Among ancient writings, there is a genre called Pseudepigrapha (“with fake names”). The books are given the names of ancient persons mentioned in The Hebrew Scriptures, such as The book of Enoch, The Apocalypse of Adam, and The Testmant of Solomon. But the books are not written by these persons. The book of Ecclesiastes does not name its author. But the description of the author in 1:1 as “the son of David the king in Jerusalem” only fits Solomon.
Almost no scholar accepts that the book was written in the 10th century by king Solomon. If that was the case, Ecclesiastes would belong to the Pseudepigrapha, and we can no longer believe the whole Bible is inspired by God. Therefore, the following discussion dealing with when Ecclesiastes was written is important.
THE CONGREGATOR WAS KING SOLOMON
I will now consider Ecclesiastes (Qohelet), a book that most scholars would date several hundred years later than the internal evidence of the book suggests. The book says that the Congregator (Qohelet) was a son of David, king over Israel in Jerusalem (1:1, 12).
After the death of Solomon, Israel was split in two: the northern kingdom (Israel), and the kingdom of Judah. From this time, Jerusalem was no longer a part of “Israel,” so the writer of Ecclesiastes must have been king before this time. Therefore, from what the text says, the Congregator (Qohelet) must be identified with Solomon.
As mentioned, very few scholars accept that Solomon was the author of the book and that it was written around the year 1000 BCE. One way to date a book is to look for historical allusions, and the information given in chapters 1 and 2 points to Solomon.
The king had acquired great wisdom, more than all those who were before him in Jerusalem (1:16; 1 Kings 3:12); his wealth surpassed the wealth of all those who were before him in Jerusalem (2:9); he had many servants (2:7), and he performed many building operations (2:4–6).
Is it possible to say something about the age of Ecclesiastes because of its language? Many scholars have attempted this, but there are several problems. M.A. Eaton says:
The difficulty is that the linguistic data show that Ecclesiastes does not fit into any known section of the history of the Hebrew language. It is dissimilar to works which claim to be Solomonic (Song of Songs; parts of Proverbs); it does not correspond to the fourth century Hebrew of Malachi or Ezra; it does not tally with the Hebrew of the Qumran scrolls. Two words, pardēs and pitgam, are often thought to be Persian loanwords. This may be so; in which case our present Ecclesiastes was written or edited in or after the Persian period.
Our conclusion must be that the language of Ecclesiastes does not at present provide an adequate resource for dating. It is possible that a particular style was adopted for pessimism literature. The possibility that a northern dialect of Hebrew was used must be left open. Equally it is possible that its dialect is Phoenicianizing. Certainly no other document possesses precisely the same characteristics, and no reliable date can be given this way. The language of Ecclesiastes is probably of interest more in dialectology than chronology.[1]
Archer Jr. presents the same view of the language of Ecclesiastes as does Eaton, and from my own doctoral study of the 57,000 finite and infinite verbs of the Hebrew Bible, I confirm that the language of Ecclesiastes is unique.[2] D.C. Fredericks did the most thorough analysis of the language of Ecclesiastes in his book of 301 pages.[3] In his review of this book, A. Schoors, who also is an expert on Ecclesiastes, writes regarding linguistic dating:
This book will not go unnoticed, for it totally upsets the modern critical approach to Qoheleth and particularly the sensus communis [common agreement] about a late post-exilic date. . . .
In his conclusion he opts rather strongly for a pre-exilic date and he suggests that a date in the eighth or seventh century BC might be recommended. He has reached this conclusion by means of a thorough analysis of Qoheleth’s grammar as well as his vocabulary. From a methodological point of view, Fredericks rightly remarks that linguistic peculiarities in Qoheleth are not necessarily due to a chronological development or to the influence of other languages.[4]
One example that illuminates the problem of dating a text from its peculiarities is the use of the relative particle shæ. The normal relative particle (relative pronoun/conjunction) is ’ashær, and it occurs 5,503 times in the Hebrew Scriptures. C. L. Seow points out that of the 136 occurrences of shæ (my Gramcord program lists 142 occurrences), half occur in Qohelet. Then Seow says:
Not counting Qohelet, v [sh] occurs sixty-two times in passages that are probably exilic or postexilic, and six times in passages of probable northern origin. . . . It appears that v is a feature of Northern Hebrew that came to be used more frequently in Late Biblical Hebrew.[5]
Seow’s view is that Ecclesiastes was written during the Persian period, and his arguments regarding the relative particle are meant to support that view. But in a way, he misleads his readers. He mentions that the relative particle occurs six times “in passages of probable northern origin.” But the phrase “of northern origin” masks the real situation because the particle occurs in Judges 5:7; 6:17; 7:12; and 8:26, texts that are believed to be among the oldest parts of the Hebrew Scriptures. It also occurs in Genesis 6:3 and 2 Kings 6:11, which are believed to be old as well.
