I- ^nr-: MAY 1 1958 ■X, £ £514-76" H726 AN ATTEMPT TO t ILLUSTRATE THE BOOK OF ECCLESIASTES. BY THE REV. GEORGE* HOLDEN, M.A. SoXojLiwv ^e, CTTEt ffO0tav rjTrjffev, aTre^e^drt' icai ttiq co^tae avrcm ra ij^yrj eotlv ev toiq crvyypafxfiaat Qewpriaaif ixeyaXrjy e^ovra ev /Spa^Xoyia Trepivoiav ' ev oiq av evpoiQ noXKa eyKiOfjiia ttiq (TO(^taQ, Kai TTpoTpeTrriKa, Trepi Tr]V ero(f)Lav Seiv avaXajSetr. — Origen contra CELSUM, lib. III. CAP. 45. LONDON : PRINTED FOR F. C. AND J. RIVINGTON, No. 62, ST. PAUL'S CHURCH-YARD, AND No. 3, WATERLOO-PLACE, PALL-MALL. 1822. Printed by T. Kaye, 45, Castle-street, Liverpool . ^' PREFACE. When the Author first applied to theological studies, he felt, in common with most other students, much perplexed by the many difficulties in the book of Ecclesiastes. From the widely- diversified opinions of critics and commentators he derived but little satisfaction. In the pro- gress, however, of his inquiries, he fancied that he had discovered the right clue to unravel the intricacies in which the Ecclesiastes, more, per- haps, than any other book among the Hebrew Scriptures, is involved. He then sketched the draught of the present performance, and, after keeping it some time by him, was emboldened, IV PREFACE. in the beginning of the year 1817, to submit it to the Lord Bishop of Chester, who, with that friendly attention which he pays to all the Clergy of his Diocese, took the trouble of perusing it, and, in the most kind and condescending manner, encouraged the Author to persevere in the at- tempt. He therefore proceeded to fill up the outline: the more he reflected upon the subject, the more he was convinced that the view which he had taken of the book was correct; and such additions have been made as naturally result from repeated revisions, and from continued application to Biblical studies. The work was transcribed, and ready to be put into the hands of the printer, when the Author saw announced, as already in the press, ** Lectures on the Book of Ecclesiastes, by Ralph Wardlaw, D.D." As his Attempt might thus be superseded, immediate publication would have been premature. Dr. Wardlaw's Lectures, how- ever, which appeared towards the end of 1821, in 2 vols. 8vo, are wholly of a practical nature, without aiming at " critical or philological disquisition." PREFACE. V As Dr. Wardlaw's plan and the Author's are totally different, and as he could not but hope that somethmg has been contributed by his labours to the critical illustration of the Eccle- siastes, he finally determined upon publication. But though he had no view to emolument, yet, from the small circulation of such works, he found that he had no mode of venturing to the press, with the prospect of a mere indemnification, except through the medium of a subscription. He resolved, therefore, to appeal to the public; and for this purpose he drew up a Prospectus, briefly describing the design and object of the proposed work. In this appeal he has been suc- cessful beyond his anticipations. His list of Subscribers is numerous and respectable; and while he feels himself under particular obligations to a few zealous friends, to whose kind exertions his success is principally to be ascribed, he gladly takes this opportunity of expressing his acknowledgments to all who have supported his undertaking. Such has been the origin and progress of this publication: a more particular account of its VI PREFACE. nature and object may be found in the Preliminary Dissertation. Whatever may be its merits or defects, he cannot^ in extenuation of the latter, urge that it has been a hasty publication; it has long occupied his thoughts ; he has diligently endeavoured to render it worthy of the public eye, for, though of small dimensions, it has been a work of much labour ; and he now sends it into the world, being fully prepared to submit to the decision of that tribunal by which all literary pretensions must be judged. HALSALL, LANCASHIRE, August, 1822. CONTENTS. PAGE The Preliminary Dissertation 1 Sect. I. The Author of the Ecclesiastes iii II. Canonical Authority of the Ecclesiastes xxviii III. Of the Title Koheleth xxxi IV. The Scope and Design of the Ecclesi- astes xlvii V. The Style and Language of the Eccle- siastes Ixxv VI. The Object and Design of this Pub- lication xcviii Analytical Table of the Contents of the Ecclesi- astes xcix The Paraphrase on the Ecclesiastes 3 The Explanatory and Critical Notes 53 ERRATA. IN THE PRELIMINARY DISSERTATION. PAGE xxviii. Note, line 3, for aTTOKpvTTTev, read aTroKpvTCTEiv . Note, line 2 from the bottom, after were only forbidden to he read, add by young persons, xxxiv. Note, line 2 from the bottom, iovfastidat, x&z.^ fastidit . lii. line 2, for a future state of retributive justice could not, consistently, be revealed during, 'Sic, read could not, consistently, be enjoined as an article of faith during, &c. Ixi. line 20, for Jewishs age, read Jewish sage. Ixiii. line 2, for contributed, read contributes. Ixxxiv. Note *, line 1, > _ Ixxxv. Note t, line 2, 5^^*' Guoguet, read Goguet. IN THE PARAPHRASE. 10, last line, for This [is'] labour in secular works, also vanity, read This labour in secular works [is'] also vanity. 48, line 20, for child, read childhood. 50, line 9, for wheels, read wheel. IN THE NOTES. 74, Critical Note *, line 19, for derivate, read derivative. 87, , line 2, for rolur, read robur. 170, , line 7, for purchra imago est homines, read pulchra imago est hominis. 174, line 12, for is one more, read is the more. , line 15, for most unfounded, read mostly unfounded. In a few places, for Bishop Patric, read Bishop Patrick. In page xcix it is stated, that the Critical Notes are placed at the end, in an Appendix; but, after the Preliminary Dissertation was worked off, it was judged more convenient to place them under the Explana- tory Notes, on the same page. As the Critical Notes are still kept distinct from the Explanatory Notes, it was thought unnecessary to cancel page xcix of the Preliminary Dissertation. LIST OF SUBSCRIBERS. Ainger, Rev. Dr. St. Bees, Cumberland. Alison, R. Esq. Moor-hall, Lancashire. Allix, Rev. R. W. Warrington. Almond, Rev. G. Bramham, Yorkshire. Ashton, Mr. Michael, Liverpool. Aspinall, Jas. Esq. Liverpool. Aspinall, Rev. James, Rochdale, Lancashire. Aspinwall, Mr. T. Lydiate, Lancashire. Atkinson, Rev. J. Gilling, Yorkshire. Baines, John, Esq. Liverpool. Baker, Mr. Benjamin, Sculptor, Liverpool. Balfour, Rev. J. Liverpool. Banning, W. Esq. Postofl&ce, Liverpool. Barker, J. R. Esq. Liverpool. Barns, Mr. H. Liverpool. Barns, Rev. Wm. Threapwood, Cheshire. Barnsdale, Rev. — . Ringley, Lancashire. Barton, Rev. H. Rector of Eastchurch, Kent. Barton, Rev. H. J. Warwick. Barton, Mr. W. Liverpool. Barton, Mr. Miles, Everton, Liverpool. Beard, Mr. John, Liverpool. Beckwith, Wm. Esq. Liverpool. Beerbohm, Herr Wilhelm, Memel. Bennett, Edward, Esq. Backwood, Cheshire. Berry, Rev. H. Rector of Acton Beauchamp, Worcestershire. Bevan, J. Esq. Springfield, Lancashire. Bickerst^, R. Esq. Chirk, Denbighshire, two copies. Birkbeck, Wm. Esq. Banker, Settle. Blundell, Rev. Wm. Liverpool. Boddington, Rev. J. C. Bradford, Yorkshire. Boddington, Rev. T. Thorp Arch, Yorkshire. Bold, Rev. T. Bootle, Lancashire. Borrowdale, Rev. Thos. Horton, Yorkshire. Bourne, John, Esq. Stalmin-hall, Lancashire, Bourne, James, Esq. Heathfield, Lancashire. Bowdon, Joshua, Esq. Liverpool. Bowman, Mr. J. Great Crosby, Lancathirc. LIST OF SUBSCRIBERS. Bownass, Rev. R. Poulton-le-Fylde, Lancashire. Bowstead, Rev. T. S. Liverpool. Boyer, Mr. R. Lathom, Lancashire. Boyer, Mr. E. Lathom, Lancashire. Boyer, Mr. H. Lathom, Lancashire. Brancker, Mr. James, Anfield-lodge, Lancashire. Briggs, Jos. Esq. Barrister, Gray's Inn. Bromfield, B. Esq. Wavertree, Lancashire. Brooke, Mr. R. Jun. SoUcitor, Liverpool. Brookes, Rev. Jon. Everton, Liverpool. Brown, Geo. Esq. Liverpool. Browne, Mr. T. Liverpool. Brythe, Thomas, Esq. Magdalen-hall, Oxford. Buddicom, Rev. R. P., F.S.A. Everton, Liverpool. Bulmer, Rev. P. Liverpool. Burchall, Capt. J. Adjutant L. M. Ormskirk. Bury, John, Esq. Swinton, Lancashire. Bury, G. F. Esq. Solicitor, Manchester. Bury, W. Esq. Magdalen-hall, Oxford. Chester, Right Rev. the Lord Bishop of. Canning, the Right Hon. George, M.P. &c. &c. &c. Cameron, G. D., M.D. Liverpool. Card, Rev. H., Vicar of Great Malvern, Worcestershire. Carr, Rev. C. Peakirk, Northamptonshire. Chaffers, Mr. T. Marshfield, Lancashire. Chubbard, Mrs. Kensington, Liverpool. Clapham, Richard, Esq. Feizar, Yorkshire. Clay, Mr. R. Chemist, Liverpool. Cole, T. Butler, Esq. Kirkland-hall, Lancashire. ColUson, Mr. T. Surgeon, Liverpool. Cooban, Mr. W. Solicitor, Liverpool. Corbett, Rev. Dr. Wortley, Lancashire. Corfield, Rev. R. Rector of Pitchford, Salop. Coventry, Rev. G. Lathom, Lancashire. Cross, Mr. John, Lydiate, Lancashire. Crosthwaite, Mr. John, Liverpool. Crowther, Mr. G. H. Frodsham, Cheshire. Cruickshank, Mr. G. Bookseller, Liverpool, two