Page images
PDF
EPUB

14

The Authorship of Ecclesiastes.

in the Hebrew canon; and no Hebrew original of either book is in existence. Whereas it is scarcely conceivable that if these books had come down from the days of Solomon, or even from the days of Hezekiah, as works of Solomon, and as portions of the sacred writings, the Hebrew originals of them could have been left out of the canon of Holy Scripture.

Hence there is no analogy between the critically worthless evidence on the alleged authorship of the apocryphal Book of Wisdom, and the evidence on which the canonicity and Solomonic authorship of Ecclesiastes rest.

Value of Critical Research.

Many even among those who appreciate the scope and results of Biblical Criticism, and who at the same time receive with implicit faith the Scriptures as the word of God, would, on being convinced of the canonicity of such books as Deuteronomy and Ecclesiastes, be satisfied of their authorship, on account of what is plainly affirmed on this point in the books themselves, similarly as they require no further testimony than the testimony of the New Testament in such passages as Matthew 3. 3, 8. 17, 12. 17; John 12. 38; Romans 10. 16, 20, to prove that Isaiah was the author of the twenty-seven last chapters of the book which bears his name. Yet as it is the duty of pastors to aim at being able, by means of sound doctrine, both to exhort and to convince gainsayers,

Criticism of the Text.

15

so the interests of truth are promoted by meeting critics of what is called the destructive school on the ground which they themselves have chosen, and proving, from a fair criticism of the text, that it does not warrant the conclusions at which they have arrived. Accordingly, if the Book of Ecclesiastes really is what it professes to be, a treatise written by that son of David who was king over Israel in Jerusalem, then, in that case, anything tending to show, either from the subjectmatter, or from the style and language of the book, that it contains nothing inconsistent with the commonly acknowledged Solomonic authorship, but, on the contrary, carries within itself abundant evidence of its own genuineness, ought to be regarded, not as a superfluity, but as a valuable service to the truth of the gospel, resting, as that truth does, on the integrity and trustworthiness of those canonical Scriptures in which it is revealed and asserted.

Had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me;
for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his
writings, how shall ye believe my words?

The Subject-matter of Ecclesiastes.

Views of Hengstenberg.

THOSE arguments against the Solomonic authorship of Ecclesiastes which are based on the subject-matter of the book are largely characterised by a begging of the question, or by the misapplication of general maxims to particular events. With reference to certain ' gratuitous appropriations of a general promise,' Dr. Joseph A. Alexander, in commenting on Isaiah 54. 7-8, says what may be quoted as mutatis mutandis illustrative of this point :

'With equal reason [the passage] might be pronounced descriptive of the Egyptian and the Assyrian bondage, or of the Assyrian and the Babylonian, or of the Syrian and the Roman. If, because it is appropriate to one of these events, it has no reference to any other, then they all may be successively excluded, and, with equal ease, all may be proved to be the subject of the prophecy.'

To assume, for instance, as Bleek and Hengstenberg do, that the Book of Ecclesiastes contains a history of the Jews at the date of its composition, and that therefore it must have been written long after the days of Solomon, is to take for granted what, in order that it might be worthy of being believed, would need to be proved.

Views of Hengstenberg.

17

Thus, for instance, so general are the terms of the caution in 10. 20 against cursing the king or the wealthy, and so plainly proverbial is the style of the passage, that it cannot possibly prove, as Hengstenberg assumes it to prove, that the book was written at a time when the Hebrews were subject to tyrannical heathen rulers, who employed numerous spies and informers against them, and thus made it dangerous for them to use plain language. This begging of the question is strangely inconsistent with other things in Hengstenberg's introductory discussion of the authorship. He begins by stating that the book evidently took its occasion from passing events, but that, for two reasons, the author has studiously maintained a certain tone of reserve with reference to the circumstances of his time, and has rather glanced at them than entered into details. One of the reasons assigned for this alleged reticence is the aforesaid danger of plain language, and the other is the author's conviction that the book was destined to form part of the canonical Scriptures, and thus to be of service to the Church in all ages, and that consequently in Ecclesiastes, as in the Psalter, prominence must be given rather to that which was general and eternal in its character, than to that which was special and temporary. Other students of Ecclesiastes may arrive at an opposite conclusion in so far as the alleged reserve and omission of details are concerned, and may consider that the writer is clear and specific rather than reserved, in speaking of himself as the son of

B

18

The Subject-matter of Ecclesiastes. David, and as king over Israel in Jerusalem, and that such passages as 2. 1-11, 7. 26, 12. 9, 10 abound in details of the minutest kind. Yet while holding this view of the few historical references found in the book of Ecclesiastes, one may quite consistently maintain that, with the exception of such explicit references as these to the individuality and personal experience of the writer, the book, as a whole, is designed, not as a history of Israel in particular, but as an exposition of certain great general principles affecting man as man, and applicable to Jews and Gentiles alike. But be this as it may, Hengstenberg constructs from various parts of the book (not specially those parts which are clearly local and personal and historical, but rather those which have the appearance of being general and aphoristic) such a history of the time in which he alleges that the book was written as, if it were correct, would refute the position from which he started, and would prove Ecclesiastes to be the opposite of what he previously said, when he described the book as general and of universal application rather than specific in its scope and import.

A few specimens of Hengstenberg's mode of interpretation are sufficient to show how baseless is the theory according to which he assumes Ecclesiastes to be a description of Israel's condition and circumstances at the time when the book was written. He writes as if he were trying to make general statements express specific facts, rather than to ascertain the simple meaning

« EelmineJätka »