The particle also occurs 20 times in different Psalms, and there is no evidence that these Psalms are exilic or postexilic. So, the real situation is that [shæ] occurs in what is believed to be the oldest part of the Hebrew Scriptures, and that fact nullifies any argument that its use in Ecclesiastes shows that the book is late. Seow’s heading “Late Hebrew Vernacular” is also misleading because shæ is included, and as mentioned, shæ was used in the oldest parts of the Hebrew Scriptures.
There is one interesting inference we can make on the use of the relative particles shæ and ’ashær. Mishnaic Hebrew evolved from before the turn of the era and in the 1st and 2nd centuries CE. In the Mishna, which was written around 250 CE, there are 9,620 examples of shæ, and only 69 instances of ’ashær. When Ecclesiastes has 67 examples of shæ and 89 examples of ’ashær, it would be tempting to conclude that Ecclesiastes is about the same age as the Mishnah. But the occurrence of shæ in texts that are believed to be among the oldest texts in the Hebrew Scriptures shows that this is not the case.
Therefore, we should not be too quick to draw the conclusion that a particular word is late because it occurs in a late text. Because there are few old Hebrew documents, we must always be open to the possibility that a word occurring in late documents may be old, even though it is not witnessed in the few extant old documents. Hebrew inscriptions from the 7th, 8th, 9th, and 10th centuries BCE are very rare, so if Ecclesiastes was written around the year 1000, we have very little material for comparison.
Another trait of Ecclesiastes is that it contains several Aramaisms, and this is viewed as a sign of lateness. However, Seow admits that “Fredericks has appropriately pointed out that a number of the Aramaisms in Ecclesiastes occur already in preexilic texts.”[6] Moreover, whether the Aramaisms really indicate a late date can be questioned. Eaton says:
The Aramaisms of Ecclesiastes are not necessarily proof of a late date. True, there are Aramaisms in the book, indeed, their proportion is quite high, but since the quantity of material is so small one must be cautious in attributing too much significance to them. They may be expected in Biblical Hebrew from the tenth century BC, increasing as the centuries go by, culminating in the sixth to fourth centuries BC. They are of comparatively little significance for dating.[7]
There can also be a question whether all the supposed Aramaisms really are Aramaisms. Regarding the word zemān (“time; appointed time; hour”) Seow says:
This is properly an Aramaism. Whether it is ultimately to be derived from Persian or Akkadian, however, is a matter of debate. Citing the Akkadian cognate, Fredericks contends that the word “could have entered Hebrew long before the exilic period.” (Qoheleth’s Language, 224) Yet the presence of a cognate dating to the second millennium is beside the point. The fact remains that the root zmn is not attested in Hebrew or Aramaic until the postexilic period.[8]
Seow’s comments show the fallacy of dating a word after its first occurrence in a Hebrew or Aramaic text. A Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament by Koehler and Baumgartner (page 273) refers to the Akkadian word simānu (“a point in time”) and to the Old Persian jamān as the possible origin of zemān. Because a word similar to zemān existed in the Middle Babylonian period (1532–1000 BCE), it could very well have penetrated into Hebrew during or before the time of Solomon. Because of the existence of the Akkadian word, we could also question whether zemān really is an Aramaism as Seow claims.
G.L. Archer Jr. wrote an article where he argues that Solomon may have written Ecclesiastes. Some of his arguments are worth considering. More than 60 years ago, M.J. Dahood suggested that the Canaanite-Phoenician language influenced the language of Ecclesiastes.[9] Dahood did not defend a Solomonic writing, but he argued that the book was written in the 4th century BCE.
From Dahood’s study, Archer Jr. found many parallels between Ecclesiastes and the Canaanite languages. He points out that there was a friendship between Hiram of Tyre and Solomon (1 Kings 5:1), and that both kings were engaged in different common projects. So, in Solomon’s days there was a Phoenician influence on Hebrew, and a Hebrew influence on Phoenician.
Archer Jr. suggests that a special Phoenician genre influenced Solomon when he wrote Ecclesiastes. This is possible, but Ecclesiastes may also be the only known exemplar of a special Hebrew genre. In any case, evidence suggests a linguistic Canaanite-Phoenician influence on Ecclesiastes.
Several traits in Ecclesiastes may be due to Phoenician influence. The Phoenician relative particle is ’sh, and it may have influenced the use of shæ in Ecclesiastes. Ecclesiastes 4:2 has the rare construction of infinitive absolute followed by a personal pronoun serving as its subject; in 8:9; 9:11 persons are also serving as subject for the infinitive absolute. The only other place where an infinitive absolute is followed by a personal pronoun is Esther 9:1. However, in Phoenician texts the infinitive absolute is the default narrative verb, just as imperfect consecutive is the default narrative verb in Hebrew.
In the first 40 lines of the Phoenician Karatepe inscription from the 9th century BCE there are 21 infinitive absolutes, of which are followed by a personal pronoun, and eight perfects that carry the narrative forward. [10]
The Phoenician use of the infinitive absolute may have influenced the writer of Ecclesiastes. Regarding this, Kutcher says:
In recent years it has been pointed out that Ecclesiastes, whose language is commonly considered to be late, shares some trait with Canaanite and even Ugaritic, which are absent from Aramaic and LBH [Late Biblical Hebrew] in general. The most conspicuous instance is 4, 2 yna vjbvw [wshbh ’ny, w = and, shbh = yna = I].praising, yna = I]. This form, namely the infinitive with the independent pronoun, is impossible in Hebrew. Therefore, scholars emended the text to ythvw, ‘I praised’ [perfect]. But in a Canaanite inscription of Azitawada (9th century BCE) this construction was found several times and was subsequently discovered in other Canaanite texts, making “emendation” unacceptable. Hence, this construction is now considered an indication of Canaanite influence on Ecclesiastes. Yet this construction did not survive in MH [Mishnaic Hebrew].[11]
The word ’ādām is used for “man” 49 times in Ecclesiastes, whereas ’ish, the normal word for “man,” is used only seven times in Ecclesiastes. In the Phoenician Azitawada inscription ’dm is found 5 times and ’sh only one time.[12] The expression “under the sun” (tahat hasshāmæsh) occurs 27 times in Ecclesiastes, and in the West Semitic literature it only occurs in the Phoenician Tabnit and Eshmunar Sarcophagi from Sidon, from the early 5th century BCE, according to Archer Jr.[13]
The expression “perfumer’s oil” (shæmæn rōqeah) occurs in Ecclesiastes 10:1. An identical phrase with the same meaning occurs in Ugaritic (Text 120:5) from the 2nd millennium BCE. In Phoenician and Punic inscriptions, the term “perfumer” rqh occurs at least five times.[14]
Archer Jr. has many other examples that may suggest a Phoenician influence, and Dahood has even more examples. It is, of course, impossible to prove a Phoenician influence, just as it is impossible to prove whether a word is originally Aramaic, whether it came into Aramaic by way of Akkadian or another language, or whether Ecclesiastes adopted the word directly from Akkadian or another language.
It is also impossible to know the etymology of a particular word used in Ecclesiastes and when it first occurred in a written document. The first occurrence of a word in Hebrew or Aramaic documents cannot tell us the age of the word, because few Hebrew and Aramaic documents from the 6th to the 10th centuries exist.
Two scrolls of parts of Ecclesiastes have been found at Qumran. The manuscript 4QQoha has been dated to the second quarter of the 2nd century BCE,[15] and 4QQohb has been dated at the earliest to the 1st century BCE.[16] This means the latest date of the book’s writing would be the 2nd century BCE.
Table 1.1. Dates given to Ecclesiastes by scholars
| 1st century BCE | E. Renan[17] |
| 250–200 BCE | O.S. Rankin[18] |
| 2nd century BCE | C.F. Whitley[19] |
| The Persian period | F. Delitzsch[20] |
| 7th or 8th century BCE | D.C. Fredericks[21] |
| 10th century BCE | G.L. Archer Jr.[22] |
There are two words used in Ecclesiastes that are taken as proof that the book was written during the existence of the Persian Empire, namely, pitgām (“decree”) in 8:11 and pardēs (“orchard”) in 2:5. Old Persian, which was spoken and written in the Persian Empire before the 6th century BCE, was influenced by Median, Old Iranian, and Sanskrit. Regarding the verbal system of Old Persian, J. Makujina writes:
The Old Persian verb structure retains many points of similarity with older Indo-Iranian languages (i.e., Vedic), but also reveals important developments that identify it as a language in transition moving toward Middle Iranian.[23]
Vedic Sanskrit existed between 1500 and 500 BCE, and it influenced both grammar and lexicon. The word pitgām is older than Old Persian. M. Ellenbogen says:
The Persian pitgām “message,” as Gildemeister in Zeitschrift für Kunde des Morgenlandes [sic] IV, 214 suggested, is from an older form composed of pratiy + gam, corresponding to the Sanskrit pratigama, and this, de Lagarde assumed was the source.[24]
People from all the countries around Israel visited Solomon, and because Sanskrit existed in his day, the word pitgām could have entered his vocabulary through Sanskrit. In any case, because a similar word existed in Sanskrit, the use of pitgām one time in Ecclesiastes does not exclude the possibility that the book was written around 1000 BCE.
