A TREATISE ON 
 
 Clje autljorsljip of Ccclegiagteg 
 
 TO WHICH IS ADDED 
 
 A DISSERTATION ON 
 
 Cfjat fcrfjirfj fcms gpofcnt t^rougfj Jfmmfafj tfje 
 
 as quoted in Matthew 27. 9-1O.
 
 A TREATISE ON 
 
 Cfje 8utf)or0fnp of cclesm0tes 
 
 TO WHICH IS ADDED 
 
 A DISSERTATION ON 
 
 tohkh to&s spoken through 3Fmmiah 
 the prophet 
 
 as quoted in Matthew 27. 9-1O 
 
 BY DAVID JOHNSTON 
 
 B.A. (GLASGOW AND OXFORD) 
 
 MINISTER OF HARKAY 
 Kennicott Hebrew Scholar, Oxford, 1875 
 
 <<E!u ^reactor souflht to ffnb out atcevtabk toorbs ; anb that tuhich toas 
 totittcn toas upright, fben tuoris of truth 
 
 LONDON 
 MACMILLAN AND CO. 
 
 1880
 
 10 Crutfj
 
 THERE are special reasons why, if one of those 
 portions of Holy Scripture which are disputed as to 
 their authorship were to be selected for particular 
 investigation, that portion should be the Book of 
 Ecclesiastes. Some commentators and critics may 
 indeed assign to different canonical books different 
 relative values, and may accordingly maintain that the 
 date and authorship of Deuteronomy, or of Isaiah 40 to 
 66, or of the Book of Daniel, are of more importance 
 than the date and authorship of Ecclesiastes. 
 
 ' The book of Daniel is especially fitted,' says Dr. 
 Pusey, ' to be a battle-field between faith and unbelief. 
 It admits of no half-measures. It is either Divine or 
 an imposture. To write any book under the name of 
 another, and to give it out to be his, is, in any case, a 
 forgery, dishonest in itself, and destructive of all trust- 
 worthiness. But the case as to the book of Daniel, if 
 it were not his, would go far beyond even this. The 
 writer, were he not Daniel, must have lied, on a most 
 frightful scale, ascribing to God prophecies which were 
 never uttered, and miracles which are assumed never 
 to have been wrought. In a word, the whole book 
 
 2092853
 
 ii Preface. 
 
 would be one lie in the Name of God.' ' It is admitted,' 
 says the translator of Keil's Introduction to the Old 
 Testament, 'that a question about the authorship of 
 Ecclesiastes is very different from the question about 
 the genuineness of the books of Moses, or that of the 
 prophecies of Isaiah, or that of the book of Daniel.' 
 
 It is quite beyond the scope of this treatise to 
 discuss the importance of the various parts of Holy 
 Scripture relatively to one another. Yet even if it be 
 assumed, for the sake of argument, that the date and 
 authorship of Deuteronomy, or of Daniel, or of Isaiah 40 
 to 66, are intrinsically more essential to the interests of 
 sacred truth than are the date and authorship of Ecclesi- 
 astes, it does not follow from this assumption that an 
 investigation into the date and authorship of Ecclesiastes 
 is less important than a similar investigation with refer- 
 ence to these other books would be. On the contrary, 
 the character and circumstances of modern criticism 
 render it peculiarly expedient that the question as to the 
 genuineness of Ecclesiastes should take precedence of 
 the similar question as to the genuineness of other 
 disputed Scriptures. 
 
 Some well-known writers, as, for instance, Hengsten- 
 berg, and Moses Stuart, and Keil, and Delitzsch, who 
 have no sympathy with the denial of the Mosaic author- 
 ship of Deuteronomy, or the Isaian authorship of Isaiah 
 40 to 66, or the genuineness of the Book of Daniel, and 
 who repudiate the views called rationalistic, are at one 
 with writers of the rationalistic school in denying that 
 Solomon wrote Ecclesiastes, and in maintaining that that
 
 Modern Criticism. in 
 
 remarkable treatise must have been written after the 
 Captivity. 
 
 Such agreement between two contrary classes of critics 
 has given to the denial of the Solomonic authorship of 
 Ecclesiastes a footing of unparalleled strength and 
 prominence. Hence the theory that the book must 
 have been written long after the days of Solomon has 
 come to be viewed in many quarters as a truth not less 
 indisputable than the fact announced by Galileo, that 
 the earth revolves around the sun. ' If the Book of 
 Koheleth were of old Solomonic origin,' says Delitzsch, 
 ' then there is no history of the Hebrew language.' 
 ' On the Continent,' says Ginsburg, 'where Biblical 
 criticism has been cultivated to the highest degree, and 
 where Old Testament exegesis has become an exact 
 science, the attempt to prove that Solomon is not the 
 author of Ecclesiastes would be viewed in the same 
 light as adducing facts to demonstrate that the earth 
 does not stand still.' 
 
 Yet the non-Solomonic authorship thus attributed to 
 Ecclesiastes is directly opposed, not only to the unani- 
 mous testimony of antiquity, in so far as that testimony 
 is extant, but also to what is expressly stated in the 
 book itself. Unlike the Epistle to the Hebrews, which 
 is silent as to its own authorship, Ecclesiastes, in its 
 title, claims for its author that son of David who was 
 king in Jerusalem. And throughout the book this pre- 
 liminary claim is unequivocally implied and asserted in 
 various ways. Hence if the claim were fictitious, might 
 not other claims throughout the Scriptures be the same ?
 
 iv Preface. 
 
 The ultimate results of the criticism thus originating in 
 the denial of the Solomonic authorship of Ecclesiastes 
 it is not easy to estimate. ' If the foundations be 
 destroyed, what hath the righteous done V 
 
 Within the domain of ordinary literature, independent 
 literary productions stand or fall according to their own 
 individual merits or demerits. Hence an attack on the 
 credibility of one book does not necessarily affect the 
 reputation of others. It is different, however, with the 
 books of Holy Scripture. The trustworthiness of the 
 volume in general is directly affected by the impugning 
 of the genuineness of one or more canonical books in 
 particular ; so that the question as to the authorship of 
 Ecclesiastes involves issues of momentous magnitude 
 with reference to the character and credibility of the 
 sacred record as a whole. 
 
 The Book of Ecclesiastes has been extensively 
 employed as a Sos TTOV O-TW from which advocates of 
 what is sometimes called the higher criticism have 
 questioned and ultimately denied the genuineness of 
 Deuteronomy, and Daniel, and Isaiah 40-66, and 
 Zechariah 9-14. Such critics, being able to appeal to 
 the testimony of writers like Delitzsch and Keil in favour 
 of their own theory that Ecclesiastes must have been 
 written after the Captivity, have obtained easy and to a 
 great extent unquestioned acceptance for this theory, as 
 if it were a triumphantly established fact Starting from 
 such a basis, they apply their favourite criticism to other 
 disputed portions of Scripture. And even though their 
 coadjutors in the assigning of a post-exilian date to
 
 Unwarrantable Concessions. v 
 
 Ecclesiastes do not accompany them beyond that book, 
 yet the standing ground conceded in the denial of 
 the authorship claimed by it enables them to arrive 
 easily at similar results with reference to the authorship 
 of such books as Daniel and Deuteronomy. As the con- 
 clusion of a syllogism which is logically correct can be 
 successfully impugned only through the repudiation of 
 such premises as ought not to have been admitted, so it 
 seems vain to protest against a denial of the Mosaic 
 authorship of Deuteronomy or the Isaian authorship of 
 Isaiah 40 to 66, while regarding with complacency the 
 denial of the 'Solomonic authorship of Ecclesiastes. 
 This denial is to the modern criticism which bases on it 
 a denial of the genuineness of Deuteronomy and other 
 portions of Holy Scripture, what the foundation is to 
 the superstructure. Hence the results of the criticism 
 cannot be successfully controverted without going back 
 to the original concession of a post-exilian date to Eccle- 
 siastes, and inquiring whether it was warranted by the 
 arguments adduced in its behalf. While, of course, if 
 the Book of Ecclesiastes had been written after the 
 Captivity, the interests of truth could not be promoted 
 by a series of arguments designed to show that Solomon 
 was its author, yet if Solomon did write it, and if this 
 fact be conclusively established, then the modern criti- 
 cism which founds its operations on a denial of the fact 
 must immediately be shattered at its very base. 
 
 In such circumstances, those who defend the trust- 
 worthiness of the sacred text in matters of authorship 
 may, with all the greater freedom and power, proceed to
 
 vi Preface. 
 
 look at the arguments which are said to prove that 
 Moses cannot have written Deuteronomy, that the 
 twenty-seven last chapters of the Book of Isaiah must 
 have been composed after the Captivity, and that the 
 Book of Daniel must have been fabricated considerably 
 later than the days of the man greatly beloved whose 
 name it bears. To be able to discuss calmly and 
 impartially the authorship of Deuteronomy and Daniel 
 and Isaiah 40 to 66 with the alleged post-exilian 
 authorship of Ecclesiastes previously disproved, and the 
 trustworthiness of Holy Scripture in its testimony to the 
 authorship of that singular book conclusively established, 
 is an advantage by no means insignificant. And should 
 this treatise contribute to such a result, the object will 
 be gained for which it has been written, 
 
 Since, as already observed, the authorship of Ecclesi- 
 astes does not stand alone, but Is intimately connected 
 with the trustworthiness of the Scriptures in general, so 
 the scope of this treatise is not limited to the Book of 
 Ecclesiastes, but includes also, by way of illustration, 
 such collateral topics as the authorship of Deuteronomy, 
 and the witness of the New Testament to the author- 
 ship of the Old (pages 345 to 359, and 365 to 388). 
 
 Yet as it is of importance, in the giving of collateral 
 illustrations, to keep within the limits of an accurate 
 critical perspective, it may be specially noticed here 
 that the inquiry into the authorship of the Old Testa- 
 ment, as confirmed by the New, involved direct reference 
 to the much debated word 'Ie/D/itov in Matthew 27. 9, 
 and that the magnitude of the critical controversy to
 
 Solomonic Phraseology. vii 
 
 which that single word has given rise necessitated a 
 separate dissertation. An incidental note, even though 
 it had extended to a few pages, would have been utterly 
 inadequate for the discussion of such a theme ; whereas 
 to have refrained from dealing with the point altogether 
 would have been to leave the argument for the Solo- 
 monic authorship of Ecclesiastes incomplete, in so far 
 as one valuable illustration is concerned. 
 
