Ecbatana (Hastings' Dictionary)

See Achmetha. ECCLESIASTES (n^np Kohehtk, LXX "EkkX.,*!- a<rri)t, Aq. KuW9).— 1,'Th'e TiTLK.— This pre.sents some difficulties, which have scarcely as yet been satisfactorily exjilained. The word is a fem. part. of the Qal conj. The verb is not found elsewhere in this conj. In the Hiph. the word means ' to call an a.-t-senibly together.' It is commonly held that here tlie Qal is u.sed with the force of the Hiph., and tliat ^oheleth means 'one who convenes an assembly.'

There have been other interpretations, such as ' a collector of sayings,' or ' one who gathers wisdom from various quarters.' But since the verb is always used with ref. to persons and never with ref. to things, these are untenable. Tyler urges that the causative force cannot be put into the word, and he explains it to mean ' one wlio is an assembly.' Koheleth would thus be a personi- fication of ' an ideal a.

ssembly of those Jewish philosophers, Stoic, Epicurean, and others, whose opinions were influential at the time when the book was composed' (Tyler, Ec. 59). But this is too artificial to be probable, and it seems best to fall back on the common view, that K. means ' the convener of an assembly.' A greater difficulty is caused by the fem. form. This has been explained on the hypothesis that the speaker is Wisdom, impersonated in Solomon, and K. is fem. as agree- ing with the fem.

word for Wisdom. This view has been taken by Ewald, Hitzi^, Ginsburg, and others. Against this, however, serious objections may be urged. It is strange that Wisdom should be no- where mentioned as the speaker. Further, it is barely conceivable that Wisdom should have used some of the language put into the mouth of K. (I"- " 7® etc.), or that Solomon should be regarded as her impersonation, considering the experiences through which the speaker says that he has passed.

Again, the tone oi the discourses is so difl'erent from what we find in those passages where Wisdom is actually represented as speaking, that if the writer had intended to make Solomon the e;>okes- man of Wisdom he would have felt it necessary, in view of this striking difl'erence, to say so explicitly. It is also to be observed that the verb used with K. is masc, and on the view we are discussing it is explained by the theory that the fem. Wisdom speaks through the mtosc. Solomon.

The objections already urged against the identifi- cation of K. with Wisdom have led to the view that we are to find in the fem. form, not a distinction of sex, but a variation in meaning. In other words, the Preacher is a male, but the fem. termination conveys a special shade of mean- ing. This gives a better account of the use of the masc. verb. The word may then mean ' one who holds the office of a teacher or preacher ' (Delitzsch, Nowack, Cheyne), or, if the fem.

has an intensive force, 'the great orator' (W. Wriglit, RVm). Kuenen feels himself unable to decide between the view that K. is Wisdom and that the fem. does not express distinction of sex. The arguments for the latter view seem to be stronger, and we should probably interpret K. to mean ' one who holds the office of teacher.' The title Ecclesi- astes comes from the LXX. That by K. the author means Solomon has been subject to dispute, but should admit of none.

He is identified with 'the son of David, king in Jems.' (1'), and says of himself, ' I, If., was king over Israel in Jerusalem.' The son of David who was king is best explained strictly and not loosely to mean descendant. After the division of the king- dom a king could not have spoken of himself as reigning over Israel in Jerusalem. It is also clear that Solomon is the king whose varied experiences of wisdom and luxury are referred to in chs. 1 and 2. 2. AuTnOR-sniP and Datb.

— The book was, till the period of critical investigation, almost univers- ally ascribed to Solomon. Some writers still sujijiort this view, though it is abandoned by all critics of eminence. The main reason is that Kuheleth speaks in the first person, and therefore if the author was not Solomon he would be deceiving his reatiers. This does not follow. The author of Jot u.ses the literary vehicle of a debate to reach the solution of his problem.

Here the writer has chosen an autobiograpliical sketch of Solomon as his literary vehicle. And he has done so for reasons which are ciuite obvious. Solomon was the typical representative of Wisdom, and the author wished to set forth his conclusions as tlioae of a man wlio had brought the deepest and sanest rcMcction to boar upon life.

But it was also im- portant that his ex|>cricncc sliould be wide, and his opportunities of testing the value of life in itt G38 ECCLESIASTES ECCLESIASTEiS various forms of the fullest. Here Solomon admir- ably served his purpose. Not only was he the wise man, but he was a king whose magnificence has passed into a proverb, and who was able to gratify every wish. He was thus able to wring the most out of life, and from him the sentence ' All is v.

anity ' would come with greater force tlian from any other. This is no proof that he is not the author, but it removes any antecedent prejudice ajjainst the denial of the Solomonic authorship, based on the statements of the book. The objections to tlie Solomonic authorship are overwhelming. The verj' language quoted to prove it is seen on e.xamination to be unfavourable to it. Solomon can hardly have said 'I was king,' as if he had ceased to be so, for he reigned till his death.

