Ecclesiastes Lesson 1
I thought I’d write just a few reflections on our class today.
- In general the class was less interested in authorship than either I or the author of the study guide were. We had folks using the Wesley study Bible and the CEB Study Bible, both of which brush past the authorship issue. While I find Solomonic authorship unlikely, Russell Meek makes a very clear set of arguments in favor of his view that Solomon is the author.
- How important is authorship in general for interpretation? I think that as we continue, I will be thinking and observing just how much our views of authorship impact the way we read the book.
- In general, the class wonders why Ecclesiastes is included in the canon. This is a standard question I’ve heard many times. I even admit to haven’t questioned this myself.
- This is going to be fun! 🙂
Interesting that people are loosing interest in the authorship question. As you point out it may come back in later discussions as old habits tend to die hard. I have found that people generally fall back to Solomon as author when they run into the tough sections and need to pass them off as being written after Solomon fell away from God.
They are in good company to question canonicity. That question has been asked ever since the ink was dry on the scroll. Even the addendum by a pro Kohelet biographer in chapter 12 has not been able to guarantee the book a place in the hearts and minds of those who need an airtight system of faith.
I just wrote a parable about this on my blog called the Forest for the Trees.