Chapter III: Introduction: Date and Authorship

THE title or superscription of the book is, chapter i. 1, ‘The words of Koheleth, the son of David, king of Jerusalem,’ and this is further explained in verse 12, by ‘I Koheleth was king over Israel in Jerusalem.’ The only person in Jewish history who answers exactly to this description is Solomon, and accordingly the whole ancient Church, Jewish as well as Christian, have regarded Solomon as the undoubted author of the book. With this conclusion even modern criticism is so far agreed, that it is universally admitted that Solomon is the hero or personated author, even though it is denied that he was the real writer. It is alleged that internal evidence is against the supposition of so early a date; for that the language and tone of thought in the book point to a writer further on in Jewish history. The favourite opinion amongst German scholars is, that Ecclesiastes was composed towards the end of the Persian dominion. Ewald, indeed, considers that, so far as language and style is concerned, the book might be the very latest written in the whole Hebrew Scriptures.

A detailed history of the exposition of the book will be found in the _Coheleth_ of Dr. Ginsburg, together with a complete discussion of the reasons for and against Solomonic authorship. It will be unnecessary, therefore, to go into detail on this point. We shall only add what concerns the immediate object of the present Commentary, remarking that several most competent English-speaking scholars remain unconvinced by arguments which have apparently fully satisfied their German brethren. Dr. Wordsworth, Professor Plumptre, Dr. Taylor Lewis of America, argue that the book is really Solomon’s, while even in Germany D. H. A. Hahn (_Commentar über das Predigerbuch_, Leipzig, 1860) is strongly on the side of the Solomonic authorship.

The principal arguments in favour of later date derived from internal evidence, arise from (_first_) the state of violence and misery depicted in the book with so much bitterness, and which, it is alleged, cannot be made to harmonize with what we know of the reign of Solomon; and (_secondly_) the strongly Aramaic character of the language, which assimilates itself to that of the books of Daniel and Esther. With regard to the first point (if we have at all found the real interpretation of the book), it seems improbable that any special description of a particular period could have been ever intended, or even any allusion to the special circumstances of any people. So far also from supposing a time of trouble in the mind of the writer, on the contrary the point and moral of the book will be enhanced if we suppose it to be written rather in a time of prosperity than of adversity or oppression. Thus, if we turn to the expressions of chapter iv. 1 we shall see that to give any special reference to them, and suppose them peculiar or out of the way, would weaken the force of Koheleth’s argument. Human life generally, under the very best of external circumstances, always exhibits the spectacle both of oppressions by the wicked, and of oppressed without comforters. Now underneath this statement lies the difficulty that He who permits this is the merciful Author of Nature Himself, and it is this difficulty which is especially discussed. There is no necessity to suppose the concluding years of Persian tyranny to be pointedly alluded to, because it is not under an Asiatic despotism alone that hypocrites come and go from the place of the holy (chapter viii. 10), or servants are seen on horseback, and nobles, like serfs, walking afoot (chapter x. 7), or that men continue in prosperous wickedness (chapter ix. 3). Indeed, the same may be said of any other of the similar providential difficulties advanced in this book, for the very same occurrences may be witnessed now in this age of civilisation and progress. The reply then to the assertion that it is ‘impossible to reconcile this state of things with the age of Solomon’ is simply this. There is no need even to make the attempt, because there is no reason to believe that, considering the author’s standpoint, he intended that the instances of human suffering and disappointment he cites should be taken otherwise than perfectly generally. What he adduces of this nature is in sufficient measure true always, at the best of times. It would blunt the point of his reasoning if it could be shown that the difficulties he starts were exceptional or temporary; but this is not so. Koheleth’s repeated declaration is that _all_――that is, the whole of human life――is vanity or evanescence.

The argument from Aramaic words is much more formidable, and would be conclusive if our knowledge of the successive stages of the Hebrew language were less fragmentary and uncertain than is really the case. It is quite true that such words as מדינה ,רעיון ,רעות ,כבר ,זמן ,פתגם, have an Aramaic colouring; but we must set against this the fact that, as Ewald remarks, we have in Ecclesiastes a new philosophical terminology, which has modified the Hebrew of the book. And again, it will be seen by referring to the places where these peculiar words occur, that they are introduced either for the purposes of expressing new ideas or terms not found in the language elsewhere. Sometimes the more usual word would be out of harmony with the context, _e.g._ the word זמון replaces the more ordinary מיעד, because not only is the latter used to signify a _feast_, but the root-meaning of the former is just what is required by the argument. Again, כבר, as will be seen stated at length in the notes, is used in the purely technical sense, of ‘this present,’ and not in the ordinary meaning of ‘already.’ The unusual ♦אלו, chapter vi. 6, also is apparently introduced for the sake of the alliteration with הלא in the next clause, and the once occurring עֲדֶן chapter iv. 3, for the sake of the equivoke to which its use gives rise. All these Aramaic words are noticed as they occur in the body of the Commentary, and we think that the conclusion which results from what there appears is to weaken very considerably any argument as to date which can be drawn from them one way or the other.

