.


----------



## VictorBravo (May 25, 2010)

Elimelek said:


> Dear friends
> 
> What do we do with Ecclesiastes 12:9-14? Was this also written by Solomon? It seems to me that it was written by another person evaluating the Preacher (Ecclesiastes). I was wondering, for what reason would the first commentator of Ecclesiastes not name Solomon's name? In what type of situation would Solomon be, if he was the writer, to not want his name to be mentioned?
> 
> ...


 
That seems to me to be a pretty small issue. Can't you imagine Solomon, a King without earthly equal, refering to himself in the third person? Especially when he balances it with the humble title of "preacher?"

It shows a good sense of literary flair, I think. I have always enjoyed the image of a great king sitting down his son and saying, in effect, "Son, you know me as a King, and you know me as a Father, now I speak to you as neither, but as a mere preacher subject to and bound by a higher authority."


----------



## Peairtach (May 25, 2010)

By this time Solomon may have had a greater self-knowledge of himself and have realised more fully the wickedness of his own heart, especially if it was after his gross and open backslidings.

When we read Ecclesiastes in this context we may realise why Solomon was ashamed to mention his name, or thought it was not worth mentioning although he was inspired by the Spirit to write down what he had learned through his backslidings that he could not have learned otherwise.

Maybe during his backslidings he had got carried away with his wisdom and read material that was unprofitable or harmful to him (?)

As happens among evangelicals and the Reformed in our day.

Maybe this is partly a warning against reading theological and other rubbish purely out of curiosity and not without a valid reason (?)


----------



## Grimmson (May 26, 2010)

One of the thing in which may be helpful for this debate is perhaps bring on two educated people in the area of Hebrews studies as it relates to Ecclesiastes, and am not talking about someone that has just read Ecclesiastes a few dozen times, but that knows the language and the major issues of the debate. You can find many commentaries, regardless of the biblical text, where the commenter really does not have the level of educated experience to really deal with the historical and lingual concerns of the text, but instead focuses on a surface level reading as it relates to their own tradition. I would like to see such conservative men hash out the major concerns, and I think it maybe more profitable then us commenting as a whole, who do not have the full tools and experience of study in this area and lean on some who have not studied some of these major issues of genre, and language. The issue of commentary usage/writing and education in biblical interpretations as it relates to tradition maybe another thread of interesting discussion for us sometime. I also want to point out that none of us deny here that Ecclesiastes should be scripture, so please do not make Solomon authorship a demand of conservative scriptural orthodoxy and a gateway to liberalism/ denial of inerrancy and clarity of scripture. I have not seen anyone doing it, but that does not mean such a desire does not lurk in the minds of some. It is just a general warning.

If anyone knows of one such formal debate among conservative OT scholars let me know. I like to read a transcript or see a video recording of such over this summer. And I think it would also be profitable for the rest of us to see as well.


----------



## Elimelek (May 27, 2010)

Hello David

 I agree with you that bringing in people who are knowledgeable about the language as well as the book Ecclesiastes. I think it should be extended to people who have studied the wisdom tradition of Israel as well as of the Ancient Near East. (The reason I am saying this, is that a work of wisdom from Egypt, the _Instruction of_ _Amen-em-ope _(1250 b.c. according to the ESV Study Bible), and Proverbs 22:17-24:22 are for most part similar or in many places identical. It indicates that Israel was part of a larger wisdom tradition. In both texts there are 30 proverbs. This means that Israel was influenced by the work, or vice versa. Those saying that _the Instruction of Amen-em-ope_ was first, build their argument partly on Proverbs 24:12, 


> “If you say, ‘Behold, we did not know this, and does* not he who weighs the heart perceive it*? Does not he who keeps watch over your soul know it, and will he not repay man





> according to his work?’” (ESV)



The Egyptian god, Thoth, is often depicted in iconography as standing beside a dead person. He judges the dead. In one of his hands there are scales with a human heart. It is argued that this image used for Thoth, is made applicable to the Lord (YHVH). In Proverbs 24:12 the Lord “weighs the heart,” watch over the soul like Thoth standing beside the dead person. The counter argument maintains that certain types of metaphoric language in the Ancient Near East was so common, that it is purely a coincidence both the Lord and Thoth are described with the same metaphor. The most significant difference according to the ESV Study Bible between the two texts are Proverbs devotion to the Lord (YHVH). The various stances in this debate obviously have a great influence on the interpretation of Proverbs, the identification of the period(s) in which Proverbs was written and the way one perceives the Word of God.)

