Ecclesiastes

ECCLESIASTES

The preacher, the name of a book of the Old Testament, usually ascribed to Solomon. Compare 1Ki 3:12 and Ecc 1:16 1Ki 10:21,27 and Ecc 2:4-9 1Ki 11:3,4 and Exo 7:25,25 . It appears to have been written by Solomon in his old age, when freed from the entanglements of idolatry, luxury, and lust, B. C. 977. It is a discourse upon the true wisdom; with many isolated precepts, illustrated from his own unexampled experience and from the most sagacious observation of the course of life; the whole demonstrating the vanity of all earthly good, and showing that there is a better life to come, and that the only true wisdom is to “fear God and keep his commandments.” This, he says, is the conclusion of the whole matter, Ecc 12:13 . In reading this book, care should be taken not to deduce opinions from detached sentiments, but from the general scope and combined force of the whole.

Fuente: American Tract Society Bible Dictionary

Ecclesiastes

(Greek: ekklesiastes, member of the assembly)

The protocanonical book of the Old Testament, called in Hebrew Qoheleth (Koheleth), in Latin, Concionator (Saint Jerome), or in English “The Preacher.” In the Vulgate this book follows Proverbs and was formerly almost unquestioned as the work of Solomon. Now even Catholic scholars admit the theory of an unknown author presenting the teachings of Solomon at a later age. Although no Catholic will admit the modernistic view ascribing it to the period of Herod the Great (40 B.C.), some place it in the 3rd century before the Christian era. Its Palestinian origin is certain. It is rather short, comprising 12 chapters and 222 verses. The theme may be stated as the transient character of earthly goods and pleasures compared with true wisdom which is the fear of the Lord and in which alone may be found true contentment and happiness. The manner of development is oriental and specifically ancient; it is Semitic, i.e., by apothegms and proverbs rather than by logical analysis. Notwithstanding its somber tone, it is not pessimistic since hope for happiness is held out to those who direct their lives according to reason and the will of God.

It is divided into:

the prologue (1:1-11), which shows the vanity of the search for human happiness;

part I (1:12 to 7:1), which emphasizes the vanity of all things apart from God; and

part II (7:2 to 12:8), which comprises the precepts of true wisdom.

The style varies between pithy sententiousness and soliloquy, and is at times rhetorical, depicting evil in glaring colors, which are not exaggerated in the light of our knowledge of the moral depravity of the Orient in pre-Christian times. The teaching of the book is not at variance with Christian belief. It is not true that the author inveighs against God. He does speak against sinful men. Immortality is not denied in 3:19 sqq., because this passage should be regarded as a rhetorical question expressive of the author’s grief that so few men realize the difference between themselves and animals. Besides God did not reveal much of the future state before the Incarnation, and Heaven was not opened till after the death of Christ. Hence we should not expect the same precision in expressions concerning the life to come in the Old Testament that is found in the new. Its canonicity as divine is accepted from the beginning in the Synagogue as well as the Christian Church. Striking passages are: 1:1-11, the vanity of earthly striving; 3:10-15, how to rejoice in the gifts of God; 4:17, obedience; and 12:1-7, correct training of youth. Many sentences are apt maxims for our daily lives and the author of the “Imitation” has utilised them, especially in Book I. Breviary lessons for the second week of August are taken from Ecclesiastes. The abbreviation Eccles. distinguishes this book from Ecclesiasticus (Ecclus.).

Fuente: New Catholic Dictionary

Ecclesiastes

(Sept. èkklesiastés, in St. Jerome also CONCIONATOR, “Preacher”).

Ecclesiastes is the name given to the book of Holy Scripture which usually follows the Proverbs; the Hebrew Qoheleth probably has the same meaning. The word preacher, however, is not meant to suggest a congregation nor a public speech, but only the solemn announcement of sublime truths [hqhyl, passive nqhl, Lat. congregare, I (III) K., viii, 1, 2; bqhl, in publico, palam, Prov., v, 14; xxvi, 26; qhlh to be taken either as a feminine participle, and would then be either a simple abstract noun, præconium, or in a poetic sense, tuba clangens, or must be taken as the name of a person, like the proper nouns of similar formation, Esd., ii, 55, 57; corresponding to its use, the word is always used as masculine, except vii, 27]. Solomon, as the herald of wisdom, proclaims the most serious truths. His teaching may be divided as follows.

Introduction

Everything human is vain (i, 1-11); for man, during his life on earth, is more transient than all things in nature (i, 1-7), whose unchangeable course he admires, but does not comprehend (i, 8-11).

Part I

Vanity in man’s private life (i, 12-iii, 15): vain is human wisdom (i, 12-18); vain are pleasures and pomp (ii, 1-23). Then, rhetorically exaggerating, he draws the conclusion: “Is it not better to enjoy life’s blessings which God has given, than to waste your strength uselessly?” (ii, 24-26). As epilogue to this part is added the proof that all things are immutably predestined and are not subject to the will of man (iii, 1-15). In this first part, the reference to the excessive luxury described in III Kings, x, is placed in the foreground. Afterwards, the author usually prefaces his meditations with an “I saw”, and explains what he has learned either by personal observation or by other means, and on what he has meditated. Thus he saw:–

Part II

Sheer vanity also in civil life (iii, 16-vi, 6). Vain and cheerless is life because of the iniquity which reigns in the halls of justice (iii, 16-22) as well as in the intercourse of men (iv, 1-3). The strong expressions in iii, 18 sqq., and iv, 2 sq., must be explained by the writer’s tragic vein, and thus does credit to the writer, who, speaking as Solomon, deplores bitterly what has often enough happened in his kingdom also, whether through his fault or without his knowledge. The despotic rule of the kings was described in advance by Samuel and Solomon cannot be cleared of all guilt (see below). But even the best prince will, to his grief, find by experience that countless wrongs cannot be prevented in a large empire. Qoheleth does not speak of the wrongs which he himself has suffered, but of those which others sustained. Another of life’s vanities consists in the fact that mad competition leads many to fall into idleness (iv, 4-6); a third causes many a man through greed to shun society, or even to lose a throne because his unwisdom forbids him to seek the help of other men (iv, 7-16). Qoheleth then turns once more to the three classes of men named: to those who groan under the weight of injustice, in order to exhort them not to sin against God by murmuring against Providence, for this would be tantamount to dishonouring God in His temple, or to breaking a sacred vow, or to denying Providence (iv, 17-v, 8); in the same way he gives a few salutary counsels to the miser (v, 9-19) and describes the misery of the supposed foolish king (vi, 1-6). A long oratorical amplification closes the second part (vi, 7-vii, 30). The immutable predestination of all things by God must teach man contentment and modesty (vi, 7-vii, 1, Vulg.). A serious life, free from all frivolity, is best (vii, 2-7, Vulg.). Instead of passionate outbreaks (vii, 8-15), he recommends a golden mean (vii, 16-23). Finally, Qoheleth inquires into the deepest and last reason of “vanity” and finds it in the sinfulness of woman; he evidently thinks also of the sin of the first woman, through which, against the will of God (30), misery entered the world (vii, 24-30). In this part, also, Qoheleth returns to his admonition to enjoy in peace and modesty the blessings granted by God, instead of giving oneself up to anger on account of wrongs endured, or to avarice, or to other vices (iii, 22; v, 17 sq.; vii, 15).

Part III

Part III begins with the question: “Who is as the wise man?” (In the Vulg. these words have been wrongly placed in chap. vii.) Qoheleth here gives seven or eight important rules for life as the quintessence of true wisdom. Submit to God’s (“the king’s”) will (viii, 1-8). If you observe that there is no justice on earth, contain yourself, “eat and drink” (viii, 9-15). Do not attempt to solve all the riddles of life by human wisdom; it is better to enjoy modestly the blessings of life and to work according to one’s strength, but always within the narrow limits set by God (viii, 16-ix, 12.–In the Vulg. ad aliud must be dropped). In this “siege” of your city (by God) seek help in true wisdom (ix, 13-x, 3). It is always most important not to lose your temper because of wrongs done to you (x, 4-15). Then follows the repetition of the adivce not to give oneself up to idleness; sloth destroys countries and nations, therefore work diligently, but leave the success to God without murmuring (x, 16-xi, 6). Even amid the pleasures of life do not forget the Lord, but think of death and judgment (xi, 7-xii, 8).

In the epilogue Qoheleth again lays stress upon his authority as the teacher of wisdom, and declares that the pith of his teaching is: Fear God and keep the Commandments; for that is the whole man.

In the above analysis, as must be expected, the writer of this article has been guided in some particulars by his conception of the difficult text before him, which he has set forth more completely in his commentary on the same. Many critics do not admit a close connection of ideas at all. Zapletal regards the book as a collection of separate aphorisms which form a whole only exteriorly; Bickell thought that the arrangement of the parts had been totally destroyed at an early date; Siegfried supposes that the book had been supplemented and enlarged in strata; Luther assumed several authors. Most commentators do not expect that they can show a regular connection of all the “sayings” and an orderly arrangement of the entire book. In the above analysis an attempt has been made to do this, and we have pointed out what means may lead to success. Several parts must be taken in the sense of parables, e.g. what is said in ix, 14 sqq., of the siege of a city by a king. And in viii, 2, and x, 20, “king” means God. It appears to me that iv, 17, is not to be taken literally; and the same is true of x, 8 sqq. Few will hestitate to take xi, 1 sqq., figuratively. Chap. xii must convince every one that bold allegories are quite in Qoheleth’s style. Chap. iii would by very flat if the proposition, “There is a time for everything”, carried no deeper meaning than the words disclose at first sight. The strongest guarantee of the unity and sequence of thoughts in the book is the theme, “Vanitas vanitatum”, which emphatically opens it and is repeated again and again, and (xii, 8) with which it ends. Furthermore, the constant repetition of vidi or of similar expressions, which connect the arguments for the same truth; finally, the sameness of verbal and rhetorical turns and of the writer’s tragic vein, with its hyperbolical language, from beginning to end.

In order to reconcile the apparently conflicting statements in the same book or what seem contradictions of manifest truths of the religious or moral order, ancient commentators assumed that Qoheleth expresses varying views in the form of a dialogue. Many modern commentators, on the other hand, have sought to remove these discrepancies by omitting parts of the text, in this way to obtain a harmonious collection of maxims, or even affirmed that the author had no clear ideas, and, e.g., was not convinced of the spirituality and immortality of the soul. But, apart from the fact that we cannot admit erroneous or varying views of life and faith in an inspired writer, we regard frequent alterations in the text or the proposed form of a dialogue as poor makeshifts. It suffices, in my opinion, to explain certain hyperbolical and somewhat paradoxical turns as results of the bold style and the tragic vein of the writer. If our explanation is correct, the chief reproach against Qoheleth–viz. that against his orthodoxy–falls to the ground. For if iii, 17; xi, 9; xii, 7, 14, point to another life as distinctly as can be desired, we cannot take iii, 18-21, as a denial of immortality. Besides, it is evident that in his whole book the author deplores only the vanity of the mortal or earthly life; but to this may be truly applied (if the hyperbolical language of the tragical mood is taken into consideration) whatever is said there by Qoheleth. We cannot find fault with his comparing the mortal life of man and his death to the life and death of the beast (in vv. 19 and 21 rwh must always be taken as “breath of life”). Again, iv, 2 sq., is only a hyperbolical expression; in like manner Job (iii, 3) curses in his grief the day of his birth. True, some allege that the doctrine of immortality was altogether unknown to early intiquity; but even the Saviour (Luke 20:37) adduced the testimony of Moses for the resurrection of the dead and was not contradicted by his adversaries. And ix, 5 sq. and 10, must be taken in a similar sense. Now, in dooming all things earthly to destruction, but attributing another life to the soul, Qoheleth admits the spirituality of the soul; this follows especially from xii, 7, where the body is returned to the earth, but the soul to God.

Sometimes Qoheleth also seems to be given to fatalism; for in his peculiar manner he lays great stress on the immutability of the laws of nature and of the universe. But he considers this immutability as dependent on God’s will (iii, 14; vi, 2; vii, 14 sq.). Nor does he deny the freedom of man within the limits set by God; otherwise his admonitions to fear God, to work, etc. would be meaningless, and man would not have brought evil into the world through his own fault (vii, 29, Heb.) Just as little does he contest the freedom of God’s decrees, for God is spoken of as the source of all wisdom (ii, 26; v, 5). His views of life do not lead Qoheleth to stoical indifference or to blind hatred; on the contrary he shows the deepest sympathy with the misery of the suffering and earnestly deprecates opposition against God. In contentment with one’s lot, in the quiet enjoyment of the blessings given by God, he discerns the golden mean, by which man prevents the vagaries of passion. Neither does he thereby recommend a kind of epicurism. For the ever-recurring phrase, “Eat and drink, for that is the best in this life”, evidently is only a typical formula by which he recalls man from all kinds of excesses. He recommends not idle, but moderate enjoyment, accompanyied by incessant labour. Many persist in laying one charge at Qoheleth’s door, viz., that of pessimism. He seems to call all man’s efforts vain and empty, his life aimless and futile, and his lot deplorable. It is true that a sombre mood prevails in the book, that the author chose as his theme the description of the sad and serious sides of life but is it pessimism to recognize the evils of life and to be impressed with them? Is it not rather the mark of a great and profound mind to deplore bitterly the imperfection of what is earthly, and, on the aother hand, the peculiarity of the frivolous to ignore the truth? The colours with which Qoheleth paints these evils are indeed glaring, but they naturally flow from the poetical-oratorical style of his book and from his inward agitation, which likewise gives rise to the hyperbolical language in the Book of Job and in certain psalms. However, Qoheleth, unlike the pessimists, does not inveigh against God and the order of the universe, but only man. Chap. vii, in which he inquires into the last cause of evil, closes with the words, “Only this I have found, that God made man right, and he hath entangled himself with an infinity of questions [or phantasms]”. His philosophy shows us also the way in which man can find a modest happiness. While severely condemning exceptional pleasures and luxury (chap. ii), it counsels the enjoyment of those pleasures which God prepares for every man (viii, 15; ix, 7 sqq.; xi, 9). It does not paralyze, but incites activity (ix, 10; x, 18 sq.; xi, 1 sq.). It stays him in his afflictions (v, 7 sqq.; viii, 5; x, 4); it consoles him in death (iii, 17; xii, 7); it discovers at every step how necessary is the fear of God. But Qoheleth’s greatest trouble seems to be his inability to find a direct, smooth answer to life’s riddles; hence he so frequently deplores the insufficiency of his wisdom; on the other hand, besides wisdom, commonly so called, i.e. the wisdom resulting from man’s investigations, he knows another kind of wisdom which soothes, and which he therefore recommends again and again (vii, 12, 20; Heb. viii, 1; ix, 17; xii, 9-14). It is true, we feel how the author wrestles with the difficulties which beset his inquiries into the riddles of life; but he overcomes them and offers us an effective consolation even in extraordinary trials. Extraordinary also must have been the occasion which led him to compose the book. He introduces himself from the beginning and repeatedly as Solomon, and this forcibly recalls Solomon shortly before the downfall of the empire; but we know from the Scriptures that this had been prepared by various rebellions and had been foretold by the infallible word of the prophet (see below). We must picture to ourselves Solomon in these critical times, how he seeks to strengthen himself and his subjects in this sore trial by the true wisdom which is a relief at all times; submission to the immutable will of God, the true fear of the Lord, undoubtedly must now appear to him the essence of human wisdom.

