Authorship and date of Ecclesiastes

From BibleWiki

It has been shown above (§5) that the Solomonic authorship of Ecclesiastes, denied by Luther in the sixteenth century, and by Grotius in the seventeenth, was in the nineteenth century demonstrated by scholarly interpreters to be impossible. The fact that Solomon is not the author, but is introduced in a literary figure, has become such an axiom of the present-day interpretation of the book, that no extended argument is necessary to prove it. No one at all familiar with the course of religious thought in Israel, as scientific historical study has accurately portrayed it, could for a moment ascribe the work to Solomon. The language of the book also strongly reinforces the argument drawn from the thought. It belongs to the latest stage of linguistic development represented in the Old Testament. As shown above (§10) not only are older Hebrew forms and constructions changed or confused, but late developments kindred to those of the Mishna are present, Aramaic words and constructions are found, at least two Persian words are employed, while in one instance the influence of Greek usage can be traced. If we compare the language of Qoheleth with that of the earliest prophetic document of the Pentateuch (J.), we shall find that they stand at the two extremes of Hebrew linguistic development, the former representing the latest, and the latter the earliest. Under such circumstances the Solomonic authorship of Ecclesiastes is unthinkable.

It has also been shown above (§5) that recent interpreters are divided as to whether Qoheleth wrote in the Persian or the Greek period; though most of those writing in the last few years hold to the latter era. If our recognition of a Greek idiom in Ecclesiastes is valid, it points to a date posterior to the conquest of Alexander the Great, for we must agree with the almost unanimous opinion of recent interpreters that the author lived in Palestine. The absence from his work of any important Greek influence (see above, §6) is sufficient, to mention no other feature, to make a non-Palestinian residence on his part out of the question.

It has long been thought that in Eccl 5:8 there is a reference to the Satrapial system which the Persians invented. If this be true, it does not prove that the work is not later than the Persian period, for, as is well known, practically the same system was continued by Alexander and his successors. We may take the conquest of Alexander, then, as a terminus a quo for the composition of our book. We should note, however, that some little period of contact with the Greeks should be allowed for before the writing of Ecclesiastes, in order to account for the use of a Greek idiom. We are thus brought down to the third century B.C.

A terminus ad quern for Ecclesiastes is, on the other hand, fixed for us by the book of Ecclesiasticus. As has been shown above (§11) Qoheleth, lacking the Chasid glosses, was known and used by Ben Sira — a fact which has been recognized by Tyler, Kuenen, Margouliouth, Noldeke, A. B. Davidson, Wright, Peake, Cornill, and McNeile. The date of Ben Sira can be pretty accurately determined. His work was translated into Greek by his grandson, who in his prologue states that he translated it soon after he went to Egypt, and that he went thither in the thirty-eighth year of Euergetes. As has long been recognized, this statement can only apply to Ptolemy Euergetes II. (Physcon), and is probably reckoned from the time when he first assumed the regal dignity in 170 B.C., and not from his second assumption of it on the death of his brother Philometor in 146 B.C.,for his reign, terminating in 117 B.C., did not last thirty-eight years after that event. It could not refer to Euergetes I. (247-222 B.C.) as he reigned but twenty-five years. We are thus brought to the year 132 (so most scholars, e.g., Tyler, Ecclesiastes, 30; Wright, Ecclesiastes 35ff.; Sanday, Inspiration, 98; Toy, Ecclesiasticus in EB.; Kautzsch, Apokryphen, I, 234-235) for the migration of the younger Ben Sira to Egypt, soon after which he translated the work of his grandfather. If we allow fifty years as the probable time which elapsed between the composition of the book by the grandfather and its translation by the grandson, we reach about 180-176 B.C. as the date of the composition of Ecdesiasticus. It must have been written before the Maccabaean revolt broke out in 168 B.C., for there is no allusion to Antiochus IV. and his oppression of the Jews. This date seems to be confirmed by the reference to the high priest, Simon son of Onias in BS., ch. 50, for while there were two high priests of that name (cf. Jos. Ant. xii, 25 and 4'"), the second of them, to whom reference is probably made here, lived late enough so that Ben Sira, if he witnessed the scene which he so vividly describes in ch. 50.11ff, would have written about 180-175 B.C. The date of Ecdesiasticus is thus in the opinion of most modern scholars pretty definitely fixed.

As Ben Sira quotes Ecclesiastes after it had once been glossed (see above §§7,11), Qoheleth must have written at least twenty years earlier. We are thus brought to about the year 200-195 B.C. as the terminus ad quem for our book. These indications leave the whole of the third century B.C., or the very first years of the second, open for it.

