by Stephen Rodgers

ECCLESIASTES IN 10 WORDS OR LESS

“Apart from God, life is empty and unsatisfying.”

TITLE

I’ll simply let the MSB do the bulk of the heavy lifting here for me:

The English title, Ecclesiastes, comes from the Greek and Latin translations of Solomon’s book. The LXX, the Greek translation of the OT, used the Greek term ekklēsiastēs for its title. It means “preacher,” derived from the word ekklēsia, translated “assembly” or “congregation” in the NT. Both the Greek and Latin versions derive their titles from the Hebrew title, Qoheleth, which means “one who calls or gathers” the people. It refers to the one who addresses the assembly; hence, the preacher (cf. Eccles 1:1, 2, 12; 7:27; 12:8–10). Along with Ruth, Song of Solomon, Esther, and Lamentations, Ecclesiastes stands with the OT books of the Megilloth, or “five scrolls.” Later rabbis read these books in the synagogue on 5 special occasions during the year—Ecclesiastes being read on Pentecost.

AUTHOR & AUDIENCE

So from the previous section, we know that the author is the Qoheleth…what we don’t know is whether this is intended to be a personal or titular identifier, and if titular, who it refers to.  Let’s start by lifting a line from the ESVSB:

Scholars have debated whether Qoheleth is best understood as a personal name or a title, though the latter seems more likely in view of Eccles 12:8, where the definite article (“the”) precedes the word.

(Constable points to Eccles 7:27 as another possible instance that would argue in favor of the titular position).

Assuming it’s titular, the question remains: who is the Qoheleth?

The candidate for…uh…Qoheleth-ness…that dominates every single discussion is Solomon. No other historical personage is seriously considered as a candidate, though arguments for and against Solomon have been particularly fierce the last 200 years.

In favor of Solomon, we have the following arguments:

• The titles fit Solomon, “son of David, king in Jerusalem” (Eccles 1:1) and “king over Israel in Jerusalem” (Eccles 1:12)
• The author is characterized as someone who was surpassingly wise (Eccles 1:16) and had a very prosperous reign (Eccles 2:1–9; cf. 1 Kings 3–4).
• The author’s moral odyssey chronicles Solomon’s life (1 Kin. 2–11)
• The role of one who “taught the people knowledge” and wrote “many proverbs” (Eccles 12:9) corresponds to his life.
• Jewish and Christian tradition have uniformly held to Solomonic authorship.

In opposition to Solomon, we have the following arguments (citing the ESVSB):

• The phrase “son of David” could refer to any legitimate Davidic descendant, as it does in Matthew 1:20 with reference to Joseph and frequently throughout the NT with reference to Jesus Christ.
• The distinctive nature of the Hebrew language used in the book is widely believed to be indicative of a date much later than the 10th century b.c. (though some scholars explain the linguistic evidence in terms of other factors, such as a later modernizing of the language, the influence of foreign languages such as Phoenician or Aramaic, or the possibility of a regional dialect).
• The Preacher’s remarks imply a historical setting that seems in tension with the Solomonic era, such as the fact that many have preceded him as king in Jerusalem (e.g., Eccles. 1:16; 2:7, 9—though these may include non-Israelite kings), that injustice and oppression are openly practiced (Eccles 3:16–17; 4:1–3; 8:10–11), and that he has observed firsthand the foolishness of kings (Eccles 4:13–16; 10:5–6) and their abuse of royal power (Eccles 8:2–9).

So now that we’ve got that all muddled up, let’s see if we can’t make heads or tails out of all this.

• The first argument is purely speculative. Sure, “son of David” could refer to any Davidic descendent, but is that the best explanation given the contextual cues of this particular book? What other candidate is seriously being proposed who not only fits the bill of occupying Jerusalem (Eccles 1:1) but exceeding Solomon in wisdom (Eccles 1:16) and riches (Eccles 2:7)?
• The third argument is weak enough that it could easily be countered by pro-Solomonic speculative arguments. We know that foreign influence and corruption appeared as part of Solomon’s reign. We know that Solomon not only engaged in royal foolishness but that he had personal interactions with the monarchs of neighboring kingdoms. Why couldn’t those experiences have provided sufficient grist for the mill from which the contents of Ecclesiastes came?
• Therefore, it’s all going to come down to the linguistic argument, particularly as it pertains to vocabulary and syntax.

