ECCLESIASTE. — The fourth of the didactic books of the Old Testament, in 12 chapters, a “philosophical masterpiece of satire, irony, common sense and, whatever it may seem and be said to be, of religion and true piety” (Buzy). In the Hebrew canon it forms part of the kethubhîm, or “writings,” and is the fourth of the five “scrolls,” or méghilâh, which in the Jewish liturgy is 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 belongs among the poetic or sapiential books, as already among the Fathers, who, together with Proverbi and Cantico, attribute it to Solomon (s. Girolamo, Comm. in Eccl., 1, 2: PL 23, 1063).
The title, which in the text (Eccl., 1, 1 ff.; 12, etc.) concerns not the book but its author, is the Greek translation of the Hebrew Qâhleth (a derivative of qâhâl, “assembly”), “man of the assembly,” the speaker or preacher par excellence (cf. ibid., 12, 9); it is a feminine participle, a form used for names of offices and dignities (cf. Ecd., 2, 55, 57; I Par., 4, 8; 7, 8; W. Gesenius-E. Kautzsch, Hebräische Grammatik, 28th ed., Lippia 1909, § 122 r; P. Jolion, Sur le nom de Qâhleth, in Biblio, 2 [1921], p. 53 ff.).
Until the nineteenth century, despite the attempt of H. Grotius (1644), Jews and Christians held it to have been written by Solomon (cf. s. Girolamo, loc. cit., 1, 12: PL 23, 1072 ff.; among more recent writers, E. Philippe, s. V. in DB. II, cols. 1539–41). At present, all assign its composition to a period substantially later than the return from exile, between 332 and the persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes (175–164 B.C.); probably around 200 B.C., before Ecclesiastico (against N. Peters, in Bibliche Zeitschrift, 1 [1903], pp. 47–54, 129–50). This is required by the Aramaisms and the decline of the syntax, “words or constructions belonging to a very late period, which form a kind of transition between the Hebrew of the classical age and that of the Talmud” (Vaccari).
That the learned scribe, a Jew (Eccl., 4, 17; 8, 10), author of the E., presents himself as the son of David, king of Jerusalem (ibid., 1, 1 ff., 12, 16, etc.; whence it was deduced that he was Solomon), is for most scholars simply a case of pseudepigraphy, by which a didactic writing is attributed to an illustrious man in order to give it greater importance; or, better still, “a simple device of exemplification or rhetorical communication” (Vaccari), since there is no clear reference to Solomon, as there is instead in Sap.; and “the title of king which the author gives himself may be an academic title, on a par with the name Qâhleth” (Vaccari). Moreover, the condemnation of royal tyranny and of the oppression of subjects, frequent in the E. (Eccl., 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 concerning the inspiration and canonicity of the E., apart from certain rabbinic discussions toward the end of the first 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 ff.).
The E. is a treatise on practical morality concerning happiness. In the numerous commentaries, too much has been said of pessimism and skepticism (cf. L. Bigot, s. V. in DThC, IV, cols. 2015–22), as though the E. maintained, in this regard, a negative position: everything is vain and useless; it is impossible to be happy. This preconceived misinterpretation has influenced the exegesis of the entire little book, certainly not facilitating the understanding of its more difficult passages. The qâhleth is a keen observer who relies more on experience than on reasoning, and on a profound examination of private and social life. He is struck by the restless striving of human beings, by their efforts, made under various circumstances to attain their goals at all costs, wearing themselves out, while everything is transitory. Experience demonstrates the vanity and harm of such excesses: efforts invariably fruitless, which fail to attain their purpose. The author sees in this dynamism the principal obstacle to happiness. Before therefore explaining where happiness is to be found and how it may be acquired, he pauses to point out where it is vain to seek II. The cause of our torment is not life, nor the impossibility of being happy, but only our foolish insistence on seeking happiness where it is not found. The E. condemns continual striving, excessive pursuit, whatever its object may be: wisdom (Eccl., 2, 11, 15; cf. De imiti. Christi, I, 1–2), pleasure and riches (Eccl., 4, 8; 5, 11), work (ibid., 2, 23; 3, 9), the desire to alter the course of Providence or of human events or society, to overcome human adversities, and the various cares that poison our brief earthly life (ibid., 7, 6 ff.; 8, 16).
