/l.lS.Z'i LIBRARY OF THE THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY PRINCETON. N. J. Presented by TbeWicTlovv o-f Qeoro'elluA^iTin, '^'^^ Section...*:.]-...^ I ^ V. 10 copY 2- Digitized by tine Internet Arciiive in 2010 witii funding from Princeton Tiieological Seminary Library Iittp://www.arcliive.org/details/ecclesiastesorko102zc ECCLESIASTES; OR, KOHELETH. BY DR. OTTO'^ZOOKLER, PROP. OP TUEOLDGT, GREIFSWALD- AMERICAN EDITION. EDITED, WITH ANNOTATIONS, DISSERTATIONS ON LEADING IDEAS, TOGETHER WITH A NEW METRICAL VERSION and AN INTRODUCTION THERETO. PROF. TA YLER LEWIS, LL.D. OP SCHENECTADY, N. 7. TRANSLATED BY WILLIAM WELLS, A.M. Fsorsasos or the gerhah language and litebatore, unio.v college, it. t NEW YORK: CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS, 1898 Enterep, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1870, by CHARLES SCRIBNER, A CO., In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. ECCLESIASTES. SOLOMON, THE PREACHER INTRODUCTION. 2 1. NAME AND CHAKACTER OP THE BOOK. According to the title ; " The words of Koheleth, Son of David, King of Jerusalem," this book contains the discourses or reflections of a king whom the author presents as Solomon, but whom t he designates with the peculiarly symbolical appellative n'^^Hp' This expression, which ie not used outside of this book, is used again in it several times, and twice with the article (vii. 27 ; xii. 8; comp. i. 2, 12; xii. 9, 10). It is clearly allied with 7np assembly, congregation of the people, and, as there is no such verb in Kal, is to be connected with Hiphil, ^TlDn (Numb. viii. 9 ; x. 7 ; xx. 8 ; Job xi, 10), and is accordingly to be considered as the feminine participial form with the signification of one holding an assembly, preaching. This signification which the oldest translators and expositors express (Sept.: eimXriamaTi/c ■ HlERONYMns : concionator; hence Luther: "Preacher") appears to stand in direct relation to the Chokmah of the Old Covenant, the personified Wisdom, preaching in the streets and on the market places, gathering around it all who were eager to learn (Prov. i. 20 sqq.; viii. 1 sqq.; ix. 1 sqq.). From an original designa- tion of this wisdom, the name Koheleth seems to have become the surname of Solomon, the teacher of wisdom aaf einxm', or, as it were, wisdom incarnate, — a surname that with special propriety could be conferred on the great King, when he was represented as teaching and preach- ing, as in the apocryphal book of wisdom (chap. vii. 1 sq.; ix. 7, 8, etc.), or as in ours. If one does not wish thus to explain the feminine form, Koheleth, as a designation of a male individual (with EwALD, KosTER, Hengstenberg, Hitzig, and others), there is nothing left but to accept an absiractum pro concreto, or, what is the same thing, to derive the feminine ending from the character of the name as an official name; for which analogies may be quoted in the Syriac and Arabic, as in the later Hebrew (e. gazelle-hunter, Ezra ii. 57; Neh. vii. 59) ; for these names are closely allied with Jl/np't And, moreover, since the Koheleth of our book appears every where as a real person, and no where clearly as a personified idea, and since expressions such as those contained in i. 16 f.; ii. 12, etc.; according to which the speaker attributes to himself an effort, a seeking, an obtaining, would not be especially appropriate in the mouth of personified wisdom, the weightiest arguments seem to declare in fa- vor of the second mode of explanation, but without the absolute exclusion of the other. — But in any case we must adopt for the explanation of the feminine form one or the other of the above quoted hypotheses, and not the opinion of Meecertts, that by the feminine ending there is an intimation of the senile weakness of the preacher, and consequently of the advanced age at which Solomon wrote the book ; nor the view of Zikkel (see § 6), that the feminine ending is chosen because of the delicate and graceful style of the book, nor the still more fanciful assertion of AuGUSTl (Introd. to the 0. T., 1 172), that Koheleth is the spirit of Solomon returned to the realm of the living, and now represented as the preacher of wisdom, and that its feminine desig- nation is to be understood in the neutral sense, because those deceased and living after death were considered destitute of gender, in harmony with Matth. xxii. 30. It has been justly made to appear in opposition to this latter view, by Knobel, Elstee and others, that the book itself no where hints at the character of the speaker, as of a spirit from Scheol, and that apparitions in the Old Testament, as 1 Sam. xxviii. 11 ff. proves, clearly appear as something rare and abnor- mal, and that on account of the well known prohibition of conjuration of the dead (Lev. xix. 31 ; XX. 6 ; Deut. xviii. 11 ; Isa. viii. 19) even the poetic fiction of an apparition of Solomon could hardly occur, especially in religious writings laying claim to canonicity. OBSERVATION 2. The character of this book has suffered manifold misapprehensions, as well in a theological point of view (for which see below § 5) as in the rhetorical and esthetical. It has been accused of numerous contradictions with itself, of absence of plan and connection, on account of a faulty perception of its inner economy, and the development of its thoughts. It has been declared in- consistent that passages like i. 11 ; ii. 15, 16 ; iii. 19, 20; ix. 25, etc., assert the complete equality of the final fate of the godly and the ungodly ; whilst others, as iii. 17 ; viii. 12, 13; xi. 9 ; xii- 13, 14, promise a corresponding divine reward for each individual moral act, and therefore ex- pressly exhort to uprightness and the fear of God. It has also been found contradictory, that the author sometimes praises wisdom as bringing profit and blessings (ii. 3, 12-14; vii. 10-12 viii. 1-6; X. 2; x. 13-16), and sometimes declares that it is injurious, making men ill-humored, and not leading to the goal of its endeavors ; sometimes indeed causing more unhappiness than * Corop. Bengel'i^ remarks on Luke x. 49 in the Ormmfm. N. T.. p. 164: ^ tropia Tot) Beov, Sapientia Dei, Suave nrnnm, Koheleth. congregatrix, chap. xiii. 34 (noaaKti rideA-rfIe use of thia feminine noun for authorities, powers, ^^principalities, in the heaYens," Rom. TiiL 86; Epfa. i. 21 ; iii. 10 ; vi. 12 ; Col. i. 16 ; ii. 15 ; Titua iii. 1.— T. L.] INTRODUCTION TO ECCLESIA8TES. does folly, (i. 18; viii. 14; ix, 11, 18; x. 1). It is not less contradictory that at one time he praises his own wisdom, and at another maintains that he has not acquired wisdom (Sec. 16; ii. 3, 9, 15, with vii. 23, 24) ; that now he praises women, and recommends association with them, and now warns us against their seductive and immoral nature. (Comp, ii. 8; ix. 9, with vii. 7, 26-29); at one time recommends repose, at another activity (see iv. 6, with ix. 10) ; again he praises obedience to authority as being not without profit, and then he complains of the unjust oppression of subjects by their superiors (comp. viii. 5, with iii. 16; v. 7; x. 4 S.), and finally he declares the dead and the unborn as happier than the living, and soon again calls life sweet, and greatly prefers it to death, (comp. iv. 2, 3, with ix. 4-G; xi. 7). — But aside from the fact that many of these so-called contradictions are but apparent, and become perfectly harmonious in view of the diverse tendency and surroundings of the individual assertions, or indeed through the double signification of one and the same word, as is here and there the case, comp. [e.g.Q]^^ vii. 8, with the same word in vii. 9; If^ia ix. 11, with ?n in x, 12, etc.,) a certain vacillation and unsteady effort in the presentation of the author is a necessary condition of his peculiar theme — the doctrine of the vanity of all earthly things. The most contradictory experiences which he may have made in life, he seeks to reproduce in a corresponding and often abrupt change of his feelings, a vivid transition of his thoughts and expressions, — a peculiarity which Umbreit has not inappropriately characterized by his designation of the entire contents of xhe book as a " soul struggle, an inner strife between the judgment and the feelings of a wise old King ;" (comp. I 6). In this respect, also, Vaihinger strikingly observes, [" Ecclesiastes and the Song of Solomon," p. 8, f ) : " It must be acknowledged that the preacher is not free from a timid uncertainty, from a doubting vacillation and striving in his mode of reflecting; that he strikingly depicts the want of a perfect clearness regarding human life and divine providence, in the varied experiences of man. The reason of this may be easily discovered by a consideration of the general and special stand-point on which he rests. He was once as Job, a thinking mind, Ihat did not accept the traditional faith untried, that did not stop at the poetry of life, but penetrated into its prose. In this direction he encouDtered a siruggle when he comparfd the daily experiences cf life, in which men are often left to their own impulses, with the promises of the divine word, in which a sure punishment is announced to the sinner. He could not but perceive how evil often has a wonderful and incomprehensible success, whilst the good is not rewarded. At the same time he himself may have variously experienced the bufTetings of life, and have passed through highly repulsive trials that unsettled his mental repose, and shook his faith in the eternal wis- dom, goodness, and providence of God, and disposed him to be discontented with life and tradi- tional prejudices. In this frame of mind, and with such experiences, his faith contended with the thought and the reality with the poetry of life, until, like Job, he had conquered a new stand-point. And from just this view is this book so instructive, lifting us out of a partial, arbitrary, and thoughtless faith, showing us the struggles of the thinking mind, and yet ever leading us back to the true faith. And this is the real profit of the genuine life of faith. If it is to be freed from the dross of thoughtlessness and self-suflttciency, from an idle clinging to tra- dition, it must be seemingly lost in the struggle of life to be found again in loftier purity. Di- vine truths must all be questioned, in order that we may find them again by inward struggles, and new experiences of God in a sanctified form; (Ps. Ixii. 12, 13) ; and in this relation also avails the expression : " He who loses his life, shall find it again." The author presents to us also in this respect, the true life of faith in his conflicts.