Traditionally the book of Ecclesiastes has been assumed to be written by King Solomon as a later reflection of his life as hw comes to a near end. This sounds good but the fact is that the content of Ecclesiastes sounds like Greek fatalistic speech in that the and its late arrival as in terms of other wisdom/poetry books as we have evidence of all others in some shape or form before the exile (The Rose Publishing Bible Overview says this about the date, “If it was a later author, most scholars believe it was written after God brought the Jews back from exile (after 539 BC)”. In fact I somewhat agree with the liberal view that Ecclesiastes was written post-exile and was attributed to Solomon, as it is done with the other chapters of the Song of Songs (it is assumed that Solomon wrote the first chapter but other’s are unique and just got added into one whole text over time). Richard S. Hess in his book “The Old Testament: A Historical, Theological, and Critical Introduction.” says this about Ecc.
“Although the issue of cannon was discussed at the beginning of this survey (see introduction), it becomes important for understanding this book due to the unusual dispute concerning the place of Ecclesiastes, more than that for most other books of the Bible. Its appearance among the scrolls of the separatist Qumran community as early as the mid-second century BC suggests an acceptance in the intertestamental Judaism. Questions arose due to some apparent contradictions in the book (cf. 2:2; 7:3; 8:15), a fatalistic view of life (1:3; 11:9), and the pessimistic nature of the work regarding belief in God.”
So, my question is this, if Ecclesiastes was written post exile, is it possible that it was influenced by Hellenistic cynic thinking of the time and made by a ground of Hellenistic Jews?
I don’t know the date that I assume it was written. But I was always taught that it was wrote as a sort of fictitious reflection through the paradigm of solomon , and even as a perception of wisdoms voice collectively, but not by Solomon himself.
Although the writer assumes the personal of Solomon, scholars agree that this book wasn’t written by him. The language of the book is a late form of biblical Hebrew. As it contains Persian loan-words, it must date from after the release from exile in 539 B.C.E. Most date the book’s writing between 300 and 200 B.C.E.
(I got this information from the Harper Study Bible/Society of Biblical Literature)
Just one question. Does the date or even the author affect anything?
I love the book for its freshness and pragmatism.
Richard
For me personally no. I love the book as the author takes a somewhat negative point of view of life and yet as the end the Preacher say, “The conclusion when all has been hears, is: fear God and keep His commandments, because this applies to every person.” What I get is, regardless how you are feeling, know the Lord your God and obey His commands. Our devotion to God “should” transcend our emotions and our relationship with God isn’t dependent on our feeling. I always took Ecclesiastes as a rebuttal to Proverbs in how the writers had the idea of doing everything God’s way will lead to prosperity while both Ecclesiastes and Job show that bad things fall on all people regardless of who they are. As Jesus said in how the rain falls on both the righteous and unrighteous. The same should be seen with prosperity and calamity.
That’s a good point. I guess we could see that as further evidence that Solomon didn’t write them both, or wonder whether Proverbs is a young and optimistic Solomon while Ecclesiastes is a Solomon who’s been around the block a few times. But I agree that the authorship doesn’t really affect my view of it either.
That was the view I was given at my bible college but since then I see some of the early Proverbs to being from Solomon while Ecclesiastes being written by Jews who may or may not have been influenced by Hellenistic thinking in a way to make sense of suffering and as a rebuttal to Proverbs as I bet as many people thought in the similar vain as people think via prosperity theology take it as a to-do guide on how to get rich quick from God.
Several verses offer clues that Solomon didn’t write it. I think it’s important to know something about authorship and other details.
Details, please! I’m eager to learn about a portion of Scripture I’ve never heard preached from a pulpit.
Here you go! All information copied shamelessly from the Harper Study Bible by the Sociey of Biblical Literature. A wonderful resource!
*"Qoheleth" (Teacher), assumes the persona of King Solomon, and this literary association implicity identifies the book as legitimate Israelite wisdom and lends weight to its teaching.*Scholars are agreed that Ecclesiastes was not written by Solomon, but by a later writer. The name Solomon does not appear in the book and Qoheleth’s claim to have wisdom “surpassing all who were over Jerusalem before me” (1:16) does not fit Solomon, whose only predecessor was David. In later chapters, Qoheleth takes the viewpoint of a subject rather than a king (4:13; 8:2; 9:14-16; 10:16-17,20) noting conditions of oppression(4:13), injustice(4:8;5.8) and social upheaval (10:6-7).
