The Ecclesiastes is also called the Book of the Preacher, because Solomon, who according to the traditional opinion of Jews and Christians is the author, speaks in it as a teacher standing before an assembly. He teaches about the vanity and transience of worldly things; in general, how futile and vain are all the earthly efforts of man, by which he tries to soothe his heart and mind. Due to the vanity of earthly things, nothing is left for man but to live his life in godly fear. This alone is constant, from this man gains real benefit, hence at the end of this book it is recommended with the following words: Fear God, and keep his commandments; for this is the whole duty of man; and all that happens, whether good or evil, God will bring to judgment for every mistake.
In the Old Testament ... the gnome literature shows us the ethics of the Old Testament, while the chokma literature (the Book of Ecclesiastes and the Book of Wisdom) can be considered as the philosophy of the Old Testament.
The Hebrew name of the book: Dibre Koheleth (the words of Koheleth). The meaning of this word is not quite certain, the Vulgate translated it as Ecclesiastes. This word also refers to the assembly (Ecclesia), but it may denote a voting member of the assembly, its leader, or someone who speaks in it: the Preacher.
Description. The book contains thoughtful reflections; we cannot find any system or breakdown in it. As problems emerge in his soul, he raises and reflects on them, seeking their solutions. It is not so easy to find his basic idea. True, the opening and closing words of the work are: "Vanity of vanities, says the Preacher, all is vanity" (1,2; 12,8), but we cannot say with Augustine and some Church Fathers that the Preacher instructs us to despise worldly goods and seek heavenly ones. It seems more accurate to us to identify this as the main problem of the Preacher: Why is it worth living?
According to its title (1:1), the statement "vanity of vanities" (1:2; 12:8) encloses the seven series of sayings about the futility of all earthly things. Loosely connected meditations follow one another about the brevity of life, the vanity of all human effort, the futility of work, etc., usually referring to personal experiences. Each series of sayings ends with an appeal to enjoy life (2:24; 3:12; 3:22; 5:17; 8:15; 9:7; 11:7), but the author is not entirely worldly-minded: he regards the goods and pleasures of life as God's gifts (2:24; 5:18), and he knows that humans have to account for everything to God, including the use of earthly goods (3:17; 11:10; 12:14). His seemingly materialistic and pessimistic conception can largely be traced back to the fact that he had dark notions of the underworld, and generally of the afterlife (9:7-10; 11:8), he did not see heaven, which could have compensated him for the disappointments of earthly life.
This is a serious problem of every age, which the light of revelation did not make as clear in the Old Testament mindset as in the New Testament. The Old Testament worldview did not create a false concept of the afterlife, but rather an imperfect one. The afterlife, even for the good, is not a very tempting place - after all, Old Testament souls could not see the face of God according to Christian dogma. That's why the afterlife doesn't satisfy the soul of the Preacher. Worldly goods are also imperfect. He examines them one by one: wisdom is good, but it is also incomplete; pleasure makes people sick; wealth makes us insatiable; virtuous life often does not bring earthly rewards, for many times sinners revel in the goods of the earth, while virtuous people suffer a lot; death, after all these, is good in one hand because it means the end of suffering, on the other hand, the underworld life is not desirable even for a virtuous person. These are the problems that, spiced with practical advice, surge in Koheleth's mind. Theoretically, only the New Testament could answer these questions. The Preacher (Koheleth) did not see the theoretical solution clearly: he knew that God was his caring father, he believed and trusted in him, he knew that he was infinitely fair. He recommends practically that we live with the goods of the earth, but within the limits set by God's commands, without losing the peace of our souls in the pursuit of them.