 Since this thread was started, I realised that the only commentaries I have on my book shelve, are taking the stance that Ecclesiastes was not written by Solomon, but that the practice of honorary authorship was used. This includes the most conservative commentaries I have. (The exception is the ESV Study Bible that temporises the problem.) Honorary authorship is a phenomenon found in oral cultures. In Israel and the rest of the Ancient Near East, it is estimated that less than 10% of people were literate. Literate people in the form of scribes were mostly found in the courts of kings or at temples, the exception being some settlements having one scribe to tend to the community’s need to send and receive letters. Court scribes would write documents in the name of their lord, the king or in the name of a high priest. 

 Be it as it may, the issue of language in Ecclesiastes is very important. I concur with the idea that there are three layers of Hebrew in the Old Testament. The oldest agree, interestingly enough with the Moabite and Ammonite inscriptions found in the Southern part of Israel. (It is sometimes difficult to date parts of the Bible according to this layer, as some texts were purposely written in a more archaic form. Two general trademarks of this layer of Hebrew, is the absence of the definite article and the occurrence of *nun*ation, putting a *nun* (n-sound) consonant at the end of the 3 person plural and declensions. Most of the Old Testament is written in middle Hebrew. There are a few books (eg. Daniel, Ezra & Nehemiah) where the Aramaic influence, which became the _lingua franca_ of the Jewish people, is very clear. Some trademarks of this late form of Biblical Hebrew, is the aleph and ayin that is easily confused, the relative particle, *asher*, that was replaced by *shé *in narrative texts (there is only two uses in early texts of this pronoun, Genesis 6:4 & Judges 5:7 – very much the same as Ugaritic’s usage) and confusion between *mem* (m-sound) and *nun* (n-sound). Furthermore the _infinitive absolute_ form of verbs became prominent. It is wholly absent in the earliest Hebrew, and very seldom if ever used in middle Hebrew.

 The _Jerome Bible Commentary_ (a Roman Catholic one volume commentary) says that Ecclesiastes’ language resembles Mishnah Hebrew. Mishnah Hebrew is an early from Rabbinic Hebrew. One well-known trademark is that it doesn’t use *asher* at all, only *shé*. 

 In the Hebrew Old Testament, the word *shé* appears 139 times. It is used 63 times out of the 139 in Ecclesiastes. Song of Songs also has quite a few. This might mean that Ecclesiastes is a very early book, written before the Israelite kingdoms existed or a very late book, written just before rabbis became prominent in the Jewish religion. 

 The best however would be an in-depth study of Ecclesiastes to try to gain a proper understanding of the language arguments and its validity. Another, maybe easier thing to do, is to compare Ecclesiastes with traditional proverbs ascribed to Solomon found in the book of Proverbs. 

 Regards


----------



## Wannabee (May 27, 2010)

VictorBravo said:


> Elimelek said:
> 
> 
> > Dear friends
> ...



There is precedent for this in the Pentateuch as well, where we read of the death of Moses. Do we deny Mosaic authorship because of this?


