Looking accordingly to the etymology of the Hebrew word we find that it is in form the feminine participle of an unused conjugation of a verb Kâhal and as such would have a meaning connected with the root-idea of the verb, that of "gathering" or "collecting." The verb is always used in its other conjugations of gathering persons and not things (Exod. xxxv. 1; Num. i. 18, viii. 9, xvi. 19, et al.), and from it is formed the noun which in our English version appears as "congregation" (Lev. iv. 14; Num. x. 7; Deut. xxiii. 1 et al.), “assembly" (Num. xiv. 5 ; Deut. v. 22; Judges xx. 2 et al.) or "company" (Jer. xxxi. 8; Ezek. xvi. 40, xvii. 17 et al.), while in the LXX it appears almost uniformly as Ecclesia. It is accordingly an all but certain inference that the meaning of the new-coined word was either "one who calls an assembly" or, looking to the usual force of the unused conjugation from which it is formed1, "one who is a member of an assembly." The choice of the feminine form may be connected with the thought that the writer wished to identify himself with Wisdom (a noun which was feminine in Hebrew as in other languages), who appears as teaching in the bold impersonation of Prov. i. 20, viii. 1—4. On the other hand the noun is always treated throughout the book (with, possibly, the solitary exception of chap. vii. 27, but see note there) as masculine, partly, perhaps, because the writer identified himself with the man Solomon as well as with the abstract wisdom, partly, it may be also, because usage had, as in the case of Sophereth (Neh. vii. 57), Pochereth (Ezra ii. 57), Alemeth and Azmaveth (1 Chron. viii. 36) sanctioned the employment of such feminine forms as the names of men.

It follows from this that the LXX translators were at least not far wrong when they chose Ecclesiastes as the nearest equivalent for the Hebrew title of the book, Koheleth. Our word "Preacher," however, which has been adopted from Luther, is altogether misleading. Taken in connexion with the associa

1 The participle Koheleth is formed as if from the Kal conjugation, which commonly denotes intransitive state or action. No example of the verb Kâhal is found in this form. The two forms most in use are the transitive, “to gather," and the passive "to be gathered.”

tions which the very sound of Ecclesia in any of its compounds calls up, it suggests the idea of a teacher delivering a set discourse to a congregation of worshippers. That is, to say the least, an idea which it is hard to reconcile with the structure and contents of Koheleth. It may be added that it is just as foreign to the meaning of the Hebrew and Greek words. The verb Kâhal is never used in connexion with the idea of vocal utterance of any kind. The Ecclesiastes was not one who called the Ecclesia or assembly together, or addressed it in a tone of didactic authority, but much rather one who was an ordinary member of such an assembly (the political unit of every Greek State) and took part in its discussions. He is, as Aristotle says, not an archon or a ruler (Pol. III. 11), but a part of the great whole (Ibid.). So the Ecclesiazusai of Aristophanes are women who meet in an assembly to debate, and the word is used in the same sense by Plato (Gorg. p. 452, E). In the LXX, the word does not occur outside the book to which it serves as a title, and we have therefore no reason for thinking that they used it in any other than its ordinary sense. It follows from this that the more natural equivalent for it in English would be Debater rather than Preacher, and looking to the fact that the Hebrew writer apparently coined the word, it would be a natural inference that he did so, because he wanted a substantive which exactly expressed the idea of one who desired to present himself in that character and not as a teacher. He claimed only to be a member, one of many, of the great Ecclesia of those who think. If we could assume that he had any knowledge of Greek, it would be a legitimate inference that he formed the new word as an equivalent to the Ecclesiastes which had that significance. It is obvious that this is a meaning which fits in far more aptly with the nature of the book, its presentment of many views, more or less contrasted with each other, its apparent oscillation between the extremes of a desponding pessimism and a tranquil Epicureanism. To use the title of a modern book with which most readers are familiar, the writer speaks as one who takes his part in a meeting of Friends in Council.

