“The
similarity between Ecclesiastes’ view and that of Solomon’s advisers right
after his death would indicate that Ecclesiastes represents his “last words” on
the subject of kingship in a specific historical context where an assembly was
taking place to determine the next king”.
The context and authorship of the Book of
Ecclesiastes is well explained in the following insightful post by Nathan
Albright: https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2011/06/20/a-case-for-solomonic-authorship-of-ecclesiastes/
….
The
traditional view of the authorship of Ecclesiastes is that Solomon wrote it at
the end of his life, reflecting on his life and mistakes and coming to a
conclusion that obedience to God is the duty and obligation of mankind.
However, there are many people who claim that Ecclesiastes was instead a second
temple forgery by a scribe who wrote as if he was Solomon. This view is
troublesome because the Bible has the harshest opinion of forged letters (see
Paul’s comments in 2 Thessalonians 2:2), and nowhere includes a forgery among
the canon of scripture.
Nonetheless,
in the absence of Solomonic autographs (which we do not possess and are not
likely to possess) for Ecclesiastes, the best way to demonstrate the Solomonic
authorship of Ecclesiastes is to examine the internal evidence of the material
to see how it squares with Solomon’s perspective, and to see if we can create a
sound case on internal evidence for Solomon writing Ecclesiastes. That is the
point of this particular entry, to at least provide a way to square the
distinctive nature of Ecclesiastes with the life of Solomon.
Let
us pursue three avenues of demonstrating Solomonic authorship by inference from
the internal evidence. First, let us look at the distinctive name by which
Solomon calls himself. The word “ecclesiastes” in Latin means “speaker before
an assembly.” The title that Solomon uses for himself in the book is Qoheleth,
a word that only appears in Ecclesiastes (in 1:1, 2 12; 7:27; 12:8-10) in the
entire Hebrew scriptures, and which is often translated “Preacher.” Let us
note, though, that the author (Solomon) is pictured as writing a book on the
wisdom of kings that is spoken to an assembly. There is only one kingly
assembly that we know of in the entire era of the Israelite monarchies, and
that occurs in 1 Kings 12. We may therefore take Ecclesiastes as the position
of Solomon at the end of his life, which would explain the mild advice given to
Rehoboam by Solomon’s counselors (see 1 Kings 12:7) about serving the people
rather than exploiting them. Ecclesiastes may therefore be seen as a part of
the tradition of ethical and constitutional monarchy within Israel rather than
the heathen and satanic model of authoritarian rule. The similarity between
Ecclesiastes’ view and that of Solomon’s advisers right after his death would
indicate that Ecclesiastes represents his “last words” on the subject of
kingship in a specific historical context where an assembly was taking place to
determine the next king. Let us also note that Solomon very well may have
called this assembly specifically to ensure the continuity of the Davidic line.
Second,
let us note some concerns that Solomon shows about his heir that are recorded
that accord very well with what the Bible has to say about the foolish
Rehoboam. Ecclesiastes 2:18-21: “Then I hated all my labor in which I had
toiled under the sun, because I must leave it to the man who will come after
me. And who knows whether he will be wise or a fool? Yet he will rule over all
my labor in which I toiled and in which I have shown myself wise under the sun.
This also is vanity. Therefore I turned my heart and despaired of all the labor
in which I had toiled under the sun. For there is a man whose labor is with
wisdom, knowledge, and skill; yet he must leave his heritage to a man who has
not labored for it. This also is vanity and a great evil.” Here is the
“succession” problem of leaders and organizations (and nations) dealt with
openly and squarely. The passage would be of special relevance to a wise father
of a son whose wisdom he doubts and is concerned about (with good reason).
