Who Wrote the Book of Ecclesiastes?

The authorship of Ecclesiastes is probably the single most important consideration for understanding the date, message, and interpretation of the book as a whole. Unfortunately identifying the human author is no easy task because of several factors.

First, the bulk of Ecclesiastes represents the thinking of “Qohelet,” the “Preacher.” Traditionally it has been argued that Qohelet is Solomon. This seems reasonable for several reasons. (1) Qohelet is called the son of David, king in Jerusalem, and king over Israel (1:1, 12). These designations most naturally apply to Solomon. (2) The great wisdom, wealth, and power by which Qohelet explored life’s meaning in 1:12–2:26 best match Solomon’s, whose resources were unsurpassed in Israel’s history (cf. 1:16; 2:7-8). (3) The apparently cynical, world-weary words of Qohelet seem best explained as the words of Solomon later in life when he turned away from the Lord (1Kg 11). (4) Early Jewish and Christian interpreters believed Qohelet to be Solomon.

In spite of these arguments many interpreters today do not believe that Qohelet is Solomon. Why? (1) Some scholars have argued that the unusual grammar and vocabulary of Ecclesiastes reflect a Hebrew much later than Solomon’s time, although more recent research has seriously undermined this argument. (2) Qohelet is never called Solomon, nor is Solomon even mentioned—something one would expect if he were the author (cf. Pr 1:1; 10:1; Sg 1:1). (3) In places Qohelet’s self-description does not easily match that of Solomon. For instance, though David was the only king of Israel prior to Solomon who reigned in Jerusalem, Qohelet implied that a string of kings preceded him (e.g., Ec 2:9—assuming that he was not referring to the line of Canaanite kings who reigned in Jerusalem before David). In addition, although Solomon died in office as king, Qohelet may imply that his kingship was in the past (depending on how one translates 1:12), and he does distance himself from his kingly persona after chap. 2. (4) As described by Qohelet, his day seems to be characterized by injustice and abuse of power by those in authority (3:16-17; 4:1-3; 8:2-11; 10:5-6, 20), characterizations that seem inconsistent with Solomon’s golden age.

A solution here is not easy, since there are solid arguments on both sides, and Ecclesiastes is anonymous. So it is possible that Qohelet was a wise man well after Solomon’s time who took on a persona reminiscent of Solomon in chaps. 1–2. Still, on balance, it seems more likely that Qohelet’s words reflect the words of Solomon himself. Beyond the arguments that support identifying Qohelet with Solomon, the arguments against doing so are not decisive. Most of them can be explained by recognizing that Qohelet might be employing a literary device to distance himself from his role as king in order to highlight his role as wise teacher. In this role he can reflect critically even on his own reign and its weaknesses (Duane Garrett, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, NAC [Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1993], 264).

A second complication in identifying the author of Ecclesiastes is that Qohelet is not the book’s only voice. His words run from 1:2–12:8. But there is also a narrator whose words insert themselves occasionally (1:2; 7:27; 12:8) and, more important, frame Qohelet’s thoughts (1:1; 12:9-14). The book’s epilogue, where the narrator assessed Qohelet’s words and concluded the book, makes it clear that the narrator’s voice is significant for the theological message of the book as a whole. The reader is expected to adopt the viewpoint of the narrator.

This leads to a third complication. Does the narrator agree with Qohelet, or is he a critic? How interpreters answer this question will have enormous impact on how they interpret Qohelet’s words, which make up the bulk of the book. Those who see the narrator as critical of Qohelet will often characterize the latter as cynical and even unorthodox. In the epilogue then the narrator emerges to set the record straight, stating that in contrast to Qohelet’s perspective, it is wise to fear God and keep His commandments.

The other basic interpretation finds Qohelet and the narrator in fundamental agreement. Those who take this approach believe that Ecclesiastes presents a unified message and that Qohelet’s statements are consistent with the orthodox viewpoint of the narrator. In fact some believe that Qohelet and the narrator are the same person in different personas, though the text itself does not explicitly indicate this.

In the end the answer to this question hinges on how one interprets the epilogue. As will be seen below, the narrator seems to commend the words of Qohelet as wise, beneficial, and rooted in God Himself. This commentary therefore argues that Ecclesiastes presents a unified message and that readers need to heed all Qohelet’s teachings rather than to be wary of his skeptical, cynical words.