This commentary is a model representation of modern scholarship on Ecclesiastes on most points. I’m not going to review this commentary on those terms because I do not agree with the direction scholarship has gone on this book. In fact, I cannot agree with it at all. The older idea of Solomon being the realistic author is one that still makes perfect sense to me based on the book we have. The problem you have is that once you rule out Solomon, what you are left with is Hocus Pocus and building castles in the sky as to what the true theological importance of the book would be. Now that I have that off my chest, I will attempt to review the book from the lane that drives in – modern scholarship. In that vein, I would have to judge it of mixed success.

All the technical work is fine. Exegesis is competent. His work on discourse analysis is a scholar’s dream whether you’d follow him or not. As he shows, his is the third to dig deep on that subject and he mines the differences of the three to great depths. Perhaps it’s too deep for me as I just couldn’t decide what’s best there.

The weakest point of the book is in how he frames it as a whole. At one point, he even saw a stand-up comic in the author of Ecclesiastes. That approach seems excessively fanciful to me. Since modern scholarship has abandoned Solomon, I fully expect some imaginative speculation; but surely this is a bit much.

This series is fantastic overall, and for that reason alone I would want to have this commentary. Still, I would not rate it as one of the best volumes. In fairness, though, some obviously will like it more than I will.

I received this book free from the publisher. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255.