* Besides the intention of presenting to the reader an intuitive vision of his inward strifes and contests, many reasons of a more formal and external nature may have exerted an influence on •[These admirable remarks of VAimyoER snKgeuio, Zorobabele, qui ob res ienues Judceorum et Persici imperii revtrentiam, regem se dicere rum au- fus, quamquam inter suos pro rege habebatiir, nomen usurpavil modestius Pastoris " {Atinot. ad c. xii. 11). — Besides Nachtigal and (for a while) Doderlein, it was especially H. E. G. Pau- i,us {Comment., 1790) and Statjdlin {History of the Moral Teachings of Jesus, I., 1799), who maintained towards the end of the last century the fragmentary and compilatory character of the book, at the same time with its post-Solomonic origin ; and each in his peculiar way ; Pah- * Miiny trace to Lutber the assertion of a post-Solomonic origin of Eccleeiastps, cirryin^ it back to several collector fv bnt this occurs solely on the basis of his " Preface" of the year 1524, not of his Annotationes in Ecclesiastes of 153^ a far more thoughtful and conservative work of a calmer and matnrer period. Cjmp. 35. 18 INTRODUCTION TO ECCLESIASTES. Lus inclining to the view of Herder, i. e., of a dialogue between scholar and teacher; Staud- LiN, with the eifort to trace as many things as possib.e to Solomon himself as originator. The vacillating and doubtful condition of Solomon towards the end of his life he has depicted in iso- lated paragraphs, which a later Hebrew found, and from them took the main material of whicli he composed the book, as from certam hitherto uncollected sayings of Solomon. This collector then added in his own name some remarks at the end of the book, by which the fate of the whole is mdicated, and some account of the origin of the book is given. — This hypothesis of Stapdlin forms the transition to the second principal form in which the critical efforts directed against the unity of the book have appeared. This consists in the acceptance of one author, perhaps Solo- mon, who wrote at various times the single paragraphs, sayings and reflections wliich (brm the book, and finally united them into one rather unfinished and unharmonious whole. Thus, at first, Wm. Whiston (t 1752), who, under the supposition of Solomonic authorship, says: "t;j librum Ecclesiastce tamquam in unum syslema redaclas esse plures Solomonis observationes, su- per rebus gravisdmi momeriti, sed facias diversis tetnporibus, %it longe maxitna pars ab eo per/ecta sit, quum solius Jehovm cultui addictus de vera religione bene senlirei, nonnullm autem, cum per iUeccbras roluptatum ab hoe cultu desci visset." Thus also J. Chr. Schmidt (179-1), accoi-ding to whom the book, as it appears, consists of paragraphs written in various moods and times, and does not yet seem a book fully finished for the public, but rather a mere sketch drawn up (!) by the author for himself, as a guide for farther labor And there are several similar exegetists about this time, namely, MiDDLEnoEPP (1811), also Spohn (1785), according to whom the book consists of moral sentences which more or less cherish genuine reverence of God, and call atten- tion to His wisdom in the government of the world, in order thereby to lead to a firm trust in God, to alienate the mind from the world, direct it to virtue, etc.; and in the same strain writes ZiRKEL (1792), to whom the whole appears as a reading book for the young inhabitant of the world, etc. — Th'S view, denying the unity and integrity of the book, appears in its most modest form, and with the greatest semblance of scientific support in Van der Palm, Doderleis, Beetholdt, Heezfeld, Knobel, and Umbeeit, who think the unity only here and there de- stroyed by certain changes of the text, alterations, and interpolations, or at least consider the closing section (chap xii. 8-14) as a later addition, either of the author himself (as Heezfeld) or of a later interpolator (as Berth., Knob., Umbr., etc.). In support of this latter view, Kno- bel says : 1) the whole addition is superfluous, because the author in xii. 8 (which verse Kno- bel still considers genuine) brings the whole to a satisfactory conclusion ; 2) Koheleth is not therein introduced, as in the book itself, in the first person speaking of himself, but he is referred to as a third person ; 3) the thought of a future judgment of God in verse 14 contradicts the earlier denial of immortality on the part of the author ; 4) presenting the fear of God and piety as the aim of all wisdom does not comport with the earlier recommendation of a gladsome, sen- sual enjoyment of life ; 5) the expression in verse 12 that " of the making of many books there is no end," does not accord with the epoch of Koheleth, since this period, that of Persian rule, is rather supposed to have been poor in the literary activity of the Jews. None of these reasons will stand a test. For to the 1) a very clear and expressive prominence of the principal didactic thoughts was by no means superfluous, in the obscure and casual way in which these had been previously expressed (e. g., xi. 9) ; to the 2) Koheleth is spoken of in the third person already in the i. 2; vii. 27, and even in verse 8 of the 12th chapter, recognized by Knobel as genuine ; and again, the fact that an author alternately speaks of himself in the first and third person has its analogies in other fields (e. g., Sir. 1. 29 ff.; to the 3 and 4), neither the doctrine of happiness, nor that of immortality and retribution is at variance with the corresponding views and princi- ples of that closing section, since the euderaonism (or blessedness) previously taught is by no means partial, sensual, or even epicurean, but is rather coupled with frequent direct and indirect exhortations to piety (see iii. 14; v. 6 ; viii. 12 f.), and since the final judgment in chap. xi. 9 has been specially and clearly enough alluded to (comp. | 5). In regard to the 5th, the pre- sumption of a comparative literary inactivity and unproductiveness of the Jews of the Persian period is destitute of all proof, as the learned activity of the elders of the synagogue, and the collectors and multipliers of the sacred writings beginning with Ezra, proves ; but since the au- 'hor, as is probable from other signs, possessed a learned culture extending beyond the circle of ? 4. EPOCH AND AUTHOR. 13 Israelitish writings (see the following paragraph), and consequently " with the making of many books," was thinking of the literary activity of the Greeks, Persians, Egyptians (for whose im- mense religious and profane literature, even in the pre-Alexandrine age, comp. Diodorus Siculus, I., 49), and other contemporary nations, therefore the expression in question proves more for than against the appropriateness of that part to the whole. Two arguments also of Umbreit against the genuineness of the section are decidedly untenable ; one consisting in tlie marked self-laudation of the author in verses 9 and 11, and the other in the pretended change of expres- sion and tone of the discourse from verse 8 onward. For the laudatory expressions of the author concerning his own wisdom and learning have their complete and significant parallel in Prov. ii. 1-15; iii. Iff.; iv. Iff.; v. Iff.; vii. Iff.; m Job xxxii. 6-19 ; in Sirach 1.30; and indeed in many earlier expressions of Koheleth himself, as i. 16 ; ii. 3 ; vii. 23 ; — and the change of diction from verses 8 or 9 is simply an internal one, affecting the tone of the discourse and not the indi- vidual linguistic peculiarities, and is therefore satisfactorily explained by the essential contrast existing between the epilogue and the contents of the first part (comp. e. g., also Sir. 1. 