copies. Cnlshaw, WilUam, Esq. Moss-end, Lancashire. Culshaw, James, Esq. Ormskirk. Durham, the Hon. and Right Rev. the Lord Bishop of. Dakin, Miss, Warrington. Dale, Rev. P. S. HoUinsfare, Lancashire. Davies, Rev. W. W. Broughton, Cheshire. Davis, T. H. Esq. His Majesty's Customs, London. Dixon, Mr. R. Poulton-le-Fylde, Lancashire, Docker, Rev. W. Southport, Lancashire. Dodson, Mrs. Liverpool. Eden, John, Esq; Solicitor, Liverpool. Elston, Mr. H. Surgeon, Ormskirk. Evans, Mr. W. Liverpool. Eyes, Mr. E. Surveyor, Liverpool. Fairclough, Mr. C. Liverpool. Fanshawe, Rev, J. Vicar of Frodsham, Cheshire. LIST OF SUBSCRIBERS. Fanshawe, Rev. T. L. Vicar of Dagenhain, Essex. Fanington, Mrs. Shawe-hall, Lancashire. Fisher, John, Esq. Lytham, Lancashire. Forde, Rev. A. B. Maghull, Lancashire. Formby, Rev. R. Formby-hall, Lancashire. Formby, Rev. Miles, Liverpool. Forrester, C. D. Esq. London. Forshaw, Rev. C. Ormskirk Foster, Thomas, Esq. Clapham, Yorkshire. -Foster, Mr. James, Liverpool. Fox, William, Esq. Statham, Cheshire. Fry, Mr. Joseph, Liverpool. Gandy, Mr. W. J. Solicitor, Liverpool. Garratt, Rev. Thomas, Altcar, Lancashire. Gibbon, Edward, Esq. Liverpool. Gildard, John, Esq. Cappleside-hall, Yorkshire. Gildard, Robert, Esq. Rathmell, Yorkshire. Gore, Mr. J. Bookseller, Liverpool. Gouthwaite, Mr. F. Liverpool. Graham, Mr. R. Liverpool. Grapel, Mr. W. Bookseller, Liverpool, six copies. Greaves, Mr. Mill Bank, Warrington. Greenham, Robert, Esq. Liverpool. Goodwill, Rev. George, Wigan. .^. Hesketh, Sir Thomas DalrymplCj Bart. Ruffbrd-hall, Lancashire. Haliburton, A. Esq. Douglas Bank, Lancashire. Hall, Mr. J. Liverpool. Hallowes, Mr. John, Liverpool. Halton, Mr. J. P. Surgeon, Liverpool. Hamer, Rev. J. Toxteth Park, Lancashire. Hancock, Mr. T. Surgeon, Ormskirk. Hanmer, Latham, Esq. His Majesty's Customs, Liverpool. Hanning, Mr. Joseph, Surgeon, Walton, Lancashire. Harkness, Mr. Richard, Ormskirk. Harrison, Mr. James, Liverpool. Harrocks, Jno. Esq. Liverpool. Hawkshead, Thomas, Esq. Heskin, Lancashire. Heap, Rev. Henry, Vicar of Bradford, Yorkshire. Heathcote, Mr. T. Ormskirk. Heathcote, Rev. J. Liverpool. Hesketh, Robert, Esq. Rossall-hall, Lancashire. Hill, Rev. Edward, Wigan. Hodgson, Rev. J. Great Crosby, Lancashire. Hodgson, Mr. J. Solicitor, Liverpool. Hoggins, Rev. Jas. Sephton, Lancashire. Holden, Mrs. Halsall, Lancashire. Holden, Mr. Johnson, Liverpool. Holmes, Henry, Jun. Esq. Liverpool. Hopwood, William, Esq. Trinity College, Cambridge. Hornby, Rev. J. Rector of Winwick, Lancashire. Hornby, Rev, H. Rector of St. Michael's, Lancashire. Home, Rev. T. Hartwell, London. Horton, Rev. Joshua T. Vicar of Ormskirk. Houghton, Mr. E. Surgeon, Ormskirk. Houghton, Mr. Thomas, Solicitor, Ormskirk. Howson, Rev. J. Giggleswick, Yorkshire, two copies. LIST OF SUBSCRIBERS. Huddleston, John, Esq. Liverpool. Hull, Rev. Edward, Liverpool. Hunter, John, Esq. Liverpool. Hutton, John, Esq. Liverpool. Ingram, Rev. R. Free Grammar School, Giggleswick, Yorkshire. Irlam, George, Esq. Bootle, Lancashire. Jackson, John, Esq. Liverpool. Jeffreys, T., M.D. Liverpool. Johnson, Mr. G. Liverpool. Jones, Rev. R. Great Budworth, Cheshire. Jones, Terrick, Esq. Great Crosby, Lancashire. Jones, Richard, Esq. Springwood, Lancashire. Jones, Mr. R. J. Solicitor, Liverpool. Knox, the Hon. and Rev. E. Dean of Down. Kaye, Mr. T. Bookseller, Liverpool, six copies. Kearsley, J. Hodson, Esq. Wigan. Kershaw, Mr. T. Academy, Ormskirk. Knapper, Mr. Ephraim, Liverpool. Knowles, John, Esq. Linacre-grove, Lancashire, six copies, Liverpool, the Right Hon. the Earl of, K.G. &c. &c. &c. Laughton, Captain J. Harrington, Liverpool. Lawson, Mr. T. Liverpool. Leather, Mr. P. Solicitor, Liverpool. Lightfoot, Mr. J. Accountant, Liverpool. Liptrot, Mr. W. Aughton, Lancashire. Lister, Rev. A. Vicar of Gargrave, Yorkshire. Literary Society, Settle, Yorkshire. Locke, Miss, Liverpool. Loxham, Rev. Richard, Rector of Halsall, Lancashire. Loxham, Rev. Robert, Rector of Stickney, Lincolnshire. Luniley, William, Esq. Leeds. MacBride, Rev. Dr. Principal of Magdalen-hall, Oxford. MacLean, Herr Lachlan, Danzig. Magdalen-hall Library, Oxford. Manning, Mrs. Liverpool. Marshall, Rev. T. Eccleston, Lancashire. Martin, Miss, Liverpool. Master, Rev. R. Croston, Lancashire. Merian, Herr J. J. Basle. Molyneux, Mr. T. C. Liverpool. Monk, Rev. J. B. Liverpool. Moore, Thos Esq. Long-Preston, Yorkshire. Moore, Mr. John, Surgeon, Bolton-le-Moor. Moss, Rev. T. Vicar of Walton-on-the-hill, Lancashire. Muncaster, Mr. T, Bookseller, Liverpool. Naylor, James, Esq. Liverpool. Newman, William, Esq. Darley-hall, Yorkshire. Ormandy, Mr. J. Bookseller, Liverpool. Peel, Right Hon. Robert, M.P. &c. &c. &c. Palmer, Mr. Solicitor, Ormskirk. LIST OF SUBSCRIBERS. Parke, Mr. J. Chemist, Liverpool. Pedder, Rev. J. Vicar of Garstang, Lancashire. Perry, W., M.D. Liverpool. Pickard, Mr, J. Liverpool. Porter, T. C. Esq. West Derby, Lancashire Porter, Rev. Jackson, Whitworth, Lancashire. Prescot, Miss, Dalton, Lancashire. Prince, Rev. J. C. Liverpool. Powell, Rev. Benjamin, Wigan. RadclifFe, Mr. J. His Majesty's Customs, Liverpool. RadclifFe, Mr. R. Solicitor, Liverpool. Rawstorne, Rev. R. A. Rector of Warrington. Richards, Rev. G. Wortley, Yorkshire. Righy, Miss, Liverpool. ' Rigby, Mr. T. Marston, Cheshire. Rimmer, Mr. T. Liverpool. Ripley, Mr. G. Solicitor, Liverpool. Roach, N. Esq. Barbados. Robinson, N. Esq. Aigburgh, Lancashire. Robinson, R. Esq. Paisley-house, Lancashire. Robinson, G. and J. Booksellers, Liverpool, three copies. Rogers, Mr. Surgeon, Settle, Yorkshire. Rolandson, A. Esq. Brasennose College, Oxford. Ruppel, Herr Carl, Memel. St. David's, the Right Rev. the Lord Bishop of. Scarisbrick, Mrs. Scarisbrick-hall, Lancashire, /our copies. Scott, R. W., M.D. Liverpool. Segar, Mr. H. His Majesty's Customs, Liverpool. Sephton, Mr. E. Liverpool. Sharpies, Mr. H. Solicitor, Ormskirk. Sillar, Z., M.D. Liverpool. Slade, Rev. James, Vicar of Bolton-le-Moors. Smalt, Mrs. Leyland Grove, Lancashire. Smith, Bryan, Esq. Lydiate, Lancashire. Smith, Bryan, Jun. Esq. Liverpool. Smith, Mr. Richard, Liverpool, six copies. Smith, Mr. J. Ormskirk. Smyth, Rev. J. H. Liverpool. Sorensen, P. Esq. Danish Consul, Liverpool. Swainson, Mr. J. G. Liverpool. Tarleton, Mr. Jno. Liverpool. Tatham, R. Esq. Low-fields, Lancashire. Taylor, Rev. J. Heskin, Lancashire. Tennant, Rev. W. Castle Bytham, Lincolnshire. Thomas, Mr. P. Latham, Lancashire. Troutbeck, J. Esq. Great Crosby, Lancashire. Tyrer, Mr. James, Liverpool. Vanbrugh, Rev. G. Rector of Aughton, Lancashire. Wilbraham, E. Bootle, Esq. M.P. Lathom-house, Lancashire. Walkden, T. Esq. Stanley-gate, Lancashire. "Walker, Thomas, Esq. Aughton, Lancashire. Wareing, W. Esq. Solicitor, Ormskirk. LIST OF SUBSCRIBERS. Weickhmann, Herr C. W. von, Danzig. Welsby, Mr. H. Lydiate, Lancashire. Whalley, Mr. R. Lydiate, Lancashire. Whitehead, Rev. T. Hutton, Lancashire. Wiguali, Mr. William, Ormskirk. Willan, Rev. R. Barnsley, Yorkshire. Willan, Rev. Thomas, Rector of Irnham, Lincolnshire. Willan, Mr. E. Bookseller, Liverpool. Williamson, Rev. J. Warrington. Wilson, H. Porter, Esq. Poulton-le-Fylde, Lancashire. Wilson, Thomas, Esq, Solicitor, Poulton-le-Fylde, Lancashire. Wilson, Mr. Thomas, Jun. Poulton-le-Fylde, Lancashire. Wilson, Mr. W. Liverpool. Withington, Miss A. Heskin, Lancashire. Wright, Harvey, Esq. Solicitor, Ormskirk. Woodcock, T. Esq. Bank-house, Lancashire. York, his Grace the Archbishop of. Zwilchenbart, Mr. R. Liverpool. PRELIMINARY DISSERTATION. r THE. PRELIMINARY DISSERTATION The Old Testament, whether we consider its inspiration or its indispensable importance to the elucidation of the New, ought to be attentively studied by every Christian divine. Yet it must be confessed, that many parts of it are very diffi- cult to interpret; and, though the most acute critical talents, aided by profound erudition, have been employed in its illustration, they have not entirely removed the obscurities which anti- quity hath spread over its sacred pages. The idea that the Bible is easily understood, flatters the self-sufficiency of ignorance and fanaticism ; but the great difficulty attending its interpretation is a fact too palpable to be denied, except by those who are benighted in the mists of prejudice, or who have never doubted, only because they have never inquired. It can be no easy matter to B n PRELIMINARY explain a volume by much the most ancient in the world, including compositions on various sub- jects and of different character, Mstoric, poetic, and prophetic, alluding to events of which no contemporary records exist, referring to manners and customs wholly dissimilar to ours, and writ- ten in a language remote from European phrase and idiom, and which, moreover, has ceased to be vernacular for more than two thousand years. Of all the Hebrew writings, none present greater obstacles to the