Can we define the date more closely within these limits ? Our answer to this will depend upon our interpretation of two passages, 4.13-16 and 10.16-17. The first of these passages reads:

"Better is a youth poor and wise than a king old and foolish, who no longer knows how to be admonished, though from the house of the rebellious he came forth, although even in his kingdom he was born poor. I saw all the living who walk under the sun with the (second) youth who shall stand in his stead. There was no end to all the people—all whose leader he was; moreover those who came after could not delight in him; for this also is vanity and a desire after wind."

Many are the interpretations which this passage has received (see notes on 4.13). One of the most attractive has recently been put forth by Haupt (Ecclesiastes), according to which the old and foolish king is Antiochus Epiphanes (175-164), and the poor and wise youth" Alexander Balas (150-145 B.C.). This view I for a time adopted, but the external evidence just passed in review compelled me to abandon it. Like the theory of Winckler—that the contrast intended is between Antiochus Epiphanes and Demetrius I. — it is rendered impossible by the clear proof that Qoheleth lived before Ben Sira.

If, with the date indicated by the external evidence in mind, we carry the book back to the verge of the third century, remembering that in that century Palestine was under the control of Egypt, we shall find that Hitzig was on the right track in his interpretation of the passage. The "old and foolish king" would be Ptolemy IV (Philopator), who died in 205 B.C.,. and to whom from the Jewish point of view the description very well applies, for according to 3 Mac. he greatly persecuted the Jews, both in Palestine and Egypt. The "poor and wise youth" would be Ptolemy V (Epiphanes), who was but five years old when he came to the throne. He is perhaps called "poor and wise" because of the Jewish sympathy with him and hopes from him. The "rebellious house" probably refers to his father's persecution of the Jews. The "second youth" (if the word "second" is genuine) would then be Antiochus III. of Syria, who had succeeded to the throne of that country at an early age, and who, within seven years after the succession of Ptolemy V., was warmly welcomed as sovereign of Judaea (Jos. Ant. xii, 33). These are the only reigns in the history of the period which at all correspond to Qoheleth's words, and it seems probable that he refers to these kings. This view receives confirmation from the second passage cited above, 10.16f. It is as follows:

"Woe unto thee, O land, whose king is a child, And whose princes feast in the morning. Happy art thou, O land, whose king is well-born And whose princes feast at the proper time."

As Hitzig has seen, v. 16 probably refers to the years after the reign of Ptolemy V. had begun, when Agathoclea and her brother were the favorites in power (Justin, XXX, i), when revelry flourished, and when Antiochus III. (the Great) at the height of his power was prosecuting those wars which, after inflicting much suffering upon them, robbed Egypt of her Palestinian dominions. Possibly, though it is by no means probable (see notes on 9.14ff), the reference to the city delivered by a wise man from the siege of a powerful king (9.14ff) is a reference to some incident of the wars of Antiochus with Egypt. Probably "Happy art thou, O land, whose king is well-born and whose princes feast at the proper time," is Qoheleth's welcome of the strong rule of Antiochus III. Josephus tells us (Ant. xii, 3.3) that the Jews of their own accord went over to him, and welcomed him to Jerusalem, assisting him to take the citadel from the Egyptians. This passage apparently reflects the sentiments of that welcome. Qoheleth was, then, not completed before 198 B.C. Its use by Ben Sira, on the other hand, makes it impossible that it should have been written much later than that year.

On the whole, vague as these historical allusions are, they make it probable that Qoheleth did not finish his book until after the conquest of Antiochus III., about 198 B.C. Slight as the data are, they lead us with considerable confidence to place this work just at the end of the period which above we held open for it, if not to name the very year in which it was composed. This agrees with the judgment of Hitzig, Tyler, Cornill and Genung.

The last of the third and the beginning of the second century B.C. forms a fitting background for such a work as Ecclesiastes. The century which followed the death of Alexander was a trying century for the whole East, but especially so for Palestine. Possessed by the Ptolemies, but claimed by the Seleucidae, Palestine found herself in the precarious position of an apple of discord. The gratitude which Seleucus I felt toward Ptolemy I for the aid rendered him in obtaining his empire (see Bevan, House of Seleucus, I), at first secured peace between Egypt and Syria. As the century advanced, however, the Seleucid claims were pressed and Palestine first had to pay taxes to both (Jos. Ant. xii, 4') and then, toward its close, became the unhappy bone of contention between her two powerful neighbors, suffering severely. Then, too, her internal organization must have been such as to bear heavily upon the poor. Ptolemy III. had deputed Joseph, son of Tobias, to collect the taxes of the country (Jos. Ant. xii, 42), and Joseph had, in true Oriental fashion, grown rich by farming out the taxes to subordinates, and founded a powerful house. (The ruins of the palace of Joseph's son, Hyrcanus, may still be seen at Arakal-Emir, east of the Jordan.) Oppressed by the tax collectors, a prey to their rich and powerful neighbors, suffering increasingly as time went on from the ravages of war, oppressed during the later years of the century by the drunken favorites of a king who was a helpless child, what more fitting theatre than the Palestine of this time could be sought for a book like Ecclesiastes?

