BS 
 
 1475 
 C3 
 
 M? 710 
 
THE RELATION OF 
 
 OOHELETH 
 
 TO 
 
 CONTEMPORARY GREEK PHILOSOPHY 
 
 A Thesis in partial fulfillment of the 
 requirements for the degree of 
 
 DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY 
 
 SUBMITTED BY 
 
 GUSTAV ARNOLD CARSTENSEN, M.A. 
 
 NEW YORK UNIVERSITY 
 
 19 O 3 
 
THE RELATION OF 
 
 QOHELETH 
 
 TO 
 
 CONTEMPORARY GREEK PHILOSOPHY 
 
 A Thesis in partial fulfillment of the 
 requirements for the degree of 
 
 DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY 
 SUBMITTED BY 
 
 GUSTAV ARNOLD CARSTENSEN, M.A. 
 
 NEW YORK UNIVERSITY 
 
 19 O 3 
 
AUTHORITIES. 
 
 DELITZCH, 
 PLUMPTRE, 
 GINSBURG, 
 SAMUEL Cox, 
 NOWACK, 
 
 Commentaries. 
 
 FINLAYSON, The Meditations and Maxims of Qoheleth. 
 BRADLEY, Lectures on Ecclesiastes. 
 
 ARIGHT, Ecclesiastes in Relation to Modern Criticism and 
 Pessimism. 
 
 HAUPT, Paper read before the Oriental Club of Philadelphia. 
 
 CONDAMIN, Etudes sur 1'Ecclesiaste in "Revue Biblique," 
 October, 1899, January, 1900. 
 
 ROBERTSON SMITH, The Old Testament in the Jewish Church. 
 ZELLER, Stoics, Epicureans and Sceptics. 
 WEBER, History of Philosophy. 
 UEBERWEG, History of Philosophy. 
 
 296238 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 Introductory. Date and Authorship of Qoheleth. Canonicity 
 of the Book. General mental outlook of the Author. 
 
 II 
 
 Comparison with Stoicism. 
 
 Ill 
 
 , Comparison with Epicureanism. 
 
 IV 
 
 Comparison of Qoheleth with Certain Phases of Modern 
 
 Thought, and with the larger hope of Paul and 
 
 the Optimism of Robert Browning. 
 
THE RELATION OF QOHELETH 
 
 TO 
 
 CONTEMPORARY GREEK PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 In the epilogue to the book called nSnp occurs this admoni- 
 tion,* ^>p pK rain cnDD rwy irnn "on ("My son, be on thy 
 
 guard; there is no end of making books in great number.") 
 The commentaries upon this strange writing (or collection of 
 writings ? ) are so many and diverse as to afford a verification of 
 the statement and a reckless disregard of the warning. To 
 attempt to read them all would be to prove the next observation : 
 
 urn IW nmn 3r6i (And much study is a weariness of fleshf). 
 The book called Ecclesiastes seems to have had a wonderful fas- 
 cination for students of all shades of belief and unbelief ever 
 since its admission to the Canon. Its very place in the sacred 
 writings presents one of the most puzzling questions at the 
 outset. How came it there? What induced the Jewish doctors 
 to include among their canonical books one which seemed to an 
 influential school of the time to be so subversive of truths as set 
 forth in the books upon which they were all agreed? This 
 question, as well as many others to which our limits forbid so 
 much as an allusion, has received the careful consideration of 
 the most learned and thoughtful scholars only to be answered in 
 ways almost as contradictory as they are multitudinous. Pro- 
 fessor Haupt, of Johns Hopkins University, disposes of the ques- 
 tion of canonicity by arming himself cap-a-pie and driving a 
 coach and four into the ranks of the whole army of exegetes 
 and proclaiming in his rough-and-ready manner that the con- 
 temporaries of Ecclesiastes, finding themselves unable to sup- 
 press the book, "endeavored to darken its meaning for dogmatic 
 purposes, saying: 'Let us save the attractive book for the congre- 
 gation, but we will pour some water in the author's strong 
 
 *Bccl. xii, 12. 
 flbid. 
 
wine.' "* It would be interesting to know upon what historical 
 basis the Baltimore professor rests his assumption. At most, 
 it is but a plausible conjecture. Equally gratuitous is the 
 other assumption that the canonicity of Qoheleth is set aside in 
 St. Luke's Gospel (xii, 15-31) by the picture presented by our 
 Saviour of the rich man who said to his soul : ' ' Thou hast much 
 goods laid up for many years; take thine ease, eat, drink and 
 be merry." "Thou fool," says the Almighty, "this night thy 
 soul shall be required of thee." Professor Haupt naively ob- 
 serves that no one but himself has even perceived that "these 
 words are evidently directed against Ecclesiastes. " It seems 
 less likely that so self-evident a proposition should have escaped 
 the attention of so many students, than that it should be so 
 manifest as it seems to be to the mind of Professor Haupt. 
 Is it not more reasonable to conclude in the absence of any 
 demonstration of what Professor Haupt in his utter loneliness 
 sets forth, that the weight of scholarship rejects any such infer- 
 ence? It is clear enough that there is a condemnation of the 
 Epicurean teaching, repeated five times in Qoheleth: 3^3 j^tf 
 ifojD DIE WD1 ntorn nntm tebW mtO (There is nothing better 
 among men than that one should eat and drink and that his 
 soul should see good in his toil).f But this is not to say that 
 there is any special condemnation of the book Qoheleth. But 
 assuming that there is such a condemnation, was not one great 
 burden of Christ's teaching, "Ye have heard that it was said by 
 them of old time , . . but I say unto you, ' ' etc. It by no 
 means follows that because the teaching of Qoheleth was inferior 
 to that of the Gospel, Qoheleth is out of place in the Canon. On 
 that rule, we should be obliged to reject the teaching of Moses 
 and of David. Such a principle would ban the Decalogue itself. 
 Leaving the airy generalizations of Professor Haupt, let us ex- 
 amine the facts. Scholars are not agreed as to when the can- 
 onicity of Qoheleth was settled. We know that the question was 
 long debated by the rival schools of Hillel and Shammai. Wright 
 does not agree with Davidson and Graetz that the question was 
 an open one until the synod of Jamnia, A. D. 90. He also op- 
 poses the statement of Robertson Smith that Qoheleth and the 
 Song of Solomon "were still controverted up to the very end of 
 the first Christian century," and seems to make out a fairly plain 
 case in asserting that Qoheleth was regarded as Holy Scripture 
 in the time of Herod the Great,J when it was quoted as of co- 
 ordinate authority with the Law of Moses. The controversy 
 between the schools seems to have been not so much about the 
 canonicity of the book, as about its relative value. Long after 
 the Canon was closed, certain books were questioned, and this not 
 
 *Paper read before the Oriental Club of Philadelphia, 1891. 
 fVide ii, 24; iii, 13; v, 17; viii, 15; xii, 22. 
 