expositor than the book of Eccle- siastes. Together with the obscurities which it has in common with the other Jewish canonical Scriptures, it possesses some peculiar to itself; and, with respect to the style of the work, the author's design, the nature of his argument, and the chain of his reasoning, the opinions of critics and commentators have diverged to an incredible distance. The book, however, has descended to us as a part of the Volume of Inspiration, which is a sufficient guarantee, that it contains nothing unworthy the Source from which it springs, and that its tendency is, when properly understood, to cherish the sacred principles of morality and religion. Some passages, it must be acknow- ledged, seem, at the first glance, to recommend Epicurean enjoyments, and to countenance atheistic folly ; but, we may rest assured, there are none such in reality, and that whatever appears SECT. I.] DISSERTATION. iu contrary to piety and virtue, arises solely from our misapprehension. Much as the Ecclesiastes has been perverted by sensualists, and ridiculed by profane wits, if it be a part of Holy Scripture, it must admit a full and ample vindication. A critical inquiry, therefore, into its scope and meaning is highly important, in order to silence the cavils of the scorner, and to satisfy the scru- ples of the religiously disposed. There has, indeed, been no want of expositors; but their labours have not been altogether successful, as is abundantly proved by their widely- different views of the book, which serve rather to perplex than to assist the inquirer. Notwithstanding what has been hitherto done, something is still wanting to its complete illustration : to this conviction, at least, is owing the present performance, in the commencement of which it may be proper to premise some general observations. SECTION I. The Author of the Book. The author is expressly styled, in the initiatory verse, '' the son of David, king in Jerusalem," and in the twelfth verse he is described as ** king over Israel, in Jerusalem." These passages are iv PRELIMINARY [SECT. I. found in every known manuscript, and in all the ancient versions ; and Solomon, as is well known, was the only son of David who ever reigned in Jerusalem. The book has thus been admitted into the sacred canon of the Jews as the produc- tion of Solomon, to whom it has also been ascribed by a regular and concurrent tradition. A collateral proof arises from the contents of the work itself, in which the author is stated to have excelled in wisdom beyond all who were before him in Jerusalem, (chap. i. 16, ii. 15, xii. 9,) and to have composed many Proverbs; (chap. xii. 9;) circumstances descriptive of Solomon, and of no other personage whose name is recorded in the Holy Scriptures. The writer is likewise repre- sented as abounding in wealth and treasure, in palaces, gardens, retinues, and other articles of elegant and royal luxury, extremely applicable to Solomon, during whose reign the throne of Israel was surrounded with all the pomp of Asiatic splendour and magnificence. Strong as this evidence is for ascribing the work to Solomon, it has been questioned, not only by the infidel Voltaire, but by several Chris- tian writers of great learning and celebrity. Grotius, Hermann von der Hardt, Dathe, Jahn, Eichhorn, and Doederlein, have advocated the opinion, that the Ecclesiastes is not the pro- duction of Solomon, but of some writer in a SECT. I.] DISSERTATION. t subsequent age ; and, if we may believe Professor Dathe, tlie two latter have established this point, by arguments so weighty, that none, except very stubborn defenders of ancient traditions, can deny it.* The sceptical Semler pronounces it a matter of doubt, whether it be the production of the Hebrew monarch, or of some writer of a later age, who assumes his character.f Without bowing with implicit deference to the authority of these learned Germans, let us collect and review the principal arguments of the above- named critics; and, should they be found, upon an impartial examination, not to be invincible, we need not hesitate to acquiesce in the generally received opinion, that Solomon was the author of the Ecclesiastes. I. Objection, " Solomon was not the author, because the Rabbins attribute it either to Heze- kiah, or Isaiah, the most distinguished contem- porary of that monarch." J This statement is undoubtedly agreeable to the common interpreta- tion of the Talmudical language, which the reader will find in the margin ;^ but nothing more may, * Dathii Versio Lat. not. a. in Eccles. i Semleri A iiparatus in Vet. Test. p. 203. X Voltaire, Philosoph. Diet. art. Solomon. % The words of the Talraudists are, n'pnp OH^U^n Ttl? 'hmD n»yiy* lariD ini;»Dl n'ptn, Ezechias et coetus ejus scripsernnt Esaiam, Proverbia, Canticura, et Ecclesiasten. — Bava Bathra. c. 1, fol. 15, a. And in Shalsheleth Hakkabalah, fol. 66, b. we read, that Isaiali wrote ^riD, his own book, Proverbs, Canticles, and Ecclesiastes. Vi PRELIMINARY [SECT. I. perhaps, be meant, than that the Ecclesiastes was inserted into the canon of Scripture by Isaiah or Hezekiah, not that it was written by either of them; or, it may only intimate, that, though Solomon was the author of the book, it was first committed to writing by them, it having been previously handed down by oral tradition; or, the meaning may only be, that these eminent men copied the book, and disseminated faithful transcripts of it among the people.* In some such way the words of the Talmudists here referred to must be explained ; for it is elsewhere expressly asserted, that Solomon was the author.f And this is confirmed by its being placed in the canon as his work, which is indisputable evidence, that he was believed to be the author by the an- cient Jews. It would not have been transmitted to posterity as his work, in so sacred a manner, except it had been ascribed to him by an uni- versal consent. There could be no reason for palming a spurious book upon the world for Solomon's, no motive for attributing it to him falsely ; or, if this had been attempted, the deceit would have been immediately detected, as the light of inspiration and prophecy was not * Waehner, Antiq. Heh. sect. 1 , cap. 80. Simon, Critique de la Biblioth. du Pin J vol. iv. p. 107. Wolf, Bibliotheca Hebrcea^ vol. ii. p. 117. Carpzov, Introductio ad Lib, Bibl. par. ii. cap. 4, § 4. Gray, Key to ihe Old Testament. t Seethe authorities in Wolf, Biblioth. Heb. vol. ii. p. 121. Carpzor, Introd, ad Lib. Biblicos, par. ii. cap. 4, § 4. SECT. I.] DISSERTATION. VU extinguished till after the return from the Baby- lonian captivity ; and, subsequently to that event, the veneration of the Jews for their Scriptures precludes the possibility of any designed altera- tion in the canon. Its reception into the canon, therefore, as the production of Solomon, could only have proceeded from its being known to be his work by those who, as to this circumstance, were incapable either of deceiving, or of being deceived. II. Ohj. ** The Ecclesiastes cannot be sup- posed to be the production of Solomon, because the style is very different from that of his acknow- ledged writings."* Without alleging that argu- ments drawn from difference of style rest upon precarious grounds, we may admit the fact, while we deny the inference attempted to be deduced from it. By comparing the book with the Pro- verbs and Canticles, the competent scholar must, I think, perceive some diversity in language and phraseology ; but it would be unfair to infer, from this circumstance, that they have not emanated from the same mind. Intercourse with foreigners, new studies, advancing years, a change in habits of thinking, in inclinations and desires, with a * Eichhorn, Einleitung in das Alte Testament, § 658. In referring to Eichhorn, I am indebted to the kindness of a friend, who has favoured me with a translation of such parts of the Einleitung as relate to the book of Ecclesiastes. See also J. H, van der Palm, Diss, de Lib* Eccles. p. 44. via PRELIMINARY [SECT. f. multiplicity of other circumstances, contribute to the alteration of style ; so that the latest productions of the same person are not unfrequently wholly dissimilar, in the external dress and colouring, to those which have been composed in early life. The diversity of style, in the present instance, is not of such a kind as necessarily leads us to attribute them to different authors. It may be accounted for partly from the different nature of the subjects ; the Canticles abounding in sentiments of love and sensibility, in images of pastoral poetry replete with mystic significance : the Proverbs consisting of short sententious maxims, designed to impress the memory by their beauty and terseness ; and the Ecclesiastes being a regular philosophical disquisition ; and partly from the two first having been written in the prime of life, and the last in the vale of years. According to the tradition of the Jews, the book of Ecclesiastes was written by Solomon in his old age, after he had repented of his former vicious practices, and had become, by sad expe- rience, fully convinced of the vanity of every thing terrestrial, except piety and wisdom.