The language of Ecclesiastes is a late form of biblical Hebrew, coming closest of any OT book to postbiblical Mishnaic Hebrew. The presence of Persian loan-words requires a date well after Israel’s release from exile in 539 B.C.E. Fragments of the book found among the Dead Sea Scrolls of the Qumran community date to the mid-second century B.C.E. Most scholars date the book’s composition between 300 and 200 B.C.E.
I know it’s been a long time since you made this comment, but I’ve always shared you view. I’ve felt that you couldn’t read proverbs without the balance that Ecclesiastes brings.
Interesting timeline. I also recently learned that Job is not one of the oldest books but most think it was post-exile as well.
Just to add to what was posted earlier, the Jewish study Bible writes:
In any case, classical rabbinic tradition generally accepted that Koheleth was really Solomon, and that the book originated from the Solomonic period. Specific features of the book, however, point to a much later origin. Thus, the book’s two Persian words, pardes (“grove”; 2.5) and pitgam (“sentence”; 8.11) indicate that in its present form it does not date from before the postexilic period (latter 6th c. BCE on) when the Achaemenid Persian empire emerged that ruled Judah and much else of the ancient Near East. This date comports with the variety of late grammatical features of Koheleth’s Hebrew, e.g., the use of the feminine singular demonstrative pronoun, zo, and the negative particle, ʾeyn, used with infinitive constructs. At the other chronological end, Koheleth cannot be later than the first half of the 2nd century BCE, the date of a fragment of Koheleth found among the Dead Sea Scrolls and the implicit references to Koheleth in the Wisdom of Solomon and, perhaps, Sirach. Within the resulting chronological limits, approximately 580 to 200 BCE, scholars continue to debate whether Koheleth belongs in the Achaemenid Persian period (late 6th– end of 4th centuries BCE) or to the following early Hellenistic period, perhaps during the 3rd century BCE. Key to this debate is whether Koheleth was influenced by Greek philosophical ideas. In either instance, the several positive references to political hierarchy, wealth in land, and money (kesef) all mark the author of Koheleth as probably of the landed gentry.
Interestingly enough, there were some significant debates about canonicity in antiquity based on some troubling parts of the text:
Despite the firm place Koheleth has in the biblical canon, rabbinic tradition shows some ambivalence toward the book. The evidence is rather laconic and concerns, in particular, the debates attributed to the 1st century BCE through the early 2nd century CE, which also included Ezekiel and the Song of Songs. Two features of Koheleth, and in varying fashion of these other books, appear to have provoked discussion: that they exhibit contradictions, in the case of Koheleth, self-contradictions; and that they offer unorthodox views that do not comport with the mainstream of Jewish thinking about God and Torah in the Bible. The result was, as various rabbinic Sages argued—others disagreeing—that Koheleth and these other books were not divinely inspired or canonical, or, in the ancient terminology, “did not make the hands unclean/impure” and thus deserved to “be removed from use and stored away” (e.g., b. Shab. 30b; m. ʿ Ed. 5.3; b. Meg. 7a). This rabbinic evidence, however, is all post facto, after Koheleth and the other books had already been included in the biblical canon. While it may possibly contain some memory of earlier debates about canonicity, even more it appears to reflect an ongoing challenge of how to correlate the ideas and formulations of Koheleth and the other books with the rest of the biblical canon. It is matched by the efforts of many later classical Jewish commentators on Koheleth to make this correlation, both by reinterpreting and so taming various troublesome sections of the book (e.g., annotations on 3.9–12; 6.1–12; ch 7), and by asserting that the statements in the epilogue, which appear orthodox, represent, indeed, the basic sense of the book. In the latter effort, the commentators may not be far wrong (12.9–14 n.).
It may be that those troubling parts were smoothed over and reinterpreted. Here is note 12.9-14:
12.9–14: Editorial reflections. Interpreters, whether traditional Jewish or modern critical, generally agree that these final vv. constitute an epilogue, after the conclusion of the book of Koheleth proper. Many traditional Jewish interpreters assume that it is still Koheleth/Solomon who is speaking here, but some (e.g., Rashbam) suppose that it is later editors, and the latter is the common opinion of modern critics. The formal indications of the separation of vv. 9–14 from the core of the book are twofold: the framework, noted above, that encloses 1.2–12.8; and the shift here to third-person discussion of Koheleth from the first-person remarks by him within 1.2–12.8. Since this third-person discussion echoes that in the introductory rubric of 1.1, the two together provide a second, larger framework around the one within 1.2–12.8 (note, however, the brief third- person references in 1.2 and 7.27). A third formal marker breaks vv. 9–14 into two parts, reflecting perhaps two separate editorial additions, 9–11 and 12–14, for each part begins with the phrase A further word (actually the Heb varies slightly in each: “ve-yoter she-” in v. 9; and “ve-yoter me-” in v. 12). 9–11: The first part identifies Koheleth as a sage and describes his characteristic activity of teaching by means of wise sayings, emphasizing the careful construction of the sayings (v. 9c) and their provocative impact, like the goads and pricks of a shepherd (v. 11) to control the animals under his supervision. 11: Interestingly, classical Jewish commentary (e.g., Tg.; Eccl. Rab.; and Rashi) identifies the Shepherd with Moses. 12–14: The second part goes on not to criticize Koheleth’s teaching, but to assert that with his sayings collected, it is not necessary, indeed not desirable, to add anything more (cf. Deut. 4.2; 13.1). Further, this second part strives to sum up Koheleth’s teaching with the imperatives: fear (NJPS: revere) God and keep His commandments (v. 13b)—phrases frequent in other parts of the Bible (e.g., Deut. 6.2; Prov. 1.7; Job 28.28).
