ECCLESIASTES. — The fourth of the didactic books of the Old Testament, in 12 chapters, “a philosophical masterpiece of satire, irony, good sense, and, whatever may seem or be said, of religion and true piety” (Buxy). In the Hebrew canon it belongs to the *kethubhim* or ‘Writings,’ and is the fourth of the five *megilloth* or ‘scrolls,’ which in the Jewish liturgy are read at the Feast of Tabernacles (v.).
In the Greek version of the Septuagint and in the canon sanctioned by the Council of Trent (v. VOLGATA), it is counted among the poetic or sapiential books, as it was already among the Fathers, who, together with Proverbs and the Canticle, attribute it to Solomon (St. Jerome, *Comm. in Eccle.*, 1, 1: PL 23, 1063).
The title, which in the text (Eccle., 1, 1; cf. 12, etc.) refers not to the book but to the author, is the Greek translation of the Hebrew *Qheleth* (a denominative of *gahal* ‘assembly’), ‘man of assembly,’ the orator or preacher par excellence (cf. ibid., 12, 9); a feminine participle, a form used for titles of office or dignity (cf. Ezra 2, 55, 57; 1 Chron. 4, 8; 7, 8; W. Gesenius-E. Kautzsch, *Hebräische Grammatik*, 28th ed., Leipzig 1909, § 122 r; P. Joüon, *Sur le nom de Qohéleth*, in *Biblica*, 2 (1921), pp. 53 sg.).
Until the 19th century, despite the attempt of H. Grotius (1644), Jews and Christians held it to be written by Solomon (cf. St. Jerome, *loc. cit.*, 1, 12: PL 23, 1072 sg.; among recent scholars, E. Philipp, s.V. in *DB*, II, cols. 1530-41). At present, all place its composition at a time significantly later than the return from exile, between 332 and the persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes (175-164 B.C.); probably about 200 B.C., before Ecclesiasticus (against N. Peters, in *Biblische Zeitschrift*, 1 (1903), pp. 47-54, 129-50). The few Aramaisms, the decay of syntax, “words or constructions of a very late age, which form a transition between classical Hebrew and that of the Talmud” (Vaccari).
That the scribe-doctor, a Jew (Eccle., 4, 17; 8, 10), author of Ecclesiastes, presents himself as the son of David, king of Jerusalem (ibid., 1, 1; cf. 12, 16, etc.; whence arose the deduction that it was Solomon), is for most a simple case of pseudepigraphy, by which a didactic work is attributed to an illustrious man to give it greater importance; or better still, a mere rhetorical device of exemplification or communication (Vaccari), since there is no clear reference to Solomon, as we have in Wisdom, and the title of king assumed by the author may be an academic title, like the name *Qheleth* (Vaccari). Moreover, the denunciation of royal tyranny and the oppression of subjects, frequent in Ecclesiastes (Eccle. 3, 16; 4, 1; 5, 7; 8, 9; 10, 5-7, etc.), as well as other historical allusions (cf. ibid., 12, 13), do not suit the person, reign, or time of Solomon.
No doubts were raised about the inspiration and canonicity of Ecclesiastes, except for some rabbinic discussions toward the end of the 1st century A.D. and the denial of Theodore of Mopsuestia (PG 66, 697), condemned by the Council of Constantinople (cf. L. Pirot, *L'oeuvre exégétique de Théod. de Mops.*, Rome 1913, p. 159 sg.). Ecclesiastes is a treatise on practical morality concerning happiness. Too much has been said about pessimism and skepticism in the numerous commentaries (cf. L. Bigot, s.V. in *DTHC*, IV, cols. 2015-22), as if Ecclesiastes maintained a negative stance: everything is vain and useless, happiness is impossible. This prejudiced misunderstanding has influenced the exegesis of the entire book, certainly not facilitating the understanding of its most difficult passages.
The *Qheleth* is a keen observer who relies more on experience than on reasoning, on the profound examination of private and social life. He is struck by the toil of men, their efforts made in various circumstances to achieve their ends at all costs, wearing themselves out while everything is fleeting. Experience shows the vanity and harm of such excesses; efforts invariably fruitless that do not achieve their goal. The author sees in this dynamism the main obstacle to happiness. Before explaining where it is to be found and how to attain it, he first points out where it is not to be sought. The cause of our torment is not life, the impossibility of being happy, but only the restless striving to seek happiness where it is not found.