* Many parts of the work itself corroborate this tra- dition. The acknowledgment of numerous follies and delusions implies, that it was composed * Jerom, in Ecdes. i. 12. Huet. Demonst. Evangel, prop. iv. p. 246. Michaelis, Notce Uberiores, Praef. § 2. SECT. I.] DISSERTATION. ix after the author had apostatized from Jehovah, and had subsequently repented of his past mis- conduct. The frequent assertion of the emptiness of earthly greatness ; the declaration that human enjoyments are unsatisfactory; the enumeration of gardens, edifices, and possessions, requiring a long life for their completion ; the deep condem- nation of former pursuits ; the expression of satiety and disgust at past pleasures ; and the tone of cool and philosophical reflection which pervades the whole, are strikingly characteristic of an ad- vanced period of life ; and the production of a king, bowed with the infirmities of age, wearied with the pomp of royalty, sated with luxury, humbled with a sense of past guilt, and prostrate in penitence, can scarcely be similar in style to those of the same monarch in the vigour of health and manhood, and buoyant on the full tide of popularity and glory. III. Ohj. " The proper name of Solomon is not prefixed to the book, as in the Proverbs and Canticles."* This can be no valid objection, so long as he is designated to be the author by another unequivocal title; and there may have been reasons for the omission with which we are not acquainted. As this answer is perfectly * Hermann von der Hardt, De Lihro Koheleth. C X PRELIMINARY [SECT. I. satisfactory, it cannot be necessary, and may be presumptuous, to attempt to account for the author's not mentioning his proper name; butitis,at least, no improbable conjecture, that, as the word Solomon signifies jomce, the omission of it might be intended to intimate, that he had forfeited his name of peace, since, by his former transgression, he had troubled Israel; (1 Kings xi. 14, 23;) and as the name Koheleth, or Preacher, is derived from his custom of addressing assembled auditories, he might design, by the assumption of this title, to declare himself a true penitent, and a sincere ad- vocate of religion. As, notwithstanding his former vices, he was now become a real convert, and a zealous preacher of righteousness, there seems a peculiar propriety in selecting an appellation expressive of this circumstance. IV. Ohj, " Foreign, and particularly Chaldaic, expressions occur in the book, which evince its origin in an age later than that of Solomon."* From the great importance attached to this objection by the advocates of the late composition of the book, they appear to consider themselves as having here occupied unassailable ground ; it is, nevertheless, untenable, as must be evident from the consider- ation, that words and inflections pronounced by * Grotius, Prolegom, in Eccks. ELchhorn, Einleitungf § 658. SECT. I.] DISSERTATION. Xll some critics to be Aram8ean, are discovered in books decidedly more ancient than Solomon. Granting, therefore, the existence of some expres- sions bearing the impression of a foreign stamp, this will be no proof of its being a production of so late a date as the Babylonian captivity ; especially as it w^ould be so easy, in the present instance, to account for their introduction, since Solomon might have acquired them by conver- sation w^ith the many foreign women whom he loved; (1 Kings xi. 1, 2;) or they might have been imported in the intercourse which subsisted at that period between the Israelites and the neighbouring nations.* But we may go farther, and fairly question whe- ther the objection be founded in fact. Although a few words used by the author of the Eccle- siastes occur nowhere else, except in the Chaldee part of Daniel and in the Targums, none have been produced in form and inflection unequivocally Chaldaic ; and, for any thing that appears to the contrary, they may have been pure Hebrew words, in familiar circulation while that language continued to be vernacular. That words em- ployed by any of the Old Testament writers are found in the sister dialects, is no argument against * 1 Kings iv. 24, 34, x. 24, 25, 28. 2 Chion. i. 16, ix. 14, 23, 24» 26. Pococke, Nota in Porta Mosis, p. 151, ed. Twells. Hiiet, Dein. ErangeL prop. iv. p. 2ir. xii PRELIMINARY [SECT. I. their purity, for this is very often the case with such as are confessedly genuine Hebrew. Neither are the aTra^ Xcyo/wem, or words occurring* only once, any evidence of a foreign origin ; they are dis- coverable in almost every book of the Old Testament, and only serve to demonstrate the immense wreck which the Hebrew language has sustained in the lapse of time. Chaldaisms, in fact, supply no sure criterion to determine the late origin of a work in which they are found; for Hebrew, Syriac, Chaldee, and Arabic, having emanated from one common source, the higher we ascend, the greater will be the resemblance.* Hence the numerous dialec- tical coincidences which have been observed in the book of Job, the most ancient of all the canonical writings. In short, the argument I have been combating is completely hollow and unsound. It can neither be proved, that the author of the Ecclesi- astes has used words or phrases which are not pure Hebrew, nor, if it could, would it be con- clusive evidence against ascribing it to the royal son of David. It is not required, therefore, to enter into a minute examination of the words * Michaelis, Not. et Ephn. in Lowth, p. 200, Oxon. 1810. Bishop Magee, On Atonement^ No. 59. SECT. I.] DISSERTATION. xiii which have been pointed out as indicative of an age posterior to Solomon's ; but a brief review of them is given in the subjoined note, from which it will further appear, that the objection is entirely groundless.* * Of the four words pronounced by Grotius to be foreign, and not pure Hebrew, namely, "I'D, nJVli^, *ltt>D, yi^Mt only two can at all be considered as belonging to his argument ; for the first occurs Exod. xvi. 3, and the second may be derived from a genuine Hebrew root, as may be seen in the following note to ch. xii. 5. The two last only occur ch. viii. 1, and x. 8, and, though they are found in Chaldee, they may like- wise be Hebrew. — (See Calovius, Proleg. in Eccles. ; Bossuet, Pref. in Eccles.; Huet, ut supra; Findlay, Vindication of the Sacred Books, par. iii. § 4, p. 471 ; Witsius, Miscel. Sac. 1. i. cap. 18, § 36 ; Carpzov, Introd. ad Lib. Bill. par. ii. cap. 5, § 2.) Eichhorn has been more copious in his appeals than Grotius, and notices the following words as modern or Aramaean. 1, 711^2. in ch. viii. 17. But it occurs in Jonas i. 7, 12; it is a compound particle, and is found nearly in the same form in Canticles iii. 7. 2. nin ch. ii. 22; which occurs, however, in Job, Proverbs, and often in the Psalms. 3. pP ch. iv. 2, 3 ; a contraction for nJn n]^, which is used in Genesis, &c. 4. "113, a particle only occurring in the Ecclesiastes, yet it betrays no marks of a Chaldaic or foreign form. 5. P"ltt^3, like the former, only occurs in the Ecclesiastes, at the same time it has all the appearance of being pure Hebrew. 6. TW\ mj^l and mi P'J^I, which occur nowhere else, but the roots are of frequent occurrence. 7. "j/i^Dn, a priest, ch. v. 5, and in this sense it occurs Malachi iii. 1. It is, however, often applied to human agents, for which reason it cannot be inferred that a book, where it is found in the sense of a priest, is of later origin than the age of Solomon. 8. DJDS ch. viii. 11 ; but, though it occurs Esther i. 20, and in the Chaldee of Daniel, why should we suppose it not to have been in use among the ancient Hebrews, since the form is not specifically Chaldaic ? 9. D*DT1S ch. ii. 5 ; yet this occurs also in Canticles iv. 13. Such are the words instanced by Eichhorn as being more modern than Solomon ; yet of these it may justly be said, first, that not one of them is indubitably, or even probably, of the Chaldaic form : secondly, some are airci^ Xey, from which nothing can be concluded; and, thirdly, others are found either in Solomon's acknowledged writings, or in older books ; consequently, none of them can be evidence of the late composition of the Ecclesiastes. It is further observed by Eichhorn, that the genius of the Chaldee language appears still stronger in the frequent compounded words with xiv PRELIMINARY [SECT. I. V. Obj, '' The book contains some of the peculiar notions of the Pharisees and Sadducees, against which it appears to be directed; and since these sects arose, as is generally supposed, about the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, it cannot be allowed an earlier date."