Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadPulpit Commentary - Ecclesiastes
(Show All Books)
Verse Commentaries:
§ 1. TITLE OF THE BOOK
§
Let us see what are the usual arguments for the Solomonic authorship. We will endeavor to set them forth very briefly, but fairly and intelligibly.
1. The first and most potent is the unanimous verdict of all writers who have mentioned the book from primitive times to the days of Luther, whether Christian or Jewish. The common opinion was that the three works, Canticles, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes, were composed by Solomon; the first, as some said, being the production of his earlier days, the second written in his maturity, and the third dictated aft the close of life, when he had learned the vanity of all that he had once valued, and had repented of his evil ways and turned once more to the fear of the Lord as the only stable comfort and hope. St. Jerome, in his 'Commentary,' gives the opinion which was prevalent in his day: "Itaque juxta numerum vocabu-lorum tria volumina edidit: Proverbia, Ecclesiasten, et Cantica Canticorum. In Proverbiis parvulum docens et quasi de officiis per sententias erudiens; in Ecclesiaste vero maturae virum aetatis instituens, ne quicquam in mundi rebus purer esse perpetuum, sed caduca et brevia universa quae cernimus; ad extremum jam consummatum virum et calcato seeculo praeparatum, in Cantico Canticorum sponsi jungit amplexibus."
2. The book purports to be written by Solomon; the writer speaks continually in the first person; and as the work is confessedly inspired and canonical, any doubt as to the literal accuracy of the inscription throws discredit on the truth and authority of Scripture. In a treatise of this nature it is altogether unlikely that the author should attribute his own sentiments to another.
3. There is nothing in the contents which militates against the Solomonic authorship.
4. There is nothing in the language which is not compatible with the time of Solomon.
5. It is a composition of such consummate skill and excellence that it could have proceeded from no one but this wisest of men.
6. There are such a multitude and variety of coincidences in expression and phraseology with Proverbs and Canticles, which are confessedly more or less the work of Solomon, that Ecclesiastes must proceed from the same author. Such are the grounds upon which Ecclesiastes is attributed to Solomon. The opinion has a certain attraction for all simple believers, who are content to take things on trust, and, provided a theory makes no very violent demands on credulity, to accept it with unquestioning confidence.
But in the present; case the arguments adduced have not withstood the attacks of modern criticism, as will be seen if we take them seriatim, as we proceed to do.
1. The universal consensus of uncritical antiquity concerning authorship is of little value. What was not questioned was not specially examined; the conventional opinion was regarded as certain; what one writer after another, and Council after Council, actually or virtually stated, was accepted generally and without any controversy. So the authorship, being taken for granted, was never criticized or investigated. Of how small importance in such a matter are the opinions of the Fathers, we may learn from their view of the Book of Wisdom. Unhesitatingly many of them attribute this work to Solomon. Clemens Alexandrinus, Cyprian, Origen, Didymus, and others express no doubt whatever on the subject; and yet no one nowadays hesitates to say that they were absurdly wrong in holding such an opinion. Similarly, many Councils decreed the canonicity of Wisdom, from the third of Carthage, A.D. 397, to that of Trent; but we do not give our adhesion to their decision. So we may reject tradition in discussing the question of authorship, and pursue our investigation independently, untrammeled by the utterances of earlier writers. As to the assertion that Solomon penned this treatise in sorrowful repentance for his idolatry and licentiousness and arrogant selfishness, it must be said that there is no trace of any such change of heart in the historical books; as far as we are told, he goes to his grave after he had turned away from the Lord, in that hard, unbelieving temper which his foreign alliances had produced in him. Not a hint of better things is anywhere afforded; and though, from the commendation generally accorded to him, and the typical character which he possessed, one would be inclined to think that he could not have died in his sins, but must have made his peace with God before he departed, yet Scripture supplies no ground for such an opinion, and we must travel beyond the letter to arrive at such a conclusion. He records his experience of evil pleasure, relates how he reveled in vice for a time, took his fill of luxury and sensuality, with the view, as he says, of testing the faculty of such excesses to give happiness; but he never hints at any sorrow for this degradation; not a word of repentance falls from his lips. "I turned, and tried this and that," he says; but we and no confession of sin, no remorse for wasted talents. He learns, indeed, that all is vanity and vexation of spirit; but this is not the cry of a broken and contrite heart; and to ground his repentance upon this declaration is to raise a structure upon a foundation that will not bear its weight.