The words 'over Israel in Jerus.' are most naturally explained by the writer's knowledge of kings of Israel who did not reign in Jerusalem. And since it was his own father wlio had made Jerus. the royal city, and Solomon had not been |)receded by a long line of kings, he could scarcely have spoken of ' all that were before me in Jerus. (1" 2'- "). There are also many passages which do not suit the Solomon of history.

The writer speaks with bitterness of the oppression of the weak and the perversion of judgment. Solomon would not have tolerated such abuses if he had felt them so keenly as the author. Certainly, so far from feeling any keen distress at oppression, his government was systematically oppressive. The words of the author do not impress us as those of a king who stands above his subjects, but as those of a subject symjiathizing with the misery of his fellow-subjects.

Instead of judgment and righteousness he sees wickedness, and bids his rftaders not to wonder at oppression and violence. The State is not well-ordered and prosperous as in the time of Solomon. ' Folly is set in great dignity, and the rich sit in low [>laces.' This is an error which proceeds from the ruler. Servants ride on horses, and princes walk on the earth.

Nor can the reference to the king's system of spies, and the writer's bitter advice based upon it, be seriously regarded as from a king (lO**). Other references to kings (4""" 10"-") are equally inconceivable in Solomon's mouth. Nor has the popular view, that Solomon wrote the book in his old age after repentinw of his idolatry, any support in the book itself. From beginning to end there is no con- fession of wrong-doing, no ref. to idolatry, no hint of repentance.

It dwells on the unsatisfying nature of lite, but penitent confession is quite alien to its whole spirit and purpose. The author is certainly not a satisfactory or edifying penitent. But the same conclusion tliat Solomon cannot be the author is shown by the language. The linguistic evidence is so decisive that Delitzsch has said, in words that have been quoted with approval by many critics since : ' If the Book of K. be of old- Solomonio origin, then there is no history of the Heb. language.'

And Driver, whose opinion on such a matter is of exceptional value, says : ' Lin- guistically, K. stands by itself in OT. The Heb. in which it is written has numerous features in common with the latest parts of OT, Ezr, Neh, Ch, Est, but it has in addition many not met with in these books, but found first in the fragments of Ben-Sira(c. B.C. 200)orin the Mishnah (c. a.d. 200).

The characteristic of the Hebrew in which these latest parts of OT are written is, that while many of the old classical words and expressions still con- tinue in use, and, in fact, still preponderate, the syntax is deteriorated, the structure of sentences is cumbrous and inelegant, and there is a very decided admi.xture of words and idioms not found before, having usually affinities with the Aramaic, or being such as are in constant and regular use in the Heb.

of post-Christian times (the Mislinah, etc. ). And this latter element is decidedly larger and more prominent in Ec than in either Est oi Ezr- Neh-Ch ' {LOT, 444). The phenomena, in fact, are consistent only with the po-st-exUic date, and the Solomonic authorship is therefore out of the question. The detailed evidence may be found in Delitzsch's Com. (Germ, ed.), or in Wright's Eiclcsiastes, Excursus iv. (see also Driver, LOT as above). Critics who deny the Solomonic authorship, i.e.

all critics who need be taken into account, are unanimous in assigning the book to the post-ex. period. There are two main theories — one that it belongs to the later years of the Pers. period, which came to a close B.C. 332 ; the other, tnat it comes from the Gr. period, and should be dated about B.C. 200. The former is the view of Ewald, Delitzsch, Ginsburg, and Cheyne in his Job and Solomon.

Id favour of the latter are Noldeke, Kuenen, Hitzig, Tyler, Plumptre, Cornill, and Toy ; while Cheyne in his Founders thinks it is probably correct. Nowack and Driver think the language points to the later date, but is not decisive ; and so much is undoubtedly correct, if we ought not to accept the later date on the ground of the linguistic evidence alone. There are other criteria of importance. The political conditions implied yield valuable data.

Cornill says : ' The general picture of the circumstances makes us fix on a period of complete anarchy, in which well-ordered political life cannot be spoken of, worthless revolutionaries seize the government and exhaust the country, and political wisdom is recognized to consist in a dull, listless submission to despotism and tyranny' (Einleit. 251). The justice of this description is clear from these passages, 4''' 5' 10°"'- ".