 JEcclesiastes in the Light of Modern Criticism and Pessimism, p. 19 
 et seq. -$f| 
 
always by unbelievers, but often by the defenders of revelation. 
 As Delitzch maintains, the Old Testament Canon, like the New, 
 had its antilegomena. The difficulties were settled after careful 
 examination, and both parties to the controversy agreed in the 
 recognition of the Divine authority of the disputed facts. This 
 shows how wide of the mark must be any theory of surreptitious 
 juggling with popular ignorance, as set forth by Professor 
 Haupt. 
 
 To accept the canonicity of Qoheleth is not to accept the 
 traditional interpretations of the Jews and early Christians as 
 to the date and authorship of the book. Until the time of the 
 Reformation in the sixteenth century, commentators were prac- 
 tically unanimous in ascribing the authorship to King Solomon, 
 
 as the opening words secni to imply: "j^D "in p rfrnp ^O"l 
 D^wrprj (The words of Qoheleth, Son of David, King in Jeru- 
 salem i. i.). Modern criticism, with like unanimity, rejects the 
 traditional view and assigns it to an unknown author in a much 
 later period. But even among the later critics, there is wide 
 divergence as to the question of date. Ewald, Ginsburg and 
 Hengstenberg assign it to the period of the Persian domination, 
 and it is safe to say that no respectable critic places the date 
 earlier than the exile. We must assume at least an approximate 
 date before we can proceed further with our subject. Suffice it 
 to take for granted that the literary ethics of the period, what- 
 ever the date may be, did not prevent the author from writing in 
 the name of Solomon, just as Plato made Socrates the spokesman 
 in his dialectics. A similar literary device which deceives no 
 one, and is not intended to deceive, is seen in Holmes ' * * Autocrat 
 of the Breakfast Table," and in Robert Browning's "Rabbi Ben 
 Ezra;" or still more strikingly in the "Sartor Resartus" in 
 which are paralleled the strange paradoxes and seeming contra- 
 dictions of Qoheleth Carlyle recording his follies and doubts, 
 and the inmost secrets of his life, under the imaginary expe- 
 rience of a, mythical German professor, and doing it with a free- 
 dom and picturesqueness which would not be possible in a bald 
 autobiography. By making Solomon his mouth-piece, in philoso- 
 phizing upon human life, Qoheleth employs an innocent but 
 telling means of emphasizing his own reflections. Plumptre's 
 ingenious "ideal biography" may be somewhat strained in some 
 places; nevertheless, it is consistent in the main, with the inner 
 structure of the book. Moreover, the most rigid adherents of 
 the traditional view of the Solomonic authorship of Qoheleth 
 must admit that other sacred writers did not hesitate to adopt a 
 literary device like that claimed by the newer criticism for Qohe- 
 leth. The greater number of psalms, for example, which have 
 
 the superscription m"6, as Delitzch argues, ' ' were not composed 
 by David himself, but by unknown poets who transferred them- 
 
8 
 
 selves in thought into David's place, situation and feelings." A 
 notable instance is Psalm CXLIV, which Delitzch thinks was 
 founded upon the saying of David in his duel with Goliath, 
 
 mrrf> o mrv yimrp rvjrai D"ra uh ^ nin ^npn ^D iypi 
 
 DDHK pin ("And that all this assembly may know that 
 
 the Lord savetto not with sword and spear ; for the battle is the 
 Lord's and he will give you into our hands").* 
 
 A still more striking instance is furnished by Psalm cvi, which 
 even so conservative a scholar as Perowne admits to be post- 
 exilic. The first and the last two verses of this psalm are assigned 
 by the writer of the Chronicles (I Chron. xvi) to David, when 
 he describes the praises which were sung when the ark was 
 removed from the house of Obed-Edom to the tabernacle which 
 David had set up for it in Jerusalem. We might multiply the 
 instances, both ancient and modern, of the literary device which 
 meets us at the opening of Qoheleth ; but the linguistic evidences 
 against the Solomonic authorship are such as the most radical 
 traditionalists are forced to admit. The Aramaisms are utterly 
 inconsistent with pre-exilic authorship as much so as would be 
 the appearance of such words as "telephone" and "automobile" 
 in a work of the eighteenth century. Delitzch affirms that unless 
 this book be post-exelic, "there is no history of the Hebrew 
 language." The feeble attempt has been made to explain away 
 these linguistic peculiarities by ascribing them to a spirit of 
 pedantry in Solomon; but whatever may have been Solomon's 
 faults, he was above the necessity or the disposition for such 
 silly affectation. While there is substantial agreement among 
 the best scholars as to the post-exilic date, there is not a little 
 L divergence as to closer approximation. Plumptre argues 
 strongly for the first quarter of the second century B. C., and 
 cites a number of strong traces of the influence of the Stoic 
 and Epicurean schools of philosophy, f and while no one of these 
 may be convincing in itself, there is a cumulative force in the 
 array of striking parallels and resemblances which goes a long 
 way towards conclusive demonstration. It is worthy of note, 
 moreover, that the Jewish critic Durembourg arrives at a like 
 conclusion in his "La Morale de 1 'Ecclesiaste (1895)." He 
 says, "Judaism has had the rare luck of falling under the 
 control of philosophers only at a recent date . . . . If we 
 except monotheism, all opinions have been able & push them- 
 selves into the light However, towards the begin- 
 ning of the second century B. C. the influence of Greek Phil- 
 osophy began to be felt in Palestine. The ideas of Plato con- 
 cerning the immortality of the soul began to be diffused. It is 
 
 *I Sam. xvii, 47. 
 tCambridge Bible, p. 30 et seq. 
 
to this doctrine that Qoheleth alludes in Chapter iii, 21 : JTTP *> 
 
 rrnTi noron nm r6y^ ton r6yn cin ^n nn 
 
 in insinuating that doubt which dominates his whole work." 
 Qoheleth dares not to dwell upon this doctrine, for he is too 
 much attached to the religion of his fathers; too devout and 
 conscientious a Jew, in other words, to regard, without suspicion, 
 any doctrine, however convincing in itself, and whatever its in- 
 herent excellence, if it be taught by so evil a thing as pagan 
 philosophy. "Qoheleth belongs, then, to the second quarter of 
 the second century B. C." Graetz goes further and believes the 
 book to belong to the time of Herod the Great (10 B. C.), and 
 sees in it a protest against the asceticism of the Essenes and the 
 political corruptions of that reign. However this may be, it does 
 not affect the thesis which we are endeavoring to defend, that 
 j Qoheleth is the work of a man whose views of life were largely 
 ^ ^traceable to the Stoic and Epicurean schools of philosophy. The 
 passage (iii, 21) quoted above is a good point of departure for a 
 study of the author's mental attitude throughout the book. The 
 unpointed text justifies the rendering of all the ancient versions 
 as well as that of the Vulgate, as follows : ' ' Who knoweth if the 
 spirit of the children of Adam goeth upward, and if the spirit 
 of the beast goeth downward?" This seemed to the Massorites 
 quite inconsistent with the character of a book which, by its 
 place in the Canon, must be accepted as inspired. The very 
 