Although their problems, while being of a general human nature, sprang from the ground of Old Testament thinking, it can hardly be denied that they are similar in many ways to those discussed by the Greek philosophers, although the author cannot be related to them in any dependent relationship. This Old Testament philosopher also differs significantly from the Greeks in that we cannot find a logical system in him, but he presents his reflections, as if arguing with himself, in chronological succession. This can explain why, with some bias, the Preacher was considered skeptical, even blase, and was considered both a stoic fatalist, a pessimist, and a follower of Epicurus who fought sharply against fatalism. Therefore, it's not worth seeking a dialogue in him. The external form of the Preacher is more poetic than prosaic. The rhythm of thought is not present everywhere, or, more accurately, it is often progressive and thus prosaic. Many people find sound rhythm in his text. Stanzas cannot be discovered in it. He likes to bring parables, riddles; he is a sharp observer and accomplished describer of nature. He loves personifications, as shown by the description of old age (12,3-4): "Remember him—before the silver cord is severed, and the golden bowl is broken; before the pitcher is shattered at the spring, and the wheel broken at the well." Rhetorical questions, exclamations, unfinished sentences and thoughts enliven his style, but often make it obscure. His language is far from classical Hebrew, it is close to new Hebrew, perhaps closest of all the books of the Bible.
Those who do not understand the argumentative, pondering nature of the book explain its origin as the work of different authors (C. Siegfried, E. Podechard). One beat the other to death by inserting glosses into the work that suit their own opinion.
The author of the book was one man, but who he was is hard to decide. The traditional view is Solomon, because the title of the book says this: "The words of Koheleth. The son of David, King of Jerusalem"; he also often refers to himself as a king in the work. However, the whole character of the work speaks against Solomon's authorship; the Proverbs of Solomon are quite different - primarily in language - from the Preacher. In the Preacher's time, the princes appear on horses, not, as in the time before the Persian era, therefore also in Solomon's time, on donkeys (10,7); Solomon could not have complained as a king about the unjust oppression of the subjects, the excesses of the powerful, and denunciations (4,1; 5,7; 10,5k. 20). All this speaks against Solomon's authorship. However, the book is not a forgery, but only a poetic fiction when the author imagines himself in the position of the wise king known to everyone, and speaks about himself in the first person throughout.
It is a very effective tool to illustrate that neither science, nor wealth, nor pleasures can provide complete happiness, because Solomon had all this. The contemporaries could have known very well that the author does not want to be a forger, just as the other chokma book, the Book of Wisdom, also puts its wisdom in the mouth of Solomon.
The book was therefore probably written in the post-Babylonian captivity period; before the Book of Sirach, which already quotes it (according to Podechard between 240-190).
The Book of Ecclesiastes, in terms of its title and content, is one of the most difficult books of the Old Testament to analyze. The meaning of the Hebrew title (Kohelet) is still controversial to this day. The noun on which it is based (kahal) means assembly... the title of the Septuagint and the Vulgate: Ecclesiastes, means one who is within an assembly, therefore someone who appears at a public meeting, whether as a speaker or as an ordinary participant.
The Book of Ecclesiastes, in terms of its title and content, is one of the most difficult books of the Old Testament to analyze. The meaning of the Hebrew title (Kohelet) is still controversial to this day. The noun it is based on (kahal) means assembly and since Kohelet is understood to be King Solomon (see 1, 1.), most commentators believe that the author calls this king the "one who calls the assembly together", because after the construction of the temple, he gathered the people around him (1 Kings 8:1) and taught them (Ecclesiastes 12:9), or because he called wise men to his court to debate about difficult questions (see 12, 11.). The title of the Septuagint and the Vulgate (Ecclesiastes) means one who is in the assembly, therefore someone who appears at a public meeting either as a speaker or as an ordinary participant.
The Book of Ecclesiastes is not a systematic work, but a more or less loose series of reflections that mostly revolve around this motto: "Vanity of vanities! All is vanity!" (1, 2; 12, 8 etc.). The Book of Job already raised the issue of the innocent suffering of the righteous. Ecclesiastes goes a step further when, next to the suffering righteous (3, 16; 4, 1; 5, 7; 7, 16; 8, 14), he sees the unhappiness of a man boasting with the splendor, glory, and wisdom of Solomon, thus the fullness of earthly goods, he feels the common tragedy of human earthly fate, and even extends it by contemplating the seemingly futile cycle of creation and extinction that appears in nature (chapter 1). The author of Job did not fully clarify the problem of suffering, and had to be satisfied with the fact that the ultimate cause of innocent suffering is God's inscrutable providence. The musings of Ecclesiastes also lead towards this solution, but the problem becomes even sharper for him because the prosperity that balances the sufferings (see Job 42.) cannot truly satisfy him, and the perspectives of balancing in the afterlife are also missing here. Therefore, it can rightly be said that no book of the Old Testament cries out for the New Testament conception that counts with justice and happiness in the afterlife as much as Ecclesiastes does.
