Introduction

Ecclesiastes is one of those books that defies category. It isn't some kind of anti-religious product because of interwoven religious references that if a later editor added, would not be so sparse with the "irreligious" material untouched. What is the meaning of life from a human point of view, when in the end one dies? It's an honest book on sobering wisdom and advice for any age seeking to reinterpret life as glorious and timeless when it's struggling, brutal, and short. When men consider their achievements to bring them immortality through fame, Ecclesiastes tells you the world ends not with a bang, but with a whimper.

Author

Solomon is certainly intended in Eccl. 1:1. [Seow (1995), 277-8] The same designation occurs in Song of Songs 1:1, Prov. 1:1, 10:1, 25:1 where he is son of David and king of Israel (not Judah) in Jerusalem. Eccl. 1:12-8 is not independent from 2:1-11. [Seow (1995), 275 n.1] In addition, the inventory in West Semitic inscriptions is not as full as in Ecclesiastes [Seow (1995), 283], which certainly fits Solomon.

Language and Date

The arguments by C. L. Seow convincingly place Ecclesiastes c.400 BC (450-350 BC). However, this doesn't necessitate a writing whole cloth from that period. If, in fact, a writer used earlier sources, it could explain archaisms like the relative infrequency of the definite article, which Seow calls "colloquialisms". [Seow (1996), 664] The work has linguistic (opening formula) and thematic (wisdom, building, greater than predecessors) similarities to inscriptions from the 9th-6th century BC and later, and uses the present tense, i.e. "I have been king" just like the inscriptions (compare the fictional autobiography of Adad-guppi [Longman, 102 n.14]). [Seow (1995), 279-83] Like Ecclesiastes, the inscriptions' deeds are also indicated by verbs in the first common singular perfect. [Seow (1995), 282]

Fluctuations in first/third person (Eccl. 1:1, 12:8-10) occur when one uses sources such as inscriptions, particularly in the introduction and ending. [Longman, 68, 86] So the ending could've been a gloss too (as the beginning of some e.g. Proverbs?). As for 12:9-14, seeing the intentional contradictions (2:2, 7:3; 7:4 vs 7:5-6, 10-11) (evoking Prov. 25:4-5), and e.g. 5:2, 4-7, 7:13, one should not at all see it as a contradiction or later addition.

The language is unique and Seow again categorizes it as a vernacular dialect of the time. The New American Commentary writes: "The peculiar Hebrew of Ecclesiastes cannot be evidence for a late date since it does not fit anywhere in the known history of the language. In no way, for example, does it specifically resemble the Hebrew of Malachi, Esther, or of the Chronicler." [Garrell, Duane A. (1993) Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs Volume 14, p.260] It is not "advanced" Late Biblical or Mishnaic Hebrew by any means. [Seow (1996), 664-5] For it to be popular spoken Hebrew, would it be so dissimilar to texts that would also be somewhat vernacular (Ezra, Nehemiah for example)? Strange for a dialect that Seow is otherwise able to date to the Persian period and explain other influences. [Seow (1996), 651-5] "Under the Sun" may be found in two Phoenician writings from the 5th century BC or later [Seow (1996), 656-7], but it's also found in Homer, so as common sense would suggest, it's neither temporally nor geographically constrained. Some Canaanite/Phoenician influence that's not restricted to a particular period seems to be there. [Seow (1996), 656] Otherwise, variations in expressions [Seow (1996), 663-4] can be postexilic as the compiler wrote in his own language.

Genre

In addition, the genre is itself unique: "those who venture to be more precise in their identification of the Gattung have not been able to establish any kind of consensus...Suffice it to say, attempts to describe the genre of the passage have not produced satisfactory results. Labels like “refection,” [sic] “fiction,” or “parody” are too general to be helpful; but more specific designations like “royal instruction,” “royal testament,” and “royal confession” have not been convincing for want of compelling parallels." [Seow (1995), 276]

The closest parallels are Egyptian wisdom literature. Seow's opinion that Ecclesiastes should be grouped as fictional Akkadian autobiography is unconvincing. Most of the text in those writings is dedicated to a detailed narrative of the history and deeds of the person, and the educational material is much smaller and concentratred at the end, even in those with didactic endings. [Longman, 111] There are references to the king's works in Ecclesiastes, but none of these are really elaborated upon. Seow notes there's little evidence of literary dependence on 1 Ki 4-11 and the events are recalled only in a general way: "both accounts are reminiscent of royal records, such as may have been in the so-called Book of the Acts of Solomon (1 Kgs 11:41)." [Seow (1995), 278] Yet Seow implies a legendary familiarity of various details such as Solomon's dream at Gibeon. [Seow (1995), 275, 277] This is very strange for a supposed fictional autobiography and literary invention [Seow (1995), 276], evoking the royal authority and wisdom of Solomon, who is unnamed (unlike the fictional autobiographies).

Purpose

Other kings (with fewer achievements [Seow (1995), 283]), wrote lists of their accomplishments so their name could last forever. They were made of durable materials, placed under building foundations to outlast, and guarded with stern warnings: "They were intended to survive their heroes...Indeed, the inscriptions were intended to last forever, and with them the reputation of the kings in whose name they were made...Thus, the inscriptions were to be the king’s assurance of immortality." [Seow (1995), 284]

Ecclesiastes doesn't pretend accomplishments mean anything and in fact turns the whole established genre on its head:

Qohelet’s imitation of the genre is poignant in its irony. In the end the text makes the point that none of the deeds — even the royal deeds that are assiduously preserved in memorials — really matters. For human beings, even kings, there is no immortality of any sort. At first blush, the autobiography paints a picture of enormous success. But the mention of the king’s deeds, and especially the superiority of his deeds to those of his predecessors, leads to a surprising conclusion, one that is quite contrary to the purpose of royal texts. The legendary acts, wealth, and wisdom of Solomon turned out not to have abiding significance after all. [Seow (1995), 284]

Whatever one may think about the author of Ecclesiastes, he was no ordinary man.

Resources

• Longman, Tremper (1991). Fictional Akkadian Autobiography
• Seow, C. L. "Qohelet's Autobiography" in Beck, Astrid B. et al (eds.) (1995). Fortunate the Eyes that See: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman
• Seow, C. L. “Linguistic Evidence and the Dating of Qohelet.” Journal of Biblical Literature 115.4 (1996): 643–66