Editorial note: The supplied edition prints “Ecclesiastes 6:18” here (CLA_ECC.PDF, PDF page 7). In the King James Version, Ecclesiastes 6 has 12 verses. The intended citation is uncertain; the historical wording is retained. An additional printed witness, Adam Clarke, The Holy Bible with Commentary and Critical Notes, vol. III (New York: G. Lane & C. B. Tippett, 1846), p. 801, also reads “Chap. vi. / 18. 2.”; this confirms the older reading but does not establish the intended citation. CLA_ECC.PDF, PDF page 7; Adam Clarke, The Holy Bible with Commentary and Critical Notes, vol. III (New York: G. Lane & C. B. Tippett, 1846), p. 801.
Editorial note: The supplied edition prints “Ecclesiastes 9:15-6” here (CLA_ECC.PDF, PDF page 7). This differs from the chapter or verse numbering in the King James Version. The intended citation is uncertain; the historical wording is retained. An additional printed witness, Adam Clarke, The Holy Bible with Commentary and Critical Notes, vol. III (New York: G. Lane & C. B. Tippett, 1846), p. 801, also reads “ix. 15–6”; this confirms the older reading but does not establish the intended citation. CLA_ECC.PDF, PDF page 7; Adam Clarke, The Holy Bible with Commentary and Critical Notes, vol. III (New York: G. Lane & C. B. Tippett, 1846), p. 801.
INTRODUCTION TO THE BOOK OF
ECCLESIASTES
THE book, entitled Koheleth, or Ecclesiastes, has ever been received, both by the Jewish and Christian Church, as written under the inspiration of the Almighty; and was held to be properly a part of the sacred canon. But while this has been almost universally granted, there has been but little unanimity among learned men and critics as to its author. To Solomon it has been most generally attributed, both in ancient and modern times. Grotius, however, conjectured that it was written a long time after Solomon; and he says, at the close of his notes on it, that it was revised in the days of Zerubbabel by some learned man, who in the twelfth verse of the last chapter addresses his son Abihud: “And farther, by these, my son, be admonished.” But such a conjecture appears to have little foundation. This great man was more successful in his criticism on the language of the book; showing that there are many words in it which do not savour of the purity of the Hebrew tongue; and are found in the times of the captivity and afterwards, and such as appear principally in the books of Ezra and Daniel.
Calovius has on the other hand, not with so much success as he imagined, argued against Grotius for the purity of the language. Mr. G. Zirkel of Wurtzburgh published an examination of this book in 1792, in which he endeavours to prove:—
1. That the style of Ecclesiastes is that of the later Hebrew writers, as appears by the Chaldaisms, Syriasms, and Hellenisms that occur in it.
2. That it may have been written between the years 380 and 130 before Jesus Christ, if not later.
The Jena reviewers seem to have thought it to be a translation from the Greek, and to have been written by a Jew of Alexandria, while the famous library was founding by Ptolemy Philadelphus king of Egypt, about the year 240 before Christ. And that it is to this circumstance that Ecclesiastes 12:12 alludes, “Of making many books there is no end;” which could not have entered into the head of a Palestine Jew; and such a person might speak with propriety of an Israel in Jerusalem, Ecclesiastes 1:12, being acquainted with an Israel in Alexandria. The Jews in general, and St. Jerome, hold the book to be the composition of Solomon, and the fruit of his repentance when restored from his idolatry, into which he had fallen through means of the strange or heathenish women whom he had taken for wives and concubines.
Others, of no mean note, who consider Solomon as the author, believe that he wrote it before his fall; there being no evidence that he wrote it afterwards; nor, indeed, that he ever recovered from his fall. Besides, it was in his old age that his wives turned away his heart from God; and the book bears too many evidences of mental energy to allow the supposition that in his declining age, after so deep a fall from God, he was capable of writing such a treatise. This opinion goes far towards destroying the Divine inspiration of the book; for if he did recover and repent, there is no evidence that God gave him back that Divine inspiration which he before possessed; for we hear of the Lord appearing to him twice before his fall, but of a third appearance there is no intimation. And lastly, Of the restoration of Solomon to the favour of God there is no proof in the sacred history; for in the very place where we are told that “in his old age his wives turned away his heart from the Lord,” we are told of his death, without the slightest intimation of his repentance. See my character of Solomon at the end of 1 Kings 11:43.
Nothing, however, of this uncertainty can affect either the character, importance, or utility of the book in question. It is a production of singular worth; and the finest monument we have of the wisdom of the ancients, except the book of Job.
But the chief difficulty attending this book is the principle on which it should be interpreted. Some have supposed it to be a dialogue between a true believer and an infidel, which makes it to the unwary reader appear abounding with contradiction, and, in some instances, false doctrine; and that the parts must be attributed to their respective speakers, before interpretation can be successfully attempted. I am not convinced that the book has any such structure; though in some places the opinions and sayings of infidels may be quoted; e.g., Ecclesiastes 7:16, and in some of the following chapters.
In the year 1763, M. Desvoeux, a learned foreigner then resident in England, and who was in the British service, wrote and published a Philosophical and Poetical Essay on this book, in which he endeavours to prove, that the design of the author was to demonstrate the immortality of the soul; and that it is on this principle alone that the book can be understood and explained.
As a late commentator on the Bible has adopted this plan, and interwoven the major part of this dissertation with his notes on the book, I shall introduce the whole of M. Desvoeux’s analysis of its contents, the propositions, arguments, proofs, illustrations, corollaries, &c., on the ground of which he attempts its illustration:—
The whole of the discourse (he says) may be reduced to the three following propositions, each of which is attended with its apparatus of proofs and especial observations.
PROPOSITION 1
No labour of man in this world can render him contented, or give him true satisfaction of soul.
PROPOSITION 2
Earthly goods and possessions are so far from making us happy, that they may be even viewed as real obstacles to our ease, quiet, and tranquillity of mind.
PROPOSITION 3
Men known not what is or is not truly advantageous to them; because they are either ignorant or unmindful of that which must come to pass after their death.
The three propositions, with their proofs and illustrations, are contained in the following analysis:—
Ecclesiastes 2:11. General conclusion of the second proof. A review of the second proof with special conclusions, relating to every particular therein mentioned, viz.,
Ecclesiastes 3:1, &c. Third proof.-Inconstancy of men’s wills. Ecclesiastes 3:9. Conclusion of the third proof A review of the second and third proofs, considered jointly, with special observations and corollaries.
Ecclesiastes 3:10, 11. First observation.—God is inculpable. Ecclesiastes 3:12, 15. Second observation.—God is the author of whatever befalls us in this world.
Ecclesiastes 3:16, 17. First corollary.—God shall redress all grievances. Ecclesiastes 3:18-21. Second corollary.—God must be exalted, and man humbled.
Ecclesiastes 3:22. Third corollary.—God allows men to enjoy the present life.
Ecclesiastes 4:1. Fourth proof.—Men’s neglect of proper opportunities, evidenced in several instances, viz.,
Ecclesiastes 5:13-19. V. Misapplication of esteem and regard. N. B. 1-9 is a digression containing several admonitions, in order to prevent any misconstruction of the fore-going remarks. Ecclesiastes 5:10-12. VI. Expensive living.
Ecclesiastes 5:14-17. First proof. Instability of riches. Ecclesiastes 6:18. 2. Second proof. Insufficiency of riches to make men happy.
Ecclesiastes 6:3-6. Corollary. The fate of an abortive is, on the whole, preferable to that of him who lives without enjoying life. Ecclesiastes 6:7-9. Third proof. Men’s insatiableness. Ecclesiastes 6:10, 11. General conclusion from the first and second propositions.
Ecclesiastes 7:1, &c. First proof. Wrong estimation of things. A digression, intended, like that ver. 1-9, to prevent any misconstruction of the preceding observations; and containing several advices, together with a strong commendation of him who gives them, in order to enforce the observation of the rules he lays down.
Ecclesiastes 8:9-14. I. That sin shall go unpunished, because it is so in this world.
Ecclesiastes 9:15-6. II. That life is preferable to death. Ecclesiastes 9:7-9. First corollary. Earthly enjoyments are not criminal. Ecclesiastes 9:10. Second corollary. We must make a proper use of our faculties.
Ecclesiastes 9:11-15. Third proof. Judgments that are seemingly right, but entirely false.
Ecclesiastes 9:16, &c. Fourth proof. Little regard paid to wisdom. Ecclesiastes 9:16. I. Past services are forgotten. II. The least fault is noticed.
Ecclesiastes 11:1-4. I. From the first PROPOSITION,—We must give to earthly goods that stability of which they are capable. Ecclesiastes 12:5, 6. II. From the first and second PROPOSITIONS,—We must, in all our conduct, conform to the design of Providence, and leave the success to God.
Ecclesiastes 12:7, 8. III. From the three PROPOSITIONS, but especially from the third, we must seek for happiness beyond the grave. Ecclesiastes 12:9-12. Commendation of the work, from several considerations.
Ecclesiastes 12:13, 14. CONCLUSION of the whole. This is the whole of M. Desvoeux’s Analysis; and I place it here, that the reader who approves of the plan may keep it in view while he is passing through the book. For my own part, I doubt whether the author made any such technical arrangement.
The three propositions which M. Desvoeux lays down, and which are so essential to the interpretation he gives of the book, would have been expressly propounded by the inspired writer had he intended such; but they appear nowhere in it, and M. D. is obliged to assume or gather them from the general scope of the work. However, on his plan, he has certainly made a number of judicious observations on different passages, though his translations are generally too bold, and seldom well supported by the original text.
In 1768 was published “Choheleth, or the Royal Preacher, a Poetical Paraphrase of the Book of Ecclesiastes. Most humbly inscribed to the King.” 4to. There is no name to this work. The late Rev. John Wesley gives the following account of the work and its author in his Journals:— “Monday, Feb. 8, 1768. I met with a surprising poem, entitled, Choheleth, or the Preacher: it is a paraphrase in tolerable verse on the book of Ecclesiastes. I really think the author of it (a Turkey merchant) understands both the difficult expressions, and the connection of the whole, better than any other either ancient or modern writer whom I have seen. He was at Lisbon during the great earthquake, just then sitting in his nightgown and slippers. Before he could dress himself, part of the house he was in fell, and blocked him up. By this means his life was saved; for all who had run out were dashed to pieces by the falling houses.” Mr. W. seems to have known the author well, but did not like to tell his name. About the year 1789 that eminent man recommended the work to me, and told me several particulars relative to it, which have escaped my memory. I procured the book the first opportunity, and read it with great satisfaction; and from it derived no small portion of information. Having now examined it anew, I can most cordially subscribe to Mr. Wesley’s opinion. I really believe that the author understood both the difficult expressions, and the connection of the whole, better than any other writer, whether ancient or modern, at least known to me. Had it comported with my plan, I should have thought a reprint of his work, with the text, which he does not insert, and a few philological notes, would have been quite sufficient to have given my readers a safe and general view of the whole work and its design; though I can by no means adopt the author’s hypothesis, that the book was written by Solomon after he was restored from his grievous apostasy. This is an assumption that never was proved and never can be.