 simple device of pointing n in r6yn and rmvi &s the article in- 
 stead of as the interrogative particle, would give a possible 
 rendering which would be quite orthodox, thus : ' ' Who seeth the 
 spirit of man which goeth upward to heaven, and the spirit of 
 the beast which goeth downward to the earth. " To a superficial 
 observer this may seem an allowable rendering; but it does not 
 correct a very serious difficulty namely, the repetition of the 
 pronoun ton in the second number of the phrase. There is but 
 one way of accounting for this repetition. It is to make clear 
 the fact that the participles r6jJ (n) and rTTP (n) are not in 
 apposition with the noun nil- The interrogative form is con- 
 sistent, not only with the LXX, the Peshito and the Vulgate, but 
 in St. Jerome's other version (that in his commentary, Migne, 
 P. L. xxiii, 1041) we read "Et quis scit spiritus filiorum hominis, 
 si ascendat ipse sursum, et spiritus pecoris si descendat ipse 
 deorsum in terram?" The interrogative rendering, moreover, 
 is the only one consistent with the context; for if we read in 
 vv, 19-20, that judging from external appearances men die like 
 beasts, and then in v, 20 a parenthetical exclamation that a 
 man's ni"V ascends to heaven and a beast's ni"l descends to the 
 earth, how can we account for the conclusion which he im- 
 
10 
 
 mediately draws in v, 22. "So I saw that there was nothing 
 better than that man should rejoice in his works, for that isj his 
 portion." Giving v. 21 the interrogative rendering, the passage 
 19-22 is consistent throughout. In support of this statement let 
 us note carefully the latter portion of v. 22, mtr6 UK^ "> *2 
 VHriK rPiTW HDD- The ancient versions render TnnN as follows : 
 LXX, J*T' OCVTOV, Vulgate "post se futura," the plain sense 
 of which its "after his death" and Franz Delitzch avers very 
 positively that VHntf must and can mean, only and always, 
 that which follows the present life. It has been necessary to 
 go into this question of interpretation rather fully, because 
 so much that is perplexing in the remainder of the book may be 
 explained if we have a correct understanding of this passage. 
 Wright argues (p. 192) that the interrogative clauses do not 
 convey the insinuation that there is no difference between man 
 and beast. "On the contrary," he says, "these interrogative 
 clauses suggest, if they do not actually assert, the very opposite. ' ' 
 He then proceeds to indicate a probable reference to an aphor- 
 ism in the Book of Proverbs, TlD )J7D^ b^Wnh rbyvb D"!"! m 
 nZOD ^KWO (Prov. xv, 24), which is rendered in the Revised Ver- 
 sion, "To the wise the way of life (goeth) upward that he may 
 depart from Sheol beneath; "and in the Authorized Version, "The 
 way of life is above to the wise, that he may depart from hell be- 
 neath." The former rendering is substantially identical with 
 that of Wright, "The wise man goes the way of life which leads 
 upwards in order that he may depart from Sheol downwards." 
 "In other words," says Wright, "the wise man proceeds on the 
 way of life which leads one upwards, with the distinct object 
 before him of escaping from the path which leads to Sheol and 
 ends there." He then proceeds to argue upon the strength of 
 Delitzch 's testimony, that the word "Sheol" at the time that 
 the passage in Proverbs was written, had begun to lose its former 
 general signification as a place of gloom even for the righteous, 
 but to which all alike were obliged to descend at the death of the 
 body, and to take on the meaning of a place of punishment for 
 the ungodly. However, the meaning appears never to have be- 
 come general; and even if it had been so understood and used 
 by Qoheleth, we shall still have to account for the singular incon- 
 gruity of such a reflection with the context as has been indicated 
 above. At best, Wright's position is a precarious one. It is 
 doubtful if any Jew, up to this time, had formed as high a con- 
 ception of the immortality of the soul as that taught by Plato. 
 The Old Testament is wanting in any direct or positive teaching 
 of the inherent, or even potential, immortality of the soul. The 
 Jews never thought of death as anything but a punishment. 
 "Sheol" is invariably pictured in sombre colors. The thought 
 
11 
 
 of going there is always a forbidding one. They knew no such 
 prayer as "Reqttiescant in pace/' for such mortals as had 
 "fallen asleep;" they could only wail and lament for those "qui 
 descendunt in infernum." Why should such a passage in 
 Qoheleth seem strange when it accords so nearly with "the 
 writing of Hezekiah when he had been sick (Isiah xxxviii, 9-20), 
 
 of which the whole conclusion seems to be, "in ""TV 1"OttP tfb 
 "pON ^K (v. 18), "They that go down into the pit cannot 
 hope for thy truth." (R. V.) Why should one recoil from 
 Qoheleth more than from such a passage as Job iii, 13, nntf 'O 
 mpttW! TQDW> "For now should I have lien down and been 
 quiet" (R. V.) or Psalm Ixxxviii, 10-20, "Wilt thou show won- 
 ders to the dead . . . Shall thy loving kindness be de- 
 clared in the grave, or thy faithfulness in Abaddan? Shall; thy 
 wonders be known in the dark? And thy righteousness in the 
 land of forgetfulness?" (R. V.) or Psalm cxiv, 17, "The dead 
 praise not the Lord, neither any that go down into silence. ' ' In 
 these two books, Psalms and Job, may be found contradictions 
 as glaring as any in Qoheleth. For example : in Job xix, 25-27, 
 
 we read, ' ' For I know that my ^M liveth and that he shall stand 
 up at the last upon the dust; and after my skin hath been de- 
 stroyed this; (shall be) even from (or without) my skin shall 
 I see God whom I shall see on my side, and mine eyes shall behold 
 and not another." (R. Y.) or Psalm xvi, 10, "Thou will not 
 leave my soul to Sheol ; neither wilt thou suffer thy beloved one 
 to see the pit. " It is aside from our present purpose to do more 
 than try to show that these two books, which were never among 
 the antilegomena, as was Qoheleth, present just as striking con- 
 trasts as are found between the early part of Qoheleth and the 
 Epilogue. When we confront these apparent inconsistencies, 
 does it not seem wise to conclude with Kaufmann* that "the 
 simplest explanation is the best," and that "Qoheleth is an an- 
 cient who has not all the methods of thinking of Mill or Schopen- 
 hauer he is not even a Montaigne ; he is not a Frenchman, but 
 a Semite. His work is not a rhapsody of disjecta membra. It 
 is the work of a believer in a struggle with doubt, who sometimes 
 contradicts himself as did Job and David and Augustine and 
 Pascal." 
 
 Before proceeding further, it may fortify our position to quote 
 Bishop Hanebergf in dealing with the difficulties in the teaching 
 of Qoheleth. "They are best met," he says, "if we admit (1) 
 that it was written in times of terrible anarchy and decay (about 
 200 B. C.) and that it was upon life not absolutely, out as he 
 witnessed it, that the writing passes sentence and (2) that he 
 
 *Expositor, June, 1899. 
 
 fGeschichte der. bibl. Offenbarung, p. 53. 
 
12 
 
 stands between the pre-exilie period, when the individual found 
 his end in membership with his God-loved free nation, and the 
 Christian dispensation with its clear and constant doctrine of 
 the fuller life beyond the grave; and that hence, as the cere- 
 monial law, according to St. Paul, so this book also helps to 
 demonstrate the insufficiency of that covenant which was then 
 decaying and near its end." 
 
