The Book of Ecclesiastes

First, let me say that I love TL’s work overall (his Song of Songs is my go-to commentary), though I don’t agree with him on all things (which applies to everyone). However, that tropes surely exhausts itself at some time when disagreement reaches such a substantive degree as in this book. I cannot, in good conscience, give this a high rating — the three stars is for his survey of authorship, dating, and exhaustive exegesis of individual verses. While his intelligence is obvious, and his research quite meticulous (esp. his work with comparing the genre of this work to ancient Mesopotamian “fictional autobiographies”, which he cites copiously in the work itself), the basic interpretive framework of Ecclesiastes renders the entire project useless. TL essentially frames the book as an extended quote by a pessimistic skeptic with a narratival parenthesis in first and last half of ch.1 and 12 respectively. Any normative theology must be found in the bookends, not the bulk of the treatise. And thus, 90% + of the book is rendered practically useless. The quote is essential akin to Job’s friends speech in that book, which is God’s word in the sense that its words are in the Bible, but cannot be taken seriously and applied at face value. I have many disagreements along the way to get to this conclusion, but I’ll just settle for this one: Eccl.12:9 Besides being wise, the Preacher also taught the people knowledge, weighing and studying and arranging many proverbs with great care. 10 The Preacher sought to find words of delight, and uprightly he wrote words of truth. 11 The words of the wise are like goads, and like nails firmly fixed are the collected sayings; they are given by one Shepherd. The narrator (whom TL even acknowledges to have penned these verses) explicitly affirms the Qohelet’s teachings to be true, normative, and from one Shepherd (God himself). So even by his own standard, TL contradicts his own position. There can be no discontinuity between the Qohelet and the narrator. The narrator himself disallows this. So either the narrator is correct and so is Qohelet, or Qohelet is wrong and so too the narrator. But you cannot have it both ways. As great of a scholar TL is, this is such a basic and elementary error I cannot see how anyone can countenance this. Interpreting the Bible is an art, but it is also a science. There is an objective right and wrong. If a student in a math class gave the wrong answer to a question, he cannot get a high mark, no matter how much work he put in. At a certain point, a take is so strained that it needs to be judged by its content itself. How there can be folks who give it a 5 star, yet admit disagreement on such a fundamental issue as the narratively framework befuddles me.

Contrary to many, I find myself extremely unenthused by Longman's commentary on Qoheleth. Though Longman is quite useful for his technical notes on translation and difficulties in the Hebrew text, in my opinion, his work is not very helpful when it comes to articulating the message of the book as a whole. For me, his position—basically, that the "unorthodoxy" of Qoheleth is only salvaged by the "frame narrator" at the end of the book—strips 99% of the book of its relevance for today. Therefore, especially for pastors and teachers, I would recommend turning to another commentary (especially Bartholomew) for insight into the book's abiding theological significance.

Longman's book is thorough and can be helpful in certain specifics, but I have major disagreements with Longman's overall pessimistic interpretation of Ecclesiastes. While I might consult this book for a confusing verse or passage, I wouldn't use it to shape my overall direction.

The logic of arguing Solomon could not have wrote it because he said "don't curse the king" is totally absurd and illogical. Then why does proverbs, written by Solomon, also talks about king as spoken in 3rd person's perspective? I guess the world really listen to nonsense with such pleasure.

Having spent some time preaching on Ecclesiastes for the first time, I found this to be a solid, reliable, though unsurprising. I'm not sure why other commentators make the criticisms they do, since Longman doesn't venture into wild speculation, and stays well within common, sound interpretive conclusions. It's the best commentary available from a specifically evangelical scholar, and arguably only bested by Roland Murphy.

Many regard this commentary with some caution, but it may still worth be consulting in parts if not in the whole. Keith Mathison says, “Like many, Longman argues that the monologue by Qohelet (the main speaker in the book) is framed by the words of a narrator. According to Longman, however, Qohelet is a skeptic with no hope. Longman argues that the narrator uses Qohelet’s monologue to teach his son about the dangers of such skepticism. The positive teaching of the book, then, is found in the words of the narrator. Not all will agree with his interpretation, but it is worth examining.” [Full Review]

Longman's approach to Ecclesiastes differs from that of Eaton somewhat. Like many, Longman argues that the monologue by Qohelet (the main speaker in the book) is framed by the words of a narrator. According to Longman, however, Qohelet is a skeptic with no hope. Longman argues that the narrator uses Qohelet's monologue to teach his son about the dangers of such skepticism. The positive teaching of the book, then, is found in the words of the narrator. Not all will agree with his interpretation, but it is worth examining. [Full Review]

Takes Qohelet as 'a type of pseudonym.' Maintains two speakers 1) Qohelet (1:12-12:7) and 2) an unnamed individual (1:1-11 and 12:8-14). Interesting but too idiosyncratic.

Ecclesiastes is a rarely used and often misunderstood book of the OT. Longman offers a helpful guide to understanding the book. He takes the "framework" approach, meaning the majority of the book is a foil for the editor, who speaks in 1:1-11 and 12:8-14. This allows Longman to read the seemingly unorthodox and contradictory statements in the book as exactly that, which are corrected by the final (orthodox) statements of the editor (in Longman's view). Whether or not you agree with Longman's assessment, this is a helpful commentary. I've found it profitable to use it along side Garrett's commentary in the NAC series.

With great linguistic and literary skill, this Evangelical study demonstrates the argument of Ecclesiastes as a warning against negative, skeptical conclusions about God and human existence. [Full Review]

Tremper Longman's commentary on Ecclesiastes is a welcome addition to the NICOT Series and a solid contribution to the elusive field of wisdom in ancient Israel. Longman exhibits his literary and theological sensitivities in a very accessible style. The commentary represents well the standards of the series: "scholarship of the highest quality"; the fruit of "wide reading and careful, mature reflection" an eclectic and politically sensitive approach; methodological innovation; and an irenic spirit (pp. xi, xii). Longman interacts throughout with the principal Ecclesiastes commentators of modern times. In the first forty pages he succinctly introduces the issues surrounding title, authorship, date, and language; literary structure, genre, and style; text, canon, and theology. He brings his own original research to bear on the genre of the book, citing parallels explored earlier in his Fictional Akkadian Autobiographies. NICOT is intentionally evangelical; the Bible is understood to be God's Word, spoken through gifted human authors. Therefore, criticism of the text is balanced with respect, giving attention to theological themes and their contemporary implications (p. xii). Longman's evangelical commitments are explicit in the introductory sections on theology and the brief "Final Word" on the last page. The work as a whole is "conservative" in that there is respect for the historical value and original meaning of the text, and a preference for the MT except where there is substantial cause to alter it. It is also conservative, according to the editor's definition, by being willing to "conserve" insights gleaned from a broad spectrum of writers. Longman refers frequently to the paraphrase of Ecclesiastes by Gregory Thaumaturgos, a third-century disciple of Origen. [Full Review]