From the preface to this work I have selected some general observations, which I consider to be important, and subjoin to this introduction; and what I borrow from the work itself I mark with a C, not knowing the author’s name. Of the authenticity of the book of Ecclesiastes I have no doubt; but I must say, the language and style puzzle me not a little. Chaldaisms and Syriasms are certainly frequent in it, and not a few Chaldee words and terminations; and the style is such as may be seen in those writers who lived at or after the captivity. If these can be reconciled with the age of Solomon, I have no objection; but the attempts that have been made to deny this, and overthrow the evidence, are in my view often trifling, and generally ineffectual. That Solomon, son of David, might have been the author of the whole matter of this, and a subsequent writer put it in his own language, is a possible case; and were this to be allowed, it would solve all difficulties. Let us place the supposition thus: Solomon said all these things, and they are highly worthy of his wisdom; and a Divine writer, after his time, who does not mention his name, gives us a faithful version of the whole in his own language.
On other subjects relative to this book, the author of Choheleth shall speak for me.
“I. Not to perplex our readers with the various expositions of the word Choheleth, the title of the book in the original, (for in truth we can find none better or more significant than that commonly received, viz., Ecclesiastes, or the Preacher,) let us now come to the book itself. Nothing can be more interesting than the subject it treats of, to wit, the chief or sovereign good which man, as a rational and accountable being, should here propose to himself. Every human creature, it is certain, naturally aims at happiness; but though all apply themselves with equal ardour to this desirable end, yet such is the violence of passion, and want of reflection in the generality of mankind, that the means they use for obtaining it, instead of conducting them to the safe and direct road, only serve to mislead and bewilder them in dark and intricate labyrinths, where it is impossible to find what they seek for. Now as it was absolutely necessary to convince such men of the vanity of their pursuits, in order to induce them to turn back in the right way, Solomon shows, in the first place, what is not happiness, and then what really is. Like a skilful physician, he searches deeply into the latent cause of the malady, and then prescribes a radical cure.
“II. In the former disquisition he enumerates all those particulars which mankind are most apt to fix their hearts upon, and shows, from his own dear-bought experience, and the transient and unsatisfactory nature of the things themselves, that no such thing as solid felicity is to be found in any of them. What he asserts on this head carries with it the greater weight, as no man upon earth was ever better qualified to speak decisively on such a subject, considering the opportunities he had of enjoying to the utmost all that this world affords. After having thus cleared away the obstacles to happiness, he enters on the main point, which is to direct us how and where it may be found. This he affirms, at the conclusion of the book, where he recapitulates the sum and substance of the sermon, as some not improperly have styled it, consists in a religious and virtuous life, with which, as he frequently intimates, a man in the lowest circumstances may be happy, and without which one in the highest must be miserable. As the whole book tends to this single point, so, in discussing thereof, many excellent observations are interspersed relating to the various duties of life, from the highest to the lowest station; the advantages resulting even from poverty, the genuine use of riches, and extreme folly of abusing them; the unequal dispensations of Divine Providence; the immortality of the human soul; and great day of final retribution. All these noble and important subjects are treated of in such a style and manner as nothing among the ancients can parallel.
“We have here given the genuine character of this inestimable piece; yet such has been the ignorance, inattention, or depravity of some persons, that it would be hard to find an instance of any thing written on so serious and interesting a subject, which has been so grossly misrepresented. How often has a handle been taken from certain passages, ill understood, and worse applied, to patronize libertinism, by such as pretend to judge of the whole from a single sentence, independent of the rest, without paying the least regard to the general scope or design! According to which rule the most pious discourse that ever was written may be perverted to atheism. Some fanatics have fallen into the contrary extreme; for, on reading that all here below was vanity, they have been so wrong-headed, as to condemn every thing as evil in itself. This world, according to them, cannot be too bitterly inveighed against; and man has nothing else to do with it, but to spend his days in sighing and mourning. But it is evident that nothing could be farther from the preacher’s intention: for notwithstanding he speaks so feelingly of the instability and unsatisfactory nature of all sublunary things, and the vanity of human cares, schemes, and contrivances; yet, lest any one should mistake his meaning, he advises every man, at the same time, to reap the fruit of his honest labours, and take the comfort of what he possesses with a sober freedom and cheerful spirit. Not to harass and disturb his mind with anxious cares and restless solicitudes about future events; but to pass the short space which Heaven has allotted him here, as pleasantly as his station will admit, with a quiet conscience. He does not condemn the things themselves, such as science, prudence, mirth, riches, honours, &c.; but only their abuse, that is, the useless studies, unreasonable pursuits, and immoderate desires, of those who pervert God’s blessings to their own destruction.
“On this head Solomon gives his sentiments, not only as a divine and philosopher, but like one thoroughly acquainted with the foibles of the human heart. It was not his design to drive people out of the world, or to make them live wretchedly in it; but only that they should think and act like rational creatures; or, in other words, be induced to consult their own happiness.
“There is nothing in the whole body of pagan philosophy so elevated and magnificent, as what some have written on the important subject of this poem: but we find their opinions so various and contradictory, and the most plausible so blended with errors, even those of the divine Plato not excepted, that their sublimest sentiments on the sovereign good or ultimate happiness of man, when compared with those of the royal preacher, not only appear cold and languid, but always leave the mind unsatisfied and restless. We are lost in a pompous flow of words; and dazzled, but not illuminated. One sect, by confining happiness to sensual pleasures, so greatly slackened the cord as to render it wholly useless: another, by their too austere and rigid maxims, stretched it so tight that it snapped asunder; though the experience of all ages has evinced that these latter imposed both on themselves and the world, when they taught that virtue, however afflicted here, was its own reward, and sufficient of itself to render a man completely happy. Even in the brazen bull of Perillus, truth will cry out from the rack against such fallacious teachers, and prove them liars. The extravagant figments, therefore, of the stoical apathy, no less than those of the voluptuous epicurean, both equally vanish at the splendour of the Divine truth delivered by Solomon. He alone decides the great question in such a manner that the soul is instantly convinced; it need seek no farther.
“III. To prevent all misapprehensions, which a slight and cursory reading of this book is apt to raise in many persons, it will be requisite to observe two cautions: First, that Solomon, who tells us that he applied his heart not only to the search of wisdom and knowledge, but also of folly and madness, frequently speaks, not according to his own sentiments, though he proposes the thing in a naked and simple manner, designedly making use of such terms as might set the picture in a fuller and clearer light, so that we often meet with certain expressions which, unless we search into their true design, seem to have a quite different force and meaning from what the author really intended. We must therefore take particular care to distinguish the doubts and objections of others from Solomon’s answers; the want of attending to which has made this book much more obscure than otherwise it would appear. Secondly, we should not judge of the entire discourse from some parts of it; since many things are pertinently said, according to the present subject, which, in themselves, and strictly taken, are far from true. In order to come at the genuine sense, we should form our opinion from the different circumstances of the matter treated of, comparing the antecedent with the consequent passages, and always considering the preacher’s real scope and design. By carefully attending to these two cautions, this book will be seen in a very different light from what it now appears in to the generality of readers.
“IV. This book, besides the figurative and proverbial expressions to be found in no other part of the Scripture, is undoubtedly metrical; and, consequently, the grammatization, in many places, not a little perplexed, from the frequent ellipses, abbreviations, transposition of words, and other poetical licenses, allowed in all languages; to say nothing of the carelessness or ignorance of transcribers, as appears from the variety of readings. Yet, notwithstanding we are so little acquainted with the nature of the Hebrew metre, and the propriety of certain phrases which, at this vast distance of time, in a language that has been dead upwards of two thousand years, must unavoidably occasion the same difficulties and obscurities as occur in works of far less antiquity, and in languages more generally studied and better understood; notwithstanding this, I say, a diligent and attentive observer will always find enough to recompense his trouble; and, if he has any taste, cannot avoid being struck with the exquisite beauty and regularity of the plan.
“V. The most judicious commentators have remarked on this book, that we have here a conspicuous example of that form of disputing, which was so justly admired in the soundest of the pagan philosophers; particularly in Socrates, who, whilst others were taken up with abstruse speculations about the nature of things, and investigating the number, motions, distance, and magnitude of the stars, brought down philosophy from the upper regions, and fixed its abode on earth; that is, by teaching such precepts as served for the regulation of life and manners, by far the most useful of all sciences, as being most conducive to the welfare of society, and the general benefit of mankind. Of this we have a noble specimen in the memoirs of that ancient moralist, collected by Xenophon. It is, I think, beyond all contradiction, that no one ever made deeper researches into nature, or had made so great a progress in every branch of science, both speculative and experimental. But what, after all, was the result of his inquiries? A thorough conviction of the inutility of such studies, and how little they conduce towards the obtaining that peace and tranquillity of mind wherein true happiness consists. He applied himself, therefore, to that study which might produce a real and lasting advantage, namely, to render men wise to some purpose; that is, truly virtuous. The manner of his treating this important subject bears some resemblance to that of the celebrated Greek moralist. He does not give us a long roll of dry formal precepts, with which the mind is soon tired; but, to confirm the truth of every thing he says, appeals, not only to his own experience, but to the general sense of unbiassed reason. At the same time he sets before us, in the liveliest colours, the sad effects of vice and folly; and makes use of every incentive to engage the heart to be enamoured with virtue, and pursue its own interest. Whatever he intends to inculcate is first barely proposed, and then more accurately explained and illustrated, though by gentle and almost imperceptible transitions; with this peculiarity, that there is always much more implied than expressed; insomuch that the reader, from a slight hint given him, is left to draw such inferences as his own reflection must naturally suggest. Every thing, in short, is drawn, in this admirable composition, with equal simplicity and elegance; and hath as distinguished a superiority to whatever the best pagan philosophers have given us on the same subject, as the borrowed light of the moon is surpassed by that of the sun in his full meridian lustre; or, to use a still stronger comparison, as Solomon’s knowledge of the one true God excelled the idle notion of their fictitious deities.” Some have supposed that the book of Ecclesiastes is a poem. That some poetic lines may be found in it, there is no doubt; but it has nothing in common with poetic books, nor does it exist in the hemistich form in any printed edition or MS. yet discovered. It is plain prose, and is not susceptible of that form in which the Hebrew poetic books appear. The author already quoted thinks that the book of Ecclesiastes is metrical. I cannot see this: but it has what is essential to poetry, a truly dignified style; there are no mean, creeping words in it, whether pure Hebrew, or borrowed from any of its dialects. They are all well chosen, nervous, and highly expressive. They are, in short, such as become the subject, and are worthy of that inspiration by which the author was guided. ECCLESIASTES OR, THE PREACHER
-Year from the Creation, according to Archbishop Usher, 3027. -Year from the Flood of Noah, according to the common Hebrew text, 1371.