This comjiels us to place it at the earliest in the later years of the Pers. period, and precludes a date in the earlier part 01 that period. But it will suit equally well the date in the Gr. period, about B.C. 200. Hitzig thinks on account of 10" that its date is B.C. 204, when Ptolemy Epiphanes ascended the throne at the age of five. He takes 9""" to be an allusion to the siege of Dora in B.C. 218.

But this did not succeed owing to the strength of the place, not because a poor Avise man delivered it. He explains 4""" of the high priest Onias (' the old and foolish king') and his nephew Joseph ('the poor and wise youth '), but the statements of the passage are not true of them. The political circumstances admit of either date. Kuenen thinks that the cosmopolitan tone of the book speaks for its origin in the Gr. period ; but, as Nowack points out, this is character- istic of Heb.

Wisdom generally. In its attitude to the doctrine of a future life Kuenen regards it as a forerunner of Sadduceeism. The writer's views, it is true, are those of the older Heb. theology, but they are put forth in opposition to the newer doctrine. Nowack thinks that these arguments would tell rather in favour of a Maccab.-ean dat«, when the two tendencies of Pharisaism and Saddu- ceeism became explicit.

This does not follow, since, as Kuenen points out, while he is a forerunner of the Sadducees, he is so little a Sadducee that Graetz could regard him €is a disciple of Hillel. This is most naturally explained by the view that he wrote before the rise of these distinct parties. The most plausible ai^uraent In favour of the laWr date li derived from the supposed influence of Gr. philosojihy. Tyler waa the first to work out in detail the supposed influences of post-.

Aristotelian philosophy, and he was followed by Plumptre m his Commentary. A full and ai)p,irently conclusive refutation may be found in Che.vne's Job ana Sol. (see also Nowack). Tyler"! view is that the sij^ns of acquaintance with Stoicism and Epicure- anism are unmistakable.

The author, however, he takes to be neither Stoic nor Epicurean, but one who leaves the doctrines of the two schools side by side in order to warn his readers against studies which could 'conduct to no certain goal, but led to opinions so opposed. The following points of contact with Stoicism are aaduced. The doctrine that man should Uvs ECCLESIASTES ECCLESIASTES eaa ftocording to OAture is set forth in the catalo^^e of Times and Seasons (31-**).

The doctrine of cycles, acconiing to which history presents no progress, but only movement in a circle, is found in the description of the endless round in which the aUairs of men move, so that all effort secures no progress but only return to a former condition (1»'0). Fatalism is present in both ; both regard the weaknesses of men as a kind of insanity, and both dwell on the nothingness of life. But no weight can be attached to these.

The dreary repetition which character- izes life is not put forward as a philosophical doctrine, but as something taught bv observation and experience. The sense of the emptmess of Viie is due to disillusion, and was not learnt in a school of philosophy, but in the hard school of life. Fatahsm is only a coincidence, the Semite has a natural tendency to it. The view that the weaknesses of men are a kind of insanitv is a genuine idea of Ueb.

Wisdom, which treats wisdom and folly as moral rather than intellectuaL And the catalogue of Times and BeflMns contains in its main idea nothing that cannot be well derived from Heb. thought. The traces of Epicureanism are equally unsatisfactory. Men are as beasts, coming from the dust and returning to it : pleasure is the highest good, esp. in the form of undisturbed tranquillity. The rivers run into the sea, yet the sea does not fill, the hoily is dissolved into its elements.

The )«rallels are commonplace, and no distinctively Epicurean doc-trine is to be found. It needled no acquaintance with Gr. philosophy to learn that man returned to dust, or that the sea was not filled by the rivere that fed it, or that pleasure was good if enjoyed in moderation. The comparison of man to the beasts that perish might occur to a Uebrew who did not accept the newer view of the future life. For traces of either Epicureanism or Stoicism tlie appeal is often to late authorities.

And the coincidences are either unreal or insignificant, or readily ex- Elained from ileb. as well as Gr. ideas. We can therefore ardly rely on this alleged influence of Gr. philosophy as a crit«non of date. Kuenen thinks that the proofs break down, and that the philosophical element in the stricter sense is absent. But a general influence, he thinks, may be detected. And if the date in the Gr.

period is accepted, we may believe that the writer was susceplibte to the influence of the atmo- •phere of Gr. thought, rather than of any special \iew. So far, then, as the arguments for the two dates go, they cannot be said to be decisive. The lin- gniBtic argument pleads strongly for the later date, and there is no argument to set against it on the other side. The balance of probability, therefore, dips towards a date c. B.C. 200, though the book may possibly belong to the Persian period.

