Solomon's teachings on the theology of nature

In Hebrew, Qoheleth. The Hebrew word really means, according to St. Jerome, "one who summons the people," cf. 3 Kings 8:3; but it may also be rendered "the Preacher."

In his Preface to his Commentary on Ecclesiastes, St. Jerome says:

"I remember about five years ago, when I was at Rome, and read Ecclesiastes to the sainted Blesilla in order to induce her to despise this world and to account as nothing all that she saw in it, I remember that she asked me to treat of certain obscure points in it by way of a brief commentary so that when I was away she might be able to understand what she read. And so, since at the very outset of the work she was carried away by a sudden death -- and we, Paula and Eustochium, have never deserved to have another such companion in our lives -- and I at the time was stunned into silence by the blow -- I, now that I am at Bethlehem, a city of glorious name indeed, pay the debt I owe both to you and to her memory. I would only remark that I follow no master; but, translating from the Hebrew, I have kept rather closely to the LXX in those places where they do not much differ from the Hebrew. Sometimes I mention Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, and this, both in order not to terrify the reader by a show of novelty, and also so as not to act against my conscience by neglecting any source of truth by simply following the streamlets of mere opinion."

We have quoted these words in full as giving an example of St. Jerome's methods of work, and also because they show how alive he was to the difficulties of the book. For Ecclesiastes has always been considered a difficult book. St. Jerome himself, at the close of his commentary, says that the Hebrews thought that it ought to be consigned to oblivion, like other lost books of Solomon's, on the ground that it asserted that all God's creatures were vain and were all to be accounted as nothing, that moreover it set meat and drink and passing delights before all else. But it retained its place in the Canon, he adds, solely because of the last two verses which summed up the whole of the author's teaching.

It is clear, then, from the foregoing that it is easy to go astray in reading Ecclesiastes unless we have the key to it in our hands. And the key lies in the last two verses, which, however, are not isolated, for their teaching appears again and again throughout the book, as we shall see from the following brief analysis.

BOOK OVERVIEW

A. Chapters 1-6

Proofs that all is vanity except to lead a happy life.

B. Chapters 7-12

How to lead a happy life.

The keynote is struck at intervals throughout both parts of the book, thus:

I. Use the gifts and the life God has given you;
2:24, 3:22, 5:17-19, 8:15, 9:7-9.

II. Remember that all is God's gift and that He will judge us on our use of it;
2:26, 3:10-17; 5:5, 5:17-18; 8:12; 9:1; 11:9; 12:13-14.

TEACHINGS

A. Chapters 1:1-7:1

All is vanity except to lead a happy life.

1. 1:1-18, the Prologue; the vanity of all earthly things.
2. II-III. He proves it from his own experience.
• 2:1-11, Pleasure is vain.
• 2:12-17, Study is vain.
• 2:18-23, Working for an heir who is to consume all is vain,
• 2:24-26, therefore enjoy life because
• 3:1-15, it is short and meant to be used.
• 3:16-22, but remember that God will finally judge us.
3. IV-VII. 1. He proves the same from the inconstancy of all human nature.
• 4:1-16. There is nothing certain.
• 4:17-5:8, a digression touching reverence in our worship of God.
• 5:9-7:1, Man's life is full of calamities.

Chapters 7:2-12:8.

How to lead a happy life,

1. vii. 2-11, . We must keep the end of life in view.
2. 7:12-10:20, The beauty of wisdom.
• vii. 12-30, wisdom is commended,
• viii-ix. 12, a wise use of life,
• ix. 12-18, this is illustrated by a parable,
• x. 1-20. a comparison between wisdom and folly.
3. 11-12:8, The value of works of mercy; for we know not the time when death and judge ment shall come.
4. 12:9-14, The Epilogue; this should be compared with the Prologue.

AUTHOR AND DATE

St. Jerome's words on this point are worth noting; for while he rejects the Solomonic authorship of Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom, he never doubts but that he wrote Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Canticle. Thus in the opening of his commentary on Ecclesiastes he says:

"He (Solomon) published three volumes, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Canticle of Canticles. In Proverbs he teaches young men and instructs them in their duties by wise sayings, hence we so often find him saying, "son." But in Ecclesiastes he speaks to men of Mature age, showing them that they must not think anything in this world is everlasting, but that all that we see is fleeting and brief. But last of all, he introduces the now perfect man, prepared by trampling on this world, to the embraces of the Spouse in the Canticle of Canticles."

And the difference in style between these three books, St. Jerome explains by saying that in Proverbs Solomon teaches Morals; in Ecclesiastes he teaches the theology of nature; in the Canticle intellectual truths. The Rabinic tradition is that Solomon wrote the Canticle in his youth, Proverbs in middle life, Ecclesiastes in his old age.

We are in no sense bound to believe, however, that Solomon was actually the author of the book. Indeed many Catholics hold that it was written at a much later date than that of Solomon. At the same time it is not reasonable to relinquish, without solid grounds, a tradition long held by the most learned of the Fathers. The arguments generally alleged in favor of a later date are, (a) that the writer seems, 1:12, expressly to say that he was not Solomon, for he says, "I was king in Jerusalem," whereas we should expect him to say, "I am"; but the same word in the same tense is used in Psalm 88:5 (Hebrew), and in Genesis 31:11, where it seems clearly to signify a present and not who were before him in Jerusalem, whereas there was only David previous to Solomon. Yet Solomon may well have known that there was a long line of Canaanite kings before him in Jerusalem. A far more serious argument, however, is based upon the lateness of the language; critics whose opinion cannot be lightly regarded maintain that the language is so patently late that the book must, if there is any history at all to the Hebrew language, be decidedly late. But there is little or no agreement as yet among these critics as to the exact period to which the book is to be assigned; indeed every century from Solomon's time down to that of Herod has been upheld! And while giving full weight to the argument from language it is well to remember that our knowledge of the stages through which the Semitic languages passed is as yet but meager, and it is better to suspend our judgment than to rush to rash conclusions. On the other hand, in favor of Solomon's authorship, must be set the tradition of the Hebrews which has never wavered. Ecclesiastes was always the middle book of the three which they assigned to Solomon; it occupies the same relative place in the LXX. In the present Masoretic Hebrew text Ecclesiastes occupies a place among the Hagiographa for liturgical reasons, the book being one of the five which went to make up the collection known as the "Megilloth." And, as according with the Solomonic authorship, we should notice in addition to the title in 1:1 and 12, the allusions to his wealth, 1:9, 5:12, 18; to his planting, 1:5; to his building, 1:46; and above all to his wisdom, 1:7, 10, 16, 7:12-24, 8:1, 5, etc. It is true that all these points may be due to the wish to represent Solomon to the life, but because such a thing is possible, it does not follow that it is true. Here again, however, we must not be too dogmatic, for it is certain that in Wisdom we have a book which is not Solomon's, and yet which presents itself as such. What was done in the one case may well have been done in the other.


By Very Rev. Hugh Pope, O.P., S.T.M.
Doctor in Sacred Scripture,
Member of the Society of Biblical Archaeology, and
late Professor of New Testament Exegesis at the Collegio Angelico, Rome.