The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1882-03-12
SOME NEW BOOKS.
pheptcl,m In the Hibio-R enan on tho BOOK
OF Ecciesinstc..

Pheptict,m In the HibIo-Rennn On the hook
OF Ecciesinstcs.
The study OF Hebrew and Christian rclig
ious Thought which. in tho hands Of ERNEsP
HkNAH. widens into u profound and fruitful
study OF humanity, has lately prompted On ok
animation ~ tho extraordinary discourse which
npures in our Bible under the Greek name Of
Eclcsiastcs Tho essay on this subject which
appears In the ourIont number Of the Rr1e d's
IS,Lr Mondes exhibits more strkingly and com
pletciy than any other of his published writings
tho Incompatible literary charm with which
the author knows how to commend and illumi-
naic tho hard won results OF scientific ,riti-
eism wide reaching cruditOn and historical
insight. Here Is performed, with moro than
usual grace and felicity the remarkable toU az
force by which. with the dim and scan
ty hints Of an ancient manuscript, Roman re-
constructs an ago. brings to view long vanished
scenes. socictics. and personalities, and trans
fuecs. 40 to speak, his thought into the blood
and brain Of men born under the most ds-
crepant and remote conditions Of herrdity and
environments The conclusions which he
reaches by study of Ecclcsiastcs are 30 novel
and interesting. and they arr confirmed and IL
Illustrated by such impressive analogics drawn
from tho attitude Of skcptcism in all coun-
aries aud In all times. that we have thought 1t
worth while to reproduce tho substance of his
esaay permitting ourselves. however. to con-
dense that part of II which deals chiefly with
photographed lis. in order to present
moro fully the historical and philosophical re-
Elections.
What IL the true name of the book which wo
know ~ Ecclcsastcs, and when and by whom
was II written7 M. Renan thinks that the
meaning Of the Hebrew word Cohclct. which
stands by way Of title over the discourse in the
original tongue Is now understandable though,
IN his opinion, the negative conclusion may be
affirmed with confidence that il should not be
translated Erclesiastos or Preacher. That 1t
was n term, whether descriptive or cabalistical
by which the author chose to designate Solo
mon, the son OF David is plain, from the book
itself but that ia all We know about it, and, ac-
eordingly, NJ. RGnan prefers to use the Hebrew
word In referring to the discourse.
AZ regards the date Of the treatise. M. Roman
IL led by the various processes Of textual criti-
eism to fix 1t at about hundred years before
the birth OF Christ when the sceucid power had
been broken up In Syria, and given place to
eolf-governing cities and minor local dynas-
ties, among which the Asmoncan royal house
oil Israel was conspicuous. 1t was not until
toward the end OF the iirst century of our era
that the treatise called Cohect came to be
much talked about, and was included although
not without vehement OPPOSITION. inthe Hebrew
eunon. About the year 1876 A. ID. Aquila trans
tnted 1t into Crock and Christians began to
read it, Some OF the fathers do not scem to
have recognized its eanonicity. at all events
they do not quote 1t but fortified 10y the approval
OF Origcn. Chrysostom and jerome its place was
finally assured In tho Christian Scriptures. The
rude and puerilc criticism of the middle ages
was not pcrpexed by the dihlcultns which
tlla singular discourse presents to rejecting
It'd, n...t to htt,,l.
scandaliaed by certain passages. and he per-
ecivcd also that the language was Of "a later
date than the epoch of the captivity in Babylon.
Subsequent critics recognized without cx-
planning tho strange skcpticism OF the writer.
Hitzig and Ewald at last entered the true path
Of historical Interpretation. but they miscon-
cetved the free thinking character OF the book.
and completely vitiated its purport by profess
ing to dctnct in it prctcntious trnnsccnden-
tallsm For them, says Roman. Coheet was n
species Of theoloEian OF the school OF Coffin
gen or Zurich. developing his ideas by pcdan-
tic circumvoution. Their eAcGesis. however,
N credited with n certain amount of
progress for they agreed that In order to eX-
pound the book, you must descend at least ~
hate "a the Macedonian epoch; and Irkel ad-
mitted that the discourse was OF still more
modern date than the earlier Protestant critics
had imagined. But the Coholct we are told, is
n work essentially Jewish, that II was re-
served for Hebrew critics to distinguish its
character and vcrtable meaning. Moses Men
delssohn understood it better than the Prot
estant thcologians, and finally II was given to
n. GraetZ to accomplish the most considerable
stop in the Interpretation OF the book. Many
others had dwelt upon the modern features Of
Its language but NJ. 6raetz pointed out that
such comments did not go far enough, and that
10 discover the real analoaucs Of Its style you
must come down almost to the Mlschna
As to the author OF Cohelet, NJ. RGnaE sug
costs that he was. perhaps. some groat-grand-
father of hnnas, or Caiaphas. OF those arsto-
cratic priests who sentenced Jesus with light
heart. He was the ideal Sadducee, the con-
summate type of those rich people devoid OF
bigotry protesting no belief Of any sort in n
future life. attached to the ritual Of the temple
which made their fortune full OF wrath against
fanatics, and invariably delighted when they
were put to death. The effort has frequently
been made TO detsct in the writer's philosophy
traces OF tho influence of Greek thought, NJ.
Roman can recognize no proof OF 1t, Every
thing In the book is explicable by the
logical development Of the Hebrew mind.
1t is quite probable. indeed, that
the writer il later than Epicurus.
yet no seems not to have received any Hellenic
education. His style IL sovereignty Semitic.
In his whole vocabulary not u creek word. not
characteristic Helienism. Moreover. he is far
from pushing as far rs Epicurus tho radical
denial of Providence and tho principle that the
eode are careless OF mankind. His notions OF
physical science are sound enough but they
arc rather evolved, like those OF Thales and
Heraclitus from judicous general observa-
tions. than from truly scientific labor proec-
euted after the fashion Of Archmedes or the
Alexandrian school. Assuredly his morality,
which prcaches right medium Buse ndNieul,
has analogues in Greece, particularly at Cyrene.
Eeclesiastcs, we arc told. necessarily iostlcs
Theodorus Of Cyrenc. without hating at
the lAtter's frankly irroligious afilrmatlons,
Again, Arietippos OF Cyrene would recognize
by many marks OF affinity. n cOnfr3re in this
aniettcred jew. who In blinded 10y no prejudice
aud who has learned to place the supreme end
oil life in tranquil pleasure. Cyrcne, indeed
next TO Alexandria was tho city whore there