Ecclesiastes

ECCLESIASTES. - Fourth of the didactic books of the Old Testament, in 12 chapters, "a philosophical masterpiece of satire, irony, good sense and, whatever it may seem and whatever may be said, of religion and true piety" (Buzy). In the Hebrew canon it is part of the kethubhîm or "writings," and it is the fourth of the 5 "scrolls" or méghilâh, which in Jewish liturgy is read on the feast of Tabernacles (v.). In the Greek version of the Septuagint and in the canon sanctioned by the Council of Trent (v. VULGATE), it is among the poetic or sapiential books, as already among the Fathers, who together with Proverbs and the Song attribute it to Solomon (St. Jerome, Comm. in Eccl., 1, 2 : PL 23, 1063).

The title, which in the text (Eccl., 1, 1 f. 12, etc.) concerns not the book but the author, is the Greek translation of the Hebrew Qâhleth (denominative of qâhâl "assembly"), "man of the assembly," the orator or preacher par excellence (cf. ibid., 12, 9); a feminine participle, a form used for official names of dignity (cf. Ecd., 2, 55, 57; I Par., 4, 8; 7, 8; W. Gesenius-E. Kautzsch, Hebräische Grammatik, 28th ed., Leipzig 1909, § 122 r; P. Jolion, Sur le nom de Qâhleth, in Biblio, 2 [1921], p. 53 f.).

Until the 19th century, despite the attempt of H. Grotius (1644), Jews and Christians held it to have been written by Solomon (cf. St. Jerome, loc. cit., 1, 12 : PL 23, 1072 f.; among recent authors E. Philippe, s. v. in DB. II, coll. 1539-41). At present all assign its composition to a period appreciably later than the return from exile, between 332 and the persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes (175-64 B.C.); probably ca. 200 B.C., before Ecclesiasticus (against N. Peters, in Biblische Zeitschrift, 1 [1903], pp. 47-54, 129-50). This is demanded by the Aramaisms, the decay of syntax, "words or constructions of a very late age, which form as it were the 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 E., presents himself as son of David, king of Jerusalem (ibid., 1, 1 f. 12 16, etc.; whence it was deduced that this was Solomon), is for most a simple case of pseudepigraphy, whereby a didactic writing is attributed to an illustrious man, to give it greater importance; or even better "a simple expedient of exemplification or rhetorical communication" (Vaccari), since there is no clear reference to Solomon, as there is instead in Wis.; and "the title of king that the author gives himself may be an academic title on a par with the name Qâhleth" (Vaccari). Moreover, the deploring of royal tyranny and of the oppression of subjects, frequent in 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, the reign, or the time of Solomon.

No doubts were raised concerning the inspiration and canonicity of E., if we except certain 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 ff.).

E. is a treatise of practical morality on happiness. There has been too much talk of pessimism, of skepticism in the very numerous commentaries (cf. L. Bigot, s. v. in DThC, IV, coll. 2015-22), as if E. maintained in this regard a negative position: everything is vain and useless, it is impossible to be happy. Such a prejudicial misunderstanding has influenced the exegesis of the entire little book, certainly not facilitating the understanding of the more difficult pericopes. The qâhleth is a keen observer, who trusts experience rather than reasoning, the profound examination of private and social life. He is struck by the frantic striving of men, by their efforts, made in various circumstances, to reach their goals at all costs, wearing themselves out, while everything is fleeting. Experience demonstrates the vanity and the harm of such excesses; efforts invariably fruitless that do not attain their goal. The author sees in this dynamism the principal obstacle to happiness. Before therefore expounding where it is to be found, and how to acquire it, he pauses to point out where it is vain to seek it. The cause of our torment is not life, the impossibility of being happy, but only our foolish striving to seek happiness where it is not to be found. E. condemns continuous effort, the excess of seeking, whatever its object: wisdom (Eccl., 2, 11, 15; cf. De imit. Christi, I, 1-2), pleasure and riches (Eccl., 4, 8; 5, 11), work (ibid., 2, 23; 3, 9), the desire to change the course of Providence or of human events or of society, to overcome the adversities of men, the various cares that poison the brief earthly life (ibid., 7, 6 f.; 8, 16).