* This objection is built upon the assumption, that the Pharisean and Sadducean notions are discoverable in it; an assumption resting upon no substantial basis. There appears, on the contrary, the strongest reason for believing, that it could not receive any colouring from the peculiar opinions of these sects ; for, if it were adopted into the canon previous to their existence, the thing is impos- sible; or, if afterwards, it is inconceivable that the prefix M>, which, says he, coincides with the Chaldee T. One is surprised at such an observation from any Hebrew scholar, since it is as clear as the day, that the prefix U^ is very common in the Psalms, and in Solomon's other productions, and is likewise found in Judges and Genesis. It certainly occurs frequently, about seventeen or eighteen times, in the Ecclesiastes, and Desvoeux thinks it is employed to form the parallelism of the versification ; (Philol. Obs. 1. ii. c. 1, § 2 ;) but, whatever may be thought of this conjecture, it would be uncritical to infer, from its fre- quent occurrence, that the book was not written by Solomon. There are also, says Eichhorn, other Chaldaic-like expressions ; but he has given no examples, and other Oriental scholars cannot perceive in the book of Ecclesiastes any thing, either in the style or composition, unsuitable to the age of Solomon. Zerkel, in his Untersuchungen, or Researches respecting the Preacher, pretends to discover some Greek expressions in the Ecclesiastes, which, however, is a palpable mistake. See Jahn, Introduct. ad Vet. Test. § 213. * Jahn, Introduct. ad Vet. Test. § 213, 215. Bauer, Hermeneut. Sac. § 68. Home, Introduction to the Scriptures, vol. iv. p. 130, ed. 2da. Le Clerc apud Witsii Miscd. Sac. vol. i. p. 227. SECT. I.] DISSERTATION. XV they would permit a work directed against them- selves to be inserted in the sacred canon. With as much reason might it be asserted^ that the Pentateuch was levelled against the opinions of the Pharisees and Sadducees as the book of Ecclesiastes. VI. Obj. *' The name of Jehovah does not occur throughout the work, which seems to refer its origin to the age of Alexander ; about which time the use of the Tetragrammaton was forbid- den."* Whenever the superstitious veneration for the name of Jehovah arose among the Jews, it is certain, that the pronunciation alone, not the writing of it, was forbidden, for it is found in some of the Chaldee paraphrases of a much more recent date. VII. Obj. " Solomon cannot be the writer of the Ecclesiastes; for, if he were, in complaining as he does of oppressions, of unjust judgment, of the elevation of foolish servants to dignity and office, he would have condemned himself."'!' P^i'" fection is unattainable in human institutions : in the best regulated governments, much vice, folly, and misery will exist ; and, under the adminis- tration of Solomon, the wisest prince that ever swayed a sceptre, the great and powerful were, * Jdihn, Introduct. §215. f Jahn, Introduct, ut siipra. Xvi PRELIMINARY [SECT. I. doubtless, at times tyrannical, judges were often partial, and men were sometimes preferred to offices for which they were neither fitted by their talents nor their virtues. These evils, which the most consummate wisdom cannot entirely pre- vent, the king himself might lament, as well as any of his subjects, without being self-condemned. In these complaints, moreover, of oppression and injustice, the royal philosopher may have had an eye to what was passing in surrounding states. A mind of such sagacity and research would ar- dently inquire into the manners and civil polity of other nations ; and it is not improbable, that his remarks on despotic cruelty and perverted justice may have referred to the conduct of governors beyond the boundaries of his empire. VIII. Ohj. ** Had Solomon been the author, he would not have said, * I was, or I am king in Jerusalem,' as it would have been idle to affirm a fact so universally known."* As well might it be argued, that the Proverbs are not the work of Solomon, because he calls himself, in the be- ginning, " king of Israel." The mention of his exalted rank is, in both cases, probably made, the better to recommend his compositions to the attention of mankind ; for it has ever been found by experience, that the world is inclined to * Jahn, Introduct, ad V. T. ut supra. SECT. I.] DISSERTATION. XVU admire the productions of royal and noble au- thors, more particularly while the influence of their wealth and dignity remains unimpaired. This natural deference to rank and title would be much augmented in the present case, by characterizing the book as the work of that monarch, who was so renowned for knowledge, and whose wisdom contributed so much to the glory and happiness of his people. It is usual, likewise, with the sacred writers to describe themselves by personal titles and characters, which must have been well known to their con- temporaries. Thus Isaiah denominates himself " the son of Amoz ;" Jeremiah, ** the son of Hil- kiah;" Ezekiel, "the priest;" Hosea, '*the son of Beeri;" Amos, " the herdman of Tekoa;" St. Paul, " the servant and apostle of Christ." As the ad- dition of such personal designations, though not absolutely necessary, is very common, Solomon might, without impropriety, style himself " the son of David, king in Jerusalem." The assump- tion, then, of a title, which not only might be used by Solomon, but in the use of which there is a peculiar fitness, cannot form even a colourable objection against his being the author of the Ecclesiastes. IX. Ohj. " The writer says, * I was king over Israel in Jerusalem;' (ch. i. 12;) but why is it added * in Jerusalem,' unless the book was D xviii PRELIMINARY [SECT. I. published when the kings of the Israelites had another royal residence, namely, Samaria?''* David reigned both in Hebron and in Jerusalem ; (2 Sam. ii. 11, v. 5 ; 1 Kings ii. 11 ;) but Solomon, as it should seem, only in the latter city, which may possibly account for the place of residence being specified. Besides, it is somewhat absurd to infer, because the Preacher is said to be king in Jerusalem, that another king reigned at the same time in Samaria : with as much truth it might be concluded, that a contemporary king reigned in any other place within the borders of Palestine. Solomon was king in, or at, Jerusalem ; that city was the metropolis of his kingdom ; there he kept his court ; there was the seat of his government ; and he might, with equal propriety, mention the place of his royal residence, as the fact of his being king over Israel, a title, as above shown, perfectly compatible with his being the author of the book. X. Obj, ** In chapter iv. 15, allusion is made to Solomon's successor, and ..to his inability to govern the people. Now, supposing the work to be the production of Solomon, he must have foreseen, that his son would be unequal to the task of government ; and, in that case, so wise a monarch, instead of wishing him to be his suc- cessor, would have taken measures to ensure the * Doededein, Scholia in Eccles. p. 171. Eichhorn, Einhitung, ^ 658. SECT. I.] DISSERTATION. xix succession of some litter person to the throne of Israel. As he did not adopt this course, the only one consistent with the accounts which we have of his wisdom, it is concluded, that the Ecclesiastes was written in a subsequent period."* But, in the passage appealed to, there is, in all probability, no allusion to the successor of Solomon in the royal power ; it appears to be only a combination of general remarks upon the vanity of empire and dominion. Or, if even it should be thought to glance at Rehoboam, yet Solomon may be the author, as he might have wished his son to suc- ceed him on the throne, though he had foreseen his incapacity for government ; for how often is the judgment of the best and most enlightened men blinded by paternal affection? Solomon, notwithstanding his distinguished wisdom, was far from being a perfect character. Nor would it be easy to prove, what the objection supposes, the utter incompetency of Rehoboam to sway the sceptre of Israel. Though his conduct, imme- diately after his accession, was the occasion of an extensive, lasting, and ruinous revolt, it was a conduct rather to be ascribed to energy and vigour than to weakness and imbecility. He took time to deliberate, he asked counsel both from the old and youthful senators; and de- liberate consultation is not the characteristic of * Doederleiu, Scholia ut supra. Eichhorn, EinUitungj § 658.. XX PRELIMINARY [SECT. I> a weak and pusillanimous mind. That his first measures were disastrous is certain; that he was ill advised is not improbable ; but such has been the case with monarchs who cannot justly be charged with incompetency to hold the reins of government. XI. Obj, " The author says, * I keep the king's commandment,' (ch. viii. 2,) which could not come from Solomon, who was a king himself, and obeyed no monarch upon earth."