As the inspired character of Ecclesiastes was not settled in the Fifth Œcumenical Council but only solemnly reaffirmed against Theodore of Mopsuestia, the faithful have always found edification and consolation in this book. Already in the third century, St. Gregory Thaumaturgus, in his metaphrase, then Gregory of Nyssa, in eight homilies, later Hugh of St. Victor, in nineteen homilies, set forth the wisdom of Qoheleth as truly celestial and Divine. Every age may learn from his teaching that man’s true happiness must not be looked for on earth, not in human wisdom, not in luxury, not in royal splendour; that many afflictions await everybody, in consequence either of the iniquity of others, or of his own passions; that God has shut him up within narrow limits, lest he become overweening, but that He does not deny him a small measure of happiness if he does not “seek things that are above him” (vii, 1, Vulg.), if he enjoys what God has bestowed on him in the fear of the Lord and in salutary labour. The hope of a better life to come grows all the stronger the less this life can satisfy man, especially the man of high endeavour. Now Qoheleth does not intend this doctrine for an individual or for one people, but for mankind, and he does not prove it from supernatural revelation, but from pure reason. This is his cosmopolitan standpoint, which Kuenen rightly recognized; unfortunately, this commentator wished to conclude from this that the book originated in Hellenistic times. Nowack refuted him, but the universal application of the meditations contained therein, to every man who is guided by reason, is unmistakable.

The Author of the Book

Most modern commentators are of the opinion that Qoheleth’s style points not to Solomon, but to a later writer. About this the following may be said:–

(1) As a matter of fact, the language of this book differs widely from the language of the Proverbs. Some think that they have discovered many Aramaisms in it. What can we say on this point?–It cannot be gainsaid that Solomon and a great, if not the greatest part of his people understood Aramaic. (We take the word here as the common name of the dialects closely related to the Biblical Hebrew.) Abraham and Sara, as well as the wives of Isaac and Jacob, had come from Chaldea; it is therefore probable that the language of that country was preserved, beside the language of Palestine, in the family of the Patriarchs; at any rate, in Moses’ time the people still used Aramaic expressions. They exclaim (Exodus 16:15) mn hwa while Moses himself once substituted the Hebrew mh-hwa; the name of the miraculous food, however, remained mn. A large portion of David’s and Solomon’s empire was peopled by Arameans, so that Solomon reigned from the Euphrates to Gaza [I (III) K., v, 4, Heb.; II Sam. (K.), x, 19; cf Gen., xv, 18]. He was conversant with the science of the “sons of the East” and exchanged with them his wisdom (1 Samuel 5:10-14, Hebrew). But, as Palestine lay along the commercial routes between the Euphrates and Phœ;necia, the Israelites, at least in the north of the country, must have been well acquainted with Aramaic. At the time of King Ezechias even the officials of Jerusalem understood Aramaic (Isaiah 36:11; 2 Samuel 18:26, Hebrew). Solomon could therefore assume, without hesitation, a somewhat Aramaic speech, if reason or mere inclination moved him. As a skilful writer, he may have intended, especially in his old age, and in a book whose style is partly oratorical, partly philosophical, partly poetical, to enrich the language by new turns. Goethe’s language in the second part of “Faust” differs greatly from the first, and introduces many neologisms. Now Solomon seems to have had a more important reason for it. As it lay in his very character to remove the barriers between pagans and Israelites, he may have had the conscious intention to address in this book, one of his last, not only the Israelites but his whole people; the Aramaic colouring of his language, then, served as a means to introduce himself to Aramaic readers, who, in their turn, understood Hebrew sufficiently. It is remarkable that the name of God, Jahweh, never occurs in Ecclesiastes, while Elohim is found thirty-seven times; it is more remarkable still that the name Jahweh has been omitted in a quotation (5:3; cf. Deuteronomy 23:22). Besides, nothing is found in the book that could not be known through natural religion, without the aid of revelation.

(2) The Aramaisms may perhaps be explained in still another way. We probably possess the Old Testament, not in the original wording and orthography, but in a form which is slightly revised. We must unquestionably distinguish, it seems, between Biblical Hebrew as an unchanging literary language and the conversational Hebrew, which underwent constant changes. For there is no instance anywhere that a spoken language has been preserved for some nine hundred years so little changed in its grammar and vocabulary as the language of our extant canonical books. Let us, for an instance, compare the English, French, or German of nine hundred years ago with those languages in their present form. Hence it seems exceedingly daring to infer from the written Hebrew the character of the spoken language, and from the style of the book to infer the date of its composition. In the case of a literary language, on the other hand, which is a dead language and as such essentially unchangeable, it is reasonable to suppose that in the course of time its orthography, as well as single words and phrases, and, perhaps, here and there, some formal elements, have been subjected to change in order to be more intelligible to later readers. It is possible that Ecclesiastes was received into the canon in some such later edition. The Aramaisms, therefore, may also be explained in this manner; at any rate, the supposition that the time of the composition of a Biblical book may be deduced from its language is wholly questionable.

(3) This is a fact admitted by all those critics who ascribe Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, portions of Isaias and of the Pentateuch, etc., to a later period, without troubling themselves about the difference of style in these books.

(4) The eagerness to find Aramaisms in Ecclesiastes is also excessive. Expressions which are commonly regarded as such are found now and then in many other books. Hirzel thinks that he has found ten Aramaisms in Genesis, eight in Exodus, five in Leviticus, four in Numbers, nine in Deuteronomy, two in Josue, nine in Judges, five in Ruth, sixteen in Samuel, sixteen in the Psalms, and several in Proverbs. For this there may be a twofold explanation: Either the descendants of Abraham, a Chaldean, and of Jacob, who dwelt twenty years in the Land of Laban, and whose sons were almost all born there, have retained numerous Aramaisms in the newly acquired Hebrew tongue, or the peculiarities pointed out by Hitzig and others are no Aramaisms. It is indeed astonishing how accurately certain critics claim to know the linguistic peculiarities of each of the numerous authors and of every period of a language of which but little literature is left to us. Zöckler affirms that almost every verse of Qoheleth contains some Aramaisms (Komm., p. 115); Grotius found only four in the whole book; Hengstenberg admits ten; the opinions on this point are so much at variance that one cannot help noticing how varying men’s conception of an Aramaism is. Peculiar or strange expressions are at once called Aramaisms; but, according to Hävernick, the Book of Proverbs, also, contains forty words and phrases which are often repeated and which are found in no other book; the Canticle of Canticles has still more peculiarities. On the contrary the Prophecies of Aggeus, Zacharias, and Malachias are without any of those peculiarities which are supposed to indicate so late a period. There is much truth in Griesinger’s words: “We have no history of the Hebrew language”.

(5) Even prominent authorities adduce Aramaisms which are shown to be Hebraic by clear proofs or manifest analogies from other books. There are hardly any unquestionable Aramaisms which can neither be found in other books nor regarded as Hebraisms, which perchance have survived only in Ecclesiastes (for a detailed demonstration cf. the present writer’s Commentary, pp. 23-31). We repeat here Welte’s words: “Only the language remains as the principal argument that it was written after Solomon; but how fallacious in such cases is the merely linguistic proof, need not be mentioned after what has been said.”

It is alleged that the conditions as described in Ecclesiastes do not agree with the time and person of Solomon. True, the author, who is supposed to be Solomon, speaks of the oppression of the weak by the stronger, or one official by another, of the denial of right in the courts of justice (iii, 16; iv, 1; v, 7 sqq.; viii, 9 sq.; x, 4 sqq.). Now many think that such things could not have happened in Solomon’s realm. But it surely did not escape the wisdom of Solomon that oppression occurs at all times and with every people; the glaring colours, however, in which he describes them originate in the tragic time of the whole book. Besides, Solomon himself was accused, after his death, of oppressing his people, and his son confirms the charge [I (III) K., xii, 4 and 14]; moreover, long before him, Samuel spoke of the despotism of the future kings [I Sam. (K.), viii, 11 sq.]. Many miss in the book an indication of the past sins and the subsequent repentance of the king or, on the other hand, wonder that he discloses the mistakes of his life so openly. But if these readers considered vii, 27-29, they could not help sharing Solomon’s disgust at women’s intrigues and their consequences; if obedience towards God is inculcated in various ways, and if this (xii, 13) is regarded as man’s sole destination, the readers saw that the converted king feared the Lord; in chap. ii sensuality and luxury are condemned so vigorously that we may regard this passage as a sufficient expression of repentance. The openness, however, with which Solomon accuses himself only heightens the impression. This impression has at all times been so strong, precisely because it is the experienced, rich, and wise Solomon who brands the sinful aspirations of man as “vanity of vanities”. Again, what Qoheleth says of himself and his wisdom in xii, 9 sqq., cannot sound strange if it comes from Solomon, especially since in this passage he makes the fear of the Lord the essence of wisdom. The passages iv, 13; viii, 10; ix, 13; x, 4, are considered by some as referring to historical persons, which seems to me incorrect; at any rate, indications of so general a nature do not necessarily point to definite events and persons. Other commentators think they have discovered traces of Greek philosophy in the book; Qoheleth appears to be now a sceptic, now a stoic, now an epicurean; but these traces of Hellenism, if existing at all, are nothing more than remote resemblances too weak to serve as arguments. Cheyne (Job and Solomon) sufficiently refuted Tyler and Plumptre. That iii, 12, is a linguistic Græcism, has not been proved, because the common meaning of ‘sh twb is retained by many commentators; moreover, in II Sam. (K.), xii, 18, ‘sh r‘h means “to be sorry”; the verb, therefore, has about the same force as if we translated ‘sh twb by eû práttein.

As all the other internal proofs against the authorship of Solomon are not more convincing, we must listen to the voice of tradition, which has always attributed Ecclesiastes to him. The Jews doubted not its composition by Solomon, but objected to the reception, or rather retention, of the book in the canon; Hillel’s School decided definitely for its canonicity and inspiration. In the Christian Church Theodore of Mopsuestia and some others for a time obscured the tradition; all other witnesses previous to the sixteenth century favour the Solomonic authorship and the inspiration. The book itself bears testimony for Solomon, not only by the title, but by the whole tone of the discussion, as well as in i, 12; moreover, in xii, 9, Qoheleth is expressly called the author of many proverbs. The ancients never so much as suspected that here, as in the Book of Wisdom, Solomon only played a fictitious part. On the other hand, the attempt is made to prove that the details do not fit Solomon, and to contest his authorship with this single internal argument. The reasons adduced, however, are based upon textual explanations which are justly repudiated by others. Thus Hengstenberg sees (x, 16) in the king, “who is a child”, an allusion to the King of Persia; Grätz, to Herod the Idumæan; Reusch rightly maintains that the writer speaks of human experiences in general. From ix, 13-15, Hitzig concludes that the author lived about the year 200; Bernstein thinks this ridiculous and opines that some other historical event is alluded to. Hengstenberg regards this passage as nothing more than a parable; on this last view, also, the translation of the Septuagint is based (it has the subjunctive; ’élthe basileús, “there may come a king”). As a matter of fact, Qoheleth describes only what has happened or may happen somewhere “under the sun” or at some time; he does not speak of political situations, but of the experience of the individual; he has in view not his people alone, but mankind in general. If internal reasons are to decide the question of authorship, it seems to me that we might more justly prove this authorship of Solomon with more right from the remarkable passage about the snares of woman (vii, 27), a passage the bitterness of which is not surpassed by the warning of any ascetic; or from the insatiable thirst of Qoheleth for wisdom; or from his deep knowledge of men and the unusual force of his style. Considering everything we see no decisive reason to look for another author; on the contrary, the reasons which have been advanced against this view are for the greatest part so weak that in this question the influence of fashion is clearly discernible.

The time of the composition of our book is variously set down by the critics who deny the authorship of Solomon. Every period from Solomon to 200 has been suggested by them; there are even authorities for a later time; Grätz thinks that he has discovered clear proof that the book was written under King Herod (40-4 B.C.). This shows clearly how little likely the linguistic criterion and the other internal arguments are to lead to an agreement of opinion. If Solomon wrote Ecclesiastes towards the end of his life, the sombre tone of the book is easily explained; for the judgments of God (1 Kings 11) which then came upon him would naturally move him to sorrow and repentance, especially as the breaking up of his kingdom and the accompanying misery were then distinctly before his eyes (see vv. 29 sqq.; 40). Amid the sudden ruin of his power and splendour, he might well exclaim, “Vanity of vanities!”. But as God had promised to correct him “in mercy” (2 Samuel 7:14 sq.), the supposition of many ancient writers that Solomon was converted to God becomes highly probable. Then we also understand why his last book, or one of his last, consists of three thoughts: the vanity of earthly things, self-accusation, and emphatic admonition to obey the immutable decrees of Providence. The last was well suited to save the Israelites from despair, who were soon to behold the downfall of their power.

There is an unmistakable similarity between Ecclesiastes and the Canticle of Canticles, not only in the pithy shortness of the composition, but also in the emphatic repetition of words and phrases, in the boldness of the language, in the obscure construction of the whole, and in certain linguistic peculiarities (e.g. the use of the relative s). The loose succession of sententious thoughts, however, reminds us of the Book of Proverbs, whence the epilogue (xii, 9 sqq.) expressly refers to Qoheleth’s skill in parables. In the old lists of Biblical books, the place of Ecclesiastes is between Proverbs and the Canticle of Canticles: Sept., Talmud (Baba Bathra, xiv, 2), Orig., Mel., Concil. Laodic., etc., also in the Vulgate. Its position is different only in the Masoretic Bible, but, as is generally admitted, for liturgical reasons.

As to the contents, the critics attack the passages referring to the judgment and immortality: iii, 17; xi, 9; xii, 7; furthermore the epilogue, xii, 9 sqq., especially verses 13, 14; also some other passages. Bickell expressed the opinion that the folios of the original, while being stitched, were deranged and completely confused; his hypothesis found few advocates, and Euringer (Masorahtext des Qoheleth, Leipzig, 1890) maintains, in opposition to him, that books had not at that early date taken the place of rolls. There is not sufficient evidence to assume that the text was written in verse, as Zapletal does.

Owing to its literalism, the translation of the Septuagint is frequently unintelligible, and it seems that the translators used a corrupt Hebraic text. The Itala and the Coptic translation follow the Septuagint. The Peshito, though translated from the Hebrew, is evidently also dependent on the text of the Septuagint. This text, with the notes of Origen, partly forms the Greek and Syriac Hexapla. The Vulgate is a skilful translation made by Jerome from the Hebrew and far superior to his translation from the Greek (in his commentary). Sometimes we cannot accept his opinion (in vi, 9, he most likely wrote quid cupias, and in viii, 12, ex eo quod peccator). (See the remnants of the Hexapla of Origen in Field, Oxford, 1875; a paraphrase of the Greek text in St. Gregory Thaumaturgus, Migne, X, 987.) The Chaldean paraphrast is useful for controlling the Masoretic text; the Midrash Qoheleth is without value. The commentary of Olympiodorus is also serviceable (seventh century, M., XCIII, 477) and Œcumenius, “Catena” (Verona, 1532). A careful translation from the Hebrew was made about 1400 in the “Græca Veneta” (ed. Gebhardt, Leipzig, 1875).

———————————–

     In the Latin Church important commentaries were written, after the time of Jerome on whom many depend, by BONAVENTURA, NICOL, LYRANUS, DENYS THE CARTHUSIAN, and above all by PINEDA (seventeenth cent.), by MALDONATUS, CORNELIUS A LAPIDE, and BOSSUET.      Modern Catholic commentaries: SCHÄFER (Freiburg im Br., 1870); MOTAIS (Paris, 1876); RAMBOUILLET (Paris, 1877); GIETMANN (Paris, 1890); ZAPLETAL (Fribourg, Switzerland, 1905).      Protestant commentaries: ZÖCKLER, tr. TAYLOR (Edinburgh, 1872); BULLOCK, in Speaker’s Comment. (London, 1883); Cambridge Bible (1881); WRIGHT, (London, 1883); LEIMDÖRFER, (Hamburg, 1892); SIEGFRIED (Göttingen, 1898); WILDEBOER (Freiburg im Br., 1898).