 Indeed the question as to the authorship of Ecclesi- 
 astes is closely akin to the question as to the accuracy or 
 inaccuracy of 'lepe/ziov in Matthew 27. 9. The discussion 
 of this one word, besides involving sundry interesting and 
 instructive references to the prophecies of Jeremiah and 
 the Gospel of Matthew, is directly connected with the 
 question as to the genuineness of the six last chapters 
 of the Book of Zechariah. Hence it appeared that the 
 Solomonic authorship of Ecclesiastes might be appropri- 
 ately illustrated by a dissertation on Matthew 27. 9-10. 
 
 The dimensions of this treatise, and the time occupied 
 in the preparation of it, have greatly exceeded what was 
 originally anticipated. A few unobtrusive expressions, 
 common and almost or altogether peculiar to the 
 Proverbs of Solomon and the Book of Ecclesiastes, led, 
 above three years ago, to the giving of special atten- 
 tion to the authorship of Ecclesiastes. Such phrases 
 as, for instance, D^Dan ''"in, words of the wise (Pr. i. 6 ; 
 22. 17; EC. 9. 17; 12. 11: page 75), and nOKTr^K, 
 Say not (Pr. 3. 28 ; 20. 22 ; 24. 29 ; EC. 5. 5 (6) ; 7. 10 : 
 page 1 1 1), seemed to point in the direction of a common
 
 viii Preface. 
 
 authorship, and suggested the propriety of minutely 
 comparing Ecclesiastes with the other Scriptures 
 ascribed to Solomon, and with the canonical histories 
 of his life and reign. And the more extensively the 
 comparison was carried out, the more abundant were 
 the marks of identity of authorship thereby disclosed. 
 
 All that was originally contemplated was, besides a 
 brief discussion of the subject-matter of Ecclesiastes in 
 its relation to Solomon, a comparison of the Book of 
 Ecclesiastes with the other Solomonic Scriptures, in 
 respect of words and phrases common to it and them. 
 A perusal, however, of the valuable ' Treatise on the 
 Use of the Tenses in Hebrew' (quoted repeatedly in 
 pages 170 to 272), led to the conviction that a thorough 
 investigation of the conjunctive vau as a prefix to verbs 
 was also indispensably necessary, seeing that the idiom 
 of Ecclesiastes in this matter is" put forward as one of 
 the strongest evidences for a post-exilian date. This 
 circumstance suggested the preparation of most of the 
 sections on the Syntax of Conjunctions and Verbs. 
 There still remained, for the concluding sections, sundry 
 collateral illustrations ; one of which, as already men- 
 tioned, led to the appending of the separate yet kindred 
 dissertation on ' That which was spoken through 
 Jeremiah the Prophet,' as quoted in Matthew 27. 9-10. 
 
 So important, in connection with the interests of 
 sacred truth, are the themes of the treatise and the 
 dissertation, that no amount of time . or labour need be 
 grudged in setting forth, in connection therewith, such 
 facts and arguments as confirm the trustworthiness of
 
 Christian Faith. ix 
 
 the Scriptures, and vindicate their claim to implicit 
 belief. ' Thy testimonies are very sure.' 
 
 And here a few words must be said with reference 
 to the relation between Christian Faith and Textual 
 Criticism. Many humble, happy, triumphant Christians 
 live and die in spheres in which they are undisturbed 
 by the discordant and distracting speculations of modern 
 criticism. As in the world of nature one may live a 
 healthy, active, vigorous life, knowing neither the laws 
 of physiology nor the organic structure of the human 
 body, so likewise in the world of grace, one who has, 
 as a little child, received the kingdom of heaven, and 
 whose every thought has been brought into captivity to 
 the obedience of Christ, may daily feed on the bread of 
 life, and enjoy the heavenly sweetness of the divine 
 oracles, while knowing no more about modern criticism 
 than about the languages in which the Scriptures were 
 originally written. Others, whose education and ac- 
 quaintance with general literature are more extensive, 
 but to whom Hebrew and Greek are unknown, may 
 comprehend and appreciate the points at issue between 
 different schools of critics. Yet having never studied 
 the ancient tongues and the history of the sacred text, 
 their faith may be tried, and their peace and joy in 
 believing may be wounded, by the way in which the 
 credibility of the Scriptures in matters of authorship is 
 assailed. And they may be chafed in spirit on account 
 of their inability to vindicate, as they wish they could 
 do, that which, with all their heart, they have joyfully 
 accepted as the truth of God.
 
 x Preface. 
 
 Now it may be safely affirmed with reference to 
 those who have been rescued from the miry clay, 
 whose feet have been set on the rock, and their 
 goings established, and the new song of praise put into 
 their mouth, that it could be no easy matter for modern 
 criticism, however plausible, to come between them and 
 the ancient oracles which they have already received as 
 the word of the Eternal, or to deprive them of that 
 sacred joy which springs from the fact that their life is 
 hid with Christ in God. ' Your joy no man taketh 
 from you.' 
 
 But there is a different class of persons, on account 
 of whom the conclusions of what is sometimes called 
 the higher criticism ought to be subjected to the strictest 
 scrutiny. Somehow in the present day the denial of 
 the authorship which various ^portions of Scripture 
 claim for themselves has come to be extensively re- 
 garded as great and noble and magnanimous ; so that 
 a critic is at once commended as a literary hero if 
 he deny that Solomon wrote Ecclesiastes, or Moses 
 Deuteronomy, or Isaiah the twenty-seven last chapters 
 of the book which bears his name. While such denial 
 is commended as deserving to be praised, no attempt 
 is made to ascertain whether it deserves to be believed. 
 And students of the sacred text, especially among the 
 young and inexperienced, have their minds biassed 
 against the truth of the gospel at the very threshold of 
 their investigations. Instead of carefully and impar- 
 tially inquiring into the claims of the Written Word, they 
 adopt, without inquiry, a position adverse to those
 
 Textual Criticism. xi 
 
 claims, and infer from unproved premises, which they 
 ought not to have accepted, but did accept, that as the 
 human authorship ascribed in the Bible to some of its 
 constituent parts has been extensively denied and dis- 
 credited, therefore the divine inspiration of the Scrip- 
 tures may turn out to be non-existent also. Now a bare 
 dogmatic appeal to the inspiration of the Scriptures, in 
 support of the truthfulness of what they testify as to the 
 authorship of some of their constituent parts, can supply 
 no sufficient answer to the modern criticism by which 
 that testimony is said to be disproved. To affirm that, 
 as the writings are true and trustworthy and divinely 
 inspired, they must be genuine in respect of the author- 
 ship which they assert, and that therefore the critics 
 who deny that authorship must be mistaken, is an 
 argument which may indeed satisfy many a humble 
 believer whose faith stands, not in the wisdom of men, 
 but in the power of God. Yet such an argument leaves 
 untouched the point at issue between the traditional 
 view and the contrary averments of modern times. 
 
 That the Scriptures are divinely inspired is an article 
 of faith ; whereas the linguistic features of a written 
 document are matters for philological research and 
 demonstration. Consequently the assertion that the 
 authorship claimed by a certain canonical book is dis- 
 proved by the style and phraseology of the book, must, 
 if relevantly controverted, be examined and answered 
 on critical grounds. To have no answer to give but 
 the fact of divine inspiration would be like attempting 
 to solve a geometrical theorem by substituting practical
 
 xii Preface. 
 
 measurements for mathematical reasoning, and would 
 tend to retard rather than promote the best interests of 
 Biblical truth. Hence the divine inspiration of the 
 Scriptures, though incidentally mentioned several times 
 throughout this treatise, is not adduced as an argument 
 for the Solomonic authorship of Ecclesiastes, or for any 
 other authorship asserted in the Bible, but is viewed as 
 posterior, in the nature of things, to the points here 
 discussed. The first point to be decided is whether 
 the Scriptures are worthy of being believed in such 
 simple matters of fact as the human authorship which 
 they claim. And it is not easy to see how, if their testi- 
 mony were disproved in such points as this, they could 
 (consistently with any principles of sound reasoning) 
 be found entitled to credit in their claim to have been 
 given by inspiration of God. If, on the other hand, the 
 authorship claimed by such books as Ecclesiastes and 
 Deuteronomy, but denied by some modern critics, be 
 conclusively established by means of strict philological 
 scrutiny, this circumstance will supply one of the deepest 
 and strongest of the undesigned evidences of Christianity, 
 as founded on the Scriptures of the Old Covenant. 
 
 Although the criticism of the text logically precedes 
 the acceptance of the doctrines recorded in it, this does 
 not imply that persons who, without a previous know- 
 ledge of textual criticism, have believed and accepted 
 the Gospel, are thereby unfitted for subsequently pur- 
 suing critical investigations with the utmost freedom 
 and impartiality. A man untrained in mathematics, 
 who has learned from his own practical experiments
 
 \ 
 
 Impartiality of Sound Criticism. xiii 
 
 that the three angles of a triangle are equal to two 
 right angles, is not disqualified, by his knowledge of 
 this fact, for entering unprejudiced on a course of 
 mathematical study. One does not need to be ignorant 
 of the circulation of the blood, in order that one may 
 independently investigate the principles of medical 
 science. And it is quite possible for a man who, 
 though not a trained musician, has relished the ' lovely 
 song of one that hath a pleasant voice, and can play 
 well on an instrument,' to turn his attention thereafter, 
 un warped by prejudice, to the theory and practice of 
 music. So likewise a previous acknowledgment of the 
 paramount claims of Christianity can in no way hinder 
 a devout student of Holy Scripture from entering on 
 the investigation of questions of textual criticism, with 
 an impartiality not less thorough than that which is 
 claimed by those modern critics who make doubt or 
 unbelief, rather than faith, their starting-point. Indeed 
 the more intelligently such a student of the Written 
 Word prizes his happy Christian experience, and the 
 more joyfully he meditates by day and by night on the 
 Law of his God, the more thoroughly will he realise 
 how impregnable are the grounds on which his faith 
 rests, and the more confidently will he submit to have 
 the credentials of his belief tested by the principles of 
 sound criticism. ' He that doeth the truth cometh to 
 the light, that his works may be made manifest, that 
 they are wrought in God.' 
 