* This objection scarcely deserves notice, as it rests upon a translation of the original which is erro- neous, though supported by the Vulgate ; the true version being, " I counsel thee to keep the king's commandment," where, by '* the king," is meant Jehovah, who was, in a peculiar sense, the king of the Israelites; consequently, the words contain an exhortation to reverence and obey God. XII. Obj, ** The book contains assertions in- consistent with the wisdom of Solomon ; as, for example, that death is better than life; (ch. iv. 2 ;) that the creatures of God are vain; (ch. i. 2, &c. ;) that nothing is preferable to eating, and drinking, and enjoying the pleasures of this world ; (ch. ii. 24, iii. 12, 13, 22, v. 18, viii. 15, ix. 7, xi. 9;) that man * Huet, Demonst. Evangel, prop. iv. p. 248. See the following note on chap. viii. 2. SECT. I.] DISSERTATION. Xxi hath no advantage over the beasts : (ch. iii. 18, 19 :) and some parts are contradictory to each other, as ch. iii. 19, compared with ch. xii. 7, which can scarcely be accounted for, on the supposition of its being the work of one man, much less of so wise a man as Solomon."* This objection is built upon a misconception of the scope and meaning of the book ; it is unnecessary, how- ever, to examine, at present, the particular pas- sages referred to, as the following paraphrase and notes, it is confidently believed, will convince the attentive reader, that no real contradictions exist, nor a single sentence which militates against its divine authority. When the design of the author is considered, and the chain of reasoning is attended to, every part appears consistent, harmonious, and admirable; the argument is sound, the sentiments pious, the observations highly valuable, the subject most important, and the effect of the whole is to excite frail man to the love, and study, and practice of celestial wisdom. XIII. Obj. ** The writer describes himself as richer than all those who were before him in Jerusalem (ch. ii. 7.) Now a king can only com- pare himself with kings, for it would be degrading to draw a parallel between himself and private * Jerom, in Ecctes. 12, 13. Bauer, Hermeneut. Sacra, ^ 64. Voltaire^^ Philoaoph, Diet, art. Solomon j and other writers. Xxii PRELIMINARY [SECT. I. men ; but how could Solomon speak of many, when David was the first who placed in Jerusa- lem the throne of the Hebrew empire ? The author of the Ecclesiastes, therefore, lived inalater age."* Solomon however might, without derogation, com- pare himself with foreign kings, as such a compa-, rison is made by the sacred historian; (1 Kings X.23;) and there are grounds for believing, that many princes actually reigned in Jerusalem previ- ous to the Israelitish monarchs. Jerusalem is, probably, the same city which is called Salem, where Melchisedeck was king ; and, before its subjugation by David, it was in the possession of the Jebusites, (Joshua xv. 8, 63; Judges i. 21,) who certainly were ruled by supreme governors, or kings, for express mention is made of one who was both a Jebusite and a king (2 Sam. xxiv. 18, 22.) Nor is it easy to discover what indignity it could be, supposing Solomon merely wished to draw a parallel between himself and persons of inferior rank. Would not his wealth and magni- ficence be the more apparent from the contrast ? Nay, is there not a peculiar fitness in the observa- tion, that he had wealth and possessions above all before him in Jerusalem, when we consider the superb mansions he built, the magnitude and splendour of the temple he erected, the brilliancy of his court, the state and royal luxury which * Eichhorn, Einleilung, § 658. SECT. I.] DISSERTATION. XXiii surrounded him ? With equal propriety he might describe himself as having gotten more wisdom than all who had been before him in Jerusalem, (ch. i. 16,) since the fame of his knowledge had spread throughout every adjoining realm. Both .passages, indeed, are so evidently in character, and so suitable to the circumstances of the wise monarch, that they in no small degree confirm the opinion which attributes this production to Solomon. XIV. Obj, " The expressions, ' of making many books there is no end,' and ' much study is a weariness of the flesh,' (ch. xii. 12,) are incom- patible with the character and circumstances of the Solomonic age, in which the existence of many books, or of a prevailing inclination to study, can- not be supposed."* Eichhorn, by whom the ob- jection is advanced, supplies the answer himself, in observing, that, *' under Solomon, when the Hebrews arrived at a period to enjoy their late victories, such wisdom as this book teaches might have gained a foundation;" for, in that case, many would addict themselves to speculation, the result of which would be a gradually increasing number of publications. It is consonant with reason to suppose, that many books actually existed at the period of which we are speaking. It was an age * Eichhorn, ibid. XXiv PRELIMINARY [SECT. I. of internal peace and tranquillity, when the arts that contribute to the elegance and refinement of society were greatly improved ; circumstances ex- tremely favourable to the cultivation of literature. The monarch himself was, for these times, a vo- luminous author ; and this bright example of royal ardour in the cause of letters would be eagerly followed by many who neither possessed his wis- dom, nor his inspiration. Yet it is very doubtful, whether the words of the preacher above quoted really imply the multipli- cation of books in that age. It is, in my judgment, more natural to interpret them of the possibility of writing innumerable books upon the topics dis- coursed upon in this treatise of the royal philoso- pher, and yet with ^ttle utility, since all important truths relating to them may be comprehended within narrow limits. Or the observation may be meant comparatively, namely, read and meditate in the pages of inspiration more than in books of mere human composition, which may be multiplied without end, and of which an over-anxious study wearies and impairs the bodily powers. Such are the chief reasons which have been brought forward against ascribing the Ecclesi- astes to Solomon; and they are manifestly far from overthrowing the evidence adduced for its being the genuine production of that monarch. SECT I.] DISSERTATION. XXV They are mere plausibilities ; and, however mul- tiplied, would still be outbalanced by a single grain of historical testimony. So weak, indeed, and futile are they, that it might be sufficient to reply to them generally, that they are drawn from internal probabilities, or from the style and phra- seology, and that no argument of this description can be admitted against positive evidence. The work is expressly ascribed to the philosophic son of David, in the first and twelfth verses of the first chapter; it has been admitted into the Jewish canon as his production, which would not have been the case, unless undeniable grounds had existed for ascribing it to him ; and it has been handed down as his by a regular tradition, as appears from the consent of manuscripts and ver- sions, and from the concurrent voice of antiquity. It would, therefore, be injudicious, it would be dangerous, it would be irreligious to desert this combined testimony for bold assertion and ingenious conjecture. To disregard or reject such a body of evidence would be attended with consequences the most detrimental to the interests of revealed religion. Were any book enrolled among the Holy Scrip- tures as sacred, while it was only a mere human production, and ascribed to an author by whom it was not written, how could this be reconcile- able with the infallibilitv of the word of God, E XXVi PRELIMINARY [SECT. I. with the existence of divine inspiration, with the spirit of prophecy, which continued among the Jews till the completion of their canon ? Such a circumstance is so inconsistent with the idea of a divine communication, and with the design of selecting the Hebrews to be the depositories of the Oracles of God, that, were it indubitably proved, the whole superstructure of revelation would totter to its fall. The authority of the canon would be much diminished, were it to carry upon its very front a palpable mistake ; the con- viction of one error might reasonably excite a sus- picion of the existence of many others ; and that collection of writings which must be weeded and curtailed, before its universal canonicity can be allowed, would be entitled to little reverence or respect. There is gone abroad, at the present day, and particularly in modern Germany, a spirit of rash, presumptuous literature, which tends, in its daring progress, to overthrow every thing holy and vener- able. It presumes to penetrate the veil which separates the sanctuary of heaven from mortal vision, and