G. GIETMANN Transcribed by WGKofron With thanks to St. Mary’s Church, Akron, Ohio

The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume VCopyright © 1909 by Robert Appleton CompanyOnline Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. KnightNihil Obstat, May 1, 1909. Remy Lafort, CensorImprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York

Fuente: Catholic Encyclopedia

Ecclesiastes

the fourth of the poetical books in the English arrangement of the O.T., and one of those usually attributed to Solomon. In the Hebrews Bible it is the seventh and last of the first part of the Hagio.graphi,, or fourth division of the Jewish Scriptures. In the Sept. and Vulg. it is placed between Proverbs and Canticles, as in the A.V. SEE BIBLE. It is the fourth of the five Megilloth (q.v.) or Rolls, as they are called by the Jews, being appointed to be read at the Feast of Tabernacles. The form of the book is poetico-didactic. Without the sublimity of the beautiful parallelism and rhythm which characterize the older poetic effusions of the inspired writings. The absence of vigor and charm is manifest even in the grandest portion of this book (Ecc 12:1-7), where the sacred writer rises above his usual level. (See generally, Bergst, in Eichhorn’s Bibliothek, 10:955-84; Paulus, in his Neues Repertorium, 1:201-65; Zirkel, Ueb. der Prediger, Wurzb, 1792; Umbreit, Coheleth scepticus, Gott. 1820; Stiebriz, Vindiciae Solomonis, Halle, 1760; Henzi, Ecclesiastes argumentum, Dorpat, 1827; Muhlert, Palaogr. Beitrage, page 182 sq.; Hartmann, in the Wien. Zeitschr. 1:29, 71; Ewald, Ueb. d. Prediger, Gott. 1826; Umbreit, in the Stud. u. Krit. 1849; Bruch, Weisheits-Lehre der Hebraer, Strasburg, 1851.) SEE SOLOMON.

I. Title. The Hebrew name is Kohe’leth, and is evidently taken from the designation which the writer himself assumes (Ecc 1:2; Ecc 1:2; Ecc 7:27; Ecc 12:8-10; Sept. , Vulg. ecclesiastes, Auth. Vers. “preacher”). It is the participle of , kahal’ (cognate with , voice, Greek , Eng. call), which properly signifies to call together a religious assembly (hence , a congregation). The apparent anomaly of the feminine termination indicates that the abstract noun has been transferred from the office to the person holding it (so the Arab. caliph, etc.; see Gesenius, Thes. Hebrews page 1199, 1200), and has thus become capable of use as a masculine proper name, a change of meaning of which we find other instances in Sophereth (Neh 7:57), Pochereth (Ezr 2:57); and hence, with the single exception of Ecc 7:27, the noun, notwithstanding its form, is used throughout in the masculine. Ewald, however (Poet. Buch. 4:189), connects the feminine termination with the noun (wisdom), understood, and supposes a poetic license in the use of the word as a kind of symbolic proper name appealing to Pro 30:1; Pro 31:1, as examples of a like usage. As connected with the root the word has been applied to one who speaks in an assembly, and there is, to say the least, a tolerable agreement in favor of this interpretation. Thus we have the comment of the Midrash, stating that the writer thus designates himself “because his words were spoken in the assembly (quoted in Preston’s Ecclesiastes, note on 1:1); the rendering by the Sept.; the adoption of this title by Jerome (Praf. in Eccl.), as meaning qui catum, i.e., ecclesiam congregat, quem nos nuncupare possumus Concionatorem;” the use of “Prediger” by Luther; of “Preacher” in the A.V. On the other hand, taking in the sense of collecting things, not of summoning persons, and led perhaps by his inability to see in the book itself any greater unity of design than in the chapters of Proverbs, Grotius (in Ecc 1:1) has suggested (compiler) as a better equivalent. In this he has been followed by Herder and Jahn, and Mendelssohn has adopted the same rendering (notes on Ecc 1:1, and Ecc 7:27, in Preston), seeing in it the statement partly that the writer had compiled the sayings of wise men who had gone before him, partly that he was, by an inductive process, gathering truths from the facts of a wide experience. The title of the hook, however, indicates that the author did not write only for a literary public, but that he had in view the whole congregation of the Lord; and that his doctrine was not confined within the narrow bounds of a school, but belonged to the Church in its whole extent (comp. Psa 49:2-4). Solomon, who in 1Ki 8:1-66 is described as gathering ( ) the people to hold communion with the Most High in the place which he erected for this purpose, is here again represented as the gatherer () of the people to the assembly of God. It must, however, be borne in mind that, though Solomon is animated by and represents Wisdom he does not lose his individuality. Hence he sometimes describes his own experience (compare Ecc 1:16-17; Ecc 2:9; Ecc 2:12; Ecc 7:23, etc.), and sometimes utters the words of Wisdom, whose organ he is, just as the apostles are sometimes the organs of the Holy Ghost (compare Act 15:28).

Against the common rendering of by preacher or Ecclesiastes, which is supported by Desvoeux, Gesenius, Knobel, Herzfeld, Stuart, etc., it has been urged:

1. The verb does not properly include the idea of preaching: such, however, would naturally be its derived import, inasmuch as popular assemblies are usually convened for the purpose of being addressed.

2. It ascribes to Solomon the office of preacher, which is nowhere mentioned in the Bible; it is too modern a title, and is inconsistent with his character, if not with the contents of the book: this, however, only applies to the title in its modern sense, and not to the above generic view.

3. It destroys the connection between the design of the book and the import of this symbolic name: this again depends upon the preconception as to the design of the book; the import, as above explained, is not unsuitable. Moreover,

a. Coheleth is neither a name of rank nor of office, but simply describes the act of gathering the people together, and can, therefore, not come within the rule which the advocates of the rendering preacher or Ecclesiastes are obliged to urge.

b. The construction of the feminine verb with it in Ecc 7:27, is incompatible with this view.

c. Abstracts are never formed from the active participle; and, d. There is not a single instance to be found where a concrete is first made an abract, and then again taken in a personal sense. These objections are too minute to be of much force, and are overruled by the peculiar use and application of this word, which occurs nowhere else.

The other explanations of Koheleth, viz., Gatherer or Acquirer of wisdom, and Solomon is called by this name because he gathered much wisdom (Rashi, Rashbam, etc.); Collector, Compiler, because he collected in this book divers experience, views, and maxims for the good of mankind (Grotius, Mayer, Mendelssohn, etc.); Eclectic, , a name given to him in this place because of his skill in selecting and purifying from the systems of different philosophers the amassed sentiments in this book (Rosenthal); Accumulated wisdom and this appellation is given to him because wisdom was accumulated in him (Aben-Ezra); The Reunited, the Gathered Soul and it describes his re-admission into the Church in consequence of his repentance (Cartwright, Bishop Reynolds, Granger, etc.); The Penitent and describes the contrite state of his heart for his apostasy (Cocceius, Schultens, etc.); An assembly, an academy and the first verse is to be translated “The sayings of the academy of the son of David” (Doderlein, Nachtigal, etc.); An old man and Solomon indicates by the name Koheleth his weakness of mind when, yielding to his wives, he worshipped idols (Simonis Lex. Hebrews s.v.; Schmidt, etc.); Exclaiming Voice, analogous to the title assumed by John the Baptist and the words of the inscription ought to be rendered, “The words of the voice of one exclaiming” (De Dieu); Sophist, according to the primitive signification of the word, which implied a combination of philosophy and rhetoric (Desvoeux); Philosopher or Moralist (Spohn, Gaab, etc.); The departed spirit of Solomon introduced as speaking throughout this book in the form of a shadow (Augusti, Einleit in d. A.T. page 240); Koheleth is the feminine gender, because it refers to , the intellectual soul, which is understood (Rashi, Rashbam, Ewald, etc.); it is to show the great excellency of the preacher, or his charming style which this gender indicates (Lorinus, Zirkel, etc.), because a preacher travails, as it were, like a mother, in the spiritual birth of his children, and has tender and motherly affection for his people, a similar expression being found in Gal 4:19 (Pineda, Mayer, etc.); it is to describe the infirmity of Solomon, who appears here as worn out by old age (Mercer, Simonis, etc.); it is used in a neuter sense, because departed spirits have no specific gender (Augusti); the termination is not at all feminine, but, as in Arabic, is used as an auxesis; etc., etc., etc. We believe that the simple enumeration of these views will tend to show their vagueness, fancifulness, and inappropriateness. (See Dindorf, Quomodo nomen Cohelet Salomoni tribuatur, Lpz. 1791.)

II. Author and Date. These have usually been regarded as determined by the account that the writer gives of himself in chapter 1 and 2, that it was written by the only ” son of David” (Ecc 1:1), who was ” king over Israel in Jerusalem” (Ecc 1:12). According to this, we have in it what may well be called the Confessions of king Solomon, the utterance of a repentance which some have even ventured to compare with that of the 51st psalm. This authorship is corroborated by the unquestionable allusions made throughout the book to particular circumstances connected with the life of the great monarch (compare Ecc 1:16, etc., with 1Ki 3:12; Ecc 2:4-10, with 1 Kings 5:27-32; 1Ki 7:1-8; 1Ki 9:7-19; 1Ki 10:14-29; Ecc 7:20, with 1Ki 8:46; Ecc 12:9, with 1Ki 4:32). Additional internal evidence has been found for this belief in the language of Ecc 7:26-28, as harmonizing with the history of 1Ki 11:3, and in an interpretation (somewhat forced perhaps) which refers Ecc 4:13-15 to the murmurs of the people against Solomon, and the popularity of Jeroboam as the leader of the people, already recognized as their future king (Mendelssohn and Preston in loc.). The belief that Solomon was actually the author was, it need hardly be said, received generally by the Rabbinic commentators, and the whole series of Patristic writers. The apparent exceptions to this in the passages by Talmudic writers, which ascribe it to Hezekiah (Baba Bathra, c. 1, fol. 15) or Isaiah (Shalsh. Hakkab. fol. 66 b, quoted by Michaelis), can hardly be understood as implying more than a share in the work of editing, like that claimed for the “men of Hezekiah” in Pro 25:1. Grotius (Praef. in Eccles.) was indeed almost the first writer who called it in question, and started a different hypothesis.

It may seem as if the whole question were settled for all who recognize the inspiration of Scripture by the statement, in a canonical and inspired book, as to its own authorship. The book purports, it is said (Preston, Proleg. in Ecclesiastes page 5), to be written by Solomon, and to doubt the literal accuracy of this statement is to call in question the truth and authority of Scripture. To many it has appeared questionable, however, whether we can admit an a priori argument of this character to be decisive. The hypothesis that every such statement in a canonical book must be received as literally true, is, in fact, an assumption that inspired writers were debarred from forms of composition which were open without blame to others. In the literature of every other nation the form of personated authorship, where there is no animus decipiendi, has been recognized as a legitimate channel for the expression of opinions or the quasi-dramatic representation of character. Hence it has been asked, Why should we venture on the assertion that, if adopted by the writers of the Old Testament, it would have made them guilty of a falsehood, and been inconsistent with their inspiration? The question of authorship does not involve that of canonical authority. A book written by Solomon would not necessarily be inspired and canonical. It is said that there is nothing that need startle us in the thought that an inspired writer might use a liberty which has been granted without hesitation to the teachers of mankind in every age and country. Accordingly, the advocates of a different authorship for the book in question than that of Solomon feel themselves at liberty to discard these statements of the text as mere literary devices.

They argue that in like manner the book which bears the title of the “Wisdom of Solomon” asserts, both by its title and its language (Ecc 7:1-21), a claim to the same authorship, and, though the absence of a Hebrew original led to its exclusion from the Jewish canon, the authorship of Solomon was taken for granted by all the early Christian writers who quote it or refer to it, till Jerome had asserted the authority of the Hebrew text as the standard of canonicity, and by not a few afterwards. But in reply to this it may justly be said that the traditional character of the two books is so different as to debar any comparison of this kind. SEE WISDOM, BOOK OF.

The following specific objections have been urged against the Solomonic and for the personated authorship of this book.

1. All the other reputed writings of Solomon have his name in the inscription (compare Pro 1:1; Son 1:1; Psa 78:1-72), whereas in this book the name of Solomon is studiously avoided, thus showing that it does not claim him as its actual author. Yet he gives other equally decisive intimations of his identity, and the peculiar character of the work sufficiently accounts for this partial concealment. Moreover, in some of his other undoubted writings he employs similar noms de plume (Pro 30:1; Pro 31:1).

2. The symbolic and impersonal name Koheleth shows that Solomon is simply introduced in an ideal sense as the representative of wisdom. On the other hand, it appears to have an equally tangible application to him historically.

3. This is indicated by the sacred writer himself, who represents Solomon as belonging to the past, inasmuch as he makes this great monarch say, “I was () king,” but had long ago ceased to be king when this was written. That this is intended by the praeterite has been acknowledged from time immemorial (comp. Midrash Rabba, Midrash Jalkut in loc.; Talmud, Gittin, 68 b; the Chaldee paraphrase, 1:12; Midrash, Maase, Bi-Shloma, Ha-Melech, ed. Jellinek in Beth Ha-Midrash, 2:35; Rashi on 1:12). Yet it does not necessarily require that interpretation, but may naturally be understood as simply referring to past incidents, e.g. “I have been [and still am] king.” The passage certainly gives no support to the idea of a fanciful authorship.

4. This is moreover corroborated by various statements in the book, which would otherwise be irreconcilable, e.g. Koheleth comparing himself with a long succession of kings who reigned over Israel in Jerusalem (Ecc 1:16; Ecc 2:7): the term king in Jerusalem (ibid.) showing that at the time when this was written there was a royal residence in Samaria; the recommendation to individuals not to attempt to resent the oppression of a tyrannical ruler, but to wait for a general revolt (Ecc 8:2-9) a doctrine which a monarch like Solomon is not likely to propound; the description of a royal spendthrift, and of the misery he inflicts upon the land (Ecc 10:16-19), which Solomon would not give unless he intended to write a satire upon himself. These historical allusions are too vague to be thus pressed into service. As to the political references, we know (1Ki 11:14; 1Ki 11:23) that insurrectionary manifestations did exist in Solomon’s reign, and were aggravated by his rigid and exacting government (1Ki 12:4). It has been asked whether Solomon would have been likely to speak of himself as in Ecc 1:12, or to describe with bitterness the misery and wrong of which his own misgovernment had been the cause, as in Ecc 3:16; Ecc 4:1 (Jahn, Einl. 2:840). On the hypothesis that he was the writer, the whole book is in acknowledgment of evils which he had occasioned, while yet there is no distinct confession and repentance. There are forms of satiety and self- reproach, of which this half sad, half scornful retrospect of a man’s own life this utterance of bitter words by which he is condemned out of his own mouth is the most natural expression. Any individual judgment on this point cannot, from the nature of the case, be otherwise than subjective, and ought therefore to bias our estimate of other evidence as little as possible.