Ecclesiastes condemns all restless striving, all exceptional pursuit, whatever its object: wisdom (Eccle., 2, 11; 3, 1; cf. *De init. Christi*, 1, 1-2), pleasure and riches (Eccle., 4, 8; 3, 11), labor (ibid., 2, 23; 3, 9). The desire to change the course of Providence or of human events or society, to overcome the adversities of men, the various cares that poison our brief earthly life (ibid., 7, 6 sg.; 8, 16).
Ecclesiastes insists on the condemnation of all such striving, highlighting its complete vanity and the consequent dissatisfaction of the soul, in order to emphasize and celebrate with greater force the life of the golden mean, which alone leads to happiness. Ecclesiastes teaches that life is good and offers true happiness, which truly satisfies the natural aspiration of our soul. One need only know how to live and enjoy with wise balance and moderation the natural goods that God dispenses: goods of normal labor and comfort, satisfactions that come from family and society. This happiness, accessible to all, is a gift of God (Eccle., 2, 24; 3, 12; 3, 17-19; 11, 7-10). Therefore, the *Qheleth* is not a pessimist, for he believes in happiness and teaches the means to attain it (ibid., 11, 1-6 sg.); he is not an atheist, for he believes in God and in Providence (ibid., 1, 4-11; 13; 3, 1-8; 11, 4-17; 6, 2-10; 7, 13; 8, 12; 11, 9; 12, 14); he is not an epicurean, for he accepts happiness, enjoys it as a gift granted by God (ibid., 2, 11-17; 7, 15; etc.); he is not a materialist, for he believes in the hereafter and in immortality (ibid., 3, 11; 8, 12; 9, 10; 11, 9; 12, 13); he is not a determinist, for our happiness and many other things depend on us (ibid., 4, 13; 7, 8); he is not a selfish man, for he has a sense of justice (ibid., 2, 26; 3, 16 sg.; 8, 5 sg.; 11, 13); he does not hate wisdom (ibid., 3, 10-12; 9, 16 sg.; 18) and has a sure doctrine about God and life (ibid., 3, 10-17; etc.). This morality of the golden mean, finally, is not mediocre, vulgar, or bourgeois; it is elevated, transformed, and incorporated into a supernatural morality by the constant thought of God, which dominates and informs it (ibid., 3, 10-15; 5, 17-19; 7, 13 sg. 18; 9, 7; 11, 9; 12, etc.). It is no less committed in piety than in good sense (Buxy, p. 200). Ecclesiastes is eminently suited to “move one to despise this age and to consider as nothing what the world offers” (St. Jerome, *Comm. in E.*, preface: PL 23, 1062; cf. St. Augustine, *De Civitate Dei*, XX, 3: PL 41, 661).
The *Qheleth* presents his doctrine with strong images and texts, occasionally supplementing his thought with the characteristic maxims (gnomai) found in the Pre-Socratics and in Ecclesiasticus. The mode of composition is quite particular and, in places, resembles that genre of popular philosophy known even in ancient and modern profane antiquity by the title of *Pensieri* (Thoughts) (Vaccari). It is therefore difficult to trace in it a logical order in the development of ideas, and one often stops at each sentence, as if it were an isolated branch, without linking it to the plan that only careful examination of the book reveals. Thus, for the passage 3, 18-21, which seems to deny man any life beyond death. Ecclesiastes, while challenging even the conception of other sacred books of the Old Testament (cf. Eccle., 9, 3-10 and the passages cited above), necessarily admits that something survives the person (nephesh) that ends, the body that decays; person and body, which here he presents in one of his frequent antitheses, realistically and sarcastically, in their fragility and mortal destiny. Man is born in the same way as other animals,
it emits likewise its last breath (Rah).
It seems an animal like them. Hence the conclusion
(ibid., 3, 22) invites one to enjoy life, a gift of God, without
fixing one’s gaze beyond the tomb. The thought of God, giver
of life, is a source of happiness; the gaze turned toward the
terrible void is filled with useless and harmful disturbance.
* “The E. is a mixture of reflections in prose interspersed with
groups of sayings in verse, all preceded by a pro-
logue and followed by an epilogue” (Vaccari).