----------



## Grimmson (May 27, 2010)

Thanks Jacobus. It is helpful information like this that most Christians ( see Jacobus’ prior posting if your wondering what am referring to), even pastors are unaware of. Either become they did not pay attention to their Wisdom class or because of their tradition shying away from such information as profitable for the church. I think we all need to be aware of such and not allow such information to be used against the church in regards to reliability of authorship. If a young person sees this evidence by a social science instructor, we must prepare them not to rely their faith to such human tradition and say things such as if the text isn’t written by Solomon then the Bible is lying and thus lose their faith in scripture. It is that kind of fundamentalism and strict traditionalism (not directly associated with Ecclesiastes, but to other subjects) which is driving some of our people away because of our focus on read on your own, lack of genre, experiential Anabaptist, you are king, non-bible training interpretive approach. Because our focus then isn’t on what God has spoken in the text as it relates to an objective historical-grammatical- apostolic- redemptive interpretation, but on a surface reading of the text which is absent from the lens of that the text was meant to be read in and increases the risk of a false interpretation and unnecessarily binding the conscience of the church to what the church was not to bound as orthodox to begin with and not a gospel issue. I think we do a disservice we don’t address such critical issues in our churches and prepare them for such battles a head and not hide aspects of truth from them, but instead drive them to the truth of God so that on could not make the claim that we hide the truth or violate the 9th. It is our job to drive people to the point of the text and the gospel, to prepare them in faith to what they will encounter, not allowing for the enemy to have a foothold for one person in the minds of our churchmen by the grace and providence of God. 

Sorry, there I go ranting again. 



Wannabee said:


> There is precedent for this in the Pentateuch as well, where we read of the death of Moses. Do we deny Mosaic authorship because of this?




I do, but only for Chapter 34. It only a partial denial, not complete.


----------



## MW (May 27, 2010)

Grimmson said:


> Either become they did not pay attention to their Wisdom class or because of their tradition shying away from such information as profitable for the church.


 
Alternatively, they may have paid attention in Wisdom class, found conjectural arguments to be less than conclusive, and realised the Christian tradition has nothing to fear from skeptics.


----------



## Grimmson (May 27, 2010)

armourbearer said:


> Grimmson said:
> 
> 
> > Either become they did not pay attention to their Wisdom class or because of their tradition shying away from such information as profitable for the church.
> ...



I think tradition is more at play then arguments themselves based on people's reactions to the arguments. Which is one of the reasons why they dont address these issues in their churches.

---------- Post added at 08:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:08 PM ----------

And being a seminary student, I know based on people asking for my notes near finals, that students do not always pay attention, care, or understand arguments at hand in class.


----------



## MW (May 27, 2010)

Grimmson said:


> I think tradition is more at play then arguments themselves based on people's reactions to the arguments. Which is one of the reasons why they dont address these issues in their churches.


 
Yes, tradition is at play (actually, it is at work doing what it is called to do); it is the tradition of faith. It is a much better biblical basis to approach such questions than an attitude of anti-tradition. The reason why these "issues" are not addressed in churches is due to the fact that it is not pastorally responsible to give oneself to that which will "minister questions rather than godly edifying which is in faith."


----------



## Grimmson (May 28, 2010)

armourbearer said:


> Grimmson said:
> 
> 
> > I think tradition is more at play then arguments themselves based on people's reactions to the arguments. Which is one of the reasons why they dont address these issues in their churches.
> ...


 
I should also add we need to be careful with calling our conservative seminary profs skeptics in relation to the Christian tradition. It could be and has been used as a derogatory term against those who have devoted their lives to the in-depth study of scripture. Some of them are also in battle for biblical confessional orthodoxy. They worthy of our respect and their options should carry more weight then our own, because of their higher level of study in their choose profession. If their option was worthless then they should be removed from the teaching of our pastors. Also I think the sheer weight of the number of conservative scholars, who scholarship we generally accept, should also weigh in. If there was a smoking gun against them, then am sure based on integrity, they would change their option. Many of these proofs are actually trying to preserve and recover the Christian tradition from those that have attempted to highjack it. So in short let us be careful not imply a negative or dishonest character to those who care for those who care for us. 

I think we need to make a careful distinction between a tradition of faith and that of man. It is a tradition of faith that we should bind to people’s conscience. To not address the textual concerns and ignore them is sign of fundamentalism and mockish ignorance, not a tradition of faith. It does not take long for a tradition of man to be established and used to alter a meaning of a text. Dispensationalism is a perfect example of that. We should approach these issues biblically, which means we need to look at in relation to genre and language of the scripture, which is what non-Solomon authorship uses as an approach. It is not like conservative scholars are out to destroy the Christian faith, but restore truth of faith.