5. The state of oppression, sufferings, and misery depicted in this book (Ecc 4:1-4; Ecc 5:7; Ecc 8:1-4; Ecc 8:10-11; Ecc 10:5-7; Ecc 10:20, etc.) cannot be reconciled with the age of Solomon, and unquestionably shows that the Jews were then groaning under the grinding tyranny of Persia. There are sudden and violent changes, the servant of today becoming the ruler of tomorrow (Ecc 10:5-7). All this, it is said, agrees with the glimpses into the condition of the Jews under the Persian empire in Ezra and Nehemiah, and with what we know as to the general condition of the provinces under its satraps. But we cannot suppose that these evils, which have been prevalent in all times, were alluded to as specially characteristic of the writer’s day.

6. The fact that Koheleth is represented as indulging in sensual enjoyments, and acquiring riches and fame in order to ascertain what is good for the children of men (Ecc 2:3-9; Ecc 3:12; Ecc 3:22, etc.), making philosophical experiments to discover the summum bonumis held to be at variance with the conduct of the historical Solomon, and to be an idea of a much later period. In like manner, the admonition not to seek divine things in the profane books of the philosophers (Ecc 12:12) are thought to show that this book was written when the speculation of Greece and Alexandria had found their way into Palestine. In short, the doctrine of a future bar of judgment, whereby Koheleth solves the grand problem of this book, when compared with the vague and dim intimations respecting a. future state in the pre-exilian portions of the O.T., is regarded as proving that it is apost-exilian production. But the untrustworthy character of these arguments is evinced by the parallel case of the book of Job (q.v.). It is also urged that the indications of the religious condition of the people, their formalism and much speaking (Ecc 5:1-2), their readiness to evade the performance of their Vows by casuistic excuses (Ecc 5:5), represent in like manner the growth of evils, the germs of which appeared soon after the captivity, and which we find in a fully-developed form in the prophecy of Malachi. In addition to this general resemblance, there is the agreement between the use of for the “angel” or priest of God (Ecc 5:6, Ewald, in loc.), and the recurrence in Malachi of the terms , the “angel” or messenger of the Lord, as a synonym for the priest (Mal 2:7), the true priest being the great agent in accomplishing God’s purposes. Significant, though not conclusive in either direction, is the absence of all reference to any contemporaneous prophetic activity or to any Messianic hopes. This might indicate a time before such hopes had become prevalent, or after they were for a time extinguished. It might, on the other hand, be the natural result of the experience through which the son of David had passed, or fitly take its place in the dramatic personation of such a character. The use throughout the book of Elohim instead of Jehovah as the divine name, though characteristic of the book as dealing with the problems of the universe rather than with the relations between the Lord God of Israel and his people, and therefore striking as an idiosyncrasy, leaves the question as to date nearly where it was. The indications of rising questions as to the end of man’s life and the constitution of his nature, of doubts like those which afterwards developed into Sadduceeism (Ecc 3:19-21), of a copious literature connected with those questions, confirm, it is urged (Ewald), the hypothesis of the later date. It may be added, too, that the absence of any reference to such a work as this in the enumeration of Solomon’s writings in 1Ki 4:32, tends, at least, to the same conclusion. But such considerations drawn a silentio are highly inconclusive.

7. The strongest argument, however, against the Solomonic authorship of this book is its vitiated language and style. It is written throughout with peculiarities of phraseology which developed themselves about the time of the Babylonian captivity. So convincing is this fact, that not only have Grotius, J.D. Michaelis, Eichhorn, Doderlein, Spohn, Jahn, J.E.C. Schmidt, Nachtigal, Kaiser, Rosenmuller, Ewald, Knobel, Gesenius, De Wette, Noyes, Hitzig, Heiligstedt, Davidson, Meier, etc., relinquished the Solomonic authorship, but even such unquestionably orthodox writers as Umbreit, Hengstenberg, Gerlach, Vaihinger, Stuart, Keil, Elster, etc., declare most emphatically that the book was written after the Babylonian captivity; and there is hardly a chief rabbi or a literary Jew to be found who would have the courage to maintain that Solomon wrote Koheleth. Dr. Herzfeld, chief rabbi of Brunswick; Dr. Philippson, chief rabbi of Magdeburg; Dr. Geiger, rabbi of Breslau; Dar. Zunz, Professor Luzzatto, Dr. Krochmal, Steinschneider, Jost, Gratz, Furst, and a host of others, affirm that this book is one of the latest productions in the O.T. canon. We are moreover reminded that these are men to whom the Hebrew is almost vernacular, and that some of them write better Hebrew, and in a purer style, than that of Koheleth. With most readers, however, a single intimation of the text itself will weigh more than the opinion of these or all other learned men. On the other hand, the Rabbinical scholars, who certainly were not inferior in a knowledge of Hebrew, appear to have found no difficulty in attributing this book to Solomon. Most of those above enumerated are of very questionable sentiments on a point like this, and it must be borne in mind that a very large, if not equal, amount of learning has been arrayed on the opposite side. The last of the above objections, however, deserves a more minute consideration.

Many opponents of the Solomonic authorship of Ecclesiastes have certainly gone much too far in their assertions respecting the impurity of its language. The Graecisms which Zirkle thought that he had found have now generally been given up. The Rabbinisms likewise could not stand the proof. The words, significations, and forms which seem to appertain to a later period of Hebrew literature, and the Chaldaisms, an abundance of which Knobel gathered, require, as Herzfeld has shown (in his Commentary, published at Braunschweig, 1838, page 13 sq.), to be much sifted. According to Herzfeld, there are in Ecclesiastes not more than between eleven and fifteen “young Hebrew” expressions and constructions, and between eight and ten Chaldaisms. Nevertheless, it is certain that the book does not belong to the productions of the first, but rather to the second period of the Hebrew language. This alone would not fully disprove the authorship of Solomon, for it would not necessarily throw the production into the latest period of Hebrew literature. We could suppose that Solomon, in a philosophical work, found the pure Hebrew language to be insufficient, and had, therefore, recourse to the Chaldaizing popular dialect, by which, at a later period, the book-language was entirely displaced. This supposition could not be rejected a priori, since almost every one of the Hebrew authors before the exile did the same, although in a less degree. It has been thought, however, that the striking difference between the language of Ecclesiastes and the language of the Proverbs renders that explanation quite inadmissible. This difference would prove little if the two books belonged to two entirely different classes of literature that is, if Ecclesiastes bore the same relation to the Proverbs as the Song of Solomon does; but since Ecclesiastes and the Proverbs belong essentially to the same class, the argument taken from the difference of style, can only be avoided by attributing it to the effect of greater age in the writer. The occurrence of Chaldee words and forms in any Hebrew document is by no means a certain and invariable indication of lateness of composition. We must be careful to distinguish archaisms, and words and forms peculiar to the poetic style, from Chaldaisms of the later period. Moreover, the Hebrew writings which have been transmitted to us being so few in number, it is of course much more difficult decisively to determine the period to which any of these writings belongs by the peculiar form of language which it presents, than it would have been had there been preserved to us a larger number of documents of different ages to assist us in forming our decision. Still, from the materials within our reach, scanty though they are, we would naturally draw a conclusion as to the age of the book of Ecclesiastes, not altogether certain, indeed, but decidedly unfavorable to an early date; for it needs but a cursory survey of the book to convince us that in language and style it not only differs widely from the other writings of the age of Solomon, but bears a very marked resemblance to the latest books of the Old Testament.

1. One class of words employed by the writer of Ecclesiastes we find rarely employed in the earlier books of Scripture, frequently in the later, i.e., in those written during or after the Babylonish captivity. Thus shalat’, , he ruled (Ecc 2:19; Ecc 5:18; Ecc 6:2; Ecc 8:9), is found elsewhere only in Nehemiah and Esther. The derived noun , shilton’, rule (Ecc 8:4; Ecc 8:8), is found only in the Chaldee of Daniel; but , shallit’, ruler, appears once in the earlier Scriptures (Gen 42:6). Under this head may also be mentioned , malkuth’, kingdom (Ecc 4:14), rare in the earlier Scriptures, but found above forty times in Esther and Daniel; and , medinah’, province (Ecc 2:8; Ecc 5:7), which appears also in Esther, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, and likewise in 1Ki 20:14-19, where “princes of the provinces” are mentioned among the officers of king Ahab, but in none of the earlier Scriptures.

2. A second class includes those words which are never found in any Hebrew writing of earlier date than the Babylonian captivity, but are found in the later books: as , zesnan’, set time (Ecc 3:1) = , which we meet with in Hebrew only in Neh 2:6 and Est 9:27; Est 9:31, but in the biblical Chaldee and in the Targums frequently; , pithyam’, sentence (Ecc 8:11), which appears in Hebrew only in Est 1:20, but in Chaldee frequently. (If this word be, as is commonly supposed, of Persian origin, its appearance only in the later Jewish writings is at once accounted for. See Rediger’s Additions to Gesenius’ Thesaurus.) madda’ (Ecc 10:20), a derivative of , to know, found only in 2 Chronicles and Daniel, and also in Chaldee; and the particles illu’, if (Ecc 6:6), and beken’, then, so (Ecc 8:10), found in no earlier Hebrew book than Esther. From this enumeration it appears that the book of Ecclesiastes resembles the book of Esther in some of the most distinctive peculiarities of its language.

3. A third class embraces those words which are not found even in the Hebrew writings of the latest period, but only in the Chaldee of Daniel and Ezra, or in the Targums, as yithron’, profit, which is used nine times in Ecclesiastes, never in any other scriptural writing, but frequently in the Targums, under the slightly modified form yuthran; so also kebar’, already, long ago, which recurs eight times in this book; , takan’ (Ecc 1:15; Ecc 7:13; Ecc 12:9), found also in Chaldee (Dan 4:33, etc.); reuth’, desire, recurring five times, and also in the Chaldee portions of Ezra; (Ecc 1:17, etc.), (Ecc 1:13, etc.), (Ecc 10:8).

4. Other peculiarities, such as the frequent use of the participle, the rare appearance of the “vav consecutive,” the various uses of the relative particle, concur with the characteristics already noted in affixing to the language and style of this book the stamp of that transition period when the Hebrew language, soon about to give place to the Chaldee, had already lost its ancient purity, and become debased by the absorption of many Chaldee elements. The prevalence of abstract forms again, characteristic of the language of Ecclesiastes, is urged as belonging to a later period than that of Solomon in the development of Hebrew thought and language. The answers given to these objections by the defenders of the received belief are (Preston, Ecclesiastes page 7),

(a) that many of what we call Aramaic or Chaldee forms may have belonged to the period of pure Hebrew, though they have not come down to us in any extant writings; and

(b) that so far as they are foreign to the Hebrew of the time of Solomon, he may have learned them from his “strange wives,” or from the men who came as ambassadors from other countries. (See Davidson, Horne’s Introd. new ed. 2:787).

As to the date of Ecclesiastes, these arguments of recent criticism are stronger against the traditional belief than in support of any rival theory, and the advocates of that belief might almost be content to rest their case upon the discordant hypotheses of their opponents. On the assumption that the book belongs, not to the time of Solomon, but to the period subsequent to the captivity, the dates which have been assigned to it occupy a range of more than 300 years. Grotius supposes Zerubbabel to be referred to in Ecc 12:11, as the “One Shepherd” (Comm. in Ecclesiastes in loc.), and so far agrees with Keil (Einleitung in das A.T.). who fixes it in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah. Ewald and De Wette conjecture the close of the period of Persian or the commencement of that of Macedonian rule; Bertholdt, the period between Alexander the Great and Antiochus Epiphanes; Hitzig, circ. B.C. 204; Hartmann, the time of the Maccabees, etc. The following table will show the different periods to which it has been assigned:

(B.C.) Nachtigal, between Solomon and Jeremiah 975-588 Schmidt, Jahn, etc., between Manasseh and Zedekiah 699-588 Grotius, Kaiser, Eichhorn, etc., shortly after the exile 536-500 Umbreit, the Persian period 538-333 Van der Hardt, in the reign of Xerxes II and Darius 464-404 Rosenmuller, between Nehemiah and Alexander the Great 450-333 Hengstenberg, Stuart, Keil 433 Ewald, a century before Alexander the Great 430 Gerlach, about the year 400 De Wette, Nobel, etc., at the end of the Persian and the beginning of the Macedonian period 350-300 Bergst, during Alexander’s sojourn in Palestine 333 Bertholdt, between Alexander and Ant. Epiphanes 333-164 Zirkel, the Syrian period 312-164 Hitzig, about the year 204 Supposing it were proved that Solomon is only introduced as the speaker, the question arises why the another adopted this form. The usual reply is, that Solomon, among the Israelites, had, as it were, the prerogative of wisdom, and hence the author was induced to put into Solomon’s mouth that wisdom which he intended to proclaim, without the slightest intention of forging a supposititious volume. This reply contains some truth, but it does not exhaust the matter. The chief object of the author was to communicate wisdom in general; but next to this, as appears from Ecc 1:12 sq., he intended to inculcate the vanity of human pursuits. Now, from the mouth of no one could more aptly proceed the proclamation of the nothingness of all earthly things than from the mouth of Solomon, who had possessed them in all their fullness; at whose command were wisdom, riches, and pleasures in abundance, and who had therefore full opportunity to experience the nothingness of all that is earthly. On the other hand, if we adopt the traditional view that Solomon was the author, we avoid all these doubtful expedients and pious frauds; and, as no other candidate appears, we shall be safest in coinciding with that ancient opinion. The peculiarities of diction may be explained (as in the book of Job) by supposing that the work was written by Solomon during a season of penitence at the close of his life, and edited in its present form, at a later period, perhaps by Ezra.

III. Canonicity. The earliest catalogues which the Jews have transmitted to us of their sacred writings give this book as forming part of the canon (Mishna, Yadaim, 3:5; Talmud, Baba Bathra, 14). All the ancient versions, therefore viz. the Septuagint, which was made before the Christian aera; the versions of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, which belong to the second century of Christianity, as well as the catalogue of Melito, bishop of Sardis (fl. A.D. 170) include Ecclesiastes. Some singular passages in the Talmud indicate, however, that the recognition was not altogether unhesitating, and that it was at least questioned how far the book was one which it was expedient to place among the Scriptures that were read publicly. Thus we find the statements (Mishna, Shabbath, c.x, quoted by Mendelssohn in Preston, page 74; Midrash, fol. 114 a; Preston, page 13) that “the wise men sought to secrete the book Koheleth, because they found in it words tending to heresy,” and ” words contradictory to each other;” that the reason they did not secrete it was “because its beginning and end were consistent with the law;” that when they examined it more carefully they came to the conclusion, “We have looked closely into the book Koheleth, and discovered a meaning in it.” The chief interest of such passages is of course connected with the inquiry into the plan and teaching of the book, but they ate of some importance also as indicating that it must have commended itself to the teachers of an earlier generation either on account of the external authority by which it was sanctioned, or because they had a clearer insight into its meaning, and were less startled by its apparent difficulties. (See Bab. Megilla, 7, a; Bab. Talm. Sabbath, 30, a; Midrash, Vayikra Rabba, 28; Mishna, Edayoth, Ecc 1:3; Jerome, Comment. 12:13.) Traces of this controversy are to be found in a singular discussion between the schools of Shammai and Hillel, turning on the question whether the book Koheleth were inspired, and in the comments on that question by R. Ob. de Bartenora and Maimonides (Surenhus. 4:349).