2. There can be no doubt that the writer intends to assume the name and characteristics of Solomon. He calls himself in the opening verse "son of David" and "King in Jerusalem." Such a description applies only to Solomon. David, indeed, had many other sons, but none except Solomon could be designated "King in Jerusalem." It is true also that the first person is continually used in narrating experiences which are especially appropriate to this monarch; e.g. "I am come to great estate, and have gotten more wisdom than all that were before me" (Ecclesiastes 1:16); "I made me great works; I builded me houses" (Ecclesiastes 2:4); "All this have I Droved by wisdom: I said, I will be wise" (Ecclesiastes 7:23). But not thus is Solomon demonstrated to be the actual author; cleverly personated authorship would use the same expressions. And this is what we conceive to be the fact. The writer assumes the role of Solomon in order to emphasize and add weight to the lessons which he desired to teach. The idea that such personation is fraudulent and unworthy of a sacred writer springs from ignorance of precedents or a misunderstanding of the object of such substitution. Who thinks of accusing Plato or Cicero of an intention to deceive because they present their sentiments in the form of dialogues between imaginary interlocutors? Who regards the author of the Book of Wisdom as an impostor because he identifies himself with the wise king? So common was this system of personation, so widely spread and practiced, that a name was invented for it, and Pseudepigraphal was the title given to all such works as assumed to be written by some well-known or celebrated personage, the real author concealing his own identity. Thus we have the 'Book of Enoch,' the 'Ascension of Isaiah,' the 'Assumption of Moses,' the 'Apocalypse of Baruch,' the 'Psalter of Solomon,' and many more, none of them being the production of the person whose name they bear, which was assumed only for literary purposes. A moralist who felt that he had something to impart that might serve his generation, a patriot who desired to encourage his countrymen amid defeat and oppression, a pious thinker whose heart glowed with love for his fellow-men, — any of these, humbly shrinking from obtruding upon notice his own obscure personality, thought himself justified in publishing his reflections under the mantle of some great name which might gain for them credit and acceptance. The ruse was so well understood that it deceived nobody; but it gave point and definiteness to the writer's lucubration, and it also had the effect of making readers more ready to accept it, and to look in its contents for something worthy of the personage to whom it was attributed. There is nothing in this derogatory to a sacred writer, and no argument against the personation can be maintained on the ground of its incongruity or inappropriateness. And when we more carefully examine the language of the book itself, we see that it' contains virtual, if not actual, acknowledgment that it is not written by Solomon. t/is name is not once mentioned. Other of his reputed writings are inscribed with his name. The Canticles begin with the words, "The song of songs, which is Solomon's;" the Proverbs are, "The proverbs of Solomon, son of David, King of Israel." Psalm 72. is entitled, "A Psalm of Solomon." But our author gives himself an enigmatical appellation, which by its very form might show that it was ideal and representative, and not that of an existing personality. To suppose that Solomon uses this name for himself, with the abstruse idea that he who had scattered the people by his sins now desired to gather them together by this exhibition of wisdom, is to task the imagination beyond limit, and to read into Scripture notions which have no existence in fact. There can, indeed, be no adequate reason given why Solomon should have desired thus to conceal his identity; the plea of humility and shame is a mere invention of commentators anxious to account for what is, in their view, really inexplicable. He calls himself "King in Jerusalem" — an expression occurring nowhere else, and never applied to any Hebrew monarch. We read of "King of Israel," "King over all Israel," how that Solomon "reigned in Jerusalem over all Israel;" but the title "King in Jerusalem" is unique, and seems to point to a time when Jerusalem was not the only royal city, after the disruption of the kingdom, that is, subsequent to the epoch of the historical Solomon.
The same conclusion is reached by the occasional wording of the text itself, which speaks of Solomon as belonging to the past age. "I was king," the monarch is made to say (Ecclesiastes 1:12), speaking, not as a reigning monarch himself would speak, but rather as one who, from the other world, or by the mouth of another, was relating his past earthly experiences. Solomon was king to the day of his death, and could never have used the past tense in reference to himself. Delitzsch and Ginsburg have called attention to a Talmudic legend based on this expression. According to this story, Solomon, driven from his throne on account of his idolatries and other sins, roamed through the country lamenting his follies, and reduced to the extremity of want, ever crying, with miserable iteration, "I, Koheleth, was King over Israel in Jerusalem!" The legend is noticeable only as conveying the significance of the preterit tense found in the text. This tense cannot, in view of the immediate context, be translated, "I have been and still am king;" nor is he saying that he was king when he applied his mind to wisdom. He is simply introducing himself in his assumed character, not comparing his present with his past life, but from his standpoint, as once an earthly and powerful king, giving the weight of his experiences. In another passage (Ecclesiastes 1:16) he talks of having gotten more wisdom than all that were before him in Jerusalem. Now, this city did not fall into the possession of the Hebrews till some years after the accession of David: how could Solomon refer to previous kings in these terms, when really only one had preceded him? And that his reference is to rulers, and not to mere inhabitants, is denoted by the use of the preposition al, which ought to be translated "over," not "in" Jerusalem. Commentators have endeavored to answer this objection by asserting that Solomon hereby indicates the ancient Canaanitish kings, such as Melchizedek, Adonizedel, Araunah; but is it likely that he would thus introduce the thought of these worthies of past generations as though he and his father were their natural successors? Would he condescend to compare himself with such? and would his readers be impressed by a superiority to these princelets, mostly heathens, all of them beyond the pale of Israel, and, with one exception, in no respect celebrated? It is surely much more probable that the author for the moment forgets, or throws aside, his assumed character, and alludes to the long succession of Jewish monarchs who had reigned in Jerusalem up to his own time. A further intimation that a fictitious use is made of the name of the great king is given in the epilogue, supposing it, as we do, to be an original portion of the work. Here (Ecclesiastes 12:9-14) the real author speaks of himself and the composition of his book; he is no longer "the Koheleth," the Solomon, who hitherto has been the speaker (as in ver. 8), but a koheleth, a wise man, who, founding his style on his great predecessor, sought to please and edify the people of his generation by means of proverbial sayings. This is the way in which he describes his undertaking, and in which it is impossible that the historical Solomon should have written: "Moreover, because Koheleth was wise, he still taught the people knowledge; yea, he pondered, and sought out, and put in order many proverbs," and, as the next verse implies, he adopted a form and style which might make the truth "acceptable" to his hearers.