Finally,
let us note a passage that would seem to indicate Solomon’s own bitterly ironic
view of his response to the warning of God, expressed in Ecclesiastes 4:13-16:
“Better is a poor and wise youth than an old and foolish king who will be
admonished no more. For he comes out of prison to be king, although he was born
poor in hi kingdom. I saw all the living who walk under the sun; they were with
the second youth who stands in his place. There was no end over all the people
over whom he was made king; yet those who come afterward will not rejoice in
him. Surely this also is vanity and grasping for the wind.” This is a fitting
prophecy of the reign of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who was “in prison” as a
youth in Egypt for his rebellion against Solomon (given by the prophecy of
Ahijah the Shilonite), and whose rule began with great popularity and the
support of “all Israel” at Shechem, but whose name became a byword for sin, as
all of the kings of Israel in the divided kingdom “followed in the sin of
Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who made Israel sin” through the establishment of an
official state religion with heathen golden calves and a counterfeit religious
festival around the time of Halloween.
The
bitter tone of Ecclesiastes and the knowledge it speaks of the politics of the
10th century BC, during the time when Israel divided into two hostile and
warring states, ending their brief “mini-empire” of glory that they had known
under the reign of David and Solomon, reflects better the times that they
describe, where the ironic references to the division of Israel are
particularly powerful, rather than to centuries later when the monarchy was a
distant and fading memory, and when Solomon’s greatness was being consigned to
the oblivion that he feared. If Ecclesiastes really is Solomon’s last words as
a king, and his parting advice to his son, one wishes that his son had not been
such a fool as to give it so little respect, for Ecclesiastes is truly a wealth
of wisdom, even if it is wisdom gained at the price of much weariness and
sorrow.
For Part Two, see: https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2011/06/21/a-case-for-solomonic-authorship-of-ecclesiastes-part-two/
For Part Three, see: https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2011/06/22/a-case-for-solomonic-authorship-of-ecclesiastes-part-three/
Part Two: Metaphors of old age
Nathan Albright
“The person writing Ecclesiastes was a poetic person who
knew, first hand,
the perils of aging, and mourned its effects on himself
personally …”.Nathan Albright
The Book of Ecclesiastes reveals a King Solomon obsessed
with the thought of death.
Did he pick this up in pharaoh Hatshepsut’s
Eighteenth Dynasty Egypt where he, as Senenmut, had dwelt and operated as ‘the
greatest of the great’?
For, the ancient Egyptians were notoriously preoccupied
about death.
Be that as it may, King Solomon had not apparently -
even in his late old age - lost any of his literary and poetical skills. This is
apparent from Nathan Albright’s interpretation of brilliant Solomonic metaphors
in Ecclesiastes pertaining to old age:
Part Three
….
What makes the case for Solomon’s
authorship of Ecclesiastes is more than merely the obsessiveness about death
(which is striking enough) but also the poetic descriptions of the perils of
aging, which take up the first part of Ecclesiastes 12 and serve as a chilling
reminder that we are far better off living God’s way during our youth (if we
can) than waiting until we are old and our health is failing. Listen to the
complaints of Solomon about aging, and reflect on whether a young person
(unless the young person were a very morbid one) would write like this: before
the keepers of the house tremble (shaking arms, probably because of
Parkinson’s), strong men bow down (bad posture), grinders cease because they
are few (almost no teeth left to chew with), those that look through the windows
grow dim (eyes are failing), the doors are shut in the streets (blindness), the
sound of grinding is low (the person can’t eat solid food because of the lack
of teeth, so there is no sound of chewing), the daughters of music are brought
low (the person is growing deaf), they are afraid of height and of terrors in
the way (arthritis and a loss of balance makes it impossible for them to climb
stairs easily or run), almond tree blossoms (the person’s hair turns white),
grasshopper is a burden (the person slouches with a bent over back), or desire
fails (no more sexual desire). The person writing Ecclesiastes was a poetic
person who knew, first hand, the perils of aging, and mourned its effects on
himself personally–Solomon would have been keenly aware of all of those aspects
of aging, having been a wise and musical man full of sexual desire and zest for
life in his younger days. ….
