Cameron B. answered • 04/06/21
MA.'s in Church History & Theology; Minor in Biblical Studies
There is disagreement among Biblical Scholars as to who actually wrote Ecclesiastes. Below are a couple of theories followed by my personal opinion:
a) Solomon Theory: One of the earliest traditions claims Solomon is the author of Ecclesiastes. Upon first glance this seems obvious considering the opening, "The words of the Preacher [HB. Qoheleth], Son of David, King of Jerusalem" (Ecclesiastes 1:1). In another passage, vs. 12, the writer (in the First-Person) claims to be king of Israel. Other descriptions are provided, such as the writer possessed great wisdom (1:16) and that he was extremely wealthy (2:4-9), both of which match the description of Solomon provided elsewhere in the OT (cf. 1 Kings 3:1-10:29). Furthermore, the term Qoheleth [Trans. Preacher/Conveyor] may have linguistic connections with Solomon. In the account of the Temples dedication (1 Kings 8), the Hebrew verbal root qhl [to gather] is used several times in connection with Solomon as gathering the people together. This may be a connection between the two books.
Extra-Biblical evidence is seen in the Targum of Ecclesiastes [Targums were Aramaic translations/commentaries of the OT after the Second Temple], which provides an emendation on Solomon in vs. 12. Vid: https://www.sefaria.org/Aramaic_Targum_to_Ecclesiastes.1?lang=bi
Early Church Fathers also appear to agree with this tradition. The earliest is Gregory Thaumaturgos (c. 213-270) who wrote a paraphrase of the book.
Problems: In spite of this evidence, there are problems with viewing Solomon as the sole author of Ecclesiastes, which has led many authors away from identifying the Qoheleth with Solomon. 1) The most obvious problem is the absence of Solomon using Qoheleth as referring to himself or others using the term to refer to Solomon by that name. This is furthermore made problematic by asking why Solomon would use the name instead of his own name? 2) vs. 12 uses the past tense when talking about being king. If the author is Solomon, then using the past tense "was king," is confusing at best. Unlike David and later kings of Israel, Solomon never was removed for a period nor did he experience challenges to his kingship. The Targum seems to recognize this inconsistency and rectifies it by claiming a legend of Solomon that he abdicated the throne in his old age. There is no evidence of this in the OT. Furthermore, in vs. 16a, the author claims to have "acquired great wisdom, surpassing all who were over Jerusalem before me..." This is odd considering only David ruled over Jerusalem/Israel before Solomon. It is possible that the author could have the Jebusite Kings, which ruled before Israel took over, but this would certainly be a first for Kings of Israel to reference previous/non-Israelite rulers. 3) The association of the Qoheleth with Solomon only lasts through Chapters 1-3, after which the Qoheleth seems to take on a new identity. In Chapters 4-5, the oppression of the people is mourned over. This seems awkward at best if coming from a king. Furthermore, Ecclesiastes 10:20 puts the kingship of Israel in a bad light. This again, seems awkward coming from Solomon. The traditional response for the shift is that the opening is Young Solomon and the later portions the Old Solomon. But this response is unnatural within the text and is ultimately conjecture. 4) The narrative of Ecclesiastes shifts from the First-Person to the Third Person in 7:27. As scholars have pointed out, one can speak of themselves in the Third-Person, but doing so in a First-Person sentence is unnatural and only exist in quotations. Thus, 1:2-12:7 could be interpreted as one narrative quotation (thus the shift from 12:8 onward).
b) Qoheleth is a Persona and not an actual Person: This theory is fascinating, provided by Michael V. Fox, it espouses that the writer of Ecclesiastes takes on a Persona. This is akin to stories like Brer Rabbit or Uncle Remus where a literary figure is created to tells specific stories or accounts that serve significant moral or theological purposes. The attractiveness of this position is that it makes sense of the ambiguity surrounding the author, who only makes vague comments on his identity.
Problem: The main problem is that there is no evidence in the Ancient Near East (ANE) that this literary device was ever applied in this fashion. We certainly have modern parallels, but none in the ancient world. Thus, it is certainly possible in theory, but without historical evidence, it is pure conjecture.
c) Qoheleth is an actual person who took on a Solomonic Persona: This one resembles option b); however, the Preacher is an actual person, not just a literary device. Scholar Tremper Longman III, in his commentary on Ecclesiastes, he argues that the Genre of Ecclesiastes is not Wisdom literature nor strict Autobiography. Instead, he applies the Genre "Fictional Autobiography." In analyzing Akkadian/ANE autobiographies, he noted that all had the same threefold structure, with the same opening statement of kingship. In all of the ones he analyzed (15 Total) all of them were clearly written centuries after the person was dead, and therefore clearly pseudonymous or fictional. Similarly, Ecclesiastes is broken up into Three Sections: Section I (vs.1:12) is the Introduction. Section II (vs. 1:13-6:9) is a First-Person narrative where Qoheleth describes his own quest for meaning in life. Section III (vs. 7:1-12:7) is First-Person instruction in which Qoheleth offers advice/instruction. In this fashion, it is possible to see how Qoheleth adopts a Solomonic Persona, and employs it for the sake of theological/existential purposes.
Problems: The clearest problem is the vagueness/subjectivity of genre identification, which Tremper Longman recognizes. Technically, genre is artificial in that, it seeks to recognize themes/characteristics between texts, but these can be as broad or as narrow as the scholar desires. As such, one must question was the genre of "Fictional Autobiography" is not just a subjective/artificial literary category. A secondary issue comes from the fact that Tremper never really establishes the point for the author to take on a Solomonic identity. It is quite possible in the genre of "Fictional Autobiography" to take on any number of identities. Why then Solomon? He is notably vague/silent on this issue. Source: Ecclesisates. New International Commentary
d) Multiple Authors/Primary Solomonic Authorship: This is my personal opinion. I believe that it is well possible that Solomon wrote large portions of Ecclesiastes which were fragmented and then later compiled/edited. This would not be unusual within the ANE, nor unusual for other OT books (consider Primary Mosaic authorship of Deuteronomy and yet the closing of DT). It is equally plausible that another king of Israel wrote the work and that it was not Solomon. Ecclesiastes is quite too vague in its descriptions to say with exact certainty whether Solomon was the author. Vagueness of details tends to divert the reader away from too close of an identification with a specific person. And that may have been the point of the Qoheleth.
I know that this is a lot, but hopefully this provides a clear and detailed framework for understanding the authorship issues surrounding Ecclesiastes.
~Cameron Brock
