Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadJohn Kitto Evening Bible Devotions: March 18
Today is: Saturday, December 21st, 2024 (Show Today's Devotion)
Select a Day for a Devotion in the Month of March: (Show All Months)
Ecc_1:1
Nevertheless, there have been few questions regarding the authorship of the sacred books more strongly contested than Solomon’s authorship of Ecclesiastes; and the nature and number of the objections which have been advanced, form quite a monument of microscopic ingenuity in criticism. As the reasons thus advanced appear to us to have been satisfactorily disposed of by Mr. Holden and others, and the old and generally-received notion seems to remain substantially unshaken, we shall not enter into the objections. The one to which we might most desire to direct attention, as in itself undoubtedly the weightiest, is not suited for satisfactory discussion in these pages. We may just state, however, that it rests mainly on the alleged striking difference between the language of this book and that of Solomon’s acknowledged work, the Book of Proverbs. It is admitted, however, that this difference would prove very little, if the two books belonged to two entirely different classes of literature; that is, if Ecclesiastes bore the same relation to Proverbs as the Song of Solomon does; but since Ecclesiastes and Proverbs, it is affirmed, belong essentially to the same class, the argument derived from the difference of style must be taken to be perfectly conclusive. Accepting this admission, we are disposed to contend that there is quite sufficient dissimilarity between the books of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes to account for the difference of style; and we think we could undertake to point out works of well-known English authors, exhibiting far greater disparities of style than exist between these two books. Besides, the style of the same author often becomes materially different after an interval of years; and assuming Solomon to be the author or both these books, there is good reason to suppose that the Book of Proverbs was produced much earlier than Ecclesiastes, which bears throughout the tone of an aged and “used up” man’s experience.
Such as rest upon this argument, are yet willing to admit that it could not stand in the presence of any weighty reasons for believing Solomon to be the author of the book. Those who say this, of course, conceive there are no such reasons; but we believe there are—including the positive assertion to that effect with which the book opens—and therefore we claim the benefit of this admission. Indeed, the admission itself, that this strongest argument against Solomon’s authorship could not stand against any positive evidence in its favor, seems to us quite sufficient to demonstrate how little stress can with safety be laid upon it.
Some reader will ask how such a position, as against Solomon’s claims to the authorship of the book, can be maintained in the face of the declaration with which it commences? Why, it is not denied, at least not generally denied, by the objectors, that the words in view do denote Solomon; but this is accounted for by the supposition, that the author intended to be understood as representing or writing in the person of Solomon, without meaning to be taken for Solomon himself. If this be the case, it is a pity that he did not take more pains to indicate his meaning, and of thereby preventing that misapprehension which he might have foreseen, and which has all but universally prevailed. It is said, indeed, that he has taken this precaution, by introducing Solomon, not by his proper name, but by that of KOHELETH, or “the Preacher,” signifying that Solomon is introduced, not in his personal character, but as the representative of wisdom. But this falls to the ground, if we can show as we think we can, that this title was perfectly proper to Solomon in his individual capacity. To illustrate this position, we are reminded that the author of the clever apocryphal book called “the Wisdom of Solomon,” does in like manner personate the wise son of David. But "the Wisdom of Solomon” is of no canonical authority, and ought not to be brought into the comparison. The argument might be good with those who put both books on the same level as to authority: on the one hand, by regarding both as equally human, like the Rationalists; or, on the other, by holding both to be equally Divine, like the Romanists. To us, who believe Ecclesiastes to be divine, and the “Wisdom” human, this analogy has no force; and, indeed, we can conceive it possible, that had the author of the book been regarded as thus merely assuming the character of Solomon, this alone might have been regarded as a serious obstacle to its admission into the canon of Scripture. If any canonical book could be shown in which such an assumption takes place, the argument might be of weight, but not else.
Now, let us see with what degree of propriety the title of “the Preacher” can be given to Solomon. The original word is KOHELETH, which is also the Hebrew title of the book. The English word scarcely conveys its exact meaning, but comes nearer to it, perhaps, than any other that our language affords. Literally, it means one who assembles or gathers people together; but as, more specially, it denotes one who so assembles them in order to address them or to give them instruction, the meaning of Preacher is nearly enough borne out. The title was probably assumed by Solomon, in consequence of his delivering his sage maxims and admonitions to assemblages of persons who wished to profit by his instructions, and who probably resorted on stated occasions to his palace. This is not mere conjecture. In Ecc_12:9, his practice of teaching the people is clearly indicated: “Because the preacher was wise, he still taught the people knowledge;” while from 1Ki_4:34, we learn that kings and people from surrounding nations resorted to Jerusalem to hear his wisdom. That all these were instructed in private audiences, is far less likely than that they heard him at meetings held periodically or occasionally for the purpose. A custom like this would be in entire conformity with eastern usages. Perhaps the practice of the Wahabee sultan, Ibn Saoud, in our own time, may help us to some ideas on this matter. “After supper, he regularly assembled in the great room all his sons who happened to be at Derayeh; and all who were desirous of paying their court to him joined this family circle. One of the ulemas then read a few pages of the Koran, or of the Traditions of Mohammed, and explained the text according to the commentaries of the best writers. After him other ulemas delivered lectures in the same manner, and the Saoud himself always closed the meeting by taking the book and explaining every difficult passage. It is said that he equaled, or perhaps excelled, many of the ulemas in the knowledge of religious controversy, and of the law in general. His eloquence was universally admired; his voice was remarkably sweet and sonorous at the same time, which made the Arabs say that his words all reached the heart.” Note: Burckhardt’s Materials for the History of the Wahabees, p. 290.