Ecclesiastes.
Ecclesiastes.
§ 146. Ecclesiastes is called by the Hebrews 
, the feminine participle from the root 
, “he gathered.” Rabbi D. Kimchi believes that Solomon is so called because his soul had gathered an abundance of arts and wisdom for him. The feminine form has to do either with “wisdom,” through which Solomon called together the people to himself and addressed them regarding necessary and useful matters, or with “the soul,” which is the nobler part of man. In Eccles. 1:2 it is construed with the masculine. The Greeks call it 
, “The Preacher,” because it speaks to the multitude generally, not to any one person in particular, as does Proverbs, according to Jerome’s observation.
The author of this book, by consensus of all, is Solomon, who undoubtedly set forth these teachings to his court either at table or in friendly conversation, as we gather from 1 Kings 10:8. Many of the Hebrews say that Solomon wrote this book in repentance after having lived a profligate life. Others say that with a prophetic spirit he foresaw the division of his kingdom under his son Rehoboam and was drawn into a contempt for fickle vanity. (See Ludovicus Vives, Augustini de civ. Dei, bk. 20, c. 3.)
Ecclesiastes has twelve chapters. Its author explains the sum and goal of the entire book in the last chapter, v. 8, namely: “Everything in the world is vanity.” Thus there is nothing more useful and necessary than to “fear God and keep His commandments” (v. 13). There are, then, two chief parts: the first, concerning the vanity of human affairs and pursuits in the world; second, regarding the stability and usefulness of piety and the fear of God.
§ 147. Philaster (Catal. haeres., c. 132) mentions that some heretics threw Ecclesiastes and the other books of Solomon out of the canon. In De verbo Dei, bk. 1, c. 5, Bellarmine accuses Luther of undermining the canonical authority of this book because [Luther] says in Conv. serm., title De lib. V. et N. T.: “The author of the book that is called Ecclesiastes seems to me to lack boots and spurs and rides only in slippers, as I myself used to do when I was still in the monastery.”34
We respond. (1) We stated earlier what one must decide about the Table Talh. (2) Luther’s words are being cut off as they are quoted. (3) Bellarmine, that copyist, has taken what Luther said about the Book of Ecclesiasticus or Sirach and applied this foolishly to the Book of Ecclesiastes. You see, Luther states clearly that he is speaking about that book that speaks out against tyrants, which Sirach made at the time of the Maccabees, which includes teachings about household responsibilities, which was collected from the library of Ptolemy Euergetes (all of which fits Sirach rather than Ecclesiastes). (4) Luther elucidated Ecclesiastes with a learned and useful commentary. Far be it from him to undermine its authority. (5) In his German Bible, Luther clearly counts this among the canonical books and separates it from the apocryphal books.
Bellarmine will never be able to prove, therefore, that Luther undermined the canonical authority of Ecclesiastes. Rather, let him see how he can excuse the fact that a certain English Papist doctor in 1566 published a book entitled Comitia Parlamentaria, in which he tells a story about someone who had read the Book of Ecclesiastes and said that it was harmful. The doctor bears witness that he had heard this with his own ears. Heskinsius does not contradict him at all but says, “This was a man to be respected, serious, prudent, devout, not unlearned,” and he adds: “Hence it becomes quite clear how perilous a matter it is for laymen to read Scripture.” Heskinsius himself makes this judgment about Ecclesiastes: “What frightens a person away from wisdom more strongly than the Book of Ecclesiastes? How shamefully the author seems to abuse wisdom, an outstanding gift of God, in this book!”