Renan has put forward the view that the date is B.C. 125. But it was probably quoted as scripture shortly afterwards, which implies a longer previous history than Renan assigns to it. And after the Macca- ba;an struggle we should expect greater religious fervour. Graetz' view, that it belongs to the reign of Herod the Great (whom he identities with K.), is probably excluded by the fact that it seems to have been quoted a.

s scripture before that time ; and apart from this it is questionable if the history ot the Canon will permit of its composition bo late. 3. The Integmty of thb Book.— Certain pas- sages have been suspected by several critics as later interpolations. The Epilogue (12') was the lirst to be suspected, but later the authenticity of the following has also been denied, 3" 7' 8"' " ll" 12'-'*'. The whole of 12»-", however, does not stand or fall together, since vv.'""

are denied on other grounds than vv."-'. It will be most con- venient to take 12'" first. The substance of the book evidently ends at 12. K. ends on the same note as that on which he began, ' Vanity of vanities, all is vanity.' In itself, however, this does not mark these verses as due to another hand. To the end of 12'Solomon is represented as speaking, and in 12"' the real author may be regarded as speaking in his own person, and commending the lKX)k as the work of one of ' the wise.'

Nor is it any serious argument against this that the author is represented in the body of the book as a king, bat here as a wise man, for Solomon was the chief representative of 'the wise.' It is tnie that there are dilliculties in the pa.s,snge, and some uncommon ex]>re.s.sion», but in tliem.selves they do not warrant the view that the verses are the work of another writer. Those who think so regard them as a recommendation atGxed to the work by a later hand.

Uut the writer speaks of the author as if he were another than himself, in order to keep up the assumption of Solomonic authorship. The other alleged interpolations raise a much more difficult question. 12"- '* are suspected partly on account of their general tenor, partly from their reference to the judgment. It seems strange to announce as the conclusion of the matter, that the teaching of the book may be summed up in the injunctions to 'fear God and keep his commandments.'

Its teaching is rather that ' all is vanity and striving after wind,' and that man's wisest course is to recognize this and extract as much pleasure from life as he can. It is not denied that the fear of God is advised in the book, but that it is its main theme, or the chief lesson to be drawn from it.

Kuenen, wlio gives a very long and elaborate defence of the authen- ticity of the entire Epilogue, admits that if this were interpreted in the highest sense as the one thing about which man had to concern himself, we shotild be compelled to deny 12'- ' to the author of the rest of the book. He argues, however, that the writer simply means that the fear of God and keeping of His commandments is the indispen.sable condition of enjoying life.

But it is questionable whether the exijlicit words, ' for this is the whole duty of man,' do not compel us to interpret the command in the larger sense whi;h Kuenen denies. This passage has been also suspected because of its ret. to a judgment. And the same objection lies against 3" and U'-'^Cbut know thou that for all these things God will bring tliee into judgment').

If the reference is to a judgment after death, it seems improbable that they can be harmonized with other passages in the book (cf. 3"'-2' 9»- «• '»). But it is possible that a judgment in this life is referred to. This requires a change of reading in 3", when instead of ' there ' (□y' sham), ' he hath appointed ' (D^' sdm) would be read. It is not clear, however, that this yields so good a sense, and it is not im- probable tliat in all the passages a jmignient after death is spoken of.

In 12'* the ditliiuUy arises partly from the idea, which is thought to be alien to the general tenor of the book, partly from its incongruity with the context. The counsel, ' Re- member thy Creator in the days of thy youth,' is not what we expect from the author of such a book. Nor do the preceding counsels lead up to this. The young man is bidden to rejoice in all the days of his life, esp. in the days of his youth, remembering the dark days that await him in Sheol.

But remembering not only these, but all the failure of manly vigour and his [ihysical powers, and of the zest for pleasure that will come upon him with old age, he would do well to make the mo.st of his prime of life. This gives a connected sense, and one in harmony with the rest of the book, and we obtain it by deleting 12'* and con- necting 12"" with 11'°.

The meaning in that case will be — make the best of your youth in the en- joyment of pleasures before the evil days of old age come, when you will say, I have no delight in them. It is true that the connexion of 12"" with 11'° is a little awkward if 12'* is omitted, but the connexion in the text is even more awkward. Graetz proposes to retain the words with a slight alteration of the Hebrew, and to read, ' Remember abso thy fountain (i.e. tliy wife) in tlie days of thy youth.'

This is not grotesque, though it has been criticized as such ; nor even unworthy, for it is an exhortation to a life of conjugal purity (in opposi- tion to illicit amours), such as we have also in 9*. But it is .scarcely a happy suggestion. Bickell not only adopts the correction of the text, but attempts to improve the connexion by transposition.