3. Besides the notice mentioned above, there are many statements in the book wholly irreconcilable with the circumstances of Solomon's reign and epoch. In Ecclesiastes 3:16; 5:8, etc., we read of oppression of the poor and high-handed perversion of judgment, and are bidden not to wonder thereat. That such a condition of things obtained in the time of Solomon is not conceivable; if it did exist, one would have expected that this powerful monarch would immediately have set about a reformation, and not contented himself with urging patience and acquiescence. But the writer appears to have no power to redress these crying wrongs, which, if he is king, must have been owing to his neglect or misgovernment. He tells what he has seen, sympathizes with the sufferers, offers advice how to make the best of such trouble, but gives no hint that he considers himself answerable for this miserable state of things, or could in any way alleviate or remove it. If, as alleged, this book is the result of Solomon's repentance, the outcome of the revulsion of feeling caused by the warnings of the Prophet Ahijah and the grace of God working in his softened heart, here, surely, was an opportunity of expressing his changed sentiments, acknowledging the wrongdoing which occasioned the disorders in the administration of government, and avowing a determination of redress. But there is nothing of the kind. He writes as an uninterested observer, one who had no hand in producing, and possesses no influence in checking, oppression. So, too, Solomon could not have written of his own class and country in such terms as we read in Ecclesiastes 10:16, "Woe to thee, O land, when thy king is a child, and thy princes eat in the morning!" It is doing violence to language, if not to common sense, to argue that Solomon is alluding to his son Rehoboam, who must have been more than forty years old at this time; and it does not speak well for the king's repentance if, knowing that his son would turn out so badly, he made no effort for his reformation, nor, following the precedent observed in his own case, attempted to nominate a more worthy successor. Here and in other remarks about kings (e.g. Ecclesiastes 10:20) the writer speaks, not as though he himself were a monarch, but merely as a philosopher or student of human nature. If he introduces the great king as uttering the sentiments, they are his own experiences which he records (Ecclesiastes 10:4-7): the spirit of the ruler rising against a subject, a fool set in high dignity and the rich debased to low places, servants upon horses, and princes walking as servants upon the earth; — such circumstances one can ill imagine the historical Solomon to have known and recorded, though they might readily enough have been witnessed by one who made him the vehicle of his life-history.
Again, can one suppose that Solomon would call the heir to his throne "the man that should be after" him (Ecclesiastes 2:18), and hate his labor because its fruits would fall into such unworthy hands? Or that, being well aware who his successor would be, he should speak as if it were quite uncertain — one of those future contingencies which no one could determine (Ecclesiastes 2:19)? To minimize the force of the objection here made, some critics assert that Solomon utters this sentiment after Jeroboam's attempted rebellion, and with the fear of this restless and unscrupulous leader's success lying heavy on his mind; but there is no historical ground for this notion. As far as we know, no dread of a revolution troubled his last days. Jeroboam had been driven into exile; and it is quite a gratuitous assumption that the fear of his return and forcible seizure of the throne dictated the words in the text.
There are other incongruities in connection with the relation of monarch and subject. The passage Ecclesiastes 8:2-5, 9 contains advice, not from a ruler to his dependents, but from a subject to his fellow-subjects: "I counsel thee to keep the king's commandment," etc. It is a prudent exhortation, showing how to behave under a tyrannical government, when "one man ruleth over another to the other's hurt," and could never have emanated from great David's greater son.
Again, is it compatible with the modesty of a refined disposition that Solomon should boast unrestrainedly of his intellectual acquirements (Ecclesiastes 1:16), his possessions, his greatness (Ecclesiastes 2:7-9)? Such exultation might proceed naturally enough from a fictitious person, but would be most unseemly in the mouth of the real character. Is he satirizing himself when he denounces the royal spendthrift, glutton, and debauchee, and describes the misery which he brings on the land (Ecclesiastes 10:16-19)? Is it not much more likely that Koheleth is drawing from his own experience of licentious rulers, which concerns not Solomon at all? Then, again, the course of philosophical investigation into the summum bonum depicted in the book is wholly incompatible with the historical Solomon. There is no evidence whatever that he entered into any such inquiry and pursued it with the view herein intimated. The writer gives a fair account of many of the king's great undertakings — his palaces, gardens, reservoirs, his feasts, sensually, and carnal enjoyments; but there is no hint in the history that these things were only parts of a great experiment, steps on the path that might lead to the knowledge of happiness. Rather they are represented in the annals as the outcome of wealth, luxury, pleasure-seeking, selfishness. It is impossible, too, that, in recounting his performances, Solomon should have omitted all mention of that which was the chief glory of his reign — the erection of the temple at Jerusalem. Yet his connection with it is not noticed by the remotest allusion, though there is possibly some mention of the worship there (Ecclesiastes 5:1, 2): "Keep thy foot when thou goest to the house of God."
Further, if, as we have seen, the references to Solomon himself are often inconsistent with what we know of his history, the state of society presented by intimations scattered here and there is certainly not that which obtained in his reign. We read of violent oppression and wrong, when tears of agony were wrung from the persecuted, whose misery was so great that they preferred death to life under such intolerable circumstances (Ecclesiastes 4:1-3); whereas, in these palmy days of the kingdom, all was peace and plenty: "Judah and Israel were many, as the sand which is by the sea in multitude, eating and drinking, and making merry" (1 Kings 4:20). Two more antagonistic scenes could scarcely have been depicted, and we cannot suppose them to refer to the same period. It is true that after Solomon's death the people complained that his yoke had been grievous (1 Kings 12:4); it is also true that he dealt sternly with the strangers and the remnant of the idolatrous nations left in the land (2 Chronicles 2:17, 18; 8:7, 8); but the former allegation was doubtless exaggerated, and referred chiefly to the taxes and imposts laid upon the people in order to supply the means for carrying out magnificent designs; there was no complaint of oppression or injustice; it was relief from excessive taxation, and perhaps from enforced labor, that was demanded. The typical character of Solomon's reign would not have afforded a theme of prophetical representation of Messiah's kingdom, had it been the scene of violence, turbulence, and unhappiness which stands before our minds in Koheleth's page. With regard to the possible sufferings of the aboriginals, from whom was exacted bond-service (1 Kings 9:21), we have no record that they were treated with undue severity; and it is certain that, in any case, Koheleth would not be thinking of them in recounting the misery which he had witnessed. No Hebrew, indeed, would take them into consideration at all. Hewers of wood and drawers of water they became in the nature of things, and of them nothing more was to be said.
