When was Ecclesiastes written?

In Ecclesiastes chap. 1:1+12 the author calls himself son of David and king in Jerusalem. In verse 16 he speaks of his great wisdom which according to 1 Kings 3:12; 4:2f; 10:1 only King Solomon had. In Eccl. 12:9 he mentions that he set in order many proverbs. This fact also speaks for Solomon only (see 1 Kings 4:32; Prov. 1:1).

Various expressions in Ecclesiastes would indicate that Solomon wrote the book only in old age (Eccl. 1:12 - 2:11; 11:9 - 12:7). This is where the author reviews a long life and all his thoughts and deeds and where he is warning youth and points to old age.

King Solomon ruled around 970 to 931 BC. The book of Ecclesiastes must therefore date from the end of this period.

Ecclesiastes (the preacher). The opening words of the book are conclusive as to its authorship, "The words of the Preacher, the son of David, King in Jerusalem." The boundary of Solomon's horizon is the sun, beneath it all is pronounced "Vanity." Read the book, and you will say that it was evidently written by Solomon at the close of his reign, in the evening of his life; probably too in Jerusalem, at least in Palestine.

One class of critics boldly tell us that the book was not written by Solomon, but that some unknown author assumed the name, and personified the character, of Israel's wisest and richest monarch, because they have discovered that the style is not that of Solomon's, nor the circumstances in the book in accordance with his reign. "Knowledge puffeth up;" and so these wise men in their own conceit regard with a sneer and with supreme contempt the fact that God has settled the question of the authorship of the book (Eccles. 1:1), and further that it always held its present place in all Hebrew Bibles, and formed part of the Sacred Scriptures in the days of Christ and writers of the New Testament. We suppose, moreover, that the Jewish mind is quite as capable as any modern critic in estimating the value of differences in style and diction — of Hebrew writers especially; yet the Jews ancient and modern fail to see a difficulty in assigning the authorship to Solomon. As to style, the Holy Ghost has none of His own. He is free to use the style and character of any human vessel He sees fit. But enough, God has spoken (chap. 1:1), and we would reverently bow and implicitly believe.

Three Scripture books have come down to us from the pen of king Solomon — Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. The character of their contents suggest that these books were written at different periods in his life. The ardent language of the Song, describing the love of Bridegroom and Bride — Christ and Israel at the last, points to Solomon's early days when his spiritual affections were alert towards God. Proverbs was probably written in the days of his maturity: and Ecclesiastes, with its language of chastened disappointment, was almost certainly Solomon's latest effort. The Spirit of God led him to record his painful experiences when in search of "good under the sun" for the warning of men in all ages who might be disposed to tread the same path.

Ecclesiastes ("the preacher"), written also by Solomon but in his older years, is a striking contrast to Proverbs. By inspiration of God he declares the results of all human wisdom, of earthly advantages and aspirations, of indulgence in everything that wealth and wisdom could procure which might show fair promise of producing utmost happiness on earth. Being himself in a position to test this to the full ‑ wiser and wealthier than all other men

Both Jewish and Christian tradition ascribe this book to King Solomon. The book itself does not leave us in doubt about it. Chapter 1:12-16 is conclusive. If this is disputed, as it is almost universally among rationalistic critics, and also by some who are not rationalists, we may well ask the question, Who wrote Ecclesiastes? The higher critic is unable to give a satisfactory answer. They give the date of the book and its composition about 250-235 B.C. The book itself shows that this is impossible, for the author of it lived at a time when Israel had reached the zenith of prosperity and glory. That time was during Solomon's reign. If Solomon was not the author, then another person living during the reign of Solomon must have written the book. But everything shows that only Solomon could have been the author fit and fitted to write this book.

As already stated Jewish teachers and Christian teachers give decisive testimony for the Solomonic authorship. In a Jewish commentary of Ecclesiastes (Midrash Koheleth) which was written almost 1,200 years ago, a large number of learned and ancient rabbis bear witness to the fact that Solomon is the author. The Targum, or paraphrase, on this book, composed in the sixth century A.D., with many other Jewish commentators, speaks of Solomon as the writer of Ecclesiastes. Equally uniform is the testimony of the teachers of the early church. The critics fully acknowledge this consensus of Jewish and Christian opinion and they have an explanation for it. They say these scholars and commentators "wanted the faculty of historical criticism, one might almost say, of intellectual discernment of the meaning and drift of a book or individual passages,... and that they had no material for forming that opinion other than those which are in our hands at the present time" (Dr. E.H. Plumbtree in The Cambridge Bible). We shall see what the "intellectual discernment" is, of which critics constantly boast, and we shall find that it is but another term for "infidelity."