12"' ("and the spirit return unto God who gave it ') may be retained on the ground that it simply implies the dissolution of the personality into its d40 ECCLESIASTES ECCLESIASTES original sources, the body will return to dnst, the spirit to God. The 'spirit probably means nothing more than the breath of life (cf. Ps 104"). No very serious objection need be felt to 7' or S'*- ".

While Knenen retains these passages (except 12"*, which he regards as altered on dogmatic grounds) by denying that they contain anything of a higher point of view than we generally find in the book, several critics defend the genuineness of the whole, with the obvious interpretation. Sanday in his Bampton Lectures argues that they must have been included, for other^vise a scribe would have passed it by, and it would have been simply left out of the Canon. This, however, is (questionable.

A book professing Solomonic authorship would not be lightly rejected; it would be assumed that it must really teach true religion, and a few interpolations would bring this out more clearly. He also urges that it is psychologically more probable that an Isr. would ' have this reserve in the bottom of his soul, than that he should give way to blank and unrelieved pessimism.' It is more remarkable to find so radical a critic as Comill defending their authenticity.

He maintains that the same thoughts run through the whole book ; the fear of God and God the Judge are cardinal conceptions. In his very striking passage on the contents of the book he says : ' OT piety has never achieved a greater triumph than in the Bk of K.' (Einleit. 251).

While the author sees the misery of the world as clearly as our modem pessimists, he is so penetrated by the piety of OT that he does not hit on the simplest and most obvious solution, that the world is the plaything of blind chance. He returns to the faith of uis childhood in a personal God and a moral order of the world. These views, and they are shared by other critics, are of weight. Yet it is doubtful if they do justice to the phenomena on the other side.

It is very significant that the author's meditations end as they began — 'Vanity of vanities, all is vanity.' Would this have been so if he had really fought his way back to the faith of his childhood ? Comill seems to overstate the case when he says that similar passages run through the book, and that the fear of God and God the Judge are cardinal conceptions. The theism of the book is not very pronounced. Cheyne says with justice : ' To me, K.

is not a t heist in any vital sense in his philosophic medita- tions. . He certainly never lost his theism, though pale and cheerless it was indeed, and utterly unable to stand against the assaults of doubt and despondency.' Looking at his speculations from a somewhat different viewpoint, it might even be alleged that T^.'e theism is the source of all his per- plexities. To every Hebrew, God and Providence were convertible notions, and this God, which to Job was an immorality, might be to K.

a puzzle. Upon this theory it may,of course, be urged that rigid con- sistency is not to oe expected in a man of the writer's temperament, who would speak according to his mood. Yet we may surely think that a man of his intellectual power and close observation of life would have some fixed principles ; and we find tliem running through most of his meditations.

''Vhen we find a few sayings that seem to run contrary to these, we may either try to explain thera in harmony with the general view of the author, or regard them as interpolations due to a working over in the interests of orthodoxy. Either course seems preferable to that of leaving them as unreconciled contradictions. It seems on the whole most probable that at least 12'- "•• " are later interpolations (assuming that ' thy Creator ' is correctly read in 12'), and possibly also 3" and ll**.

On the other hand, 12^ can be explained so as to avoid any conflict with the author's views. Tbv view of KrochQiAl with re(er«Doe to the Epilogue must not be pa»ed over in silence. He regarded 1211- •> or liiii« (11 is not clear which) as appended to the whole o< the third division of the Canon (the Kethubim or Ha^ojfrapha), and not simply to Ec.

Oraetz adopted the view that 12"-'* was added as the conclusion of the Kethubim, but thought also tiiat the collectors of the third Canon added 129- 10 as an apology for Ea Renan accepte 129- '0 as by the author of Eo, and agrees with Krochmal as to 12'1- 1», and also considers 121S- 1« as unauthen- tic. It is unnecessary to discuss this \iew, which rests on pure hypothesis, and has been almost universally rejected.

Before leaving this part of the subject, it remains only to speak of the bold and original theory of Bickell. Eng. readen may find it presented in Dillon's Sceptia of OT, with a tr. of the book as rearranged, and in Claeyne's Job and SoUrmon (p. 273 ft.), where it is criticized. It is that the Heb. MS from which our text is descended met with an accident.

The sheeta became disconnected, and, in replacing them, owing to a turning of the 2nd and Srd sbeeU inside out, the text was completely dislocated, and passages were brought into juxtaposition which had originally no connexion with each other. Two seta of interpolations were then made. One series was designed to connect the verses which had been thus brought together. The other interpolations were intended to give the book an orthodox tone.