 May 1880.
 
 
 1. As in the Authorised Version of the English Bible, so in the 
 direct quotation of passages of Scripture in English throughout 
 this treatise, supplementary words are usually printed in italics. 
 
 2. In the specifying of passages by Chapter and Verse, where the 
 numbering in the English Bible is different from the numbering 
 adopted in the subdivision of the original Scriptures, the differing 
 figures of the English Bible are generally appended within brackets 
 immediately after the other figures. 
 
 3. To have followed invariably the Authorised Version of 161 1 in 
 quoting passages of Scripture in English, would have been incon- 
 sistent with the design and scope of this treatise, especially where 
 (as in pages 457, 458) it was essential that the same word of the 
 Hebrew original should be uniformly represented by one English 
 word. It must not be supposed however that, in every instance of 
 variation, the different rendering is suggested as an improvement 
 on the common version of the passage. Sometimes a variation, 
 as, for instance, the word amount or amplitude, as a rendering 
 of -HK in Zechariah II. 13 (pages 449, 454), is introduced merely 
 to illustrate the precise import of the original Hebrew, without 
 regard to the suitableness or unsuitableness of the word for a popular 
 version of the Scriptures. It may be further observed that the 
 relation between the parenthetical clause of this verse and the 
 corresponding clause of Matthew 27. 9 is obscured in the English 
 Bible by unnecessary departure from uniformity in the translation 
 of Ip 1 ", ri/ir), rifj-av : 
 
 ZECHARIAH 1 1. 13. A goodly price, that I was prised at of them. 
 
 MATTHEW 27. 9. The price of him that was valued, whom 
 they of the children of Israel did value. 
 
 This obscurity is obviated by using the English word price to 
 represent the Hebrew lp> and the Greek verb TIHO.V, with its 
 cognate noun, TI/M$.
 
 Notes. xv 
 
 4. In the specification of the number of times a word occurs, 
 the occurrence of the word twice or oftener in the same verse or 
 sentence is perhaps occasionally counted as but one instance. 
 It has of course been the aim in such enumerations to specify 
 correctly the numbers of the instances of the words and phrases 
 referred to. And it is hoped that if in any case a greater or a less 
 number than the actual one has been inadvertently stated, the 
 difference is not such as can affect the force of any argument 
 designed to be illustrated or confirmed by the specification of the 
 number. 
 
 5. In the preparation of the several sections, it has been the aim 
 to quote from among the many passages specified, a sufficient 
 number for the illustration of the points discussed ; so that gene- 
 rally a section may be read through, without the necessity of turning 
 up any of the passages on which the argument depends. The 
 profitable reading of a book is greatly retarded when passages 
 essential to the line of argument, instead of being quoted at sufficient 
 length, are mentioned only by chapter and verse, and when accord- 
 ingly the mere process of turning them up must consume more 
 time than is occupied by the reading of the book. 
 
 6. For the sake of convenient brevity, the phrase Solomonic 
 Scriptures is employed to include or denote those portions of Holy 
 Scripture of which Solomon is the reputed author, and also the 
 canonical histories of his life and reign, as specified in pages 40, 41. 
 But the phrase is never used in such a way as to beg the question 
 which forms the theme of the treatise. 
 
 7. In the section on the Copulative Vau (page 176), the Historic 
 Imperfect is described as indicating the relation of sequence or 
 development from the preceding Dominant Preterite. This descrip- 
 tion is in no way inconsistent with the fact that occasionally, as, 
 for instance, in Jonah 2. 4 (3) ; Isaiah 39. 1 ; Nehemiah 2. 9, the 
 Historic Imperfect is employed to record some incident chrono- 
 logically anterior to the fact expressed by the preceding preterite. 
 As in a syllogism the premises may be inferred from the conclusion, 
 so in a train of thought one may pass from the posterior to the 
 anterior deducing the cause from its effect in such a way that 
 what, in actual occurrence, was prior and causative, may be 
 presented to the mind and recorded by the pen inferentially, 
 and subsequently to that which it chronologically preceded. 
 Thus, for instance, the prophet Jonah, in addressing the Lord as
 
 xvi Notes. 
 
 having heard his voice, begins his prayer with a dominant preterite 
 (nyOC'), to which he attaches the historic imperfect ( < 03^{J?Ffl), 
 expressive of the fact which had led him to lift up his voice to Him 
 who heard it : ' Thou heardest my voice ; for {literally and) thou 
 hadst cast me into the deep.' Now though, in point of time, the 
 casting preceded and led to the crying, and then to the hearing, 
 yet the order of Jhese events is reversed in the train of thought. 
 Similarly in Isaiah 39. 1, the mention of the sending of letters and 
 a present to King Hezekiah led to the announcement of the explan- 
 atory fact that the sender had heard of Hezekiah's sickness 
 yOE>' s l rbw corresponding to J?JD{}>' 13 ... r6t^, ' he sent 
 ... for he had heard,' in 2 Kings 20. 12. In a case of this kind, 
 the occurrences are narrated in the order of their ideal conception. 
 By being as it were developed backwards from the event in which 
 they culminated, they constitute a series for the expression of which 
 the historic imperfect is specially appropriate. ' A writer may, if 
 he please,' says Mr. Driver, in his Treatise on the Hebrew Tenses, 
 ' suffer himself to be guided by association in thought, rather than 
 by association in time : he may thus prefer to mention some fresh 
 fact in the connection in which it rises up before his mind, trusting 
 to the reader to assign it to its proper position as regards the rest 
 of the narrative. . . . Each fresh circumstance thus detailed 
 caus[es] the scene to grow in the imagination of the narrator or 
 his reader, and afford[s] consequently a natural and suitable occasion 
 for the employment of this construction. ' As the Book of Ecclesi- 
 astes contains no instance of this particular use of the historic 
 imperfect, it is not specially referred to in the following treatise. 
 Yet as it belongs to the general subject of Vau Conversive, this 
 Note is written as a supplement to the aforesaid section on the 
 copulative vau (pages 173-180). 
 
 8. Not till after the section which contains, in pages 312 and 
 330, quotations from Stuart on the Old Testament Canon had been 
 printed, was his Commentary on Ecclesiastes procured. It is 
 perhaps not too much to affirm that the arguments on which 
 Professor Moses Stuart bases his denial of the Solomonic author- 
 ship are outweighed by those which he candidly and clearly states 
 on the opposite side. Like Delitzsch and Ginsburg, as quoted in 
 page 161 of this treatise, he maintains that VVn in Ecclesiastes 
 I. 12 'conveys the idea that, when the passage was written, he
 
 Moses Stuart on Ecclesiastes. xvii 
 
 [Coheleth] was no longer king. But Solomon was king until his 
 death, and could therefore never have said : "I was king, but am 
 not now."' 
 
 Like Hengstenberg, as quoted in pages 17-22, Moses Stuart 
 treats general proverbial maxims as if they were descriptions of 
 specific events. 'The times in which the author lived,' he says, 
 ' are the only thing now left, by which we may find some traces of 
 him. They were . . . times in which a whisper against the tyrants 
 of the land was followed by severe penalties : and, in a word, days 
 of darkness, even of thick and impenetrable gloom, so that to go 
 to the house of mourning was preferable to attendance on a feast, 
 because of the feeling that the dead had escaped from the miseries 
 of the living.' 
 
 Indeed the reasoning by means of which Moses Stuart attempts 
 to show that Ecclesiastes cannot have been written by Solomon, is 
 largely of the kind which might with as much or more plausibility 
 be directed against many of the best authenticated historical facts. 
 The inconclusiveness of such reasoning was ably exposed about 
 fifty or sixty years ago, by means of a series of arguments against 
 the historic reality of some of the most prominent incidents in the 
 career of Napoleon Bonaparte. ' How passing strange [says Moses 
 Stuart] for him, as Solomon, to tell those whom he was addressing, 
 that he was king in Jerusalem ! Could he suppose that they needed 
 to be informed of this ? But a writer in times long after Solomon, 
 might easily slide into the expression, that Coheleth had been king. 
 . . . Did he permit the land to be full of oppressive magistrates, 
 who caught at bribes, condemned the righteous, and acquitted the 
 wicked ? Was not the power in his own hands, to remedy all this, 
 and to do judgment and justice ? And yet Coheleth says, in 4. 2, 
 3, that death is preferable to life, under the then existing oppres- 
 sion. Yea, in his impatience, he even wishes he had never been 
 born. And all this, when, if Solomon be concerned in the matter, 
 it was at any moment in his power to put a stop to the evils com- 
 plained of ! ... The matter of Solomon's authorship, in respect 
 to such passages seems quite impossible.' 
 
 With the same kind of reasoning it might be argued to be 
 impossible that a man like Julius Caesar could have been assassinated 
 as Julius Caesar is recorded to have been, or that King Charles the 
 First could have been beheaded, or that a literary work like The 
 Pilgrim's Progress could have been written by a man in the position 
 and circumstances of John Bunyan.
 
 xviii Notes. 
 