-Year before the birth of Christ, 973.
-Year before the vulgar era of Christ’s nativity, 977. -N. B. The time when this book was written is very uncertain: the above chronology is agreeable to that contained in the present authorized version.
Joseph Benson
Argument
BEN_VOL4.PDF, source PDF p. 199
THE BOOK OF ECCLESIASTES;
OR, THE PREACHER.
ARGUMENT.
AS this book does not present us with the name of Solomon in the front of it, some, both ancient and modern writers, have ascribed it to other authors: as the Talmudists, to Hezekiah; R. Moses Kimchi, and some other Jews, to Isaiah; and Grotius, to Zerubbabel. But there are so many passages in it which agree to none but Solomon, that it is a wonder any person should ever think of attributing it to any other person. For instance, no one but he could ever truly affirm what we read Ecclesiastes 1:16. And who but he could boast of such things as are mentioned Ecclesiastes 2:4-10, to represent the splendour wherein he lived above all that had been before him in Jerusalem? Or, on the contrary, who had such reason as he to make that sad complaint which we find Ecclesiastes 7:26, &c., of the mischief he had received by women? And to omit the rest, those words, in the last chapter, verses 9, 10, could belong to none but him, who set in order many proverbs, as appears by the foregoing book. Hence it has been ascribed to him, and that most justly, by the far greater part of interpreters, both Jewish and Christian. See Bishop Patrick.
Three particulars may be observed concerning this book: — 1, That Solomon wrote it in his old age is more than probable from divers passages in it, as, that he did it after his buildings, (Ecclesiastes 2:4,) which yet took up twenty years of his life, (1 Kings 9:10,) and after some considerable enjoyment of them, and planting of gardens, and orchards, and reaping the fruit of them, (Ecclesiastes 2:5, 6,) and after long and much consideration and experience of all those methods in which men expect to find happiness, Ecclesiastes 7:27, &c. So this book was written by him, as a public testimony of his repentance and detestation of those wicked courses to which he had addicted himself: wherein he followed the example of his father David, who, after his sad fall, penned the fifty-first psalm. And the truth of this opinion may be confirmed by that expression, (2 Chronicles 11:17,) They walked in the way of David and Solomon; that is, wherein they walked, both before their falls, and after their repentance. 2, The method of it. For whereas there are some passages in it which seem impious, it must be considered that it is in part dramatical; that Solomon speaks most things in his own name, but some things in the names of ungodly men, as is undeniably manifest both from the scope and design of the book, as it is expressed both in the beginning and in the conclusion of it, and from his serious and large disputation against those wicked principles and courses. And this way of writing was not unusual among both sacred and profane writers. 3, The design of it; which is, to describe man’s true happiness, and the way leading to it. This he does both negatively, proving that it is not to be found either in secular wisdom, or in sensual pleasures, or in worldly greatness and glory, or in abundance of riches, or in a vain profession of religion: and positively, showing that it is to be had only in the fear of God and obedience to his laws, which alone can give a man a cheerful enjoyment of his present comforts, and assurance of his everlasting happiness.
Daniel Whedon
Introduction.
WHD_CO06.PDF, source PDF p. 731
ECCLESIASTES
INTRODUCTION.
The Title.
THE mystery of this book, which still causes much disagreement and perplexity among commentators, begins at once with the title. Ecclesiastes is the long-received Greek term for the Hebrew קהלת, Koheleth, or Coheleth. This is a feminine participle of the verb קהל, which means to collect — always applied to collections of people, and usually for religious purposes.
The fitness of this term as applied to Solomon is conceded by all, however much critics may differ upon the question of its actual authorship. In 1 Kings 8, he is described as gathering the people of Israel in a grand, solemn assembly to worship Jehovah in the place which he had now built — “a settled place.” Here he taught them to have communion with the Most High, and to come there with joy and gladness to keep their holy days. He is the one of all the rulers and inspired men of Israel to whom this title eminently belongs. He was the Koheleth — the Ecclesiastes — not the Preacher, which is too narrow a term, and is no part of the meaning of קהל, that term signifying, as above remarked, the one who gathered the people before God.
As title of this book, Koheleth is singularly beautiful and appropriate. The work of the book is to gather the people from difficulties, and perplexities, and vanities, and errors which led them astray from God, back to his truth, his law, and himself. This is done with the sympathy, patience, and gentleness of a shepherd, yet with the dignity of a teacher and the authority of a king.
Why the Title should be Feminine.
One reason, assigned by several expounders, is, that it is the use of a feminine abstract form to indicate a rank or office. So we say in English, “majesty,” for “king;” “administration,” for the man or men “administering” a government. This is plausible, but a severe scrutiny of Hebrew seems to show: 1. That no abstract thus formed is ever again used in a concrete or personal sense: it remains as the name of an office, and nothing more. 2. That, if it were used to indicate the man holding the office, it would be followed by the masculine form of the verb, which is not the case here. See 7:27. 3. No other abstract form made from the active participle can be found. The conclusion seems necessary, that “Koheleth” is not an abstract, giving the name of an office, but is concrete, signifying some person or thing really performing the act which its root defines — some one actually assembling the people before God.
Probably the best explanation of this use of the feminine form is, that the writer personifies Wisdom. If Solomon be the writer, this would agree with his use of wisdom, Proverbs 1:20; 8:1. The like use of personification is found in Luke 11:49: “Therefore also said the Wisdom of God.” Solomon attributes tacitly to Wisdom the sayings which divine Wisdom inspired, and thus the use of this remarkable form would be explained. If Solomon be not the writer, still this tacit personification would be in harmony with the popular notions about him, as is illustrated in the Book of Wisdom, chapter vii, etc. He was reckoned an incarnation of Wisdom. Had, then, an unknown writer wished to impersonate Solomon, he could not have done better than to present him in the guise in which his countrymen loved to view him when he assumed the office of teacher. The construction of the word, taken in this sense, with a feminine verb, would accord with the fixed usage of Hebrew grammar.
The allusions to wisdom in a special and subordinate sense, as, “I gave my heart to know wisdom,” etc., will cause no confusion if we bear in mind that the writer, though uttering the words of wisdom, does not lose his own individuality. Thus the apostles, speaking in general as the organs of the Holy Ghost, also speak at times their own views and their own experiences. See Acts 15:28: “For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us.”
The advantage of this latter explanation over the former is, that it conforms to the grammar without the necessity of creating, out of it, a special and exceptional instance. It is certainly admissible to do this when no alternative can be found. But the latter explanation agrees not merely with grammatical precedents, but at the same time harmonizes with well known forms of scriptural rhetoric. Thus Psalm 68:12, המבשׂרות, “them that publish it,” gives, from its feminine form, not merely an intense collective sense, but couches also the suggestion of co-operating wisdom. This explanation is the one most adopted in the long line of commentators who, since the Christian era, and even before it, have treated of this book. Authorship.
The book has been attributed to Solomon rather by presumption and uniform consent than by critical demonstration. Serious doubts have, in modern times, been raised on this matter, and some learned and careful critics have decided adversely to the long-received opinion. Their line of thought has been nearly as follows: —
1. The tone of remark in the book seems to proceed from one who lives in a time of social depression, of injustice, and of tyranny. The description of the various phases of these is given with the vividness of an actual beholder, who is at the same time powerless to prevent or remedy them. Oppression and violence rage so fiercely that death is thought better than life. All the behaviour of an Oriental despotism, in its worst form, is depicted; the misery of the people is acknowledged; and counsels of patience and prudence are repeatedly given. This state of things cannot be supposed to have existed in the reign of Solomon; or, if it did, he would hardly thus record his own shame.
2. The character of rulers most frequently given in this book is that of gluttons, drunkards, laggards, and spendthrifts, who are also so irritable that one may counsel them only delicately and indirectly. See Ecclesiastes 5:9. It seems hardly probable, either, that Solomon would so speak of his own rank. While, too, he recommends individuals to patiently submit, he intimates (Ecclesiastes 8:2-9) that the despot will surely receive punishment from the wrath and rebellion of the mass of his subjects. All this sentiment and suggestion seems very unkingly.
3. The sins and extravagances of Solomon’s life must have been the cause of the evils which he, if he were “Koheleth,” here describes. Yet he nowhere acknowledges any sin of his own. He had introduced idolatry, he had filled his harem with foreign and idolatrous women, he had openly dealt badly with God’s law and covenant, yet his own misdeeds are here spoken of as mere experiments, and the conduct of others over whom he had influence is matter of bitter complaint. It is thought that the writer of a book so pure as this, had he led a guilty life, would, by a moral necessity, have uttered some language of confession and self-abasement, nothing of which can here be found.
4. A tone of disappointment, of weakness, and of wretchedness runs through the entire book. Some past magnificence seems to float in the mind of the writer, but there is no sense of a glorious destiny such as enlivened the age of Solomon. It is a time of bitter trial. Many minds seem driven into desperate ungodliness. Deeper minds seek satisfaction in practical and speculative reasoning, tinged with sadness, unrelieved even by the hope of the Messiah. The book seems like the exponent of Israel’s darkest and most doubtful day.