Within the Christian Church, the divine inspiration of Ecclesiastes, the Proverbs, and the Song of Solomon was denied by Theodorus of Mopsuestia. In recent times, the accusers of Ecclesiastes have been Augusti, De Wette, and Knobel; but their accusations are based on mere misunderstandings. They are especially as follows:

1. The author is said to incline towards a moral epicurism. All his ethical admonitions and doctrines tend to promote the comforts and enjoyments’ of life. But let us consider above all what tendency and disposition it is to which the author addresses his admonition, serenely and contentedly to enjoy God’s gifts. He addresses this admonition to that speculation which will not rest before it has penetrated the: whole depth of the inscrutable councils of God; to that murmuring which bewails the badness of times, and quarrels with God about the sufferings of our terrene existence; to that gloomy piety which wearies itself in imaginary good works and external strictness, with a view to wrest salvation from God; to that avarice which gathers, not knowing for whom; making the means of existence our highest aim; building upon an uncertain futurity which is in the hand of God alone. When the author addresses levity he speaks: quite otherwise. For instance, in Ecc 7:2; Ecc 7:4, ” It is better to go to the house of mourning than to the house of feasting; for that is the end of all men; and the living will lay it to his heart. Sorrow is better than laughter, for by the sadness of the countenance the heart is made better. The heart of the wise man is in the house of mourning, but the heart of fools is in the house of mirth.” The nature of the joy recommended by the author is also misunderstood. Unrestrained merriment and giddy sensuality belong to those vanities which our author enumerates. He says to laughter, Thou art mad, and to joy, What art thou doing? He says, Ecc 7:5-6, “It is better to hear the rebuke of the wise than for a man to hear the song of fools.’ For as the crackling of thorns under a pot, so is the laughter of a fool; this also is vanity.” That joy which he recommends is joy in God. It is not the opposite, but the fruit of the fear of God. How inseparable these are is shown in passages like Ecc 5:6; Ecc 7:18; Ecc 3:12 : “I know that there is no good in them, but for a man to rejoice, and to do good in his life ,” and in many similar passages, but especially Ecc 11:9-10; Ecc 12:1, “Remember now thy Creator in the days of thy youth,” etc. In reference to these passages Ewald says (page 186), “Finally, in order to remove every doubt, and to speak with perfect clearness, he directs us to the eternal judgment of God, concerning all the doings of man, and inculcates that man, in the midst of momentary enjoyment, should never forget the whole futurity, the account and the consequences of his doings, the Creator and the Judge.” Ewald adds (page 227), in reference to the conclusion, ” In order to obviate every possible misunderstanding of this writing, there is, Ecc 12:13, once more briefly indicated that its tendency is not, by the condemnation of murmuring, to recommend an unbridled life, but rather to teach, in harmony with the best old books, the fear of God, in which the whole man consists, or that true singleness of life, satisfying the whole man, and which comprehends everything else that is truly human. It is very necessary to limit the principle of joy which this book recommends again and again in various ways and in the most impressive manner, and to refer this joy to a still higher truth, since it is so liable to be misunderstood.

2. It is objected that in his views concerning the government of the world the author was strongly inclined to fatalism, according to which everything in this world progresses with an eternally unchangeable step; and that he by this fatalism was

3. misled into a moral skepticism, having attained on his dogmatical basis the conviction of the inability of man, notwithstanding all his efforts, to reach his aim. However, this so-called fatalism of our author is nothing else but what our Lord teaches (Mat 6:25): ‘Take no thought,’ etc. And as to the moral skepticism, our author certainly inculcates that man with all his endeavors can do nothing; but at the same time he recommends the fear of God as the never-failing means of salvation. Man in himself can do nothing, but in God he can do all. It is quite clear from Ecc 7:16; Ecc 7:18, where both self-righteousness and wisdom, when separated from God, are described as equally destructive, and opposite to them is placed the fear of God, as being their common antithesis, that our author, by pointing to the sovereignty of God, did not mean to undermine morality: ‘He that feareth God comes out from them all.’ If our author were given to moral skepticism, it would be impossible for him to teach retribution, which he inculcates in numerous passages, and which are not contradicted by others, in which he says that the retribution in individual circumstances is frequently obscure and enigmatical. Where is that advocate for retribution who is not compelled to confess this as well as our author?

4. This book has given offense also, by Ecc 3:21, and similar passages, concerning immortality. But the assertion that there is expressed here some doubt concerning the immortality of the soul is based on a wrong grammatical perception. The cannot, according to its punctuation, be the interrogative, but must be the article, and our author elsewhere asserts positively hiss belief in the doctrine of immortality (Ecc 12:7). How it happens that he did not give to this doctrine a prevailing influence upon his mode of treating his subject has lately been investigated by Heyder, in his essay entitled Ecclesiastae de imortalitate Animi Sententia (Erlangen, 1838).” (See Dr. Nordheimer, on The Philosophy of Ecclesiastes, in the Amer. Bib. Repos. July, 1838.)

IV. Plan and Contents. The book of Ecclesiastes comes before us as being conspicuously, among the writings of the O.T., the great stumbling- block of commentators. Elsewhere there are different opinions as to the meaning of different passages. Here there is the widest possible divergence as to the plan and purpose of the whole book. The passages already quoted from the Mishna show that some, at least, of the Rabbinical writers were perplexed by its teaching did not know what to make of it but gave way to the authority of men more discerning than themselves. The traditional statement, however, that this was among the Scriptures which were not read by any one under the age of thirty (Crit. Sac. Amama in Eccles., but with a “nescio ubi” as to his authority), indicates the continuance of the old difficulty, and the remarks of Jerome (Praef. in Eccles., Comm. in Ecc 12:13) show that it was not forgotten. Little can be gathered from the series of Patristic interpreters. The book is comparatively seldom quoted by them. No attempt is made to master its plan and to enter into the spirit of its writer. The charge brought by Philastrius of Brescia (circ. A.D. 380) against some heretics who rejected it as teaching a false morality, shows that the, obscurity which had been a stumbling-block to Jewish teachers was not removed for Christians. The fact that Theodore of Mopsuestia was accused at the fifth general council of calling in question the authority and inspiration of this book, as well as of the Canticles, indicates that in this respect, as in others, he was the precursor of the spirit of modern criticism. But, with these exceptions, there are no traces that men’s minds were drawn to examine the teachings of this book. When, however, we descend to the more recent developments of criticism, we meet with an almost incredible divergence of opinion. Luther, with his broad, clear insight into the workings of a man’s heart sees in it (Praef. in Eccle.) a noble “Politica vel OEconomica,” leading men in the midst of all the troubles’ and disorders of human society to a true endurance and reasonable enjoyment. Grotius (Praef. in Eccles.) gives up the attempt to trace in it a plan or order of thought, and finds in it only a collection of many maxims, connected more or less closely with the great problems of human life, analogous to the discussion of the different definitions of happiness at the opening of the Nicomachean Ethics. Some (of whom Warburton may be taken as the type, Works, 4:154) have seen in the language of Ecc 2:18-21, a proof that the belief in the immortality of the soul was no part of the transmitted creed of Israel. Others (Patrick, Des Voeux, Davidson, Mendelssohn) contend that the special purpose of the book was to assert that truth against the denial of a sensual skepticism. Others, the later Germans critics, of whom Ewald may be taken as the highest and best type, reject these views as partial and one- sided; and, while admitting that the book contains the germs of later systems, both Pharisaic and Sadducaean, assert that the object of the writer was to point out the secret of a true blessedness, in the midst of all the distractions and sorrows of the world, as consisting in a tranquil, calm enjoyment of the good that comes from God (Poet. Buch. 4:180).

The variety of these opinions indicates sufficiently that the book is as far removed as possible from the character of a formal treatise. It is simply what it professes to be the confession of a man of wide experience looking back upon his past life, and looking out upon the disorders and calamities which surround him. Such a man does not set forth his premises and conclusions with a logical completeness. While it may be true that the absence of a formal arrangement is characteristic of the Hebrew mind in all stages of its development (Lowth, De Sac. Poet. Heb. Proel. 24), or that it was the special mark of the declining literature of the period that followed the captivity (Ewald, Poet. Buch. 4:177), it is also true that it belongs generally to all writings that are addressed to the spiritual rather than the intellectual element in man’s nature, and that it is found accordingly in many of the greatest works that have influenced the spiritual life of mankind. In proportion as a man has passed out of the region of traditional, easily-systematized knowledge, and has lived under the influence of great thoughts possessed by them, yet hardly mastering them so as to bring them under a scientific classification are we likely to find this apparent want of method. The true utterances of such a man are the records of his struggles after truth, of his occasional glimpses of it, of his ultimate discovery. The treatise De imitatione Christi, the Pensees of Pascal, Augustine’s Confessions, widely as they differ in other points, have this feature in common. If the writer consciously reproduces the stages through which he has passed, the form he adopts may either be essentially dramatic, or it may record a statement of the changes which have brought him to his present state, or it may repeat and renew the oscillations from one extreme to another which had marked that earlier experience. The writer of Ecclesiastes has adopted and interwoven both the latter methods, and hence, in part, the obscurity which has made it so pre-eminently the stumbling-block of commentators. He is not a didactic moralist writing a homily on virtue. He is not a prophet delivering a message from the Lord of Hosts to a sinful people. He is a man who has sinned in giving way to selfishness and sensuality, who has paid the penalty of that sin in satiety and weariness of life; in Whom the mood of spirit, over-reflective, indisposed to action, of which Shakespeare has given us in Hamlet, Jacques, Richard II, three distinct examples, has become dominant in its darkest form, but who has through all this been under the discipline of a divine education, and has learnt from it the lesson which God meant to teach him. What that lesson was will be seen from an examination of the book itself.

Leaving it an open question whether it is possible to arrange the contents of this book (as Koster and Vaihinger have done) in a carefully balanced series of strophes and antistrophes, it is tolerably clear that the recurring burden of “Vanity of vanities” and the teaching which recommends a life of calm enjoyment, mark, whenever they occur, a kind of halting-place in the succession of thoughts. It is the summing up of one cycle of experience; the sentence passed upon one phase of life. Taking this, accordingly, as our guide, we may look upon the whole book as falling into four divisions, each, to a certain extent, running parallel with the others in its order and results, and closing with that which, in its position no less than its substance, is “the conclusion of the whole matter.”

1. Ecc 1:1-18; Ecc 2:1-26. This portion of the book, more than any other, has the character of a personal confession; The Preacher starts with reproducing the phase of despair and weariness into which his experience had led him (Ecc 1:2-3). To the man who is thus satiated with life, the order and regularity of nature are oppressive (Ecc 1:4-7); nor is he led, as in the 90th Psalm, from the things that are transitory to the thought of One whose years are from eternity. In the midst of the ever- recurring changes he finds no progress. That which seems to be new is but the repetition of the old (Ecc 1:8-11). Then, having laid bare the depth to which he had fallen, he retraces the path by which he had traveled thitherward. First he had sought after wisdom as that to which God seemed to call him (Ecc 1:13) but the pursuit of it was a sore travail, and there was no satisfaction in its possession. It could not remedy the least real evil, nor make the crooked straight (Ecc 1:15). The first experiment in the search after happiness had failed, and he tried another. It was one to which men of great intellectual gifts and high fortunes ere continually tempted to surround himself with all the appliances of sensual enjoyment, and yet in thought to hold himself above it (Ecc 2:1-9), making his very voluptuousness part of the experience which was to enlarge his store of wisdom. This which one may perhaps call the Goethean idea of life was what now possessed him. But this also failed to give him peace (Ecc 2:11). Had he not then exhausted all human experience and found it profitless? (Ecc 2:12). If for a moment he found comfort in the thought that wisdom excelleth folly, and that he was wise (Ecc 2:13-14), it was soon darkened again by the thought of death (Ecc 2:15). The wise man dies as the fool (Ecc 2:16). This is enough to make even him who has wisdom hate all his labor and sink into the outer darkness of despair (Ecc 2:20). Yet this very despair leads to the remedy. The first section closes with that which, in different forms, is the main lesson of the book to make the best of what is actually around one (Ecc 2:24) to substitute for the reckless, feverish pursuit of pleasure the calm enjoyment which men may yet find both for the senses and the intellect. This, so far as it goes, is the secret of a true life; this is from the hand of God. On everything else there is written, as before, the sentence that it is vanity and vexation of spirit.

2. Ecc 2:1-6; Ecc 2:9. The order of thought in this section has a different starting-point. One who looked out upon the infinitely varied phenomena of man’s life might yet discern, in the midst of that variety, traces of an order. There are times, and seasons for each of them, in their turn even as there are for the vicissitudes of the world of nature (Ecc 3:1-8). The heart of man, with its changes, is the mirror of the universe (Ecc 3:11), and is, like that, inscrutable. And from this there comes the same conclusion as from the personal experience. Calmly to accept the changes and chances of life, entering into whatever joy they bring, as one accepts the order of nature, this is the way of peace (Ecc 3:13). The thought of the ever-recurring cycle of nature, which before had been irritating and disturbing, now whispers the same lesson. If we suffer, others have suffered before us (Ecc 3:15). God is seeking out the past and reproducing it. If men repeat injustice and oppression, God also in the appointed season repeats his judgments (Ecc 3:16-17). It is true that this thought has a dark as well as a bright side, and this cannot be ignored. If men come and pass away, subject to laws and changes like those of the natural world, then, it would seem, man has no pre-eminence above the beast (Ecc 3:19). One end happens to all. All are of the dust and return to dust again (Ecc 3:20). There is no immediate denial of this conclusion. It was to this that the Preacher’s experience and reflection lad led him. But even on the hypothesis that the personal being of man terminates with his death, he has still the same counsel to give. Admit that all is darkness beyond the grave, and still there is nothing better on this side of it than the temper of a tranquil enjoyment (Ecc 3:22).

The transition from this result to the opening thoughts of Ecc 4:1-16 seems at first somewhat abrupt. But the Preacher is retracing the paths by which he had been actually led to a higher truth than that in which he had then rested, and he will not, for the sake of a formal continuity, smooth over its ruggedness. The new track on which he was entering might have seemed less promising than the old. Instead of the self-centered search after happiness he looks out upon the miseries and disorders of the world, and learns to sympathize with suffering (Ecc 4:1). At first this does but multiply his perplexities. The world is out of joint. Men are so full of misery that death is better than life (Ecc 4:2). Successful energy exposes men to envy (Ecc 4:4). Indolence leads to poverty (Ecc 4:5). Here, too; he who steers clear of both extremes has the best portion (Ecc 4:6). The man who heaps up riches stands alone without kindred to share or inherit them, and loses all the blessings and advantages of human fellowship (Ecc 4:8-12). Moreover, in this survey of life on a large scale, as in that of a personal experience, there is a cycle which is ever repeated. The old and foolish king yields to the young man, poor and wise, who steps from his prison to a throne (Ecc 4:13-14). But he too has his successor. There are generations without limit before him, and shall be after him (Ecc 3:15-16). All human greatness is swallowed up in the great stream of time.

The opening thought of Ecc 5:1-20 again presents the appearance of abruptness, but it is because the survey of human life takes a yet wider range. The eye of the Preacher passes from the dwellers in palaces to the worshippers in the Temple, the devout and religious men. Have they found out the secret of life, the path to wisdom and happiness? The answer to that question is that there the blindness and folly of mankind show themselves in their worst forms. Hypocrisy, unseemly prayers, idle dreams. broken vows, God’s messenger, the Priest, mocked with excuses that was what the religion which the Preacher witnessed presented to him (Ecc 5:1-6). The command “Fear thou God,” meant that a man was to take no part in a religion such as this. But that command also suggested the solution of another problem, of that prevalence of injustice and oppression which had before weighed down the spirit of the inquirer. Above all tyranny of petty governors, above the might of the king himself, there was the power of the Highest (Ecc 5:8); and his judgment was manifest even upon earth. Was there, after all, so great an inequality? Was God’s purpose, that the earth should be for all, really counteracted? (Ecc 5:9). Was the rich man with his cares and fears happier than the laboring man whose sleep was sweet without riches? (Ecc 5:10-12). Was there anything permanent in that wealth of his? Did he not leave the world naked as he entered it? And if so, did not all this bring the inquirer round to the same conclusion as before? Moderation, self-control, freedom from all disturbing passions, these are the conditions of the maximum of happiness which is possible for man on earth. Let this be received as from God. Not the outward means only, but the very capacity of enjoyment is his gift (Ecc 5:18-19). Short as life may be, if a man thus enjoys, he makes the most of it. God approves and answers his cheerfulness. Is not this better than the riches or length of days on which men set their hearts? (Ecc 6:1-5). All are equal in death; all are nearly equal in life (Ecc 6:6). To feed the eyes with what is actually before them is better than the ceaseless wanderings of the spirit (Ecc 6:9).

