ECCLESIASTES
28
ECCLESIASTES
use a liberty which has been granted without hesita- tion to the teachers of mankind in every aye and coun- try. Accordingly, the advocates of a different author- ship for the book in question than that of Solomon feel themselves at liberty to discard these statements of the text as mere literary devices.
They argue that in like manner the book which bears the title of the " A\'isdoni of Solomon" asserts, both by its title and its language (vii, l-'^l), a claim to the same authorship, and, though the absence of a Hebrew original led to its exclusion from the Jewish Ciinon, the authorship of Solomon was taken for grant- ed by all the early Christian writers who quote it or refer to it, till Jerome had asserted the authority of the Hebrew text as the standard of canonicity, and by not a few afterwards. But in reply to this it may justly be said that the traditionary character of the two books is so different as to debar any comparison of this kind. See Wisdom, Book of.
The following specific ol)jections have been urged against the Solomonic and for the personated author- ship of this book: 1. All the other reputed writings of Solomon have his name in the inscription (comp. Prov. i, 1 ; Song of Songs, i, 1 ; Psa. Ixxvii), whereas in this book the name of Solomon is studiously avoid- ed, thus showing that it does not claim him as its act- ual author. Yet he gives other equallj^ decisive inti- mations of his identitj^ and the peculiar character of the work sufficiently accounts for this partial conceal- ment. Moreover, in some of his other undoubted writ- ings he employs similar noms de plume (Prov. xxx, 1 ; xxxi, 1). 2. The symbolic and impersonal name Ko- heleth shows that Solomon is simply introduced in an ideal sense as the representative of wisdom. On the other hand, it appears to have an equallj' tangible ap- plication to him historically. 3. This is indicated \)-y the sacred writer himself, who represents Solomon as belonging to tlie past, inasmuch as he makes this great monarch saj', "/ was Or"'"'!^) king," but had long ago ceased to be king when this was wi'itten. That this is intended hy the preterite has l)een acknowledged from time immemorial (comp. Midrash Rahha, Mid- rash Jallatt in loc. ; Talmud, Gittin, 68 b ; the Chaldee paraplirase, i, VI ; Midrash, INIaase, Bi-Shloma, Ha- IMelech, ed. Jellinek in Beth Ila-Midrnsh, ii, 35; Ka- shi on i, 12). Yet it does not necessaril}' require that interpretation, but may naturally be understood as simply refen-ing to past incidents, e. g. "I have been [and still am] king." The passage certainh^ gives no support to the idea of a fanciful authorship. 4. This is moreover corroborated bj' various statements in the book, wiiich would otherwise be irreconcilable, e. g. Koheleth comparing himself with a long succession of kings who reigned over Israel in Jerusalem (i, 16; ii, 7) : the term king in Jerusalem (ibid.) showing that at the time Avhen this was written there was a royal residence in Samaria ; the recommendation to individ- uals not to attempt to resent the oppression of a tj-ran- nical ruler, but to wait for a general revolt (viii, 2-9) — a doctrine which a monarch like Solomon is not likely to propound ; the description of a royal spendthrift, and of the misery he inflicts upon the land (x, 16-19), which Solomon would not give unless he intended to write a satire upon himself. These historical allu- sions are too vague to be thus pressed into service. As to the political references, we know (1 Kings xi, 14, 23) that insurrectionary manifestations did exist in Solomon's reign, and were aggravated by his rigid and exacting government (1 Kings xii, 4). It has been asked whether Solomon would have been likelj' to speak of himself as in i, 12, or to descrilie with bit- terness the misery and wrong of which his own mis- government had lieen the cause, as in iii, 16; iv, 1 (Jahn, Einl. ii, 8-10). On the hypothesis that he was the writer, the whole book is 'an acknowledgment of evils which he had occasioned, while yet there is no