THE QUESTION `WHAT IS THAT GOOD?'
8
a pious forgery or that it teaches that which is inconsistent with the rest of Scripture. The former can hardly have
pondered the consequences of their attitude, for if books or even verses of Scripture may be rejected according as
they disagree with the individual's creed, there will hardly be one book of either Old or New Testaments that sooner
or later will not fall out of a universally accepted Canon. The second class of critics bring with them a variety of
methods and motives. We cannot deal with all in this booklet but those which are based upon criticism of a literary
and historical nature we may be able to consider, for the original is open to all, and a careful comparison of Scripture
with Scripture requires neither genius nor inspiration.
While the criticism of the former class says in effect, `Solomon's wisdom led him no higher than "under the sun"
poor soul, we however know better'; the criticism of the latter school usually commences with a most emphatic
repudiation of the possibility that Solomon could be the author of the book. One great authority declares that if this
book were written by Solomon, or in Solomon's time, then there is no such thing as the history of the Hebrew
language.
As the examination of parallels involves grammatical forms of the Hebrew language and makes hard reading for
the average reader, we have transferred the results of this examination to an Appendix. We sincerely trust that our
reason for this will not be misconstrued, we believe that the evidence which this comparison brings to light is
overwhelming in its proof that none other than Solomon is the writer of Ecclesiastes.
In the first place it may be asked, `What does the book itself say with regard to authorship?' Solomon's name is
nowhere mentioned, but the following statements are made, and these, we submit, apply to no other man than
Solomon.
(A). He was the son of David, king in Jerusalem (1:1). This is a title that is true of Solomon, but not exclusively
so, for it is true of all the kings who reigned in Jerusalem up to the captivity.
(B). He was king over Israel in Jerusalem (1:12). The only other king whose name is put forward as being the
author of Ecclesiastes is that of Hezekiah. Hezekiah, though a son of David and reigning in Jerusalem, is spoken of
in Scripture as king of Judah. There are only two kings of whom it can be said that they were kings over ISRAEL in
JERUSALEM, they are David and Solomon.
(C). The writer of Ecclesiastes was not only a king, but he claims to have gotten `more wisdom than all they that
have been before me in Jerusalem'. The wisdom of Solomon is proverbial. The Lord said:
`Lo, I have given thee a wise and an understanding heart; so that there was none like thee before thee, neither
after thee shall any arise like unto thee'. `And God gave Solomon wisdom and understanding exceeding much,
and largeness of heart ... Solomon's wisdom excelled the wisdom of all the children of the east country, and all
the wisdom of Egypt. For he was wiser than all men' (1 Kings 3:12, 4:29-31).
The writer of Ecclesiastes claims to have gotten more wisdom than ALL they that were before him in Jerusalem.
Solomon was in Jerusalem, and inspired Scripture tells us that he stands alone regarding wisdom. Neither before
nor since has anyone had such wisdom. We have therefore no need to pursue this section further.
Solomon was the son of David.
Solomon was king in Jerusalem.
Solomon alone was, with the exception of David, king of Israel in Jerusalem.
Solomon was wiser than any before him or after him in Jerusalem.
The writer of Ecclesiastes was son of David, king in Jerusalem, king of Israel in Jerusalem, and wiser than all
who were before him in Jerusalem.
We are therefore obliged -
(1) To accept the teaching that Solomon was the author of Ecclesiastes, or,
(2) To reject the explicit testimony of 1 Kings 3:5-12; 4:29-34, and
(3) To believe that an unknown writer assumed the name and title of Solomon.