29-31 with the foregoing ; and also 2 Mace. xv. 38-40; John xx. 30, 31, etc.). One need not even consider (with Herzfeld) xii. 9-14 as a later addition from the author's own hand to his book. For if, indeed, verse 9 treated of a later activity of Koheleth, this would only then prove a later addition of the section, if Koheleth, i. e., Solomon, were the real and not the pretended author of the book. As for the rest, Umbreit, apart from his exclusion of the ending as a false addi- tion, has decidedly defended and maintained the unity and continuity of all the preceding ; comp. his valuable treatise on the " Unity of the Book of Koheleth," Studien und Kritihen, 1857, i. 1-56. Next to him, of the latest exegetists, Ewald, Vaihinger and Elster have done the best service in proving the unitary character and integrity of the book. Compare what the last named of these beautifully as strikingly remarks concerning this subject (Preface, Sec. III. f.) : "As in landscapes, whose forms, in consequence of previous struggles of contending elements contrast in a manner apparently lawless and wild, the eternal law of all natural formation is stamped, but in another form ; thus the Divine impulse that appears to every candid mind in the book of Koheleth, cannot be wanting in regularity and unity in its revelation. Although per- meated by the most ardent contest of a human heart full of inward glow, it presents in the forms of its revelation, and in consequence of this previous strife, something of the not entirely lawless dismemberment -of a volcanic region. Yes, as landscapes of this kind present to the eye of the artist an especially rich material with which to express his indwelling idea of beauty in bold and stupendous forms, so may we say that the sublimity of the Divine mind is most deeply felt in the rough and dismembered form of the 'book of Koheleth." § 4. EPOCH AND AUTHOR. Neither the title nor the contents of this book can be used to sustain the traditional opinion that Solomon is the author of it (though it presents the fundamental features of the physics of Solomon, as the proverbs those of his ethics, and the Song those of his logic — comp. the general introduction to the Solomonic writings, ^ 1, Obs.). For the manner in which the self-designa- ting Koheleth speaks of himself, chap. i. 1 ; xii. 16, as tlie Son of David and King of Jerusalem, and then attributes to himself works, undertakings, and qualities, whose originator and bearer history teaches to be Solomon alone (ii. 4 till xii. 15; viii. 9 ff.; comp. ^2), indicates rather a literary fiction and an artful self-transposition of the author into the place of Solomon, than the direct Solomonic authorship. For the author says i 12: that he, Koheleth, has been king in Jerusalem, and speaks, vii. 15, of the " days of his vanity," as if he had long been numbered with the dead! And again, what he says of himself, i. 16; ii. 7, 9: that he was wiser and richer than all before him iyi Jerusalem, points, under unbiassed exposition, clearly to an author diffe- rent from the historical Solomon : and, moreover, the allusions to his prosperity, as not less the boasting expressions regarding his own wisdom in i. 16 ; ii. 3, 9, and finally the remarks in refe- rence to him as a person belonging to history, vii. 27; xii. 9-11, are scarcely in harmony with the authorship of Solomon the son and successor of David. And that also which is said, vii. 10, of the depravity of the times, accords as little with the age of Solomon, the most brilliant and pros- perous of Israelitish history, as the manner in which, iv. 13-16 ; v. 7 ff.; viii. 2-10 ; x. 4 ff. IG ff 14 INTRODUCTION TO ECCLESIASTES. it is spoken of princes and kings, indicates the man as speaker who himself is king. And alto- gether unkingly sound the complaints in iii. 17; iv. 1 ; x. 5-7 concerning unjust judges, violent tyrants, officers given to imposition, and slaves and fools elevated to high offices and honors, etc.: these are all lamentations and complamts natural enough in a suffering and oppressed subject, but not in a monarch called and authorized to abolish the evils (comp. Obs. 1). To these references to an author other than Solomon, and an origin considerably later than the Solomonic period, may be added also the linguistic peculiarities of the book, which point with great definiteness to an epoch after the exile. Compared with the prosaic and poetic diction of writings antecedent to the exile, that of this book shows a comprehensive breadth and superfluity of Aramaic words, forms, particles and significations only comparable with similar appearances of well-known productions of post-exile literature, e. g., the Books of Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, the earliest prophetic writings. The linguistic character of the book is, on the whole, in such direct contrast with that of the genuine and old Solomonic writings, especially of the constituent parts of the Proverbs, and in the use and formation of certain favorite philosophical expressions, that these isolated contacts with the old Solomonic thesaurus and custom are necessarily attribu- table to a direct use of these older writings on the part of the author ; while in other regards a most radical difference is observable in the two spheres of language and observation. We con- demn, however, as an unscientific subterfuge, the opinion of some that Solomon purposely used in Ecolesiastes the Chaldaic mode of expression of the philosophers of his age (comp. Obs. 2). For a more exact determining of the person of the author, and the epoch in which he wrote, the descriptions given by him of the religious and moral conditions of his nation and its cotem- poraries, offer some hints and assistance. According to iv. 17; v. 5 and ix. 2, the temple wor- ship was assiduously practiced, but without a living piety of heart, and in a hypocritical and self-justifying manner ; the complaints in this regard remind us vividly of similar ones of the prophet Malachi (e. g., Mai. i. 6 to ii. 9 ; iii. 7 ff. ), with whose book, moreover, our own comes in striking contact in some points of language, namely, in the use of the expression TlN/Sn '" the angel " in the sense of "priest" (chap. v. 5; comp. iTin' T]}{7D ^^- »■ '?)• Other expressions of the author, regarding the religious, moral, and social vices and evils of his age, remind us of the lamentations of Ezra and Nehemiah in reference to the misery under the Per- sian Satraps, e.g., what he says about the decline of public justice (iii. 17), the violent oppres- sion of the innocent (iv. 1 ; vii. 5), the perversion of judgment in the provinces (v. 8), the ad- vancement of idle, incapable, and purchasable men to high honors and places (vii. 7; x. 5-7; xvii. 19), the debauchery of officers and lofty ones of the realm (x. 16-19), informers and secret police (x. 20), the increase of immoral, unrighteous, and selfish conduct of the great multitude (iv. 4, 8; V. 9; viii. 10, 11 ; ix. 3). The harmony of these passages with much that is similar in the books of Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther (comp. e. g , Ez. iv. Iff.; ix. 1 ff; Neh. i. 3ff.; ii. 10, 19; iii. 33ff; iv. 1 ff.; xiii. 10 ff.; E^th. iii. Iff; v. 9ff.), is the more significant because our book uses in common with these very literary productions of the Persian period a word indis- putably Persian, ( r-IIHfl edict, command, chap. viii. 11: comp Ez. iv. 17; Esth. i. 20, e^c). T : . There is no exact indication in the book of a later period of authorship than that of the books of Nehemiah and Malachi, or than the last decades of the fifth century before Christ, — neither in the gloomy view of tlie world and the melancholy philosophy of the author extending at times to inconsolable doubts of Providence, which might have been easily indulged in immediately after the exile, — nor in the complaint about the making of many books (chap xii. 12), to which by no means the last period of Persian rule should be the first to offer an inducement, nor finally in the apparent controversy against Pharisaical, Sadducean and Esssean principles (iv. 17; v. 6; vii. '2-6 ; ix, 2) ; for this is a controversy which in truth refers only to the germs and additions of the mode of thinking of these parties extant since the exile, or since the period immediately preceding the exile, and not referring to the life and doctrine of these sect-like parties as they were in the last century before Christ. The fact that this book hints no where in the slightest at the political condition of the Jewish people under the Ptolemaic and Seleucidan rulers, .md I 4. EPOCH AND AUTHOR. 