ECCLESIASTICAL
248
ECCLESIASTICAL
spiration. The book itself bears testimony for Solo-
mon, not only by the title, but by the whole tone of the
discussion, as well as in i, 12; moreover, in xii, 9,
Qoheleth is expressly called the author of many prov-
erbs. The ancients never so much as suspected that
here, as in the Book of Wisdom, Solomon only played
a fictitious part. On the other hand, the attempt is
made to prove that the details do not fit Solomon, and
to contest his authorship with this single internal argu-
ment. The reasons adduced, however, are based upon
textual explanations which are justly repudiated by
others. Thus Hengstenberg sees (x, 16) in the king,
"who is a child", an allusion to the King of Persia;
Gratz, to Herod the Idumaean; Reusch rightly main-
tains that the writer speaks of human experiences in
general. From ix, 13-15, Hitzig concludes that the
author lived about the year 200; Bernstein thinks
this ridiculous and opines that some other historical
event is alluded to. Hengstenberg regards this pas-
sage as nothing more than a parable; on this last
view, also, the translation of the Septuagint is based
(it has the subjunctive; eXSjj fiaai^eis, "there may
come a king"). As a matter of fact, Qoheleth de-
scribes only what has happened or may happen some-
where " under the sun " or at some time ; he does not
speak of political situations, bvit of the experience of
the individual; he has in view not his people alone,
but mankind in general. If internal reasons are to
decide the question of authorship, it seems to me that
we might more justly prove this authorship of Solo-
mon with more right from the remarkable passage
about the snares of woman (vii, 27), a passage the
bitterness of which is not surpassed by the warning of
any ascetic ; or from the insatiable thirst of Qoheleth
for wisdom ; or from his deep knowledge of men and
the unusual force of his style. Considering everything
we see no decisive reason to look for another author;
on the contrary, the reasons which have been ad-
vanced against this view are for the greatest part so
weak that in this question the influence of fashion is
clearly discernible.
The time of the composition of our book is variously set down by the critics who deny the authorship of Solomon. Every period from Solomon to 200 has been suggested by them; there are even authorities for a later time; Griitz thinks that he has discovered clear proof that the book was written under King Herod (40—4 B. c). This shows clearly how little likely the linguistic criterion and the other internal arguments are to lead to an agreement of opinion. If Solomon wrote Ecclesiastes towards the end of his life, the sombre tone of the book is easily explained ; for the judgments of God (III Kings, xi) which then came upon him would naturally move him to sorrow and repentance, especially as the breaking up of his king- dom and the accompanying misery were then distinctly before his eyes (see vv. 29 sqq. ; 40). Amid the sudden ruin of his power and splendour, he might well ex- claim, "Vanity of vanities!" But as God had prom- ised to correct him " in mercy" (II Kings, vii, 14 sq.), the supposition of many ancient writers that Solomon was converted to God becomes highly probable. Then we also understand why his last book, or one of his last, consists of three thoughts; the vanity of earthly things, .self-accusation, and emphatic admoni- tion to obey the immutable decrees of Providence. The last was well suited to save the Israelites from despair, who were soon to behold the downfall of their power.
There is an unmistakable similarity between Eccle- siastes and the Ganticle of Canticles, not only in the pithy shortness of the composition, but also in the empliatic repetition of wonls and phrases, in the bold- ness of the Language, in the obscure construction of the whole, and in certain linguistic peculiarities (e. g. the use of the relative C')- The loose succession of sententious thoughts, however, reminds us of the Book
of Proverbs, whence the epilogue (.xii, 9 sqq.) ex-
pressly refers to Qoheleth's skill in parables. In the
old lists of Biblical books, the place of Ecclesiastes is
between Proverbs and the Canticle of Canticles: Sept.,
Talmud (Baba Bathra xiv, 2), Orig., Mel., Concil. Lao-
dic, etc., also in the Vulgate. Its position is different
only in the Masoretic Bible, but, as is generally ad-
mitted, for liturgical reasons.
As to the contents, the critics attack the passages referring to the judgment and immortality: iii, 17; xi, 9; xii, 7; furthermore the epilogue, xii, 9 sqq., espe- cially verses 13, 14 ; also some other passages. Bickell expressed the opinion that the folios of the original, while being stitched, were deranged and completely confused; his hypothesis found few advocates, and Euringer (Masorahtext des Qoheleth, Leipzig, 1S90) maintains, in opposition to hira, that books had not at that early date taken the place of rolls. There is not sufficient evidence to assume that the text was written in verse, as Zapletal does.
Owing to its literalism, the translation of the Septu- agint is frequently unintelligible, and it seems that the translators used a corrupt Hebraic text. The Itala and the Coptic translation follow the Septuagint. The Peshito, though translated from the Hebrew, is evi- dently also dependent on the text of the Septuagint. This text, with the notes of Origen, partly forms the Greek and Syriac Hexapla. The Vulgate is a shilful translation made by Jerome from the Hebrew and far superior to his translation from the Greek (in his com- mentary). Sometimes we cannot accept his opinion (in vi, 9, he most likely wrote quid cupias, and in viii. 12, ex eo quod pcccator). (See the remnants of the Hexapla of Origen in Field, Oxford, 1875; a paraphrase of the Greek text in St. Gregory Thaumaturgus, Migne, X, 987.) The Chaldean paraphrast is useful for con- trolling the Masoretic text; the Midrash Qoheleth is without value. The commentary of Olympiodorus is also serviceable (seventh century, M., XCIII, 477) and CEcumenius. "Catena" (Verona, 1532). A careful translation from the Hebrew was made about 1400 in the " Graeca Veneta" (ed. Gebhardt, Leipzig, 1875).
In the Latin Church important commentaries were written, after the time of Jerome, on whom many depend, by Bonaven- TURA. NicoL. Ltr.\nu8, Denys THE Carthusian, and above all by PiNED.A (seventeenth cent.), by Maldonatus, Cornelius a Lapide, and Bossuet.
Modern Catholic commentaries; Schafer (Freiburg im Br., 1870); Motais (Paris. 1876); Rambouillet (Paris. 1877); GiETMANN (Paris, 1890): Zapletal (Fribourg, Switzerland, 1905).
Protestant commentaries: Zockler, tr. Taylor (Edinburgh, 1872); Bullock, in Speaker's Comment. (London, 1878); Cam- bridge Bible (1881); Wright (London, 1883); Leimdorper (Hamburg, 1892); Siegfried (Gcittingen, 1898); "VVildeboer (Freiburg im Br., 1898).
G. GiETMANN.
Ecclesiastical Art. — Before speaking in detail of the developments of Christian art from the beginning down to the present flay, it seems natural to say some- thing in regard to the vexed question as to the source of its inspiration. It would not be possible here to treat adequately all the various theories which have been propounded, but the essentials of the controversy may be given in a few words. Afterwards there will be some mention of the principal w'orks which Christian antiquity has left to us and a setting forth of the influ- ence of the C:illiolic Cluuch in stinuilating and direct^ ing tluit artistic sjiirit which for so many centuries it alone was destined to keep alive.
OiiKiiN OK Chuistian .4rt. — There has been much di.scussion of late years as to the influences which were predominant in the development of early Christian art. Professor Wickholf in a striking essay (Roman Art, tr., 1900) has contended that in the first century after Christ a distinctively Roman style was evolved both in painting and sculpture, the salient features of which he characterizes as impressionist or "illusion- ist". He marks several stages in the growth of this