The detailed working-out, which is very brilliant and ingenious, cannot be exhibited here. We may, however, give bis results aa to the original book and its order. He make! the orig. K. to consist of the following passages in the order given:— 1»-21» 6»-67 3a-49 2H-S8 88-93 815 91l-10> 6a-7>-» «l-58 1018-lls. » 72i-8s» 102-1»- 1« 93-10 117-128. The theory is open to very serious objections.

It is questionable whether it will stand the teat of exegesis ; and to quote Cheyne's words ; ' Apart from other difficulties in the way of the theory, the number and arbitrariness of the transpositions, additions, and alterations are reason enough to make one hesitate to accept it' Kuenen also sa>'B that it is as good as unthinkable that aJl the accidents assumed should have taken place together, and combined to produce our Bk of Ec.

Euringer has urged an objection, which if valid is fatal to the supposition that such an accident could have occurred. It is that, at so early a period, the codex form would not be used, but the roll form, and therefore there would be no sheets to be dislocated by such accidents as are postulated by the theory. 4. Contents and Thought.— It is very difiBcult to give an account of the contents of Ec which shall be at once clear, brief, and adequate.

1'here is very little strict development of the thought, and the endless repetition which the writer sees in nature and life has its partial counterpart in his book. The difficulty is increased by the uncer- tainty as to interpolations and the exegesis of particular passages. The following outline may be given. Vanity of vanities, all is vanity. No profit comes to man from all his toil.

Nature and man go ceaselessly round and round in the same conise with utterly wearisome monotony, and there is no new thing under the sun ( H"). K. being king over Jerus. uses his wisdom to understand the life of men, and finds that all is vanity (I""). He finds, too, that the search to know >\'isdom and folly is vanity, and that wisdom brings sorrow (1""). He tries to find happiness in pleasure, and exhausts every source of enjoyment, but finds it is all vanity (21-11).

Wisdom far excels folly, yet wise and fool fierish and are forgotten alike (2"""). The accuniu- ation of wealth is vanity, for the man who has gathered it by toil and wisdom must die and le.ave it to another, it may be to a fool (2"'^). The best thing in life is to eat and drink, as God permits. Yet even this is vanity (2"'^). A time is allotted for everything. This is the doing of God, who has set the world [or eternity] in man's heart, yet so that His plan cannot be understood.

Since man cannot understand the plan by which the season for everything is appointed, he will do well to enjoy life as much as lie can. All is fixed unalter- ably by God, that men should fear Him (3'"). The sight of oppression makes him think that God will judge the righteous and the wicked. But man dies like the bea.'fts, and should enjoy life while he may, for he cannot return to it after he is dead (3"'^).

The oppression of the helpless convinces him that the dead are in better case than the living, and best of all is not to have been bom at all (4'''), Successful labour is vanity, for it only causes a man to be env-ed (4*-'). The eflbrts of the lonely man to attain Tealth are vanity ; and there is safety and comfort in the possession of a friend (4''").

A KCCLESIASTES ECCLESIASTES 641 poor wise j-oiith succeeded an old and foolish king, yet the bright expectations of his rejoicing subjects were disa|i[)ointed (4""'"). Be very circumspect in your service of God and the vows you make to Him, or it will be worse for you (5'"'). Do not be surprised at oppression, for the opjiressors them- selves are under tjTanny.

Far better the stale which depends for prosperity on the pursuit of agriculture [or men are much more on a level than they seem ; the king himself depends like all his subjects on the products of the earth] (5'' '). Accumulation of wealth is vanity, for it brings little pleasure and much anxiety (5'°""). Some- times wealth is accumulated by labour and lost by misfortune, so that the possessor has no enjoyment out of it (5"'").

It is best to eat and drink and enjoy life, so far as God gives one the power, and thus make life pass without too much reflexion (5'"). God sometimes gives the means of en- joying life, but withholds the power of enjoyment (6'"'). Toil is for the aj)petite which is insatiable, the wise is no better otl than the fool ; possession is better than inordinate desire, but this too is vanity (&'').

The destiny of man has been deter- mined for him, he cannot 8tru';gle against it, nor does he know what is good for him (6'°""). A food name is better than ointment, death than irth, sorrow than mirth ("'''). The end is better than the beginning, patience than vexation, wisdom than property. \Vliether prosperity or adversity be your lot, consider that both come from God, and cannot be altered (7'""). Do not go to extremes in virtue or vice, in wisdom or folly (T"'").