16 not less the fact that it has been accepted in the canon of the Old Testament, while the book of Sirach, composed soon after the commencement of the Macedonian rule, was excluded from it, a» from an already finished collection, testifies pretty clearly against the composition of the book in 80 late a post-Persian period (comp. Obs. 3). If this book may therefore be very probably considered as about contemporary with Nehemiah and Malachi, or between 450 and 400, then we may find the inducement and aim of its produc- tion in the fact thit the sad condition of his nation, and the unfortunate state of the times, led the author to ihe presentation of grave reflections as to the vanity of all earthly things, and to the search after that which, in view of this vanity, could aflford him consolation and strength of faith, and the same to other truth-loving minds led by the sufferings of the present into painful inward strife and doubts. The result of these reflections, the author — a God-fearing Israelite, belonging to the caste of the Chakamim, or wise teachers of that time (chap. xii. 9-11 ; comp. 1 Kings iv. 31), whose personal relations cannot be more clearly defined, thought to bring most fittingly to the knowledge and appropriation of his contemporaries, by presenting King Solomon, the most distinguished representative of the Israelitish Chakamim, and the original ideal concep- tion of all celebrated wise men of the Old Testament, as a teacher of the people, with the vanity of earthly things as bis theme. And he puts into the mouth of this kingly preacher of wisdom (Koheleth — comp. §1) as his alter ego, mainly two practical and religious deductions from that theme; 1) the principle that while renouncing the traditional belief of a temporal adjustment of Divine justice and human destinies, we must seek our earthly happiness only in serene enjoy- ments, connected wilh wise moderation and lasting fidelity to our trusts; and 2) the exhortation to a cheerful confidence in the hope of a heavenly adjustment between happiness and virtue, and to a godly and joyous looking to this future and just tribunal of God (comp. Obs. 4). OBSERVATION 1. The Talmud seems to express a certain doubt of the traditional Jewish and Christian view, that Solomon himself wrote this book when it, Baba Vathra, f 14, 15 (comp. Schalschelleth Hakkabala, f 6G), makes the assertion that Hezekiah and his philosophers (Prov. xxv. 1) wrote Isaiah, Proverbs, the Song of Solomon, and Ecclesiastes. But this assertion does not so much regard the actual composition of these books as their final revision and introduction into the Canon; the origin of their entire contents from the authors named, and consequently their au- thenticity in the strict sense of the word, is not called into question. Of a more serious charac- ter are the objections raised by Luther against the Solomonic origin of Ecclesiastes. In his preface to the German translation of this book, written in 1524, he says : " The book was not written or arranged by King Solomon himself with his own hand, but was heard from his mouth by others, and collected by the learned men. As they themselves finally confess when they say : These words of the philosophers are spears and nails, arranged by the masters of the congrega- tion, and presented by one shepherd ; i.e , certain chosen ones at that time were ordered by kings and people, this and other books of Solomon, presented to the one shepherd, so to place and arrange, that no one should have need to make books according to his desire; as they therein complain that of book-making there is no end, and forbid others to undertake it. Such people are called the masters of the congregation, so that the books must be accepted and ratified by their hand and office. For the Jewish people had an external government established by God, in order that these things might be surely and justly arranged. Thus also the book of the Pro- verbs of Solomon was put together by others, and at the close the teachings and sayings of some wise men were added Thus also the Song of Solomon seems like a pieced book, taken by others from his mouth. Therefore also is there no order in these books, but one part is mingled with the other, since they did not hear all at one period, nor at once, as must be the way with such books " — He judges still more boldly about the same book in one of those casual remarks of his "Table Ta'k," to which, however, he would himself scarcely have given any scientific va- lue (Works, Erlangen Ed., Vol. 62, 128) : " This book ought to be more complete ; there is too much broken off from it — .it has neither boots nor spurs — it rides only in socks, just as I did when in the cloister. — I do not believe that Solomon was damned, but it was thus written to terrify kings, princes and rulers. Thus he did not write Ecclesiastes, but it was composed by INTEODUCTION TO ECCLESIASTES. Sirach at the time of the Maccabees. But it is a very good and pleasant book, because it has much fine doctrine concerning the household. And, moreover, it is hke a Talmud, composed of many books, perhaps from the library of King Ptolemy Evergetis in Egypt. As also the Proverbs of Solomon were brought together by others," etc. — Lutheb seems by no means to have always entertained this opinion of the book, disputing its authenticity as well as its unity; in his Latin Commentary at least (Ecclesiastes, Solomonis cum annoialionibus, 1532, Ed. Erlang., Lat. T,, XXL, p. 1 ss.), he presents the immediate hearers and contemporaries of King Solomon, as writing the pronounced contents of Koheleth : " Titulum Ecclesiaslas sive conciunaloris magu re- ferendum puto ad ipsius libri, qaam ad auloris nomen, ut inlelligas hcBC esse verba per Salomo- nem publice dicta in condone quadam suorum principum et aliorum. Oum enim rex essel, non erat sui muneris neque officii docere, sed sacerdolum el Levilarum. Quare hcec arbitror dicta a Salomane in conventa quodam suorum, seu a convivio, vel etiam intra convivium, prcesentibus ali- quot magnis viris et proceribus, postquam apudse diu el multum cogilasset de rerum humanorum s. poti/us affeciuum conditioned vanilale, qwe sic postea (ut fil) illis pr(Esentibus effuderit, deinde ab illis ipsis magislris communilatis vel ecclesia excepla el collecta. — Unde et in fine fatenlur hcec se accepisse a pasture uno el congessisse. Sicul nostrum quispicun possel in convivio sedens de rehus humanis dispulare, aliis, quod diceretur, excipientibus. Ut scilicet sit publico concio, quam ex Salomone audierinl, a qua condone placuit himc librum Cohelelh appellare, non quod Salomon ipse concionaior fuerit. sed quod hie liber concionetur, lamquam publicus sermo." As the direct Solomonic authorship appears here decidedly retained, so Luther in other places names Solomon without restriction as the immediate author, just as do Melancthon, Brenz, and the other contemporary and next following exegetists throughout. Grotius was the next one to take up acrain the denial of the Solomonic authenticity, and indeed in a far more distinct and consistent manner than Luthek. See the Obs. to the last paragraph, p. 15 f. He sought in some measure to give a scientific foundation to the assertion of a post-Solomonic origin by reference to the later Chaldean style. "-Ego Salomonis non esseputo," he says, " sec? scriptum serius sub illius regis tam- quam pcenitentis ducti nomine. Argumenla ejus rei habeo muUa vocabula, quce non alibi, quam iii Daniele, Esdra el Chaldmis, interpretibus reperias." Another opponent of the genuineness of the book appeared then in Herm. v. d. Hardt (de libro Coheleth, 1716), who, however, did not, as Grotius, and as subsequently and more decidedly G. Ph. Chr. Kaiser (comp. I 1, Obs. 1), think Zerubbabel to be the author of the book, but his younger contemporary, Jesus, son of the high priest Joiada. Although these rather arbitrary and poorly supported assertions met strong opposition among all contemporaries, and J. D. Michaelis declared himself decidedly in favor of the direct Solomonic origin of the book (Poetic Outline of Ihe Thoughts of Ecclesiasles of Solomon, 2d ed., 1762), nevertheless, since the epoch of genuine rationalism, the belief of its com- position in a post-exile era, and by a philosopher identified with Solomon by means of free poetic fiction, has become so general, that since that time, even from orthodox quarters, only a rather isolated opposition has appeared. The defence of the Solomonic origin has been attempted by ScHELLINa (Salomonis qum supersunl, etc., 1806), F. de Rouorment (Explication du livre de l .E'cc^esi'as^;;, Neuchatel, 1844), H. A. Hahn (Commentary, 1860), Wangeman (Ecclesiastes prac- tically treated according to contents and connection, 1853), Ed Bohl (see Obs. 2), and also the Catholics, Welte (Herbst's Int., II.. 2, 252 S.). Ludw van Essen (Ecclesiastes, Schaffhausen, 1856), and others; while the opposite view has found representatives not only in Ewald, Um- BREIT, Elster, Vaihinoer, Bleek (Int. to the 0. T., p. 641 ff.), H. G. Bernstein (comp. Obs. 3). etc., but also in Haveknick, Keil, Hengstenbebg, 0. V. Gerlach, Vilmar, De- LITZSCH, and others. OBSERVATION 2. The numerous Aramaisms in the book are among the surest signs of its post-exile origin ■, of these nearly every verse presents some: For example. 17X 'f (^i- 6; Esth vii. 14) ; 7D3 ^" cease, rest (xii. 3, Dan. v. 19; Esth. v. 9) ; fOf time (iii. 1 ; Neh. xi. 6; Esth. ix. 27, 31) , •^^■3 to succeed, prosper (x. 10; xi. 10; Esth. viii. 5) ; nj'nP P^vinee (xi. 8 ; v. 7) ; Djiri3 i 4. EPOCH AXD AUTHOR. 17 eilict (compare what is said above, (p. 14) ; *1^'i3. interpretation, moaning (viii. 1 ; comp, I>.in. xi. uff.J ; kS "IC'N '730 so that not (iii. 11); nSV^S exactly like (v. 15); J^^'^f to rule (ii. 19; v. 18; Neh. v. 15; Esth. ix. 1) ; HJo'^f authority, ruler (viii. 4, 8; Dan. iii. 2, 3) ; ?pf^ to be right (i. 15; vii. 13; xii. 9; comp. Dan. iv. .33) ; fl'pjl powerful (vi. 10; Dan. ii. 40, 42 ; iii. 3) ; likewise the particles ^^3 long since (i. 10; ii. 12, 16) ; 7Q t*.)n without (ii. L'5); i"\13T /V '-"^ account of (vii. 19); JJ* njj what was (i. 9; iii. 15). — Ed. Bohl has lately tried in vain to weaken the testimony against the Solomonic origin of the book, contained in these numerous direct and indirect parallelisms with the books of Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, Ksther, elc. ( Disserlalio de Aramaismis libri Kohelelh, qua librum Salomoni vindicare conalur, Erlang., 1864). To these we may add the many peculiar philosophical expressions, as : Hin' advantage, gain, excellence (i. 3 ; ii. 13) ; f'np'D, p Spt, pSti'll, m;?"