 II. 
 
 If we have succeeded in demonstrating the unity oi} Qoheleth, 
 and that it belongs to a period subsequent to the Alexandrine 
 era (333 B. C.), we are prepared to find in it traces of the influ- 
 ences of Greek Philosophy. Well-bred Jews began to be versed 
 in Greek, and it is not to be wondered at if the Rabbis en- 
 deavored to exclude from the Canon a work which exhibited such 
 marked tendencies to foreign modes of thought and expression 
 as were utterly alien to Jewish culture., Let us try to form 
 some idea of what these Grecian, or Graeco-Roman, influences are. 
 
 In the first chapter, Qoheleth sets forth his cosmological con- 
 ceptions. He, like the Stoics, seems to have adopted the theories 
 of Heraclitus the cardinal principle of which is that of change ; 
 no bevn[ _i u lL & L-Constant becoming. With this thought he sets 
 ouT, and to this thought he returns ; and to nearly every inquiry 
 
 which he raises, he adds the reflection r\T\ mjni ^DH ^OH (ii, 11), 
 * ' All is vanity and striving after wind. ' ' Heraclitus taught that 
 the primordial element was 7tvp\ all material existence emanates 
 from nvp and returns to nvp. What the Stoics meant by nvp, 
 Qoheleth explains by the term Qv6fr<, which we are accustomed 
 to render "God;" but the Hebrews generally used the word 
 nirP in referring to the Supreme Being the name of their 
 national God. Now it is worthy of note that Qoheleth, although 
 a Jew, uses the word D^"6tf about thirty times, and nvn never 
 once. Surely this is design, and not accident. The root idea 
 of Q\"6tf is supreme, might or power. The plural form is inten- 
 sive, and what Hebrew word is there which would better express 
 Heraclitus' notion ofnvp? This DTI^Ki Qoheleth says, has set 
 all things in motion. All things are in perpetual flux; there is 
 an endless alternation of creation and destruction, not only in all 
 matter, organic and inorganic, but even in those human processes 
 which we call psychical. Beginning with man as the microcosm, 
 Qoheleth proceeds to the macrocosm beyond and above man, to 
 show that each is dependent upon, and complementary to, the 
 other. By way of introduction, Qoheleth begins as follows: 
 
13 
 
 may C^y 1 ? ^1K,11 K2 mi "]^1 in (i. 4), (One) generation 
 passeth and (another) generation cometh, but the inhabitants* 
 (V1N) abide forever. At the._very outset, Qoheleth would fa- 
 miliarize his reader with the notion of change. One generation 
 passes out of existence, another comes into "existence, and this 
 cycle must go on forever. This course must and always will be 
 renewed, so that the same objects, events and actions will recur 
 indefinitely, reappear and recur. Turning to the universe and 
 the forces therein operating, he sets forth the four elements 
 which for him, as for Heraclitus, constituted all things in nature. 
 
 In i, 5, we read : Kin Hill P)K11P IDIpD ^>K1 WDttM Kin WDttM Hill 
 DW> "The sun also ariseth and the sun goeth down and hasteth 
 to his place where he ariseth." (E. V.) The word Pjtfttf means to 
 
 "pant" or to "breathe hard" expressing intense longing or 
 desire ; and Qoheleth seems to indicate here the innate tendency 
 of all things to return to their primordial source; henc&Jbhe, 
 figure of strong exertion and striving to attain the original 
 
 principle. In i, 6, we read, 32D 221D ]lDy hti 2^101 0111 bti *f?in 
 min DW ITQ'QD Syi nnn T^lHi * ' The wind, going toward the north 
 
 and circling toward the south goes circling, circling, and the 
 wind returns (again and again) to its circlings."f J_n__these 
 verses appear the four elements from which all things proceed 
 and to which all things return; viz., fire, water, air and the 
 earth. The earth is mentioned first, because she is, as it were, 
 the mother"; nexTthe sun, because of his intense heat he is the 
 generative fire ; then follow the air and the water. 
 
 expression also in-i r 7, "All the streams run into the sea, yet 
 the sea is not full" which may be taken as a part of the refer- 
 ence to the four elements and which strikingly resembles a 
 theory of Heraclitus, which the Stoics adopted. 
 
 According to ZellerJ they held that the sun is sustained by 
 the vapors from the sea; the moon by those from fresh water, 
 and the stars by those from the land. This notion of vapors 
 rising from the sea to higher regions of space was most likely 
 taught the Hebrews by the Greeks; although it can hardly be 
 affirmed that it was originally a Greek conception. Without 
 being able to cite any authority, the writer is impressed with 
 the belief that some Hebrew writers set forth the opinion that 
 the sun and the moon attract the vapors of the waters, thus 
 supplying themselves with new matter, to prevent annihilation ; 
 but certainly these' opening verses of Qoheleth contain an elabo- 
 
 *An allowable synecdoche. 
 
 |See marginal rendering, A. V. 
 
 JStoics, Epicureans and Sceptics, p. 200 et seq. 
 
14 
 
 ration of the idea which would not be expected in one unfamiliar 
 with the views of the Stoics. The emphasis laid upon! the insta- 
 bility of material things is different from anything found else- 
 where in the canonical scriptures, and is surely opposed to the 
 whole spirit of the Old Testament. Furthermore, the idea that 
 all things move in cycles, and that the elements after returning 
 to their original sources repeat the exact processes indefinitely, 
 is a very clear evidence of the influence of Stoic philosophy. In 
 the midst of all this change in the universe, the only thing which 
 Qoheleth regards as stable is the earth ; which, he seems to say, 
 is the constant scene of the operation of external forces. It is 
 
 the earth alone which "abideth forever" (mDJ7 0^)- It must 
 be borne in mind that Qoheleth is more poet than philosopher, 
 and we arrive at his ideas of cosmogony only through casual 
 expressions or suggestions. His main purpose was not to 
 elaborate a system of philosophy, but to contemplate man as 
 man in his relation to things essential to his survival ; and surely 
 the earth, upon which man exists, and of which he forms a part, 
 is the thing most; closely related to him. This geocentric notion 
 is also one of the principles of the Stoics, who believed that 
 the earth was created before anything else in the universe. "By 
 the mutual play of these four elements the world is formed, built 
 round the earth as a centre ; heat, as it is developed out of 
 water, moulding the chaotic mass."* In i, 8, Qoheleth sets forth 
 
 Jiis-notion of constant flux in the universe DTO Dnmn ^D, 
 All things are full of weariness (go through the same processes 
 and in the same manner). It is a' perpetual going from, and re- 
 turning to, the primary condition. "Man cannot utter (it) the 
 eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing. ' ' 
 (R. V.) The influence of Greek thought is still more manifest in 
 the verses which follow. It will suffice to quote the rendering of 
 the Revised Version. "That which hath been is that which shall 
 be ; and that which hath been done is that which shall be done ; 
 and there is no new thing under the sun. Is there a thing whereof 
 men say, See, this is new ? it hath been already in the ages which 
 were before us. There is no remembrance of the former (genera- 
 tions) neither shall there be any remembrance of the latter (gen- 
 erations) that are to come, among- those that shall come after." 
 (i, 9-11). It seems impossible to read this without the conviction 
 that Qoheleth had adopted the Stoical idea, that as soon as the 
 course of the world has come to an end, "the formation of a new 
 world will begin so exactly corresponding with the previous 
 world, that every particular thing, every particular person, and 
 every occurrence will recur in it, precisely as they occurred in 
 
 *Zeller, op. cit. pp. 161-4. 
 