subjects to its polluted touch the hallowed realities of our religion. Truths hitherto deemed sacred, opinions consecrated by time and universal reception, and doctrines revered as the essence of celestial revelation, are proudly trampled upon in the desolation of its march. Yet our SECT. I.] DISSERTATION. XXVU age has many redeeming virtues, which forbid us to look at the state of religion with a desponding eye. If the pride of unchastised literature has borne an extensive sway, orthodoxy has to boast of champions never excelled for intellectual ability and profundity of erudition. Their efforts have been noble, their success incalculable, so that we may anticipate the period when philosophy shall be no longer exalted into the throne of revealed religion, and when its meteorous rays shall be extinguished by the effulgence of Scripture truth. And, to hasten this happy event, let all who are called to minister the word, study the sacred writings with pious and reverent attention, devoutly praying for that illumination from above, without which, learning becomes inert, and all human efforts are ineffectual. As ancient institutions are not only venerable for their antiquity, but are commonly suited to the character and circumstances of the people among whom they exist ; so opinions which have been generally received, for a series of ages, are, for the most part, founded in eternal and immut- able truth. It is but little consistent with wis- dom to indulge a reforming spirit, in regard to ancient establishments, except the necessity be urgent and the improvement evident ; it is equally remote from sound judgment to reject long XXViii PRELIMINARY [SECT. II. prevailing opinions without the most substantial reasons ; and as, in the present instance, no valid arguments have been produced to the contrary, we may, without hesitation, concur in the almost universal belief that Solomon was the author of the Ecclesiastes. SECTION 11. Canonical Authority of the Ecclesiastes. It is related, that the Rabbins had once a design to degrade the book of Ecclesiastes, as well as the Proverbs and Canticles, into the num- ber of apocryphal writings, on account of some contradictions and immoral sentiments which, they imagined, it contained ; but, upon more ma- ture consideration, they admitted it as canonical Scripture.* Even some Christian divines and * Maimonides, More Nevoch. par. ii. cap. 28. Wolf, Biblioth. Heh. vol. ii. p. 122. Carpzov, Introduct. ad Lib. Bibl. par. ii. cap. 5, <^ 7. The word used by the Rabbins is TJJ, abscondere, aTroKpvTTTEVy to place among the apocryphal books, to declare apocryphal ; but Bishop Marsh, in a note to Michaelis's Introduction to the N. T. cap. iii. § 1, affirms, that UJ does not mean " apocryphal, as we understand the word, for the ancient Jews never doubted the divine authority of the Proverbs, Solomon's Song, or Ecclesiastes;" and that " it was applied to books divinely inspired, and included in the sacred canon." The word 11^, it is true, does sometimes denote those parts of the canonical Scriptures which were only forbidden to be read ; (Castel, Lex. Hept. in voc. ;) but the reason given for the Jews wishing Uy? to conceal or lay aside the Ecclesiastes, namely, that it SECT. II.] DISSERTATION. Xxix critics have doubted or denied its divine authority. Its canonicity, hov^^ever, rests upon unimpeach- able grounds. Solomon had twice witnessed the especial presence of God; (1 Kings iii. 5, ix. 1, xi. 11 ;) he was endowed by the Most High with inspired wisdom to govern the people over whom he reigned; (1 Kings iii. 5 — 14, iv. 29;) he was furnished with all outward means for the success- ful prosecution of his natural and moral inquiries ; (2 Chron. ix. 22 ;) he was educated from his ten- der years by his pious father and the prophet Nathan ; (Prov. iv. 3, 4 ; 2 Sam. xii. 25 ; 1 Kings i. 11 ;) and was likewise himself gifted with the prophetical spirit; (1 Kings iii. 5, et seq. vi. 11, 12, ix. 1, et. seq. xi. 9 — 11 ;) and can it be sup- posed, that the illumination of the Spirit forsook him in the composition of a work destined to be enrolled among the Oracles of God, and intended to afford religious instruction to every succeeding age ? That the divine authors of the New Testament have not given it their infallible sanction by direct appeals to it, as an inspired writing, must be acknowledged ; and though, perhaps, no instance can be produced where they have indisputably alluded to it, there are, nevertheless, passages contained contradictions and immoralities, seems to imply rejection from the canon. The observations in my Translation of Proverbs, Prel, Diss, p. xxviii. are applicable to this question. XXX PRELIMINARY [SECT. II. where they seem to have had it in view.* It was inserted, however, in that canon which received the approval and ratification of our blessed Lord, (Luke xxiv. 44,) a circumstance completely estab- lishing its canonical authority ; and formed a part of that Scripture which, St. Paul affirms, was ** given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." (2 Tim. iii. 16.) This testimony is completely decisive ; nor will it make any dif- ference in the Apostle's assertion, if the passage be rendered, agreeably to the opinion of several critics, ''AH inspired Scripture is profitable," &c.; for in these expressions he must be understood to speak of the Jewish canonical Scriptures, the whole of which are thus pronounced to be in- spired. But the correctness of the authorized version, " All Scripture is given by inspiration of God," may be abundantly vindicated ; and thus we have apostolic and infallible evidence to the divine inspiration of the whole Old Testament. f ♦ The following table of references is given by Carpzov, Introduct. ut supra : Eccles.xi.6, with John iii. 8. v.],xii.l4,Matt. xii. 36. i. 2, 8, Rom. viii. 20. X. 20, Rom. xiii. 2. xi. 1, 2, 2 Cor. ix. 9, 10. V. 14, 1 Tim. vi. 7. xii. 11, Matt, xxiii. 34. John X. 11, 14. Eccles. vii. 16, with Matt. vi. 34. xii. 14, Rom. ii.6,etseq. xi. 9, lCor.iv.5,2Cor. V. 10. vii. 17, Rom. xii. 3. vii. 4, 2 Cor. vii. 10, 11. xii. 13, 1 Tim. i. 5. vii. 21, 1 Johni. 8. t See Dr. Findlay, Divine Inspiration of the Old Testament asserted by St. Paul, 2 Tim. iii. 16. Dr. Blomfield, Diss, on the Traditional Know- ledge of a Redeemer, \). 124. Bishop Middleton's Doctrine of the Greek Article, p. 566. SECT. III.] DISSERTATION. XXXi SECTION III. Of the Title Koheleth. The Hebrew title assumed by the author of the book is nVnp, Koheleth, respecting the mean- ing of which various opinions have prevailed among the learned. Lud. de Dieu explains it by the assistance of the Syriac kuhcdtho, which signifies exclamation; and he thus makes the in- scription of the book to denote, " the words of the voice of one exclaiming," comparing it with the title assumed by John the Baptist (John i. 23.) But, were this interpretation of the Syriac word correct, which is, perhaps, doubtful, it would not confirm the notion of de Dieu, as the Hebrew root Vnp, kahaly nowhere conveys a meaning analogous to the Syriac kuhaltho, Grotius renders Koheleth by ** collector, " ovvaQpoiarriQ, which, he supposcs, was intended to denote, that the various opinions concerning happiness of such as have been reputed wise are collected together in this book ; an interpretation completely indefensible, since the root kahal never signifies to collect things, but to assemble men together for sacred, civil, or military purposes. XXxii PRELIMINARY [SECT. III. Nor is it true, that the dogmata of divers wise men are collected and delivered in the work, as the same argument is pursued throughout, and the several parts contribute to one and the same object. Some, preserving the radical idea of the term, understand it passively, namely, one re-united or gathered to the people of God, thereby signifying Solomon's readmission to the church, and recon- ciliation with it, in consequence of his repentance.* This, however, though according with the mean- ing of the root, is inadmissable, inasmuch as Koheleth, agreeably to its grammatical form, cannot be taken in a passive sense. For this reason, namely, the active form of the word, we must reject the opinion of certain Rabbins, who affirm that Solomon is denominated Koheleth^ on account of the wisdom which was so abund- antly collected or accumulated in him, not by his own talents and assiduity, but by the divine blessing.t - :D. Jo. Hen. Michaelis maintains, that Solomon assumed the title Koheleth, because he wrote the book for the purpose of recalling erring mortals from vain and unsatisfactory pursuits to a sacred * Cocceius, Comm. in loc. and Lex. Heb. in voc. Cartwright, in Eccles. Bishop Reynolds, Comm. on Eccles. i. 1. Leigh, Critica Sacra, in voc, t Carpzov, Introduct. at Lib. Bibl. par. ii. cap. 5, § 1. SECT. III.] DISSERTATION. XXxiu reverence of God.