These issues should be addressed in our churches by pastors, because it can become a pastorial issue. We need to be teaching textual criticism to our congregation. Specially to high school students that are going to college and going to be taught there that there are errors and untruths in the Bible. It should be part of biblical training to our young, so that they can be prepared to counteract that. I have heard stories of college professors who were prideful of destroying believer’s faith. And one of the reasons I have taught textual criticism to college students. Pastors, sheparding their folk, needs to addressing the emerging issues of scripture to prevent having to do damage control later.


----------



## MW (May 28, 2010)

Grimmson said:


> They worthy of our respect and their options should carry more weight then our own, because of their higher level of study in their choose profession.



I don't think a reformed person, not to mention a conservative, can allow implicit faith in academic popery. No person who ministers questions should be heard on such matters, however conservatively they present themselves. Let's look at this so-called conservative profession. Where is the alternative "certainty" to the traditional perspective? Has academia come to a consensus on who wrote Ecclesiastes? when? and why? A believer seeks answers, not questions. Any skeptic can find problems. A man of faith rests on certainty and finds solutions.


----------



## Grimmson (May 28, 2010)

First of all I am not saying we should look at them or the academy as a Pope for that matter. There a big difference to assigning infallibility to wise judgment. We wouldn’t want to assign such infallible judgment to you or myself. Second, they have studied longer and harder these issues then you and I, that by right gives them more credibility and the right to teach. Third, the world’s not flat and we are not in a geocentric universe. The academy does have the right to communicate the findings of their research and wise members of the church to look over the arguments and accept them in correspondence to tradition of faith and not man. We are not like Rome, who allows for human tradition to take president over the evidence presented by the providence of God. Which is the very reason why ministers, even more so if they have been seen as conservative, who see evidence contrary to the tradition should be heard, it is actually within our Reformational heritage to do so, going back to even Calvin. Fourth, the issue of conservatism must emerge in relation to the Gospel and the truth of God as communicated by God. Fifth, a man of faith does rest in certainty, but not a certainty of issues like rather Galatians was written to Northern or Southern Galatia. That is a reasonable question for one of faith, who desires to pursue and understand the word of God. Likewise the same is true with Ecclesiastes and its authorship. 

The issue is not who wrote Ecclesiastes in the end, but whether or not we can bear witness the truth of God. We don’t want the enemy to have a foothold by showing our hypocrisy against the truth to the people of God or to the world. You may criticize these people work, but on what grounds and authority? Do you know Hebrew like they do, or Greek, or Aramaic? Have you read all the ancient writing and looked at the supposed parallels like they have? Are you above such men in learning? If so then publish and recommend to their church denominations church discipline over them. If their willing to study these materials we should not be willing to place judgment against them. It would be like a kid criticizing their teacher and saying x=4 for x-1=5, when the teacher is right with the answer being 6. 

This leads to my 6th point. The Bible like it or not is a historic document that binds us, not our traditions outside of scripture. We must see and read the books of the Bible as historical documents written in a given place and time. Not to recognize this reality is a violation of common reason and refusal of such is a violation of the 9th. Therefore there is nothing wrong to study the text as a historic document with all of the general tools to study other ancient manuscripts. If through study of genre and language it gives reason to doubt Solomon authorship and provides a explanation of why this shouldn’t be an issue, then we should not be willing to condemn a brother and his work over such. If anything it shows the power of the truth of the Gospel and the willingness of the people of God to seek his truth through special and general revelation. 

We should not be fundamentalist in our traditions, but instead recognize our traditions and see their evidence. And if the majority of Christian conservative scholars says something that goes against perhaps your traditional reading then there maybe some something there that you do not see. We do not want to be like the Armenians in our approach and crys out that all means all or World means everyone in the world, when in can imply select groups of people. We don’t translate historical protestant texts or read protestant texts without realizing their historical background and meaning of word usage, likewise we should be careful not to do so with Ecclesiastes. It is just as equally as important and refusal of such is dishonest or ignorant. Refusal of such also could show us to be closed minded to God’s general revelation in his providence. 

