THE EPILOGUE (xii. 8-14) gives the solution of the problem contained in the prologue. All human efforts to obtain real happiness in the face of the assumption therein stated are vain (xii. 8) ; this is the experience of the wisest and most pains taking Coheleth (9, to) ; the sacred writings alone are the way to it (I t, 12) ; there is a righteous Judge who marks, and will, in the great day of judgment, judge everything we do ; we must there fore fear him, and keep his commandments (13, 4. Author, date, and form of the Book.—That the symbolic Coheleth, to whom the words of this book are ascribed, is intended for Solomon, is evi dent from the fact that he was the only son of David who was king over Israel. This is more over corroborated by the unquestionable allusions made throughout the book to particular circum stances connected with the life of this great monarch. Comp. chap. i. 16, etc., with I Kings iii. 12 ; chap. ii. 4-to with r Kings v. 27-32 ; vii. 1-8; ix. 7-19 ; x. 14-29 ; chap. vii. 20 with t Kings viii. 46; chap. vii. 28 with t Kings xi. 1-8 ; chap. xii. 9 with t Kings iv. 32. But this by no means declares that Solomon was the real author of the book, it may simply denote personated authorship. This well known form of personated authorship, which was used by Plato, Cicero, and other Greek and Roman writers as a legitimate mode of expressing different opinions, or the quasi-dramatic representation of character employed by some of the best writers of this day without any animus decipiencli, may have been used by the inspired writer, since other figures of speech, involving the same principle, are em ployed both in the O. T. and N. T. The fact that the concurrent voice of tradition declares against this figure of speech as applied to this book, and speaks for the Solomonic authorship, does not de cide the question. It is now acknowledged by all expositors of note that tradition has no power to determine points of criticism. Clement of Alex andria, Origen, Tertullian, Cyprian, Athanasius, Cyril, Epiphanius, Eusebius, Augustine, Isidore, etc., have handed down the Book of Wisdom as the inspired work of Solomon, the third council of Carthage in 397, the council of Sardica in 347, of Constantinople, in Trullo, in 629, the eleventh of Toledo in 675, that of Florence, in 143S, and the fourth session of the council of Trent declared it canonical [WISDOM OF SOLOMON] ; most of the Fathers also declared that Ecclesiasticus was an inspired work of Solomon [EccLEsiasTlcus], yet all Protestant expositors, and even some Catholic critics reject the traditional opinion, and maintain that these works are neither Solomonic nor canoni cal. Internal evidence alone must determine the question of authorship, which is of a purely critical nature. Now, the following objections are urged against the Solomonic and for the personated authorship of this book :-1. All the other reputed writings of Solomon have his name in the inscrip tion (comp. Prov. i. 1 ; Song of Songs i. 1 ; Ps. lxxii., lxxvii.), whereas in this book the name of Solomon is studiously avoided, thus shewing that it does not claim him as its actual author. 2. The symbolic and impersonal name Coheleth shews that Solomon is simply introduced in an ideal sense, as the representative of wisdom. 3. This is indicated by the sacred writer himself, who represents Solo mon as belonging to the past, inasmuch as he makes this great monarch say, `Iwas Icing,' but had long ago ceased to be king when this was written.
That this is intended by the prwterite has been acknowledged from time immemorial (comp. Mid rash Rabba, Midrash Jalkut in loco ; Talmud, Gittin, 68 b ; the Chaldee paraphrase, i. 12 ; Mid rash, Maase, Bi-Shloma, Ha-Melech, ed. Jellinek in Beth Ha-Midrash, ii. p• 35 ; Rashi on i.
4. This is moreover corroborated by various state ments in the book, which would otherwise be irre concilable, e.g., Coheleth comparing himself with a long succession of kings who reigned over Israel in Jerusalem (i. 16, ii. 7) ; the term king in 7eru salem (ibid.) sheaving that at the time when this was written there was a royal residence in Samaria ; the recommendation to individuals not to attempt to resent the oppression of a tyrannical ruler, but to wait for a general revolt (viii. 2-9) ; a doctrine which a monarch like Solomon is not likely to propound ; the description of a royal spendthrift, and of the misery he inflicts upon the land (x. 16-19), which Solomon would not give unless he intended to write a satire upon himself. 5. The state of oppression, sufferings, and misery depicted in this book (iv. 1-4 ; V. 7 ; viii. 1-4, to, I I ; x. 5-7, 20, etc.), cannot be reconciled with the age of Solo mon, and unquestionably shews that the Jews were then groaning under the grinding tyranny of Persia. 6. The fact that Coheleth is repre sented as indulging in sensual enjoyments, and acquiring riches and fame in order to ascertain what is good for the children of men (ii. 3-9 ; 12, 22, etc.), making philosophical experiments to discover the summum bonum, is utterly at variance with the conduct of the historical Solomon, and is an idea of a much later period. 7. The admoni tion not to seek divine things in the profane books of the philosophers (xii. 12), shews that this book was written when the speculation of Greece and Alexandria had found their way into Palestine. 8. The doctrine of a future bar of judgment, whereby Coheleth solves the grand problem of this book when compared with the vague and dim intima tions respecting a future state in the pre-exile por tions of the O. T., most unquestionably proves that it is a post-exile production. 9. The strongest argu ment, however, against the Solomonic authorship of this book is its vitiated language and style. To quote examples would be to quote the whole book, as it is written throughout in the Rabbinic lan guage which developed itself long after the Baby lonish captivity. So convincing is this fact, that not only have Grotius, J. D. Michmlis, Eichhorn, Doderlein, Spohn, Jahn, J. E. C. Schmidt, Nach tigal, Kaiser, Rosenmiiller, Ewald, Knobel, Gese nius, De Wette, Noyes, Hitzig, Heiligstedt, Davidson, Meier, etc., relinquished the Solomonic authorship, but even such unquestionably orthodox writers as Umbreit, Hengstenberg, Gerlach, Vaihin ger, Stuart, Keil, Elster, etc., declare most em phatically that the book was written after the Baby ]onish captivity ; and there is hardly a chief Rabbi or a literary Jew to be found who would have the courage to maintain that Solomon wrote Coheleth. Dr. Herzfeld, chief rabbi of Brunswick, Dr. Philippson, chief rabbi of Magdeburg ; Dr. Geiger, rabbi of Breslau ; Dr. Zunz, Professor Luzzatto, Krochmal, Steinschneider, Jost, Graetz, Fiirst, and a host of others, affirm that this book is one of the latest productions in the O. T. canon. And be it remembered that these are men to whom the He brew is almost vernacular, and that some of them write better Hebrew, and in a purer style, than that of Coheleth.