Prologue (1, 1-11). 1st Development: all below is va-
nity (1, 12-2, 26). 2nd Development: vanity of man’s efforts to modify the ineluctable variety of events (ch. 3);
group of sayings (4, 1-5, 8) on various anomalies. 3rd De-
velopment: vanity of riches (5, 9-10, 11); group of say-
ings (7, 1-12) on the values of life, patience and calm,
advantages of Wisdom. 4th Development: impotence of
virtue to ensure happiness (7, 13-9, 10). 5th Development:
vanity of efforts to ensure success (9, 11-16; 10, 5-9);
group of sayings (9, 17-10, 4; 10, 10-11; 6). 6th De-
velopment: happiness of youth, in opposition to the
ills of old age (11, 7-12, 7). Epilogue: 12, 9-14
(another schema by A. Miller, p. 116 sq.).
This kind of composition, as it induced from antiquity a
fragmented exegesis, so it led some among the moderns to deny the literary unity of the E., which would consist of
various parts, the work of different authors. The first
to distinguish in the E. several original writings was C. Siegfried
(1898), whose theory was taken up and revised by A. H. Mc
Neile (1904), G. A. Barton (1908), E. Podechard (1912),
D. Buzy (1946, pp. 193-197). The greater part of the 12 chapters
is attributed to the “author,” with the fundamental thesis.
To another (“the epilogist”), are attributed the epilogue and
1, 2; 7, 27 sq.; 12, 8a; where the author speaks of himself in the
third person; the epilogist moreover would have collected and dis-
tributed among the reflections the sayings of the first: 1, 3-4-14.
13; 2, 14; 3, 8; etc. The parts concerning the fear of God
and the doctrine of retribution would have been completely
revised by a “pious” or ḥasid. Finally, to a “wise man”
or ḥasid would belong some of the principal groups
of sayings: 4, 9-12; 4, 17-5, 8; 7, 1-12. 19-22; 8, 1-4.
7 sq.; 9, 17-10, 4; 10, 10-11b.
This multiplicity of authors, if they are held to be inspired, does
not affect the divine character of the book. But the arguments
adduced are far from conclusive. It is an undeniable fact that the
style of the different parts is identical. The use of the third person
could confirm the pseudepigraphy or reveal the rhetorical device.
The lack of logical connection between the various pericopes, the
imperfections and various apparent antinomies, are fully explained
by the special kind of composition of the E., by the development
of the central theme through strong antitheses that precede and
highlight the thesis, and by bearing in mind that the moral doctrine
exposed is far inferior to the evangelical. In this, Catholics (A.
Condamin, V. Zapletal, A. Vaccari, A. Allgäer, etc.) and very
many non-Catholics (E. Sellin, Einleitung..., 4th ed., Leipzig
1936, p. 150; D. Eissfeldt, K. Galling, etc.) are almost in agreement.
The Hebrew text is well preserved (cf. S. Euringer,
Der Masorahtext des Kohelet kritisch untersucht, Leipzig
1890). “The Greek version of the Septuagint is literal, indeed
servile, in the manner of the translator Aquila, to whom it was
erroneously attributed by some (cf. E. Klostermann, De libro
Kohleth versione Alexandrina, Kiel 1892). St. Jerome,
in his commentary on the E. (PL 23), corrected the ancient
Latin version derived from the former on the basis of the Hebrew.
In 397 he translated the E. directly from the Hebrew, in a single
day. This version is what we have in the Vulgate” (Vaccari). —
V. avv. II.
IV, cols. 1998-2028; A. Vaccari, Institutiones biblicae, 2nd ed.,
Rome 1935, pp. 75-84; H. Hapfl, Introductio specialis in Vet. Test.,
5th ed., ibid. 1946, pp. 325-38. — Numerous were the commentaries
on the E. from antiquity onward; among the recent ones, the most
noteworthy are those of D. Castell, Pisa 1866; G. Vogli, Florence
1871; G. Morpurgo, Padua 1898; C. Siegfried, Prediger und Hohe-
lieds, Göttingen 1898; G. Gietmann, Paris 1898, 2nd ed. 1901;
A. V. SCHOLASTIK, Leipzig 1901; G. A. Barton, Edinburgh 1908; V. Zapletal, 2nd ed., Freiburg 1911; E. Podechard, Paris 1912; L.
Levy, Leipzig 1913; M. Thilo, Bonn 1923; A. Allgäer, ibid. 1923;
A. Vaccari, I libri poetici della Bibbia, Rome 1923, pp. 269-82; G.
Kuhn, Giessen 1926; H. W. Hertzberger, Leipzig 1932; B. Afrink,
Bruges 1932; J. Carlebach, Freiburg 1936; W. Zimmert, Berlin
1936; M. Nicolangelo, Naples 1938; E. T. van den Born, Kampen
1939; K. Galling, Die fünf Megilloth, Tübingen 1940, pp. 47-
90; D. Buzy, in La Sainte Bible, ed. L. Pirot, VI, Paris 1946,
pp. 191-230; G. C. Aalbers, Kampen 1948; F. Nötscher,
Würzburg 1948. — Studies: A. Motais, Salomon et l’Ecclésiaste.