It was Luther, the great German reformer who, as far as we know, began first to cast doubt upon this book. In his "Table Talks" he said; "Solomon did not write the book himself, but it was composed by Sirach in the time of the Maccabees. It is, as it were, a Talmud put together out of many books, probably from the library of Ptolemy Euergetes, King of Egypt." He was followed by Grotius in 1644 who also denied that Solomon is the author. "From that time onward," says a critic, "the stream of objections to the Solomonic authorship has flowed with an ever increasing volume." No doubt it is still flowing, and that stream carries those who trust themselves to it farther and farther away from childlike trust in God's Holy Word.

Verses 1-11. In the general introduction we have already referred to the opening verses as giving the information who the author is and what is the object of his treatise. So sure is the critical school that Solomon is not the king mentioned that one says "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 to prove it is necessary." Still another makes the following remarks as to the date of the book: "I shall presume that we have in this book, a late, perhaps the very latest, portion of the Old Testament canon; and that the book was written, not in the palmy days of the empire of Solomon, but at a time when the Jewish people, once so full of aspirations to universal empire, always so intolerant of foreign supremacy, was lying beneath the yoke of Persian or Syrian or Egyptian kings; when the Holy Land had become a province, ruled by some Eastern satrap, and suffering from the rapacity and corruption inherent at all times in such government" (Dean Bradley). Such presumptions spring from ignorance about the message of the book. We shall find in the text the above assertions refuted and a confirmation likewise of the Solomonic authorship.

No author's name is mentioned in the book of Ecclesiastes. Already old Jewish tradition says that King Solomon is the author of this book of the Bible. And yet Solomon's authorship has many a times been doubted at for two reasons. Firstly for language reasons and secondly because the name Jehovah does not appear in the book. Both reasons however are neither sound nor compelling (compare with what is said under Peculiarities).

If the Preacher or Convener had not described himself as son of David, king in Jerusalem, who else could have written it but Solomon? He tells us too that he was "king over Israel in Jerusalem"? Who could this possibly be but Solomon? Even his immediate heir quickly ceased to be king over Israel, losing ten out of the twelve tribes, and became distinctively king over Judah as opposed to Israel. But even if the book had no such marks as Ecclesiastes 1:1, and 12, who does, who could, speak of wisdom as in the latter half of Ecclesiastes 1 but Solomon? Who could sit in judgment of all that is done under the heavens, and pronounce on its nothingness as in Ecclesiastes 2, but one with the weight of that great king? Was any one that ever lived after him in Jerusalem entitled so truly as he to speak of great works that he made, of building and planting with every accessory; of servants within and without; of such possession of herds and flocks and on such a scale of grandeur; of wisdom remaining, notwithstanding vast accumulations of silver and gold and the peculiar treasure of kings? There is no real ground to imagine an anonymous writer personating Solomon: an idea quite alien to scripture, though reasonable in the eyes of worldly men used to fiction, Here all is intense and solemn reality, as he had proved too well who could speak beyond any.

The main objection is on linguistic lines. Hebraeists have pointed out that there are several scores of words and forms in Ecclesiastes which are found only in the post-exilian books and literature; some they claim originated even later. Professor Delitzsch makes the bold statement, "If Ecclesiastes is of Solomonic origin, then there is no history of the Hebrew language." And another scholar states, "We could as easily believe that Chaucer is the author of Rasselas as that Solomon wrote Ecclesiastes." But not so hasty, gentlemen! There is another side to this question of the foreign words in this book, which, after all your objections, still is believed to be Solomon's. Your objection on these linguistic peculiarities is really an evidence for the Solomonic authorship of this book. The words which are Aramaic (and Aramaic belongs to the same branch of language as the Hebrew Semitic) have been proven by other scholars to be in common use among the nearby nations who used the Chaldean language. Solomon was a scholar himself. No doubt all the available literature of that age and of the surrounding nations was at his disposal, and he was familiar with it. It is said of him, "His wisdom excelled the children of the East country and all the wisdom of Egypt, for he was wiser than all men." That Solomon used Aramaic words is perfectly logical; but it would have been strange if such words had been absent from this book, with its peculiar character and message. That Solomon's foreign diplomacy, as well as marriages with foreigners also made him familiar with Aramaic words and sayings is quite possible. Then we might add that no unimpeachable proof has ever been given that the Aramaic words and forms used by Solomon were of later date at all. At any rate objections to the date and authorship of a Bible book on purely philological evidence suits those perfectly who approach the Word of God as they approach any other literary production.

Another objection is made on account of the statement in chapter 1:12, "I, the preacher, was king over Israel." It seems almost childish that these scholars raise such a point; it shows the weakness of their case. They declare that the writer of the book says, "I, the preacher, was king over Israel," and that this could not have been written by Solomon, who never ceased to be king. This objection is foolish. It is not at all the question of the fact that the writer of the book reigned as king, but rather what was his position at the time when he wrote the book?

This studied objection can readily be answered by anybody. In fact we have seen no valid objection whatever. Every one can be satisfactorily answered. A mature scholar, Dean Milman, wrote many years ago: "I am well aware that the general voice of German criticism assigns a later date than that of Solomon to this book. But I am not convinced by any arguments from internal evidence which I have read."