This commentary in its first edition from 1998 was highly influential. I can venture a guess for why that is so (and it’s only a guess). Modern scholarship was taking a turn away from Solomon being the author of Ecclesiastes and Longman was perhaps the first major conservative scholars to go that route. If that is overstating it, could I at least say that he should be credited with popularizing it? He truly is considered one of the major writers in Old Testament studies, particularly in Wisdom literature. He is especially known for commentaries and for editing other major scholarly volumes. Plus, the NICOT is highly influential in its own right as well. How many major commentaries of even a conservative nature hold to Solomon after Longman? No, I don’t know any either.

The charge against that earlier edition has always been that it is a bit too pessimistic. I fully agree. Since you likely are familiar with that earlier edition because of its wide popularity, I should tell you upfront that he has not changed any major conclusions that he has on Ecclesiastes. So in other words, whatever you thought before, you are likely to think now. This new edition merely fine tunes the earlier arguments.

But I can still give it its props. If you like the more modern approach to Ecclesiastes, you will find him more articulate than some others I have read. He is a good writer, and he always handles the scholar’s task with ease. There are good reasons he has been asked to edit so many major scholarly works. For better or worse, no major theological library could be without this work.

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.