leth are all productions of the period of Solomon," though he thinks it possible that they have been edited and partly re-written at a later date. In his treatise Le Livre de Job, however (p. xxviii.), he modifies his opinion and speaks of the Book of Proverbs as compiled under the kings and of Ecclesiastes as still later. Dean Milman (Hist. of Jews, I. p. 325) writes that he is "well aware that the general voice of German criticism assigns a later date (than that of Solomon) to this book. But," he adds, "I am not convinced by any arguments from internal evidence which I have read." By Herzfeld's objections, the force of which he admits, he is "shaken but not convinced."

To the argument on purely linguistic grounds others have been added, of which it can scarcely be denied that while each of them taken by itself might admit of a more or less satisfactory answer, they have, taken together, a considerable cumulative force. Thus it has been urged (1) that the words "I the Preacher was king over Israel” (ch. i. 12) could not have been written by Solomon, who never ceased to be king; (2) that a book coming from the son of David was hardly likely to be characterised, as this is, by the omission of the name of Jehovah which is so prominent in the Psalms and Proverbs, or of all reference to the history of Israel, or to the work which Solomon had done in the erection of the Temple as well as of his palaces and gardens; (3) that, if written, as the traditional belief, for the most part, assumes, in the penitence of Solomon's old age, we might have looked not merely for the sigh of disappointment uttered in the "vanity of vanities," but for the confession of his own sins of apostasy and idolatry; (4) that the historical Solomon, the second king of his dynasty, the first who had begun his reign in the Holy City, was hardly likely to speak of "all that had been before him in Jerusalem " (ch. i. 16); (5) that the language, as of an observer from without in which the writer speaks of the disorder and corrupt government that prevailed around him (ch. iv. 1, v. 8, viii. 9, x. 5), is not such as we should have expected from one who, if such evils existed, was himself responsible for them; (6) that the book presents many striking

parallelisms with that of Malachi1 which is confessedly later than the exile and written under the Persian monarchy, probably circ. B.C. 390; (7) that it also contains, as will be shewn further on, allusive references to events in the history of Persia, or, as some have thought, to events in the history of Egypt under the Ptolemies2; (8) that, to anticipate what will be hereafter shewn in detail, it presents at least the germs of the three tendencies which were developed in the later days of Judaism in the forms of Pharisaism, Sadducaism and the asceticism of the Essenes3; (9) that there are not a few passages which indicate the writer's acquaintance with the philosophy and literature of Greece*.

More decisive, perhaps, in its bearing upon the question now before us is the manner in which the book was treated by the Jewish leaders of the Rabbinic schools in the century before the Christian era. Absolutely the first external evidence which we have of its existence is found in a Talmudic report of a discussion between the two schools of Hillel and of Shammai as to its admission into the Canon of the sacred books. It was debated under the singular form of the question whether the Song of Songs and Koheleth polluted the hands, i.e. whether they were so sacred that it was a sacrilege for common or unclean hands to touch them. Some took one side, some another. As usual, the school of Shammai "loosed," i. e. pronounced against the authority of the book, and that of Hillel "bound" by deciding in its favour. Different Rabbis held different opinions (Mishna, Yadayim, V. 3, Gemara, Megila 7, a), quoted in full by Ginsburg, p. 14). So again another Talmudic tract (Shabbath, quoted ut supra) reports that the wise men wanted to declare Koheleth apocryphal, because its statements contradicted each other," and in the Midrash Koheleth, that they did so, because "they found in it sentiments that tended to infidelity" (Ginsburg, ut supra). They were at last led to

1 See Notes on ch. v. 1-6.

2 See Notes on chs. iv. 13, v. 8, ix. 14, x. 7, 16, 17, 20.

3 See Notes on chs. iii. 19-21, vii. 1—6, 16.

66

• See Notes on chs. i. 3—11, ii. 24, iii. 20, v. 18, vi. 6, xii. 11, 12.

acquiesce in its admission by the fact that at least it began and ended with words that were in harmony with the Law (Mishna, Yadayim, v. 3, quoted by Ginsburg, p. 14). The memory of the discussion lingered on till the time of Jerome who reports (Comment. on Eccles. XII. 13) that "the Hebrews say that among the works of Solomon which have been rejected (antiquata) and have not remained in the memory of men, this book also ought to be cancelled or treated as of no value (obliterandus) because it maintained that all the creatures of God are vain." Without discussing now the view as to the teaching of Ecclesiastes thus expressed, it is scarcely conceivable that a book that had come down from a remote antiquity with the prestige of Solomonic authorship, and had all along been held in honour as the representative of his divinely inspired wisdom, could have been so spoken of. Such a discussion, in such a case, would have been an example of a bold criticism which has no parallel in the history of that period of Jewish thought. It is not without significance as bearing upon a question to be discussed hereafter, that it was the narrow exclusive school of Shammai that raised the objection, that held, i.e., that Koheleth was not canonical, and therefore did not pollute the hands, while that of Hillel with its wider culture, and sympathy with Greek thought, was ready to admit its claim, and finally turned the balance of opinion in its favour (Gemara, Megila 7, a, Shabbath 30, b, quoted by Ginsburg, p. 15).