The E. insists on the condemnation of every effort, brings out its complete vanity and the consequent dissatisfaction of the soul, in order to emphasize and celebrate more effectively the high road of the golden mean, which alone leads to happiness. The E. teaches that life is good and offers a true happiness, one that genuinely satisfies the natural aspiration of our soul. It is enough to know how to live and to enjoy, with wise balance and moderation, the natural goods that God bestows: the goods of ordinary work and prosperity, and the satisfactions that come from family and society. This happiness, accessible to all, is a gift of God (Eccl., 2, 24 ff.; 3, 12 ff.; 5, 17–19; 11, 7–10). “The Qâhleth, then, is not a pessimist, because he believes in happiness and teaches us the means of attaining it (ibid., 11, 1–6 ff.); he is not an atheist, because he believes in God and in Providence (ibid., 1, 4–11, 13; 3, 1–8, 11, 14, 17; 6, 2–10; 7, 13; 8, 12; 11, 9; 12, 14); he is not an Epicurean: he accepts happiness and enjoys it as a gift granted by God (ibid., 2, 1–11; 7, 15; etc.); he is not a materialist, because he believes in the hereafter and in immortality (ibid., 3, 11; 8, 12; 9, 10; 11, 9; 12, 13); he is not a determinist, because our happiness and many other things depend on us (ibid., 4, 15; 7, 8); nor is he an egoist, because he has a sense of justice (ibid., 2, 26; 3, 16 ff.; 8, 5 ff.; 11, 13); he is not a skeptic, because he praises Wisdom (ibid., 3, 10–12; 9, 16 ff., 18) and possesses a secure doctrine concerning God and life (ibid., 3, 10–17; etc.). Finally, this morality of the golden mean is not mediocre, vulgar, or bourgeois; faith, in fact, transforms and incorporates it into a supernatural morality—the constant thought of God, which governs and permeates it (ibid., 5, 10–15; 5, 17–19; 7, 13 ff., 18; 9, 7; 11, 9; 12, etc.). It is no less imbued with piety than with common sense” (Buzy, p. 200). The E. is particularly well suited “to move people to despise this age and to regard as nothing what the world offers” (s. Girolamo, Comm. in E., prosfatto: PL 23, 1062; cf. s. Agostino, De Civitate Dei, XX, 3: PL 41, 661).
The qâhleth presents its doctrine through strong antitheses and theses, completing its thought here and there with the characteristic maxims (métalîm) found in Proverbs and Ecclesiasticus. A wholly particular mode of composition which, “rightly, brings the E. close to that genre of popular philosophy which, under the title Pensieri, is likewise known in profane antiquity, ancient and modern” (Vaccari). It is therefore difficult to trace a logical order in the development of its ideas, and one often pauses at each saying, almost as at a detached branch, without connecting it to the plan that only attentive examination of the book reveals. Thus with the pericope 3, 18-21, which seems to deny man any life beyond death. The E., which on the Mâl asserts the same conception as the other sacred books of the Old Testament (cf. Eccl., 9, 5-10 and the passages cited above), necessarily admits that something survives the human person (nephês) who comes to an end, and the body that disintegrates; person and body, which it presents here in one of its frequent antitheses, realistically and sarcastically, in their frailty and their mortal destiny. Man is born in the same way as the other animals,
he likewise emits his last breath (rāōh), as they do. He seems to be an animal like them. Hence the conclusion (ibid., 3, 22) invites one to enjoy life, God’s gift, without fixing one’s gaze beyond the grave. The thought of God, the giver of life, is a source of happiness; the gaze into the darkness of tā'ēl is a source of useless and harmful disturbance.
“The E. consists of prose reflections interspersed with groups of sayings in verse, the whole preceded by a prologue and followed by an epilogue” (Vaccari).