Claimer: I want it to make it clear that myself and Matthew are not at war with each other with our postings. It is not personal, its business. And we both care about the truth of God’s Word. We actually do love each other in Lord and mean no disrespect to each other personality, even though we may use rhetoric against each other’s position.


----------



## VictorBravo (May 28, 2010)

David, I'd ask you to step back and contemplate a couple of things. 

(1) Karl Barth, for one, was very learned. He was driven by a desire to overcome the sterility of the churches of his time and yearned to bring people to a living faith. So his motives could be called commendable. Yet what was the result of his "wise judgment?" I think we can fairly say that the result was primarily confusion.

(2) Higher criticism proceeds empirically and has a sceptical worldview from the start. That starting point is just as likely to lead to errors of bias as anything the so-called fundamentalist would come up with. In other words, the higher critic's complaint against a "fundamentalist" can be applied to himself as well.

I may be misreading you, but here is what I get from your arguments: 

Ignorant folks should not voice their opinions about matters of biblical text. If an expert says something contrary to what the church has taught, well, ignorant people should listen to the expert and not be afraid of where it will lead.

Doesn't this attitude ring a bell?

Perhaps it would be better to realize that scholars who focus on a narrow line of inquiry are quite apt to have blinders on--in fact, it's a requirement for certain specialized fields because the human mind is not capable of grasping all the consequences of its conclusions--it would be too much of a distraction.

In general, I'd be cautious to go down the road against tradition without fully understanding why the tradition was there in the first place. 

There may be many very plausible explanations for the anomalies found by the experts, and I haven't seen those ruled out. For example, (although my lack of formal training probably disqualifies me from discussion under your guidelines) I've looked at the very issues that Jacobus mentioned and found them all interesting, but not dispositive of anything. Sure, the switch from asher and the addition of nuns in some books is notable. But does that tell us any more than it is possible that a later scribe rewrote old works so that people could understand them? Have we completely ruled out the possibility of parallel developments in literary Hebrew that could have different styles occuring simultaneously?

Empirical studies won't be able to rule these things out, because there is always the possibility that some new discovery will tip them over.

So, I suggest caution in placing too much weight on whatever the latest research may show--it will probably change again in just a few years.


----------



## au5t1n (May 28, 2010)

Grimmson said:


> Second, they have studied longer and harder these issues then you and I, that by right gives them more credibility and the right to teach.



This is a healthy attitude for _you_ to have (and me, for that matter), but how do you know it is true of the person you are debating? I have always gotten the impression that Rev. Winzer is at least as studied as a seminary professor on theological issues.



Grimmson said:


> Third, the world’s not flat and we are not in a geocentric universe.


 
Actually, on that latter point, you may find it interesting to search the board for threads about geocentrism in which Rev. Winzer has participated.


----------



## MW (May 28, 2010)

austinww said:


> Grimmson said:
> 
> 
> > Second, they have studied longer and harder these issues then you and I, that by right gives them more credibility and the right to teach.
> ...



On the text of Ecclesiastes, I am happy to concede that an OT scholar has likely spent more time studying it in the original than I have. What I can't acknowledge is the idea that a longer, more detailed study of a text must necessarily lead to more authoritative answers. If a scholar refuses to accept clear internal markers in the text then his intricate and prolonged study might be likened to a man wandering endlessly through the bush because he refuses to follow the signs which point to the way out.


----------



## Grimmson (May 29, 2010)

VictorBravo said:


> I may be misreading you, but here is what I get from your arguments:
> 
> Ignorant folks should not voice their opinions about matters of biblical text. If an expert says something contrary to what the church has taught, well, ignorant people should listen to the expert and not be afraid of where it will lead.



