WHO WROTE ECCLESIASTES?

                        Much Study (2010) collage

This is perhaps the most contentious issue regarding biblical authorship that one is likely to run into, and the opinions of scholars range all over the map. Some otherwise conservative scholars are found to be surprisingly open-minded on this subject, while there is also the rare liberal commentator who is unexpectedly non-committal regarding authorship. So the best I can do is to quote from some of these sources and let you decide for yourself whether Solomon wrote the book. I will wait till the end before quoting from those few scholars who still feel King Solomon was the sole author of Ecclesiastes.

Pseudonymous Authorship

Longman states, “Even conservative commentators...reject the tradition of Solomonic authorship. The connection between Qohelet and Solomon is instead recognized as a literary fiction on the part of the writer of the book...” And elsewhere Longman says, “Increasingly, commentators have recognized two voices in the book. In Ecclesiastes 1:12-12:7, Qohelet speaks in the first person; In Ecclesiastes 1:1-11; 12:8-14 someone else (often called the frame narrator or second wise teacher) speaks about Qohelet to his son...”

“To disguise the identity of an actual king by naming him 'Qohelet' ['teacher] is one thing, but to refer to him as 'son of David, king in Jerusalem' (Eccles 1:1) when he was not is problematic for some interpreters, although it need not be, since there is no reason to assume that adopting a literary persona is an act of deception...It simply means that the main character of the book is referred to as Qohelet for reasons which still elude interpreters to this day.” (Enns)

Shields discusses the pros and cons regarding the identity of Qohelet with Solomon. He concludes: “The fact that Qohelet is never explicitly identified with Solomon suggests that the association exists to serve a purpose other than outright identification. And the most recognized reason for the association is to establish the authority and integrity of Qohelet's wisdom.”

J.G. Williams points out that the meaning of the Hebrew title of the book, Qohelet, is not quite clear. But interestingly, it “is a feminine participle, a form of the root that occurs nowhere else in the Old Testament. The odd use of the feminine gender, together with the fact that the term is associated with Solomon (though without naming him; see 1:1, 12), suggests the author wanted his work to be recognized as part of Israel's Wisdom tradition but not taken literally as the wisdom of Solomon.”

“In reconstructing his moral vision., Qoheleth critically engages traditional sources: wisdom teachings, Torah, Solomonic traditions, as well as other ancient Near Eastern literature...Under the guise of the wise king par excellence, he sets out on an ambitious program to investigate 'all that is done under heaven' (1:13).” (E.P. Lee)

Childs states, “Commentators have made much of the superscription's belonging to a final redactional stage and being dependent upon 1.12. ...Still the more difficult question, and of primary importance, is to determine the function of the title. Why is the author identified with Koheleth, and yet immediately described in a way which is only appropriate to Solomon?...The traditional biblical profile of Solomon is clearly reflected which is portrayed in such passages as I Kings 5.26ff; 10.23.ff., II Chron. 1.7ff., and Song of Songs 8.12ff. To suggest that the book is actually pseudegraphic and that an attempt was made to acquire an authoritative status by ascribing it to Solomon runs into a variety of problems. First, the name of Solomon is never used, which is without parallel if a claim for authorship were intended. Secondly, the fiction of Koheleth as a pseudonym for Solomon is clearly abandoned within the book itself (8.22ff.; 10.16f.; 12.9ff.). It seems much more likely, therefore, to suppose that the picture of Koheleth as Solomon served another purpose. In its canonical form the identification assures the reader that the attack on wisdom which Ecclesiastes contains is not to be regarded as the personal idiosyncrasy of a nameless teacher. Rather, by his speaking in the guise of Solomon.., his attack on wisdom was assigned an authoritative role as the final reflections of Solomon. As the source of Israel's wisdom, his words serve as a official corrective from within the wisdom tradition itself. Once this point was made, the literary fiction of Solomon was dropped.”

Bullock: “Although the name Solomon does not appear anywhere in the book, he was the only son of David who was also king in Jerusalem...three times he referred to his position in Jerusalem in relation to his predecessors (1:16; 2:7,9). The implication is that he had been preceded by a relatively large group of kings, which was certainly not true of Solomon. W.F. Albright proposed that melek might be emended to molek or mallok ('counselor'), necessitating only vowel changes. This would, of course, alleviate the problem of Solomonic authorship, since it would mean that the author was possibly a descendant of David who was an official in Jerusalem but not king.”

