to know ma.cl.neSB a.ncl. folly (ob. ii. 12). The And Anaoreon's (xxxi.), e/>-..,, 6'>-.o, µa.vijvca,. former word, hokloth (intensive plural), Thus far we ho.ve had Koheletll'e secret by its etymology point.a to a confusion of thoughts-what he communed wHh his own thought, i.e. an unwisdom which deranges heart (ver. 16). The result of his studies all ideas of order 11,nd propriety; and folly was most unsatisfying. I perceived that (here siklitlh ), throughout the sapiential this also is vexa.tion of spirit j or, a striving books, is identified with vice and wicked- after wirnl, as ver. 14, though the word ie 11ess, the contradictory of practical godli- somewhat different. All suoh labour is ness. The LXX. bas ,ra.pa./3o>-.a.s tea.I /,r,- wasted, for man cannot control issues. .,-.,.fiµ11v, "pa.rables and knowledge," and Ver. 18.-For in muoh wisdom is muoh some editors have altered the Hebrew text grief. The more one knows of men's lives, in aooordance with this version, which they the deeper insight one obtains of their consider more suitable to the context. But actions and circumstauces, the greater is the Koheleth's standpoint is quite consistent. cause of grief at the incomplete and un- To use the words of St. Jerome in hie satisfactory nature of all human affaire. Ke • Commentary,' ".2Equalie stndii fuit Salo- that increaseth knowledge ino_reaseth sorrow; moni, scire sapientiam et scientiam, et e not in others, but in himself. With added 1·egione errores et stultitiam, -ut in a.His experience and more minute examination, appetendie et aliis decliua.ndis vera ejus the wise man becomes more couscious of his sapientie. probarctur." On the other hand, own ignorance and impotence, of the un- Ben-Sira gives a much-needed warning sympathizing and uncontrollable course of against touching pitcll (Ecclus. xiii. 1), and nature, of the gigantic evils which he is argues expressly that "the knowledge of powerless to remedy : this causes his sor- wickedness is not wisdom" (Ecclus. xix. 22). rowful confession (ver. 17b). St. Gregory, Plnmptre unnecessarily sees in the use of to.king the religious view of the passage, the term ''madness" an echo of the teaching comments, "The more a man begins to of the Stoics, who regarded men's weak- know what he has lost, the more he begins nesses as forms of insanity. The moralist to bewail the sentence of his corruption, bad no need to travel beyond his own ex- which he has met with'' ('Moral.,' xviii. 65); · perience in order to learn that sin was the and, "He that already knows the high state acme of unwisdom, a declension from reason which he tloes not as yet enjoy is the more ..uhich might well be called madness. The grieved for the low condition in which he is 1ro.bject is handled by Cicero,' Tnsc. Disput.,' yet held" (ibid., i. 34). The statement in iii 4, 5. We are reminded of Horace's ex- our text is paralleled in Ecclus. xxi. I 2, prcs,ion (' Ce.rm.,' ii. 7. 27)- " There is a wisdom which multiplieth bitterness,'' and contrastetl in Wistl. viii. 16 " Recepto with the comfort and plea.sure which true Dulce mihi furere est amico." wisdom brings.
HOMILE'l.'ICS. Vers. 1, 12.-Koheleth, the Preacher. I. 'rHE PBEAOHEB's NAME. Koheleth, signify- ing: 1. The .Assembler, or Collector (Delitzsch, Bleek, Keil), not of sentences (Grotius), but of people. Hence: 2. 'l.'he Preacher (Delitzsch, Wright), since the object for which he calls or convenes the assembly is to address it with words of wisdom (eh .. xii. 9). 3. The Debater (Plumptre), since "the Ecclesiastes was not one who called the ecclesia or assembly together, or addressed it in a tone of didactic authority; but rather an ordinary member of such assembly (the political unit of every Greek state) wbo took part in its discussions" (ibid.). II. THE PREACHER'S PERSON. 1. Solomon. In support of this, the traditional view, may be urged : (1) That the work is, or seems to be, ascribed to him by the writer (ver. 1). (2) That the experiences assigned to the Preacher (eh. ii. 1-3), the works declared to have been wrought by him (eh. ii. 4, 6), and the wisdom represented as possessed by him (ver. 17), are in perfect accord with what is known of the historical t:;olomon. (3) That the composition of this book cannot be proved to have been beyond the ability of Solomon (1 Kings iii. 12; x. 3, 4; xi. 41; 2 Chron. i. 12; ix. 22, 23). (4) That the writer obviously wiBhed his words to be accepted as proceeding from Solomon. (G) That if Solomon was not the author, then the author is unknown- which is, to say the least, unfortunate. 2. .d late writer, belonging to the Persian period (Delitzsch, Bleek, Keil, Plumptre, Hengstenberg, Wright, Cox). Arguments in support of this view are: (1) The author expressly distinguishes himself from (lli, I. 1-18.] EUGLES1ASTES; O:R, THE l':B.E.AUiiim. 9