3. Ecc 6:10 to Ecc 8:15. So far the lines of thought all seemed to converge to one result. The ethical teaching that grew out of the wise man’s experience had in it something akin to the higher forms of Epicureanism. But the seeker could not rest in this, and found himself beset with thoughts at once more troubling and leading to a higher truth. The spirit of man looks before and after, and the uncertainties of the future vex it (Ecc 6:12). A good name is better, as being more permanent, than riches (Ecc 7:1); death is better than life, the house of mourning than the house of feasting (Ecc 7:2). Self-command and the spirit of calm endurance are a better safeguard against vain speculations than any form of enjoyment (Ecc 7:8-10). This wisdom is not only a defense, as lower things in their measure may be, but it gives life to them that have it (Ecc 7:12). So far there are signs of a clearer insight into the end of life. Then comes an oscillation which carries him back to the old problems (Ecc 7:15). Wisdom suggests a half-solution of them (Ecc 7:18), suggests also calmness, caution, humility in dealing with them (Ecc 7:22); but this is again followed by a relapse into the bitterness of the sated pleasure seeker. The search after wisdom, such as it had been in his experience, had led only to the discovery that, though men were wicked, women were more wicked still (Ecc 7:26-29). The repetition of thoughts that had appeared before is perhaps the natural consequence of such an oscillation, and accordingly in Ecc 8:1-17 we find the seeker moving in the same round as before. There are the old reflections on the misery of man (Ecc 8:6), and the confusions in the moral order of the universe (Ecc 8:10-11), the old conclusion that enjoyment (such enjoyment as is compatible with the fear of God) is the only wisdom (Ecc 8:15).

4. Ecc 8:16 to Ecc 12:8. After the pause implied in his again arriving at the lesson of Ecc 5:15, the Preacher retraces the last of his many wanderings. This time the thought with which he starts is a profound conviction of the inability of man to unravel the mysteries by which he is surrounded (Ecc 8:17), of the nothingness of man when death is thought of as ending all things (Ecc 9:3-6), of the wisdom of enjoying life while we may (Ecc 9:7-10), of the evils which affect nations or individual man (Ecc 9:11-12). The wide experience of the Preacher suggests sharp and pointed sayings as to these evils (Ecc 10:1-20), each true and weighty in itself, but not leading him on to any firmer standing-ground or clearer solution of the problems which oppress him. It is here that the traces of plan and method in the book seem most to fail us. Consciously or unconsciously the writer teaches us how clear an insight into the follies and sins of mankind may coexist with doubt and uncertainty as to the great ends of life, and give him no help in his pursuit after truth. In Ecc 11:1-10, however, the progress is more rapid. The tone of the Preacher becomes more that of direct exhortation and he speaks in clearer and higher notes. The conclusions of previous trains of thought are not contradicted, but are placed under a new law and brought into a more harmonious whole. The end of man’s life is not to seek enjoyment for him self only, but to do good to others, regardless of the uncertainties or disappointments that may attend his efforts (Ecc 11:1-4). His wisdom is to remember that there are things which he cannot know, problems which he cannot solve (Ecc 11:5), and to enjoy, in the brightness of his youth, whatever blessings God bestows on him (Ecc 11:9). But beyond all these there lie the days of darkness, of failing powers and incapacity for enjoyment; and the joy of youth, though it is not to be crushed, is yet to be tempered by the thought that it cannot last forever, and that it too is subject to God’s law of retribution (Ecc 11:9-10). The secret of a true life is that a man should consecrate the vigor of his youth to God (Ecc 12:1). It is well to do this before the night comes, before the slow decay of age benumbs all the faculties of sense (Ecc 12:2; Ecc 12:6), before the spirit returns to God who gave it. The thought of that end rings out, once more the knell of the nothingness of all things earthly (Ecc 12:8); but it leads also to “the conclusion of the whole matter,” to that to which all trains of thought and all the experiences of life had been leading the seeker after wisdom, that “to fear God and keep his commandments” was the highest good attainable; that the righteous judgment of God would in the end fulfill itself and set right all the seeming disorders of the world (Ecc 12:13-14). (See two articles on the plan and structure of the book of Ecclesiastes, in the Method. Quart. Rev. for April and July, 1849, modified by Dr. M’Clintock from Vaihinger, in the Theol. Stud. u. Krit. for July, 1848; also an article by Gurlitt in the Stud. u. Krit. for 1864, 2).

If one were to indulge conjecture, there would perhaps be some plausibility in the hypothesis that Ecc 12:8 had been the original conclusion, and that the epilogue of Ecc 12:9-14 had been added, either by another writer, or by the same writer on a subsequent revision. The verses (Ecc 12:9-12) have the character of a panegyric designed to give weight to the authority of the teacher. The two that now stand as the conclusion may naturally have originated in the desire to furnish a clue to the perplexities of the book, by stating in a broad intelligible form, not easy to be mistaken, the truth which had before been latent.

If the representation which has been given of the plan and meaning of the book be at all a true one, we find in it, no less than in the book of Job, indications of the struggle with the doubts and difficulties which in all ages of the world have presented themselves to thoughtful observers of the condition of mankind. In its sharp sayings and wise counsels it may present some striking affinity to the Proverbs, which also bear the name of the son of David; but the resemblance is more in form than in substance, and in its essential character it agrees with that great inquiry into the mysteries of God’s government which the drama of Job brings before us. There are indeed characteristic differences. In the one we find the highest and boldest forums of Hebrew poetry, a sustained unity of design; in the other there are, as we have seen, changes and oscillations, and the style seldom rises above the rhythmic character of proverbial forms of speech. The writer of the book of Job deals with the great mystery presented by the sufferings of the righteous, and writes as one who has known those sufferings in their intensity. In the words of the Preacher, we trace chiefly the weariness or satiety of the pleasure-seeker, and the failure of all schemes of life but one. In spite of these differences, however, the two books illustrate each other. In both, though by very diverse paths, the inquirer is led to take refuge (as all great thinkers have ever done) in the thought that God’s kingdom is infinitely great, and that man knows but the smallest fragment of it; that he must refrain from things which are too high for him, and be content with that which is given him to know the duties of his own life, and the opportunities it presents for his doing the will of God. There is probably a connection in the authorship or editorship of these two books that may to some extent account for this resemblance. SEE JOB (BOOK OF).

V. Commentaries. The following is a full list of separate exegetical works on Ecclesiastes (the most important are indicated by an asterisk prefixed): Olympiodorus, Enarratio (in the Bibl. Max. 18:490; Grynaeus, page 953); Origen, Scholia (in Bibl. Patr. Gall. page 14); Dionysius Alex. Commentarius (in Opp. 1:14; Append. to Bibl. Patr Gall.), Gregory Thaum. Metaphrasis (in Opp. page 77); Gregory Nyssen. Conciones (in Opp. 1:373); Gregory Nazianzen, Metaphrasis (in Opp. Spur. 1:874), OEcumenius, Catena (in Gr., Verona, 1532); Jerome, Commentarius (in Opp. 3:383); Salonius, Explicatio (in Bibl. fax. Patr. page 8); Alcuin, Commentaria (in Opp. 1, 2:410); Rupert, In Ecclesiastes (in Opp. 1:1118); Hugo, Homilia (in Opp. 1:53); Honorius, Commentarius (in Opp. 1); Bonaventiara, Expositio (in Opp. 1:309) Latif, (Constpl. n.d. 12mo); Schirwood, Nota (Antw. 1523, 4to); Guidacer, Commentarius (Paris, 1531, 1540, 4to); Arboreus, Commentarius (Paris, 1531, 1537, fol.); Bucer, Commentarius (Argent. 1532, 4to); Moring, Commentarius (Antw. 1533, 8vo); *Luther, Adnotationes (Wittemb. 1533, 8vo); Borrhaus, Commentarius (Basil. 1539, 1564, fol.); Titelmann, Commentarius (8vo, Par. 1545, 1549, 1577, 1581; Antw. 1552; Lugd. 1555, 1575); Melancthon, Enarratio (Wittemb. 1550, 8vo); Zuingle, Complanatio (in Opp. 3), Brent, Commentarii (in Opp. 8); Cajetanus, Commentarius (Lugd. 1552, fol.); Striegel, Schoia (Lpz. 1565, 8vo); Sforno, (Ven. 1567, 4to); Galante, (4to, Safet, 1570; Freft. 1681); Sidonius, Commentaria (in Germ., Mogunt. 1571, fol.) De Pomis, Discorso (Ven. 1572, 8vo); Mercer, Commentarius (Genev. 1573, fol.); Taitazak, (Ven. 1576, 4to); Jaisch, etc. (Constpl. 1576, fol.); Id., Commentarius (Antw. 1589, 4to); Jansen, Paraphrasis (Leyd. 1578, fol.); Galicho, (Ven. 1578, 4to); Corranus, Paraphrasis (Lond. 1579, 1581, 8vo; ed. Scultet, Frankft. 1618, Heidelb; 1619, 8vo); Senan, Commentarius (Genev. 1580. 8vo in Engl. by Stockwood, Lond. 1585, 8vo); Manse, Explicatio (Flor. 1580, 8Svo; Colon. 1580, 12mo); Lavater, Commentarius (Tigur. 1584, 8vo); Beza, Paraphrasis (Genev. 1588, 1598, 8vo; in Germ., ib. 1599, 8vo); Gifford, Commentarius (Land. 1589, 8vo); Strack, Predigten (4to, Cassel, 1590; Freft. 1618; Goth. 1663); Slangendorp, Commentarius (Hafn. 1590, 8vo); Greenham, Brief Sum (in Works, page 628); Arepol, (Constpl. 1591, 4to); Arvivo, (Salonia 1597, 4to); Baruch ben- Baruch, (Vaen. 1599, fol.); Alscheich, (Ven. 1601, 4to); Leuchter, Erkldrung (Frkft. 1603, 1611, 4to); Broughton, Commentarius (Lond. 1605, 4to); Lorinus, Commentarius (Lugd. 1606, 4to); Bardin, with various titles (in French, Par. 1609, 12mo; 1632, 8vo; in Germ., Guelf. 1662, 8vo); Fay, Commentarius (Genev. 1607, 8vo); Osorius, Commentarius (Lugd. 1611, 8vo); Amama, Notae (in the Crit. Sacri); Sanchez, Commentarius (Barcin. 1619, 4to); *De Pineda, Commentarius (Antw. 1620, fol.); Ferdinand, Commentarius (Romans 1621, fol.); Granger, Commentarius (Lond. 1621, 4to); Egard, Expositio (Hamb. 1622, 4to); Pemble, Exposition (Lond. 1628, 4to); Dieterich, Predigen (fol., Ulm,, 1632, 1655; Nurnb. 1665); Drusius, Annotationes (Amsterd. 1635, 4to); Guillebert, Paraphrasis (Paris, 16351, 1642, 8vo); A Lapide, In Ecclesiastes (Antw. 1638, fol.); Jermin, Commentary (Lond. 1638, fol.); Cartwright, Metaphrasis (4to, Amsterd. 1.647; 4th edit. ib. 1663), Trapp, Commentary (Lond. 1650, 4to); *Geier, Commentarius (4to, Lpz. 1653; 5th edit. 1730); Mercado, (Amst. 1653, 4to); Cotton, Exposition (London, 1654, 8vo); Gorse, Explication (in French, Par. 1655, 3 vols. 12mo); Lusitano, (Ven. 1656, 4to); Leigh, Commentarius (Lond. 1657, fol.); Varenius, Gemma Salomonis (Rost. 1659, 4to); Werenfels, Homiliae (Basle, 1666, 4to); *Reynolds, Annotations (Lond. 1669, 8vo; in “Assembly’s Annot. Works,” 4:33; also edit. by Washburn, Lond. 1811); De Sacy, L’Ecclesiaste (in his Sainte Bible, 14); Anon. Exposition (Lond. 1680, 4to); Bossuet, Libri Salomonis (Par. 1693, 8vo); Nisbet, Ex. position (Edinb. 1694, 4to); *Smith, Explicatio (Amst. 2 vols. 4to, 1699, 1704); Leenhost, Verklaarung (Zwolle, 1700, 8vo); Yeard, Paraphrasis (Lond. 1701, 8vo); Martianay, Commentaire (Par. 1705, 12mo); Seebach, Erklarung (Hal. 1705, 8vo); Tietzmann, Erklarung (Nurnb. 1705, 4to); David ben-Ahron, (Prague, 1708, 4to); *Schmid, Commentarius (Strasb. 1709, 4to); Mel, Predigten (Frkft. 1711, 4to); Zierold, Bedeutung, etc. (Lpz. 1715, 4to); Rambach, Adnotationes (Hal. 1720, 8vo); Wachter, Uebers. m. Anm. (Memmingen, 1723, 4to); Francke, Commentarius (Brandenb. 1724, 4to); Wolle, Auslegung (Lpz, 1729, 8vo); Hardouin, Paraphrase (Par. 1729, 12mo); Bauer, Erlauterung (Lpz. 1732, 4to); Hanssen, Betrachtungen (Lub. 1737, 1744, 4to); Lampe, Adnotationes (in his Medit. Exg. Gronig. 1741, 4to); Michaelis, Entwickelung (8vo, Gott. 1751; Brem. 1762); Anon. Uebers. m. Anm. (Halle, 1760, 8vo); Peters, Append. to Crit. Diss. (Lond. 1760, 8vo); *Des Voeux, Essay, Analytical Paraphrase, etc. (Lond. 1760, 4to; in Germ., Halle, 17 64, 4to); Carmeli, Spiegamento (Ven. 1765, 8vo3; Judetnes, (Amst. 1765, 4to); Anon. Cuheleth, a Poem (Lond. 1768, 4to); *Mendelssohn, D. Buch Koheleth, etc. (Berlin, 1770, 8vo; 1789, 4to; tr. with notes by Preston, Cambr. 1845, 8vo); De Poix, D’Arras, and De Paris, L’Ecclesiaste, etc. (Par. 1771, 12mo); Anon. Traduct. et Notes (Par. 1771, 8vo); Moldenhauer, Uebers. u. Erlaut. (Lpz. 1772, 8vo); Grotius, Adnotationes (Halle, 1777, 4to); Kleuker, Salomo’s Schriften (Lpz. 1777, 8vo); Zinck, Commentarius (Augsb. 1780, 4to); Struensee, Uebersetzung (Halberst. 1780, 8vo); Greenway, Paraphrase (Lond. 1781, 8va); Van der Palm, Eccl. illustratus (Leyd. 1784, 8vo); Doderlein, Uebersetung (8vo, Jen. 1784, 1792); Levison, (Hamb. 1784, 8vo); Schiananer, Auctarium (Gotting. 1785, 4to); Spohn, Uebers. m. Anm. (Lpz. 1785, 8vo); Neunhofer, Versuch (Weissenb. 1787, 8vo); Anon. Paraphrase, etc. (London, 1787, 8vo); Friedlander, Abhandlung (Berl. 1788, 8vo); Bode, Erklarende Umschreibung (Quedlinb. 1788, 8vo); Lowe, (Berl. 1788, 8vo); Gregory II, Explanatio (Gr. and Lat., Ven. 1791, fol.); Pacchi, Parafrassi (Modena, 1791, 8vo); Zirkel, Uebers. a. Erklar. (Wurzb. 1792, 8vo); Boaretti, Valgarizz. (Ven. 1792, 8vo); Hodgson, Translation (Lond. 1792, 8vo); Schmidt, Versuch (Giess. 1794, 8vo); Loanz, (4to, Amst. 1695; Berl. 1775); Goab, Beytrage, etc. (Tubing. 1795, 8vo); Nachtigal, Koheleth (Halle, 1798, 8vo); Bergst, Bearbeitung (1799, 8vo); Jacobi, Predigerbuch (Celle, 1799, 8vo); Frankel, (Dessau, 1800, 8vo); Middeldorpf, Symbolae (Fr. ad V. 1811, 4to); Kelle, D. Salomon Schriften (Freib. 1815, 8vo); Katzenelubogen, (Wars. 1815, 4to); *Umbreit, Uebers. u. Darstell. (Gotha, 1818, 8vo; also his Koheleth scepticus de summo bono, Gott; 1820, 8vo); Wardlaw, Lectures (Lond. 1821, 2 vols. 8vo; new ed. Lond. 1838, 2 vols. 12mo); Holden, Illustration (Lond. 1822, 8vo); Kaiser, Uebers. u. Erlaut. (Erlang. 1823, 8vo); Henz, Adumbratio (Dorpat. 1827, 4to); Anon. Uebers. u. Erlaut. (Stuttg. 1827, 8vo); Rosenmuller, Scholia (pt. 9, Lips. 1830, 8vo); Heinemann, Commentar (Bera. 1831, 8vo); Koster, Stroph. Uebers. (Schlesw. 1831, 8vo); Ewald, Koheleth (in his Poet. Bilcher, 4); *Knobel, Commentar (Lpz. 1836, 8vo); Auerbach, etc. (Bresl. 1837, 8vo); *Herzfeld, Uebers. a. Erlaut. (Braunschw. 1838, 8vo); Noyes, Notes (Bost. 1846 [3d ed. 1867], 12mo); Barham, Ecclesiastes (in his Bible revised, 1); *Hitzig, Erklarung (in the Kurzgef. Exeg. Handb., Lpz. 1847, 8vo); Hamilton, Lectures (Lond. 1851,12mo); *Stuart, Commentary (N.Y. 1851; Andover, 1862, 12mo); Elster, Commentar (Gotting. 1855, 8vo); Morgan, Metrical Paraphrase (Lond. 1856, 4to); Macdonald, Explanation (N.Y. 1856, 8vo); Weiss, Exposition (Lond. 1856, 12mo); Plungian, (Wilna, 1857, 8vo); Wangenheim, Auslegung (Berlin, 1858, 8vo); *Vaihinger, Uebersetz. u. Erklar. (Stuttg. 1858, 8vo; his art. on the subject in the Stud. u. Krit. 1848, was translated in the Meth. Quart. Review, April and July, 1849); Rosenthal, etc. (Prague, 1858, 8vo); Buchanan, Commentary (Glasg. 1859, 8vo); Bridges, Exposition (London, 1859, 8vo); *Hengstenberg, Auslegung (Berl. 1859, 8vo; tr. in Clarke’s Library, Edinb. 1860, 8vo; also Phila. 1860, 8vo)* Hahn, Commentar (Lpz. 1860, 8vo); Bohl, De Araismis Koheleth (Erlang. 1860, 8vo); *Ginsburg, Coheleth translated with a Commentary (Lond. 1861, 8vo); Diedrich, Erlauterung (Neu-Rup. 1865, 8vo); Castelli, Tradotto e note (Pisa, 1866, 8vo); Young, Commentary (Phila. 1866, 8vo). Others are embraced in the Rabbinical Bibles of Bomberg and Moses Frankfurter (q.v.). For those in general commentaries, SEE COMMENTARY.