15 
 
 the world preceding."* According to Senecaf, Veniet iterum 
 qui nos ivb lucem reponat dies. i ' This applies to every fact and 
 to every occurrence in the new world at the TraXiyysveaia or 
 aTttinaTaaraiGiS (as the return of a former age is called) : thus 
 there will be another Socrates, who will marry another Xan- 
 tippe, and be accused by another Anytus and Meletus.f Hence 
 Marcus Aurelius deduces his adage that "nothing new happens 
 under the sun. ' ' Qoheleth not only adopts this view of physical 
 phenomena, but extends the principle to psychical conditions. 
 The same law which brings about the interchange and interplay 
 of things contrary to each other in the external life of the world, 
 is manifest/ also in the internal life of man. Waking and sleep- 
 ing, youth and old age, sorrow and joy all these opposing forces 
 constitute the motive power of human action; in other words, 
 are the prime factors which make up "life." The strife or con- 
 trast of opposing forces is what makes men live. Mark how 
 
 forcibly this idea is developed in, iii, 1-8, pi^itf . . . hlh 
 "A time to be born and a time to die, etc." Heraclitus, in 
 elucidating his idea of "contrary currents," taught that nothing 
 Originates or exists except by the opposition of contraries. "Or- 
 ganic life is produced by the male and the female; musical 
 harmony by sharp and flat notes; it is sickness that makes us 
 appreciate health; without exertion, there can be no sweet 
 repose; without dangers, no courage; without evil to overcome, 
 no virtue. Evil does not exist without good, nor good without 
 evil. Evil is a relative good and good is a relative evil. Like 
 being and non-being, good and evil disappear in the universal 
 harmony. "|| Qoheleth, to be sure, is not very scientific in his 
 statements; he has Macau! ay's fondness for striking antitheses 
 and may sacrifice clearness to an epigram or an alliteration; 
 but his leading idea is manifest, viz., that contrast is our measure 
 and appreciation of things, as well as the motive power of action. 
 For Qoheleth there can be no hate without love ; no pain without 
 pleasure and vice versa. Qoheleth proceeds to inquire why this 
 general law obtains; and the only answer that he can get is 
 
 DT"6K' He is the cause of all ; he has ordered all ; he is the un- 
 knowable and uncontrollable power. 
 
 In the twelfth chapter, Qoheleth seems to look forward to the 
 destruction of the world. Here his style reaches the summit of 
 poetic fancy. As he pointed out in the first chapter the beneficial 
 results of the generative power of fire, so in the last chapter 
 Qoheleth sets forth the results of the extinction of the sun with 
 its heat and light. In thus postulating an end of the world, he 
 agrees with Greek philosophy, especially Heraclitus. It must 
 not be overlooked, however, that the earth, after everything on 
 
 *Zeller, op. cit. pp. 166-67. fZeller, op. cit. p. 167. JEp. 36, 10. 
 Lib. viii, 19. HWeber, History of Philosophy, p. 35. 
 
16 
 
 it has been annihilated, continues its existence as an element until 
 the world begins to repeat its course. This may be inferred from 
 xii, 7. rvn . . . 3ttn\ "And the dust will return to the 
 earth as it was." The earth, it is assumed, is one of the four 
 elements; everything which originated from it must of necessity 
 
 return to it; and (v. 7 b), roro .... rmrn, "the breath 
 (or soul) will return to DM /K who gave it." Lucretius taught 
 the same doctrine :* * ' Credit item retro de terra quod f uit ante, 
 in terras, et quod missum est ex aetheris oris, id rursum coeli 
 relatum templa receptant," Before this verse, the theologians 
 stood aghast and helpless. They attempted various explanations, 
 all of them allegorical, and quite naturally their conclusions 
 were contradictory, each of all the others. The most reasonable 
 hypothesis seems to be that Qoheleth had in mind an earthquake 
 as the cause of the general annihilation. There is one more 
 passage (and this from the epilogue of Qoheleth) which sug- 
 gests a thought of Marcus Aurelius ''the flower of Stoicism." 
 Although Qoheleth is separated from the Antonine Emperor by 
 an interval of between two and three centuries, it is certain that 
 the Roman Stoic would never have quoted an author of the 
 despised Jewish race. There must, therefore, be some common 
 source from which both have borrowed. Compare Ecclesiastes 
 xii, 12 :" There is no end of making many books in great number 
 and much study is a weariness of flesh," with Marcus Aurelius 
 ii, 2-3: Leave off from books . . . "Rid yourself of the 
 thirst for books." Enough has been said to show the general 
 similarity of the thought of Qoheleth to that of the Stoics. There 
 are also certain Graecisms of expression in Qoheleth which tend 
 to establish this position. Among these we may note the fol- 
 lowing from the list of the Catholic scholar Zirkel: 
 
 TtO miZW = f v TipaTTsiv (iii, 12); n31LD DV = evffftspfet 
 (vii, 14); nD 1 in conjunction with 2110 = *Aof nayadoS (v, 17), 
 -yiH ffHSTtreffOai (i, 13; ii, 3); WDWH nnn = v<j> rfXico. The 
 one great inconsistency with the Stoical philosophy in Qoheleth 
 is the general tendency towards what seems to be a reckless 
 disregard of social relations and an individual abandonment to 
 the stern and inflexible fate which nature seems to assign to men 
 so arbitrarily whether they be good or bad, wise or foolish. The 
 watchword of Stoicism 'was resignation; its great rule was to 
 live conformably to nature ; so that while Qoheleth looks to Stoi- 
 cism for his physics, his ethical principles seem to come from 
 another quarter. In a word, while his thought was, in the main, 
 Stoic, his habit seems to have been Epicurean. This brings us 
 to the consideration of Epicurean influences in Qoheleth, which 
 we reserve for the next chapter. 
 
 *De Rerum Natura, ii, 998. 
 
17 
 
 III. 
 