* This explanation nearly agrees with that formerly proposed by the pro- foundly-learned Lightfoot, who says, *' After his great fall, Solomon recovereth again by repent- ance, and writeth this book of Ecclesiastes, as his peculiar dirge for that his folly. He calleth himself in it Koheleth, or the Gathering-soul ^ either recollecting itself, or hy admonition gather- ing others that go astray after vanity, "f In a similar manner the title is explained by Findlay, who considers it well accommodated to Solomon in this work, *' where his aim is to unite wander- ing souls from the pursuit of vanities to the pro- secution of the supreme good, and where he, as it were, calls a multitude together, to hear and learn from him the path to true felicity."! This gives a pleasing representation of the title, but is rather fanciful than just, as no authority is pro- duced for attributing either to kahal, or its de- rivatives, the sense of reclaiming from sin, and conducting to a new and holy life. The title Koheleth is considered by Desvoeux as equivalent to Sophist, according to its primitive * " Ceterum ideo hoc nomen sumsisse videtiir, quia homines vagabun- dos ad Deuni rursns ejusque timoiem congregaturus totnm librum con- scripsit, insignis hac in parte Jesu Christi typus." — Michaelis, Nota; Uberiores in Hagiographos V. T. Libros, 3 vols. 4to, Halae. 1720, Pref. § 1. In the portion of this work relating to Ecclesiastes, Michaelis was only author of the Preface, the Notce being written by Rambachius ; but I always cite them in this work thus, *' Michaelis, Not, Uber." t Lightfoot, Workfy vol. i. p. 76. i Findlay, Vindication of the Sacred Books, p. 472. F XXxiv PRELIMINARY [SECT. III. signification; but as the term Sophist, from being originally an honourable denomination, became at length an appellation of reproach, he prefers rendering it by the word " Orator," as the nearest in signification to the original meaning of Sophist.* The conjecture, though certainly ingenious, is altogether unsupported by scriptural evidence. Schultens, Schroeder, and Storr, having re- course to their favourite Arabic, consider Koheleth as properly signifying repentance, and as used, by a metonymy, for a penitent person;! an inter- pretation accurately descriptive of the state, cha- racter, and circumstances of Solomon, when he wrote the book ; but as the root kahal, though of frequent occurrence, never has any relation to penitence, this explanation of the derivative Koheleth cannot be admitted. Simonis, appealing to the Arabic language, conjectures thdit Koheleth means an old man, senex. ♦ Desvoeux, Philosophical and Critical Essay on Eccles. Obs. lib. ii, cap. 8, § 2—7. t Schultens, Diss, de Utilitate Dialect. Orient. ip. 6. Schroeder, Instit. Ling. Heb. Syntax, xxii. Storr, Observat. ad Anal, et Syntax. Heb. p. 368, Compare Cocceii Lex. Heb. ed. Schulz, in voc. The Arabic word ap- pealed to is ^45 exaruit cutis. Another exposition is mentioned by J. H. van der Palm, {Diss, de Lib. Eccles. p. 48,) " quani dedit Scheidius, cujusque mcntio fit a cl. Bonnet ; scil. secundum banc Dbvip marcidum et velnti exsiccntum significat, qui omnia fastidat atque aversatur." I have not seen the authors here cited by van der Palm. SECT. III.] DISSERTATION. XXXV Solomon having written the book of Ecclesiastes in his old age ; and that he takes to himself this name, vv^ith a feminine termination, to insinuate the debilitated state of his mind, when he suffered himself to be drawn into idolatry by his wives.* An explanation so completely foreign from the undoubted signification of the root cannot de- serve a refutation. The learned Professor Doederlein understands the term as denoting an academy of wise men, in which Solomon, probably, often discoursed; and hence the book may be so called by reason of its containing orations delivered in this academy. Learned and philosophical assemblies, we know, have been frequent among the Orientals, and it is more than probable, that something of this kind existed at the court of Solomon; for if Eastern monarchs, as far as history carries us back, have always encouraged societies for literary discussion, we must suppose, that such would be patronised by a king who excelled all the wisdom of Egypt and of the East. When it is also considered, that the noun hr\^ kahal means an assembly or congregation, and that several ♦ Simouis, Lex. Heb. p. 1409, ed. Eichhom. Though the Arabic words i>4^^ ^^^ \^^ ^^ which he appeals, possess the signification of advanced age^ as may be seen in Castell, Lex. Hept. p. 1689, 3310, and Golius, Lex. Arab, p. 1859, 2075; yet riTHp cannot be referred to them, as they are roots of different radical letters. It is singular, that Simonis doei not take notice of Koheleth in his valuable Onomasticon. XXXvi PRELIMINARY [SECT. Ill- parts of the book well comport with this inter- pretation, it must be acknowledged to have some semblance of truth. Yet, upon a nearer inspec- tion, we shall be compelled to renounce it, since some passages cannot be made to agree with this hypothesis, as the initiatory expressions, '* The words of the Preacher, the son of David, king in Jerusalem," and, '* I, the Preacher, am king over Israel, in Jerusalem," which cannot denote the academy of Solomon, but plainly designate that royal personage himself.* Nor does the title Koheleth properly belong to the treatise itself, as this interpretation supposes. Though the great reformer, Martin Luther, in the Preface to his Commentary on the Ecclesiastes, asserts that it is rather to be referred to the name of the book than of the author, it must be evident, upon an examination of the places where it occurs, that it is a personal designation applied to the author of the book; and this is an insuperable objection to the opinion advanced by Doederlein. Another interpretation has been brought for- ward by Sir John David Michaelis, an author of vast erudition and undoubted genius, but whose learning often bewildered his judgment, and whose genius frequently blazed with wild eccentricity. He takes Kolieleth to denote, him * See Schiilz et Bduei, Prokgom, in Eccks. § 1. SECT. III.] DISSERTATION. XXXVii who presides over the assembly or academy of philosophers, the president and teacher.* Schools or colleges, it is undeniable, existed among the Jews in later ages ^f but that fixed and en- dowed seminaries were established in the time of Solomon, or, indeed, previous to the Baby- lonian captivity, is a conjecture for which there is no foundation in the sacred wri tings. | Aca- demies, with a president and teachers, are in- stitutions not adapted to the simplicity of pri- mitive times ; and if they had existed at the period alluded to, some intimation would, pro- bably, have been given of them in the circum- stantial history of the Hebrew monarchs. As to the Schools of the Prophets, we are but little acquainted with their nature ; yet, from the few hints given of them in Scripture, they do not appear to have been regular and endowed se- minaries. § But, whatever might be the nature of these institutions, we find not the least hint of Solomon's having been the president of such a school ; and some circumstances respecting the author, particularly ch. i. 1, 12, and ch. ii. 4 — 10, * " Caeterum eum denotat, qui coetui sen acadeniiae philosophorum praesit, praesidem ejus et doctorem." — Michaelis, Supplem. ad Lex, Heb. in t See Ikenius, Antiq. Heb. par. i. cap. 5 ; Buxtorf, Synag. Judaica, cap. X. ; Jennings, Jewish Antiquities, lib. ii. cap. 2. X Campbell, Translation of the Gospels, Prel. Diss. vii. part 2, § 2. § An excellent account of the Schools of the Prophets is given by Stillingfleet, Origines Sacred, lib. ii. cap. 4. See also Vitringa, De Synag. Vet. par. ii. cap. 6; Warburton, Die. Legal, lib. iv. ^ 6 ; and the authors referred to in the two former notes. XXXviii PRELIMINARY [sECT. Ill are inconsistent with the character and office of a superintendent of an academy. Though the explanation of the title by Michaelis, in the precise form in which he has stated it, must, for these reasons, be rejected, I am per- suaded that it is not very far from the truth ; for I accede to the opinion of those who derive it from the verb hnp, kahalj to assemble together, and who suppose that vSolomon adopted this appel- lation from his custom of assembling the principal persons among the people, and communicating to them the wisdom of his divinely-illuminated mind. According to this view of the term Kohelethj it means one who convenes the people together, and imparts to them the lessons of wis- dom and virtue. Of all the interpretations of the word with which I am acquainted, this is by much the best supported. It results, in a natural and unforced manner, from the acknowledged meaning of the root of which it is a derivative ; and is confirmed by the LXX, who have trans- lated it by the word £KK\r}(na(TrvQf immediately de- rived from €»c»c\r/