Bullock goes on with additional arguments:

1. Even Martin Luther attributed the book to the later sage Jesus Ben Sirach.

2. “Although injustice and oppressive politics were evident in Solomon's reign (I Kings 12:2-4), Qoheleth, if he were Solomon, seemed impotent to do anything about the injustice (e.g., 3:16; 4:1; 5:8).”

3. “The phrase 'king in Jerusalem' (1:1) does not occur elsewhere as a designation for Solomon.”

Bullock concludes by pointing out, “We should distinguish between impersonation as literary form and literary forgery. The latter occurs when the author makes a conscious effort to conceal his own identity and write under the name of an ancient worthy in order to win an immediate hearing and esteem for his work. Impersonation as a literary form, in comparison, has no such motivation, but seeks to recapture a certain spirit represented by a historical person and to speak through his spirit...What he had to say, and the context from which he said it, both qualified for representation by a man of such wealth and opportunity as Solomon.”

Solomonic Authorship

Despite the above arguments, there are still some scholars who staunchly defend King Solomon as the author of Ecclesiastes. For example, Walter Kaiser, Jr. has this to say: “The well-known conservative scholar of the nineteenth century, Franz Delitzsch, declared in a much-quoted opinion, 'If the book of Koheleth were of old Solomonic origin, then there is no history to the Hebrew language.' However, Fredericks devoted a careful inspection of all the linguistic arguments for dating the book late and concluded that they were all unpersuasive.The other approach to show that the book is late is to try to show affinities in thought between Hellenistic thought and Ecclesiastes....but this method also has been beset by problems.”

Ellul attacks one key argument of critics, namely the presence of contradictory voices which betrays the hand of multiple authorship of the book. These critics say, “How could a king criticize royal power?” But Ellul's reply is, “These scholars betray their ignorance of the many historical writings of those who exercised power and yet attacked it energetically.”

Kaiser notes that many evangelical scholars have challenged the view that Solomon wrote the book (see above as a sampling]. “But much of that was on the strength of the allegedly late language and concepts.” However, due to Fredericks' study, “it is worth looking at the idea of Solomonic authorship one more time.” And as far as the objection mentioned by others that the author compared himself in Ecclesiastes 1:16 favorably to all other kings of Jerusalem preceding him, Kaiser responds that there were at least two earlier Canaanite kings over that city (see Genesis 14:18 and Joshua 10:1). His cinching argument is to compare five passages in Ecclesiastes where the author's life parallels that of Solomon as described in I Kings.

David George Moore (who happens to be a friend of mine) presents a fair view of the arguments adduced by opponents of Solomonic authorship before giving his own judgment on the matter. “Some argue that an anonymous preacher (Qoheleth) wrote the book. Various reasons are given to bolster this claim. One is that the Bible does not record Solomon as having repented. Also, using the word teacher was a literary device of ancient Jewish authors to call themselves 'Solomon' in order to preserve their own anonymity and to declare their 'indebtedness to their teacher and model, the ideal wise man' (Kreeft). There is also some textual evidence for someone other than Solomon authoring Ecclesiastes in 1:12. In this verse the perfect tense is used which would suggest that Solomon was no longer king. This would make room for a later writer to have compiled the book. Tremper Longman offers a number of other compelling reasons for the non-Solomonic authorship of Ecclesiastes.”
But despite the above, Moore still feels that Solomon is likely to be the author of the book. He says, besides citing Kaiser approvingly: “First, the notion that the Scriptures do not record Solomon as having repented can certainly be contested. Specifically, Ecclesiastes 2:1-11 could possibly be viewed as a statement of repentance. Second, the requirements of being 'son of David, king in Jerusalem' (1:1) points to Solomon. Third, parallels between 1 Kings and Ecclesiastes fit the life of Solomon... Furthermore, ancient Jewish tradition held to Solomonic authorship...as did Patristic tradition.”

Moore also offers some valuable cautions to those investigating this matter, including:

    “More humility is called for when it comes to the tools of biblical scholarship.”

    “We must always keep in mind that all of us are 'subjects,' so it is impossible to be totally objective!”

    “Not surprisingly, modern scholars are many times guilty of making the text of Scripture say what they want it to say.”

    “The idea of editors (redactors) working on Ecclesiastes before reaching its final form is also a popular notion. Some claim that Ecclesiastes contains much contradictory material – but wouldn't redactors smooth those over?”

    “The ambiguity of the evidence suggests that the wise conclusion is a healthy dose of agnosticism when it comes to dating Ecclesiastes.”