The date cannot be definitely settled, inasmuch as the complexion of the book, and the state of society indicated therein, might be made to har monize with almost any period of the Jewish his tory after the return from Babylon to the advent of Christ. Hence, though most scholars, as we have seen, agree that it is a post-exile production, yet they differ in their opinion as to its real age. The following table will spew the different periods tc which it has been assigned B.C.
We believe that the language and complexion of the book would fully justify us in regarding it as the latest composition in the O. T. canon.
The form of the book is poetico-didactic, without the sublimity of the beautiful parallelism and rhythm which characterise the older poetic effu sions of the inspired writings. The absence of vigour and charm is manifest even in the grandest portion of this book (xii. 1-7), where the sacred writer rises infinitely above his level.
5. Canonicity of the Book and its position.—The earliest catalogues which the Jews have transmitted to us of their sacred writings give this book as forming part of the canon (Mishna, 7adaim, iii. 5 ; Talmud, Baba Bathra, 14). All the ancient ver sions, therefore—viz., the Septuagint, which was made before the Christian era ; the versions of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, which be long to the second century of Christianity, as well as the catalogue of Melito, Bishop of Sardis (fl. 170 A.D.)—include Coheleth. It is true that its in spiration was questioned at a very early period in the Jewish church. Thus, when the Mishna, amongst other things, declared that both the Song of Songs and Coheleth are canonical, this as usual called forth a division of opinion. R. Jehudah said the Song of Songs is canonical, but Coheleth is disputed ; R. Josi affirmed that Coheleth is not canonical, and the Song of Songs is disputed ; whilst R. Simon remarked that Coheleth is one of those points upon which the school of Shammai is more heterodox, and the school of Hillel more orthodox, whereupon R. Simon b. Assai declared: I have received it from the mouth of the seventy two elders, on the day when R. Eliezer was in ducted Patriarch, that both the Song of Songs and Coheleth are canonical' (Yadaim, iii. 5). In the Thosseftha (ibid., c. ii., cited in the Bab. llfegilla, 7, a) is added, ' Simon b. Menassiah said the Song of Songs is written by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost ; but Coheleth emanates from Solomon's own wisdom.' A bolder remark is to he found in the
Babyl. Talmud (Sabbath. 30, a), where a Talmu dist apostrophises Solomon with respect to Cohe leth—' Where is thy wisdom, where thy prudence? Not enough that thy words contradict those of thy father David, but they also contradict each other !' These apparent contradictions are then explained and reconciled in the Hagadic manner ; and it is added—` The sages wanted to declare Coheleth apocryphal, because its statements contradict each other ; but they abstained from doing it, because it begins and ends with the words of the law' (comp. also Midrash Vayikra Rabba, c. xxviii., and St. Jerome, Comment. xii. 13, who relates the same thing in the name of a Jewish rabbi). Again, in the Mishna (Edaijoth, v. 3), R. Ismael, or, ac cording to another reading, R. Simon, mentions Coheleth as one of those things upon which the school of Shammai are more heterodox, and the school of Hillel more orthodox, inasmuch as the former regard this book as not belonging to the canon, whilst the latter maintain its canonicity (Nura nr4 cin= pq4 24ri7 toi+n Plh mon.) Now, in examining these discussions, it will be seen that, so far from impairing the canonicity of this book, they shew, beyond all doubt—[. That Coheleth was included in the canon from a very early period, inasmuch as the whole question hinges upon retaining it among the number of sacred books. 2. That the objections to its canonicity were based upon difficulties which arose from the ancient mode of trying to find some heavenly les sons in every detached sentence of the Bible, with out due regard to the position which every such apparently heterodox sentence occupies in the whole argument—a proceeding which has no weight with us. 3. That these objections have been so satisfactorily answered by the Rabbins themselves, that, when the apparent contradictions of the Book of Proverbs were urged against retaining it in the canon, Coheleth was adduced as a warn ing against accepting contradictions too rashly (Sabbath 30, b); and 4. That the cavilling school of Shammai, who persisted in regarding this book as uncanonical, were looked upon as lax in their notions upon this point as they were. on several other questions.