Prologue (1, 1-11). 1st Development: everything here below is vanity (1, 12-2, 26). 2nd Development: the vanity of man’s efforts to modify the unalterable variety of events (chap. 3); a group of sayings (4, 1-5, 8) on various anomalies. 3rd Development: the vanity of riches (5, 9-6, 11); a group of sayings (7, 1-12) on the values of life, patience and calm, and the advantages of Wisdom. 4th Development: the inability of virtue to ensure happiness (7, 13-9, 10). 5th Development: the vanity of efforts to ensure success (9, 11-16, 10, 5-9); a group of sayings (9, 17-10, 4; 10, 10-11, 6). 6th Development: the happiness of youth, in contrast with the evils of old age (11, 7-12, 7). Epilogue: 12, 9-14 (another outline by A. Miller, p. 116 ff.).
This kind of composition, just as it led from antiquity onward to a fragmented exegesis, so also prompted some modern scholars to deny the literary unity of the E., which would consist of various parts, the work of different authors. The first to distinguish several original writings in the E. was C. Siegfried (1898), whose theory was taken up and modified by A. H. McNeile (1904), G. A. Barton (1908), E. Podschard (1912), and D. Buzy (1946, pp. 193-197). The gōhelet is credited with the greater part of the 12 chapters, together with the fundamental thesis. The epilogue and 1, 2; 7, 27 ff.; 12, 8 are attributed to another figure (the “epilogist”): “in these passages the gōhelet is spoken of in the third person; the epilogist would moreover have collected and distributed among the reflections the sayings of the former: 1, 3-4-14, 15; 2, 14; 3, 8; etc. The passages concerning the fear of God and the doctrine of retribution would be supplements and revisions by a ‘pious’ man, or ḥarīdh. Finally, some of the principal groups of sayings would belong to a ‘wise man,’ or ḥāhām: 4, 9-12; 4, 17-5, 8; 7, 1-12, 19-22; 8, 1-4, 7 ff.; 9, 17-10, 4; 10, 10-11b.
Such a plurality 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 probative. It is undeniable that the style of the various parts is identical. The use of the third person could confirm pseudepigraphy by revealing the rhetorical device. The lack of logical connection among the various pericopes, the imperfections, and the various apparent antinomies are fully explained by the E.’s special kind of composition, by the development of the central theme through strong antitheses that precede and highlight the thesis, and by keeping in mind that the moral doctrine presented is far inferior to the evangelical one. On this point Catholics are almost unanimous (A. Condamin, V. Zapletel, A. Vaccari, A. Allgeier, etc.), as are also very many non-Catholics (E. Sellin, Einleitung..., 4th ed., Leipzig 1936, p. 150; D. Eissfeldt, K. Galling, etc.).
The Hebrew text is well preserved (cf. S. Euringer, Der Masoraktext des Kohlelet 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 libri Kohlelet versione Alexandrina, Kiel 1892). In his commentary on the E. (PL 23), St. Jerome emended the old Latin version, derived from the earlier one, on the basis of the Hebrew. In 397 he translated the E. directly from the Hebrew, in a single day. This is the version we have in the Vulgate” (Vaccari). - Vedi tav. II.
BBL.: Special introductions: L. Bigot, s. v., in DThC IV, cols. 1998-2008; A. Vaccari, Institutiones bibl., 2nd ed., Rome 1925, pp. 75-84; H. Hapfl, Introd. specialis in Vet. Test., 2nd ed., ibid. 1946, pp. 325-38. - There have been numerous commentaries on the E. since antiquity; among the more recent, the most notable are those of D. Castelli, Pisa 1866; G. Vanni, Florence 1871; G. Morpurgo, Padua 1898; C. Siegfried, Prediger und Holmlied, Göttingen 1898; G. Gietmann, Paris 1890, 2nd ed. 1901; A. V. SCHOLASTIK, Leipzig 1901; G. A. Barton, Edinburgh 1908; V. Zapletel, 2nd ed., Freiburg 1911; E. Podschard, Paris 1912; L. Levy, Leipzig 1912; M. Thilo, Bonn 1923; A. Allgeier, ibid. 1925; A. Vaccari, I libri poetici della Bibbia, Rome 1925, pp. 269-82; G. Kuhn, Giessen