5. To these suggestions, arising from the sentiment and contents of the book, are added certain difficulties in identifying the rhetoric and language as Solomon’s. The Proverbs, whose authorship none can doubt, are compact, precise, and energetic, like the speaking of a king. Koheleth is moderate and dreamlike, full of repetitions and dilutions. Phrases occur in it which are so marked as to be clearly habitual to the writer’s speech, but which are not found in Proverbs — as, “under the sun,” and others. It is thought that, as Pope could not have written in the style of Chaucer, or Macaulay in that of Carlyle, so Solomon could not have written in that of Koheleth. This difference of rhetoric is plainer in the Hebrew than in any translation.
6. There are in Koheleth a few words and forms of words which are not found in biblical Hebrew in its golden age — the age of Solomon. The argument from these is of little weight, as it is impossible to say that these were not in some use even at Solomon’s epoch. There are in the book ten or eleven of these later forms. Of Chaldaic words — an element not found in the Bible until after the captivity — there are, perhaps, ten. The most careful criticism of word-forms finds so little of reliable indication from this source that small mention need be made of it; but what indication there is, is toward a later authorship. Some of the ablest of modern Hebraists, as Stuart and Ginsberg, have urged that all the conditions of the authorship are satisfied by supposing the writer to have lived in Palestine at some time in the fourth century before our era, to have assumed the title of Koheleth from his being a hakam, or public teacher, and to have made Solomon the character delivering the discourse. It will be perceived that the weight of the argument is chiefly from moral probabilities, and that there is a lack of specific proof. The argument will seem more or less forcible to various minds. It is unquestionably gaining in favour with many careful students and thinkers.
In favour of Solomon as author, the weightiest arguments are as follows: —
1. The general belief of Jews and Christians up to modern times. This does not establish the case, nor render it invulnerable to critical examination, but it affords a strong presumption of its truth.
2. The assertion by the author himself in the book: “I, Koheleth, was king over Israel in Jerusalem.” Parallel to this, John says in the Apocalypse, “I, John was in the isle… called Patmos.” Identifying himself with his future readers, he speaks of the present as a past historical fact. And so it is thought that Solomon, by a figure of rhetoric, transfers himself to future ages and writes for future readers. Upon these he wishes definitely to impress his own historic position, that they may recognise in his character and opportunities a basis for the experiences and sentiments of the book. And this remark applies to all the allusions to Solomon which the book contains. He was surely in condition to try on the largest scale the experiments here recorded, and repeated mention of this creates confidence in the readers of the book.
3. The difference in rhetoric between Proverbs and “Koheleth” is thought to be justified by the different character of the aim and contents of the books. Probably no writer can be named whose variety of style is so great and so sustained throughout two productions. Burke, of English writers, would approach this most nearly, whose essay on the “Sublime and the Beautiful” may be compared with Proverbs, and whose “Thoughts on the French Revolution” may be compared with “Koheleth.” Some such change of manner in thought and expression may have come over Solomon in the interval between “sharp youth and dreamy age.”
4. The verbal differences — the use of words in “Koheleth” which are not found in Hebrew writings of the Solomonic era — is of little weight in argument. A great writer, like Shakspeare, may pick from the popular speech of his day, words which do not become classical and serviceable in higher literature until long after. Solomon may have done this.
5. The felt lack of agreement between the causes of misery given in the book, as misgovernment, injustice, etc., and anything that could have existed under Solomon’s rule, is explained by the theory that the book was written philosophically — one might say, prophetically. It is directed to the opposite extreme of human experience from that addressed in Canticles, (this to gloom, that to gayety;) an extreme sure to occur soon or late, and to need sympathy and consolation. Solomon’s own reign was by no means free from oppressions and disorders; but his allusions to the evils of the world need not be supposed to be drawn from the narrow limits of his own time and realm. He provided food and comfort for minds inclined to seek relief from gloom and depression by indulging in that speculative argumentation which Hebrew thinkers were then learning from the Greeks. He showed how the human mind, after ranging far and wide over the dreary mysteries and perplexities of life, and finding no rest, may, like the dove, fold its weary wing and settle to quiet and shelter beneath Jehovah and his commandments. Those who hold this view of “Koheleth” must regard it as the most wonderful of all the writings of Solomon.
6. The belief in Solomon’s authorship is corroborated by a sentiment of moral sublimity which all the readers of the book recognise. A tone of grandeur and of dark sublimity is heard from every part, like the utter, race of one who, in depression and disappointment, still bears himself with the majesty of a king. If this be an impersonation, like the Agamemnon or OEdipus of a Greek drama, the art is sustained with wondrous skill and power. Troublous times of grief and oppression are so joined with Solomon’s golden days that the seam is invisible. If it be Solomon himself, the royal Preacher, we are still more deeply moved by the sight of a king whose morning was so fair, rallying himself near his cloudy nightfall to record his “large experience” of what was vain and what was good for man. This sentiment, or this picture, will confirm the general belief in the Solomonic authorship against any criticism of critics for yet a long time. And this sentiment gives the book a charm and a power which cannot be too highly valued.
This question of authorship must not be made too important. There are other accepted books of Scripture whose authors have not been identified — as the glowing, earnest book of Malachi. By whatever hand God was pleased to give “Koheleth” to the world — whether we discern the body of the writer, or lose it behind an impenetrable screen — we may rest confidently upon the book itself. Its broad sympathies, its profound and practical experience in so various affairs, its calm, wise, and gentle guidance, by meandering paths, from darkness to consoling light — these were given to us by the inspiration of God, and are profitable for doctrine, for reproof, and for instruction in righteousness.
Canonicity.
The canonical right of Ecclesiastes has been uniformly acknowledged. No inspired writer gives us any list of the sacred books. Our first knowledge of them is from the Canon of Josephus. Josephus, being called to defend them before a heathen, ignorant of their number and import, made out the first list in our possession, giving twenty-two books, “which are justly believed to be divine.” With this list the Talmud agrees. Of these Ecclesiastes was the twenty-first. As it contained neither law nor prophecy it was classed with the Hagiographa, or sacred general writings, “containing hymns to God or maxims of life to men.” Its place in the holy Scriptures is amply justified by its broad and comprehensive effort to demonstrate the true philosophy of life to be in the fear of God and the keeping of his commandments, and in the reference of all human actions to the eternal judgment.
The Proverbs of Solomon seem to have established among the Jews a taste for sententious utterances. Even if this book came from another hand than his, it shows in this respect his influence, as it abounds in proverbial statements. Though, on the whole, of a poetic nature, it lacks the beauty and order of the Psalms and of some of the prophetical books. It is read in Jewish synagogues regularly at the feast of tabernacles. It seems as if its subdued and tender strains were meant to give a soft accompaniment of sadness to moderate the hilarities of that most gladsome of Jewish festivals, reminding men of life’s vanities while they exult in its blessings. The Subject.
The theme of the book is the path to true happiness. The discussion of it is leisurely, and the views suggested are argued upon their various sides, so that if they have any real value it may be duly appreciated. A discernible law of logic binds the whole discussion, so that the book is at unity with itself. Sentiments are asserted, then qualified, controverted, admitted or denied, with all the freedom of colloquial discourse.
The method of the book may be shown in outline by the following division: —
1. A preliminary statement is made, a sort of apology for taking up the discussion. It is as if the writer felt man to be the most wretched object in creation: “For misery caught me at my birth, and cast me forth upon the wild.” The most changeful courses of nature abide, even in their changefulness; but man is unsatisfied while here, and soon departs, and disappears like a mist of the morning.
Whether it be so in fact or not, so it at least seems. But with a mind revolting at this unhappy show of things, and as if prompted by this very show, the writer thoughtfully and conscientiously undertakes the inquiry, whether there be any abiding good for man. This preliminary extends to Ecclesiastes 1:11.
2. The author’s first series of experiments is then stated. He accumulates vast stores of knowledge to see what good may be in ample intelligence and broad views of affairs. Then he tries, to its fullest extent, the pleasure given by sensual indulgence. He finds knowledge far better than indulgence; but, alas! the wise and the fool come to the same speedy end. The work of the wise is spoiled by some fool who follows him; and though the wise gets more and better enjoyment than the fool, yet all is very transitory. This first range of experiment occupies the book as far as to the end of chapter 2.
3. The inquiry is now made, whether the full exertion of human energies will produce the desired result. Dr. Franklin, Mr. Greeley, and other eminent men, have praised industry. “Koheleth” finds man girded in by a fixed order of things. The inevitable and the immutable are set as bounds to his doings, that he may feel the presence of a higher Power than himself. Only a humble recognition of this Power, an effort to be in harmony with it, and a thankful enjoyment of what it gives, be it more or less, can save one from despair. This section ends with chapter 5.
4. Delaying a little to show that riches can give no aid, “Koheleth” proceeds to a more extensive investigation of what wisdom — that is, prudence, or common sense — can do to procure happiness. Prudence takes short views, inquires what is best under the immediate circumstances, and leaves what is unmanageable to the disposal of a higher Power. But prudence is often baffled and its plans thwarted, so that the careful man is more miserable than the reckless. Little comfort, at most, is found in it, and the better way is for one to just grasp and enjoy what he can lay his hand on. This division ends at Ecclesiastes 8:15.
5. Now is given a review of all the preceding discussion. Much is conceded to be failure. Some advantages are claimed for virtue and prudence, and the summation is, that a wise use of this present life, with what good it may give, and a fear of God, with steady expectation and regard of his final judgment, will give us all that is good for man, and save us in the last crisis. This summation extends to Ecclesiastes 12:7.
6. A solemn, impressive conclusion is given, which deeply enforces the result gained by all this investigation.
Adam Clarke
Introduction to the Book of Ecclesiastes
CLA_ECC.PDF, source PDF p. 3
Editorial note: The supplied edition prints “Ecclesiastes 6:18” here (CLA_ECC.PDF, PDF page 7). In the King James Version, Ecclesiastes 6 has 12 verses. The intended citation is uncertain; the historical wording is retained. An additional printed witness, Adam Clarke, The Holy Bible with Commentary and Critical Notes, vol. III (New York: G. Lane & C. B. Tippett, 1846), p. 801, also reads “Chap. vi. / 18. 2.”; this confirms the older reading but does not establish the intended citation. CLA_ECC.PDF, PDF page 7; Adam Clarke, The Holy Bible with Commentary and Critical Notes, vol. III (New York: G. Lane & C. B. Tippett, 1846), p. 801.