Another aspect of affairs, incongruous with Solomon's time, is seen in an allusion to the system of espionage practiced under despotic governments (Ecclesiastes 10:20), where the writer warns his readers to beware how they utter a word, or even cherish a thought, in disparagement of the ruling rower; walls have ears; a bird shall carry the word; and punishment is sure to follow. Can we believe that Solomon used such a system? And is it credible that, if he did encourage this odious practice, he would explain and dilate upon it in a popular work? Once more, it must have been at a much later period that the admonition against unsanctified and diffuse study was needed (Ecclesiastes 12:12). The national literature in Solomon's time must have been of the scantiest nature; the warning could have been applicable only when the theories and speculations of Greece and Alexandria had found their way into Palestine (Ginsburg).
Further, it must be noticed that, though God is spoken of continually, it is always by the name of Elohim, never by his covenant appellation, Jehovah. Is it conceivable that the historical Solomon, who had experienced such remarkable mercies and special endowments at the hands of Jehovah, should ignore this Divine relation, and speak of God merely as the Maker of the world, the Governor of the universe? In Proverbs the name Jehovah occurs nearly a hundred times, Elohim hardly at all; it is preposterous to account for this difference by asserting that Solomon wrote one work while in a slate of grace, and hence used the covenant name, and the other after he had fallen, and felt himself unworthy of God's favor. As we said before, there is no trace of repentance in his life; and the picture of "the aged, penitent king, stung with poignant anguish of mind for his sins, and unable to utter the adorable name," if true to nature (Wordsworth), is not true to history. Rather, one would have expected one who had been betrayed into idolatry to be careful to use the name of the true God in contradistinction to that which was common to the false and the true.
Other discrepancies might be pointed out, such, for instance, as the absence of all allusion to idolatry, which the king, if repentant, could not have refrained from mentioning; but enough has been said to show there are many statements which are unsuitable to the character, epoch, and circumstances of the historical Solomon.
4. The allegation that the language of the book is wholly compatible with the time of Solomon would require too great space to be examined in detail. We should have to enter into technicalities which could be appreciated by none but Hebrew scholars, and only by those few who were fully acquainted, not merely with the writings of the Old Testament, but also with the language of Targums, etc., the rabbinic literature which came into existence by slow degrees after the Babylonish captivity. Suffice it to say generally that the language and style of the book have marked peculiarities, and that many words and many forms of expression either occur nowhere else in the Bible, or are found solely in the very latest books of the sacred canon. Delitzsch and Knobel and Wright have given lists of these hapax legomena and words and forms which belong to the later period of Hebrew. The catalogue, which extends to nearly a hundred items, has been closely, examined by various scholars, and careful criticism has eliminated a very large number of the incriminated expressions. Many of these are abstract words, formed from roots naturally enough, though not occurring elsewhere; many have derivatives in the earlier books; many cannot be proved to belong exclusively to the Chaldee, and may have been common to other Semitic dialects. But after making all due allowances, there remain enough instances of late and rabbinical words and phrases to prove that the work belongs to a period posterior to Solomon. Certainly it is quite possible to press the grammatical and etymological argument too far, and to lay too much stress on details often most difficult to dissect, and frequently more questions of taste and delicate judgment than of stern and indubitable fact; but the present case does not rest on isolated examples, some of which may be found faulty and weak, but on a large induction of particulars, the cumulative importance of which cannot be set aside.
How is this argument attempted to be met? The linguistic peculiarities cannot be wholly denied, but it is argued that the Aramaisms and foreign expressions are owing to Solomon's wide intercourse with external nations, and the bent of his mind, which inclined to comprehensiveness, and led him to prefer what was rare and removed from the intercourse of common life. Some suppose that this was done with the view of making the work more acceptable to non-Israelites. Others deem that the subject-matter necessitated the peculiar phraseology employed. Such allegations, however, will not account for grammatical peculiarities and verbal inflections, which are found rarely or never in earlier books, or for the absence of forms which are most common elsewhere. Foreign words might be introduced here and there in a work of any age; but it is different with changes in syntax and inflection; these denote another epoch or stage in language, and cannot be adequately explained by any of the above arguments. The assertion that the writer desired to commend his treatise to external nations is entirely unsupported by evidence, and is negatived by the fact that idolatry, the crying sin of other peoples, is never alluded to. Compare the bold denunciations of the Book of Wisdom, and it will at once be seen how a true believer deals with those who are enemies to his religion and worship. There is another consideration which supports the view for which we contend. The whole style of the work is indicative of a later development. Critics point to the very frequent employment of conjunctions to express the most diverse logical relations, which were not needed in the simpler lucubrations of early times. Then there is the pleonastic use of the personal pronoun after the verbal form; the mode of expressing the present by the participle, often in connection with a personal pronoun; the almost entire absence of the imperfect with vav conversive; and many other peculiarities of a similar nature, all of which indicate neo-Hebraism.
5. That no one but Solomon could have written a book of such consummate excellence is, of course, a mere assumption. We know so little of the literary history of those days, and our information concerning writers and educationists is so scanty, that it is impossible to say who could or who could not have composed such a work. Because we can fix the authorship definitely upon no other person, we are not compelled to subscribe h) the traditional view. One of equal mental capacities and attainments with the writer of Job might, under inspiration, have produced Koheleth; and, like the other, have remained unknown. The apocryphal compositions of post-exilian days show a large amount of literary talents, and the age which gave them birth might have been fruitful in other authors.