1926; H. W. Hertzberger, Lipsia 1932; B. Afrink, Brugge 1932; J. Carlebach, Friburgo 1936; W. Zimmerli, Berlino 1936; M. Nicolangelo, Napoli 1938; E. T. van den Born, Kanunen 1939; K. Galling, Die fünf Meghllöth, Tübingen 1940, pp. 47-90; D. Buzy, in La S. Bible, ed. L. Pirot, VI, Parigi 1946, pp. 191-280; G. C. Addert, Kammen 1948; F. Nötscher, Würzburg 1948. - Studi: A. Morais, Salomon et l'E. Etude critique, 2 voll., Parigi 1876; D. Leimdorfer, Der Prediger Salomon in historischer Beleuchtung, Amburgo 1892; W. Bartauer, Optimismus und Pessimismus im Buch Kohlelet, Halle 1900; L. Lane, Das Buch Kohlelet und die Interpolationshypothese Siegfried, Wittenberg 1900; Fr. Sawicki, Der Prediger, Schopenhauer, und E. V. Hartmann, oder bibl. und mod. Passivismus, Fulda 1903; A. H. Mc Neile, An introduction to Ecclesiastes, Cambridge 1904; P. Haupt, Kohlelet oder Weltschmerz in der Bibel, Lipsia 1905; P. Torge, Seelengaube und Unterblühheithoffung im Alt. Test., ivi 1909, pp. 237-45; A. Lamorte, Le livre de Gohlelet, Etude critique et philosophique de l'Ecclésiast, Parigi 1932; R. Gordis, The wisdom of Ecclesiastes, Nuova York 1945; A. Scholz, Traurigkeit und Gottgeborgenheit im Alt. Test. Die Bücher Kohlelet und Hababuk und eine Auswahl aus den Psalmen, Warendorf 1947. - Articoli: A. Condamin, Etudes sur l'Ecclésiast, in Revue biblique, 8 (1899), p. 493-499; 5 (1900), pp. 30-44, 31-47; L. Hugo, Die Unterblühheithoffe im Buch Kohlelet, in Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie, 37 (1913), pp. 400-14; E. Podschard, La pensée de l'Ecclésiast, in L'Université catholique, 7 (1913), pp. 289-310; G. B. Gray, Job, Ecclesiastes, and a new Babylonian literary fragment, in The Expository Times, 31 (1919 sg.), pp. 440-43; A. Fernandez, Et Ecclésiastes una versión?, in Biblica, 3 (1922), pp. 43-50; P. Dhoma, Ecclésiast ou Job?, in Revue biblique, 22 (1923), pp. 5-27; P. Jobon, Notes philologiques sur le texte hébreu de l'Ecclésiast, in Biblica, 11 (1920), pp. 419-23; J. Pedersen, Scepticisme israélite, in Revue d'histoire et de philosophie religieuses, 10 (1930), pp. 317-70; L. Alleri, Il messaggio spirituale dell'E., in Scuola cattolica, 60, (1932, 11), pp. 143-16; A. Dondogne, De animos immortalisate iuxta Ecte. 3, 18-21, in Colloquium Brugense, 32 (1933), pp. 10-15; A. Miller, Aufbau und Grundproblem des Predigers, in Mitcellanea biblica, II, Roma 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, « Quiz novit si spiritui filiorum ascendat autrum...? » (Ecte. 3, 21), in Verbum Domini, 19 (1930), pp. 257-68, 289-90; 20 (1940), pp. 156-76; W. E. Staples, The 'vanity' of Ecclesiastes, in Journal of New Eastern Studies, 4 (1943), pp. 95-104; W. A. Irwin, Ecte. 4, 17-18, ibid., 3 (1944), pp. 235-57; J. Schildenberger, Alttext. Jenseitsvorstellung und Irrtumlosigkeit, in Biblica, 25 (1944), pp. 343-45; R. Weill, Le livre de « Désespéré », Le sens, l'intention et la composition de l'ouvrage, in Bulletin de l'Institut Français d'Archéologie orientale, 41 (1947), pp. 89-134; S. De Auscio, El género literario del Eclesiástico, in Estudios bíblicos, 7 (1948), pp. 369-406; C. C. Torrey, The question of the original language of Kohlelet, in The Jewish Quarterly Review, 39 (1948-49), pp. 121-60. Francesco Spadafora