The Pulpit Commentary — Ecclesiastes — Section 28

Solomon (oh. xii. 9-14), which, however, assumes that the Preacher could not have spoken about himself in the third person. (2) The Preacher writes of himself in the past tense (ver. 12), which Solomon would not have done, it is thought, though a late writer might have done so, putting his words into Solomon's mouth. This argument loses part of its validity if" was" is taken as equivalent to "was and still am'' (Professors Douglas and Given), or if Solomon wrote towards the end of bis reign (Fausset). (3) The Preacher talks of kings as having been before him in Jerusalem (ver. 16; eh. ii. 9), whereas anterior to Solomon only David reigned in Jerusalem. But a late writer could just as little as Solomon have used the expression cited, since it was Solomon whom the late writer intended to represent as speaking. Besides, as Jerusahim had been a royal city from the days of Melchizedek, it was open quite as much to Solomon to take into his mouth as to a post-exilic author to put into his month the words alluded'to. (4) The real Solomon could not have written as the Preacher represents (eh. iv. 1; v. 8; x. 4, 7, 16, 20); which once more assumes that Solomon could only write of what he beheld in his own dominions, and not of what he may have learnt concerning other peoples with whom he had come into contact. (5) 'l'he language bears the stamp of the post-exilic period, being full~of Aramaisms or Chaldaisms (see Exposition). If this be undeniable, it is partly counterbalanced by the fact that Ecclesiastes contains Solomonic words occurring in Proverbs-which may certainly have been derived by a late writer from a study of pre-existing Solomonic writings, bot which may also be explained by common authorship-and partly accounted for by supposing that Solomon adopted them from pre-existing Aramaic writings, "owing to the Aramaic influences which surrounded and pressed upon him, and owing i;o the inflnence which he desired to exert throughout his widely extended dominions, which embraced the whole of the Aramaic communities as far as the Euphrates" (Professor Douglas, in Keil). (6) "The gloomy view of the world, and the philosophy of lifo which meet us in it, point us at once to the times after the exile" (Keil); but similar views and philosophies have morl.' or less characterized all periods. (7) The complaint about much book-making must have issued from a late age (Bleek). Probably the preponderance of argument will be held as lying on the side of the non-Solomonic authorship of the book; though from the considerations just advanced two things will appear-first, that the Solomonic authorship is not destitute of foundation; and seccnd, that the non-Solomonic authorship is not absolutely unassailable: III. THE PREAOHER's CHARACTER. 1. Not an atheist. Since besides making frequent (thirty-seven times) mention of the name of God, he expressly recognizes God as the true God, exalted above the world (eh. v. 8), the Object of man's fear (eh. v. 7; xii. 13) and worship (eh. v. 1, 2), and the Disposer and Governor of all (eh. vii. 13); acknow- ledges the &xistence in man of a spirit (eh. xii. 7), and of such things as truth and error, right and wrong, holiness and sin (eh. v. 4-G; vii. 15, 16; ix. 2, 3); places the sum of duty as well as the secret of happiness in fearing God aud keeping his com- mandments (eh. xii. 13); and hints his belief in the coming of a day when God will bring the secrets of all into judgment (eh. xi. 9). 2. Not a pa11theist. The God he believes in is a personal Divinity, distinguished from the works he bas made (eh. iii. 11) and the man he has created (eh. xii. 1); who issues commandments (eh. xii. 13), and can be worshipped by prayer, sacrifice, and vows (eh. v. 1-7); who should bo feared (eh, v. 7), and who can accept the service of his intelligent creatures (eh. ix. 7). 3. Not a pessimist. 'fhough at times seeming to indulge in gloomy views of life, to imagine that all things on earth are going to the bad, that the sum of human happiness is more than counterbalanced by that of human misery, that life is not worth liviug, and that the best a wise man can do is to escape from it in the easiest and most com- fortable way he can; yet that these were not his deliberate opinions may be gathered from the frequency with which he exhorts men to cultivate a cheerful mind, and to enjoy the good of all their labour which God giveth them under the sun (eh. ii. 24-26; iii. 12; ix. 7; xi. 9), and from the emphatic manner in which be repudiates morose conclusions concerning the degeneracy of the times (eh. vii. 10). 4. Not a libertine. 'l'his notion (Plumptre) may appear to derive countenance from what the preacher says of himself (eh. ii. 1-3); but his language hardly warrants the conclusion that the author of this book had in his lifetime been o. person of dissolute morals and profligato manners, If he was, before he penned this work ho must have seen tb.e error of his  10 ECCLESIASTES; OR, 'l'HE PREACHEH, [clI, I, 1-18