Richard L. Schultz - Commentary on Ecclesiastes: From The Baker Illustrated Bible Commentary

Richard L. Schultz

Introduction

There are few Old Testament books as intriguing and as difficult to interpret as Ecclesiastes. The book speaks directly to a contemporary society seeking desperately for meaning in life while involved in the often-reckless pursuit of material and personal success.

Yet it also contains numerous assertions that appear not only to contradict other biblical texts but also to be at odds with other passages within Ecclesiastes itself. Although such statements prompted some early rabbinic discussion concerning the nature of the books inspiration, there is no evidence that its canonicity was ever in doubt.

What quickly becomes clear when one surveys the diverse understandings offered by ancient and contemporary interpreters of the book is that ones decision regarding some basic issues largely shapes the interpretation of the book as a whole. For example, how should we translate the oft-repeated Hebrew word hebel (KJV vanity; NIV meaningless)? Or what is the point of the refrainlike call to eat and drink and find satisfaction in [ones] work (2:24; 3:1213, 22; 5:1819; 8:15; 9:79)? Interestingly, even though most contemporary scholars question the traditional ascription of the book to Solomon, this opinion appears to have little impact on their overall assessment of the message of Ecclesiastes.

Title, Authorship, and Date

The familiar English title of the book, Ecclesiastes, is a Greek word meaning assembly member, assembler, which simply translates its Hebrew title Qoheleth, the authors preferred self-designation. The word Qoheleth, in turn, is a transliterated participle that the NIV consistently renders as the Teacher (KJV, NASB the Preacher).

Despite the fact that the book never mentions King Solomon by name, he has traditionally been viewed as the author. There are three primary reasons for this ascription: (1) the author is described in 1:1 as son of David, king in Jerusalem, although the word son could designate any royal descendant. When this is combined with 1:12, which describes him further as king over Israel in Jerusalem, only Solomon could be intended if Israel refers to the united monarchy. (2) The speakers first-person claims about his personal achievements and acquisitions correspond closely to the narrative descriptions of Solomons reign in 1 Kings. (Compare, for example, Eccles. 1:16 and 2:410 with 1 Kings 3:12; 4:2934; 5:1318; 7:18; 9:1719; 10:1429; also Eccles. 7:20 with 1 Kings 8:46 and Eccles. 7:28 with 1 Kings 11:13.) (3) The claims of 1 Kings 4:2934 that Solomon not only possessed unsurpassed wisdom but also authored numerous proverbs make him a plausible author who not only could test lifes offerings to the full but also commend his discoveries to his people in a literary form. The cumulative effect of this textual support is sufficiently weighty that even most scholars who reject Solomonic authorship nevertheless assume that a later author has, as it were, slipped into the famed kings sandals in order to view the rich opportunities and cruel realities of life through his eyes. For them Solomon is simply the pseudonymous author of or the fictive voice in the book.