 Of a very different calibre are the arguments stated by Moses 
 Stuart on the other side. And they are enhanced by the fact that 
 he himself impugned the Solomonic authorship of Ecclesiastes. 
 ' The obvious reason for new phraseology and new meanings of 
 words,' he says, 'is the novel subject of which the writer is 
 treating, i.e. it is his philosophizing on the vanity of the world. He 
 was at liberty, like all other writers, to choose language adapted 
 to his own purpose. . . . The numerous nouns in Ecclesiastes 
 which end in fin , Knobel sets to the account of the younger 
 Hebrew, not venturing to call this Chaldaism, because the ancient 
 Hebrew has the same forms. The instances are DwH) n^T 1 . 
 
 rnata, rvtap, rvbzto, nijr., rvnntf, n&$B& But abundance of 
 
 the same forms are in the older Hebrew, e.g. see Gen. i. 26; 
 38. 14; Ex. 8. 19; 11. 2; 14. 25; 28. 22; Num. 24. 7 ; 32. 14; 
 Deut. 24. 1; 29. IS; Ps. 22. 20; no. 3; Prov. 3. 8 ; 4. 24; 
 9. 13; 23. 29; 27. 4; Hosea 6. 11 j Amos I. 6; Is. 2. 11 ; 
 12. 5; 21. 2, 4; Hab. 3. 14; al. The only difference is in 
 frequency ; a thing which belongs to the style of the writer, and 
 not to the species of the Hebrew. As to nouns in j-, and ri-, 
 which he puts to the account of the younger Hebrew, they abound 
 in the older [as noticed in pages 35 and 324 of this treatise]. ... If 
 one will now call to mind, how often abstracts are required in a 
 treatise of philosophy like the present, he will think it nothing 
 strange, and no special proof of later Hebrew, that such nouns are 
 frequent in Coheleth. . . . The use of them depended, obviously 
 and merely, on the need of them ; for the form is altogether normal 
 and analogous. , . . Knobel sets to the account of later Hebrew, 
 the usage of Ecclesiastes, in rejecting the Imperfect with Vav 
 consecutive, in narration, e.g. in chapter ii, which gives the history of 
 Coheleth's experience. . . . There is so very little of historical 
 narrative in the book, that much cannot be made out of this. The 
 Imperfect with Vav consecutive is altogether appropriate to the 
 historical, and not being needed here, it is not employed.' 
 
 This point is discussed in the section on Ecclesiastes as an 
 Ethical Treatise, pages 235-243. 
 
 9. Mede says, immediately after the sentences quoted in page 
 515, from his thirty-first Epistle, 
 
 ' Secondly, ZXajBov here in St. Matthew is the first person singular, 
 not the third plural, as we are wont to translate it ; for it answers 
 the Hebrew. The same person and number must also
 
 Mede on Matthew 27. 9-10. xix 
 
 be, whether the v be paragogical, or an ancient slip of the 
 scribe. For the Syriack translates it dedi, and in the Hebrew it 
 answers to *p")KJj$- All this to be so, thewords following evince, viz. 
 
 Ka6a criWraf^ IJLOL Ki/ptos. How will it cohere else ? They gave, etc. , 
 as the Lord commanded me. Must it not needs be, I gave, etc. ? ' 
 
 Yet the incongruity referred to in pages 477-80 of the disserta- 
 tion is increased rather than diminished by Mede's suggested 
 rendering. Besides forcing an inadmissible interpretation on 
 ZduKav, it mars the essential coincidence between these two verbs 
 \a.fiov and ZSuKav, and those verbs of the third person plural in 
 verses 6 and 7 (Xa/3<Wes, elirov, vjy&pacrav) to which PKafiov and 
 ZduKav obviously correspond. And it further makes the clauses 
 thus said to be quoted from Zechariah II. 13 incompatible with 
 one another. The difference in person and number between the 
 they and the me in the words ' They gave ... as the Lord 
 appointed me' involves no incongruity whatever, but is necessary 
 to the adequate expression of the simple facts of the case, the they 
 being different in respect of personal identity from the me, as 
 already stated in page 478 ; whereas if, as Mede assumes, the /cai 
 Xa/3oj' corresponded to the finpN! of Zechariah II. 13, the TOV 
 Tenit.iyj.tvov would need to be in the first person also ' I took the 
 thirty pieces of silver, the price at which they of the children of 
 Israel had priced me.' To read ' I took the price of him that was 
 priced ' is to introduce a difference of person essentially repugnant 
 to the words of Zechariah II. 13 the taker of the silver in that 
 passage being the same person who was priced. 
 
 Not satisfied with treating tduicav as if it were #5w/co, Mede 
 further proposes to substitute HliT 1 D13 for nifT" JTO in the original 
 of Zechariah II. 13, so as to bring it into conformity with Ka6a 
 rvrlra4 fj.01 Ktfptos in Matthew 27. 10. But as this conjecture is 
 altogether gratuitous, with no textual basis on which to rest, there is 
 no occasion for here discussing it. Indeed there is no limit to such 
 conjectural criticisms. They simply pass over the difficulties which 
 they profess to solve or explain, and are as easy as they are worthless. 
 
 10. Emendations. 
 
 In page 42, fourth line, delete illogical 
 Near the foot of page 96, for Jer. 31. 1 (2) readier. 31. 2 
 In page 181, tenth line, for not to advance read to advance not 
 In page 341, last passage, delete (or the) 
 In page 461, sixth line, for Y\y rea
 
 of JluthotB attrj $500kjs xjtwteb from. 
 
 1. The italics in the following List imply that the passages quoted are 
 taken from translations of the originals. The passages thus quoted from 
 Hengstenberg, from Keil on the Minor Prophets, and from Delitzsch, are 
 from the translations published by Messrs. T. and T. Clark, Edinburgh. 
 
 2. The letters A B C D E F in the page columns of this List imply that the 
 particulars of the quotations referred to are separately detailed under these 
 six letters respectively in an Appendix to the List. (Pages xxiii-xxvi.) 
 
 3. In the page columns of the List and its Appendix a dot placed above a 
 unit implies that the reference extends to the next following page. 
 
 4. A corn-ma inserted between figures standing together in a page column 
 of this book implies that the whole of what is quoted in the page mentioned 
 second is quoted also in the page previously mentioned. Ajeriod'is inserted 
 where this is not the case. 
 
 PAGE 
 Alexander, Joseph Addison, D.D (Princeton), 
 
 Commentary on the Prophecies of Isaiah (54. 7-8), 16 
 
 Explanation of the Psalms (Psalm no), . . 127 
 
 Alford, Henry, D.D., Dean of Canterbury, 
 
 Critical Greek Testament (Matthew 27. 9), 423, 502, 474 
 
 Apocrypha (Wisdom 7. 7), 12 
 
 Augustine's Harmony of the Gospels, . . . .509,51! 
 
 BengePs Gnomon of the New Testament (Matt. 27. 9), . 422 
 BkeKs Introduction to the Old Testament, . . 9. 10. 23 
 
 Burgon, John W., B.D. (now Dean of Chichester), 
 
 On the last Twelve Verses of the Gospel according 
 
 to S. Mark, .... 317. 367. 368. 417. 537 
 
 On Inspiration and Interpretation, . . . 475 
 
 Burton, Edward, D.D., on Matthew 27. 9, ' . . . 510 
 
 Calvin on Zechariah n. 12-13, 434.463 
 
 Chambers's Encyclopaedia, Article ' Ecclesiastes, '. . 311 
 
 Chaucer's Canterbury Tales 314 
 
 Clarius on Zechariah n. 13, 434
 
 LIST OF AUTHORS AND BOOKS QUOTED FROM. XXI 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Coleridge's Ancient Mariner, 249 
 
 Coverdale's Bible (Zechariah u. 10-13), ... 448 
 Cowper's Poems, 352. 414 
 
 Delitzsch on the Proverbs of Solomon and on Ecclesiastes, (A) 
 
 Dods, Marcus, D.D. (Glasgow), 
 
 On the Post-Exilian Prophets, .... 436. 441 
 
 Douay Bible, , 148 
 
 Driver, S. R., M.A., on the Hebrew Tenses, . . (B) 
 
 Drusius on Zechariah II. 13, 434 
 
 Encyclopaedia Britannica, Article 'Bible,' . . . (C) 
 
 Eusebius on Mark I. 2, 369 
 
 Eiuald's Hebrew Grammar, . . . . . . 174 
 
 Farrar, F. W., D.D., on the Life of Christ, ... 516 
 
 Fausset, Rev. A. R., A.M., 
 
 Critical and Explanatory Commentary (Zech. 11.13), 455.463 
 
 Gesenius, Thesaurus 436 
 
 Gill, John, D.D., 
 
 Exposition of the Old Testament (Zech. II. 13), . 434 
 
 Ginsburg, Rev. C. D., LL.D., 
 
 Article ' Ecclesiastea ' in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, iii 
 Coheleth (1861), .... 16.117.161.307 
 
 Grotius on Ecclesiastes, 27 
 
 on Zechariah n. 12-13, . . . . . 434 
 
 Hengstenberg on Ecclesiastes, . . . . 16-22. 164. 276 
 
 (Kitto's Cyclopaedia, as specified overleaf), . 336 
 
 Prokgomena to the Song of Solomon, . . .38,221 
 
 Henderson, E., D.D., on the Minor Prophets, . . 520 
 
 Henry, Matthew, Commentary on Matthew (27. 9), . 421 
 
 on Zechariah (i I. 13), . 450 
 
 Horace, Odes, Book III. 30, 284 
 
 Jerome, ...... 13. 126. 369 twice. 434
 
 XX11 LIST OF AUTHORS AND BOOKS QUOTED FROM. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Keil, Introduction to the Old Testament, Volume First 
 
 (Joshua and Zechariah, Sections 42, 103), 43. 501, 502 
 Notes by the Translator, Section 130, . . ii 
 
 On the Minor Prophets, Volume Second 
 
 (Zechariah II. 12-14), . . 424. 435. 441. 443. 502 
 Kennicott, Benjamin, D.D., on Proverbs 1 8. 22, . . 148 
 
 Kidder, Bishop, on Zechariah 9 to 14, . . . . 516 
 
 Kitto's Cyclopaedia of Biblical Literature (1856), 
 
 Article ' Ecclesiastes,' 336 
 
 Leathes, Rev. Stanley, M.A., The Boyle Lectures for 1868, 93 
 Mede, Joseph, B.D., Epistles 31 and 32, . .515. xviii-xix 
 Nevvcome, Archbishop, on Zechariah, . . .435.474.516 
 
 Paley's Horse Paulinae, . . . . . .87. 416 
 
 Plumptre, Rev. E. H., M.A., on Matthew 27. 9, . . 424 
 
 Pool's Annotations (Zech. ii. 13; Matthew 27. 9), 434. 475, 422 
 
 Synopsis (Glassius and Heinsius on Matt. 27. 9), 422. 510 
 
 Pope on Winter, ........ 314 
 
 Pusey, E. B., D.D., Canon of Christ Church, .. . (D) 
 
 Rainy, Robert, D.D., 
 
 On the Bible and Criticism (Lectures III, IV), . 315 
 Renan, Ernest, on the Canticles, 3& 
 
 Scott's Commentary (Zech. ii. 12-13) 435 
 
 Scrivener, Rev. F. H., M.A., LL.D., 
 
 Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, 368-7 1 
 Notes on the Gospel of St. Matthew (27. 9), . 422. 498 
 
 Septuagint, The, . . .47. 118. 148. 376. 380. 473. 484 
 
 Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, Article ' Chronicles,' . 396 
 
 ' Zecnariah,' .501.517 
 
 Speaker's Commentary, The, (E)
 
 LIST OF AUTHORS AND BOOKS QUOTED FROM. XX111 
 
 Stuart, Moses, D.D., 
 
 On the Old Testament Canon (1845), . 
 Commentary on Ecclesiastes (1851), 
 
 Tacitus, Histories, Book I. 2, 
 The Talmud, .... 
 Tischendorf on the Codex Vaticanus, 
 
 312. 33 
 xvi-xviii 
 
 247 
 
 324. 392 
 367 
 
 Tregelles on the Printed Text of the Greek Testament ( 1 854), 408 
 
 Vatablus on Zechariah n. 13, 434 
 
 Vulgate, The (Prov. 18. 22; Ex. 2. 22; Zech. u. 13), 148. 164. 438 
 
 44-6 
 
 Weir, D. H., D.D., Glasgow University, 
 Wright, Rev. Charles H. H., 
 
 The Bampton Lectures on Zechariah, 
 
 (F). 
 