♦ “הלא” replaced with “אלו”

Again, the object of the book is so peculiar, and so different from all the rest of Scripture, and especially from those which, supposing Solomon was the author, would stand related to it in point of time, that we may well expect some difference of language and colouring. Again, also, there is another reason. The books immediately subsequent to Solomon’s era are all prophetic. Now it seems natural that prophets should use an antique style, which would be tinged with that of the earlier religious books, while if, on the other hand, as the LXX. seem to imply by their translation of the word Koheleth, and appears also from the alliterations in the book itself, it were an address orally delivered, it would no doubt contain colloquialisms. There are strong indications that it does so. Now these colloquialisms would certainly have an Aramaic cast about them. Thus the difference of diction between the Hebrew of Koheleth and a contemporary prophet would be exaggerated, and any estimate of date due to this difference proportionately uncertain.

On the whole, for myself, I have no theory to support either way. I am content to let the matter rest, as I believe the Scripture itself leaves it, which, after all, nowhere refers the authorship to Solomon. In accordance with this, both to save space and to conduce to clearness, I have always referred to the author by the name Koheleth, and to the book itself as Ecclesiastes, in the course of the subsequent Commentary.

DESIGN AND METHOD OF THE WORK.

The design of the book is no other than argumentatively to work out the concluding aphorism of the whole: ‘Fear God, and keep His commandments, for _this_ is the whole problem of Humanity.’ This truth is never for a moment lost sight of, not even in those passages which sound most sceptical or Epicurean. We may compare this marvellous book to an overture, and say that this truth is its subject. This overture, however, is written in a minor key; it is almost always plaintive; sometimes it descends to what sounds like absolute discord; but this subject floats through its wildest and strangest melodies, resolves its harshest discords, connects its most erratic wanderings. Koheleth is a perfect master of sarcasm. A certain grim and bitter yet grave and holy satire runs through his book. He makes his readers think whether they will or no. For this purpose he sometimes descends to plays upon words, equivokes, alliterations, possibly also proverbs in ordinary circulation. He certainly writes in the ‘vulgar tongue.’ But these equivokes always help the sense. If Koheleth appears in the guise of a popular preacher, he never loses sight of the moralist and philosopher. His sermon, for such we believe it to be, will bear comparison with another wonderful sermon found in Holy Scripture, with which it has some striking points of resemblance, and yet how wonderfully different!

The book then opens with an exclamation which serves as a text or topic――‘Vanity of vanities,’――and forthwith proceeds to state the question, and work out the conclusion which this topic suggests. Has mankind any advantage (in the sense of a result in the future) by reason of his toil or anxiety (the technical word here used is עמל, by which word is meant the same thing as the Greek expresses by μέριμνα, cares of this life, Matthew xiii. 22)? This he answers in the negative by eight aphorisms, four drawn from observation of nature and four from moral considerations, which we have called the eight _un_beatitudes of the sermon. This constitutes the first part of the proof. Koheleth then goes on to discuss the question, Can any solution of this providential difficulty be discovered? This, in the first place, is attempted to be answered by an autobiography, in which Koheleth shows in succession that wisdom, mirth, accumulation of wealth, etc., are alike evanescent and unsatisfactory, as his own experience (and no one was likely to do better) abundantly displayed. These together form the first great division of the book――Chapters I. and II.

In the next five Chapters, III. to VII., the same question is discussed from another point of view. Koheleth remarks on the unalterable character of Providence, and shows that even if it were possible that human wisdom could cause change (which it cannot), that the alteration could only be for the worse. He begins by enumerating twenty-eight times or seasons――that is, a fourfold seven――of which the last is ‘a time of peace.’ This is especially worthy of remark, as it is an instance of one of those hopes of better things which Koheleth allows to appear, as it were by stealth, amidst his most melancholy utterances. He then argues this matter, and through a long and sustained course of reasoning, the conclusion of which is, that God must right the wronged.

But there naturally arises the objection, If this be so, why does impiety and oppression exist so continually in the very places or circumstances where we ought to expect the reverse? To this Koheleth offers two solutions, which, however, are neither satisfactory; the second indeed would lead to absolute scepticism. The true deduction is however stated in the last verse of chapter iii. (22), which is, that if any result is to be accomplished by human toil, it can only consist in present gratification.

Koheleth then turns to the consideration of oppressions or afflictions, this turn of thought being that present enjoyment is marred by the existence of so much irremediable unhappiness; that if this world be all, the dead are better off than the living; that the result even of success is envy rather than pleasure; that it is useless labouring for posterity, and no avail in the present. Koheleth here sarcastically points out that labour for others does give some advantage, the only instance where he sees the possibility of any at all. He carefully limits, however, all this to the present life, this formula ‘under the sun,’ _i.e._ in this world of labour and toil, being introduced frequently, showing that all he says is to be taken with this proviso.

In Chapter V. Koheleth begins to display the great remedy for human ills――that is, piety, patience, and submission to the Divine will, cautioning against foolish sacrifices, rash vows, rash speeches, selfishness and avarice. This display of the remedy, however, is as yet subordinate, the main object being to show that all arguments conspire to prove the vanity or transitoriness of human existence. With this Chapter VI. ends, and with it the more argumentative portion of the treatise.