ABSTRACT
Other features of the book became matters of scholarly dispute shortly before and during Kierkegaard’s life-time. Johann Salomo Semler (1725-91), the celebrated pioneer of the historical-critical method who was influenced by both Pietism and the Enlightenment, argued that different portions of the Bible reflect the Word of God to differing degrees, depending on how adequately their historically conditioned form expresses the universal themes of the faith. Ecclesiastes ranked high in his list, since it obviously does deal with such universal human concerns as the apparent futility of human projects.5 Johann Gottfried Eichhorn (1752-1827), another influential early historical-critic, thought he could detect a Greek influence in the text, for he found it to have a Sophist flavor.6 Johann Gottfried Herder (1744-1803) opined that it came from the period of the Babylonian captivity and discussed the possibility that its suggestion that the individual’s spirit returns to God was borrowed from
1 However, Eccl 1:1 says, “The words of the Teacher, the son of David, king in Jerusalem,” and traditionally this has been taken as a confirmation of Solomonic authorship. 2 Pap. V B 72:28 / CA, Supplement, p. 211: “In the sixth letter of The Centaur not Fabulous, Young say a few words about Ecclesiastes, a work he ascribes to Solomon.” See Edward Young, Einige Werke von Dr. Edvard Young, vols. 1-3, trans. by J.A. Ebert, Braunschweig and Hildesheim: Schröders Erben 1767-72, vol. 2, p. 398 (ASKB 1911). 3 “Preacher,” like “Teacher,” is a possible rendering of the Hebrew תלהק in Eccl 1:1. Additionally, the Danish name for Ecclesiastes is Prædikerens Bog, which means “The Preacher’s Book.” 4 For example, see SKS 8, 124 / UD, 8. 5 Johann Salomo Semler, Abhandlung von freier Untersuchung des Canon, vols. 1-4, 2nd ed., Halle: Carl Hermann Hemmerde 1776 [1771-75], vol. 1, pp. 41-3. th ed.,
the Chaldeans. He also compared Ecclesiastes’ allusion to some shadowy sort of continuing existence of the ancestors to the beliefs of other primitive people, including the Celts.8 Wilhelm Martin Leberecht de Wette (1780-1849) considered Ecclesiastes to be a late work, probably dating from the Persian or Macedonian era, reflecting the pessimism and skepticism triggered by the decline in national fortunes.9 He saw the book as an expression of profound doubt, but a doubt tempered and qualified by an even deeper reverence. In general, this scholarly literature emphasized the differences between Ecclesiastes and the other biblical books, and tended to date the text fairly late in the evolution of Israelite religion. Typically the expositors explained Ecclesiastes’ differences as being due to the influence of other cultural traditions. The authors varied in their assessment of the spiritual value of these theological novelties, some applauding them as efforts to articulate universal truths and others seeing them as accommodations to alien ideologies. Given Ecclesiastes’ peculiarities, many theologians basically ignored this disturbing book in the canon; for example, Hans Lassen Martensen (1808-84) never even cited it in his magisterial exposition of Christian doctrine.10 Kierkegaard owned the relevant works by Herder and de Wette, whose exegetical books he often consulted. From these sources, particularly de Wette’s extensive footnotes, he could have been aware of these controversies. However, he shows no interest in the issue of the date of the work or the possible influences upon it.