 THE APPENDIX TO THE LIST. 
 
 (A) 
 FRANZ DELITZSCH, D.D., Professor of Old and New 
 
 Testament Exegesis, Leipzig. 
 
 Clark's Foreign Theological Library, Fourth Series. 
 
 Volume XLIII. 
 
 1. Commentary on the Book of Proverbs (1874) 
 
 Introduction, ........ 55 
 
 Volume LIV. 
 
 2. Commentary on the Book of Ecclesiastes (1877) 
 
 Introduction (Exposition in pages 288, 289). 
 
 Page in this 
 
 Page in the 
 
 Pace in this 
 
 Page in the 
 
 Treatise 
 
 Commentary 
 
 Treatise 
 
 Commentary 
 
 iii, 25 
 
 I9O 
 
 163 
 
 205 
 
 116. 117 
 
 210, 288, 289 
 
 1 68, 
 
 197 ^ 
 
 126 
 
 203 
 
 22i, 
 
 198 L 
 
 121 
 
 204 
 
 235 
 
 197 J 
 
 i6i 
 
 201, 5, 6, 8 
 
 310 
 
 1 88. 
 
 The List of Words and Forms in pages 190-6 of Delitzsch's Introduction is 
 quoted from in pages 31-37. 90. 104. 129. 285. 319-326 of this treatise.
 
 XXIV LIST OF AUTHORS AND BOOKS QUOTED FROM. 
 
 (B) 
 
 A TREATISE ON THE USE OF THE TENSES IN 
 HEBREW. 
 
 By S. R. DRIVER, M.A., Fellow of New College, Oxford (1874). 
 Particulars of reference to the Treatise quoted from. 
 
 Page in this 
 Treatise 
 
 Parttcula 
 Chapter 
 
 170 
 
 
 171 
 
 I 
 
 
 ( II 
 
 172,192 
 
 ) 
 JIII 
 
 174 
 
 IX 
 
 i8o.i76.;xvi 
 
 VI 
 
 i8o-2,224 ) | 
 
 IX 
 
 243, 271! 
 
 
 187 ) 
 190, 187 \ 
 
 VIII 
 
 187 
 
 
 193 j 
 
 VIII 
 
 209 ) 
 
 
 220 
 
 X 
 
 226 
 
 II 
 
 260.264 
 
 VIII 
 
 261,191 
 
 III 
 
 Subject. 
 
 PREFACE. (Page vi.) 
 
 Introduction, .... 
 
 The Perfect alone, 
 
 The Imperfect alone, . 
 
 The Perfect and Imperfect with 
 
 Weak Waw, 
 The Imperfect "with Strong Wow, 
 
 The Perfect with Strong Waw, . 
 
 Appendix II. On the Jussive, . 
 
 (Observations) 
 
 Hypothetical*, .... 
 (Foot-note) 
 (Observations) 
 
 The Imperfect alone, . 
 
 (C) 
 
 Section 
 2,5 
 
 7,8,16, 
 
 21, 22 
 
 *3I 
 6757S 
 
 106 
 1 20 
 176 
 1 20 
 
 105 
 148 
 
 7 
 1 20 
 
 35- 
 
 Page in this 
 Treatise 
 
 THE ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA. 
 (i.) The Article ' BIBLE.' 
 
 1C 
 
 37 6 The structure of Ps. ix. , x. 
 
 347, 349- 385 The Authorship of Deuteronomy. 
 
 345- 358 Separate relative print on the Pentateuchal 
 
 Legislation. 
 
 348. 353 twice 
 
 Supplement to the said print. 
 
 (2.) The Article 'ECCLESIASTES.' 
 
 (Already specified in page xxi under the name of 
 Dr. Ginsburg, in the List of Authors.)
 
 LIST OF AUTHORS AND BOOKS QUOTED FROM. XXV 
 
 The Rev. Dr. PUSEY, Regius Professor of Hebrew, and 
 Canon of Christ Church, Oxford. 
 
 I. ' Daniel the Prophet : Nine Lectures delivered in the Divinity 
 School of the University of Oxford, with copious Notes. 
 Third Edition, Sixth Thousand (1869).' 
 
 Page in this 
 Book 
 
 
 Pages 
 quoted from 
 
 i 
 32 
 
 The beginning of the First Lecture, . 
 Preface to the Second Edition, 
 Sixth Lecture, 
 
 I 
 Ixxii 
 
 31 
 Ife, j 
 
 On the Canon of the OldTestament 
 The Book of Ruth, .... 
 
 3H 
 
 
 270, [ 
 283 J 
 32$ 
 90. 
 276. 
 
 The Book of Ecclesiastes, 
 
 327 
 327 
 328 
 
 '} 
 c \ Notes, ..... 
 
 321 
 407* 
 
 a) 
 
 Nahum and other Prophets, 
 
 3"- 
 
 II. Commentary on the Minor Prophets (1860-77). 
 
 292-4 
 4070 
 438 
 472 
 SI7.S2I 
 
 Introduction to the Book of Jonah, . 
 Introduction to the Book of Micah, . 
 Notes on Zechariah u. 13 and Jonah 3. 6, 
 Note on Zechariah n. 13, 
 Introduction to the Book of Zechariah, 
 
 256 
 289 
 573^, 279 
 573 
 50?. 508.
 
 XXVI LIST OF AUTHORS AND BOOKS QUOTED FROM. 
 
 (E) 
 
 Page in this 
 Book 
 
 24 
 43 
 
 3S 
 
 328 
 344 
 367 
 396 
 
 423. 502. 
 475 
 435 
 520 
 
 THE SPEAKER'S COMMENTARY. 
 
 Introduction to Ecclesiastes I. 3. The Date. 
 Introduction to the Book of Ezra (Foot-note). 
 Note on the Epilogue to Ecclesiastes. 
 Introduction to the Book of Daniel IV. Philology. 
 Commentary on Jeremiah 51. 64. 
 Note on Mark i. 2. 
 Introduction to the Book of Kings 
 5. Sources used by the Author. 
 
 Note on Matthew 27. 9. 
 
 Commentary on Zechariah II. 12, 13. 
 Commentary on Zechariah 13. 2. 
 
 (F) 
 THE BAMPTON LECTURES FOR 1878. 
 
 ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES, 
 By CHARLES H. H. WRIGHT, B.D., Belfast. 
 
 Chapter Sixth (Zech. 6. 11). 
 
 Page in this Page in. the 
 Book Lectures 
 
 470 I 4 6, 147 
 
 Chapter Ninth (Zech. 10. 10, 11). 
 520 | 290 
 
 Critical Commentary (xi. 7). 
 443* i 578 
 Introduction, 6 and 7. 
 
 Ch. 10 of the Lectures, 
 
 Zechariah xi (7-14). 
 
 Page in this 
 
 Page in the 
 
 Book 
 
 Lectures 
 
 424 
 
 336 
 
 425, 429 
 
 331-5 
 
 426 
 
 34i 
 
 435 
 
 328,9 
 
 4430 
 
 325 
 
 450, 455, 44 1 
 
 329 
 
 463 
 
 334 
 
 469 
 
 330 
 
 477 
 
 342 
 
 521 
 
 528 
 
 xxxn-m 
 
 xxxv to xxxviii.
 
 XXVll 
 
 Contents 
 
 TlTLEPAGE. PAGE 
 
 THE PREFACE, . i 
 
 NOTES, ....... xiv 
 
 LIST OF AUTHORS AND BOOKS QUOTED FROM, . . xx 
 
 TABLE OF CONTENTS, . . . . xxvii-xxxiii. 
 
 Authorship of 
 
 pages 1-418. 
 
 PART FIRST, 1-15. 
 
 Intrxrittctiott. 
 
 The Question of Authorship, . . . . I 
 
 Two kinds of Criticism, . . . . .2 
 
 The Testimony of History, . . . 4 
 
 Interests at stake, . . . . . / 7 
 
 Views of Bleek and Ginsburg, . . . -9 
 
 The Apocryphal Book of Wisdom, . . . .II 
 
 Value of Critical Research, . . . . .14
 
 xxviii Contents. 
 
 PART SECOND, 16-24. 
 <Sttbjtci-mait.er of ffitcleaiaatt*. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Views of Hengstenberg, . . . . 16 
 
 The Date of Ecclesiastes, . . . ' . -23 
 
 PART THIRD, 25-39. 
 