 According to Epicureanism, the summum bonum is pleasure. 
 Qoheleth agrees with Epicureanism that the possession of a 
 tranquil spirit is necessary to the pursuit of pleasure. Neither 
 looks upon carnal indulgence as pleasure, because such enjoy- 
 ments are fleeting and their consequences painful and disastrous ; 
 and both Qoheleth and Epicurus seek to avoid all pain, especially 
 such as is caused by a disturbed condition of the mind. Pleasure 
 is two-fold mental and physical and each is concomitant of 
 the other. Wisdom and intelligence are the noblest objects of 
 desire. Although we cannot attain to the real knowledge, "and 
 even if the wise says he knows it, he is not correct; he cannot 
 
 find it," Mnb ^ov *^> ny"6 ornn "iDto c en (viii, 17), yet we 
 
 can be guided by wisdom and attain to tranquillity of mind. This 
 is why Qoheleth so often contrasts wisdom with folly. He hates 
 folly, but loves wisdom, with all his heart and soul, and cites 
 numberless examples to prove its beneficient power. Wisdom 
 and intelligence, according to Qoheleth and the Epicureans, give 
 us immunity from fear of whatever sort, and make us inde- 
 pendent of, and superior to, inordiante passions and vain desires. 
 We hold ourselves in check and thus are enabled to assume the 
 right attitude towards pain and pleasure, so as to take to our- 
 selves the maximum of enjoyment with the minimum of dis- 
 comfort. If pleasure was to be the supreme object of life, some 
 way had to be found to put away the fear? of death. Upon this 
 point, Epicurus expresses himself as follows : * ' Our fear of death 
 is not caused by our dread of non-existence; what makes us 
 regard it with such terror is the fact that we involuntarily asso- 
 ciate with the idea of nothingness, an idea of life, i. e., the notion 
 of feeling this nothingness; we imagine that the dead man is 
 conscious of his gradual extinction ; that he feels himself burning 
 or devoured by the worms; that the soul continues to exist and 
 
 to feel As long as we are alive, death does not 
 
 exist for us ; and when death appears, we no longer exist. Hence 
 we can never come into contact with death; we never feel its 
 icy touch which we dread so much, consequently, we should not 
 be hindered by foolish fears from attaining the goal of our exist- 
 ence happiness.* Qoheleth takes precisely the same stand when 
 he says, ' ' A living dog is better than a dead lion. For the living 
 know that they shall die; but the dead know not anything, 
 neither have they any more a reward, for the memory of them 
 is forgotten" (ix, 4-6). That is to say, as long as the shadow of 
 the hereafter exists in our minds, unalloyed pleasure is an iinpos- 
 
 *See Weber's History of Philosophy, p. 138, et. seq. and Diogenes 
 of Laerte, x, 140. 
 
18 
 
 sibility. That there can be any such combination as pleasure 
 and suffering, Qoheleth, like the Epicureans, seems to 
 deny. ' ' Corpus sine dolore : animus sine perturbatione ' ' is their 
 maxim. This view, they hold, requires them to break away from 
 many long in-bred notions. Time and again, Qoheleth asserts, 
 with great positiveness, that we need not, and should not, fear 
 anything; because there is nothing to be feared since everything 
 ends with death. "Whatever attaineth to do by thy strength, 
 (that) do; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor 
 
 wisdom in ^INW whither thou goest" (ix, 10). Of course we 
 know that we are doomed to die; but we also know that death 
 terminates all existence; there is no such thing as immortality; 
 we are resolved into the same elements of which we were origin- 
 ally composed. This negation of immortality is forcibly empha- 
 sksed-m the third chapter, verses 19-20, "The sons of men are 
 a chance, and the beasts are a chance, and one thing befalleth 
 them ; as the one dieth, so dieth the other ; yea, they have all one 
 breath, (nn) and man hath no pre-eminence above the beasts; 
 for all is vanity. All go into one place ; all are of the dust, and 
 all turn to dust again." And again in the ninth chapter at the 
 second verse, we read : ' ' All things come alike to all : there is one 
 event to the righteous and to the wicked ; to the good and to the 
 clean and to the unclean : to him that sacrificeth and to him that 
 sacrificeth not; as is the good, so is the sinner; (and) he that 
 . sweareth as he that feareth an oath." (R. V.) Qoheleth 's con- 
 clusion is that pleasure is the end of life, and his admonition is 
 to enjoy as happy an existence as possible. "Go thy way," he 
 says (ix, 7-8), "eat thy Bread with joy, and drink thy wine 
 with a merry heart; for God hath already accepted thy works. 
 ^ ' Let thy garments be always white ; and let not thy heart lack 
 /.ointment." (R. V.) After thus endeavoring to dispel the il- 
 ] lusions, as they seem to him, of fear, he is consistent in his 
 further counsel that life be regarded and employed as a long 
 holiday into which no sorrow or pain is ever to be admitted. 
 Nevertheless, all sensuous delights are barred out of his; scheme 
 of happiness, nor do wealth and luxury necessarily bring real 
 pleasure with them. On the contrary, the unbridled desire for 
 these serves only to disturb' the serenity of the mind, and there- 
 fore begets pain rather than pleasure. Genuine happiness is 
 dependent upon self -sufficiency. "The sleep of a laboring man 
 is sweet, whether he eat little or much; but the fulness of the 
 rich will not suffer him to sleep" (v, 12, R. V.), It is the 
 restriction of wants, rather than the enlargement ofi possessions, 
 which makes one rich in reality. The simplest fare yields as 
 much enjoyment as the most dainty, and is much more conducive 
 to physical health. Neither Epicurus nor Qoheleth could recon- 
 cile poverty with their ideas of the summum l}onum, after the 
 manner of the Stoics. Want entails pain and suffering which 
 
19 
 
 must, above all things, bo avoided; but both counsel moderation 
 of desires; and as long as the legitimate wants of the body are 
 supplied, there can be no unsatisfied legitimate desire and hence 
 there can be no suffering. One who cannot, to this extent, at 
 least, raise himself above external conditions, cannot hope to 
 attain serenity of mind. "Si cui sua non videntur amplissima, 
 licet totius mundi dominus sit tamen miser est," says Seneca.* 
 Compare this saying with that of Qoheleth (v, 10), "He that 
 loveth silver shall not be satisfied with silver ; nor he that loveth 
 abundance with increase." Epicurus, we know, lived most ab- 
 stemiously, limiting his daily expenses for food to one mina ; and 
 Qoheleth might, like him, have been happy as Zeus, on no less 
 frugal a diet. To Qoheleth, as to the Epicureans, it seemed the 
 veriest folly to lose the bone in grasping at the shadow; to give 
 up a certainty of present good for the uncertain hope of a better 
 future, and to sacrifice the end of life to the means of living. 
 Qoheleth says (iv, 6), "Better is an handful with quietness, than 
 two handfuls with labor and striving after wind." This self- 
 sufficiency, however, does not consist in using little, but in 
 needing little. Qoheleth expressly recommends fine garments, 
 perfumes, etc.,f if one have the good fortune to possess them ; 
 but no one must depend upon these for happiness, "Behold," he 
 says, "I know by experience that it is goodj that every man 
 should eat and drink and enjoy good in all his labor;" (R. V.) 
 but the senses are not to be recklessly and blindly satisfied, for 
 this would be to degrade the wise man to the level of a fool ; for 
 the fool is the one who walks blindly, but the wise man is 
 guided by^his wisdom, his eyes are in his head. (itfWOTOJJ D2nrfl- 
 Qoheleth gives the rule which he applied to his own enjoy- 
 ment of pleasure: "Mine heart yet guiding me with wisdom. "II 
 Qoheleth and the Epicureans have no room in their scheme for 
 the austerities of the Stoics who aimed at independence through 
 the subversion of the instincts of the senses and by the discipline 
 of the body to the point of indifference to all comfort. The 
 senses are to be gratified, so far as such gratification is consistent 
 with wisdom and intelligence. They are to be the servants not 
 the masters of the mind. He himself pursued this principle, 
 even in the matter of "cheering his flesh with wine" and "in- 
 dulging in folly. "1J He seems to have resolved deliberately to 
 surrender his body to the allurements of pleasure, without giving 
 too free play to passion. He may have been trying the experi- 
 ment of uniting the pursuit of pleasure with that of wisdom ; for 
 he seems to strive after intellectual enjoyment with no less 
 avidity than he sought the gratification of his senses. Especially 
 does he seem to have had a taste for art. He built mansions; 
 planted vineyards, made gardens and pleasure-grounds; gath- 
 
 *Bp. 9, 20. fiii, 13. $ix, 8. 
 
 ii, 14. Hlbid. til, 3. 
 