To our scanty knowledge of the history of this period, Qoheleth adds some valuable items. He tells us that both in the court and in the temple wickedness reigned (3.16). In both politics and religion men were striving for selfish and sordid ends, to which the claims of justice and righteousness were made to bend. The populace generally groaned and wept under the oppressions of the powerful (4.1) and had no redress. This oppression was aggravated by the hierarchy of officials who, rising one above another, culminated in a far-off king (5.8). The land is controlled by an arbitrary despot, who often puts fools and slaves in office, degrading the rich and noble to subordinate places, but it is useless to oppose him (10.5-7). Should one be entrusted with an official position and incur the displeasure of his despotic master, it is better to be conciliatory and submissive than to abandon one's post and opportunity. The espionage of the despot is so complete that it is unsafe even to whisper one's discontent to one's self, lest it shall be borne to the ears of one who will regard it as treason (10.20). Moreover, the king is a child, and his nobles, who exercised the power in his name, devoted even the mornings to drunken feasting (10.16).

While the book of Ecclesiastes makes us well acquainted with Qoheleth's thoughts and character, it throws little light upon his circumstances and life. Some gleams of light even here are, however, not altogether wanting. We learn from 5.1 that Qoheleth lived near the temple, and this fact is confirmed by 8.10, in which the connection between "the holy place" and the "city" makes it clear that his home was Jerusalem. Some infer from 11.1, taking it to refer to corn-trade, that he lived in Alexandria. Even if the passage referred to trade, which is doubtful (see notes ad loc.), it would not prove an Alexandrine residence. He was a man of wealth who could gratify every appetite for pleasure (2.4-8). At the time of writing Qoheleth was an old man, for he had begun keenly to appreciate that breaking up of the physical powers and that loss of enjoyment in the pleasures of youth which age inevitably brings (11.9-12.7). Further confirmation of this is found in the fact that his many experiments to find the summum bonum in pleasure, in wisdom, and even in folly, implies the lapse of years. Apparently, too, he had lived long enough to find himself alone—without son or brother (4.8). His life had also been embittered by an unhappy domestic alliance, for his declaration that he had found more bitter than death "a woman who is snares and nets her heart" (7.28), as well as his declaration that one man in a thousand might be true, but in all these he had not found one woman (7.28), has the ring of an expression of bitter experience.

Only this little can we clearly make out as to the private life of Qoheleth. Plumtre (Ecclesiastes, 35-52) draws an elaborate but altogether fanciful picture of Qoheleth's life, while Winckler (Altorientalische Forschungen, 2 Ser., 143-159) thinks that he was either a king or a high priest. He argues that had he not been, so unorthodox a writing as his would not have been preserved. Haupt (Ecclesiastes, 1ff.) would interpret the word מלד (="king") to mean the "head of a school," as in the Talmud (Gitt. 623., Ber. 64a), and holds that Qoheleth was a Sudducaean physician, who presided over such a school. It is unthinkable that Qoheleth could have been a king in the literal sense and write as he does about government, and proof is altogether wanting that, at the time when he wrote, schools such as Haupt contemplates had arisen. It is more probable that the word "king" is a part of his literary artifice. It must be said also, that there is no proof that Qoheleth was a physician. As already remarked (§5) the supposition rests upon metaphors which are exceedingly indefinite, and which are open to quite other than anatomical interpretations. In reality Qoheleth betrays no more knowledge of either medicine or anatomy than any other intelligent man. To call him a Sadducee is also to anticipate history. He belonged undoubtedly to that wealthy sceptical aristocracy out of which the Sadducees were developed, but we cannot trace the Sadducees before the Maccabaean time. As McNeile (Ecclesiastes, 10) suggests, Qoheleth may have been of the high-priestly family, and himself a religious official, as this would account for the care with which his unorthodox book was adapted and preserved. Qoheleth, a pseudonym which probably designates the name of an office, points in the same direction. More than this we cannot say.