 Early and late Hebrew, . . . . 2 5 
 
 Views of Grotius, . . . . . ' .26 
 
 Views of Delitzsch, . . . . . . 31 
 
 (Also pages 316-327.) 
 Chaldaisms, . . . . . . -38 
 
 PART FOURTH, 40-64. 
 (Efcib.eritt xrf the 
 
 The Solomonic Scriptures, . . . . .40 
 
 Comparison of Books, . . . . -42 
 
 The Book of Isaiah, . . . . -44 
 
 Different kinds of Resemblance, . v . . . 47 
 
 The Proverbs of Solomon, . . . . . 51 
 
 Ecclesiastes compared with the Proverbs and the Song of 
 
 Solomon, . . . . . -57 
 Characteristic Differences between Solomon's Proverbs and 
 
 Ecclesiastes, . . . . . . 58 
 
 Comparison of Passages, . . . . .60 
 
 Specimen Words, . . . . . .62
 
 Contents. xxix 
 
 PART FIFTH, 65-93. 
 of 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Characteristic Words and Phrases, . 65 
 
 Street, ..... .66 
 
 Delight, Orchard, Pre-eminence, Slothfulness, . 67 
 
 The verb to Embrace. The adjective Sweet, . . 68 
 
 Fool, . . . . . . 69 
 
 The lips of a fool, 
 
 70 
 
 The lieart of fools, I 
 
 Wisdom, . . . . . .70 
 
 The ^z'z/ing and the knowing of Wisdom, . . .74 
 The see&vag of Wisdom, } 
 
 77z heart of a wise man, > . . 7S 
 The Words of the Wise, ) 
 
 Good, ..... . . 76 
 
 Better than . . . . 78 
 
 /?&,& and Wealth, . . . . . 80 
 
 The giving of Riches, Wealth, and Glory, . . 83 
 
 Different kinds of Coincidence, ... 84 
 
 Knowledge, ...... 89 
 
 Chance Solomon's message to Hiram, King of Tyre, . .91 
 
 Summary, .... n 2 
 
 PART SIXTH, 94-157. 
 in <StsU anb 
 
 Use of Words and Phrases, ... q 4 
 
 Gra:,? or Favour, . . , . _, 
 
 Love, . . -97 
 
 My Son, . Ioo
 
 xxx Contents. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Master, . . .102 
 
 Lacking, . . .105 
 The Heart, . ..... 106 
 
 Joy of Heart, ... . . IO6 
 
 The Heart of the Sons of man, . . . IO"J 
 
 The Heari Knoweth, . . IdS 
 
 Word, . . . . ... 1 10 
 
 Tim Words of the Mouth, . . . . . IIO 
 
 A multitude of Words, . , . . .Ill 
 
 Say not . . . . . . .Ill 
 
 The Dedication of Solomon's Temple, .. . .114 
 
 The House of God, . . . -US 
 
 The Angel, . . . . ' . Il6 
 
 The Hebrew of King David's Reign, . . . 118 
 
 The Preacher, . . . . 1 19 
 
 Nails, . . ... . .122 
 
 The Golden Bowl, 
 
 Peculiar Treasure, } _ 
 
 The Hundred and tenth Psalm, . . . .125 
 
 The Hundred and ninth Psalm, . . . .129 
 
 Names of God, . . . . . . 129 
 
 Man and Woman, . ; . . .132 
 
 The finding of p|B>N , . . 147 
 
 Miscellaneous Observations, . . . . .150 
 
 Fear thou. Foot, t .150 
 
 The /waring of rebuke, ) 
 
 Paronomasia, ) 
 
 Why? Words in Ecclesiastes 12. 9, 10, . . . 152 
 
 Feminine Forms. Scriptio plena and Scriptio defectiva, 154 and 159 
 
 Conclusiveness of the Evidence, . . .156
 
 Contents. xxxi 
 
 PART SEVENTH, 158-296. 
 of Conjunctions, "Qvcbs, anb $ronxmns. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Participles, . . . . . . .158 
 
 IWtokHowetkf . . . . . -159 
 
 The Preterite of the Substantive Verb, . . , .160 
 
 The Hebrew Tenses, . . . . .168 
 
 The Copulative Vau, . . . . 173 
 
 (Supplemented by the Seventh Prefatory Note.) xv-xvi 
 
 Frequency or Infrequency of Vau Conversive, . . 180 
 
 The Imperfect Tense with the Simple Prefix, . . 183 
 
 The Masoretic Points and Accents, . . . .186 
 
 The Preterite used frequentatively, . . . .190 
 
 The Preacher's use of the Preterite with the Initial Vau, . 194 
 Vau Conversive of the Preterite, .... 196 
 
 (1) Preceded by a dominant participle, . . . 196 
 
 (2) Preceded by a dominant imperfect, . . . 2OI 
 The Preterite with Simple Vau, .... 210 
 
 (1) The Preterites in the Third Person, . . .211 
 
 (2) The Preterites in the First Person Singular, . .221 
 The Preacher's use of the Imperfect with Vau Conversive, . 224 
 Ecclesiastes as an Ethical Treatise, .... 235 
 
 Co-ordinate or Synonymous Preterites, . . . 243 
 
 The Second Chapter of Ecclesiastes, . . . 244 
 
 Retrospective Lists, ...... 253 
 
 Ecclesiastes compared with Joshua, .... 254 
 
 Review of the Evidence, * . . . . . 270 
 
 The Pronoun of the First Person Singular, . . . 273 
 
 The Moabite Stone, .... . 277 
 
 The Relative Pronoun, ..... 285
 
 xxxii Contents. 
 
 PART EIGHTH, 297-418. 
 Conclusion. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 The non-Solomonic Proverbs, 297 
 
 The Epilogue to Ecclesiastes, 35 
 
 The Denial of the Solomonic Authorship, 3 1D 
 
 The Chaldee of Daniel and Ezra, . 3 2 ^ 
 
 The Testimony of the Scriptures to their own Authorship, . 332 
 
 Words of ...... 334 
 
 Koheleth, Jedidiah, ... 33 6 
 
 The Word of Jehovak, God speaking through Man, . 339 
 
 The Writing of the Scriptures, . . 34 l 
 
 Precision of the Scriptural Notes of Authorship, . 343 
 
 The Authorship of Deuteronomy, . . . 345 
 
 Solomonic Notes of Authorship, .... 359 
 
 The witness of the New Testament to the Authorship of the Old, 365 
 
 Note on Mark i. 2, . . . . . 367 
 
 Epitome of the Passages in which~Old Testament Authors are 
 
 cited by name in the New Testament, . . 37 2 
 
 New Testament References to Solomon, . . . 374 
 
 The Psalms of David, ..... 375 
 
 Three Classes of Quotations from the Book of Psalms, . . 378 
 Note on Matthew 27. 9-10, . . . . .381 
 
 Retrospective Remarks, ... . 382 
 
 The Importance of the Point at Issue, . . . 389 
 
 The Books of Kings and Chronicles, . . . 392 
 
 The Proof of the Solomonic Authorship of Ecclesiastes, . 4.02 
 
 A Conceivable Rejoinder, ..... 406 
 
 The Burden of Proof, ..... 409 
 
 Closing Observations, . . . . . .413 
 
 Review of the Evidence, .... 417-418. 
 
 THAT WHICH WAS WRITTEN WAS UPRIGHT, 
 EVEN WORDS OF TRUTH,
 
 Contents. xxxiii 
 
 2TJ)at infjicf) inas spoken tfjnmtjf) Jfetemtafj tlje 
 
 in i^attfjefoj 27. 9-10, 419-540. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 The State of the Case, ..... 420 
 
 Views of Commentators and Critics, . . 421 
 
 The Point of the Quotation, . ... 430 
 
 The Thirty Pieces of Silver, . . . 433 
 
 The Givers of the Silver, . . . -442 
 
 The Observing of the Prophet, . . 445 
 
 The Worth of the Price, . . 447 
 
 The Disposal of the Silver, . . . . 449 
 
 The Fashioner, ...... 454 
 
 The Consensus of Critics and Commentators, . . 471 
 
 The Testimony of the Septuagint, .... 472 
 
 Inadequate Explanations, ... , 473 
 
 Quotations and References, ... . 476 
 
 Difference of Person, ..... 477 
 
 The Buying of Fields for Silver, . . . .481 
 
 The Price of him that was priced, .... 488 
 
 Antiquity of the View advocated in this Dissertation, . 508 
 
 The Authorship of the Book of Zechariah, . . . 514 
 
 Points of Comparison, . . . . -5*9 
 
 Phraseology, ..... 521, 523 
 
 Verbal Coincidences, . . . . .522 
 
 Chapters Sixth and Eleventh compared, . . 529 
 
 The Individuality of the Prophet, . . . 531 
 
 Conclusion, ...... 536-540. 
 
 INDEX, , 543 
 
 I. Passages of Scripture, . . . 544 
 
 The Solomonic Scriptures, . ... ^44 
 
 The other Scriptures, . . r*g 
 
 II. Words, . . 553 
 
 English Words, . . . . cc^ 
 
 Greek Words, 
 
 555 
 
 Hebrew Words, . . . 556-8.
 
 secret things belong to Jlehobah our (iob ; bttt thos* 
 things tohich arc rcbealeb belong to us anb to our chilbren for 
 eber, that toe mag bo ail the toorbs of this 
 
 inb up the ^estimong : seal the ^ato among mg biscipks. 
 
 ^lemembcr %t the ^ato of &osts mg serbant, tohich 
 I comntanbcb unto him in ^oreb for all Israel, ebnt 
 the statutes anb jubgnunts. 
 
 teas gibcn through 
 race anb 'JEruth came through Jesus Christ. 
 
 ^ijeabcn anb earth shall pass atoag ; but mg toorbs shall 
 not pass 
 
 It is easier for heabcn anb earth to pass, than for one 
 tittle of the gato to fail. 
 
 <D that mg knags iuere birecteb to keep thg statutes 
 'Ehen shall I not be ashamcb, tohen I habe respect uwt 
 all thg commanbmcnts.
 
 of
 
 of 
 
 Introduction, 
 
 The Question of Authorship. 
 
