But the phrase most naturally means, not 'the essence of
things,' but 'that which hath come into existence;' phenomena
are not easily understood in their ultimate causes, is the
simple meaning of the sentence. I have said nothing as yet
of the supposed Græcism in the epilogue—the last place
where we should have expected one (considering ver. 12). But
Mr. Tyler's proposal to explain (
Hebrew characters) (xii, 13) by [Greek: to katholou]
or [Greek: to olon] (a formula introducing a general conclusion), falls
to the ground, when the true explanation of the passage has
been stated (see p. 232).
There are therefore no Græcisms in the language of the book. Of course ideas may have been derived from a Greek source notwithstanding. The book, as we have seen already, is conspicuous by its want of a native Jewish background, nor does it show any affinity to Babylonian or Persian theology. It obviously stands at the close of the great Jewish humanistic movement, and gives an entirely new colour to the traditional humanism by its sceptical tone and its commendations of sensuous pleasure. It is not surprising that St. Jerome should remark on ix. 7-9, that the author appears to be reproducing the low ideas of some Greek philosophers, though, as this Father supposes, only to refute them.
'Et hæc inquit, aliquis loquatur Epicurus, et Aristippus et Cyrenaici
et cæteræ pecudes Philosophorum. Ego autem, mecum diligenter
retractans, invenio'[1] &c.
Few besides Prof. Salmon would accept the view that
Eccles. ix. 7-9 and similar passages are the utterances of an
infidel objector (see Bishop Ellicott's Commentary); but it is
perfectly possible to hold that there are distinctively Epicurean
doctrines in the Koheleth. The later history of Jewish
thought may well seem to render this opinion probable.
How dangerously fascinating Epicureanism must have been
when the word 'Epicuros' became a synonym in Rabbinic
Hebrew for infidel or even atheist[2] It is indeed no mere
