ࡱ> JLIa "jbjbtt *F~~~~ t&        ?AAAAAA,R@m     m     ?D.h ?C ~43C0;C  Authorship of Ecclesiastes The traditional (or confessional) view is that the author of Ecclesiastes was Solomon, based on the claims made in the text. The critical (or liberal) view is that the author of Ecclesiastes was someone purporting to be Solomon at a much later date, either to gain a wider credence for their work, or because they regarded themselves as being legitimately as in the Solomonic school, or because they were using the figure of Solomon as a literary device. We shall refer to this as the Post-exilic philosopher hypothesis. Post-exilic philosopher hypothesisSolomon hypothesisPrincipal evidenceLate datingExplicit ascriptionSupporting evidenceLater chapters seem to be written by a commonerBiographical details in early chaptersProblemsInitial ascription too cryptic to be explained as an attempt for canonicityPersian loan words seem to indicate Persian period or laterDialect does not fit into any known linguistic continuumRoyal references seem to cease after early chaptersInclusion in canon is surprising if non-SolomonicPurpose of writing difficult to sort out It is a general if infrequently admitted principle of the critical schools that ascribed authorship of the text should be treated with as much skepticism as possible. In the case of Ecclesiastes, however, all the clues seem to point equally in both directions. Linguistic data Linguistic data has been used to give a late date to Ecclesiastes. From most conclusive to least, the presence of two Persian loan words, the existence of a number of Aramaisms, and incidence of a degree of pointing in the orthography can be used to point to a late date. However, although it has been argued that the text does not fit into an early context, it must also be accepted that the dialect of the text does not fit into any known late context either. More importantly, although philological evidence is often used by Old Testament scholars for dating the texts, a very significant distinction must be made between dating an autograph and dating a manuscript. It must be noted that philological methods are always relative, and depend heavily on the degree to which the history of a language can be mapped in time and space, and across registers of discourse. The following table notes the principal means, and their application to the autograph, to a broad base of independent manuscript traditions, and to a single manuscript tradition. AutographMultiple independent manuscriptsSingle manuscript or manuscript traditionGraphologyLetter forms and layout can be used to date an autograph closely if sufficient context, on the same basis as artefact typology (seriation).Graphology is almost never transferred from autograph to manuscriptNot applicable.OrthographySpelling, especially of transitional forms, can place the autograph within a linguistic phase. If there are sufficient transitional forms, and sufficient context, this can give a relatively close dating.Transitional forms are frequently modernised by copyists, although if a transitional becomes a 'traditional' it may be preserved as a fossil. The broader the basis of independent manuscripts, the more fossils can be distinguished from copyist formsVery difficult to distinguish copyist and autograph forms.VocabularyVocabulary is subject to author's intention, subject matter, style and dialect. Authors may be modernising or archaising. Unlike orthography and graphology, vocabulary is heavily subject to author's dialect and register.Copyists are generally reluctant to update vocabulary, although an obselete (as opposed to archaic) term may be replaced with a current one. Frequently, however, this is done by means of glosses. Therefore, with a broad base, the vocabulary of the autograph can be established. Establishing the vocabulary of the original can be broadly successful in a single manuscript tradition. However, individual words can not be seen as reliable guides to dating.SyntaxSyntax is subject to the same authorial vagaries as vocabulary. However, it is much harder to assess scientifically, especially since the amount of evidence is proportionately less, both in the autograph in question and in the context.Syntax can be well preserved from copy to copy if the author and the copyist are in the same dialect stream. Copyists are much more likely to 'correct' if they are from differing dialects. Again, a broad base of manuscript traditions can help to establish the original