Étude critique, 2 vols., Paris 1926; D. Leisner, Der Prediger Salo-
monis in historischer Beleuchtung, Hamburg 1922; W. Bartauer,
Optimismus und Pessimismus im Buch Kohelet, Halle 1930; L.
Lane, Das Buch Kohelet und die Interpolationshypothese Sieg-
frieds, Wittenberg 1930; F. Sawicki, Der Prediger, Schopenhauer
und E. V. Hartmann, oder bibl. und mod. Pessimismus, Fulda
1933; A. H. McNeile, An Introduction to Ecclesiastes, Cambridge
1934; P. Haupt, Kohelet und Weisheit in der Bibel, Leipzig 1935;
P. Torge, Seelenglaube und Unsterblichkeitshoffnung im Alten
Testament, ibid. 1939, pp. 237-45; A. Lamotte, Le livre de Qo-
helet. Étude critique et philosophique de l’Ecclésiaste, Paris 1932;
R. Gordis, The Wisdom of Ecclesiastes, New York 1945; A. Schulz,
Traurigkeit und Gottergebenheit im Alten Testament. Die Bücher
Kohelet und Habakuk und eine Auswahl aus den Psalmen, War-
endorf 1947. — Articles: A. Condamin, Études sur l’Ecclésiaste,
in Revue biblique, 3 (1899), pp. 403 sqq.; 9 (1900), pp. 30-44, 354-77;
L. Hugot, Die Unsterblichkeitslehre im Buch Kohelet, in Zeitschrift
für katholische Theologie, 37 (1913), pp. 400-14; E. Podechard,
La pensée de l’Ecclésiaste, in L’Université catholique, 7 (1913),
pp. 280-310; G. B. Gray, The Ecclesiastes and a new Babylonian
literary fragment, in The Expository Times, 31 (1913 sq.), pp. 440-43;
A. Fernández, Et Ecclesiastes una versión, in Biblica, 3 (1922),
pp. 45-50; P. Dhorme, Ecclésiaste ou Job?, in Revue biblique,
32 (1923), pp. 5-27; P. Jouon, Notes bibliologiques sur le texte
hébreu de l’Ecclésiaste, in Biblica, 11 (1930), pp. 419-25; J. Pe-
dersen, Scepticisme israélite, in Revue d’histoire et de philosophie
religieuses, 10 (1930), pp. 317-70; L. Allevi, Il messaggio spirituale
dell’Ecclésiaste in Scuola cattolica, 60 (1932, II), pp. 143-56; A.
Dondeyne, De animae immortalitate iuxta Eccles. 3, 18-21, in Colla-
tiones Brugenses, 32 (1932), pp. 10-15; A. Miller, Aufbau und Grund-
problem des Predigers, in Miscellanea biblica, II, Rome 1931,
pp. 104-22; R. H. Pfeiffer, The peculiar skepticism of Ecclesiastes,
in Journal of Biblical Literature, 50 (1934), pp. 100-109; D. Buzy,
La notion de bonheur dans l’E., in Revue biblique, 43 (1934),
pp. 494-511; L. Di Fonzo, Quis novit si spiritus filiorum ascen-
dat sursum...? (Eccles. 3, 21), in Verbum Domini, 19 (1936),
pp. 257-68, 289-99; 20 (1940), pp. 166-75; W. E. Staples, The
“vanity” of Ecclesiastes, in Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 2 (1943),
pp. 95-104; W. A. Irwin, Eccles. 4, 13-16, ibid., 3 (1944), pp. 255-57;
J. Schildenberger, Altisrael. Jenseitsvorstellung und Irrtumslosigkeit,
in Biblica, 25 (1944), pp. 343-45; R. Weill, Le livre du Déses-
péré. La sens, l’intention et la composition de l’ouvrage, in Bulletin
de l’Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale, 45 (1947), pp. 89-
134; S. de Ausejo, El quiebre literario del Eclesiastés, in Estudios
bíblicos, 7 (1948), pp. 369-406; C. C. Torrey, The question of
the original language of Kohelet, in The Jewish Quarterly Review,
39 (1948-49), pp. 151-60.