I should add this to my compilation of evidence on why the idea of an “autograph” for scripture is more fictional than not.
If Ecclesiastes was originally told orally, the written version may be a much later report/documentation of the oral teaching. In orally mediated teaching, those telling the story may have updated words to those used by later generations. Some minor updates by those telling the teaching orally to new generations and/or an editor is possible, even likely.
Who told the original teachings can be speculated. The text suggests that is was someone rich who had lots of influence. Only a rich and old person could understand all the experiences and feelings that are described.
Edit:
My impression is that in addition to being rich and old, the writer suffered from depression. The attitudes and feelings have that kind of taste.
The “founder” of the Cynic philosophy, Diogenes of Sinope, died around 325 B.C. Even if the book was written in the third century, it would be quite impressive if the Cynic way of thinking had reached Judea by that time, and to such an extent it influenced the elites.
As a comparison, Rome was introduced to Greek philosophy in 155 B.C., when an Athenian embassy arrived (there had been Greek colonies in Italy centuries before that). Those Greek ideas were immediately vehemently opposed by conservative Romans such as Cato the Elder.
Also, what we today call “cynic” does not have much in common with how the Greeks saw it (the same applies to Stoicism and the “hedonism” of Epicureanism). Their view seems to be quite different from that of Ecclesiastes:
Cynic Characteristics
The Cynics carried to an extreme the Sophists’ contrast between custom and nature (p. 256). They sought to free themselves from luxuries and so inure themselves to hardship by ascetic practices. In order to excite censure they exposed themselves to scorn by deliberately acting against the conventions of society: using violent and abusive language, wearing filthy garments, performing acts of nature (defecation, sex) in public, feigning madness. The Cynics alone among the Greeks did not view life as lived in society as a life of ruling and being ruled. By rejecting pleasure and seeking dishonor the Cynics sought to attain hardness, apathy, and freedom.
That doesn’t mean there could have been no influence of Greek philospy. But it probably wasn’t the Cynic one.
Regarding the authorship and date (and whether it matters):
Both @knor and @Vinnie made a good point:
Especially texts of “lesser” importance were often updated (compared to e.g the Torah). But even within the Torah, language updating happened. Moses wouldn’t have spoken the Hebrew that we see in the Pentateuch. Archaic language is still reflected in songs like the Song of the Sea (Exodus 15). Just like hymns, the language of songs is changed less.
If the Torah has undergone textual updating, how much more the non-prophetic books!
The BibleProject has made an excellent series on the Wisdom books. They show how each book complements the others:
Some major updates as well or wholesale changes that might even contradict ideology of earlier retellings as social views evolve.
We do not have sufficient information about editorial changes in the text, so any speculations about ‘major updates or wholesale changes’ are purely speculation.
I value the critical study of scriptures. Unfortunately, much of the former critical work has been based on philosophical assumptions and misunderstandings rather than sound study of the scriptures or reliable historical data. For example, the assumptions of development through a process of thesis + antithesis => synthesis, or the sociological ‘Sitz im Leben’ thinking are not credible approaches to the scriptures. The belief that orally transmitted religious narratives and teachings could be freely modified seems to be a misunderstanding. These approaches tell more about the thinking of the theologians than about the scriptures.
We know very little about the origin of the scriptures in the Hebrew Bible (Tanak). That leaves much space for speculations. Yet, we should keep it clear what is fact, what is probable, and what is speculation.
We have enough to know there were major changes. Anything else is apologetical gaslighting.
There are several theories regarding the contradictions within Ecclesiastes itself (the epilogue is a different story, see below):
-
The contradictions were made on purpose.
-
The contradictions are the result of textual updating.