Ecclesiastes, Book Of – ADDENDUM (FROM VOLUME 12)

A somewhat fuller discussion of the points relating to the authorship of this composition is appropriate, in view of the confident assertion of many critics, especially in Germany, that the contents forbid its ascription to Solomon. We might fairly offset these opinions of modern scholars by that of the ancient Hebraists, certainly in nowise their inferiors, who seem to have found no such difficulty even in the linguistic peculiarities of the book as to require a later than the Solomonic age for its production. The direct evidence of the writer himself, in the opening verse, has not been fairly treated by these rationalizing critics, for while most of them are compelled to admit that “the Preacher, the son of David, king in Jerusalem,” can only point to Solotnon, they yet evade the argument as if this were merely a none de plume; and Plumptre (Cambridge Bible, introd. ad loc.) does not hesitate to compare this with the pious fraud in the apocryphal book of “The Wisdom of Solomon.” The attempt to justify this pseudonym by the modern practice of fictitious authorship will apply very well so far as the assumption of the fancy title Koheleth is concerned, but is a total failure as to the more definite addition son of David, king in Jerusalem;” for such a precise and misleading designation is unprecedented in the history of trustworthy literature. The book is either Solomon’s or a forgery.

The anonymous author of The Authorship of Ecclesiastes (Lond. 1880, 8vo) has nearly exhausted the arguments in favor of the Solomonic date, as derived from a comparison of Solomon’s other writings, and he extends the inquiry into the minutiae of style and phraseology with a thoroughness that ought to shake the confidence of the holders of the opposite view. As to alleged Aramaisms in Ecclesiastes, there are certainly none more decided than appear in Deborah’s ode (Judges 5; pure Chaldaism , Jdg 5:13; , Psa 2:12).

Delitzsch, in his Commentary on this book (Clark’s translation, Edinb. 1877, page 190 sq.) has collected a formidable list of the Hapaxlegomena, and of the Words and Forms in the Book of Koheleth belonging to a more recent Period of the Language” than Solomon; and this has been pointed to by later critics generally as conclusive against the Solomonic authorship. The writer of the above monograph justly remarks (page 32), “A cursory glance at the list, however, seems sufficient to shake one’s confidence in it; and if it be faithfully scrutinized, it shrinks down to almost nothing.” Accordingly he examines several of these words, as specimens, and shows conclusively that they do not sustain the position. It is worth our while to analyze this “list,” and we shall see what a slender basis it affords for the conclusion based upon it. There are ninety-five of these words enumerated by Delitzsch, of which, by his own showing, fifteen (besides one which he has overlooked) are found, in the same form and sense, more or less frequently, in writings of the early or middle Hebrew (Moses to Isaiah), and may therefore be set aside as wholly irrelevant. Of the rest, twenty-six words occur elsewhere only in the Talmudic writers or the Targums, in the same form and sense, and therefore, if they prove anything, prove entirely too much, for they would argue a rabbinical date, which we know is impossible, since the Sept. translation of Ecclesiastes, now extant, carries the original up to the time of the Ptolemies at least. Still further we may reduce the list by excluding nineteen words which appear in substantially the same or some closely cognate form in confessedly earlier writers, and thirteen others which are. used by them in a slightly different sense. Deducting all these immaterial peculiarities, there remain only twenty-one words, or less than one fourth in the list, that are really pertinent to the question. Of these, again, eleven are found in this book only (strictly hapaxlegomena), and therefore determine nothing as to its age, being such forms as, for aught we know, might have been employed by any writer., Once more, we ought in fairness to exclude certain particles and dubious forms (, , , ),which .are vague and inconclusive. The actual residuum available thus dwindles down to six words only, namely, (Ecc 12:3), (Ecc 3:1), (Ecc 10:10; Ecc 11:6), (Ecc 8:1), (ibid.) and, (Ecc 1:17; Ecc 2:22; Ecc 4:16), which is no greater number than can be pointed out in Job and some other pre-exilian books. None of these half-dozen words is sufficiently distinctive in known origin and history to determine the date of the writing. The evidence is too negative. They are not like some modern terms, which we can trace to a specific source and occasion when they were first coined or introduced. The cognate dialects exhibit all of them in the same or similar signification, and of most of them (perhaps even the last two are no exceptions) the Hebrew itself has the root in no very remote sense. They are neither foreign nor technical terms. The same line of argument is applicableto the peculiar inflections and constructions adduced by Delitzsch in the same connection. They have been greatly exaggerated in relative mumber and importance. That the book of Ecclesiastes is singular in many ofits forms and phrases no one can doubt, but that these peculiarities are such as specially belong to the later Hebrew has not been made out. We have several books written in the post-exilian period, but Koheleth does not wear their impress, either in general or in particular. The only other book in the canonical Hebrew Scriptures analogous to it in teaching is Proverbs, and we have nothing in apocryphal Jewish literature that compares.with it, except perhaps The Wisdom of Solomon, which is only extant in Greek (being apparently the original), and was evidently modelled after Koheleth That Solomon was a perfectly classical writer is not to be assumed, either from his aera or what else we know of him. The effort to express philosophical ideas in the inadequate Shemitic tongue may well explain many of the harsh terms and strange constructions of Ecclesiastes. Certainly we gain nothing by attributing the book to some unknown writer of some indefinite age, concerning whom nothing can be proved or disproved. Subjective arguments on a question of authorship are of the most deceptive character, as the well-known attempt to determine who wrote The Letters of Junius has proved. One good historical statement, whether made in the writing itself or by traditionary testimony, outweighs all such speculative and conjectural dicta. Until some candidate better accredited than Solomon shall be brought forward, in deserting him we shall be forsaking the substance for a shadow.

Fuente: Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature

Ecclesiastes

the Greek rendering of the Hebrew _Koheleth_, which means “Preacher.” The old and traditional view of the authorship of this book attributes it to Solomon. This view can be satisfactorily maintained, though others date it from the Captivity. The writer represents himself implicitly as Solomon (1:12). It has been appropriately styled The Confession of King Solomon. “The writer is a man who has sinned in giving way to selfishness and sensuality, who has paid the penalty of that sin in satiety and weariness of life, but who has through all this been under the discipline of a divine education, and has learned from it the lesson which God meant to teach him.” “The writer concludes by pointing out that the secret of a true life is that a man should consecrate the vigour of his youth to God.” The key-note of the book is sounded in ch. 1:2,

“Vanity of vanities! saith the Preacher, Vanity of vanities! all is vanity!”

i.e., all man’s efforts to find happiness apart from God are without result.

Fuente: Easton’s Bible Dictionary

ECCLESIASTES

The title Ecclesiastes has been taken from the Septuagint, the first Greek translation of the Old Testament. The Hebrew word from which the translators took the title is qohelet. This is the name the writer of the book uses for himself, and it has been translated as preacher (RSV), teacher (NIV) and philosopher (GNB). The writer does not tell us his name, but he was no doubt a well known wisdom teacher of his time (Ecc 12:9).

Teaching style

In keeping with a common practice of the time, the author writes as if he were some well known person whose life would form a background for his own teaching. He takes as his starting point a saying that probably came from King Solomon, Vanity of vanities, all is vanity. He then puts himself in Solomons position and proceeds to show that all the wealth, pleasure, wisdom and power that people may gain will, in the end, benefit them nothing if they have wrong attitudes to life and to God.

Ecclesiastes is not a story or argument that begins in the opening verse and moves through in an unbroken development to the last verse. Rather it is a collection of some of the writers thoughts and ideas, probably written down later in life. Each section, however, is related to the central theme of the book. That theme is presented fairly clearly in the opening two chapters, then is restated and discussed, in part or in whole, in the following sections.

Being a wisdom teacher, the writer is concerned with some of the apparent contradictions of life (see WISDOM LITERATURE). He does not rely upon comfortable orthodox theories, but examines the frustrations and injustices that sometimes make life seem useless and without meaning. However, he is not a pessimist. He has a strong faith in God, and that faith gives him his interpretation of life.

Meaning of the book

The writers interpretation of life is built around two main observations: first, that God is sovereign; second, that God is the Creator. His main ideas may be summarized as follows.

No matter what benefits people may gain for themselves in life, they lose them at death. Life seems useless (2:14,18; 6:1-6). Yet through it all God is in control, directing events according to his purposes (3:11a,14; 8:15b). The writer is frustrated that he cannot know Gods purposes, but he never doubts that those purposes exist (3:11; 8:16-17; 9:1a). People should not therefore waste time searching after what God has kept for himself, but instead enjoy what God has given to them, namely, life (3:12-13; 5:18-19).

Not only does God control affairs in peoples lives; he is the Creator who has given them his world. Therefore, they should accept whatever God determines for them and find enjoyment in Gods world and in all their activities in that world (2:24; 9:7-10). That is not to say that they may be selfish and ill-disciplined. On the contrary, they will only enjoy life properly as they act with wisdom rather than folly, and as they do good rather than evil (7:5,7-9,19).

Summary of contents

Life seems at times to have no purpose (1:1-11). The search for a meaning to life through selfish ambition will lead to frustration. A person should accept what God gives and enjoy it (1:12-2:26). Having set out the central message of his book, the writer turns to consider some related matters: the control of God over lifes affairs (3:1-15), the widespread injustice in the world (3:16-4:3), and the uselessness of self-centred achievement (4:4-16).

A collection of short messages encourages people to make the most of lifes frustrations. The writer gives advice about religion, money and other matters (5:1-7:14), and suggests that the way to contentment is to practise moderation (7:15-8:17). Life presents people with great opportunities for true contentment (9:1-12), but they will have no contentment without wisdom (9:13-10:20). The final section therefore encourages people to have a positive attitude to life (11:1-8); for the Creator holds them accountable for the way they handle the gifts of creation (11:9-12:14).

Fuente: Bridgeway Bible Dictionary

Ecclesiastes

ECCLESIASTES

1. Title and Canonicity.The title has come to us through Jerome from the LXX [Note: Septuagint.] , in which it was an attempt to express the Heb. nom de plume Kheleth, i.e. one who speaks in an assembly (khl)the assembly being all who give their hearts to the acquisition of wisdom. The book is one of the third group in the Heb. Biblethe Kethbhm or Writingswhich were the latest to receive recognition as canonical Scripture. It appears to have been accepted as Scripture by c [Note: circa, about.] . b.c. 100. At the synod of Jamnia (c [Note: circa, about.] . a.d. 100) the canonicity of Ec., the Song of Songs, and Esther was brought up for discussion, and was confirmed.

2. Author and Date.The book contains the outpourings of the mind of a rich Jew, at the beginning of the 2nd cent. b.c. We may perhaps gather that he was in a high station of life, for otherwise his very unorthodox reflexions could hardly have escaped oblivion. He could provide himself with every luxury (Ecc 2:4-10). But he had private sorrows and disappointments; Ecc 7:26-28 seems to imply that his life had been saddened by a woman who was unworthy of him. He was apparently an old man, because his attempts to find the summum bonum of life in pleasure and in wisdom, which could hardly have been abandoned in a few years, were now bygone memories (Ecc 1:12 to Ecc 2:11). And he lived in or near Jerusalem, for he was an eye-witness of events which occurred at the holy place (Ecc 8:10). That is all that he reveals about himself. But he paints a lurid picture of the state of his country. The king was a childmuch too young for his responsible position; and his courtiers spent their days in drunken revelry (Ecc 10:16); he was capricious in his favouritism (Ecc 10:5-7), violent in temper (Ecc 10:4), and despotic (Ecc 8:2 a, Ecc 8:4). The result was that wickedness usurped the place of justice (Ecc 3:16), and the upper classes crushed the poor with an oppression from which there was no escape (Ecc 4:1); the country groaned under an irresponsible officialism, each official being unable to move a finger in the cause of justice. because he was under the thumb of a higher one, and the highest was a creature of the tyrannous king (Ecc 5:7): and in such a state of social rottenness espionage was rife (Ecc 10:20). The only passage which distinctly alludes to contemporary history is Ecc 4:13-16, but no period has been found which suits all the facts. In Ecc 8:10 an historical allusion is improbable, and Ecc 9:13-15 is too vague to afford any indication of date.