(, i^V^' togetl^er with numerous abstract forms in JT] as HI/ 71*7 niadness (x. 13) ri172P foolishness (i. 17; ii. 3) ; ni^inj' morning red, youth (xi. 10) ; /Tl"7flJJ' sluggishness (x. 18), etc. Where there appear, on the contrary, characteristic expressions and terms from the old Solomonic lan- guage, there every time the thought of borrowing is patent. Thus the expression flJO 71^3 tlie bird (x. 10; comp. Prov. i. 17); that favorite conception 73n ('• 2, etc.: comp. Prov. xiii. 11 ; xxi. 6 ; xxxi. 30) ; the expression Q'T PDH fo'd the hands, as a picture of idleness (iii. - T I - T 5; iv. 5; comp. Prov. vi. 10; xxiv. 33) ; Kfl'lQ remissio (x. 4 ; comp. Prov. xiv. 30 ; xv. 4) ; nSyV laziness (x. 10; comp. Prov. xix. 15) , T))\*,* street (xii. 4, 5; comp. vii. 8; Cantic. iii. •2) ; the word play in 0{J> and ?pj^' (vii. 1; comp. Cantic. i. 3) ; rnj.3^n delights (ii. 8; ("antic, vii. 7; Prov. xix. 10). Compare Havebnick, Introduction to 0. T., I., p. 233; Ewald, Poets of 0. T., II., 268 f. The Hebrew is here so strongly permeated with the Aramaic, that there are not only many individual words entirely Aramaic, but the foreign influence extends into the smallest veins, while at the same time the material remaining from the old language has been far- ther developed under Aramaic influence. Indeed this book deviates farther than any other in the 0. I'.from the ancient Hebrew, so that one is easily tempted to believe that it was the latest of them all. But this would be a hasty and erroneous conclusion, for the Aramaic penetrates not suddenly and violently, but by degrees ; so that in this period of intermingling, the one writer might adopt a much stronger Aramaic tint than the other. We see from this, and from many idioms here ven- tured on for the first time, and wholly absent elsewhere (e. g., " under the sun," i. e., on the earth) only so much, that this book comes from an author from whom we have nothing else in the 0. T.: to all appearances he lived not even in Jerusalem, but in some country of Palestine; for we can safely enough thus conclude from the proverbial phrase, " To go to the city," i. e., Jerusalem, x. 15, compared with similar expressions, vii. 19, viii. 10 ("1*V3 in thecity),and on the contrary ,~fy^J3 V. 7, or j^^j}> V. 8, the field (or soil). — Whether this conclusion, as well as that one for the T ■ ; V T .laiiie reason based on the expression " King in Jerusalem," i. 1, is so perfectly well assured, might well be doubted; comp. for the phrase "1*1^3 also Song of Solomon, iii. 2, 3 ; v. 7 : Deut. xxviii. 3 ; and also the exegetical explanations to x. 15. What Ewald (p. 269, note 1) adduces concerning t lie linguistic probabilities in favor of Galilee as the residence of the author, is in any case insuffi- cient. OBSERVATION 3. Havernick, Keil, Henqstenberq, etc., accord with our above transfer of the epoch of the composition of Ecclesiastes into the second-third of the Persian period, or into the times of Ne- liemiah and Malachi (4.30-400). Rosenmuller, de Wette, Knqbel, Ewald, Vaihinger, 18 INTRODUCTION TO ECCLESIASTES. Elster, Bleek, el al. go a little farther down; they think it could not have originated until the last years of the Persian rule, or perhaps (so at least the first three) even not until the be- ginning of the Macedonian period. As reasons for this view they say (Elsieb, p. 7 f. ; Vaih. p. 51 ff.) : 1) the period of Nehemiah, and indeed also the next following decades, (mainly there- fore the years 480 till 3J0), could not be brought into consideration, they being the happiest periods of Israel during the Persian rule; the origin of Koheleth must occur in a time of greater national adversity and sorrow, such as did not begin till after Artaxerxes II. (ilnemon) ; 2) the complaint about the making of many books (xii. 12), points to a period " in which a diffuse and unfruitful literature has been formed by a peculiar learning of the schools," (Elsiee and EwALD); 3) the commencement of sectarianism which did not appear untd after the peaceful period of Artaxerxes II. (-101-358), forms the historical inducement to many of the expressions in the book, as iv. 17; v. 6; vii. 2-6 ; ix. 2, (Vaih.) ; 4) in the same way the book presupposes the entire disappearance of prophetic literature, and must therefore have been written a consi- derable period after Malachi; 5) the author points on the one hand to the occasional desire of apostacy from the Persian Kings (viii. 2), on the other, he foresees the fall of the Persian realm, and admonishes them to wait for the fitting time, adding a warning against precipitate action (viii. 5; X. 8-11, 18, 20); these are all references to the last decades of the Persian period, or to the years 360-340, as the probable era of the origin of the book (Vaih.). Hengstenberg has answered the first of these arguments in a thorough manner, and has shown that nothing very definite is known of a more oppressive and violent character of the Persian rule during its last period, but that this from the beginning to the end was severe and tyrannical for the Jews, and that especially under Nehemiah there was much cause for complaint, deep mourning, and des- pair, as may be clearly enough seen from Neh. v. 15, 18 ; viii. 9 ; ix. 36, 37 ; xiii. 10, 11, 15 ff. Against the second argument, taken from Koa. xii. 12, we would refer to what has already be/;n said (^ 3, Obs.) on the reference of the expression " making many books " not only to the Jewish, but also to the entire oriental as well as the Grecian literature; whereby this argument is lost for a later period of composition. No. 3, includes the wholly untenable assumption that the germs of the "sects " of the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes were not known before the year 400 before Christ ; a view so much the more groundless, the more distinctly the germs to these peculiar religious and moral tendencies may be traced back to a considerably earlier period ; as for instance in the second part of the prophet Isaiah, Sadducean unbelief and materialism (chap. Ivii. 3 ff. ; lix. 1, ft'.), and Pharisaic justification by works, and hypocrisy are deprecated, and the same may be shown in Jeremiah (comp. Reuss, History of Christian Theology in the Apostolic Age, I. p. 126 ss.). Though it may be a fact that according to the many quoted passages iv. 17 ; V. 6 ; vii. 2-6, etc., in Koheleth, there appear, in the germ, the scepticism of fie Sadducees, the anxiety and timidity of the Pharisees, the pleasure in morose retirement of the Essenes (Ewald, Hist, of Israel, IV. 495) ; nevertheless, from this fact but the one probability for determining the period of tliis book is to be deduced, and that is that it belongs to the time of the exile, or to one subsequent; any thing more definite cannot be deduced from it. Comp. also the exegetical illustrations to the passages quoted, and to ix. 2. — The fourth of the above arguments is based on the erroneous supposition that the labors of the prophets were unknown to the author and distant from him, and that with him appeared a new mode of understanding the divine truth of revela- tion, beside which a prophetic literature could not well be imagined (Elster). To which we reply that there is nowhere in this book so decided an ignoring of the presence of the prophets as that contained in Mace. xiv. 41, and that the author erte docet presentibus pacatis et tranquillis animis frui, abjecta humani cordis irrequieta curiositale et inconslanlui, qaam divilice, honores, magistratus, uxor el ceterce hujus seculi crealurce bonce ■••int, si illis cum gratiarum actione et Dei timore Pilaris, animo semper in Deum sublato nee his ter- renis adiclo," el al. Starke (in his Int. I 9) finds a double aim in the author; a.) in reference *'H ytlp Ttav im'oKMi' ipyauia viri/ fiif 5td T^c eXwi'Sos eui^paifci Toi' Tatv Ka\iav irpoiarifLfVOV ipytair fi,eTti Tai/Ta it alroKav ffii' Tav ayaOuif eAiriSujf itfa.uttnj ifiio*- ToU oft'oi? rrji' fv^tpocrvyrii' irpotrTt^Tjtrt*'. § o. THEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE AND CANONICAL VALUES. 2J to himself, he had the intention publicly to confess and regret his foolish striving after peace of soul in vain things ; b.) in reference to his readers, he desired to warn theiu against epicurean- ism, and to inculcate therefore especially these three rules ; 1.) that one must despise all earthly things as vanity; 2.) that one must enjoy the present good with calmness and chetrfulness ; 3. 1 that one thereby must fear God and serve Him. The latest e.xegetists are mostly in harmony in their acceptance of a practical as well as theoretical aim, (namely, all those who, in accord- ance with this, distinguish two main divisions of the book, one theoretical and the other prac- tical, comp. ^ 2, obs. 1). On the basis of this view, Hengstenberg, Vaihinger, and Elster have given the best development of the peculiar tendency of the book; the latter in con- nection with a detailed historical summary of the most important views of the earlier exeget- ists regarding its fundamental thoughts and aim. ? 5. THEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE AND CANONICAL VALUES. On account of the apparent leaning of this book towards skeptical, fatalistic, and Epicu- rean teachings, it early became the object of doubts in regard to its inspired character, and of attacks on its canonical dignity. According to the Talmud, the philosophers (i. e. the col- lectors of the canon, or also the learned of the most ancient period) intended to suppress it on account of the contradictions within itself, and the apparent moral levity of its teachings; but this intention remained unexecuted in view of the fact, '' that its beginning and its end are words of the law." * That the author of the " Wisdom of Solomon " belonged to these earliest critical opponents of the book, is an erroneous opinion entertained by Auousti, Schmidt, et al. (partly also by Knobel) ; for the controversy supposed to be contained in chap. 2 of that work, against the doctrines of the Preacher, amounts in part simply to seeming points of contact, and it is in part directed against those lawless and immoral men who were ac- customed to misuse many assertions of the Preacher for the purpose of glossing over their base conduct. With much greater certainty, however, the book found various opponents in the ancient church ; as Philastrius (hser. 130) speaks of heretics who condemn the Preacher, because he at first proclaims that all is vanity, and then permits but one thing to remain, viz , that one should eat, drink, and be merry. Theodorus of Mopsuestia soon afterwards |oined these opponents with the assertion, that Solomon composed Ecclesiastes only in ac- cord ince with human wisdim, and not by virtue of divine inspiration; this, together with other heresies attributed to him, was condemned at the fifth Ecumenical Council at Constan- tinople. At a still lat-r period of the middle ages the Jacobite Barhebrseus (f 1286) ven- tured the assertion, that Solomon in Koheleth had defended the view of Empedocles the Pythagorean, (whom he considered a contemporary of Solomon), that there is no immortality of the soul. — The opinion of Hieronymus was authoritative for the middle-age theology of the Occident, viz.. that Ecclesiastes taught the vanity of earthly things, and contempt of the joys of this world (omp. § i, obs. 4.), Under the protection of this view of the book, enter- tained by Hugo of St. Victor, Bonaventura, Nicolaus of hyxa,, et od., it maintained its authority and acceptability with most of the theologiius of the Reformation and the next following period. Luther, indeed, gave here and there a free and bold opinion of the book ; viz., " that it has neither boots nor spurs, and rides only in socks, as he himself formerly in the clois- ter;" (see J I, obs. 1): but again he recommended it with special emphasis as a "noble book * Fn. Sea ^db. f. 39, b : " The philosophers wished to suppress the book of Koheleth, because it contaias conti-adictions. Why then diii they not suppress it ? Because its beginniug and its end are words of the law."— Comp Midr. Koheli th f. lU, a: The philosophers wished to suppress the book of Koheletli because its wisdom all tends to wliat is written in chap, xi.9; " Rejoice, O young man in thy youth ;"' (which is incompatible with Numbers xv. 33, e^c). But lucauso So- I.HUon adds : " Know, that for all these things Goii will bring thee utito judgment" — they declare that Solouiou epiiko well (n^D^'J 1"D;< nS") comp. PesHcla Rahb f. 33, a. Viijihra R. f. 161, b.; Midr. Knhel. f. 311, a, where we notice the brtaringof certain assertions of the book to the sideof the heretics (O'J'Q) perhaps of the saddncees Tr. Edujidh, c.^\ .f'/dai/Ji, c. 3, where direct divine prompting is denied, e(c. And finally also HlERosYMOa; -'Aiunt Hebrm quum intrr cf- t p.ra scripta SiUtmonis, qute antiquity sunt nee in memnria duraverunt, at hie liber obLiterandus videtw, m quad vanas asseTtrei Dei crfOt.uriis el totum pularet esSK pro nihilo et cibum et pntam et ddicias trans runtes prseferret omnibus, ex hoc unn ca- pifuln meruixse auctoritatein, ut in divinorum voluminun nuni^'ropinu:retur, quod totam diiputationem mom et oninem catalo- gitrn hac quasi dva«e^a\aiu>Tet coarctavrit, et dixerit flnem sermonurn suorum auditu esse promptissimum, nee aliquid in V habere dijflcile : ut scit. Deum timeamus et ejus prsec 'pt i faciamus" 22 INTRODUCTION TO ECCLESIASTES. which for good reasons was worthy of being daily read with great diligence by all men." He declared this wisdom taught therein, as higher than any under the sun, namely, " that every one should perform his duty with diligence in the fear of God, and therefore should not grieve if things do not go as he would have them, but should be satisfied and allow God to con- trol in all things great and small ; he called it a '' book of consolation " for every one, and especially for princes and kings, to whom it might serve in some measure as a consolatory, didactic, and satisfying manual of " politics and economies." * All evangelical theology till near the end of the last century, agreed in their favorable judgment of the religious and mo- ral worth, and the theological character of the book, a few quite insignificant and isolated cases excepted ; as for example, those Dutch opposers of whom Clericus speaks. The vulgar rationalism was the first to disseminate that low opinion of the book which has since been maintained in many circles, and whose practical consequence is its degradation be- low the better class of the Apocryphas of the 0. T. ; e. g., below Sirach and the Book of Wis- dom. On this platform Hartmann affirms " Eoc'.esiastes to be the labor of a fretful Hebrew philosopher, composed in a morose mood, and exceedingly tedious at times ;" Schmidt de- clares that it is not a work fully prepared for the public, but a hasty outline of the author for his own subsequent revision," (see § 3 obs. ); De Wette: " Koheleth represents the last extreme of skepticism within the Hebrew philosophy, and this in a barbarous style, by means of which he shows himself partial and sensually prejudiced in the maxims of the cheerful en- joyment of life, and in virtue of which his system is no system, his consistency inconsistency, and his certainty uncertainty ;" Bruce : "The skepticism of this book extends to a painful, internal disorganization, and to a perfect despairing of all order and aim in human life ;" finally Knobel savs : All ethical teachings and admonishings in Koheleth, end in (he conve- nience and enjoyment of life. The refutation of these accusations, is contained mainly in the foregoing, viz., in what has been said in ^ 2 about the contents and plan, and § 4 about the aim of the work. The de- cidedly pious and sternly moral st-^nd-point of the author, appears above all in the closing passage, chap. 12, 13, 14, which lays down, as the sum of the whole, the advice to fear God, and keep His commandments, and also a warning against punishment in His future judgment. But this conclusion is not detached from the religious contents of what precedes, is not con- nected in a mere outward manner with the wiiole as if there existed no deeper organic con- nection between this closing " inspired teaching " and the preceding "philosophical discourse;" (expressions of Rougement, comp. § 2. obs. 1). But, as is clearly pointed out in paragraph 3, the conclusion forms the pinnacle projecting with organic necessity from the whole; it is the concentrated collection of the rays of higher truth penetrating and illuminating the whole work, which are designed to pour forth their glorifying light with full power only at the very end. The au'hor has also every where in the preceding paragraphs distinctly announced that God is the Almighty from whom every thing originates, and especially every thing that is precious to men in body and soul, (ii, 26 ff. ; iii. 10 if. ; v. 1 ; vii. 17-19; viii. 14 ; ix. 1-3) ; that this Almighty God, according to the measure of strict justice will deal out moral reward to the good and evil (iii. 17 ; viii. 12 ff. ; xi. 9) ; that man, even where he does not undeistand tlie works of God, where they are and remain incomprehensible to him, may not cavil with God, but must humbly submit to the command to fear God (iii. 11-18; v. 6, 17 ff. ; vii. 18; viii. 16 ff.); and that therefore also the enjoyment of temporal blessings must ever be accompanied with thanks to God, and with contentment and moderation, iii. 12 f 22 ; v. 11 ff., 17 ff. ; vi. 2ff ). The conclusion draws from all only this result reduced to the shortest possible expression, and gives to it intentionally a form and shape which reminds us of the sum and quintessence of all other teachings of wisdom in the Old Testament, (comp. ver. 13 with Prov. i. 7; ix. 10; Ps. iii. 10; Sir. i. 16, 25, elc). It also declares distinctly enough that the teachings of the book • "ffunc lihrum Eccltsiasttn rtciius nos vocaremus Politica v^l (Economica Sllomonis, qui viro in pnlitia versanti cotisulitt in casibits tristi'>us fit ani'iuni €rudiai ac rohoret ad palif.ntiam.