-
The contradictions are actually quotations which are then rebutted.
Explaining the inconsistencies
[1] J. A. Loader’s structuralist analysis of Ecclesiastes argues for antitheses, contrasts and chiastic arrangements which can be described as "polar structures”. …
J. Barton writes when discussing such structuralist approaches, "Traditional source or form-critical analyses of the the inconsistency between different sayings serves as a criterion for postulating plurality of authorship or an original independence of the short units that compose the work, miss the point entirely. They make a problem of what is in reality the book’s deliberate design; for Qoheleth’s whole purpose is to proceed by self-contradiction and antithesis to his ultimate conclusion, a conclusion which is not so much sceptical as relativistic.”
[2] Other scholars have not however been so prepared to acknowledge this tension between opposites. Rather, they prefer to explain the contradictions and there can be seen to be various ways of doing this. Literary-critical analysts, particularly at the turn of the century, posited considerable editorial and redactional work.
[3] Another possibility is that the text contains hidden quotations which the author was citing deliberately in order to refute. This theory has most recently been put forward by R. Gordis, who defines “quotations” in this context as “words which do not reflect the present sentiments of the author of the literary composition in which they are found, but have been introduced by the author to convey the standpoint of another person or situation”.’ Some quotations have a poetical form which stands out in a prose context and they resemble sayings in Proverbs (e.g. i 15, i 18). Others are used as a basis for Qoheleth’s own comment which follows, e.g. ii 14a, a proverb: “The wise man has his eyes in his head, but the fool walks in darkness” which is followed by ii 14b from Qoheleth, “and yet I perceived that one fate comes to all of them”
There are three interpretations of the epilogue:
- The epilogue does not contradict the book.
Miles Custis
Miles Custis puts forth the theory that Ecclesiastes was written by one man who used two distinct voices: the voice of Qohelet and the voice of the epilogist. In regards to this theory, Custis examines the criticism surrounding the relationship between the body of Ecclesiastes and the epilogue. He shows how the message of the epilogue fits with the body of Ecclesiastes, and as a result, brings readers a deeper understanding of the meaning, structure, and purpose of Ecclesiastes’ last verses.
The End of the Matter - Miles Custis
- The epilogue debunks the book.
M. Shields
Close analysis of the epilogue reveals that, although partially favourable towards Qohelet himself, the epilogist is unequivocally critical of the sages as a group. It appears that the epilogist may thus have employed Qohelet 's words in order to reveal the failure of the sages and warn their prospective students to adhere to the commands of God. The book of Ecclesiastes thus functions as a tract designed to discredit the wisdom movement, using the sage Qohelet’s own words in order to do so. …
Qohelet is the epilogist’s ‘straw man’. But the epilogist does not go to great lengths to knock down the straw man, for-to employ a different illustration-the epilogist has given Qohelet sufficient rope, and he has hung himself. To the reader familiar with the remainder of the Old Testament, it is clear that the wisdom of Qohelet has gone astray-much as Solomon himself had gone astray-and is ultimately incompatible with the message of the remainder of the canon. The book of Ecclesiastes does function to show the bankruptcy of life lived without faith in God, but it also shows the bankruptcy of a wisdom movement which had sought its own answers and had failed to find them.
Ecclesiastes and the end of wisdom - M. Shields
- The epilogue tries to salvage the book.
Nili Samet
[W]e are dealing here with an addendum, composed by later author (or authors) who sought to re-interpret the book in light of their religious agenda. The recognition of similar patterns in other vanity texts from the ancient Near East illustrates the dynamics that gave rise to this editorial activity.
Due to its subversive nature, vanity literature involves an inherent conflict with traditional literature. This conflict triggered redactional activity focused on moderating or re-interpreting vanity texts in light of traditional values. Occurring already in the beginning of the second millennium BCE, these exegetical attempts do not reflect the work of a single individual, or even a trend of a certain period. Rather, they are a recurring pattern of dialectical intellectual movement between skepticism and conservatism, to which Qohelet is no exception.
What we know is that there are parts that have different viewpoints (first-person reflections vs. third-person comments) and parts that include comments or wisdom that have been interpreted as contradictory. How we interpret these differences is a matter of opinion or at best, educated guesses. Theologians seem to have differing opinions about these details. As far as I understood, we do not know who wrote or composed the book and when did it happen. If the book was composed using earlier texts, there need not be any or at most very little editorial work after the book was compiled.
It is also good to remember how Psalms or Proverbs include texts that reflect different feelings or are apparently contradictory, depending on how we interpret these passages. That kind of differences in feelings and viewpoints can easily appear during the long life of a single individual.