20 
 
 ered around himself men singers and women singers; there is 
 much refinement and little coarseness in all that we can learn 
 concerning his personal tastes; for in all his pursuit of pleasure, 
 he says: ''My wisdom remained with me."* As has been 
 before observed, Qoheleth despised folly and fools as thoroughly 
 as did the Stoics and Epicureans. He is in mortal dread lest 
 his heir should be a fool. "I hate all my labor wherein I labored 
 under the sun ; seeing that I must leave it unto the man that shall 
 be after me. And who knoweth whether he shall be a wise man 
 or a fool? Yet shall he have rule over all my labor wherein I 
 have labored and wherein I have showed wisdom under the 
 sun. This also is vanity. Therefore I turned about to cause 
 my heart to despair concerning all the labor wherein T had 
 labored under the sun. For there is a man whose labor is wisdom 
 and with knowledge and with success; yet to a man who hath 
 not labored therein shall he give it for his portion."* No Stoical 
 condemnation of folly could be more scathing than that which 
 appears in this, as in other sayings of Qoheleth. We .must not 
 fail to note how largely the personal equation, if we may so 
 term it, enters into all the observations of Qoheleth. Almost 
 always he introduces the statement of a deduction by the expres- 
 sion TVfrm "and I have experienced." He seems to have experi- 
 mented with various theories of life and conduct, which may 
 account for his apparent inconsistencies and self-contradictions ; 
 but he always comes back to the emphatic reiteration, that the 
 only object worthy of endeavor is wisdom. As an illustration 
 of the worth and excellence of wisdom, he relates an interesting 
 incident, about the historicity of which discussion is not necessary 
 to our 1 argument, In the ninth chapter (vv, 13-16) he says: "I 
 have also seen wisdom under the sun on this wise, and it seemed 
 great unto me; there was a little city and few men within it; 
 and there came a great king against it, and besieged it, and 
 built great bulwarks against it ; now there was found in it a poor 
 wise man and he, by his wisdom, delivered the city; yet no 
 man remembered that same poor man. Then said I, Wisdom is 
 better than strength; nevertheless, the poor man's wisdom is 
 despised, and his words are not heard." This seems to be a 
 fitting climax to Qoheleth 's discussion of wisdom as a power in 
 itself, and as a regulative principle in the pursuit of happiness. 
 In what follows, he proceeds to outline a general plan for the 
 guidance of the wise in the practical affairs of life a plan which 
 is essential to real happiness. In the first place, Qoheleth is no 
 ascetic. "Alter! vivas oportet, si vis tibi vivere," might have 
 been his motto. Under any and all circumstances, every one 
 must have friends. Isolated happiness is a paradox. Alone, one 
 is helpless, weak and exposed to all manner of discomfort and 
 
 *ii, 9. tii, 18-21- 
 
21 
 
 even danger; united to others, he is strong, and able to live 
 safely and peacefully. /A purely selfish motive prompts the 
 desire for friends and social intercourse. It is the interest of the 
 individual, not of society, which Qoheleth has in view; the 
 benefit to society is merely incidental. Here again, Qoheleth and 
 Epicureanism are at one. Of course, only the wise man will act 
 in accordance with the scheme of Qoheleth, because wisdom is 
 necessary to the perception and foresight of the advantages 
 accruing from such a course of conduct. In the fourth chapter, 
 Qoheleth sets forth the advantages of combination, and the evils 
 of separation. In verses 7-12, we read : ' ' Then I returned and 
 saw vanity under the sun. There is one that is alone and he 
 hath not a second; yea, he hath neither son nor brother; yet is 
 there no end of all his labor, neither are his eyes satisfied with 
 riches. For whom, then, saith he, do I labor and deprive 
 myself of good? This also is vanity, yea, it is a sore travail. 
 Two are better than one, because they have a good reward for 
 Iheir labor. For if they fall, the one will lift up his fellow; but 
 woe to him that is alone when he falleth, and hath not another 
 to lift him up. Again, if two lie together, then they have 
 warmth; but how can one be warm (alone) ? And if a man pre- 
 vail against him that is alone, two shall withstand him; and a 
 three-fold cord is not easily broken." (R. V.) 
 
 Here are two striking and vivid pictures. In the first we 
 behold a solitary rich man who expects to increase his store of 
 happiness by holding himself aloof from all companionship with 
 his kind; but he only injures his own best interests and defeats 
 the very purpose of his endeavor. He becomes "his own worst 
 enemy." The associations and alliances which this foolish man 
 deprecates lest through them his wealth be dissipated, and with 
 it his happiness, are really the) only means of attaining his end ; 
 for two men, laboring together, are able by mutual counsel and 
 assistance to accomplish much more than would be possible for 
 
 any one individual working unaided. This is the ^DD who is 
 the object of Qoheleth 's contempt. 
 
 In the second picture is presented a striking contrast to the 
 first. Because of the sudden introduction of the last words "a 
 three-fold cord is not easily broken," there seems to be some 
 ground for the allegorical explanation of the rabbis who re- 
 garded one of the travelers as Companionship, the other as 
 Friendship. These two appear first upon the scene, but soon 
 they are joined by a third, Strength, which results from com- 
 bination. Of course this is only a fanciful conceit, but the num- 
 ber "three" was a familiar symbol of completeness to the 
 Jewish mind, and some such idea may have been in the mind of 
 Qoheleth. / This exaltation of friendship has a decidedly Epicu- 
 i rean flavor. The Epicurean friendship is second only to the 
 1 Pythagorean, if to any. "Non sine amico," says Seneca "vi- 
 
22 
 
 sceratio leonis ac lupi vita est."* In a broad sense, this depend- 
 ence upon others is, for Qoheleth as well as for the Epicureans, 
 real independence, as being the fundamental principle of happi- 
 ness and the indispensable condition of pleasure. Since happi- 
 ness and pleasure presuppose dependence upon others, Qoheleth 
 is an altruist ; but from a purely utilitarian motive. Give that 
 you may get not get that you may give, is his precept. "Cast 
 thy bread upon the waters; for thou shalt find it after many 
 days."f (R- V.) 
 
