Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 7.djvu/648

626 626 ECCLESIASTES their morals still more striking. Hence people began to arraign the character of God. &quot; Every one that doeth evil Is good in the sight of Jehovah, he delighteth in them, Or where is the God of justice ?&quot; Mai. ii. 17. &quot;It is vain to serve God, And what profit is it that we keep his ordinance And walk mournfully before Jehovah of Hosts ? For now we pronounce the proud happy ; They also that work wickedness are built up ; They even tempt God, yet they are delivered.&quot; Mai. iii. 17, 18. Under these circumstances, when the inheritance of the Lord, which was to be the praise and the ruler of all the earth, was reduced and degraded to the rank of a mere province ; when her inhabitants were groaning under the extortions and tyranny of hirelings ; when her seats of justice were filled by the most venial and corrupt men (Eccl. iii. 16) ; when might became right, and the impunity and success with which wickedness was practised swelled most alarmingly the ranks of the wicked (viii. 10, 11); when the cherished faith in temporal retribution was utterly subverted by the melancholy experience of the reversion of destinies ; when the longing minds of the desponding people, released from the terrors of the law, began to import as well as to construct philosophic systems to satisfy their cravings (xii. 12), and to resort to various other experiments to obtain happiness, Coheleth disclosed a new bar of judgment in the world to come. There the Judge of the quick and the dead will rectify all the inequalities which take place here. On the Continent, where Biblical criticism has been cul tivated to the highest degree, and where Old Testament exegesis has become an exact science, the attempt to prove that Solomon is not the author of Ecclesiastes would be viewed in the same light as adducing facts to demonstrate that the earth does not stand still. In England, however, some scholars of acknowledged repute still adhere to the Solomonic authorship. Their principal argument is that the unanimous voice of tradition declares it to be so. We at once concede the fact. The Jewish synagogue undoubt edly believed that Solomon wrote Canticles when young, Proverbs when in middle life, and Ecclesiastes in his old j age (Midrash Yalkut, Eccl. i. 1), and the Christian church has simply espoused the Jewish tradition. But with all due deference, we submit that tradition has no authority whatever to determine points of criticism. It is an acknowledged fact that the ancients, both Jews and Christians, arid indeed the leaders of thought to the beginning of the 16th century, had not the slightest appreciation of peculiarities of style. The different shades of meaning in which the same expression is used by different authors, the variations in forms, phrases, con structions, and sentences which obtained at diverse periods, and which supply definite data to philologists, and have been reduced to a science in modern days, began only to be noticed at the time of the Reformation, when the vital power of criticism was first applied to traditional dogmas. The spell of tradition once broken, thinking men soon began to recognize the literary style and tho respective artistic merits of the component parts of the Bible. Hence Luther already declared, &quot; Solomon did not write the book of Ecclesiastes ; it was compiled by Sirach, at the time of the Maccabees It is, like the Talmud, made up of many books, which perhaps belonged to the library of King Ptolemy Euergetes in Egypt.&quot; No impartial student, with even a moderate knowledge of the genius of the Hebrew language, can fail to see the striking difference in the style of the pre- and post-exile books of the Old Testa ment. In the case of Ecclesiastes the difference is still more unmistakable. Of the vocabulary and phrases in Ecclesiastes a part is to be found in the post-Babylonian biblical writings, and that only in the Chaklee portions , whilst another part has no parallel in the Bible, but is only to be met with in the Mishna, the Talmud, and other post biblical productions. Unless, therefore, it is maintained that the Hebrew of the Bible, which extends over a period of several thousand years, and purports to exhibit the styles of a number of writers who lived in different districts, is unlike any other known literary language, that it had no development and no epochs in its literature, the striking Rabbinic complexion of Ecclesiastes must assuredly stamp it as the latest composition in the Old Testament. Those who know the ultra-orthodoxy of the eminent Hebrew scholar, Professor Delitzsch, will feel the convincing power of this fact when they find that he assigns to Ecclesiastes the latest date of any book in the Hebrew Bible, because it is written in this unquestionably late language. We have abstained from adducing any other arguments derived from its contents, because this appears superfluous. An intelligent reader even in the English translation can see that the representation of Coheleth as indulging in sensual enjoyments and acquiring riches and fame in order to ascertain what is good for the children of men (chap. ii. 3-9 ; iii. 12, 22, &c.), making philosophical experiments to discover the summum bonum, is utterly at variance with the conduct of the historical Solomon, and is an idea of a much later period ; that the recommendation to individuals not to resent a tyrannical sovereign, but to wait for a general revolt (chap. viii. 2-9), would not proceed from King Solomon; that the complaint about the multiplication of profane literature (chap. xii. 12) could only have been made at a time when the Jews became acquainted with the Greek writings and Alexandrian philosophy. The book, however, is of Palestinian origin, as is evident from the frequent allusion to rain (xi. 3, xii. 2), which does not fall in Egypt ; the reference to the Temple and its worship (iv. 7); and the mention of &quot; the city &quot; (viii. 10), though, from the remark roHOn, in the city (v. 7), it would seem that the writer did not live in Jerusalem itself but in the neighbourhood. From the records we possess of the discussions on the Hebrew canon we see that at the synod at Jerusalem, circa 65 A.D., and at a subsequent synod in Yabne, circa 90 A.D., the question was still an open one whether Ecclesiastes was canonical. The school of Shammai then decided against its canonicity, whilst the school of Hillel passed it as canonical (Mishna Yadaim, iii. 5, iv. 6 ; Eduyoth, v. 3). The reasons assigned for its rejection, as given in the Talmud, are that chap. ii. 2, vii. 3, and viii. 5 contradict each other, and that the book does not exhibit any signs of its being inspired (Sabbath 30 b, Megilla 7 a). Accord ing to the Midrash Eabba on Eccl. xi. 9, the advice to enjoy sensual pleasures was considered as contradicting tho law of Moses (comp. Eccl. xi. 9 with Numb. xv. 39) and inclining to heresy. The admonition, however, to fear God and the doctrine of a future judgment were urged in its favour and ultimately prevailed. The sages showed that the contradictions were apparent only, and the book was declared canonical (Aboth d R. Nathan, cap. i.). Hence it passed over into the Christian church as a part of the canon. Literature. The most important commentaries on Ecclesiastes which furnish the best materials for forming an independent opinion on this avowedly difficult bookare Knobel, Commcntarulcrdaa Buch Kohcleth, Leipzig, 1836; Ewald, Qohelet, in Die Didder des Alien Biindes, 2d ed. vol. ii. 267, &c., Guttingen, 18(57; Hitzig, Dcr Prc- diger Salomo im Kurzgefassten exrgetischen Handbuch sum alien Testament, vol. vii., Leipzig, 1877 ; Stuart, A Commentary on Ecclesiastes, New York, 1851; Elster, Commmtar iilcr den Prcdiger, Gottingen, 1855 ; Graetz, KoJicldh, Leipzig, 1871 ; Dolitzsch, Iloheslicd und KoMeth, Leipzig, 1875. The last two give complete vocabularies of the post-Babylonian diction of the book. For tho history of the interpretation see Ginsburg, Coheleth, commonly calhil tlie Book of Ecc esiastes, London, 1861. (C. D. G.)