Editorial note: The supplied edition prints “Ecclesiastes 9:15-6” here (CLA_ECC.PDF, PDF page 7). This differs from the chapter or verse numbering in the King James Version. The intended citation is uncertain; the historical wording is retained. An additional printed witness, Adam Clarke, The Holy Bible with Commentary and Critical Notes, vol. III (New York: G. Lane & C. B. Tippett, 1846), p. 801, also reads “ix. 15–6”; this confirms the older reading but does not establish the intended citation. CLA_ECC.PDF, PDF page 7; Adam Clarke, The Holy Bible with Commentary and Critical Notes, vol. III (New York: G. Lane & C. B. Tippett, 1846), p. 801.
INTRODUCTION TO THE BOOK OF
ECCLESIASTES
THE book, entitled Koheleth, or Ecclesiastes, has ever been received, both by the Jewish and Christian Church, as written under the inspiration of the Almighty; and was held to be properly a part of the sacred canon. But while this has been almost universally granted, there has been but little unanimity among learned men and critics as to its author. To Solomon it has been most generally attributed, both in ancient and modern times. Grotius, however, conjectured that it was written a long time after Solomon; and he says, at the close of his notes on it, that it was revised in the days of Zerubbabel by some learned man, who in the twelfth verse of the last chapter addresses his son Abihud: “And farther, by these, my son, be admonished.” But such a conjecture appears to have little foundation. This great man was more successful in his criticism on the language of the book; showing that there are many words in it which do not savour of the purity of the Hebrew tongue; and are found in the times of the captivity and afterwards, and such as appear principally in the books of Ezra and Daniel.
Calovius has on the other hand, not with so much success as he imagined, argued against Grotius for the purity of the language. Mr. G. Zirkel of Wurtzburgh published an examination of this book in 1792, in which he endeavours to prove:—
1. That the style of Ecclesiastes is that of the later Hebrew writers, as appears by the Chaldaisms, Syriasms, and Hellenisms that occur in it.
2. That it may have been written between the years 380 and 130 before Jesus Christ, if not later.
The Jena reviewers seem to have thought it to be a translation from the Greek, and to have been written by a Jew of Alexandria, while the famous library was founding by Ptolemy Philadelphus king of Egypt, about the year 240 before Christ. And that it is to this circumstance that Ecclesiastes 12:12 alludes, “Of making many books there is no end;” which could not have entered into the head of a Palestine Jew; and such a person might speak with propriety of an Israel in Jerusalem, Ecclesiastes 1:12, being acquainted with an Israel in Alexandria. The Jews in general, and St. Jerome, hold the book to be the composition of Solomon, and the fruit of his repentance when restored from his idolatry, into which he had fallen through means of the strange or heathenish women whom he had taken for wives and concubines.
Others, of no mean note, who consider Solomon as the author, believe that he wrote it before his fall; there being no evidence that he wrote it afterwards; nor, indeed, that he ever recovered from his fall. Besides, it was in his old age that his wives turned away his heart from God; and the book bears too many evidences of mental energy to allow the supposition that in his declining age, after so deep a fall from God, he was capable of writing such a treatise. This opinion goes far towards destroying the Divine inspiration of the book; for if he did recover and repent, there is no evidence that God gave him back that Divine inspiration which he before possessed; for we hear of the Lord appearing to him twice before his fall, but of a third appearance there is no intimation. And lastly, Of the restoration of Solomon to the favour of God there is no proof in the sacred history; for in the very place where we are told that “in his old age his wives turned away his heart from the Lord,” we are told of his death, without the slightest intimation of his repentance. See my character of Solomon at the end of 1 Kings 11:43.
Nothing, however, of this uncertainty can affect either the character, importance, or utility of the book in question. It is a production of singular worth; and the finest monument we have of the wisdom of the ancients, except the book of Job.
But the chief difficulty attending this book is the principle on which it should be interpreted. Some have supposed it to be a dialogue between a true believer and an infidel, which makes it to the unwary reader appear abounding with contradiction, and, in some instances, false doctrine; and that the parts must be attributed to their respective speakers, before interpretation can be successfully attempted. I am not convinced that the book has any such structure; though in some places the opinions and sayings of infidels may be quoted; e.g., Ecclesiastes 7:16, and in some of the following chapters.
In the year 1763, M. Desvoeux, a learned foreigner then resident in England, and who was in the British service, wrote and published a Philosophical and Poetical Essay on this book, in which he endeavours to prove, that the design of the author was to demonstrate the immortality of the soul; and that it is on this principle alone that the book can be understood and explained.
As a late commentator on the Bible has adopted this plan, and interwoven the major part of this dissertation with his notes on the book, I shall introduce the whole of M. Desvoeux’s analysis of its contents, the propositions, arguments, proofs, illustrations, corollaries, &c., on the ground of which he attempts its illustration:—
The whole of the discourse (he says) may be reduced to the three following propositions, each of which is attended with its apparatus of proofs and especial observations.
PROPOSITION 1
No labour of man in this world can render him contented, or give him true satisfaction of soul.
PROPOSITION 2
Earthly goods and possessions are so far from making us happy, that they may be even viewed as real obstacles to our ease, quiet, and tranquillity of mind.
PROPOSITION 3
Men known not what is or is not truly advantageous to them; because they are either ignorant or unmindful of that which must come to pass after their death.
The three propositions, with their proofs and illustrations, are contained in the following analysis:—
PROPOSITION 1
Ecclesiastes 1:2, 3. No labour of man, &c.
Ecclesiastes 1:4-11. First proof.—The course of nature. Ecclesiastes 1:12, &c. Second proof.—Men’s occupations. Ecclesiastes 1:15-18. First head.—Wisdom or philosophy. Ecclesiastes 2:1, 2. Second head.—Pleasure.
Ecclesiastes 2:3-10. Both jointly.
Ecclesiastes 2:11. General conclusion of the second proof. A review of the second proof with special conclusions, relating to every particular therein mentioned, viz.,
Ecclesiastes 2:12-17. I. Wisdom.
Ecclesiastes 2:18-23. II. Riches.
Ecclesiastes 2:24-26. III. Pleasure.
Ecclesiastes 3:1, &c. Third proof.-Inconstancy of men’s wills. Ecclesiastes 3:9. Conclusion of the third proof A review of the second and third proofs, considered jointly, with special observations and corollaries.
Ecclesiastes 3:10, 11. First observation.—God is inculpable. Ecclesiastes 3:12, 15. Second observation.—God is the author of whatever befalls us in this world.
Ecclesiastes 3:16, 17. First corollary.—God shall redress all grievances. Ecclesiastes 3:18-21. Second corollary.—God must be exalted, and man humbled.
Ecclesiastes 3:22. Third corollary.—God allows men to enjoy the present life.
Ecclesiastes 4:1. Fourth proof.—Men’s neglect of proper opportunities, evidenced in several instances, viz.,
Ecclesiastes 4:1-3. I. Oppression.
Ecclesiastes 4:4. II. Envy.
Ecclesiastes 4:5, 6. III. Idleness.
Ecclesiastes 4:7-12. IV. Avarice.
Ecclesiastes 5:13-19. V. Misapplication of esteem and regard. N. B. 1-9 is a digression containing several admonitions, in order to prevent any misconstruction of the fore-going remarks. Ecclesiastes 5:10-12. VI. Expensive living.
PROPOSITION 2.- Ecclesiastes 5:13
Ecclesiastes 5:14-17. First proof. Instability of riches. Ecclesiastes 6:18. 2. Second proof. Insufficiency of riches to make men happy.
Ecclesiastes 6:3-6. Corollary. The fate of an abortive is, on the whole, preferable to that of him who lives without enjoying life. Ecclesiastes 6:7-9. Third proof. Men’s insatiableness. Ecclesiastes 6:10, 11. General conclusion from the first and second propositions.
PROPOSITION 3.- Ecclesiastes 6:12
Ecclesiastes 7:1, &c. First proof. Wrong estimation of things. A digression, intended, like that ver. 1-9, to prevent any misconstruction of the preceding observations; and containing several advices, together with a strong commendation of him who gives them, in order to enforce the observation of the rules he lays down.
Ecclesiastes 7:9-12. First advice. Do not blame Providence. Ecclesiastes 7:13. Second advice. Do not judge of Providence. Ecclesiastes 7:14, 15. Third advice. Submit to Providence. Ecclesiastes 7:16-20. Fourth advice. Avoid excesses. Ecclesiastes 7:21, 22. Fifth advice. Do not heed idle reports. Ecclesiastes 7:23-25. Commendation of the foregoing advices from the author’s application of every thing; and especially, Ecclesiastes 7:26-29. I. Wickedness and ignorance. Ecclesiastes 8:1-8. II. Wisdom.
Second proof. Anticipated judgments.
Ecclesiastes 8:9-14. I. That sin shall go unpunished, because it is so in this world.
Ecclesiastes 9:15-6. II. That life is preferable to death. Ecclesiastes 9:7-9. First corollary. Earthly enjoyments are not criminal. Ecclesiastes 9:10. Second corollary. We must make a proper use of our faculties.
Ecclesiastes 9:11-15. Third proof. Judgments that are seemingly right, but entirely false.
Ecclesiastes 9:16, &c. Fourth proof. Little regard paid to wisdom. Ecclesiastes 9:16. I. Past services are forgotten. II. The least fault is noticed.
Ecclesiastes 10:5-19. III. Favour gets what is due to merit. Ecclesiastes 10:20. A caution to prevent the abuse of the preceding remarks.
PRACTICAL INFERENCES
Ecclesiastes 11:1-4. I. From the first PROPOSITION,—We must give to earthly goods that stability of which they are capable. Ecclesiastes 12:5, 6. II. From the first and second PROPOSITIONS,—We must, in all our conduct, conform to the design of Providence, and leave the success to God.
Ecclesiastes 12:7, 8. III. From the three PROPOSITIONS, but especially from the third, we must seek for happiness beyond the grave. Ecclesiastes 12:9-12. Commendation of the work, from several considerations.
Ecclesiastes 12:13, 14. CONCLUSION of the whole. This is the whole of M. Desvoeux’s Analysis; and I place it here, that the reader who approves of the plan may keep it in view while he is passing through the book. For my own part, I doubt whether the author made any such technical arrangement.
The three propositions which M. Desvoeux lays down, and which are so essential to the interpretation he gives of the book, would have been expressly propounded by the inspired writer had he intended such; but they appear nowhere in it, and M. D. is obliged to assume or gather them from the general scope of the work. However, on his plan, he has certainly made a number of judicious observations on different passages, though his translations are generally too bold, and seldom well supported by the original text.