syntax.Reliability is low unless it can be established that the copyist and the author were in the same dialect stream.StylisticsBroad movements of style can usually be detected, but these are a poor guide to dating, unless they can be fitted into a strict stylistic context (eg, chronicling, treaties)Stylistic features usually survive the copying process, and broad stylistic features can also survive translation.Stylistic features are generally preserved. In this context, it must be accepted that the linguistic data for dating the Old Testament as a whole is weak, because: The context of extra-biblical comparative material is very slight for the period We have little knowledge of the varying dialects within Israel For most of the period, we have little knowledge of the editorial policy of the copyists, including, crucially, the degree to which differing dialects were normalised. We depend effectively on just two manuscript traditions - Masoretic Text and Qumran, and it is not clear at what point these traditions became independent. For Ecclesiastes, these difficulties are multiplied. There is effectively no dialectological or philological context for the book. It apparently bears the marks of at least two hands (the first person and the third person passages), indicating that it passed through the hands of at least one editor, in addition to however many generations of copyists. Conclusion There is no legitimate case to be made for claiming that the post-exilic philosopher hypothesis is the logical choice. Critical scholars will argue that confessional interpreters have a vested interest in taking the text at face value. But confessional writers can (with rather better justification) make the case the critical scholars choose scepticism even when there are no grounds for it. We accept that the traditional confessional view of Ecclesiastes is problematic it is difficult to understand in what way a book which apparently supports doubt and human philosophy should be considered inspired. But critical scholars must accept that their solution based on a radical late redaction of the Old Testament for religio-political purposes is even more problematic, since the inclusion of such a book does not serve the purported purpose of the proposed redactor. We propose elsewhere an alternative hypothesis on Ecclesiastes that it represents the lecture notes of Solomon, aimed at the non-Jewish visitors to his court from all the world who came to hear his wisdom. We believe that this solution overcomes the problems in the traditional confessional view, and removes the most persuasive elements of the liberal-critical case. )" h9h9h9$%&'(K^_r~hkd$$IflF ,"   0    4 la$Ifl igd9 "~okd$$IflF ,"   0    4 la$Ifl i T ooo$Ifl ikd$$IflF ,"   0    4 la ooo$Ifl ikd$$IflF ,"   0    4 la  3 \ ooo$Ifl ikd0$$IflF ,"   0    4 la\ ] ^ _ ` ooo$Ifl ikd$$IflF ,"   0    4 la` a b k l | }}}{}}}}kkk$Ifl ikdH$$IflF ,"   0    4 la \kd$$Ifl\:,"04 la$Ifl il\\\\$Ifl ikdh$$Ifl\:,"04 lal\\\\$Ifl ikd$$Ifl\:,"04 lal\\\\$Ifl ikd$$Ifl\:,"04 la>jl\\\\$Ifl ikd$$$Ifl\:,"04 lajklm6uljjjeeeejjj & Fkd$$Ifl\:,"04 la ) "gd9gd9(/ =!"#$% $$If!vh5 5 5 #v :V l05 4$$If!vh5 5 5 #v :V l05 4$$If!vh5 5 5 #v :V l05 4$$If!vh5 5 5 #v :V l05 4$$If!vh5 5 5 #v :V l05 4$$If!vh5 5 5 #v :V l05 4$$If!vh5 5 5 #v :V l05 4$$If!vh5555#v:V l054$$If!vh5555#v:V l054$$If!vh5555#v:V l054$$If!vh5555#v:V l054$$If!vh5555#v:V l054$$If!vh5555#v:V l054D@D NormalCJOJPJQJmH sH tH T@T 9 Heading 1$<@&5CJ KH OJQJaJ D@D Heading 3$<@&OJQJDA@D Default Paragraph FontZi@Z  Table Normal :V 4 l4a _H(k@(No List F!z!z!z z 0z]]q$%&'(K^_r~T3\]^_`abkl| >jklm6u)0̀0ɀ0 0ɀ0ɀ0ɀ0P 0P 0P 0P 0P 0P 0P 0P 0P 0P 0P 0P 0P 0P 0P 0pP 0P 0P 0P 0܌P 0P 0P 0P 0P 0P 0P 0P 0P 0P0P0P(0P0lP0lP0lP0lP0lP 0lP 0lP 0lP 0lP0l 0l 0l 0l 0l 0l 0l 0l 0l 0l 0l 0l 0l 0l 0l 0l 0l 0l 0l 0l 0l 0l 0l 0l 0l 0l0l0l 0l 0l 0l 0l00ɀ0ɀ(0ɀ0ɀ0ɀ0ɀ0ɀ0ɀ^_\]`a  i  p 0 & ? S ` iT , e  p  i  z N څ y { B i  k N : ! `r i   pҩ p ӂ  i  iR ( 4{5 iV  ^ u  i  u u i !u! i  uu`SX8 "~ \ ` j" !"")2#,z W`  e  4Xn:::0^`0o()'(K^_r~T3\]^_`a >jkaa@i  5P @UnknownGTimes New Roman5Symbol3 Arial3Times;Helvetica"1h g&A& 04.f?9Authorship of EcclesiastesMartin M Turner Martin Turner  Oh+'0x  4 @ LX`hp'Authorship of Ecclesiastes.<)Martin M Turner<)NormalMartin Turnerr3)Microsoft Word 11.2@@?U!@k8% ՜.+,0 hp  'Martin M Turner0 . Authorship of Ecclesiastes Title  !"#%&'()*+-./012345678:;<=>?@BCDEFGHKRoot Entry F8%MData $1Table,WordDocument*FSummaryInformation(9DocumentSummaryInformation8ACompObjX FMicrosoft Word DocumentNB6WWord.Document.8