I won’t bore you all the nitty-gritty details (as is appropriate considering this is coming from someone who doesn’t speak Hebrew and isn’t particularly well-versed in the nuances of the ANE Hebrew lexicon), but the basic argument comes down to this: there are certain discrepancies and oddities in the Hebrew of Ecclesiastes that don’t fit with our understanding of 10th century BC Hebrew. However, this problem is complicated when one realizes that a number of these oddities  in toto cannot be harmonized with any known chronological period of Hebrew, up to and including the post-exilic era. Some attempt has been made to place Ecclesiastes in the 450-250 BC period (J. Stafford Wright, “Ecclesiastes,” in Psalms-Song of Songs, vol. 5 of The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, pp. 1139-43.), but this has been vigorously refuted (“The Linguistic Evidence for the Date of ‘Ecclesiastes,’“ Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society12:3 (Summer 1969):167-81.).

Furthermore, pointing out that a particular word does not appear in the relevant body of literature until several centuries later generally does nothing to prove that word was unknown to the authors of a previous time (excluding certain noteworthy and rather obvious counter-examples based on particular derivatives or instances of coinage). However, the examples in Ecclesiastes don’t fall into these specific categories, and given the limited ANE texts at our disposal, we simply don’t have enough data to give a definitive answer.

Last but not least, in attempting to narrow down the date of composition, there is some evidence that the author was familiar with Babylonian and Egyptian literature that pre-dated Solomon’s reign (Eccles 9:8-9 strongly resembles passages from the Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh and the Egyptian “Harper’s Song”) there is no evidence of similar familiarity with the classic Greek texts of the fifth century BC and following that one would expect to find if a late date of composition was true. I’m getting ahead of myself (see DATE below), but that’s alright.

It seems clear to me that you wind up a pretty clear argument for Solomonic authorship, with a bit of room left over for fun thought experiments regarding textual emendations, but that’s about it.

DATE

That was a lot of writing; MSB quote to the rescue:

Once Solomon is accepted as the author, the date and occasion become clear. Solomon was writing, probably in his latter years (no later than ca. 931 B.C.), primarily to warn the young people of his kingdom, without omitting others. He warned them to avoid walking through life on the path of human wisdom; he exhorted them to live by the revealed wisdom of God (Eccles 12:9–14).

BACKGROUND & SETTING

Once again, I’m going to let the MSB summarize this section (which largely reproduces information from preceding sections anyhow):

Solomon’s reputation for possessing extraordinary wisdom fits the Ecclesiastes profile. David recognized his son’s wisdom (1 Kin. 2:6, 9) before God gave Solomon an additional measure. After he received a “wise and understanding heart” from the Lord (1 Kin. 3:7–12), Solomon gained renown for being exceedingly wise by rendering insightful decisions (1 Kin.3:16–28), a reputation that attracted “all the kings of the earth” to his courts (1 Kin. 4:34). In addition, he composed songs and proverbs (1 Kin. 4:32; cf. 12:9), activity befitting only the ablest of sages. Solomon’s wisdom, like Job’s wealth, surpassed the wisdom “of all the people of the east” (1 Kin. 4:30; Job 1:3).

HISTORICAL & THEOLOGICAL THEMES

There are a multitude of themes running through the book: that wisdom and pleasure apart from God are worthless (Eccles 1:12-2:16), that God confers meaning upon work and labor (Eccles 2:17-3:8 vs. 3:9-6:7; 3:22; 3:1), the injustice (and pervasive reality) of oppression (Eccles 4:1-3; 7:15-18; 12:14), the superiority of divine wisdom over and against human wisdom (Eccles 6:10; 6:8-12:7), and the fact that God…just as He gives so many other gifts…gives us meaning for this life (Eccles 12:1-14; 12:14).

I’d like to dive just a little bit deeper though, because in order to really understand the themes, you have to first understand the refrains.  And there are two refrains that are prevalent throughout this small-but-weighty book.

• The first refrain is “under the sun.” Those three little words are invariably followed (or preceded) by some sort of negative declarative statement: work has no profit and is distressing, nothing is ever really new, church and state are both corrupt, etc. “Under the sun” refers to this world, considered on its own terms. These passages are what have caused so many to dismissively consider Ecclesiastes a cynical or even nihilistic work.
• But it doesn’t end there. There’s a second refrain: “the great gift of God.” The fact that God is both the originator and order-er of all this apparent meaninglessness and repetition is what permits the wise man to view it in its proper context…and then enjoy it. Far from being a book of cynicism, Ecclesiastes turns out to be a book of profound optimism (Eccles 3:12-13; 3:22; 5:18-19; 8:15; 9:7-9).