In 1768 was published “Choheleth, or the Royal Preacher, a Poetical Paraphrase of the Book of Ecclesiastes. Most humbly inscribed to the King.” 4to. There is no name to this work. The late Rev. John Wesley gives the following account of the work and its author in his Journals:— “Monday, Feb. 8, 1768. I met with a surprising poem, entitled, Choheleth, or the Preacher: it is a paraphrase in tolerable verse on the book of Ecclesiastes. I really think the author of it (a Turkey merchant) understands both the difficult expressions, and the connection of the whole, better than any other either ancient or modern writer whom I have seen. He was at Lisbon during the great earthquake, just then sitting in his nightgown and slippers. Before he could dress himself, part of the house he was in fell, and blocked him up. By this means his life was saved; for all who had run out were dashed to pieces by the falling houses.” Mr. W. seems to have known the author well, but did not like to tell his name. About the year 1789 that eminent man recommended the work to me, and told me several particulars relative to it, which have escaped my memory. I procured the book the first opportunity, and read it with great satisfaction; and from it derived no small portion of information. Having now examined it anew, I can most cordially subscribe to Mr. Wesley’s opinion. I really believe that the author understood both the difficult expressions, and the connection of the whole, better than any other writer, whether ancient or modern, at least known to me. Had it comported with my plan, I should have thought a reprint of his work, with the text, which he does not insert, and a few philological notes, would have been quite sufficient to have given my readers a safe and general view of the whole work and its design; though I can by no means adopt the author’s hypothesis, that the book was written by Solomon after he was restored from his grievous apostasy. This is an assumption that never was proved and never can be.
From the preface to this work I have selected some general observations, which I consider to be important, and subjoin to this introduction; and what I borrow from the work itself I mark with a C, not knowing the author’s name. Of the authenticity of the book of Ecclesiastes I have no doubt; but I must say, the language and style puzzle me not a little. Chaldaisms and Syriasms are certainly frequent in it, and not a few Chaldee words and terminations; and the style is such as may be seen in those writers who lived at or after the captivity. If these can be reconciled with the age of Solomon, I have no objection; but the attempts that have been made to deny this, and overthrow the evidence, are in my view often trifling, and generally ineffectual. That Solomon, son of David, might have been the author of the whole matter of this, and a subsequent writer put it in his own language, is a possible case; and were this to be allowed, it would solve all difficulties. Let us place the supposition thus: Solomon said all these things, and they are highly worthy of his wisdom; and a Divine writer, after his time, who does not mention his name, gives us a faithful version of the whole in his own language.
On other subjects relative to this book, the author of Choheleth shall speak for me.
“I. Not to perplex our readers with the various expositions of the word Choheleth, the title of the book in the original, (for in truth we can find none better or more significant than that commonly received, viz., Ecclesiastes, or the Preacher,) let us now come to the book itself. Nothing can be more interesting than the subject it treats of, to wit, the chief or sovereign good which man, as a rational and accountable being, should here propose to himself. Every human creature, it is certain, naturally aims at happiness; but though all apply themselves with equal ardour to this desirable end, yet such is the violence of passion, and want of reflection in the generality of mankind, that the means they use for obtaining it, instead of conducting them to the safe and direct road, only serve to mislead and bewilder them in dark and intricate labyrinths, where it is impossible to find what they seek for. Now as it was absolutely necessary to convince such men of the vanity of their pursuits, in order to induce them to turn back in the right way, Solomon shows, in the first place, what is not happiness, and then what really is. Like a skilful physician, he searches deeply into the latent cause of the malady, and then prescribes a radical cure.
“II. In the former disquisition he enumerates all those particulars which mankind are most apt to fix their hearts upon, and shows, from his own dear-bought experience, and the transient and unsatisfactory nature of the things themselves, that no such thing as solid felicity is to be found in any of them. What he asserts on this head carries with it the greater weight, as no man upon earth was ever better qualified to speak decisively on such a subject, considering the opportunities he had of enjoying to the utmost all that this world affords. After having thus cleared away the obstacles to happiness, he enters on the main point, which is to direct us how and where it may be found. This he affirms, at the conclusion of the book, where he recapitulates the sum and substance of the sermon, as some not improperly have styled it, consists in a religious and virtuous life, with which, as he frequently intimates, a man in the lowest circumstances may be happy, and without which one in the highest must be miserable. As the whole book tends to this single point, so, in discussing thereof, many excellent observations are interspersed relating to the various duties of life, from the highest to the lowest station; the advantages resulting even from poverty, the genuine use of riches, and extreme folly of abusing them; the unequal dispensations of Divine Providence; the immortality of the human soul; and great day of final retribution. All these noble and important subjects are treated of in such a style and manner as nothing among the ancients can parallel.
“We have here given the genuine character of this inestimable piece; yet such has been the ignorance, inattention, or depravity of some persons, that it would be hard to find an instance of any thing written on so serious and interesting a subject, which has been so grossly misrepresented. How often has a handle been taken from certain passages, ill understood, and worse applied, to patronize libertinism, by such as pretend to judge of the whole from a single sentence, independent of the rest, without paying the least regard to the general scope or design! According to which rule the most pious discourse that ever was written may be perverted to atheism. Some fanatics have fallen into the contrary extreme; for, on reading that all here below was vanity, they have been so wrong-headed, as to condemn every thing as evil in itself. This world, according to them, cannot be too bitterly inveighed against; and man has nothing else to do with it, but to spend his days in sighing and mourning. But it is evident that nothing could be farther from the preacher’s intention: for notwithstanding he speaks so feelingly of the instability and unsatisfactory nature of all sublunary things, and the vanity of human cares, schemes, and contrivances; yet, lest any one should mistake his meaning, he advises every man, at the same time, to reap the fruit of his honest labours, and take the comfort of what he possesses with a sober freedom and cheerful spirit. Not to harass and disturb his mind with anxious cares and restless solicitudes about future events; but to pass the short space which Heaven has allotted him here, as pleasantly as his station will admit, with a quiet conscience. He does not condemn the things themselves, such as science, prudence, mirth, riches, honours, &c.; but only their abuse, that is, the useless studies, unreasonable pursuits, and immoderate desires, of those who pervert God’s blessings to their own destruction.
“On this head Solomon gives his sentiments, not only as a divine and philosopher, but like one thoroughly acquainted with the foibles of the human heart. It was not his design to drive people out of the world, or to make them live wretchedly in it; but only that they should think and act like rational creatures; or, in other words, be induced to consult their own happiness.
“There is nothing in the whole body of pagan philosophy so elevated and magnificent, as what some have written on the important subject of this poem: but we find their opinions so various and contradictory, and the most plausible so blended with errors, even those of the divine Plato not excepted, that their sublimest sentiments on the sovereign good or ultimate happiness of man, when compared with those of the royal preacher, not only appear cold and languid, but always leave the mind unsatisfied and restless. We are lost in a pompous flow of words; and dazzled, but not illuminated. One sect, by confining happiness to sensual pleasures, so greatly slackened the cord as to render it wholly useless: another, by their too austere and rigid maxims, stretched it so tight that it snapped asunder; though the experience of all ages has evinced that these latter imposed both on themselves and the world, when they taught that virtue, however afflicted here, was its own reward, and sufficient of itself to render a man completely happy. Even in the brazen bull of Perillus, truth will cry out from the rack against such fallacious teachers, and prove them liars. The extravagant figments, therefore, of the stoical apathy, no less than those of the voluptuous epicurean, both equally vanish at the splendour of the Divine truth delivered by Solomon. He alone decides the great question in such a manner that the soul is instantly convinced; it need seek no farther.
“III. To prevent all misapprehensions, which a slight and cursory reading of this book is apt to raise in many persons, it will be requisite to observe two cautions: First, that Solomon, who tells us that he applied his heart not only to the search of wisdom and knowledge, but also of folly and madness, frequently speaks, not according to his own sentiments, though he proposes the thing in a naked and simple manner, designedly making use of such terms as might set the picture in a fuller and clearer light, so that we often meet with certain expressions which, unless we search into their true design, seem to have a quite different force and meaning from what the author really intended. We must therefore take particular care to distinguish the doubts and objections of others from Solomon’s answers; the want of attending to which has made this book much more obscure than otherwise it would appear. Secondly, we should not judge of the entire discourse from some parts of it; since many things are pertinently said, according to the present subject, which, in themselves, and strictly taken, are far from true. In order to come at the genuine sense, we should form our opinion from the different circumstances of the matter treated of, comparing the antecedent with the consequent passages, and always considering the preacher’s real scope and design. By carefully attending to these two cautions, this book will be seen in a very different light from what it now appears in to the generality of readers.
“IV. This book, besides the figurative and proverbial expressions to be found in no other part of the Scripture, is undoubtedly metrical; and, consequently, the grammatization, in many places, not a little perplexed, from the frequent ellipses, abbreviations, transposition of words, and other poetical licenses, allowed in all languages; to say nothing of the carelessness or ignorance of transcribers, as appears from the variety of readings. Yet, notwithstanding we are so little acquainted with the nature of the Hebrew metre, and the propriety of certain phrases which, at this vast distance of time, in a language that has been dead upwards of two thousand years, must unavoidably occasion the same difficulties and obscurities as occur in works of far less antiquity, and in languages more generally studied and better understood; notwithstanding this, I say, a diligent and attentive observer will always find enough to recompense his trouble; and, if he has any taste, cannot avoid being struck with the exquisite beauty and regularity of the plan.