An inference of a like kind may be drawn, if I mistake not, from the existence of the Apocryphal Book known as the Wisdom of Solomon, written, beyond the shadow of a doubt, by an Alexandrian and probably not long before, or possibly after, the Christian era. If the book Ecclesiastes were, at the time when that author, wrote, generally recognized as having the authority which attached to the name of Solomon, there would have been something like a bold irreverence in the act of writing a book which at least seemed to put itself in something like a position of rivalry, and in some places, to be a kind of corrective complement to its teaching. (Comp. Wisd. ii. iii. with Eccles. ii. 18-26, iii. 18-22, and other passages in ch. v.) If, however,

it were known to be a comparatively recent work, and that the schools of Jerusalem had been divided in opinion as to its reception into the Canon, it is quite intelligible than an earnest and devout Jew, such as the writer of the Wisdom of Solomon manifestly was, should have thought himself justified in following the example that had been set of a personated authorship, and have endeavoured to make his ideal Solomon a truer representative of a wisdom which was in harmony with the faith and hope of Israel. How far he succeeded in this aim is a question which will meet us in a later stage of our enquiry. (See ch. v.)

On the whole, then, weighing both the facts themselves, and the authority of the names which are arranged on either side as to the conclusions to be drawn from them, the balance seems to incline somewhat decisively to another than Solomonic authorship. Assuming this conclusion as established, we have to ask to what later period in Jewish history it is to be referred, and here the opinions of scholars divide themselves into three chief groups.

I. There are those who, like Ewald, Ginsburg, and Hengstenberg, fix its date during the period in which the Jews were subject to the rule of the Persian kings. They rest their belief on the fact that the book contains words that belong to that period, such as those for "orchards" (see Note on ch. ii. 5) and "province" (see Note on ch. ii. 8). In the use of the word "angel" apparently for "priest" (see Note on ch. v. 6), they find an indication that the writer was not far from being a contemporary of the prophet Malachi, who uses that word in the same sense (Mal. ii. 7). The tone of the book, in its questionings and perplexities, indicates, they think, a general spiritual condition of the people, like that which Malachi reproves. The "robbery" in "tithes and offerings" (Mal. iii. 8) agrees with the "vowing and not paying" of ch. v. 5. The political situation described in chs. iv. 1, vii. 7, viii. 2-4, the hierarchy of officials, the tyranny, corruption and extortion of the governors of provinces (see Note on ch. v. 8), the supreme authority of the great King practically issuing in the despotism of a queen, a minister, or a slave, the revelry and luxury of the court (see Note on ch. x.

16), are all painted with a vividness which implies experience of misgovernment such as that which meets us in Neh. v. 15, ix. 36, 37; Esth. i. 7, 8, iii. 9 (see Notes on ch. x. 4, 7, 16). More specific references have also been found to events in Persian history, to the influence of the eunuch Bagoas (see Note on ch. x. 5) under Artaxerxes Ochus, to the treatment of that king's corpse in ch. vi. 3, to Artaxerxes Mnemon as one whose likeness we may recognize in the "old and foolish king" of ch. iv. 13. The facts thus stated cannot be regarded as otherwise than interesting and suggestive, but it is obvious that they are compatible with a later date, which presented the same political and social conditions, and at which the historical facts, assuming the reference to them to be sufficiently definite, would still be in the memories of men. And there is, it is believed, overwhelming evidence in favour of that later date. Mr Tyler, in the Introduction to his singularly interesting and able treatise on Ecclesiastes (1874), finds in the book traces not to be mistaken of the influence of the teaching both of Stoic and Epicurean philosophy. In the view of life as presenting a recurrence of the same phenomena, the thing which is being as that which hath been (see Notes on chs. i. 5—7, 11, iii. 14, 15), he finds the Stoic teaching of the cycles of events presented by history, such as that which we find in its later form in the Meditations of Marcus Aurelius (XI. 1). The thought of the nothingness of man's life and strivings, his ambitions and his pleasures (chs. i. 2, 3, 17, ii. 21—26, vi. 3,and passim), has its parallel in the apathy and contempt of the world which characterised the teaching of the Stoics when they taught that they were transient "as the flight of a swift-winged bird;" and that all human things (τὰ ἀνθρώπινα) were as a vapour, and as nothingness" (Marc. Aur. Meditt. VI. 15, X. 31). The Stoic destiny (eiμapuévŋ), and the consequent calm acceptance of the inevitable, on which the Stoic prided himself, is echoed in the teaching of Koheleth as to the events that come to man by a power which his will cannot control, the "time and chance" that happeneth alike to all (chs. viii. 8, ix. 11). The stress laid on the common weaknesses of mankind as being of the nature of in