Tremper Longman III, The Book of Ecclesiastes, 2nd ed. (NICOT)

16 hours ago 11

Longman III, Tremper. The Book of Ecclesiastes, 2nd ed. NICOT. Eerdmans, 2026. xxxix+320 pp. Hb. $46.99 Link to Eerdmans

The first edition of Tremper Longman’s NICOT commentary on Ecclesiastes was published in 1998. The first edition of this commentary ran xvi+283 pages. One reason for doubling the size of the preface is that the editors moved the bibliography from the body of the book to the “Roman numeral pages.” This means the length of the commentary is forty pages longer in this new edition. As is often the case with second editions of commentaries, a major update is literature published over the last 25 years, including major commentaries and journal articles, in both the bibliography and the footnotes. Longman has added references to Kruger (Hermeneia, 2004), Crenshaw (OTL, 1999), Provan (NIVAC, 2001), Bartholomew (BCOT, 2009), and Weeks (ICC, 2020).

The introduction to this new edition is about nine pages longer than the 1998 edition. In the preface to the commentary, Longman says, “I have not changed my overall understanding of the book as containing two voices,” except at 12:10, “then only tentatively.”

This raises the question of the authorship of Ecclesiastes. Longman argues that Qohelet is not Solomon, but he adopts a “Solomonic persona” (7). The 2026 edition adds a line, “I believe that Qohelet is not the author of the book,” and “is a fictional or fictionalized character” (4). Longman expands the excursus, “Who was Qohelet?” with a full page interacting with Jennifer Barbour’s 2012 monograph and Michael Fox’s suggestion that Qohelet is a literary persona. Barbour “puts forth a strong, but not totally convincing case” (10) that Qohelet stand, stands for not Solomon, but all the kings of Israel.

Longman has greatly expanded the section on the date of Ecclesiastes, now considering C. L. Seow’s argument that the book was completed in the Persian period (AB, 1998). After summarizing the argument, Longman is not fully persuaded. He therefore adds paragraphs on the possibility of Hellenistic thought and the socioeconomic situation implied by the book. Longman thinks this data favors a Hellenistic date. He includes a new excursus on reading Ecclesiastes in the light of the Hellenistic period (16-17), dialoging with George Athas’s Story of God commentary (2020).

Since Longman is certain Ecclesiastes is non-Solomonic, it is also one of the last books written in the Hebrew Bible. Although he does not create a scenario or a complicated editorial process to explain the book’s creation, he says, “I lean toward the Hellenistic period” (14). Under the heading “language,” Longman has expanded his discussion of Fredricks, who examined the Persian influence on the book, but argued that the linguistic evidence cannot speak against a preexilic date. Ultimately, Longman disagrees, language “is not a certain barometer of date” (22). The genre, literary style, and canon have only been edited recently, aside from a short paragraph on injustice in life (42).

In this new addition, the unit once entitled “theology of the book is a whole” is renamed “the frame narrator and the theology of the book is a whole (45). Little has changed since the first edition. Longman argues that 1:1-11 and 12:8-15 are a different voice than the pessimistic Qohelet (the rest of the book). This is like Job’s prologue and epilogue, although in Ecclesiastes God does not “speak out of the whirlwind.” Longman states that it is important to read the epilogue carefully to understand the book, as it is a second wise man’s summary of Qohelet’s teaching (46).

The body of the commentary follows the NICOT style. After a short introduction, the commentary begins with Longman’s new translation of the section, accompanied by extensive notes on lexical and tactical issues and occasional observations on textual criticism. These have been edited and expanded in this new addition. Following the translation and textual notes is a verse-by-verse commentary on the Hebrew text. All Hebrew appears in transliteration. Interaction with secondary literature is in the footnotes. These footnotes have been updated with a handful of references to commentaries published after 1998. Following the commentary is a summary of each chapter that draws a few conclusions. This is not “biblical theology” and does not even make Old Testament theological connections. It is solely focused on the text of Ecclesiastes.

Conclusion. As with other volumes of the NICOT series that have been updated, some readers will wonder whether they need to upgrade their commentary. In this case, Longman has not radically changed his views since 1998. However, for scholars, pastors, and students looking for an excellent commentary on the book of Ecclesiastes, Longman’s new edition will serve them well. This is a well-written and insightful commentary on one of the more difficult books of the Hebrew Bible.

Recent reviews of other commentaries in the NICOT Series: