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

by Stephen Rodgers

PROVERBS IN 10 WORDS OR LESS

“Pithy, memorable sayings encourage people to pursue wisdom.”

TITLE

Per Constable:

The title of this book in the Hebrew Bible is “The Proverbs of Solomon, the Son of David, King in Israel” (Proverbs 1:1). The Greek Septuagint called this book “Proverbs of Solomon.” The Latin Vulgate named it “The Book of Proverbs.” Translators of English Bibles place Proverbs among the poetic books (Psalms—Song of Solomon) whereas in the Hebrew Bible it is found among the “Writings,” the third and final major section.

It should be noted that there is some dispute as to whether the title of the book is intended to refer to the total collection of proverbs, or just to the first section. As a number of scholars have pointed out, this may be yet another case where either/or creates a false antithesis and both/and could well be correct. After all, even if Proverbs 1:1 refers only to the initial segment of the collection, the rest of the book still contains proverbs.

AUTHOR & AUDIENCE

I’m going to quote the MSB on authorship, then outline the timeline the follows in the DATE section:

The phrase “Proverbs of Solomon” is more a title than an absolute statement of authorship (Proverbs 1:1). While King Solomon, who ruled Israel from 971–931 B.C. and was granted great wisdom by God (see 1 Kin. 4:29–34), is the author of the didactic section (chaps. 1–9) and the proverbs of 10:1–22:16, he is likely only the compiler of the “sayings of the wise” in 22:17–24:34, which are of an uncertain date before Solomon’s reign. The collection in chaps. 25–29 was originally composed by Solomon (25:1) but copied and included later by Judah’s king Hezekiah (ca. 715–686 B.C.). Chapter 30 reflects the words of Agur and chap. 31 the words of Lemuel, who perhaps was Solomon.

It should be noted that on the other hand, Lemuel’s sayings contain several Aramaic spellings that may point to a non-Israelite background. Scholars simply don’t agree on this (admittedly minor) point.

In regards to the audience, Proverbs tends to divide itself between a general audience (an assumed Israelite seeking wisdom) and a specific audience (a young man who finds himself at a crossroads in regards to life choices).

DATE

For anyone interested in a rough chronology of the book of Proverbs, here is a simplified outline:

• Pre-Solomon: Various proverbs are created, circulated, and become embedded in Israelite culture. There is some evidence that these may have been influenced by other ANE cultures, such as Egypt to some degree (for example, “The Instruction of Vizier Ptah-hotep,” “The Instruction for Merikare,” and “The Instruction of Amenemope,” all of which predate the Solomonic reign by 1,500 to 300 years).
• 971 BC to 931 BC: Solomon reigns in Israel, produces a ridiculous number of proverbs and songs (1 Kings 4:32), and records a number of these as the book of Proverbs, along with a collection of other sayings that pre-dates his reign.
• 715 BC to 686 BC: Hezekiah reigns in Israel, and instructs a number of scholars and scribes to amend the book to include more of the proverbs of Solomon. As the NIVSB notes, this is not unusual as “this was a time of spiritual renewal led by the king, who also showed great interest in the writings of David and Asaph (see 2 Chr 29:30).”
• Post-Hezekiah: This is where things get interesting. Some scholars would argue that some of the material in Proverbs was either written or edited during the Post-Exilic period, although the evidence for this claim is tenuous at best. Many of the sources cited below go into greater detail regarding the reasons for excluding this theory, but briefly, there are simply no significant literary, historical, or cultural indicators to adopt it over and against the records we have which indicate that the vast majority of the material originated in the Solomonic period.

BACKGROUND & SETTING

Proverbs spans three contexts: 1) general wisdom literature, 2) a royal court setting, and 3) an inter-generational household. Against this multi-faceted backdrop the various exhortations and admonitions of the book will be developed.

In the context of the OT, wisdom literature was typically the purview of the Sage/Wise Man who dispensed good counsel (as opposed to the Priest who dispensed the Law and/or the Prophet who dispensed the Word of the Lord). As a result, we can typically expect the Wisdom literature to interact with the entities of the Law and Word, but to largely concern itself with the areas that are not explicitly addressed by either.

