The most plausible ai^uraent In favour of the laWr date li derived from the supposed influence of Gr. philosojihy. Tyler waa the first to work out in detail the supposed influences of post-.Aristotelian philosophy, and he was followed by Plumptre m his Commentary. A full and ai)p,irently conclusive refutation may be found in Che.vne's Job ana Sol. (see also Nowack). Tyler"! view is that the sij^ns of acquaintance with Stoicism and Epicure- anism are unmistakable. The author, however, he takes to be neither Stoic nor Epicurean, but one who leaves the doctrines of the two schools side by side in order to warn his readers against studies which could 'conduct to no certain goal, but led to opinions so opposed. The following points of contact with Stoicism are aaduced. The doctrine that man should Uvs
ECCLESIASTES
ECCLESIASTES
eaa
ftocording to OAture is set forth in the catalo^^e of Times and Seasons (31-**). The doctrine of cycles, acconiing to which history presents no progress, but only movement in a circle, is found in the description of the endless round in which the aUairs of men move, so that all effort secures no progress but only return to a former condition (1»'0). Fatalism is present in both ; both regard the weaknesses of men as a kind of insanity, and both dwell on the nothingness of life. But no weight can be attached to these. The dreary repetition which character- izes life is not put forward as a philosophical doctrine, but as something taught bv observation and experience. The sense of the emptmess of Viie is due to disillusion, and was not learnt in a school of philosophy, but in the hard school of life. Fatahsm is only a coincidence, the Semite has a natural tendency to it. The view that the weaknesses of men are a kind of insanitv is a genuine idea of Ueb. Wisdom, which treats wisdom and folly as moral rather than intellectuaL And the catalogue of Times and BeflMns contains in its main idea nothing that cannot be well derived from Heb. thought. The traces of Epicureanism are equally unsatisfactory. Men are as beasts, coming from the dust and returning to it : pleasure is the highest good, esp. in the form of undisturbed tranquillity. The rivers run into the sea, yet the sea does not fill, the hoily is dissolved into its elements. The )«rallels are commonplace, and no distinctively Epicurean doc-trine is to be found. It needled no acquaintance with Gr. philosophy to learn that man returned to dust, or that the sea was not filled by the rivere that fed it, or that pleasure was good if enjoyed in moderation. The comparison of man to the beasts that perish might occur to a Uebrew who did not accept the newer view of the future life. For traces of either Epicureanism or Stoicism tlie appeal is often to late authorities. And the coincidences are either unreal or insignificant, or readily ex-
Elained from ileb. as well as Gr. ideas. We can therefore ardly rely on this alleged influence of Gr. philosophy as a crit«non of date. Kuenen thinks that the proofs break down, and that the philosophical element in the stricter sense is absent. But a general influence, he thinks, may be detected. And if the date in the Gr. period is accepted, we may believe that the writer was susceplibte to the influence of the atmo- •phere of Gr. thought, rather than of any special \iew.
So far, then, as the arguments for the two dates go, they cannot be said to be decisive. The lin- gniBtic argument pleads strongly for the later date, and there is no argument to set against it on the other side. The balance of probability, therefore, dips towards a date c. B.C. 200, though the book may possibly belong to the Persian period. Renan has put forward the view that the date is B.C. 125. But it was probably quoted as scripture shortly afterwards, which implies a longer previous history than Renan assigns to it. And after the Macca- ba;an struggle we should expect greater religious fervour. Graetz' view, that it belongs to the reign of Herod the Great (whom he identities with K.), is probably excluded by the fact that it seems to have been quoted a.s scripture before that time ; and apart from this it is questionable if the history ot the Canon will permit of its composition bo late.
3. The Integmty of thb Book.— Certain pas- sages have been suspected by several critics as later interpolations. The Epilogue (12*'*) was the lirst to be suspected, but later the authenticity of the following has also been denied, 3" 7' 8"' " ll*" 12'*-'*'. The whole of 12»-", however, does not stand or fall together, since vv.'"" are denied on other grounds than vv."-'*. It will be most con- venient to take 12*'" first. The substance of the book evidently ends at 12*. K. ends on the same note as that on which he began, ' Vanity of vanities, all is vanity.' In itself, however, this does not mark these verses as due to another hand. To the end of 12'Solomon is represented as speaking, and in 12"'* the real author may be regarded as speaking in his own person, and commending the lKX)k as the work of one of ' the wise.' Nor is it any serious argument against this that the author is represented in the body of the book as a king, bat here as a wise man, for Solomon was the chief representative of 'the wise.' It is tnie that there are dilliculties in the pa.s,snge, and some uncommon ex]>re.s.sion», but in tliem.selves they do not warrant the view that the verses are the work of another writer. Those who think so regard them as a recommendation atGxed to the work by a later hand. Uut the writer speaks of the author as if he