 THE question of Authorship, when applied to 
 the various constituent parts of the Bible, is of 
 more or less moment according to circumstances. 
 It is comparatively unimportant in the case of 
 such canonical writings as the Hundred-and- 
 nineteenth Psalm and the Epistle to the Hebrews; 
 to which no authorship is ascribed in the Scriptures 
 themselves. A book thus anonymous may be 
 assigned by one critic to one author, and by 
 another to another; while a third critic may, 
 like Origen, in his remarks on the authorship of 
 the Epistle to the Hebrews, hesitate about coming 
 to a decision on the subject. Yet amidst such 
 diversities of opinion on points about which the 
 Written Word is silent, the trustworthiness of the 
 Scriptures is left unassailed, unless indeed such 
 authorship be asserted as is incompatible with the 
 authenticity of the document criticised, or with 
 the integrity of the volume to which it belongs. 
 The state of matters is very different in the case 
 of those canonical writings which profess to have 
 been written by certain persons who are named 
 A
 
 2 The Authorship of Ecclesiastes. 
 
 or specified as their authors, as, for instance, 
 Deuteronomy by Moses, and the Book of Ecclesi- 
 astes by that son of David who was king over 
 Israel in Jerusalem. The denial of the authorship 
 thus expressly claimed has a direct bearing on 
 the trustworthiness of the documents claiming 
 it, and consequently on the general character 
 of the Scriptures as a divine revelation. 
 
 Two kinds of Criticism. 
 
 The interests of sacred truth are sometimes 
 injured by the confounding together of two widely 
 different kinds of criticism. Genuine biblical 
 criticism has for its object the ascertaining and 
 elucidating of the text of Holy Scripture freeing 
 it from textual corruptions, and restoring it to its 
 original condition. Accordingly the true biblical 
 critic does to the Received Text what the anti- 
 quarian does to an ancient building when he 
 clears away the rubbish by which it is defaced, 
 and exposes it to view as it originally stood 
 what the carpenter does when he removes worms 
 and blemishes from the bottom of the vessel which 
 he is preparing for a voyage what the gardener 
 does when he frees a stately tree from parasites 
 what the jeweller does when he clears the gold or 
 silver casket entrusted to him from the impurities 
 by which it has become tarnished. Yet as it 
 is possible for one who is not a preserver but a 
 destroyer, to rub down and fritter away the gold 
 under pretence of burnishing it to injure the bark 
 or even the pith and the root of the tree under 
 pretence of freeing it from adventitious tendrils by
 
 Two kinds of Criticism. 3 
 
 which it is encumbered to bore holes through 
 the ship and sink it under pretence of making it 
 seaworthy, or to undermine the foundations of the 
 lighthouse under pretence of removing the seaweeds 
 from the rock on which it is built, so there is a 
 class of critics who, on the ground of superior 
 learning and regard for truth, impugn and destroy 
 what is accepted as the Word of God instead of 
 preserving it Not satisfied with endeavouring to 
 ascertain the text as it originally stood, they go 
 quite beyond the remotest footsteps of history, and, 
 without any historical data for their conclusions, 
 tear the text to pieces, like those minute para- 
 sites which worm themselves into the very flesh 
 of their victims, and destroy its vitality. Now it 
 must indeed be accepted as axiomatic that truth 
 is truth all the world over. Hence, however 
 evident it must be that the votaries of the 
 destructive criticism can supply nothing in the 
 place of those venerable documents which they 
 impugn, and which have so long been accepted as 
 the truth of God by thousands and myriads who 
 confidently stake their own eternal interests on 
 their trustworthiness, even the most devoted 
 receivers of the Scriptures as the word of God 
 need have no hesitation in at once admitting that 
 if some assertion made by critics of the class in 
 question were proved to be true, then we must 
 say of such truth, be the consequences what they 
 might, as it has been said of justice, ' Fiat justitia 
 ruat ccelum.'
 
 4 The Authorship of Ecclesiastes. 
 
 The Testimony of History. 
 
 It may further be admitted that to meet such 
 critics with the assumption that they are setting 
 up their own word against the Written Word of 
 God, and ought therefore to be disregarded, might 
 be viewed rather as a begging of the question than 
 as a vindication of God's truth. Hence so illogical 
 a mode of procedure ought to be avoided by those 
 who wish to contribute to the conviction of the 
 gainsayers and the proof of the trustworthiness 
 of the Scripture narrative. This however may 
 be specially noticed at the outset, that one of 
 the distinguishing features of the destructive 
 criticism is that it has no historical basis on which 
 to rest. Whereas if the results of the criticism 
 were founded in fact, we might expect to find 
 these results not disappearing as we go back 
 a century or two, but becoming increasingly 
 corroborated as we recede into the distant past, 
 and trace the history of the text up to the times 
 when the ancient languages were actually spoken. 
 As the learned men of those days were far more 
 intimately acquainted with oriental literature than 
 men are now, and besides speaking in Hebrew or 
 in Syriac, lived comparatively near the times when 
 the books under discussion must have been written, 
 the authorship said to be now disproved must then 
 have been unacknowledged. And the so-called 
 literary embellishments, which cannot persuade 
 modern impugners that the books were written by 
 the men whose names they bear, must have been
 
 The Testimony of History. 5 
 
 incapable of producing such persuasion in the 
 minds of those who spoke the Hebrew or some 
 kindred language as their vernacular. Surely, for 
 instance, had Solomon not written the book of 
 Ecclesiastes, there must have been some extant 
 traces of this fact dating as far back as the time 
 when Jesus the son of Sirach wrote Ecclesiasticus, 
 and gave it forth, not covertly as the work of 
 Solomon, but openly and honestly as a book 
 which Solomon did not write, but which never- 
 theless was written and compiled in laudable 
 imitation of Solomon's Proverbs. Surely the 
 linguistic and historical features now alleged to be 
 incompatible with the Solomonic authorship of 
 Ecclesiastes could not have been unknown and 
 unnoticed then. 
 
 Some doubts and controversies as to authorship 
 are nearly as old as the writings which they 
 concern; while others are of recent growth, having 
 had their origin in the school of the rationalistic 
 or destructive criticism already referred to. 
 
 Eusebius, more than fifteen hundred years ago, 
 suggested, from certain characteristics of the Apo- 
 calypse, that some other John than the author 
 of the Gospel and Epistles of John may have 
 written it ; and at a still earlier date Origen, as 
 already mentioned, represented the authorship of 
 the Epistle to the Hebrews as involved in im- 
 penetrable obscurity one of the chief arguments 
 for these views being the absence of Paul's name 
 from the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the presence
 
 6 The Authorship of Ecclesiastes. 
 
 of John's name in the Apocalypse. On the other 
 hand, while the books of Ecclesiastes and Isaiah 
 in the Old Testament are in any case much 
 older than Hebrews and Revelation in the New 
 Testament, there is no trace of the authorship of 
 Isaiah or Ecclesiastes having ever been disputed 
 until comparatively recent times. So far as his- 
 torical testimony goes, the Pentateuch, Ecclesiastes, 
 Isaiah, Daniel were universally held to be the 
 writings of the men to whom they are commonly 
 ascribed. And the modern denial of this commonly 
 accepted authorship is as if, now for the first time, 
 some poem universally ascribed, in so far as 
 extant testimony is concerned, to Chaucer, were 
 to be variously represented by various critics as a 
 poem of the time of Henry the Seventh, or Queen 
 Elizabeth, or Charles the First, or George the 
 Second ; or rather as if at a distance of several 
 centuries after the present time, a poem accepted 
 now and heretofore and hereafter as Chaucer's 
 were to have different dates long subsequent to 
 the time of Chaucer, ascribed to it by different 
 critics, each professing to have discovered, by his 
 own canons of criticism, that the combined and 
 uninterrupted testimony of former centuries was 
 erroneous, and that the date assigned by himself 
 is the true one and all illustrating conjointly 
 in their incompatible representations the telling 
 words of the gospel narrative, ' Neither so did 
 their witness agree together.'
 
 Deuteronomy and Ecclesiastes compared. 7 
 
 Interests at stake. 
 
 While the Epistle to the Hebrews affirms 
 nothing as to its own authorship, the Books of 
 Deuteronomy and Ecclesiastes coincide in this 
 important particular, that each of them professes 
 to consist of the words of its reputed author, and 
 to have been written by him Deuteronomy by 
 Moses, and Ecclesiastes by that son of David who 
 was king over Israel in Jerusalem : 
 
 DEUT. I. 1. D^nn r6&* These are the words which Moses 
 spake unto all Israel, beyond the Jordan, in the wilderness. 
 
 ECCLES. i. 1. n^Hp 'HIT The words of Koheleth, son of David, 
 king in Jerusalem. 
 
 DEUT. 31. 9. Moses wrote this law, and gave it unto the priests. 
 
 22. Moses wrote this song on that day. 
 
 24. When Moses had made an end of writing the words of this 
 law in a book, until they were finished, . . . 
 
 ECCLES. 12. 10. The Preacher sought to find out acceptable 
 words ; and that which was written was upright, even words of truth. 
 
 Throughout Ecclesiastes, the writer gives, in 
 the form of an autobiography, his own experience, 
 and his estimate of what he saw under the sun. 
 In so doing, he speaks almost invariably in the 
 first person of the preterite, using also the separate 
 pronoun "MX with a profusion eminently character- 
 istic of his treatise : / r6n'p was king / gave 
 / builded / made / planted / laboured / saw 
 I knew I said I found, and sundry others. 
 
 In Deuteronomy likewise, Moses, after five 
 introductory verses (i. 1-5), speaks in the first 
 person, in an address extending from i. 6 to 
 4. 40. Then, after a narrative of nine verses 
 (4. 41-49), he gives a second and much longer 
 address, extending continuously from 5. 1 to the
 
 The Authorship of Deuteronomy. 
 
 end of chapter 26. There then follow several 
 shorter addresses, interspersed with brief historic 
 statements, all explicitly declaring the Mosaic 
 authorship of the words which they introduce : 
 27. 1-8; 9-10 ; 27. 12 to 28. 68 ; 29. 1 (2) to end of 
 30; 31.2-6; 7-8; 10-13; 26-29; 32.1-43; 46-47. 
 
 I. 5. Moses began to declare this law, saying, . . . 
 5. 1 ; 29. 1. And Moses called unto all Israel, and said unto 
 them, . . . 
 
 27. 11. And Moses commanded the people in that day, saying, ... 
 