*^ As tin exam [>Ie of a prince who in accord^ince witli Lii- tlier's advice, read Ecclesia-stes with 6peci.il pleasure, we may qnote FrO'leric the Great. That he was in the hahit of r,.n- Biderini; it a genuine " mirror of princes," ia proven by the fact that he wafl not drawn to it simply by the skeptical cim- ractur of itji contents. J 5. THEOLOGICAL SIGNIPtCAVCE AND CANONICAL VALUES. 23 are testimonies of truth pertaining to the '• words of tne wise," which must cling closely " a» goads and fastened nails" to the hearts of the people (xii. 9-11) ; whereby the author clearly wishes not only to rank himself as in the class of the Chokamin, but also to embody his work into the mass of sacred literature, and separate it from the massive productions of profane literature; (ver. 12). In view of this so emphatic testimony of the author himself and the manifold direct and indirect references of his booK to the older writings of the canon (namely, to Proverbs and the Song of Solomon, comp. g 4, Obs. 2 ; to Job : chap. v. 14 ; vii. 28 ; to the Pentateuch : chap. v. 3, 4 ; xii. 7 ; and to the Psalms ; vii. 6; xi. 5), we need not as- sume that " the antagonism between the divine perfection and the vanity of tlie world is repre- sented as unreconciled, or but partially reconciled" (Oehlek), or what is the same thing, that the Preacher harmonizes the traditional belief in Jehovah, and his unbelief to a simply external agreement between the fear of God and the cheerful enjoyment of the moment," (Kahnis). The reconciliation between faith and doubt is actually effected ; the contest between a God-fearing life and an irreligiousness serving the world and the flesh, has been fought out to the decided victory of the former ; and the account could only acquire the appearance of lingering in the earlier stages of this conflict, and of favoring skeptical uncertainty, looseness, and indecision, (Jas. i. 8), by purposely lingering with great minuteness over the description ot the conflict of the thoughts of the doubter, " accusing and excusing one another," in order thus to afford a most intuitive picture of the vanity, unrest, and joylessness of a consciousness detached from God and devoted solely to the impressions of worldly vanity, (^ 4, Obs. 2). It was the philosophical ten- dency of the author that forced him to this thorough development of the dialectics of doubting consciousness ; and it was also the same religious and speculative tendency, philosophizing in the sense of the Old Testament, Chokmah doctrine, which probably induced him always to dis- pense with the sacred name of Jehovah where he speaks of God (in all 39 times), and ever adopt the more general designation of Elohim, usual also outside of the sphere of the positive revela- tion of the) Old Testament. As the representative of such a philosophical standpoint and aim. the Preacher could lay no claim to being so direct an organ of divine revelation as the lawgiver, or as the prophets of God's ancient people. But he certainly considered his writings as a book fuUy harmonizing with divine revelation in the law and the prophets, if we consider the closing words already prominently alluded to, (xii. 9-12). And the excellent practical wisdom, full of significant references to the most precious truths of the entire word of God, and full of the rich- est consolation for earthly need and temptation of every kind, as the glorious book lavishes from beginning to end, — -this, we say, is a well attested claim, that it belongs to the series not of the secondary, but of the primary canonical writings of the Old Testament. OBSERVATION. Oehler (Prolegomena to the Theology of the 0. T., p. 90) maintains that there is an exter- nally-dualistic juxtaposition of the religious and worldly -skeptical character in this book. " The antagonism between the divine perfection and the vanity of the world, is represented as unre- conciled ; the latter as an inevitable experience, the former as a religious postulate. Thus the only wisdom of life lies in resignatimi, in which man profits of the nothingness of life as best lie can, but therein commits all to God." With a still sharper censure of the skeptical standpoint of the author, Kahnis (Luth. Dogmatics, I., p. 309) declares: "Trite sounding words, many assertions not easily reconcilable, and only relatively true, and, to say the least, easily misun- derstood expressions, show to him who reads this book with unprejudiced mind how, in ancient and in modern times, it could be read with anxious e3'es. In it traditional faith and a skeptical view of the world, which sees vanity in all spheres of nature and human life, are united in a co- venant between the fear of God and the cheerful enjoyment of the moment. However easy may be the historical comprehension of such a standpoint, it is difficult to justify its truth."— In re- ply to these reproaches, Bleek has strikingly observed, in favor of the religious character of the book, that " it is affecting and elevating to see how the faith in God's reconciling justice is never- tiieless retained amidst all doubt, and how the poet ever returns to it." [Int. to the 0. T., p. 644). Hengstenbkrg has replied in a manner still more definite and thorough to these cen- 24 INTRODUCTION TO ECCLESIASTES. sures: " It is not correct that the book presents an unreconciled contradiction between fiiith i.nd knowledge, idea and experience. It certainly permits doubt to appear, as do the Psalms; this is the truth of the view which would distinguish two voices in the book ; but this every wherp occurs only in order to conquer the doubt immediately. Nowhere stand, as in imitation of De Wette's tlieology, doubt and faith as equally authoriz^.-d powers opposed to each other, lul every where, when the voice of the flesh has spoken, it is confronted by the voice of the Spirit, a.'i in Psalms xxxix. ; xlii. ; xliii. This meets us most strikingly in the very passage in which doubt is poured forth like a mighty stream in chap. ix. 7-10. The expression of a feelincr that is skeptical and dissatisfied with life, extends only to verse 6 ; in verses 7-10 it is immediately conquered with the sword of faith. — It is also not correct that the author knows no higher wis- dom of life than " r(;si5r?iaability that it had come in at the earliest intercour.se, peaceful or warlike, between the Greeks and Persians, or the Greeks and Babylonians. Why, in making this transition to the remoter ^Vest, may it not have stopped, at a still earlier day, at the courts of David or Solomon, and been employed, in their courtly dialect, for things to which the more ordinary vernacular was? not 30 well adapted ? Certainly it was the very terra wanted here (chap. ii. 5, D'DT151 nlJJ qardens and parks) to express the higher luxury, and no other word, in the whole range of East- ern tongues, as they then were, could have been so well adapted to it. Splendid gardens, or parks, were more common among the Persians and Babylonians ; but even should we grant that the word is wholly foreign, there is nothing strange in the idea of its being well known to Solo- mon, without our supposing that he intimately understood or could speak those foreign tongues. The word was certainly in the Chaldaic as well as in the Persian, and the former tongue must have differed less from the Hebrew in the days of David and Solomon, than in those of Ezra. As a term of luxury, its transference to the courtly or loftier language of another neighboring king- dom is just what might be expected. This justifies us in saying that its use by Solomon appears more natural than would have been its employment by an ordinary Hebrew writer of the later time of Malachi. The great king of Israel was the literary superior among the neighboring co- temporary monarchs, and his knowledge of other royal terms and ideas was enough to warrant bim in calling his own pleasure grounds by a foreign name that had been widely appropriated to .such a purpose. Such a transference, in respect to things of luxury and magnificence, belongs to modern as well as to ancient times. The names of things rare or precious, such as gems, costly fabrics imported from abroad, or other things peculiar to certain lands, are retained in their na- tive form, and easily pass into other languages. There is the term 7'|Q.3p (cinnamon) which we find Exod, xxx. 23; Prov. vii. 17. It mnst have come into Hebrew as early as the thing itself was known, which was doubtless coeval with the earliest Phoenician or Egyptian traffic. It came from the far East, yet how unchangeable its form (in this respect like the word paradise) even to the present day. So in 1 Kings x. 11, 22, we have the names of rare commodities brought by the ships of Solomon and the Phoenician king from the far land of Ophir. They have strange names, Q'SHJEJ' (shenhabhim), Q'^lp (kophim), 0**3]^ {t"kk-ii/yim), and are rendered in various ways — in our version, ivori/, apes, and peacocks. They kept these names in Hebrew, for there were no others to be used. Now had it so happened that there had been occasion to .=peak of I hem by a late writer, like Ezra, or the author of the book of Eslher, it would have been said that Kings too was a book of the later Hebrew (Seqiiioris Ilcbraismii ANTIQUITY AND AUTHORSHIP. 