6. The coincidences between Ecclesiastes, Proverbs, and Canticles may be explained without resorting to the supposition that the three works are the production of one author, and that author Solomon. Not to discuss the genuineness of the Song of Songs, the Book of Proverbs is confessedly derived from many sources, and quotation from its pages would not serve to establish the Solomonic origin of the passage cited. All that can be decided from the parallelism with the other books attributed to Solomon is that the author had evidently read those works, as he certainly had perused Job, and perhaps Jeremiah, and, consciously or unconsciously, borrowed sentiments and expressions from them. And, on the other hand, there are confessedly such marked variations of style between those writings and Ecclesiastes, that it is difficult to allow that they came from the same pen, though wielded, as is said, at different ages of life.
From these premises it must be concluded that the Solomonic authorship cannot be maintained, and that the book belongs to a much later epoch than that of Solomon. Surrendering the traditional opinion, we are, however, at once cast upon an ocean of surmises, which are wholly derived from internal evidence as this strikes different readers. In assigning the date of the book, critics are hopelessly divided, some giving B.C. 975, others B.C. 40, and between these dates others have, on various grounds, taken their respective stand. But eliminating theories which the work itself contravenes, we find that most reliable authorities are divided between the times of Ezra and Nehemiah, the Persian, and the Greek epochs. The theory of its composition in the time of Herod the Great, enunciated by Gratz, needs no refutation, and is only noticeable as showing, by the legend on which it is based, that at that day Koheleth was generally regarded as an integral portion of Holy Scripture. The first period mentioned would take us to the time of the Prophet Malachi, B.C. 450-400. But that seer writes much purer Hebrew than Koheleth, and the two could hardly have been contemporaneous. At any rate, we cannot be wrong in taking the generation after Malachi as the terminus a quo of our inquiry. The terminus ad quem seems to be defined by the use made of Ecclesiastes by the author of the Book of Wisdom. That the latter is the later of the two is evident from its Hellenistic form and environment, of which Koheleth shows no trace, and from its exhibiting a development of the doctrines of wisdom and eschatology far beyond what is found in our book. Koheleth complains that increase of wisdom brings increase of trouble (Ecclesiastes 1:18); the later pseudo-Solomon asserts that to live with Wisdom hath no bitterness, but is stable joy and gladness (Wisd. 8:16). On the one hand, we read that there is no remembrance of the wise man more than of the fool forever (Ecclesiastes 2:16); on the other hand, it is maintained that wisdom makes the memory of its possessor ever fresh, and confers upon him immortality (Wisd. 8:13; 6:20). If one argues sadly that the good and the evil have the same fate (Ecclesiastes 9:2), the other often comforts himself by thinking that their destinies are very different, and that the righteous are at peace, and live for evermore, and their reward is with the Most High (Wisd. 3:2, etc.; 5:15, etc.). And generally the future judgment which Koheleth intimates vaguely and indefinitely, has, in the later book, become a settled belief, and a recognized motive of action and endurance. Both writings virtually assume the authorship of Solomon; and many passages of the later work, especially Ecclesiastes 2., seem to be designed to correct erroneous impressions gathered by some minds from Kohcleth's unexplained statements. There is good reason to suppose that certain free-thinkers and sensualists in Alexandria had ventured to support their immoral opinions by citing the authority of the wise king, who in his book urged men to enjoy life, according to the maxim, "Let us eat and drink; for tomorrow we die." This misapprehension of inspired teaching the author of Wisdom unhesitatingly condemns and confutes. The passages referred to are noted as they occur in the Exposition. But a comparison of the reasoning of the materialists in Wisdom with the statements in Ecclesiastes 2:18-26; 3:18-22; 5:13, 20, will show whence was derived the perverted view of life which needed correction.
Now, the Book of Wisdom was composed not later than B.C. 150; so the limits between which lies the production of Ecclesiastes are B.C. 400 and B.C. 150. The nearer definition must be determined by other considerations. Mr. Tyler and Dean Plumptre have traced a connection between Ecclesiastes and Ecclesiasticus, and, by a series of contrasted citations, have endeavored to prove that Ben-Sira was well acquainted with our book, and used it largely in the composition of his own. Plumptre also considers that the name Ecclesiasticus was given to Ben-Sira's work from its connection with Ecclesiastes, following the track there set. But be this idea well founded, it will not help us much, as the date of Ecclesiasticus is still a disputed question, though most modern critics assign it to the reign of Euergetes II., commonly called Physcon, B.C. 170-117. This, if it is accepted, gives the same result as the previous supposition. But a surer criterion is found in the social and political circumstances revealed incidentally in our book.
We read of the arbitrary exercise of power, the corruption, the dissoluteness and luxury of rulers (Ecclesiastes 4:1, etc.; 7:7; 10:16); perversion of justice and extortion in provinces (Ecclesiastes 5:8); the promotion of base and unworthy persons to high positions (Ecclesiastes 10:5-7); tyranny, despotism, revelry. These doings are graphically depicted by one who knew from experience that of which he wrote. And this condition of affairs points with much certainty to the time when Palestine lay under Persian rule, and irresponsible satraps oppressed their subjects with iron hands. For the same conclusion makes also the comparison of the inexorable law of death to the cruel obligation of military service which obtained among the Persians, and which allowed of no evasion (Ecclesiastes 8:8); so, too, the allusion to spies and the trade of the secret informer (Ecclesiastes 10:20) suits the government of the Achsemenidae. The oppressive rule under which the Palestinians groaned led to a widespread disaffection and discontent, to a readiness to seize any occasion to revolt, and rendered suitable the caution against hasty action and the exhortation to patience (Ecclesiastes 8:3, 4). The social and political condition induced two evils — first, a reckless disregard to moral and religious restraint, as though God took no care of men and paid no heed to their welfare; secondly, a scrupulous attention to the externals of religion, as though by this one could constrain Heaven to favor him — the offering of perfunctory sacrifices, the making of vows as a barren duty. This state of things we know to have been existent from the age of Nehemiah and before the Maccabaean period; and many observations of Koheleth are directed against these abuses (Ecclesiastes 5:1-7). The remark about the multiplication of books (Ecclesiastes 12:12) could not have applied to any period previous to the Persian. The absence of any trace of Greek influence (which we shall endeavor to prove further on) removes the writing from Macedonian times; nor could it be reasonably attributed to the Maccabrean epoch. There is no trace of the patriotic feeling which animated the Hebrews under the tyranny of the Syrians. The persecutions then experienced had made future retribution no longer a vague speculation or a dim hope, but an anchor of patience a practical motive for constancy and courage. This was a great advance upon the misty conception of Koheleth. The conclusion at which we arrive is that Ecclesiastes was written about B.C. 300.
