Structure and Authorship

Since the late 1800’s, the authorship of Ecclesiastes has been even more hotly debated than its structure. The author never offers his own proper name, but refers to himself as “Qohelet”, related to the Hebrew noun for “assembly.”  Thus, “Qohelet” is primarily translated as “The Teacher,” “The Preacher,” or even “The Leader of the Assembly.”⁷ The traditional view places Solomon as Qohelet, the author of the book.  These scholars look to internal evidence for support.  Qohelet identifies himself as “son of David, king in Jerusalem” in Ecc. 1:1, followed by the claim that he has been “king over Israel in Jerusalem” in Ecc. 1:12.  Further, Qohelet was wiser than any king in Jerusalem before him (Ecc. 1:16), oversaw building project (Ecc. 2:4-6), and had great possessions (Ecc. 2:7-8), becoming greater than anyone in Jerusalem before him (Ecc. 2:9).  These descriptions clearly refer to Solomon, whether he authored the book or not.

Solomonic authorship of Ecclesiastes was accepted by the vast majority of conservative scholars until the 19^th century.⁸ Contemporary conservative scholars who doubt his authorship generally point to several internal factors to prove their point.⁹ The most notable example regarding the text itself is the use of the moniker Qohelet.  “One must ask what is gained or what possible reason could Solomon have had for adopting a name other than his own in this book?”¹⁰ All other writings of Solomon bear his name, such as the Proverbs and Song of Songs.  A king as prominent as Solomon would have had no need to author a work pseudonymously, for its impact would have been far greater under his own, highly recognizable name.¹¹ More importantly, the author leaves us a few literary clues that he was not claiming to be Solomon.  In the prologue (Ecc. 1:1-11) and epilogue (Ecc. 12:8-14), Qohelet is referred to in the third person only, indicating an outside speaker.  Additionally, in Ecc. 1:12, the first person account includes the claim that “I was king,” a past tense reference that was never true of Solomon.¹² The association with Solomon appears to recede into the background after the first three chapters, and Qohelet appears to be distant from the kingship.  He is unable to do anything concerning the injustice that he sees (Ecc. 4:1-3; 5:7-8).  A king with the power of Solomon most certainly could have affected change in his own kingdom, yet the book of 1 Kings explains that Solomon willingly burdened his people with labor and taxes.¹³

The conclusion concerning the authorship is that Qohelet identified himself with Solomon for the sake exploring the futility of wisdom, pleasure, and other temporal pursuits.¹⁴ Impersonation of Solomon as a literary form provided the author with the proper atmosphere that he needed to present this work.  A man of Solomon’s wealth, power, and opportunity was needed to convey the message in a powerful way.¹⁵ If Solomon could not find fulfillment through his nearly unlimited success in life, then it is assuredly futile for everyone. Furthermore, scripture notes Solomon for his pursuit and possession of wisdom. His reputation for unsurpassed wisdom and the proverbs of Solomon give his character the credentials needed to provide an authoritative “Qohelet”. The allusions to Solomon’s life, character, and works are undeniable.  Yet the absence of Solomon’s actual name and other clues are too significant to ignore.  Fortunately, for those who accept the book as part of the inerrant Word of God, the debate over human authorship does not affect the message of the book as a whole. Whether Solomon wrote Ecclesiastes or not, his life provides the perfect illustration for the book’s message.