Ecclesiastes for the closing book for which there is no ancient testimony.
Krochmal's ingenious theory has, however, been adopted by Jost, Grätz and Renan,[1] though Renan is willing to admit that vv. 9, 10 may be from the pen of the author himself. 'Cet épilogue complète bien la fiction qui fait la base du livre. Quel motif d'ailleurs eût amené à faire postérieurement une telle addition?'[2] I do not myself hold with Krochmal, but vv. 9-12 seem to me to hang together, and I do not think that the author himself would be at the pains to destroy his own fiction, whereas a later editor would naturally append the corrective statement that the real Koheleth was not a king, but a wise man. (Observe too that 'Koheleth' in ver. 8 has the article, but in vv. 9, 10 is without it, suggesting a change of writer.) I agree however with Renan that vv. 13, 14, which differ in tone and in form from the preceding verses, appear to be a later addition than the rest of the Epilogue. Renan, it is true, distrusts this appearance; he fears a too complicated hypothesis. But we must at least hold that vv. 13, 14 were added (whether by the Epilogist or by another) by an after-thought. The Epilogue should therefore be divided into two parts, vv. 9-12, and vv. 13, 14. In the first part, the real is distinguished from the fictitious author; his qualifications are described; the editors of his posthumous work are indicated; and a warning is given to the disciple of the Epilogist (to apply the words of M. Aurelius) 'to cast away the thirst for books.'[3] In the second part, a contradiction is given to what seemed an unworthy interpretation of a characteristic expression of Koheleth's, and the higher view of its meaning is justified—justified, that is, to those who approach the work from the practical point of view of those who have as yet no better moral 'Enchiridion.'[4]
- ↑ See Jost (Gesch. des Judenthums, i. 42, n. 2). Derenbourg too seems to tend in this direction (Revue des études juives, i. 179, note). Reuss, Bickell, and Kleinert too agree in denying that 'Koheleth' composed the Epilogue. So also apparently Geiger (Jüd. Zeitschr., iv. 10, Anm.)
- ↑ L'Ecclésiaste, p. 73.
- ↑ Meditations, ii. 3.
- ↑ I designedly refer to the great work of Epictetus, as its adaptation by Christian hands to the use of Christian believers to some extent furnishes a parallel for the editorial adaptation of Ecclesiastes.