 In his political ideas, Qoheleth is Stoic rather than Epicurean. 
 The Epicureans were monarchists. "The stern and unflinching 
 moral teaching of the Stoics had found its political expression 
 in the unbending republican spirit so often encountered at 
 Rome. Naturally the soft and timid spirit of the Epicureans 
 took shelter under a monarchical constitution. "J The Epi- 
 cureans did not scruple to render homage to princes, and were 
 loyally submissive to the powers that be, even though they 
 took part actively in public affairs only when peculiar circum- 
 stances required them to do so. 
 
 Qoheleth has scant reverence for kings and princes as such. 
 They are to be avoided rather than courted, for it is so easy 
 to incur the royal displeasure; therefore, he argues, "Keep the 
 king's command, and that in regard of the oath of God. Be not 
 hasty to go out of his presence; persist not in an evil thing; for 
 he doeth Avhatsoever pleaseth him. Because the king's word hath 
 power, and who may say unto him, * What doest thou ? ' " The 
 king, then, is to be respected as the lawfully constituted author- 
 ity ; but he is not hedged by any divinity. 
 
 IV. 
 
 We have now endeavored to show why the weight of evidence 
 compels the conclusion that the book known as Ecclesiastes must 
 be assigned to a period subsequent to the exile, and that it bears 
 evidences, such as are not found in any other of the Old Testa- 
 ment writings, to the influence upon the writer's thought of the 
 Greek philosophy of the period. A few general reflections upon 
 the character of the book, as a 'whole, may not unfittingly con- 
 clude the treatment of our subject. 
 
 It may be an indication of the general effect of Greek thought 
 that Qoheleth fails to set forth any very positive ethical standard 
 in the sense of concrete moral duties. The author may not be 
 chargeable with exalting the wise man, as do the Stoics, so far 
 above every custom and all law that he does not necessarily 
 forfeit his character for virtue by the commission of even decep- 
 tion, suicide, or murder. Nevertheless, although we find in 
 
 *Ep. xix, 10. fZeller, op. cit. p. 492. Jxi, 1. viii, 2, 3. 
 
Qoheleth maxims for adversity, for patience under oppression, 
 for reverence towards God, with memories of pessimistic moods 
 and meditations upon the joys of industry and noble reflections 
 upon benevolence and calm views of death, there is also in 
 Qoheleth, as in the "philosophy of the porch," an excessive ab- 
 stract subjectivity, which seems to lack applicability to the 
 particular instance. There is a mournful beauty about the whole 
 book which well comports with the synagogue appointment, that 
 it shall be read in the season of autumn. The melancholy 
 thoughts which its pages inspire in sensitive minds are in 
 striking harmony with the shortening days and the falling leaves, 
 "the beautiful death of the year." Qoheleth has the same 
 fascination for many natures as the theories of Schopenhauer 
 and Von Hartmann. It seems to fit in with the tone of joyless- 
 ness which we are tempted to think is dominant in our modern 
 life. That high-strung spirit, Amiel, says in his journal, "The 
 happy man, as this century is able to produce him, is one who 
 keeps a brave face before the world and distracts himself the 
 best he can from dwelling upon the thought which is hidden 
 in his heart. . . . The outward peace of such a man is but 
 despair well masked: his gayety is the carelessness of a heart 
 which has lost all its illusions and has learned to acquiesce in an 
 indefinite putting off of happiness. His wisdom is really acclima- 
 tization to sacrifice; his gentleness should be taken to mean 
 privation patiently borne, rather than resignation ; in a word, he 
 submits to an existence in which he feels no joy and he cannot 
 hide from himself that all the alleviations with which it is strewn 
 cannot satisfy the soul. The thirst for the Infinite is never ap- 
 peased. God is wanting." This from a Frenchman; a source 
 to which we are accustomed to look for thoughtless, volatile 
 good-humor. It is Stoicism pure and simple. If we may coin 
 a word, it is also Qohelethism. The "highest good" is only an 
 ideal after which we should strive, but which we shall never 
 succeed in making actual. And what do our modern poets tell 
 us ? For the poets are always those who best reflect the spiritual 
 temper of the time. We do not forget the genial optimism, the 
 strong, manly hopefulness of Robert Browning who sees real 
 success in "Apparent Failure," and whose inspiring note always 
 rings true : 
 
 ' * God 's in His Heaven 
 All's right with the world." 
 
 But a far different spirit seems to move over the page, as we 
 read from Tennyson, or Clough, or Matthew Arnold. They have 
 written strong words, beautiful words, even hopeful words some- 
 times; but they are, as a whole, to Browning, what A minor is 
 to C major in music. Take, for example, that beautiful poem of 
 
Arnold's, "Self-Dependence." What is his "conclusion" of 
 the whole matter? 
 
 "Resolve to be thyself and know that he 
 Who finds himself loses his misery." 
 
 The lines are beautiful indeed, but it is a sad and mournful 
 beauty, the beauty of the notes of the captive bird, which is too 
 wise to bruise its breast and wings against the bars of its cage, 
 and so takes its stand upon its perch and tries to sing as sweetly 
 as it can. His only way to lose his misery is to find his un- 
 satisfied, unblessed and uncompleted self. Matthew Arnold is 
 only one of the great army of modern Qoheleths. They acknow- 
 ledge and reverence an unknown and unknowable DM^Ni they 
 do not know and adore a personal and ever present mrP- There 
 stood once upon Mars ' Hill a man who could talk Greek poetry 
 and philosophy with the men of the Areopagus, quoting the 
 Epicurean maxim, "Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we 
 die." He said that this was a good enough philosophy, "if 
 the dead rise not ; ' ' for if the spirit of man go not upward ; if 
 this little span of life be all, we are, indeed, " of all men most 
 miserable." Upon that theory, what room is there for unselfish- 
 ness, for generosity, for brotherly kindness? In such a scheme, 
 the only rational course is for each one to get as much, and give 
 as little, as he can. But in a scheme which admits infinity of 
 duration to life, there must be infinity of compass as well ; and we 
 cannot leave our neighbor out of the account. In such a scheme, 
 truth and justice count; fraternity and fellowship count; love 
 and loyalty count ; for if one member suffer, all the other mem- 
 bers must suffer with it; and nothing can be good for a part 
 which is not good for the whole. Qoheleth with his sad refrain, 
 "Vanity of vanities," witnesses to the unrest which is the portion 
 of all who miss the summum bonum of that eternal life which 
 is to know nifP and do His will. 
 

 
 
 
 
14 DAY USE 
 
 RETURN TO DESK FROM WHICH BORROWED 
 
 LOAN DEPT. 
 
 This book is due on the last date stamped below 
 or on the date to which renewed. Renewals only 
 
 Tel. No. 642-3405 
 
 Renewals may be made 4 days priod to date due 
 Renewed books are subject to immediate recall 
 
 LD21A-60m-8,'70 
 (N8837slO)476 A-32 
 
 General Library 
 
 University of California 
 
 Berkeley 
 
iPHUET BINDER 
 
 Stockton,' Co 
 
 Y.C 36723