Yet wisdom is strength, since all sin and may need it. Gossip should not be listened to, for a man is sure to hear something unpleasant about himself (7"'^). K. sought wisilom, but could not fully attain it. But he lounil tliis, that woman was more bitter than death, and only the man who pleased God would escape her snares. A good man was as one in a thousand, but a good woman he had not found at all. This was not the fault of God, but of man, who had sought out many inventions (7'^'^).

Wisdom is the best. Be obedient to the king, and in time of oppression do not be tempted to rebel, for judgment will come on the tyrant (8'"°). The wicked some- times fare as the righteous, and the righteous as the wicked, yet it is better with the righteous than with the wicked ; but since all is vanity, it is best to eat, drink, and be merry, for that, at any rate, will last as long as life (8'°'"). However wise a man may be, he cannot understand the work of God.

All men are in His hand, and cannot e.scape the universal lot. Life is bad, but it has hope ; death comes to all, and with it the lo.S3 of consciousness, feeling, and activity (8'"-9*). Enjoy life to the full, nnvexed by scruple as to the approval of God (?) ; get the most out of this life, for there is nothing to be looked for beyond it (O'"'"). In the conflict of life merit does not ensure success, but it is matter of chance and circumstance.

Men are snared by misfortune as fish are caught in a net. Wisdom. is better than strength, yet, as in the case of the poor man who delivered the city, it meets with ingrati- tude and forgetfulness (9"'''). Wisdom is far better than folly, it will guide man ariglit in his relations with princes, save him from danger by putting him on his guard, and guide him in practical life. Yet a capricious ruler may exalt folly (9"-10"). A fool's talk is worthless, and his laWur wearisome ,10"").

Unhappy is the land whose king is a child and whose princes are slothful and glutton- ous ; while that countrj' is blessed whose king is of noble character am! whose princes are temi)erate. But if the king be bad, it is ]irudent not to curse him even in secrecy, for his spies are everj'where, and will tell him of it (lO'*""). Be benevolent [or prudent], so that you may be safe in time of VOL. I. — 41 calamity.

Do the work you have to do without waiting for the exact circumstances you woulil like. The laws of nature are above you, and the attempt to attain too close conformity with them is likely to paralyze industry (1 !'■«). Life is sweet, but let man remember also the days of darkness that await him after death.

And, remembering these, let him enjoy life to the full in his youth, befoie the evil days of old age come on him, when all his physical powers will fail, and all appetite for Pleasure be gone; before his life be shattered, and e pass away. Vanity of vanities, all is vanity (ll'-12''). So end the meditations of K. ; for the Epilogue, whether in whole or part authentic or not, lies outside the work itself. There can be little question as to the fundamental thought of the book.

All is vanity, life yields no real satisfaction. If we had unlimited means at our disposal to secure happiness, it is quite unattainable. The best thing is to seek for enjoyment, to eat, drink, and be merry. Yet we should do the author an injustice if we regarded him as a mere sensualist. From gross indulgence he would have turned with disgust. It was madness, and no man who valued his peace of mind would be enticed by it (cf. his words on ' the woman whose heart is snares and nets,' 7").

He urges rather a moderate enjoyment of the good things of life : ' Eat thy bread with joy, and drink thy wine with a merry lieart; . . Let thy garments always be white ; and let not thy head lack ointment. Live joyfully with the wife whom thou lovest all the days of the life of thy vanity.' Life is a bad business at the best, but it lies within our power to palliate its misery by prudence and the du" enjoyment of what little pleasure we can get.

And we should be all the more eager to make the most of our opportunities for pleasure that in the dreary darkness of Sheol no possibility of enjoyment will be found. His motto is Cnrpe diem ; and if in the abstract it be not a high motto, we must remember the misery of his time, and the absence of anj hope of iiuprovement in this world or immortality in the next. If we a.

sk the cause of this misery, and of the general vanity of life and uselessness of all endeavour, it lies in the conditions of human life. God has a plan of the world, everything has its time and season. But man cannot find out what this plan is, and hence rarely orders his life in accordance with it. He may think that a certain line of conduct will produce a certain result ; but it may be quite ditl'erent, so that life may seem ruled by chance, not by law. And he is not master of his own fate.

God has ordained this, and he helplessly struggles against it. He is caught in an evil snare and cannot escape. But when Iv. speaks of God, we may easily read more into his language than he meant. J", the national name of the God of Israel, nowhere occurs. I^. is certainly a theist, and the name of God frequently occurs. But God is withdrawn from the life of men (' God is in heaven, and thou upon earth,' 5').