E. insists on the condemnation of every effort, brings out its full vanity and the consequent dissatisfaction of the soul, in order to underline and celebrate with greater efficacy the main road of the golden mean, which alone leads to happiness. E. teaches that life is good and offers a true happiness, which really 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: goods of normal work and of comfort, satisfactions that come from family and society. This happiness accessible to all is a gift of God (Eccl., 2, 24 f.; 3, 12 f.; 5, 17-19; 11, 7-10). "The Qâhleth therefore is not a pessimist, because he believes in happiness and teaches us the means to attain 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, 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 afterlife 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); not 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 f. 18) and has a sure doctrine on God and on life (ibid., 3, 10-17; etc.). This morality of the golden mean, finally, is not mediocre, vulgar, bourgeois; indeed, the constant thought of God, which dominates and permeates it, transforms it and incorporates it into a supernatural morality (ibid., 5, 10-15; 5, 17-19; 7, 13 f. 18; 9, 7; 11, 9; 12, etc.). It is no less imbued with piety than with good sense" (Buzy, p. 200). E. is most suited "to move one to contempt for this world and to make one esteem 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 qâhleth presents its doctrine with strong antitheses and theses, here and there completing its thought with the characteristic maxims (métalîm) that are found in Proverbs and in Ecclesiasticus. A wholly particular manner of composition which, «reasonably, brings the E. close to that kind of popular philosophy which, under the title of Pensées, is known also in profane antiquity, ancient and modern» (Vaccari). It is difficult, therefore, to trace in it a logical order in the development of ideas, and often one stops at each sentence, almost as at a detached branch, without grafting it into the plan that only a careful examination of the book reveals. Thus for the pericope 3:18-21, which seems to deny man any life beyond death. The E., which on the Mâl affirms 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) that comes to an end, the body that disintegrates; person, body, which here it presents in one of its frequent antitheses, realistically and sarcastically in their fragility, in their mortal destiny. Man is born in the same way as the other animals, he likewise emits as they do the final breath (rāōh). He seems an animal just like them. Hence the conclusion (ibid. 3:22) invites one to enjoy life, God's gift, without fixing one's gaze beyond the tomb. The thought of God, giver of life, is a source of happiness; the gaze into the shadows of the tā'ēl, a source of useless and harmful turmoil.

«The E. is a mixture of reflections in prose interspersed with groups of sentences 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: vanity of man's efforts to modify the ineluctable variety of events (ch. 3); group of sentences (4:1-5:8) on various anomalies. 3rd Development: vanity of riches (5:9-6:11); group of sentences (7:1-12) on the values of life, patience and calm, the 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 sentences (9:17-10:4; 10:10-11:6). 6th Development: happiness of youth, in opposition to the evils of old age (11:7-12:7). Epilogue: 12:9-14 (another outline in A. Miller, p. 116 ff.).

Such a kind of composition, as from antiquity it led to a piecemeal exegesis, so it drove 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 retouched by A. H. McNeile (1904), G. A. Barton (1908), E. Podschard (1912), D. Buzy (1946, pp. 193-197). To the gōhelet is attributed the greater part of the 12 chapters, with the fundamental thesis. To another («epilogist»), are attributed the epilogue and 1:2; 7:27 ff.; 12:8: «because there the gōhelet is spoken of in the third person; the epilogist moreover would have collected and distributed among the reflections the sentences of the first: 1:3-4-14, 15; 2:14; 3:8; etc. The parts concerning the fear of God and the doctrine of retribution would be complements and retouchings of a «pious» one or ḥarīdh. Finally to a «sage» or ḥāhām would belong some of the principal groups of sentences: 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 multiplicity of authors, if these are held to be inspired, does not affect the divine character of the book. But the arguments adduced are anything but probative. 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 expedient. 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 set off the thesis, and by bearing in mind that the moral doctrine set forth is far inferior to the evangelical. On this Catholics are almost agreed (A. Condamin, V. Zapletel, A. Vaccari, A. Allgeier, etc.) and 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). St. Jerome, in his commentary on the E. (PL 23), emended on the basis of the Hebrew the ancient Latin version derived from the preceding one. In 397 he translated the E. directly from the Hebrew, in a single day. This version we have in the Vulgate» (Vaccari). - See pl. II.

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