Regarding the word pardēs, M. Ellenbogen says:
The original word is Iranian, the Avestan pairidaeœza that in the plural means “a circular closure.” Scheftelowitz mentions that the second part of the Avestan compound pairidaēza is a cognate of Sanskrit dehi ‘wall, dam.[25]
If one part of the word has a relationship with a Sanskrit word, the same can be true with the other part, so we cannot exclude the possibility that pardēs has a much older origin than Old Persian. We should also remember there is evidence that old-fashioned words have been replaced by younger words in ancient documents.[26] So even if a word in Ecclesiastes originated in Old Persian, it could have been introduced after the book was written.
If many words in Ecclesiastes had an Old Persian origin, that would be an argument in favor of the book being written in the Persian Empire. But when there are only two such words, one of which most likely is older than Old Persian, and at least one part of the other word may be older, there is no evidence in favor of a Persian origin.
Table 1.1 above shows that the difference in age estimates among the scholars is 900 years. In the discussion above, we have seen that the language of Ecclesiastes does not resemble any part of the Hebrew Bible, so the age of the book cannot be found by comparing words in Ecclesiastes with other books in the Hebrew Bible.
We have also seen that linguistic traits in the book that are viewed as young are in fact old. And even the two words believed to come from Old Persian may come from a language that is much older.
The conclusion is that no linguistic evidence in the book forbids a writing of Solomon around 1000 BCE. But there is some evidence of a Phoenician influence that may support a writing around 1000 BCE. |
[1]. M.A. Eaton, Ecclesiastes: An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries. Leicester, England: InterVarsity Press, 1983, page 19.
[2] . G.L. Archer Jr., “The Hebrew of Daniel Compared with the Qumran Sectarian Documents,” in J.H. Skilton, gen. ed., The Law and the Prophets: Old Testament Studies Prepared in Honor of Oswald Thompson Allis. Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1974, pages 167-181.
[3]. D.C. Fredericks,. Qoheleth’s Language: Re-evaluating Its Nature and Date. Ancient Near Eastern Texts and Studies 3, Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen, 1988.
[4]. A. Schoors, “Review D.C. Fredericks, Qoheleth’s Language.” Journal of Biblical Literature 108 (1989) 4: 698–700.
[5]. Seow, C.L. “Linguistic Evidence and the Dating of Qohelet.” Journal of Biblical Literature 115, 4 (1996): 643–666.
[6]. Seow, “The Dating of Qohelet,” page 651.
[7]. M.A. Eaton. Ecclessiastes: An Introduction and Commentary. Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries, page 18.
[8]. Seow, “The Dating of Qohelet,” page 651.
[9]. M.J. Dahood, “Canaanite-Phoenician Influence in Qoheleth.” Biblica 33 (1952), pages 30–52, 191–221.
[10]. A translation and analysis of the Karatepe inscription is found in my doctoral dissertation: R. J. Furuli, A New Understanding of the Verbal System of Classical Hebrew (2005), pages 284–286.
[11]. E.Y. Kutcher, A History of the Hebrew Language. Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, 1982, page 85.
[12]. Archer Jr., “The Linguistic Evidence for the Date of ‘Ecclesiastes’,”177.
[13]. Ibid., 177.
[14]. Ibid., 177.
[15]. J. Muilenburg, “A Qohelet Scroll from Qumran.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 135 (1954): 20–28
[16]. E. Ulrich, “Ezra and Qohelet Manuscripts from Qumran (4QEzra, 4QQoh A,B).” In E. Ulrich et al., eds., Priests, Prophets and Scribes: Essays on the formation and Heritage of Second Temple Judaism in Honor of Jospeh Blenkinsopp. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Sup. 149. Sheffield: JSOT
Press, (1992): 139–157.
[17]. E. Renan, L’Ecclésiaste traduit de l’Hébreu avec une étude sur l’age et le caractère du livre, pages 51–54.
[18]. O. S. Rankin The Book of Ecclesiastes, The Interpreter’s Bible Volume 5 (1956).
[19]. C.F. Whitley, “Koheleth: His Language and Thought.” Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentlice Wissenschaft 148. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1979.
[20].F. Delitzsch, Commentary on the Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes.
[21]. Fredericks, Qoheleth’s Language: Re-evaluating Its Nature and Date.
[22]. Archer Jr., “The Linguistic Evidence for the Date of ‘Ecclesiastes’,” page 167.
[23]. J. Makujina, Old Persian Calques in the Aramaic of Daniel. Doctoral Dissertation. Westminster Theological Seminary, 2001.
[24]. M. Ellenbogen, Foreign Words in the Old Testament. Their Origin and Etymology. London: Luzak & Company Ltd., 1962, page 142.
[25]. Ibid. 136.
[26]. K.A. Kitchen, “The Aramaic of Daniel.” In D.J. Wiseman, ed., Some Problems in the Book of Daniel. London: The Tyndale Press,1965, pages 141-143. (See alsohttps://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/daniel_kitchen.pdf.)