3a rhe argument is an absurd one, though carried sometimes to an extravagant length. It is all the more mconclusive, this manner of determming the date of books, when there is taken intii view the scanty literature to which it is so confidently applied. A similar melhod of reasoning is applicable to the word Pmna which is found ch. viii. 11 T : ■ This word is Persian— that is, there is something like it in use in that language, thoucrh its de- rivation, as a native term, is by no means clear. It appears to have been still more ancient in the Aramaic, where it is used (especially in the Syriac branch) very frequently, and with such familiarity that we can hardly help regarding it as vernacular. It is not at all treated as a fo- reign term. The Syriac □JHS ^r. i° the emphatic form, N^JHS is as common as the He- brew "12n- I"- 's used, however, in a higher sense, to denote edict, royal or jwA'cia/ sentence. When the Babylonian or Assyrian was the greater power, it was more likely to have come from the Aramaic into the Persian, than the contrary way. How much more likely, then, its still earlier passage into the near Sheraitic branch of the Hebrew, even as a word generally under- stood, and more especially as a courtly or legal term, such as it has ever been the way to intro- duce from foreign, though not remote, languages. Among all nations what is called their law language, and, in a more general sense, their technical language, is more or less of this kind. We go for our law terms to the Latin and the Norman French ; the Latins had mauy words of this kind from the Greek. There seems a necessity for such a course in the case of things or ideas demanding peculiar exactness in their expression, because of the generality and indefinite- nes9 which the attrition of very common use brings into words from native roots, though ori^i- n.illy as clear as any that are thus received. There is, therefore, the same reason for the trans- feience of such a word as r~llnC1. as has been given in the case of DT13. It is a courtly term, and has, moreover, a judicial sense, which the most ordinary national intercourse would bring into notice. There was, besides, the extensive dealing of Solomon with the nations around, excelling in this respect any of the kings of Israel before or after him. This extended to Ef ypt, to Syria, to the remote Southern Arabians, or Ethiopians, and, doubtless, to Persia and lands still farther east. His ships went to Ophir, and his intimacy with the Phoenicians put him in possesfion of much of that wide knowledge which they possessed beyond all other peoples. See this fully stated 1 Kings v. vi. ix. and x. Such an intercourse must have not only increased his own vocabulary, but brought many new words into the common Hebrew language. In view of this, the wonder ceases that a few such words should be found in the Solomonic writings. It is in fact a proof, rather than a disproof, of authenticity. However surprised we might be to find such words in Amos, or even in the later Malachi, they appear perfectly natural in the leani'd and kingly Solomon, as they do also in the later writings of the courtly Daniel and Ezra, who, with all their foreign intercourse, were not perhaps equal in political and statistical know- ledge to the ancient monarch. Their dialect marks their position rather than their time. Anil this is confirmed by what is well said by LnDWifJ Ewald [Salomo, Versuch, p. 429) : " Solomon had such a variety of knowledge and intercourse with foreigners, by his extensive commerce and dominions, and by his relations with strange women, that his style, especially in old age, must have been influenced thereby. With his paradise-like parks the word paradise came into the Hebrew langu.icre" r=ee Wordsworth, Int., p. 3, note). The word □Jj'HiJ. therefore, so much used in all the East, would be known to him from kingly and ambassadorial intercourse, in which juridical and diplomatic language especiallv occurs, and he would be more likely to use it in the ornate style of Ecclesiastes. than an ordinary term of less state and magnificence. Besides, it admirably suits the passage in which it is found in conveying an idea for which the common Hebrew t33w'D would have been hardly adequate. T It is intended to be in the most precise style of forensic diction ; " Because sentence against an evil work is not speedily executed," eic. It is the figure of an edict issued from the royal chan- cery, but suspended over the head of the threatened subject — an "arrest of judgment," as we say in our law langu.age. It was a term probably much used in such a style of proceedings, though not common in the vulgar speech. 34 APPENDIX. One more example of this kind may be given here. The word {l^nQ as used ii. 8, and espe- cially ver. 7 ("when thou seest injustice in & province,'"' etc.), is cited as evidence of cotempora- neity with Esther, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Daniel, where the great Persian satrapies are expressed by the term. [It occurs, however, Lam. i. 1 and Ezek. xix. 8.] But besides the argument that no personator of Solomon, of ordinary intelligence, would subject himself to the charge of such a glaring anachronism, there is the strongest etymological proof to the contrary. There is no word in the Old Testament more purely Hebrew inform, as well as in derivation. nj'"lO means li- terally ^?ace of judgment. Now Solomon gave great attention to the administration of justice. He had the land divided into administrative departments, as we learn from 1 Kings iv. 7, etc., and these, as appears from other places, and the practices of later kings, were also judicial cir- cuits. Had a word for such a province not existed in the language before, this is just the one that must have been formed for that purpose from a root denoting judgment, and the usual pre- fix Q denoting place. The oppression mentioned is just that which would be likely to occur in the departments of Israel as described 1 Kings iv. 7 with the names of the governors or satraps there named, and such cases of wrong may have often come up before the higher chancery of the king, who, with all his fondness for power and magnificence, is represented to us as a great lover of justice, and noted for the equity of his decisions. If, afterwards, the same word, or one formed on the same model, came to be used by the Babylonians and Persians, it was because no one was better adapted to express the idea of provinces whose governors or judges represented the ulti- mate sovereignty. The word in the later language came from the older, to which, in its etymo- logical purity, it 80 strictly belongs. — T. L.] ECCLESIASTES. TITLE: WORDS OF THE PREACHER, SON OF DAVID, KINQ IN JERUSALEM. FIRST DISCOURSE. Of the vanity of the practical and the theoretical 'wisdom of men. Chafteks 1, 2. A. The theoretical wisdom of men, directed to a knowledge of the things of this world, is vanilj. 2 Vanity of vanities, saith the preacher, vanity of vanities ; all is vanity. 3 What profit hath a man of all his labour which he taketh under the sun ? 4 One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh : but the earth abideth 5 for ever. The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place 6 where he arose. The wind goeth towards the south, and turneth about unto the 7 north ; it whtrleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits. All the rivers run into the sea ; yet the sea is not full, unto the place S from whence the rivers come, thither they return again. All things are full of la- bour ; man cannot utter it : the eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled 9 with hearing. The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be ; and that which is done is that which shall be done : and there is no new thinj under the sun. 10 Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new ? it hath been already of 11 old time, which was before us. There is no remembrance of former things ; neither shall there be any remembrance of things that are to come with those that shall 12, 13 come after. I the preacher was king over Israel in Jerusalem. And I gave my heart to seek and search out by wisdom concerning all things that are done under heaven ; this sore travail hath God given to the sons of man to be exercised 14 therewith. I have seen all the works that are done under the sun ; and behold, all 15 is vanity and vexation of spirit. That which is crooked cannot be made straight ; 16 and that which is wanting cannot be numbered. I communed with mine own heart, saying, Lo, I am come to great estate, and have gotten more wisdom than all they that have been before me in Jerusalem : yea, my heart had great experience of 17 wisdom and knowledge. And I gave my heart to know wisdom, and to know mad- 18 ness and folly : I perceived that this also is vexation of spirit. For in much wisdom is much grief : and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow. [Ver, 4. — Q7l^7. See the extended discussion on this and kindred words, p. 44 T. L.] T 1 [Ver. 5. — rr^I ■ Primary sense, irradiation, scailering, like n^I. and ^^T, tosnw — scatters its rar/s—sparfjit lucfm. Part. beaming, Qlnwiwj. See Metrical version. Compare Virgil, it1ic^\^