ECCLESIASTES

2

The true meaning of the title having thus been established, both on philological grounds and as being in harmony with the character of the work itself, it will be sufficient to note briefly the other meanings which have been assigned to it by different scholars. (a) It cannot mean, as Grotius thought, one who was a ovvalpoιorns (synathroistes) a collector sententiarum or "compiler," one who does not maintain a theory or opinion of his own but brings together those of other thinkers; for this, though it agrees fairly with the nature of the contents of the book, is incompatible with the fact that the Hebrew verb is used, without exception, in the sense of collecting, or calling together, persons and not things. (b) More, perhaps, is to be said for Ginsburg's view (Koheleth, Introd. p. 2) that the title expresses the act of bringing together those that have been scattered, assembling men, as the historical Solomon assembled them, to meet as in the Divine presence (1 Kings viii. 1—5), calling back those that have wandered in the bye-ways of doubt, "a gatherer of those far off to God." The word thus taken expresses the thought which was uttered in the words of the true Son of David: "How often would I have gathered thy children together" (Matt. xxiii. 34; Luke xiii. 34). It is, however, against this view, that the writer forms the word Koheleth as has been said above, from a conjugation not in use (Kal), which would naturally express being in a given state or position, and passes over the conjugation which was in use (Hiphil) and expressed the transitive act of bringing into such a position or state. To that latter form belongs, in this case, the meaning of “gathering together" into an assembly. It can scarcely be questioned that the writer's motive in not using it, when it was ready to his hand, was that he deliberately sought to avoid the sense of "gathering an assembly," and coined a word, which, as the LXX translators rightly felt, conveyed the sense of being a member of such an assembly and taking part in its proceedings. (c) Jerome's view, followed as we have seen by Luther, that the word describes a concionator or "preacher" is that also of the Midrash Rabba (a Jewish commentary of uncertain date, but not earlier than the sixth, nor later than the twelfth century,

Steinschneider, Jewish Literature, p. 53) which explains the name as given by Solomon, "because his discourses were delivered before the congregation" (Ginsburg, p. 3, Wünsche, Midr. Koh. p. 2), but this also, as shewn above, is both wrong etymologically and at variance with the character of the book. (d) The word cannot mean, as a few commentators have thought, "one who has been gathered," as describing the state of the repentant and converted Solomon, for this would involve a grammatical solecism in the opposite direction to that already examined, and would assign a passive meaning to a form essentially active, though not factitive, in its force. (e) Other more far-fetched interpretations, resting on hazardous Arabic etymologies, as that the word meant "penitent" or "the old man," or "the voice that cries," may be dismissed, as not calling for any serious discussion.

CHAPTER II.

AUTHORSHIP AND DATE.

I. It lies on the surface that the writer of the book, who, though he does not introduce the name of Solomon, identifies himself (ch. i. 12-16) with the historical son of David, was either actually the king of Israel whose name was famous for "wisdom and largeness of heart" or that, for some reason or other, he adopted the dramatic personation of his character as a form of authorship. On the former hypothesis, the question of date is settled together with that or authorship, and the book takes its place almost among the earliest treasures of Hebrew literature, side by side with the Psalms that actually came from David's pen and with the inner kernel of the Book of Proverbs. On the latter a wide region of conjecture lies opens to us, from any date subsequent to that of Solomon to the time when we first get distinct traces of the existence of the book, and the problem, in the absence of external evidence, will have to be decided on

the ground of internal notes of time and place as seen in the language, thought, and structure of the book. A preliminary question meets us, however, which turns, not upon evidence either external or internal, but upon an à priori assumption. It has been urged that when a writer adopts a personated authorship he is guilty of a fraudulent imposture, that such an imposture is incompatible with any idea of inspiration, however loosely that inspiration may be defined, and that to assume a personated authorship is therefore to assert that the book has no right to the place it occupies in the Canon of the Old Testament1. On this view Ecclesiastes, if not written by Solomon, takes its place on the same level as Ireland's Vortigern, or Chatterton's Rowley, or Macpherson's Ossian. It may fairly be said, however, of this view that it ignores the fact that a dramatic personation of character has, at all times, been looked upon as a legitimate form of authorship, not necessarily involving any animus decipiendi. With some writers of the highest genius, as e.g., with Robert Browning and Tennyson, a monologue or soliloquy of this character has been a favourite form of composition. The speeches in Herodotus and Thucydides, the Apologies written in the name of Socrates by Xenophon and Plato, the Dialogues of Plato throughout, are instances in which no one would dream of imputing fraud to the writers, though in all these cases we have, with scarcely the shadow of a doubt, the thoughts and words of the writers and not of the men whom they represent as speaking. The most decisive, and in that sense, crucial instance of such authorship is found, however, in the book which presents so striking a parallel to Ecclesiastes, the Apocryphal Wisdom of Solomon. There also, both in the title and the body of the book (Wisd. vii. 5, 7, ix. 7, 8) the writer identifies himself with the Son of David. It was quoted by early Greek and Latin fathers as by Solomon (Clem. Alex. Strom. VI. 11, 14, 15; Tertull. Adv. Valent. c. 2; De Præscr. Hæret. c. 7). From

1 The argument may be found in most English Commentaries, but see especially an elaborate treatise on The Authorship of Ecclesiastes, pp. 1-12 (Macmillan and Co., 1880).