The objections to tlie Solomonic authorship are overwhelming. The verj' language quoted to prove it is seen on e.xamination to be unfavourable to it. Solomon can hardly have said 'I was king,' as if he had ceased to be so, for he reigned till his death. The words 'over Israel in Jerus.' are most naturally explained by the writer's knowledge of kings of Israel who did not reign in Jerusalem. And since it was his own father wlio had made Jerus. the royal city, and Solomon had not been |)receded by a long line of kings, he could scarcely have spoken of ' all that were before me in Jerus. (1" 2'- "). There are also many passages which do not suit the Solomon of history. The writer speaks with bitterness of the oppression of the weak and the perversion of judgment. Solomon would not have tolerated such abuses if he had felt them so keenly as the author. Certainly, so far from feeling any keen distress at oppression, his government was systematically oppressive. The words of the author do not impress us as those of a king who stands above his subjects, but as those of a subject symjiathizing with the misery of his fellow-subjects. Instead of judgment and righteousness he sees wickedness, and bids his rftaders not to wonder at oppression and violence. The State is not well-ordered and prosperous as in the time of Solomon. ' Folly is set in great dignity, and the rich sit in low [>laces.' This is an error which proceeds from the ruler. Servants ride on horses, and princes walk on the earth. Nor can the reference to the king's system of spies, and the writer's bitter advice based upon it, be seriously regarded as from a king (lO**). Other references to kings (4""" 10"-") are equally inconceivable in Solomon's mouth. Nor has the popular view, that Solomon wrote the book in his old age after repentinw of his idolatry, any support in the book itself. From beginning to end there is no con- fession of wrong-doing, no ref. to idolatry, no hint of repentance. It dwells on the unsatisfying nature of lite, but penitent confession is quite alien to its whole spirit and purpose. The author is certainly not a satisfactory or edifying penitent.
But the same conclusion tliat Solomon cannot be the author is shown by the language. The linguistic evidence is so decisive that Delitzsch has said, in words that have been quoted with approval by many critics since : ' If the Book of K. be of old- Solomonio origin, then there is no history of the Heb. language.' And Driver, whose opinion on such a matter is of exceptional value, says : ' Lin- guistically, K. stands by itself in OT. The Heb. in which it is written has numerous features in common with the latest parts of OT, Ezr, Neh, Ch, Est, but it has in addition many not met with in these books, but found first in the fragments of Ben-Sira(c. B.C. 200)orin the Mishnah (c. a.d. 200). The characteristic of the Hebrew in which these latest parts of OT are written is, that while many of the old classical words and expressions still con- tinue in use, and, in fact, still preponderate, the syntax is deteriorated, the structure of sentences is cumbrous and inelegant, and there is a very decided admi.xture of words and idioms not found before, having usually affinities with the Aramaic, or being such as are in constant and regular use in the Heb. of post-Christian times (the Mislinah, etc. ).
And this latter element is decidedly larger and more prominent in Ec than in either Est oi Ezr- Neh-Ch ' {LOT, 444). The phenomena, in fact, are consistent only with the po-st-exUic date, and the Solomonic authorship is therefore out of the question. The detailed evidence may be found in Delitzsch's Com. (Germ, ed.), or in Wright's Eiclcsiastes, Excursus iv. (see also Driver, LOT as above).
Critics who deny the Solomonic authorship, i.e. all critics who need be taken into account, are unanimous in assigning the book to the post-ex. period. There are two main theories — one that it belongs to the later years of the Pers. period, which came to a close B.C. 332 ; the other, tnat it comes from the Gr. period, and should be dated about B.C. 200. The former is the view of Ewald, Delitzsch, Ginsburg, and Cheyne in his Job and Solomon. Id favour of the latter are Noldeke, Kuenen, Hitzig, Tyler, Plumptre, Cornill, and Toy ; while Cheyne in his Founders thinks it is probably correct. Nowack and Driver think the language points to the later date, but is not decisive ; and so much is undoubtedly correct, if we ought not to accept the later date on the ground of the linguistic evidence alone. There are other criteria of importance. The political conditions implied yield valuable data. Cornill says : ' The general picture of the circumstances makes us fix on a period of complete anarchy, in which well-ordered political life cannot be spoken of, worthless revolutionaries seize the government and exhaust the country, and political wisdom is recognized to consist in a dull, listless submission to despotism and tyranny' (Einleit. 251). The justice of this description is clear from these passages, 4''' 5' 10°"'- ". This comjiels us to place it at the earliest in the later years of the Pers. period, and precludes a date in the earlier part 01 that period. But it will suit equally well the date in the Gr. period, about B.C. 200. Hitzig thinks on account of 10" that its date is B.C. 204, when Ptolemy Epiphanes ascended the throne at the age of five. He takes 9""" to be an allusion to the siege of Dora in B.C. 218. But this did not succeed owing to the strength of the place, not because a poor Avise man delivered it. He explains 4""" of the high priest Onias (' the old and foolish king') and his nephew Joseph ('the poor and wise youth '), but the statements of the passage are not true of them. The political circumstances admit of either date. Kuenen thinks that the cosmopolitan tone of the book speaks for its origin in the Gr. period ; but, as Nowack points out, this is character- istic of Heb. Wisdom generally. In its attitude to the doctrine of a future life Kuenen regards it as a forerunner of Sadduceeism. The writer's views, it is true, are those of the older Heb. theology, but they are put forth in opposition to the newer doctrine. Nowack thinks that these arguments would tell rather in favour of a Maccab.-ean dat«, when the two tendencies of Pharisaism and Saddu- ceeism became explicit. This does not follow, since, as Kuenen points out, while he is a forerunner of the Sadducees, he is so little a Sadducee that Graetz could regard him €is a disciple of Hillel. This is most naturally explained by the view that he wrote before the rise of these distinct parties.