The book or, more probably, Ecc 1:1 to Ecc 2:11 only, is written under the guise of Solomon. In Ecc 2:12 (according to the most probable interpretation of the verse) the writer appears to throw off the impersonation. But the language and grammatical peculiarities of the writing make it impossible to ascribe it to Solomon. The Heb. language which had been pure enough for some time after the return from Babylon, began to decay from the time of Nehemiah. There are signs of the change in Ezr., Neh., and Mal., and it is still more evident in Chron., Est., and Eccl., the latter having the most striking Mishnic Idioms. It must therefore be later (probably much later) than Esther (c [Note: circa, about.] . b.c. 300), but before ben-Sira, who alludes to several passages in it (c [Note: circa, about.] . b.c. 180). It may thus be dated c [Note: circa, about.] . b.c. 200.

3. Composition.One of the most striking features of the book is the frequency with which a despairing sadness alternates with a calm pious assurance. Many have seen in this the struggles of a religiously minded man halting between doubt and faith; e.g. Plumptre compares this mental conflict with Tennysons Two Voices. But the more the book is read, the more the reader feels that this is not so. The contrasts are so sudden; the scepticism is so despairing, and the piety so calm and assured, that they can be explained only on the assumption of interpolations by other hands. Moreover, in the midst of the despair and the faith there are scattered proverbs, somewhat frigid and didactic, often with no relevance to the context. The literary history of the writing appears to be as follows: (a) The gnomic character of some of Koheleths remarks, and the ascription to Solomon, attracted one of the thinkers of the day whose minds were dominated by the idea of Wisdomsuch a writer as those whose observations are collected in the Book of Proverbs. He enriched the original writing with proverbs culled from various sources. (b) But that which attracts also repels. The impression which the book made upon the orthodox Jew may be seen in the Book of Wisdom, in which (Ecc 2:1-9) the writer collects some of Koheleths despairing reflexions; and, placing them in the mouth of the ungodly, raises his protest against them. There were living at the time not only gnomic moralizers, but also men of intense, if narrow, pietymen of the temper afterwards seen in the Maccabees. One of these interpolated observations on (i.) the fear of God. (ii.) the judgment of God. In every case except Ecc 5:1-7 [Heb. 4:175:6] his remarks explicitly correct some complaint of Koheleth to which he objected. Ecc 12:11-12 is a postscript by the wise man, and Ecc 12:13-14 by the pious man. The additions which appear to be due to the former are Ecc 4:5; Ecc 4:9-12, Ecc 6:7; Ecc 6:9, Ecc 7:1 a, Ecc 7:4-12; Ecc 7:19, Ecc 8:1, Ecc 9:17 f., Ecc 10:1-3; Ecc 10:8-14 a, Ecc 10:15; Ecc 10:18 f., Ecc 12:11 f., and to the latter Ecc 2:26, Ecc 3:14 b, Ecc 3:17, Ecc 5:1-7, Ecc 7:18 b, Ecc 7:26 b, Ecc 7:29, Ecc 8:2 b, Ecc 8:3 a, Ecc 8:5-6 a, Ecc 8:11-13, Ecc 11:9 b, Ecc 12:1 a, Ecc 12:13 f.

4. Koheleths reflexions

(a) His view of life.After the exordium (Ecc 1:1 to Ecc 2:11), in which, under the guise of Solomon, he explains that he made every possible attempt to discover the meaning and aim of life, the rest of his writing consists of a miscellaneous series of pictures, illustrating his recurrent thought that all is a vapour, and a striving after wind. And the conclusion at which he arrives is that man can aim at nothing, guide himself by nothing. His only course is to fall back upon present enjoyment and industry. It is far from being a summum bonum; it is not an Epicurean theory of life; it is a mere modus vivendi, whereby he shall not take much account of the days of his life (Ecc 5:19). And to this conclusion he incessantly returns, whenever he finds lifes mysteries insoluble: Ecc 2:24 f., Ecc 3:12 f., 22, Ecc 5:17-19, Ecc 8:15, Ecc 9:7-10, Ecc 11:1-10 (exc. 9b) Ecc 12:1-7.

(b) His religious ideas.It is improbable that he came into immediate contact with any of the Greek schools of thought. It has often been maintained that he shows distinct signs of having been influenced by both Stoic and Epicurean philosophy. Of the latter it is difficult to discern the slightest trace; but for the former there is more to be said. But there is nothing at which a thinking Jew, of a philosophical temper of mind, could not have arrived independently. And it must not be forgotten that even Stoicism was not a purely Greek product; its founder Zeno was of Phnician descent, and his followers came from Syria, Cilicia Carthage, and other Hellenistic (as distinct from Hellenic) quarters. Koheleth occupies (what may be called) debatable ground between Semitic and Greek thought. He has lost the vitality of belief in a personal God, which inspired the earlier prophets, and takes his stand upon a somewhat colourless monotheism. He never uses the personal name Jahweh. but always the descriptive title Elohim (4 times) or the Elohim (16 times), the deity who manifests Himself in the inscrutable and irresistible forces of Nature. At the same time he never commits himself to any definitely pantheistic statements. He has not quite lost his Semitic belief that God is more than Nature, for His action shows evidence of design (Ecc 3:11; Ecc 3:18; Ecc 3:22, Ecc 6:12 b, Ecc 7:14, Ecc 8:17, Ecc 11:5). Moreover, Gods workthe course of Natureappears in the form of an endless cycle. Events and phenomena are brought upon the stage of life, and banished into the past, only to be recalled and banished again (Ecc 1:4-11, Ecc 3:15). And this, for Koheleth, paralyzes all real effort; for no amount of labour can produce anything new or of real profitno one can add to, or subtract from, the unswerving chain of facts (Ecc 1:15, Ecc 3:1-9; Ecc 3:14 a, Ecc 7:13); no one can contend with Him that is mightier than he (Ecc 6:10). And he gains no relief from the expectation of Messianic peace and perfection, which animated the orthodox Jew. There are left him only the shreds of the religious convictions of his fathers, with a species of natural religion which has fatalism and altruism among is ingredients.

5. The value of the book for us lies largely in its very deficiencies. The untroubled orthodoxy of the pious man who corrected what he thought was wrong, the moral aphorisms of the wise man, and the Weltschmerz of Koheleth with his longing for light, were each examples of the state of thought of the time. They corresponded to the three classes of men in 1Co 1:20the scribe (who clung faithfully to his accepted traditions), the wise man, and the searcher of this world. Each possessed elements of lasting truth, but each needed to be answered, and raised to a higher plane of thought, by the revelation of God in the incarnation.

A. H. MNeile.

Fuente: Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible

Ecclesiastes

One of the books of Solomon, and so called by the Septuagint. But it is worthy remark, that the first verse runs in this form, “The Words of Coheleth the son of David;” though the word is feminine, and is as if it is said, she who speaks. But that it is Solomon who is the writer, and who is describing in many parts of it himself, there can be no question, since we have in it so ample an account of his riches and treasure, and at the same time, of his discovery of the vanity of all.

Fuente: The Poor Mans Concordance and Dictionary to the Sacred Scriptures

Ecclesiastes

This book has obtained its Hebrew name Kohelethfrom the designation of the principal person mentioned in it, who is thus styled in several passages. Some have supposed that Koheleth means a body or academy of sages, whose dicta are contained in this book; but this opinion is contradicted by the heading of the book itself, which thus commences: Words of Koheleth, the son of David, the king in Jerusalem. Hence it appears that Koheleth is intended for an epithet of Solomon. Various interpretations have been given of its meaning, but in all probability it means assembler, preacher, or teacher.

The circumstance that Solomon is introduced as the speaker in this book has induced most of the ancient interpreters to consider him as its author. Others, however, are of opinion that words are used in it which show that it must have been written at a later period than the time of Solomon.

The diversity of sentiment as to the authorship has of course led also to a difference of opinion as to the date of the book. But one thing is clearthat whoever may have been the author, the book cannot have been written after the times of Ezra and Nehemiah, under whom the canon was completed.

Those who maintain that Ecclesiastes was not written by Solomon are of opinion that it was not composed during the latter period of the first, but rather during the time of the second temple, since idolatry does not occur among the deviations combated by the author. The whole book seems to presuppose that the people were externally devoted to the Lord. The admonitions of the author to a serene enjoyment of life, and against murmuring; exhortations to be contented with Divine Providence, and the attacks upon a selfish righteousness of works, may best be explained by supposing the author to have lived in a period like that of Malachi, in which there prevailed a Pharisaical self-righteousness, and melancholy murmurings because God would not recognize the alleged rights which they produced before him, and refused to acknowledge the claims they made upon him.

The author places the fundamental idea of the nothingness of all earthly things both at the beginning and at the end of his book, and during its course repeatedly returns to the same. This has induced many interpreters to suppose that the purpose of the author was to demonstrate this one idea; an opinion which, down to the most recent times, has been unfavorable to the true interpretation of the book, because everything, however reluctant, has been forced into an imaginary connection. The following is the correct view. The object of the author is not to teach an especial tendency of wisdom, but wisdom in general. Consequently it is not at all surprising if the connection suddenly ceases, and a new subject commences. That the idea of the nothingness of earthly matters should strongly predominate may easily be explained, since according to our author it forms a very important part of wisdom. He never, however, intended to confine himself to this one idea, although he likes frequently to point it out in passing, even when he is considering a matter from another point of view. ‘The plan of this book,’ says Herder, ‘has been the subject of much investigation. It is best to consider this plan as free as possible, and to employ its separate parts for its support. The commencement and the conclusion show the unity of the whole. The greater part consists of isolated observations concerning the course of the world, and the experience of his life. These are connected with general sentences; and, finally, a very simple conclusion is deduced from the whole. It seems to me that a more artificial texture ought not to be sought for.’

With regard to the contents and objects of the book, we have to consider only the fundamental idea, omitting isolated sentences of wisdom, and rules for the conduct of life. Nobody can entertain any doubt concerning this fundamental idea. It is contained in the sentence: ‘Vanity of vanities; all is vanity.’ It is, however, very important that this should be rightly understood. The question is, What is that all which is vanity? The author does not mean all in general, but only all of a certain genus. He himself explains this, by defining this all in numerous passages; as, ‘all that is under the sun;’ that is, earthly things in their separation from the heavenly. To this leads also the enumeration of the all, in which occur only those things which belong to the earthriches, sensual pleasure, honor, sphere of activity, human wisdom apart from God, self-righteousness. From many passages it appears that the author was far from comprehending the fear of God and active obedience to his laws among that all which was vanity. This appears most strikingly from the conclusion, which, as such, is of the highest importance, and furnishes the undoubted measure for the correctness of the whole interpretation. ‘Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man [i.e. in this consists all that is incumbent upon him; and his whole salvation depends upon it]. For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether good, or whether evil.’ (Compare Ecc 12:1 : ‘Remember now thy Creator in the days of thy youth;’ Ecc 5:5-7. ‘Fear thou God;’ Ecc 7:18, and many other passages). A deep religious sense pervades the whole book. In reference to the prevailing idea, Ewald strikingly remarks, p. 182, ‘There blows throughout this book a piercing chill against every earthly aim, and every vain endeavor; a contempt which changes into a bitter sneer against everything which in the usual proceedings of men is one-sided and perverse; an indefatigable penetration in the discovery of all human vanities and fooleries. In no earlier writing has all cause of pride and vain imagination so decidedly and so comprehensively been taken from man; and no book is pervaded by such an outcry of noble indignation against all that is vain in this world.’

From the contents of the book results its object. The author had received the mission to treat professedly and in a concentrated manner the highly important sentence, ‘Vanity of vanities; all is vanity,’ which pervades the whole of Holy Writ; but he is not content with the mere theoretical demonstration, so as to leave to another teacher its practical application, but places before us these practical results themselves: What is incumbent upon man, since everything else is nought? What real good remains for us, after the appearance in every seeming good has been destroyed? The answer is, Man shall not gain by cunning and grasping; shall not consume himself in vain meditations, nor in a hurried activity; he shall not murmur about the loss of that which is naught; he shall not by means of a self-made righteousness constrain God to grant him salvation; but he shall instead fear God (Ecc 12:13; Ecc 5:6-7), and be mindful of his Creator (Ecc 12:1); he shall do good as much as he is able (Ecc 3:12); and in other passages. And all this, as it is constantly inculcated by the author, with a contented and grateful heart, freed from care and avarice; living for the present moment, joyfully taking from the hand of the Lord what he offers in a friendly manner. Man shall not be of a sorrowful countenance, but in quiet serenity enjoy the gifts of God. What would avail him all his cares and all his avarice? By them he cannot turn anything aside from him, or obtain anything, since everything happens as it shall happen.

Fuente: Popular Cyclopedia Biblical Literature

Ecclesiastes

Ecclesiastes (ek-kl’si-s-ts), the preacher. It is the seventh book after the Psalms in the Hebrew Scriptures (but the second after the Psalms in the A. V.), and its title in Hebrew is Koheleth, signifying one who convenes a public assembly. Koheleth, the name assumed by the author, claims to be “son of David, King in Jerusalem.” The book teaches that to obey God is the highest good. It is the confession of a man of wide experience, looking back upon his past life and looking out upon the disorders and calamities which surround him. The writer is a man who has sinned in giving way to selfishness and sensuality, who has suffered for his sin in satiety and weariness of life, but who has through all this been under the discipline of a divine education, and has learned from it the lesson which God meant to teach him.

Fuente: People’s Dictionary of the Bible

Ecclesiastes

Ecclesias’tes. (the preacher). The title of this book is in Hebrew, Koheleth, signifying one who speaks publicly in an assembly. Koheleth is the name by which Solomon, probably the author, speaks of himself throughout the book. The book is that which it professes to be, — the confession of a man of wide experience looking back upon his past life and looking out upon the disorders and calamities which surround him.

The writer is a man who has sinned in giving way to selfishness and sensuality, who has paid the penalty of that sin in satiety and weariness of life, but who has, through all this, been under the discipline of a divine education, and has learned from it the lesson which God meant to teach him.

Fuente: Smith’s Bible Dictionary

Ecclesiastes

a canonical book of the Old Testament, of which Solomon was the author, as appears from the first sentence. The design of this book is to show the vanity of all sublunary things; and from a review of the whole, the author draws this pertinent conclusion, Fear God, and keep his commandments, for this is the whole of man;his whole wisdom, interest, and happiness, as well as his whole duty. Ecclesiastes, according to a modern author, is a dialogue, in which a man of piety disputes with a libertine who favoured the opinion of the Sadducees. His reason is, that there are passages in it which seem to contradict each other, and could not, he thinks, proceed from the same person. But this may be accounted for by supposing that it was Solomon’s method to propose the objections of infidels and sensualists, and then to reply to them.

Fuente: Biblical and Theological Dictionary