That the epilogue, xii, 9-14, is a later addi tion to the book has been maintained by Doe derlein, J. E. C. Schmidt, Bertholdt, Umbreit, Knobel, Hitzig, Kleinert, Krochmal, Gratz, Bloch, Vatke, Renan, Van Limburg-Bouwer, Bickell, Cheyne, Smend, Schmidt. Baudissin, Haupt, McNeile, Barton, Budde, Bennett, Gun kel, Driver, Sellin, Gigot, and others, and al though such scholars as De Wette, Bleek, Ewald, Herzfeld, Rosenmiiller, Kuenen, Cornill, Tyler, Genung, Wright, Condamin, and Zapletal have sought to explain these verses by an intentional dropping of the Solomonic mask, their sec ondary character is highly probable. It does not necessarily follow, however, that all pas sages in the book referring to the fear of God and retribution, or all proverbial sayings inter spersed in the text must be regarded as inter polations. The analogy of other biblical books renders it indeed altogether likely that there are editorial additions, glosses, and inter polations. Even in xi, 7—xi!, 7, regarded by Schmidt on account of its highly poetical char acter as a song quoted by the author, xi, 8b, 9b; xii, 1, 2a, seem to be additions, both on metrical grounds and for reasons already sug gested by Luzzato, Geiger, Gratz and Bloch But whatever his views of the divine being may have been, the author was obviously still a theist. A wholesome fear of natural conic quences is not of necessity connected with a definite scheme of retribution, either here or hereafter. An essentially sombre, disillusioned, and fatalistic outlook upon life is not incompat ible either with the earnest search for some fruit of human labor or an emphasis on the value of work and moderate enjoyment. It is not necessary to assume, with Margoliouth, that the author, like Abu'l Ala al Maarr., re sorted to a sprinkling of pious utterances to conceal his heresy. It would be natural for a Hebrew sage, particularly if he wrote in the name of Solomon, to indulge his taste for quot ing wise saws, even if they fitted loosely in the context, and to give to some sayings a subtle turn. Aside from the epilogue and a limited number of glosses in the text, Ecclesiastes is probably the work of one author, who, how ever, quoted some songs and sayings of others.
According to Jewish and Christian tradition the book was written by Solomon. The Tal mudic statement (Baba bathra' 15a) that the men of Hezekiah wrote it, probably suggests only some kind of editorial activity. Even the heretics mentioned by Philastrius of Brescia, Thcodore of Mopsuestia, who was condemned by the Fifth Ecumenic Council for failing to recognize its divine inspiration, and Abu'l Faraj Bar Hebrxus, who held a similar view, did not doubt the Solomonic authorship. This was apparently first done by Luther ( (Vorrede auf die Bilcher Salomonis> 1524; IV, 400) • Grotius (1644) ; Le Clerc (1685) ; Von der Hardt (1716) ; Lowth (1753) ; Voltaire (1759; 1769) Gibbon (Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' c. xli; 1776-88) ; Eichhorn (1779) ; Herder (1780) ; Doederlein(1784) ; Zirkel (1792) ; J. Jahn (1793) ; J. E. C. Schmidt (1794) ; Nachtigall (1798) ; B: E. (1799) ; Bertholdt (1815) ; Umbreit (1818) ; Rosen mailer (1830) ; Koster (1831) ; Knobel (1836) ; Ewald (1837) ; Herbst (1840) ; Hitzig (1847), and a host of later interpreters, including con servative Protestants like Hengstenberg, Vai hinges, Havernick, Keil, Stuart, Zoeckler, Cox, and Wright ; Jewish scholars like Geiger, Luz zato, Gratz, Herzfeld, Seinecke, and Derenbourg, and such Catholic interpreters as Zirkel, Jahn, Herbst, Movers, Cardinal Newman, Veith, Kaulen, Bickell, Grimme Loisy, Von Hugel, Zenner, Durand, Prat, Zapletal, Gigot, and Peters. The traditional view has been recently
defended by Wordsworth, Milman, Glaire, Pusey, Wangemann, Hahn, Bohl, Bullock, Schafer, Von Essen, Lesetre, Gietmann, and Comely, but on insufficient grounds.
It has been urged against the traditional view that the pretended Solomon says: °I was king over Israel in Jerusalem" (i, 12), "I have gotten me great wisdom above all that were before me over Jerusalem" (i, 16), and uI was great and increased more than all that were before me in Jerusalem> (ii, 9) ; that he complains of wickedness in the place ofjudg ment (iii, 16), oppression no comforter (iv, 1), tyranny and corruption of judges (v, 8; vii, 7) and the dangers of espionage (x, 20) ; and that there is no sign of repentance or warning against idolatry. In view of Ps. lxxxviii, 4 it is quite possible that we should translate Qoheleth, am king over Israel in Jerusalem," though Solomon himself would cer tainly not have used the verb at all any more than the form of the pronoun employed. There would be no impropriety in Solomon mentioning his capital. Nor would there be any psychological improbability in a reference by Solomon to his great wealth and wisdom, so much admired by the Queen of Sheba, or his comparing himself with former kings in Jerusalem of whom we are beginning to learn something, even though Jerome observes that it is not greatly to his glory that he boasts his superiority over his father. It is not clear why a wise king should have hesitated to express his sympathy with the poor and oppressed, and his indignation at the corruption of judges„ or should have failed to recognize the limitations of royal power to alleviate social distress and prevent such insur rections as troubled his reign. There is no evidence that Solomon repented of his sins or regarded his polygamy and worship of other gods as sins. The Chronicler, who made other kings repent, left out of his record the deeds of Solomon of which he disapproved. The most important arguments against the Solo monic authorship have been derived from the language, style, and thought of the book. It is not merely the vocabulary, with its Persian and Aramaic words, and Hebrew terms occurring as a rule only in post-Christian times, but the regular use of the shorter relative, the form of pronouns, prepositions and conjunctions, the abandonment of the characteristic waw consecu tive, in general the deteriorated syntax and the cumbrous construction of sentences clearly point to the latest stage of biblical Hebrew. This development has obviously advanced be yond that found in Daniel, Chronicles and Esther. Neither the Hebrew of Ecclesiasticus nor that of the Zadokite documents (c. 100 B.c.) reveal so much affinity with the language of the Mishna. Even when the difference of sub ject matter is duly considered, the style is widely removed from that of the Law and the Prophets, and there is a marked change even from that of such late books as Job and Proverbs.