Apart from the discussion of the vanity of life as the main topic, the book also contains other details that have no closer connection with the motto. Such is the part about worship and the vow (4, 17-5, 6) and various wise sayings (8, 1-8; 9, 17-10, 4; 10, 8-11, 6).
The author of the book was generally thought to be Solomon by the old commentators. However, the language of the Hebrew text shows many Aramaic and modern Hebrew features; from these circumstances and some parts of the book, newer interpreters conclude that the author was probably a wise man living in Jerusalem (see 4, 17; 5, 5; 8, 1; 12, 9.), who wrote his work around 200 BC. Since different intellectual currents appear here and there in our book, and there are stylistic differences as well, several Catholic interpreters believe that multiple (suggested) authors took part in the writing of the book.
The Book of Ecclesiastes is unequivocally considered a canonical sacred scripture by both the Christian church and the Jewish synagogue.
As in other didactic books, such as the Book of Job and Sirach, not to mention the Book of Proverbs, the thought zigzags, repeats, and corrects itself. There is no final plan; the thoughts are variations on a single theme, talking about the vanity of human things, as it proclaims at the beginning and end of the book. Everything is deceptive: knowledge, wealth, love, even life itself. Life is nothing more than a series of disconnected acts, and it has no value (3:1-11); it ends with old age (12:1-7) and death, which takes away the wise and the fool, the rich and the poor, the animal and the human alike (3:14-20). Qohelet's problem is the same as Job's: is there reward and punishment for good and evil here on earth? And just as Job's answer is negative, so is Qohelet's, because experience contradicts the accepted solutions (7:25-8:14). The difference is that Qohelet is a healthy person who does not seek the cause of suffering like Job. He asserts the vanity of fortune and comforts himself with the enjoyment of modest pleasures that belong to existence (3:12-13; 8:15; 9:7-9). We might say that he is seeking his own consolation because he is inevitably unsatisfied. The secret of the afterlife torments him without seeing a solution (3:21; 9:10; 12:7). But Qohelet is a believer, though sometimes confused when he sees that God cares about human affairs, but he affirms that God cannot be held accountable (3:113,14; 7:13). Tribulations must be accepted from his hand, just like joys (7:14). His commandments must be kept because he sees everything hidden, whether it is good or bad (12:13-14; cf. 9:1).
It is clear that this teaching, which can be drawn from the book, including the last verses which even the proponents of the unity of the book doubt, is not coherent. Still, instead of dividing the individual parts among several authors who correct or contradict each other, should we not rather attribute the different parts to an unknown, but the same author, who approaches a terrifying secret without solving it? Like Job, Qohelet can only be answered if we accept the reward and punishment in the afterlife. But he does not yet see this.
The book has a transitional nature. Traditional evidences have been shaken, but nothing else can yet replace them. At this turning point in Hebrew thought, we may look for what foreign influences left their mark on Qohelet. Some think of the Egyptian work titled "Desperate Conversation with His Soul" or "The Harpist's Melancholic Songs" and the philosophical currents of Greece through Hellenized Egypt: Stoicism, Epicureanism, and Cynicism. No exact determination can be made, but the atmosphere is the same. Qohelet is a Palestinian Jew, belongs to a group of wise men, and like them, he looks at things with open eyes, and breathes in the fresh air coming from beyond the borders. This is the first, indirect connection with Hellenism, and also determines the time of writing the book. It was written in the Greek period, but before the flare-up of faith and the hope of the Maccabean era, let's say in the 3rd century BC. At this time, Palestine under the Ptolemies was exposed to Alexandrian intellectual influences.
The book only marks a moment in religious development, and should not be judged as a break with the past and the future. It points out the inadequacy of old concepts, compels thinking to face the mysteries of human life, and yearns for higher revelation. It teaches detachment from earthly things, and by denying the luck of the rich, it prepares the world to hear that "blessed are the poor" (Lk 6:20).
