I. Name

The Hebrew name of this book is Qoheleth, a word of doubtful significance, but derived from a root which means "to call," "to assemble." This would give the sense, "One who assembles the people for the purpose of addressing them." Our English Bible, which renders it "Ecclesiastes, or the Preacher," is a good rendering of the term. The feminine of the Hebrew word has led some to infer that it is a symbolic name for an assembly called for consultation, when the title would refer to the teaching of the book rather than to the speaker. Plumptre (Com. on Ecclesiastes) would translate it "Debater."

II. Position

In our Hebrew Bible it forms the fourth among the Megilloth and was read annually on the feast of Tabernacles. In the Septuagint and in our English Bible it is placed next to Proverbs, because it was ascribed to the same author. While there has been an occasional voice against its admission to the Canon, as among the Jews of the second century, on account of its peculiar teaching, it has never been seriously questioned by the Christian church.

III. Contents

To understand the book we must cast aside the almost innumerable so called expositions, which have treated it as a most grotesque, undigested, pessimistic and sensual production, and remember that it is a poem embodying a conception of life and giving a conclusion as to its attainment. We must read it as a specimen of oriental poetry, remembering the tendency of the oriental to embody his thought in language which seems to us so extravagant as to become almost untruthful.

It also gives us one of the most serious and earnest efforts to attain the hig-hest good while surrounded by the perplexities of life. To understand it we must remember that the oriental does not reason out a fixed proposition as we do, but presents facts and compares them with other facts often seeming to have no relation to each other, and we must put ourselves into his methods rather than ask him to conform to ours, if we would understand him. Its key-note is not "Vanity of vanities," but "Fear God and keep His commandments."

The following outline, condensed from Dr. Ginsburg's article on "Ecclesiastes" in the Encyclopedia Britannica, will show the course of thought:

Theme, Searching for the highest good. Ch. 1:1-11.

The testing of knowledge. 1:12-18.

The testing of pleasure. 2:1-26.

The testing of stoicism. 3:1-22.

The testing of human society. 4:1-16.

The testing of formalism. 5:1-20.

The testing of riches. 6:1-12.

The testing of human foresight. 7:1 to 8:15.

The testing of firm confidence in God. 8:16 to 12:7.

Conclusion, Fear God and keep His commandments. 12:8-14.

The idea that the book has an incipient dramatic form, in which a youth presents his exaggerated views of life and an old man corrects them, or that it is a colloquy between Solomon and various skeptics of his times, has been favored from the days of Jerome. Herder finds in the book two voices, one of a person looking on the surface of life and reaching the most gloomy conclusions, which find expression in the words "Vanity of vanities"; the other of one who has learned the true significance of life and the benefits which may be gained by its varied discipline, whose conclusion is expressed in the words "Fear God and keep His commandments." Tennyson's Tivo Voices is a modern illustration of such a scheme.

IV. Authorship

The book is strictly anonymous. Jewish tradition ascribed it to Solomon and this opinion received the almost unanimous support of the early church and still has many adherents.

Among the arguments favoring this view the following are the most convincing:

The statement in 1:1 seems to limit it to Solomon, as he was the only son of David who ever reigned over Israel in Jerusalem, The allusions to wisdom, 1:16-18, remind us of what is said in Proverbs, and the account of his gathering riches and enjoying honors and his experience with women, 7:26-28, agree well with what we know of Solomon. He had an extensive knowledge of what men were thinking and could give them advice in their perplexities.

But many serious, even insuperable objections compel us to deny the validity of these arguments. It is almost certain that Solomon did not write the book. As for the Jewish tradition, we know that the early Christian church accepted Solomon as the author because the Jewish church did so, but the Jewish tradition does not reach further back than seven hundred years after Solomon's death, and has no solid historical basis.

As for the seeming reference to Solomon in such expressions as "son of David," "king of Jerusalem," 1:1, the structure of the book shows that the writer gathers his statements around Solomon as a representative man, thereby giving the force of a concrete example to his teachings, without intending to claim that the writer was himself Solomon. Evidence of this is found in the fact that much of the picture does not apply to Solomon and his times. "I was king," 1:1, implies that he was not king when the writing was produced. Solomon himself would hardly write such depreciative statements as those which imply discontent when state affairs are mentioned, 3:16, 5:8, or degeneration, 4:1, or decay, 10:7.

Especially does the language indicate a much later period than that of Solomon. It has many features common to that used after the exile. Delitzsch mentions over one hundred words found in this book, but not elsewhere in the Bible, except in the post-exilic literature. He thinks it was written last of all the books of the Old Testament. The numerous Aramaic terms point clearly to such an origin. Many think they can trace the influence of Greek philosophy in the book, especially that of the Stoics and Epicureans. But these speculations as to life and its meaning were not peculiar to the Greeks, although they gave much attention to them. They belong to the world and may be found in all ages and among all men who have tried to solve the mystery of life. The absence of any Greek words or objects, while those of Persian origin are frequent, would also call for a date prior to the invasion of Greek ideas.

It is not possible then to fix the authorship or date of the book except in the most general way. It was written before the Septuagint translation was made for it is included in that work. It is apparently the work of one familiar with Jewish thought after the exile, who had come into close contact with the life and thought in the latter part of the Persian Empire, and before the Greek philosophy had exerted much influence on Jewish thought. This would give us as limits from about 400 B. C. to 250 B. C. Delitzsch, Ewald and Driver favor about 332 B. C. Luther thinks it was compiled by Sirach in the time of the Maccabees.

V. The Religious Value of the Book

The great value of the book consists in the fact that it refers everything to the ultimate decision of God. In this life there is no true test of character which may be easily applied and which all will accept as final, but when a man appears before the judgment bar of God he will receive a righteous judgment.

The book is ethical not dogmatic. It gives us ideas suggested by a wide experience of life, with a keen penetration into its hidden meanings and a firm trust in providence. Its oriental intensity of expression confuses our more subdued manner of thought, but if one will translate the thought and not the expression into the language of our own times he will be surprised to find how his own life and experiences and ideas are mirrored in this picture drawn so long ago.

LITERATURE

Commentaries: Delitzsch, Stuart, Ginsburg, Lange, Cox in Expositor's Bible, and Strong in Students Commentary. Stanley, History of the Jewish Church, II. p. 281; Dillon, The Skeptics of the Old Testament, pp. 85 and 239; Cheyne, Job and Solomon, p. 199. Introductions of Driver, Bleek, Keil. Article "Ecclesiastes" in Bible Dictionaries of Kitto, Smith, Hastings, and in Encyclopedia Britannica.