“V. The most judicious commentators have remarked on this book, that we have here a conspicuous example of that form of disputing, which was so justly admired in the soundest of the pagan philosophers; particularly in Socrates, who, whilst others were taken up with abstruse speculations about the nature of things, and investigating the number, motions, distance, and magnitude of the stars, brought down philosophy from the upper regions, and fixed its abode on earth; that is, by teaching such precepts as served for the regulation of life and manners, by far the most useful of all sciences, as being most conducive to the welfare of society, and the general benefit of mankind. Of this we have a noble specimen in the memoirs of that ancient moralist, collected by Xenophon. It is, I think, beyond all contradiction, that no one ever made deeper researches into nature, or had made so great a progress in every branch of science, both speculative and experimental. But what, after all, was the result of his inquiries? A thorough conviction of the inutility of such studies, and how little they conduce towards the obtaining that peace and tranquillity of mind wherein true happiness consists. He applied himself, therefore, to that study which might produce a real and lasting advantage, namely, to render men wise to some purpose; that is, truly virtuous. The manner of his treating this important subject bears some resemblance to that of the celebrated Greek moralist. He does not give us a long roll of dry formal precepts, with which the mind is soon tired; but, to confirm the truth of every thing he says, appeals, not only to his own experience, but to the general sense of unbiassed reason. At the same time he sets before us, in the liveliest colours, the sad effects of vice and folly; and makes use of every incentive to engage the heart to be enamoured with virtue, and pursue its own interest. Whatever he intends to inculcate is first barely proposed, and then more accurately explained and illustrated, though by gentle and almost imperceptible transitions; with this peculiarity, that there is always much more implied than expressed; insomuch that the reader, from a slight hint given him, is left to draw such inferences as his own reflection must naturally suggest. Every thing, in short, is drawn, in this admirable composition, with equal simplicity and elegance; and hath as distinguished a superiority to whatever the best pagan philosophers have given us on the same subject, as the borrowed light of the moon is surpassed by that of the sun in his full meridian lustre; or, to use a still stronger comparison, as Solomon’s knowledge of the one true God excelled the idle notion of their fictitious deities.” Some have supposed that the book of Ecclesiastes is a poem. That some poetic lines may be found in it, there is no doubt; but it has nothing in common with poetic books, nor does it exist in the hemistich form in any printed edition or MS. yet discovered. It is plain prose, and is not susceptible of that form in which the Hebrew poetic books appear. The author already quoted thinks that the book of Ecclesiastes is metrical. I cannot see this: but it has what is essential to poetry, a truly dignified style; there are no mean, creeping words in it, whether pure Hebrew, or borrowed from any of its dialects. They are all well chosen, nervous, and highly expressive. They are, in short, such as become the subject, and are worthy of that inspiration by which the author was guided. ECCLESIASTES OR, THE PREACHER
-Year from the Creation, according to Archbishop Usher, 3027. -Year from the Flood of Noah, according to the common Hebrew text, 1371.
-Year before the birth of Christ, 973.
-Year before the vulgar era of Christ’s nativity, 977. -N. B. The time when this book was written is very uncertain: the above chronology is agreeable to that contained in the present authorized version.
Joseph Benson
Argument
BEN_VOL4.PDF, source PDF p. 199
THE BOOK OF ECCLESIASTES;
OR, THE PREACHER.
ARGUMENT.
AS this book does not present us with the name of Solomon in the front of it, some, both ancient and modern writers, have ascribed it to other authors: as the Talmudists, to Hezekiah; R. Moses Kimchi, and some other Jews, to Isaiah; and Grotius, to Zerubbabel. But there are so many passages in it which agree to none but Solomon, that it is a wonder any person should ever think of attributing it to any other person. For instance, no one but he could ever truly affirm what we read Ecclesiastes 1:16. And who but he could boast of such things as are mentioned Ecclesiastes 2:4-10, to represent the splendour wherein he lived above all that had been before him in Jerusalem? Or, on the contrary, who had such reason as he to make that sad complaint which we find Ecclesiastes 7:26, &c., of the mischief he had received by women? And to omit the rest, those words, in the last chapter, verses 9, 10, could belong to none but him, who set in order many proverbs, as appears by the foregoing book. Hence it has been ascribed to him, and that most justly, by the far greater part of interpreters, both Jewish and Christian. See Bishop Patrick.
Three particulars may be observed concerning this book: — 1, That Solomon wrote it in his old age is more than probable from divers passages in it, as, that he did it after his buildings, (Ecclesiastes 2:4,) which yet took up twenty years of his life, (1 Kings 9:10,) and after some considerable enjoyment of them, and planting of gardens, and orchards, and reaping the fruit of them, (Ecclesiastes 2:5, 6,) and after long and much consideration and experience of all those methods in which men expect to find happiness, Ecclesiastes 7:27, &c. So this book was written by him, as a public testimony of his repentance and detestation of those wicked courses to which he had addicted himself: wherein he followed the example of his father David, who, after his sad fall, penned the fifty-first psalm. And the truth of this opinion may be confirmed by that expression, (2 Chronicles 11:17,) They walked in the way of David and Solomon; that is, wherein they walked, both before their falls, and after their repentance. 2, The method of it. For whereas there are some passages in it which seem impious, it must be considered that it is in part dramatical; that Solomon speaks most things in his own name, but some things in the names of ungodly men, as is undeniably manifest both from the scope and design of the book, as it is expressed both in the beginning and in the conclusion of it, and from his serious and large disputation against those wicked principles and courses. And this way of writing was not unusual among both sacred and profane writers. 3, The design of it; which is, to describe man’s true happiness, and the way leading to it. This he does both negatively, proving that it is not to be found either in secular wisdom, or in sensual pleasures, or in worldly greatness and glory, or in abundance of riches, or in a vain profession of religion: and positively, showing that it is to be had only in the fear of God and obedience to his laws, which alone can give a man a cheerful enjoyment of his present comforts, and assurance of his everlasting happiness.
Daniel Whedon
Introduction.
WHD_CO06.PDF, source PDF p. 731
ECCLESIASTES
INTRODUCTION.
The Title.
THE mystery of this book, which still causes much disagreement and perplexity among commentators, begins at once with the title. Ecclesiastes is the long-received Greek term for the Hebrew קהלת, Koheleth, or Coheleth. This is a feminine participle of the verb קהל, which means to collect — always applied to collections of people, and usually for religious purposes.
The fitness of this term as applied to Solomon is conceded by all, however much critics may differ upon the question of its actual authorship. In 1 Kings 8, he is described as gathering the people of Israel in a grand, solemn assembly to worship Jehovah in the place which he had now built — “a settled place.” Here he taught them to have communion with the Most High, and to come there with joy and gladness to keep their holy days. He is the one of all the rulers and inspired men of Israel to whom this title eminently belongs. He was the Koheleth — the Ecclesiastes — not the Preacher, which is too narrow a term, and is no part of the meaning of קהל, that term signifying, as above remarked, the one who gathered the people before God.
As title of this book, Koheleth is singularly beautiful and appropriate. The work of the book is to gather the people from difficulties, and perplexities, and vanities, and errors which led them astray from God, back to his truth, his law, and himself. This is done with the sympathy, patience, and gentleness of a shepherd, yet with the dignity of a teacher and the authority of a king.
Why the Title should be Feminine.
One reason, assigned by several expounders, is, that it is the use of a feminine abstract form to indicate a rank or office. So we say in English, “majesty,” for “king;” “administration,” for the man or men “administering” a government. This is plausible, but a severe scrutiny of Hebrew seems to show: 1. That no abstract thus formed is ever again used in a concrete or personal sense: it remains as the name of an office, and nothing more. 2. That, if it were used to indicate the man holding the office, it would be followed by the masculine form of the verb, which is not the case here. See 7:27. 3. No other abstract form made from the active participle can be found. The conclusion seems necessary, that “Koheleth” is not an abstract, giving the name of an office, but is concrete, signifying some person or thing really performing the act which its root defines — some one actually assembling the people before God.
Probably the best explanation of this use of the feminine form is, that the writer personifies Wisdom. If Solomon be the writer, this would agree with his use of wisdom, Proverbs 1:20; 8:1. The like use of personification is found in Luke 11:49: “Therefore also said the Wisdom of God.” Solomon attributes tacitly to Wisdom the sayings which divine Wisdom inspired, and thus the use of this remarkable form would be explained. If Solomon be not the writer, still this tacit personification would be in harmony with the popular notions about him, as is illustrated in the Book of Wisdom, chapter vii, etc. He was reckoned an incarnation of Wisdom. Had, then, an unknown writer wished to impersonate Solomon, he could not have done better than to present him in the guise in which his countrymen loved to view him when he assumed the office of teacher. The construction of the word, taken in this sense, with a feminine verb, would accord with the fixed usage of Hebrew grammar.
The allusions to wisdom in a special and subordinate sense, as, “I gave my heart to know wisdom,” etc., will cause no confusion if we bear in mind that the writer, though uttering the words of wisdom, does not lose his own individuality. Thus the apostles, speaking in general as the organs of the Holy Ghost, also speak at times their own views and their own experiences. See Acts 15:28: “For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us.”
The advantage of this latter explanation over the former is, that it conforms to the grammar without the necessity of creating, out of it, a special and exceptional instance. It is certainly admissible to do this when no alternative can be found. But the latter explanation agrees not merely with grammatical precedents, but at the same time harmonizes with well known forms of scriptural rhetoric. Thus Psalm 68:12, המבשׂרות, “them that publish it,” gives, from its feminine form, not merely an intense collective sense, but couches also the suggestion of co-operating wisdom. This explanation is the one most adopted in the long line of commentators who, since the Christian era, and even before it, have treated of this book. Authorship.
The book has been attributed to Solomon rather by presumption and uniform consent than by critical demonstration. Serious doubts have, in modern times, been raised on this matter, and some learned and careful critics have decided adversely to the long-received opinion. Their line of thought has been nearly as follows: —
1. The tone of remark in the book seems to proceed from one who lives in a time of social depression, of injustice, and of tyranny. The description of the various phases of these is given with the vividness of an actual beholder, who is at the same time powerless to prevent or remedy them. Oppression and violence rage so fiercely that death is thought better than life. All the behaviour of an Oriental despotism, in its worst form, is depicted; the misery of the people is acknowledged; and counsels of patience and prudence are repeatedly given. This state of things cannot be supposed to have existed in the reign of Solomon; or, if it did, he would hardly thus record his own shame.
2. The character of rulers most frequently given in this book is that of gluttons, drunkards, laggards, and spendthrifts, who are also so irritable that one may counsel them only delicately and indirectly. See Ecclesiastes 5:9. It seems hardly probable, either, that Solomon would so speak of his own rank. While, too, he recommends individuals to patiently submit, he intimates (Ecclesiastes 8:2-9) that the despot will surely receive punishment from the wrath and rebellion of the mass of his subjects. All this sentiment and suggestion seems very unkingly.