HISTORICAL & THEOLOGICAL THEMES

There are two dominant themes in the book of Proverbs:

• Wisdom. The dominant motif of the extended discourse in Proverbs 1:1-9:18 is that of two women: Wisdom and Folly. Wisdom is a personification of God’s attribute of wisdom and ultimately represents God Himself, whereas Folly represents the various false gods and idols vying for Israel’s devotion. The conclusion is that there is no real wisdom apart from God (Prov 1:7).
• Practical Living. As alluded to in the previous section, Proverbs has much to say on subjects that are not explored in extended or pragmatic detail in the Law or prophetic revelation. Wealth, work, and matters of the heart are all raised and expounded upon, and ultimately are all grounded in the person and nature of God Himself.

INTERPRETIVE CHALLENGES

There are a number of issues that could be raised in regards to challenges to correctly understanding Proverbs, even from within a Christian worldview:

• Cultural Considerations. As with any Biblical passage, it is important to evaluate the proverbs in light of the context and culture of the original author in order to avoid drawing false conclusions. I recall a sermon I heard a number of years ago where the preacher took his cue from Proverbs 21:9 and articulated at great length how uncomfortable this would be, exhorting the audience to consider in detail what it would be like to try to keep from rolling off their own roofs. Unfortunately, while it’s a vivid image, it’s not an accurate one since the houses of Solomonic Israel had flat roofs that were often used for storage (remember Rahab?),  recreation (remember Bathsheba?) and even sleeping. Right principle; wrong illustration.
• Literary Format. I won’t belabor the point here, except to reference the earlier articles on the Wisdom Books in general and Psalms in particular.
• Principles vs. Promises. It really cannot be over-emphasized that Proverbs contains instruction that is intended to be understood as normative principles rather than divine promises. In general, hard work and diligence will result in financial security while laziness and a refusal to apply oneself will result in poverty.  This does not prevent hard workers from falling on hard times, or slackers from winning the lottery.

LITERARY FEATURES

Shockingly perhaps, the genre or Proverbs is proverbs.

To summarize the ESVSB in regards to some of the literary characteristics of the proverbs of Proverbs…

• Comparison. Typically a comparison is made between A and B; however, the comparison need not be literal, and its application may vary depending on the time and culture. In this way, the English proverb “You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink” typically refers to interpersonal relationships…not ranching.
• Context. Individual proverbs may stand alone, or they may be situated in a broader context (paragraph). An astute reader will need to carefully determine these factors in order to understand the proverb appropriately.
• Concreteness. Just because a proverb employs imagery evoking a specific situation or circumstance (just weights and scales, a father/son dynamic) does not mean it is intended to exclude a more fundamental principle (honesty and labor) or a different relationship (father/daughter, mother/son, mother/daughter, etc.). Be careful not to apply an overly-literal hermeneutic.
• Contradictions. Many proverbs seem to result in contradictions (the most famous being Proverbs 26:4-5), but this is typically the result of failing to make the proper application to the relevant circumstance.  Most languages have the same phenomenon: English has “Many hands make light work” and “Too many cooks spoil the broth.”
• Consequences. As previously mentioned, proverbs by nature deal with general truths, and are not meant to cover every conceivable situation. These are behavioral observations, rather than statistical ones.

OBJECTIONS

There are no significant objections to Proverbs that haven’t already been addressed in the DATE, AUTHOR, and/or INTERPRETIVE CHALLENGES sections (at least that I’m aware of).

NOTABLE QUOTABLES

• Proverbs 3:5
• Proverbs 6:6
• Proverbs 10:1
• Proverbs 11:22
• Proverbs 13:24
• Proverbs 15:1
• Proverbs 16:3
• Proverbs 17:28
• Proverbs 18:10
• Proverbs 20:1
• Proverbs 22:1
• Proverbs 26:4-5
• Proverbs 27:6

DID YOU KNOW?

• The final chapter (31) of Proverbs is a long poem in praise of wives, which was highly unusual for an ANE culture. It was traditionally recited by a husband to his wife on Sabbath evenings.

Other Works Referenced

• Apologetics Study Bible, “Proverbs Introduction”
• Archaeological Study Bible, “Introduction to Proverbs”
• ESV Study Bible, “Introduction to Proverbs”
• MacArthur Study Bible, “Proverbs”
• NET Bible, Proverbs
• NIV Study Bible, Proverbs
• Reformation Study Bible, “Proverbs”
• The Baker Illustrated Bible Handbook, “Proverbs”
• Know Your Bible
• Dever, The Message of the Old Testament
• Driscoll, A Book You’ll Actually Read On the Old Testament
• Knight, The Layman’s Bible Handbook