INTERPRETIVE CHALLENGES

Let me again rely on the MSB to get this started:

The author’s declaration that “all is vanity” envelops the primary message of the book (cf. Eccles 1:2; 12:8). The word translated “vanity” is used in at least 3 ways throughout the book. In each case, it looks at the nature of man’s activity “under the sun” as: 1)”fleeting,” which has in view the vapor-like (cf. James 4:14) or transitory nature of life; 2)”futile” or “meaningless,” which focuses on the cursed condition of the universe and the debilitating effects it has on man’s earthly experience; or 3) “incomprehensible” or “enigmatic,” which gives consideration to life’s unanswerable questions. Solomon draws upon all 3 meanings in Ecclesiastes.

To those three options, Wilson adds “inscrutable repetitiveness” in his commentary, which enjoys a certain clarity in regards to the great themes of the book. What the reader should note is that whatever “vanity” means given the contextual cues of the relevant passage, it does not mean “absolute meaninglessness.” As one commentator put it, Solomon is too wise a man to fall into the error and idiocy of modern existential relativism.

LITERARY FEATURES

The ESVSB summarizes it in this way:

Although Ecclesiastes is wisdom literature, it does not read like a typical collection of proverbs. The proverbs are molded into clusters, and furthermore there is a unifying plot line that organizes the units together. The units fall into the three categories of recollections, reflections, and mood pieces. All of these are expressed by a narrator who in effect tells the story of his quest to find satisfaction in life. This quest is reconstructed from the vantage point of someone whose quest ended satisfactorily. The transitions between units often keep the quest in view: “so I turned to consider,” “again I saw,” “then I saw,” etc. As the quest unfolds, one is continuously aware of the discrepancy between the narrator’s present outlook and his futile search undertaken in the past. In effect, the speaker recalls the labyrinth of dead ends that he pursued, recreating his restless past with full vividness but not representing it as his mature outlook. Along with the narrative thread, the observational format of much of the material gives the book a meditative cast.

OBJECTIONS

There are really only two objections that are raised against Ecclesiastes; the first pertains to authorship and the second pertains to orthodoxy.

• For a discussion on the authorship question, see the AUTHOR & AUDIENCE section. It’s a bit long, so you might want to pack a lunch, particularly if you plan on chasing down the various references and articles.
• In regards to the orthodoxy of the book, critics have levied such varied accusations as it espouses cynicism (see the preceding discussion on “vanity”), the denial of an afterlife, it espouses hedonism, and its indifference in regards to reality. Let me be clear: such critics really need to learn to read better. While the illustrations of the book are certainly didactic, it does not follow that they are necessarily prescriptive (and such an interpretation is flatly contradicted by some statements within the text).

NOTABLE QUOTABLES

• Ecclesiastes 3:1
• Ecclesiastes 12:1
• Ecclesiastes 12:12 (something I became acutely aware of in writing this article)

DID YOU KNOW?

• Many scholars who hold to Solomonic authorship believe that the books “negative tone” (I’d argue about the use of that phrase, but that’s another matter) indicates that it was written late in his life, after the issues of foreign wives and their foreign gods had begun to have disastrous consequences for Israel.
• Walter Kaiser (in his commentary) argues that a couple of key textual variants in Eccles 2:24-26 are actually the correct autographa. Wilson takes the same view in his commentary Joy at the End of the Tether.  The NET notes find the first variant unconvincing, but agree with Kaiser et. all on the second. I bring this up simply because this passage goes to the heart of the book, and understanding it correctly either raises or resolves secondary issues.

Other Works Referenced

• Apologetics Study Bible, “Ecclesiastes Introduction”
• Archaeological Study Bible, “Introduction to Ecclesiastes”
• ESV Study Bible, “Introduction to Ecclesiastes”
• MacArthur Study Bible, “Ecclesiastes”
• NET Bible, Ecclesiastes
• NIV Study Bible, Ecclesiastes
• Reformation Study Bible, “Ecclesiastes”
• The Baker Illustrated Bible Handbook, “Ecclesiastes”
• Know Your Bible
• Dever, The Message of the Old Testament
• Driscoll, A Book You’ll Actually Read On the Old Testament
• Kaiser, Ecclesiastes: Total Life
• Knight, The Layman’s Bible Handbook
• Wilson, Joy at the End of the Tether