In deciding thus we are not precluded from considering that many of the proverbs and sayings contained herein come from an earlier age, and may have been popularly attributed to Solomon himself. Such time-honored sentences would be readily inserted in a work of this nature and would favor its reception and currency. The author must be deemed wholly unknown; he has so completely veiled his identity that any attempt to draw him from his purposed obscurity is hopeless. That he wrote in Palestine seems most probable. Some have fancied that the expression (Ecclesiastes 11:1), "Cast thy bread upon the waters," etc., refers to the sowing of seed on the inundated banks of the Nile, and that, therefore, we are justified in considering Alexandria as the scene of our author's labors. But this interpretation of the passage is inadmissible; the words have nothing to do with Egyptian cultivation, and give no clue to the writer's domicile. Indeed, there are allusions to rainy seasons and the dependence of the land for fertility, not on the river, but on the clouds of heaven (Ecclesiastes 11:3; 12:2), which pointedly debar any notion of Egypt being intended, and plainly indicate another country subject to very different climatic influences. The peculiarities of the Palestinian weather are characterized in Ecclesiastes 11:4, "He that observeth the wind shall not sow; and he that regardeth the clouds shall not reap." Such warnings would have no significance in a land where rain rarely ever fell, and no one ever considered whether or not the wind was in what we call a rainy quarter. Again, no one but a Jew living in his own country would talk familiarly of frequenting the temple-worship (Ecclesiastes 5:1); of seeing evil men honored in the holy place, Jerusalem (Ecclesiastes 8:10); of a fool not knowing the way to "the city" par excellence (Ecclesiastes 10:15). Such expressions indicate a dweller in or near Jerusalem, and such we consider the author to have been — one who addresses his countrymen in their own language, as it was spoken in his time and locality. Had he lived in Egypt, he would doubtless have used Greek as the vehicle of his instructions, as did the writer of the Book of Wisdom; but dwelling in Palestine, he, like the composer of Ecclesiasticus, published his lucubrations in the native Hebrew. At the same time, his travels had probably extended beyond the limits of his own country, and made him in some sort familiar with foreign courts.
Dean Plumptre has arranged his idea of the author, plan, and purpose of the book in the form of an ideal biography, which indeed seems to solve many of the vexed questions that meet the student, but is evolved entirely from internal considerations, and is invented to support the writer's foregone conclusions. It is very ingenious and captivating, and worthy of study, whether one agrees with the view taken or dissents from it. Conceiving Ecclesiastes to be the production of an unknown author writing about B.C. 200, and, in spite of the personation of King Solomon, really uttering his autobiographical confessions, the dean proceeds to delineate Koheleth's life and character from the hints contained, or thought to be contained, in his pages. According to his biographer, Koheleth, an only son, was born somewhere in Judaea (not Jerusalem), about B.C. 230. Well taught in the usual lore, he early learned to reverence Solomon as the pattern of wisdom and wise experience — in this respect being superior to the mass of his countrymen, who, neglecting their own history and their own sacred books, were inclined rather to follow the modes of thought of the Greeks and Syrians, with whom they were brought in contact, and if they conformed to the national religion, it was rather from conventionality and a regard to routine than from heartfelt conviction and devout feeling. Koheleth saw and marked this vain ceremonialism and lip-worship, and learned to contrast such pretenders with those who really feared the Lord. As he grew up, his father, though wealthy, made him take his share in the labors of the vineyard and corn-field, and taught him the happiness of a life of activity. But he was not long content with this quiet existence; he panted for a wider sphere, larger experience; and, with his parents' consent, and with ample means at his disposal, he set out on foreign travel. Alexandria was the place to which he directed his steps. Here, having good introductions, he was admitted to the highest society, saw the life of courts, joined in the revelry prevailing there, indulged in all the enervating luxury and immorality which made the life of the pleasure-seeking inhabitants of this corrupt city. Satiety produced disgust. While staining his soul with degrading passions, he had preserved the memory of better things, and the struggle between the opposing elements is faithfully retraced in his book. On the one side, we have the weariness and pessimism of the blase profligate; on the other, the revolt of the higher nature leading to a truer view of life. The course of his experience conducted him to a friend who was pure and sincere, and to a mistress who was beyond measure abandoned and false; and while he could thank God for the gift of the former, who had proved to be a wise and loving counselor, he was no less thankful for being enabled to tear himself from the snares of the latter, whom he had found "more bitter than death." Deceived and disappointed, and dissatisfied with the scanty literature of his own nation, he turned for solace to the literature and philosophy of Greece; her poets supplied him with language in which to clothe the sentiments which arose from his new experiences; philosophers, Epicureans and Stoics, for a time charmed him with their teaching concerning nature, morality, life, and death. Such doctrines confirmed the notion of the vanity of most of the objects that men eagerly pursue, and encouraged the opinion that it was one's duty and interest to enjoy moderately all the pleasures that are available. Koheleth now discovered that there was something better than sensuality; that charity, benevolence, reputation, afforded joys more comforting and lasting. Admitted a member of the Museum, he joined in the philosophical discussions which were there carried on; heard and talked much about the summum bonum, happiness, immortality, free-will, destiny; but here was little to satisfy his cravings, though for the time he was interested and cheered by this intellectual activity. And now his excesses and his close study told upon his constitution, sapped his strength, and condemned him to premature old age. Partly paralyzed, weakened in body, but with the brain still active, he sat waiting the inevitable stroke, musing upon the past, and learning from the reflection that the soul could be satisfied by nothing but religion. Childhood's teaching came back with new force and meaning; God's love, justice, and power were living and energizing truths; the Creator was also the Judge. These verities, which he at length was compelled to acknowledge, were such as ought not to be kept unrevealed. Others, like himself, might have passed the same ordeal, and might need the instruction which he could give. How better could his enforced leisure be employed than in presenting to his countrymen his experiences, the course of thought which carried him through the pessimism of the sated sensualist, the wisdom of the Epicurean thinker, to the faith in a personal God? So he writes this record of a soul's conflicts, under the pseudonym of Koheleth, "the Debater," "the Preacher," shielding himself under the aegis of the great ideal of wisdom, Solomon King of Israel, whose life of enjoyment and late repentance, as tradition affirmed, bore a close analogy to his own.