I think you have to some degree you misread me. Either that or am not making myself clear. I am not saying that ignorant people shouldn’t voice their option. I think they should from a pedagogical perspective. The issue here is over the wisdom of what they apply and how. We all to some degree will not allow some to teach a opinion that is contrary to our understanding of scripture and our confession due to their own ignorance. Now the issue arises regarding those who are learned in the church going against the tradition of the church. There are many examples of traditions that arose in the church that Luther and other reformers had to counteract, one being the Roman Catholic sacrament of confirmation, another being semi-pelagian medieval system of merit, and later geocentrism (even though the focus in this case was science and not the reformers, and I did notice Rev. Winzer admitted to be ). The job of teachers of the faith is to handle the scriptures properly, but not strictly based on the tradition, otherwise we would still be in Rome today and holding to grievous errors. Instead, scripture is handled and interpreted by it’s word/phrase usage, author usage, genera usage, literary and historical context, and application of texts by other biblical authors. There needs to be a clear distinction of tradition categorically implied between God established tradition as indicated in his Word and that of men in the church. If the New Testament said for example that Solomon wrote Ecclesiastes, then we could easily bypass the argument of narrated implied authorship, where the actual author wants for affect to think of another or desires to write in the name of another, towards a God given tradition. It does not though. It is not like the conservative scholarship is driving people away from Christ, in fact I would make the case it could be used apologetically to strengthen one’s faith. To not listen to such people is to prove the liberals right on the church’s unwillingness to listen to facts and make decisions without critically examining the case there of in relation to the truth.

God has given man two kinds of revelation that we should not be afraid to use. The first being special, found only through the scriptures. The second is through general revelation, which we should not be afraid to use. Like it or not general revelation does impact, as it should, the special. 



VictorBravo said:


> Higher criticism proceeds empirically and has a sceptical worldview from the start. That starting point is just as likely to lead to errors of bias as anything the so-called fundamentalist would come up with. In other words, the higher critic's complaint against a "fundamentalist" can be applied to himself as well.



Higher criticism in the late 18-20 centuries may been influenced by a skeptical worldview, which I have no doubt, but it does not necessarily begin as a skeptical world view. Higher critical research is to study the variants and determine what is the likely proper reading of the text in relation to how the text was copied over time. The issue in this case in the tenacity of scripture, that God has preserved the reading of the text over time as we can see with the misspellings, different word orders, and added words for clarification sake. Therefore, there a recognition that what is taught now was taught at the beginning. Erasmus and other people were not involved because they wanted to disprove the bible or show there were errors. He did what he did to begin a standardized work, for the church’s profit (but I should also say probably for his personal gain). 



VictorBravo said:


> In general, I'd be cautious to go down the road against tradition without fully understanding why the tradition was there in the first place.



I agree, the problem in this case is we don’t have a clear picture of the develop of the tradition. There were many traditions that were around during the first and second centuries that were erroneous, like the angel case I mentioned earlier in this string, and that we do not know the history of their development. Because we don’t know, I see no problem to question it, particularly when it is not adding or subtracting the usefulness and doctrine from Ecclesiastes and not directly affecting our doctrine of scripture and justification, which is the two major doctrines I judge the conservatism of the scholar and the reason why I reject Barth; despite of his learning. Besides he not being used as a language scholar in this case.

Now I have no problem of “ignorant people” being “afraid of where” certain ideas “will lead.” I think it is a realistic concern. But we should not be making our theological and historical decisions based on a slippery soap model. But instead it should be on what God has revealed in both general and special revelation has revealed in truth. Like it or not the experts do know more then us and some in good conscience revealed such. If they have a interesting argument, then we should listen. If we disagree then we should have the guts to disagree with them and publish finding against their findings on the same level. To not do so is to disvalue the truth. If one cannot then that implies more study is needed so that one can reach that point. However, if such study was to take place the issue should not be to try to prove someone wrong but to be willing to be open minded to the truth so that we are not proved to be Pharisees. If we deny the truth, including a series of facts, based on where it will lead then we have violated the 9th just as much as the liberals who deny the Christian Bible is the word of God and as equally as much as Barth’s view of scripture. We should never be afraid of the truth based on the slippery slope or line of argument. But instead establish boundaries of the truth so that to far on either side doesn’t fall into error. Even a heretic can have good academic work and we should be willing to accept it when it comes our way, because in some cases their not trying to prove one thing or another in regards to the Christian or Jewish faith. Now there are cases where that not true, but wisdom must always be exercised. If people were doing crappy, illogical work, then they will be peered reviewed by someone. 

