The other explanations of Koheleth, viz.. Gatherer or Acquirer of wisdom, and Solomon is called by this name because he gathered much wisdom (liashi. Rash- bam, etc.) ; Collector, Compiler, because he collected in this book divers experience, views, and maxims for the good of mankind (Grotius, Mayer, Mendelssohn, etc.) ; Eclectic, ticXficT-dcoc, a name given to him in this place because of his skill in selecting and purifj'ing from the systems of different philosophers the amassed sentiments in this book (Itosenthal); Accumulated wis- dom— and this appellation is given to him because wis- dom was accumulated in him (Aben-Ezra) ; The Reu- nited, thz Gathered Soul — and it describes his readmis- sion into the Church in consequence of his repentance (Cartwright, Bishop Rej'nolds, Granger, etc.) ; The Penitent — and describes the contrite state of his heart for his apostasy (Cocceius, Schultens, etc.) ; An assem- bli/, an acadeintj — and the first verse is to be translated "The sayings of the acadeni)- of the son of David" (Doderlein, Nachtigal, etc.); An old man — -and Solo- mon indicates by the name Koheleth his weakness of mind when, yielding to his wives, he worshipped idols (Simonis Lex. IJeb. s. v. ; Schmidt, etc.) ; Exclaiming voice, analogous to the title assumed by John the Bap- tist— and the words of the inscription ought to be ren- dered, "The words of the voice of one exclaiming" (De Dieu) ; Sophist, according to the primitive significa- tion of the word, which implied a combination of phi- losophy and rhetoric (Desvceux) ; Philosapher or Mor- alist (Spohq, Gaab, etc.); The dejwrted qnrit of Solo- mon introduced as speaking throughout this book in the form of a shadow (Augusti, Einleit in d. A . T. p. 240) ; Koheleth is the feminine gender, because it re- fers to "i'33, the intellectual soul, which is understood (Rashi, Rashbam, Ewald, etc.) ; it is to show the great
excellence' of the preacher, or his charming stj'le which this gender indicates (Lorinus, Zirkel, etc.), because a preacher travails, as it were, like a mother, in tho spiritual birth of his children, and has tender and motherly affection for his people, a similar expression being found in Gal. iv, 19 (Pineda, Mayer, etc.) ; it is to describe the infirmity of Solomon, who appears here as worn out by old age (Mercer, Simonis, etc.) ; it is used in a neuter sense, because departed spirits have no specific gender (Augusti) ; the termination n is not at all feminine, but, as in Arabic, is used as an auxesis; etc., etc., etc. We believe that the simple enumera- tion of these views will tend to show their vajxueness, fancifulness, and inajipropriateness. (See Dindorf, Quomodo nomen Cohelet Salomoni tribuatur, Lpz. 1791.)
II. Author and Date. — These have usually been re- garded as determined by the account that the writer gives of himself in ch. i and ii, that it was written hy the only "son of David" (i, 1), who was "king over Israel in Jerusalem" (i, 12). According to rhis, we have in it what may well be called the Confessions of king Solomon, the utterance of a repentance which some have even ventured to compai-e with that of the 51st psalm. This authorship is corroborated by the unquestionable allusions made throughout the book to particular circumstances connected with the life of the great monarch (compare chap, i, 16, etc., with 1 Kings iii, 12 ; chap, ii, 4-10, with 1 Kings v, 27-32 ; vii, 1-8 ; ix, 7-19; X, 14-29; ch. vii, 20, with 1 Kings viii, 46; chap, xii, 9, with 1 Kings iv, 32). Additional internal evidence has been found for this l)elief in the language of vii, 26-28, as harmonizing with the historj^ of 1 Kings xi, 3, and in an interpretation (somewhat forced perhaps) which refers iv, 13-15 to the murmurs of the people against Solomon, and the popularity of Jero- boam as the leader of the people, already i-ecognii-ed as their future king (Mendelssohn and Preston in loc). The belief that Solomon was actually the author was, it need hardlj' be said, received generallj' by the Rab- binic commentators, and the whole series of Patristic writers. The apparent exceptions to this in the pas- sages b}' Talmndic writers, which ascril)e it to Ileze- kiah (Baba Bathra, c. i, fol. 15) or Isaiah (Shnlsh. llctk- kab. fol. 66 b, quoted by Michaelis), can hardly be un- derstood as imjilying more than a share in tho work of editing, like that claimed for the "men of Heze- kiah" in Prov. xxv, 1. Grotius {Pnef. in Eccles.) was indeed almost the first writer who called it in ques- tion, and started a dificrent hypothesis.
It may seem as if the whole question were settled for all who recognise the inspiration of Scripture by the statement, in a canonical and inspired book, as to its own authorship. The book purports, it is said (Preston, Prokg. in Eccles. p. 5), to bo written by Sol- omon, and to doul)t tiie literal accuracy of this state- ment is to call in que.'^tion the truth and authority of Scripture. To many it has appeared questionable, however, whether we can admit an a priori argument of this character to be decisive. The hypothesis that ever}' such statement in a canonical book must be re- ceived as literally true, is, in fact, an assumjition that inspired writers were debarred from forms of composi- tion which were open without blame to others. In the literature of every other nation the form of per- sonated authorship, where there is no ammiis dedpien- di, has been recognised as a legitimate channel for the expression of opinions or the quasi-dramatic represen- tation of character, lleuce it has been asked, >Miy should we venture on the assertion that, if adopted by the writers of the Old Testami>nt, it would have made them guilty of a falsehood, and been inconsistent with their inspiration .' The question of authorship does not involve that of canonical authority. A book writ- ten bj' Solomon would not necessarily be inspired and canonical. It is said that there is nothing that need startle us in the thought that an inspired writer might