It will be seen that there are many utterances in Ecclesiastes which spring naturally from the mouth of one situated as Koheleth is supposed to be, and which are readily explained by the above theory. It is also easy so to analyze the work, and so to interpret the allusions, as to give strong ground for its acceptance. And Dean Plumptre deserves great credit for the invention of the story, and its presentation in a most fascinating form. Bat regarded by sober criticism, does it satisfy the requirements of the case? Is it necessitated by the language of the book? Is there no other theory, less novel and violent, which will equally or better meet the circumstances? The objections to the "ideal biography" may here be very briefly stated, as we shall have occasion to discuss many of them more fully in our account of the plan and object of our book. The whole romance is based on the assumption that the work is replete with Grecisms, traces of Alexandrian thought, echoes of Greek philosophy and literature. Remove this foundation, and the beautiful edifice crumbles into dust. Our study of the book has led to a very opposite conclusion from that entertained in this very ideal biography. The alleged Hellenisms, the Stoicism and Epicureanism, do not stand the test of unprejudiced criticism, and are capable of being explained without going so far afield. The particular examination of these items we defer to another section, but thus much may be here said — the adduced expressions and views are the natural outcome of Hebrew thought, have nothing extraneous in their origin, and are analogous to post-Aristotelian sentiments, not because they are consciously derived from this fount, but because they are the produce of the same human mind, reflecting upon problems which have perplexed thinkers in every age and country. Restless speculation, combined with a certain infidelity, was rife among men; Koheleth reflects this mental activity, this endeavor to grapple with difficult questions, and to offer solutions from yawing points of view: what wonder that, in the course of his disquisition, he should present parallels to the opinions of the Stoic or Epicurean, who had gone over the same ground as himself? There is no plagiarism, no borrowing of ideas here; the evolution is, as it were, inspired by the subject.
"We do not make our thoughts; they grow in us
Like grain in wood: the growth is of the skies;
The skies, of nature; nature, of God.
The world Is full of glorious likenesses; and these
'Tis the bard's task, beside his general scope
Of story, fancy framed, to assort, and make
From the common chords man's heart is strung withal,
Music; from dumb earth heavenly harmony."
(Bailey, 'Festus.')
In short, the book is a product of the chokma literature, practically religious, and more concerned with the life and circumstances of man generally than with man as a member of the commonwealth of Israel. The Hebrew, in this and similar works, divests himself in some degree of his peculiar nationality, and speaks as man to man, as one of the great human family, and not as an item in a narrow fraternity. Not that revelation is ignored, or the writer forgets his theocratical position; he simply places it in the background, takes it for granted, and, virtually grounding his lucubrations thereon, does not bring it forward prominently and distinctly. So Koheleth, in all his warnings of the vanity of earthly things, shows that beneath this sad experience and melancholy view lies a firm faith in the justice of God, and belief in the future judgment, which could be derived only from the inspired history of his people.
