ECCLESIASTES
30
ECCLESIASTES
tions of Ezra; 'i'l'^"'^ (chap, i, 17, etc.), "p?" (ch. i, 13, etc.), yz^u (ell. X, 8). (4.) Other peculiarities, such as the frequent use of the participle, the rare appear- ance of the "frtj; consecutive," tlie various uses of the relative particle, concur with the characteristics al- ready noted in affixing to the language and style of this Ijook the stamp of that transition period when the Hcl)rew language, soon about to give place to the Chaldee, had already lost its ancient puritj', and be- come debased by the absorption of many Chaldee ele- ments. Tlie prevalence of abstract forms again, char- acteristic of the language of Ecclesiastes, is urged as belonging to a later period than that of Solomon in the development of Hebrew thought and language. The answers given to these objections by the defend- ers of the received belief are (Preston, Eccles. p. 7), («) that many of what we call Aramaic or Chaldee forms may have belonged to the period of pure Hebrew, though the}' have not come down to us in any extant writings ; and (6) that so far as thej' are foreign to the Hebrew of the time of Solomon, he maj' have learned them from his "strange wives," or from the men who came as ambassadors from otlier countries. (See Da- vidson, Home's Introd. new ed. ii, 787).
As to the date of Ecclesiastes, these arguments of recent criticism are stronger against the traditional belief than in support of anj' rival theorj', and the ad- vocates of that belief might almost be content to rest their case upon the discordant hypotheses of their op- ponents. On the assumption that the book belongs, not to the time of Solomon, but to the period subse- cpient to the captivity, the dates which have been as- signed to it occupy a range of more than 300 jears. Grotius supposes Zerubbabel to l;e referred to in xii, 11, as the "One Shepherd" (Comm. in Eccles. in loc), and so far agrees with Keil (Einkdung in das A. T.). who fixes it in the time of Ezra r.nd Nehemiah. Ew- ald and De Wette conjecture the close of the period of Persian or the commencement of that of Macedoni- an rule ; licrtholdt, tlie ]>eriod l)etween Alexander the Great and Antiochus Epiphanes ; Hitzig, circ. B.C. 204; Hartmann, the time of the Maccabees, etc. The following table will show the different periods to which it has been assigned :
n.c.
Naclitigfil, lietween Solomon and Jeremiah OTS-JiSS
Pohiiiii!t,Jnlin, etc.,beUvei-n Mnuas?eli ;in(l Zedekiah CsO-.'jSS Grotius, K:uHer,lCicliliorn, etc., slioi-tly after the exile 536-500
Umbrcit, the Per^-ian period 53S-.S.^3
Van der Ilardt, in the reign of Xerxes II and Darius 464-40-1 Ko-enmiiller, between >.ehemiah and .\lexander the
Great 450-333
Ilengstenberg, Stuart, Keil 403
Kwald, a century before Alexander the Great -^30
Gerlach, about the year 400
De Wette, Knobel, etc., at the end of the Persian and
the besinning of the Macedonian period .350-300
BergrJt, during Alexander's sojourn in Palestine .'i33
Bortholdt, bftween Alexander and Ant. Epiphanes . . 333-164
Zirkcl,the Syiian period 312-164
Hitzig, about the year 204
Supposing it were proved that Solomon is only in- troduced as the speaker, the question arises whj' the author adopted this form. Tlie usual reph' is, that Solomon, among the Israelites, had, as it were, the prerogative of wisdom, and hence the author was in- duced to put into Solomon's mouth that wisdom which he intended to proclaim, without the slightest inten- tion of forging a supposititious volume. This reply contains some truth, but it docs not exhaust the mat- ter. The chief object of the author was to communi- cate wisdom in general ; but next to this, as apjiears from ch. i, 12 sq., he intended to inculcate the vanitj' of human pursuits. Now, from the mouth of no one could more aiitly proceed the proclamation of the noth- ingness of all eartlily things than from the mouth of Solomon, who had jjossessed tliem in all their fulness ; nt whose command were wisdom, riches, and pleasures in al)undance, and wlio luid tKerefore full 'opixntiini- ty to experience the notliingness of all that is cartblv. ,
On the other hand, if we adopt the traditionary view that Solomon was tlie author, we avoid all these doubt- ful expedients and pious frauds ; and, as no other can- didate appears, we shall be safest in coinciding with that ancient opinion. The peculiarities of diction may be explained (as in the book of Job) by sujiposing tiiat the work was written b}' Solomon during a season of penitence at tiie close of his life, and edited in its jjres- ent form, at a later period, perhaps by Ezra.
III. Canoniciti/. — The earliest catalogues which tha Jews have transmitted to us of their sacred writings give this book as forming part of the canon (Mishna, Yadaim, iii, 5; Talmud, Babu Bathra, 14). All the ancient versions, tlierefore — viz. the Septuagint, which was made before the Christian lera ; the versions of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, which belong to the second century of Christianity, as well as the cat- alogue of ]\Ielito,"bishop of Sardis (fl. A.D. 170)— in- clude Ecclesiastes. Some singular passages in the Talmud indicate, however, that the recognition was not altogether unhesitating, and that it was at least questioned how far the liook was one which it was ex- pedient to place among the Scriptures that were read publicly. Thus we find the statements (Mishna, Shabbiith, c. x, quoted b}' Mendelssohn in Preston, p. 74 ; Midrash, fol. 114 a ; Preston, p. l.S) that "the wise men sought to secrete the book Koheleth, because they found in it words tending to heresy," and "words con- tradictory to each other;" that the reason they did not secrete it was "because its beginning and end were consistent with the law ;" that when they examined it more carefully they came to the conclusion, "We have looked closely into the book Koheleth, and discovered a meaning in it." The chief interest of such passages is of course connected with the inquiry into the plan and teaching of the book, but they a'e of some impor- tance also as indicating that it must have commended itself to the teachers of an earlier generation either on account of the external authority by wliich it was sanctioned, or because thej' had a clearer insight into its meaning, and were less startled by its apparent dif- ficulties. (See Bab. ]\fcff:Ua, 7, a ; Bab. Talm. Sab- bath, SO, a ; Midrash, Vayilra Rabbo, xxviii ; Mishna, Edayoth, v, 3; Jerome, Comment, xii, 13.) Traces of this controversy are to be found in a singular discus- sion between the schools of Shammai and Hillel, turn- ing on the question whether the book Koheleth were inspired, and in the comments on that question by R. 01). de Bartenora and Maimonides (Surenhus. iv, iiVi).