3. The sins and extravagances of Solomon’s life must have been the cause of the evils which he, if he were “Koheleth,” here describes. Yet he nowhere acknowledges any sin of his own. He had introduced idolatry, he had filled his harem with foreign and idolatrous women, he had openly dealt badly with God’s law and covenant, yet his own misdeeds are here spoken of as mere experiments, and the conduct of others over whom he had influence is matter of bitter complaint. It is thought that the writer of a book so pure as this, had he led a guilty life, would, by a moral necessity, have uttered some language of confession and self-abasement, nothing of which can here be found.
4. A tone of disappointment, of weakness, and of wretchedness runs through the entire book. Some past magnificence seems to float in the mind of the writer, but there is no sense of a glorious destiny such as enlivened the age of Solomon. It is a time of bitter trial. Many minds seem driven into desperate ungodliness. Deeper minds seek satisfaction in practical and speculative reasoning, tinged with sadness, unrelieved even by the hope of the Messiah. The book seems like the exponent of Israel’s darkest and most doubtful day.
5. To these suggestions, arising from the sentiment and contents of the book, are added certain difficulties in identifying the rhetoric and language as Solomon’s. The Proverbs, whose authorship none can doubt, are compact, precise, and energetic, like the speaking of a king. Koheleth is moderate and dreamlike, full of repetitions and dilutions. Phrases occur in it which are so marked as to be clearly habitual to the writer’s speech, but which are not found in Proverbs — as, “under the sun,” and others. It is thought that, as Pope could not have written in the style of Chaucer, or Macaulay in that of Carlyle, so Solomon could not have written in that of Koheleth. This difference of rhetoric is plainer in the Hebrew than in any translation.
6. There are in Koheleth a few words and forms of words which are not found in biblical Hebrew in its golden age — the age of Solomon. The argument from these is of little weight, as it is impossible to say that these were not in some use even at Solomon’s epoch. There are in the book ten or eleven of these later forms. Of Chaldaic words — an element not found in the Bible until after the captivity — there are, perhaps, ten. The most careful criticism of word-forms finds so little of reliable indication from this source that small mention need be made of it; but what indication there is, is toward a later authorship. Some of the ablest of modern Hebraists, as Stuart and Ginsberg, have urged that all the conditions of the authorship are satisfied by supposing the writer to have lived in Palestine at some time in the fourth century before our era, to have assumed the title of Koheleth from his being a hakam, or public teacher, and to have made Solomon the character delivering the discourse. It will be perceived that the weight of the argument is chiefly from moral probabilities, and that there is a lack of specific proof. The argument will seem more or less forcible to various minds. It is unquestionably gaining in favour with many careful students and thinkers.
In favour of Solomon as author, the weightiest arguments are as follows: —
1. The general belief of Jews and Christians up to modern times. This does not establish the case, nor render it invulnerable to critical examination, but it affords a strong presumption of its truth.
2. The assertion by the author himself in the book: “I, Koheleth, was king over Israel in Jerusalem.” Parallel to this, John says in the Apocalypse, “I, John was in the isle… called Patmos.” Identifying himself with his future readers, he speaks of the present as a past historical fact. And so it is thought that Solomon, by a figure of rhetoric, transfers himself to future ages and writes for future readers. Upon these he wishes definitely to impress his own historic position, that they may recognise in his character and opportunities a basis for the experiences and sentiments of the book. And this remark applies to all the allusions to Solomon which the book contains. He was surely in condition to try on the largest scale the experiments here recorded, and repeated mention of this creates confidence in the readers of the book.
3. The difference in rhetoric between Proverbs and “Koheleth” is thought to be justified by the different character of the aim and contents of the books. Probably no writer can be named whose variety of style is so great and so sustained throughout two productions. Burke, of English writers, would approach this most nearly, whose essay on the “Sublime and the Beautiful” may be compared with Proverbs, and whose “Thoughts on the French Revolution” may be compared with “Koheleth.” Some such change of manner in thought and expression may have come over Solomon in the interval between “sharp youth and dreamy age.”
4. The verbal differences — the use of words in “Koheleth” which are not found in Hebrew writings of the Solomonic era — is of little weight in argument. A great writer, like Shakspeare, may pick from the popular speech of his day, words which do not become classical and serviceable in higher literature until long after. Solomon may have done this.
5. The felt lack of agreement between the causes of misery given in the book, as misgovernment, injustice, etc., and anything that could have existed under Solomon’s rule, is explained by the theory that the book was written philosophically — one might say, prophetically. It is directed to the opposite extreme of human experience from that addressed in Canticles, (this to gloom, that to gayety;) an extreme sure to occur soon or late, and to need sympathy and consolation. Solomon’s own reign was by no means free from oppressions and disorders; but his allusions to the evils of the world need not be supposed to be drawn from the narrow limits of his own time and realm. He provided food and comfort for minds inclined to seek relief from gloom and depression by indulging in that speculative argumentation which Hebrew thinkers were then learning from the Greeks. He showed how the human mind, after ranging far and wide over the dreary mysteries and perplexities of life, and finding no rest, may, like the dove, fold its weary wing and settle to quiet and shelter beneath Jehovah and his commandments. Those who hold this view of “Koheleth” must regard it as the most wonderful of all the writings of Solomon.
6. The belief in Solomon’s authorship is corroborated by a sentiment of moral sublimity which all the readers of the book recognise. A tone of grandeur and of dark sublimity is heard from every part, like the utter, race of one who, in depression and disappointment, still bears himself with the majesty of a king. If this be an impersonation, like the Agamemnon or OEdipus of a Greek drama, the art is sustained with wondrous skill and power. Troublous times of grief and oppression are so joined with Solomon’s golden days that the seam is invisible. If it be Solomon himself, the royal Preacher, we are still more deeply moved by the sight of a king whose morning was so fair, rallying himself near his cloudy nightfall to record his “large experience” of what was vain and what was good for man. This sentiment, or this picture, will confirm the general belief in the Solomonic authorship against any criticism of critics for yet a long time. And this sentiment gives the book a charm and a power which cannot be too highly valued.
This question of authorship must not be made too important. There are other accepted books of Scripture whose authors have not been identified — as the glowing, earnest book of Malachi. By whatever hand God was pleased to give “Koheleth” to the world — whether we discern the body of the writer, or lose it behind an impenetrable screen — we may rest confidently upon the book itself. Its broad sympathies, its profound and practical experience in so various affairs, its calm, wise, and gentle guidance, by meandering paths, from darkness to consoling light — these were given to us by the inspiration of God, and are profitable for doctrine, for reproof, and for instruction in righteousness.
Canonicity.
The canonical right of Ecclesiastes has been uniformly acknowledged. No inspired writer gives us any list of the sacred books. Our first knowledge of them is from the Canon of Josephus. Josephus, being called to defend them before a heathen, ignorant of their number and import, made out the first list in our possession, giving twenty-two books, “which are justly believed to be divine.” With this list the Talmud agrees. Of these Ecclesiastes was the twenty-first. As it contained neither law nor prophecy it was classed with the Hagiographa, or sacred general writings, “containing hymns to God or maxims of life to men.” Its place in the holy Scriptures is amply justified by its broad and comprehensive effort to demonstrate the true philosophy of life to be in the fear of God and the keeping of his commandments, and in the reference of all human actions to the eternal judgment.
The Proverbs of Solomon seem to have established among the Jews a taste for sententious utterances. Even if this book came from another hand than his, it shows in this respect his influence, as it abounds in proverbial statements. Though, on the whole, of a poetic nature, it lacks the beauty and order of the Psalms and of some of the prophetical books. It is read in Jewish synagogues regularly at the feast of tabernacles. It seems as if its subdued and tender strains were meant to give a soft accompaniment of sadness to moderate the hilarities of that most gladsome of Jewish festivals, reminding men of life’s vanities while they exult in its blessings. The Subject.
The theme of the book is the path to true happiness. The discussion of it is leisurely, and the views suggested are argued upon their various sides, so that if they have any real value it may be duly appreciated. A discernible law of logic binds the whole discussion, so that the book is at unity with itself. Sentiments are asserted, then qualified, controverted, admitted or denied, with all the freedom of colloquial discourse.
The method of the book may be shown in outline by the following division: —
1. A preliminary statement is made, a sort of apology for taking up the discussion. It is as if the writer felt man to be the most wretched object in creation: “For misery caught me at my birth, and cast me forth upon the wild.” The most changeful courses of nature abide, even in their changefulness; but man is unsatisfied while here, and soon departs, and disappears like a mist of the morning.
Whether it be so in fact or not, so it at least seems. But with a mind revolting at this unhappy show of things, and as if prompted by this very show, the writer thoughtfully and conscientiously undertakes the inquiry, whether there be any abiding good for man. This preliminary extends to Ecclesiastes 1:11.
2. The author’s first series of experiments is then stated. He accumulates vast stores of knowledge to see what good may be in ample intelligence and broad views of affairs. Then he tries, to its fullest extent, the pleasure given by sensual indulgence. He finds knowledge far better than indulgence; but, alas! the wise and the fool come to the same speedy end. The work of the wise is spoiled by some fool who follows him; and though the wise gets more and better enjoyment than the fool, yet all is very transitory. This first range of experiment occupies the book as far as to the end of chapter 2.
3. The inquiry is now made, whether the full exertion of human energies will produce the desired result. Dr. Franklin, Mr. Greeley, and other eminent men, have praised industry. “Koheleth” finds man girded in by a fixed order of things. The inevitable and the immutable are set as bounds to his doings, that he may feel the presence of a higher Power than himself. Only a humble recognition of this Power, an effort to be in harmony with it, and a thankful enjoyment of what it gives, be it more or less, can save one from despair. This section ends with chapter 5.
4. Delaying a little to show that riches can give no aid, “Koheleth” proceeds to a more extensive investigation of what wisdom — that is, prudence, or common sense — can do to procure happiness. Prudence takes short views, inquires what is best under the immediate circumstances, and leaves what is unmanageable to the disposal of a higher Power. But prudence is often baffled and its plans thwarted, so that the careful man is more miserable than the reckless. Little comfort, at most, is found in it, and the better way is for one to just grasp and enjoy what he can lay his hand on. This division ends at Ecclesiastes 8:15.
5. Now is given a review of all the preceding discussion. Much is conceded to be failure. Some advantages are claimed for virtue and prudence, and the summation is, that a wise use of this present life, with what good it may give, and a fear of God, with steady expectation and regard of his final judgment, will give us all that is good for man, and save us in the last crisis. This summation extends to Ecclesiastes 12:7.
6. A solemn, impressive conclusion is given, which deeply enforces the result gained by all this investigation.