§
He had been king, and had tried to find some satisfaction in many pursuits and under various circumstances, but in vain. The striving for wisdom is a feeding on wind; there is always something that eludes the grasp. There are anomalies in nature and in human affairs that men are powerless to comprehend and to rectify; and sorrow grows with increasing knowledge (Ecclesiastes 1:12-18). He takes a new quest; he tries pleasure, he tests his heart with folly: in vain. He turns to art, to architecture, horticulture, kingly state and magnificence, luxury, and the amassing of wealth; there was no profit in any of them (Ecclesiastes 2:1-11). He studied human nature in its manifold phases of wisdom and folly, and he learned thus much, that the former excels the latter as light excels darkness; yet with this came the thought that death leveled all distinctions, placed wise man and fool in the same category. Besides this, be one never so rich, he must leave the results of his labors to another, who may be unworthy to succeed him. All this bitter experience forces the conclusion that temperate enjoyment of the goods of this life is the only proper aim, and that this is entirely the gift of God, who dispenses this pleasure or withholds it according to man's actions and disposition. At the same time, this limitation impresses on man's labor and enjoyment a character of vanity and unreality (Ecclesiastes 2:12-26). Now, man's happiness depends upon God's will, anti he has arranged all things according to immutable laws, so that even the minutest matters have each their proper time and season. General experience proves this; it is useless to struggle against it, however inexplicable it may seem to be; man's duty and comfort is to recognize this providential government and practically to acquiesce therein (Ecclesiastes 3:1-15). There are injustices, disorders, anomalies in the world, which man cannot remedy by any exertion of his own, and which impede his peaceful enjoyment; but, doubtless, there shall be a day of retribution, when all such iniquities shall be punished and corrected, and God allows them for a time to continue, with the view of proving men, and to teach them humility, that in one sense they are not superior to brutes. Hence man's happiness and duty consist in making the best of the present life, and improving the opportunities which God offers, without anxious care for the future (Ecclesiastes 3:16-22). He gives further illustrations of man's inability to secure his own happiness. See how man is oppressed or wronged by his fellow-man. Who can remedy this? And in face of such things, what pleasure is there in life? Success only leads to envy. Yet labor is necessary, and none but the fool sinks into apathy and indolence. Turn to avarice for consolation, and you are isolated from your fellows, and haunted with a sense of insecurity. High place itself has no assurance of permanence. Foolish kings are supplanted by young and clever aspirants; yet the people do not long remember their benefactors or profit by their meritorious services (Ecclesiastes 4:1-16). Turn to popular religion: is there any satisfaction or comfort to be found there? Nay, all is hollow and unreal. The house of God is entered thoughtlessly and irreverently; verbose prayers are uttered with no feeling of the heart; vows are made only to be broken or evaded; dreams take the place of piety, and superstition stands for religion (Ecclesiastes 5:1-7). In the political life, too, there is much that is disheartening, only to be supported by the thought of an overruling Providence (Ecclesiastes 5:8, 9). The pursuit and possession of wealth give no more satisfaction than other mundane things. The rich are always wanting more; their expenses increase with their wealth; they are not happy in life, and may lose their property at a stroke, and leave nothing to the children for whom they labored (Ecclesiastes 5:10-17). All thin leads again to the old conclusion that we should make the best of life such as it is, seeking neither riches nor poverty, but being content to enjoy with sobriety the good that God gives, remembering that the power to use and enjoy is a boon that comes solely from him (Ecclesiastes 5:15-20). We may see men possessed of all the gifts of fortune, yet unable to enjoy them, and soon obliged to leave them by the inexorable stroke of death (Ecclesiastes 6:1-6). If desires were always accomplished, we might have a different tale to tell; but they never are fully satisfied; high and low, wise and foolish, are equally victims of unsatisfied cravings (Ecclesiastes 6:7-9). These desires are profitless, because circumstances are not under man's control; and, not being able to forecast the future, he must make the best of the present (Ecclesiastes 6:10-12).
Koheleth now proceeds to apply to practice the truths which he has been establishing. As man knows not what is best for him, he must accept what is sent, be it joy or sorrow; and let him learn hence some salutary lessons. Life should be solemn and earnest; the house of mourning teaches better than the house of feasting; and the rebuke of a wise man is more whole- some than the mirth of fools (Ecclesiastes 7:1-7). We must learn patience and resignation; it is no wisdom to quarrel with things as they are or to praise the past in contrast with the present. We cannot change what God has ordered; and he sends good and evil that we may feel our entire dependence, and not disquiet ourselves about the future, which must be wholly unknown to us (Ecclesiastes 7:8-14). Anomalies occur; all excesses must be avoided, both on the side of over-righteousness and of laxity; true wisdom is found in the observance of the mean, and this is the only preservative from errors in the conduct of life (Ecclesiastes 7:15-22). Having thus far been aided by Wisdom, he desires, by her assistance, to solve deeper and more mysterious questions, but is wholly baffled. But he learned some further practical truths, viz. that wickedness was folly and madness, that of all created things woman was the most evil, and that man was made originally upright, but had perverted his nature (Ecclesiastes 7:23-29). His experience now leads him to consider man as a citizen. Here he shows that it is useless to rebel; true wisdom counsels obedience even under the worst oppression, and submission to Providence. Subjects may well be patient, for sure retribution awaits the tyrant (Ecclesiastes 8:1-9). But he is troubled by seeming anomalies in God's moral government, noting the contradiction to expected retribution in the case of the good and evil. God's abstention and the impunity of sinners make men incredulous of Providence; but in spite of all this, he knows in his heart that God is just in reward and punishment, as the end will prove. Meantime, unable to solve the mystery of God's ways, man's right course is, as before said, to make the best of existing circumstances (Ecclesiastes 8:10-15). This conclusion is confirmed by the fact that one fate awaits all men, and that the dead are cut off from all the feelings and pursuits and interests of life in the upper world (Ecclesiastes 9:1-6). Hence the lesson is repeated that man's wisest course is to use his earthly life to the best advantage, without being greatly disturbed by the inscrutability of the moral government of the world (Ecclesiastes 9:7-12). Wisdom, indeed, is not always rewarded, and the wise man who has clone good service is often forgotten; but there is a real power in wisdom which can effect more than physical strength (Ecclesiastes 9:13-18). On the other hand, a little folly mars the effect of wisdom, and is quite sure to manifest itself in word or conduct (Ecclesiastes 10:1-3). Koheleth then gives his experience of what he has seen in the case of capricious rulers, who often advanced to high stations the most incompetent men; and he offers some advice for conduct under such circumstances (Ecclesiastes 10:4-7). Wisdom teaches caution in all undertakings, whether in private or political life; a man should count the cost and make due preparation before attempting reformation in government or any other important matter (Ecclesiastes 10:8-11). See the strong contrast between the gracious words and acts of the wise man, and the objectless prating and useless labors of the fool (Ecclesiastes 10:12-15). The lesson of caution under the government of dissolute and unprincipled rulers is strongly enforced (Ecclesiastes 10:16-20). Drawing towards the conclusion of his work, Kohcleth glares some direct practical advice under three heads. We should leave unanswerable questions, and endeavor to do our duty with diligence and activity; especially we ought to be largely beneficent, as we know not how soon we ourselves may meet with adversity and need help (Ecclesiastes 11:1-6). This is the first remedy for impatience and discontent; the second is found in