The issue addressed is not purely theological, but a recognition of how scripture was written and set up. Knowing theology should not be want purely drives us, but the text in how it was written, which means we need to learn the biblical languages and how they are used, which falls under the realm of general revelation. Let us make use of the wonderful resources that God has given to us in the world, like science and create a burning bridge against the sciences of study by our behavior against their study, especially for those who are in the truth. The unwillingness to deal with the science of those who study this and criticize them screams a desire not seek after the truth. If there a parallel develop during the time of Solomon then go out and prove it. Find the story why we have the accepted text as we have it today.



armourbearer said:


> austinww said:
> 
> 
> > Grimmson said:
> ...



More careful study always leads to a better understanding of the subject and a better appreciation for the mystery of more study. And this is the case in any discipline. You may know more about the construction and history of the Westminster Confession then I do, because you have studied it longer in a greater depth.

I know that the person am debating is knowledgeable based on the recognition of the facts and arguments and willing to interact with the facts of the arguments objectively. Also by their level of study of study in that field as well. Another marker would be the quality of the work that being produced. 

I have real concern when one person make internal marker claims, because it can be looked at under subjective terms and we should be open to objective facts and not be quick to cast aside certain ideas because we don’t like what we hear; but instead provide evidence against the argument at hand. If a person has more information on an issue then us, then we may be the ones who are wandering because we lack that knowledge.


----------



## Elimelek (May 31, 2010)

Dear Friends,

At long last I bought the _Dictionary of the Old Testament: Wisdom, Poetry & Writings _(2008, Inter-varsity Press). To be honest this discussion brought me to this decision. It contains an excellent article on the history of Ecclesiastes' interpretation. From this article it is clear that the earliest Jews saw Solomon as the writer. In the Mishnah, rabbi Tanhum of Nave is quited saying,


> O Solomon, where is you wisdom, where is your intelligence? Not only do your words contradict the words of your father, David, they even contradict themselves.)



The article quotes the Targum's rendering of Ecclesiastes 1:12,


> When King Solomon was sitting upon the throne of his kingdom, his heart became very proud of his riches, and he violated the word of God, by gathering many horses, chariots and riders, and amassing much gold and silver. And he married from foreign nations, whereupon the anger of the Lord was kindled against him, and he send to him Ashmodai, the king of the demons, who drove him from his kingdom's throne, and took away the ring from his hand, in order that he should roam and wander about in the world to reprove it. And he roamed about in the outlying towns and the cities of the land of Israel, weeping and lamenting, and saying, "I am Qohelet, whose name was formerly called Solomon, who was king over Israel in Jersalem.



The first to contest that the book of Ecclesiastes was written by Solomon, was the jew, Rashbam (1080-1160 AD).

Christian interpretation mostly followed the Jewish understanding of the book.

Ironically, it was the Reformation that changed the traditional interpretation of Ecclesiastes, the later Historical Criticism built on it. In his _Table Talk_, Luther is questioned about the authorship of Ecclesiastes. He is quoted saying,


> Solomon himself did not write Ecclesiastes, but is was produced by Sirach at the time of the Maccabees... Is is a sort of Talmud, compiled from many books. probably form the library of King Ptolemy Euergetes of Egypt.



After Luther, Gortius (died 1645) denied Solomon as author.

It does seem that those denying the authorship of Ecclesiastes is also so 16-17th century.

Regards


----------



## LeeJUk (May 31, 2010)

My view of these things is that if Solomon himself did not write it then at least some people operating under his authority wrote it. I view the Torah in very much the same way, that if Moses did not write all of it then the parts which are doubtful at least were done under his authority and therefore Jesus could say Moses wrote or said. I mean saying someone wrote a text in the biblical world didn't necessarily mean them but could mean their descendants, followers or people under there authority.


----------



## Grimmson (Jun 2, 2010)

Jacobus, thanks for the good research. I found it interesting.


----------