God is to be regarded with fear, and man must be very circumspect in his approaches to Him (5'-'). Man should be very careful in his utterances, and especi- ally avoid a hasty vow. If he vows he should not defer to pay, for God ' hath no pleasure in fools,' and if provoked to anger may destroy the work of his hands (5-"°). l;C.'s conception of God has nothing attractive or winnin".

He is rather set before us as the omnijiotent Kuler who has ordained all the course of liistory, which man vainly seeks to com- prehend, and OS the austere Deity on who.se favour or forbearance none may venture to presume. Such enjoyment as may be gained from life in harmony with His laws is legitimate, hence the gratification of appetite in a legitimate manner ha.8 His approval, it is His gift (2" 3" 5"- " »' etc.l.

642 ECCLESIASTES EDEN His view of the future is equally gloomy, but in this he stands upon the old ways of thought. Men are beasts. ' l-'or that which befalloth the sons of men befalleth beasts ; even one thing be- falleth them : as tlie one dieth, so dieth the other ; yea they have all one spirit ; and man hath no pre-eminence above the beasts : for all is vanity. All go unto one place j all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again ' (3"-™).

On this follows the question : ' Who knoweth the sitirit of man whether it goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast whether it goeth downward to the earth ? ' (3-'). This has been interpreted as if the writer meant to say that such a distinction really existed. But in face of the plain statements just quoted, it is hard to see how such a view can be maintained. The state of the dead is described in the most cheerless lan- guage.

' The dead know not anything, neither have they any more a reward ; for the memory of them is forgotten. As well their love as their hatred and envy is now perished ; neither have they any more a portion for ever in anything that is done under the sun ' {Q'- '). ' There is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom in Sheol, whither thou goest ' (9'"). ' Let him remember the days of darkness, for they shall be many' (11').

Sometunos he speaks as though life were worse than death, and as if it had been best never to have been bom at all (4"- ' 7') ; sometimes as if death were worse than life (&*• '), though for the frim reason that ' the living know that they shall ie ; but the dead know not anything.' There is no fundamental inconsistency ; both life and death were so evil, that there was little to choose between them, and now one, now the other, might according to his mood be esteemed the worse.

It would be different if we could assume, as some do, that he reached a higher point of view. Some of tlie passages already discussed under the head of the integrity of the Book might be so interpreted. But it seems quite decisive against this that he ends his work with the words, 'Vanity of vanities, saith K., aU is vanity.' Another passage which has been variously interpreted, is 3" ' Also He hath set the world [or eternity] in their heart.'

The word tr ' world ' is D^iiv, and it is found in this sense in later Heb., but nowhere else in OT. It is true that this pleads for the sense ' eternity ' adopted by Delitzsch, Wright, and others. And this would point to belief in a future life in the higher sense. Man has the lon^ng for immortality placed in his heart by God. But the context speaks rather for the other rendering. God has a plan for the course of history, and has given men their labour in which they toil.

He has set the world in their heart ; in other words. He has imjjlanted in men the instinct which causes them to busy themselves with the things of the world. 8. Canonicity of the Book.— It does not fall within the province of this article to discuss whether Ec is or is not rightly included in the Canon. But the question of its canonicity is of con- siderable historical interest. It is well known that in the 2nd cent. A.D. there was dispute about it in the Jewish schools.

The evidence may he con- veniently seen in Wildeboer's Origin of Can. ofOT. The question which is disputed by scholars is whether it was regarded as canonical in the 1st cent. B.C., and whether the later discussions con- cerned the question of its right to retain the position it had already attained, or wliether it was first admitted into tne Canon in consequence of these discussions. The question hardly admits of examination in our space, but the evidence seems to us to favour the latter view.

The reader may consult the art. Old Testament Canon, and the works of Ilyle, Buhl, and Wildeboer, especially the Uat. LrrERATruE.— The Comm. of Ewald, Hitzig, Oinsburg, OreeU, Delitzsch. Tyler, Nowack, Plumptre, 0. H. H. Wriuht. Th« JjUroducliviit to UT by Kueaen, Driver, Cornill, Wildeboer: A. B. Davidson in Book by Book ; W. T. Davison, H'w. Lit. o) OT ; Cheyne, Job ami Sol. ; Uenan, L'eccUnattt trad, de thib. etc. ; Bickell, Der Prediger iiber d. Wert d. Daannt (1884), and Kohdeth Untersuch.

tibiT d. Wert d. Dateim (1886) ; Dillon, Sceptics of OT ; O. Taylor, Dirge of Eoh. in Ec. 12 ; Salmond, Clirint. Doct. of Immfirlatitu, 105 fl., 207 9. ; and the literatim in Strong, Stttdent't Comm. pp. 31-38. J^ S, PkaKB.