Journal: Westminster Theological Journal
Volume: WTJ 83:1 (Spring 2021)
Article: Who Is Qoheleth? Old Princeton’s Old Testament Scholars On The Authorship Of Ecclesiastes
Author: Max Rogland

WTJ 83:1 (Spring 2021) p. 103

Who Is Qoheleth? Old Princeton’s Old Testament Scholars On The Authorship Of Ecclesiastes

Max Rogland

Max Rogland has taught Old Testament at the seminary level for many years and is currently the Senior Minister at Rose Hill Presbyterian Church in Columbia, SC.

Historically, the book of Ecclesiastes (or “Qoheleth”) has been attributed to King Solomon. Even though the book is technically anonymous, Jewish and Christian tradition has nevertheless typically sought to interpret the book as the reflections of an aged, repentant Solomon. Dissenting voices began to appear in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, which drew attention to a number of features within the book that stand in tension with this understanding of its authorship. In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries the denial of Solomonic authorship became common, not only among higher critics but also among evangelical OT scholars such as Hengstenberg, Delitzsch, and Moses Stuart.

The scholars of Old Princeton were aware of such discussions, though none of them published a commentary or other major work devoted to Ecclesiastes. Nevertheless, it is possible to discern their views in a variety of publications. This study begins by examining the views of the earliest OT instructors at Old Princeton (Archibald Alexander, Charles Hodge, Joseph Addison Alexander), none of whom provided a clear indication of their views on the matter. It then proceeds to a more detailed examination of the views of later OT specialists, specifically, William Henry Green, John D. Davis, Geerhardus Vos, Robert Dick Wilson, and Oswald Thompson Allis. Though Wilson and Allis accepted the Solomonic authorship of Ecclesiastes, this represents a change from the views of their predecessors. Vos viewed non-Solomonic authorship as a legitimate interpretive option. Moreover, Green’s views are shown to have changed over time from an acceptance of Solomonic authorship to its rejection, and a non-Solomonic position was also adopted by Davis. A diversity of views on the authorship of Ecclesiastes is therefore evident among the various OT scholars of Old Princeton.

WTJ 83:1 (Spring 2021) p. 104

In his 1861 commentary on the book of Ecclesiastes, Christian Ginsburg wryly observes, “Every fresh commentator either actually or virtually regards all his predecessors as having misunderstood Coheleth.”1 Part of the explanation for this claim is the reality that, in a more pronounced way with Ecclesiastes than with most other books of the Bible, one’s interpretation of its theological message is profoundly influenced by one’s view of the book’s authorship, date, historical setting, and literary genre, all of which are f...