 While the scope of Deuteronomy requires the 
 frequent use of the historic imperfect, for which 
 there is little occasion in an ethical treatise like 
 Ecclesiastes, yet preterites in the first person 
 singular, corresponding to those which abound in 
 the Book of Ecclesiastes, are not uncommon 
 throughout Deuteronomy also, as WiV in 3. 21, 
 and Tiro in 30. 1, 15, 19. So likewise in chapters 
 4 to 30, the participial- expression TiD ^JN / 
 command thee, occurs in the mouth and in the 
 pen of Moses 26 times, and the similar expression, 
 / command you, eleven times all emphatically 
 attesting the Mosaic authorship of the book. 
 
 Whether Moses actually wrote the Blessing 
 recorded in chapter 33, or simply spoke it, and left 
 the writing of it to some one else, that it might be 
 appended, along with the narrative of his death, 
 to the volume which bears his name, is immaterial 
 its Mosaic authorship being vouched for by the 
 introductory verse, as well as by the 1N S 1 of verses 
 2 and 7, and by the nK of verses 8, 12, 13, 18, 20, 
 22, 23, 24. 
 
 33. 1. And this is the blessing wherewith Moses the man of God 
 blessed the children of Israel, before his death. And he said, . . .
 
 Views of B leek. 9 
 
 From such particulars as these, it seems to 
 follow that the impeachment of the traditional 
 authorship of Deuteronomy and Ecclesiastes 
 detracts from their trustworthiness, by represent- 
 ing as literary fictions what those ancient writings 
 themselves represent as historic facts. Hence the 
 interests at stake in discussing the authorship of 
 Ecclesiastes or of Deuteronomy are vastly more 
 momentous than any interests affected by discuss- 
 ing the authorship of anonymous writings like the 
 Epistle to the Hebrews. 
 
 Views of Bleek and Ginsburg. 
 
 The grounds on which Deuteronomy, Ecclesi- 
 astes, and Daniel are said to have been written 
 by later authors than Moses, Solomon, and 
 Daniel respectively, are unhistorical, and even 
 anti-historical, in so far as external testimony 
 is concerned. These grounds are the result of a 
 modern criticism occupied partly with the subject- 
 matter of the books in their historical aspects, and 
 partly with their linguistic features. It is affirmed, 
 without evidence, and in opposition to what the 
 books themselves declare and imply, that their 
 contents and style and language prove them to 
 have been written after the days in which their 
 reputed authors lived. 
 
 Thus, for instance, with reference to the author 
 of the Book of Daniel, Bleek says, 
 
 ' His speaking in the person of Daniel is to be considered as only an appro- 
 priation on the part of the author, just as in Deuteronomy or in Ecclesiastes. 
 An appropriation of this kind was by no means unfrequent in this age, among 
 both the Greeks and the Jews, where an author who was convinced that he was 
 in the possession of certain salutary truths, and yet that he did not enjoy a 
 personal authority adequate to procure them the hearing he wished for, placed 
 them in the mouth of some other wise men or prophets. '
 
 io Personated Authorship. 
 
 Now surely such personation as this is directly 
 incompatible with truthfulness. 
 
 Although the name of Solomon does not occur 
 in Ecclesiastes, yet the designation of the author 
 as that son of David who was king over Israel in 
 Jerusalem is applicable to Solomon alone. Indeed 
 this point is not disputed. It is admitted even by 
 deniers of the Solomonic authorship that Solomon 
 is the person thus defined. Yet they assert that 
 Solomon cannot have written the book, and that 
 it must have been written long after his death. 
 This theory implies that Ecclesiastes is untrue in so 
 far as it assigns its own authorship to Solomon, and 
 purports to be his autobiography. Bleek's words 
 on this point are as plain as they are dogmatic : 
 
 1 It is at present almost generally acknowledged,' says Bleek, ' that the author's 
 assumption of Solomon's name for the person speaking is nothing but a literary 
 embellishment. The composer might very easily be induced to do this, inas- 
 much as he could not readily have found a more suitable person to testify to 
 the vanity of all earthly things, than this king who had so thoroughly given 
 himself up to the enjoyment of them. . . . As to the date of the composition of 
 the book, it may be assumed with certainty that it took place at a period after 
 the Captivity.' 
 
 ' It is asserted,' says Ginsburg, 'that the book itself ascribes 
 the words therein contained to Solomon, that it represents him as 
 narrating his personal experience (I gave my heart to so and so ; 
 I did so and so ; I saw ; I concluded ;), and that to depart from the 
 literal meaning of these statements is to call in question the truth 
 of Scripture. But, as Mr. Plumptre rightly remarks in Smith's 
 Dictionary of the Bible, ' ' this hypothesis that every such statement 
 in a canonical book must be received as literally true, is, in fact, 
 an assumption that inspired writers were debarred from forms of 
 composition which were open, without blame, to others. In the 
 literature of every other nation the form of personated authorship, 
 where there is no animus dedpiendi, has been recognised as a 
 legitimate channel for the expression of opinions, or the quasi- 
 dramatic representation of character. Why should we venture on 
 the assertion that, if adopted by the writers of the Old Testament, 
 it would have made them guilty of falsehood, and been inconsistent 
 with their inspiration?" ... It never enters our minds to char-
 
 Views of B leek and Gins burg. 1 1 
 
 acterise the Book of Wisdom as an imposition, for personating 
 Solomon. It is therefore unreasonable to urge that as an insur- 
 mountable difficulty here, which forms no difficulty at all elsewhere. 
 It is urged that the book has been handed down as Solomon's by 
 the concurrent voice of tradition. . But we submit that whatever 
 may be the authority of tradition on other points, it has certainly 
 no power to determine points of criticism. . Tradition has handed 
 down the Book of Wisdom as the inspired work of Solomon. 
 Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Tertullian, Cyprian, Athanasius, 
 Cyril, Epiphanius, Eusebius, Augustine, Isidore quote it as such. 
 ' ' To the testimony of those few among the ancients, " says 
 Calmet, "who have disputed its authority, we oppose a crowd of 
 witnesses in all ages of the Church, who have acknowledged and 
 quoted it as divine Scripture.". . . If we are at liberty to use our 
 judgment in one case in defiance of tradition, surely we cannot be 
 denounced for using it in another. ' 
 
 This view, it may be observed, is directly 
 opposed to that of Bleek ; who, though he does 
 not actually employ the words animus decipiendi, 
 alleges that it was for purposes of deception that 
 the author of Ecclesiastes ascribed his treatise to 
 Solomon. But be that as it may, it may be 
 further observed that the contents of Ecclesiastes 
 are not ascribed to Solomon in the way in which 
 certain words and actions are ascribed to the 
 characters portrayed in Bunyan's Pilgrim 's Pro- 
 gress, where there is certainly no animus decipiendi. 
 
 On the contrary, the book of Ecclesiastes claims 
 Solomon as its author, precisely as Deuteronomy 
 claims Moses, and the Pauline Epistles claim the 
 apostle Paul ; and it is not easy to conceive how, 
 if such indications of authorship as are contained 
 in Ecclesiastes are not literally true, any averment 
 of authorship found elsewhere in the Scriptures 
 can be accepted as trustworthy, or how, if the
 
 1 2 The Apocryphal Book of Wisdom. 
 
 Scriptures ought not to be believed in such a plain 
 matter of fact as the authorship claimed in them, 
 they can deserve to be trusted in other details 
 purporting to be simple statements of historical 
 and doctrinal facts. Such ' forms of composition ' 
 are not ' open without blame ' to uninspired 
 writers. No literature can be free from the charge 
 of deceit and ' falsehood/ which ascribes to itself 
 an unreal authorship in the same way in which 
 the book of Ecclesiastes claims to be the work 
 of that son of David who was king over Israel in 
 Jerusalem. 
 
 The allegation that the Book of Wisdom per- 
 sonates Solomon is scarcely borne out by the 
 contents of the book. In Ecclesiastes Solomon is 
 specified as the author and autobiographer every 
 whit as distinctly and definitely as if he were 
 actually named ; whereas he is neither named nor 
 specified in the Book of Wisdom. It is indeed true 
 that much which is said in the seventh chapter 
 would suit Solomon, especially where the writer 
 says (verse 7) 
 
 Aid. roOro fjvj'dfj.'riv , /cat <f>p6vr]<ns 56di) fj.oc 
 ^ireKaXeffdfjirjv, Kal ?j\0v /iot Trvev/j.0, Soviets. 
 
 Yet this is just such language as a Hellenistic 
 admirer and imitator of Solomon might honestly 
 use, without any desire or attempt to pass off his 
 Greek treatise in the praise of Wisdom as a 
 production of the Hebrew monarch. 
 
 Even the reference, in verse fifth, to the birth 
 of kings as being like the birth of other men, 
 might occur as naturally in the words of a man
 
 Views of Ginsburg. 1 3 
 
 who was not and did not profess to be a king, as 
 in a king's words, similarly as mention is often 
 made of the fact that kings are like other men in 
 their death and burial. 
 
 Whatever be the ipsissima verba on account of 
 which Ginsburg mentions that certain patristic 
 writers quote the Book of Wisdom as a work of 
 Solomon, Jerome, who studied the Hebrew 
 Scriptures in the original, repudiates the title of 
 the book as misleading and false, and says, with 
 reference to the language of the treatise, 'Ipse 
 stylus Graecam eloquentiam redolet.' 
 
 But even if Solomon were unequivocally per- 
 sonated in the book called the Wisdom of 
 Solomon, such would be quite inadequate as an 
 argument against the Solomonic authorship of 
 Ecclesiastes one of the distinguishing features 
 of many apocryphal books, and one of the very 
 grounds on which they are rejected as spurious, 
 being the fact that they claim such authorship as 
 does not belong to them. 
 
 To the statement that ' Tradition has handed 
 down the Book of Wisdom as the inspired work 
 of Solomon,' it may be replied that the tradition, 
 such as it is, lacks that fundamental requisite 
 without which no such patristic testimony as that 
 adduced by Ginsburg (if testimony it can be 
 called) given by writers born a thousand years 
 after the death of Solomon can be of much 
 value. That requisite is a place in the canonical 
 Scriptures of the Old Covenant. Neither the 
 Book of Wisdom nor Ecclesiasticus is contained
 
 14 The Authorship of Ecclesiastes. 
 
 in the Hebrew canon ; and no Hebrew original 
 of either book is in existence. Whereas it is 
 scarcely conceivable that if these books had come 
 down from the days of Solomon, or even from 
 the days of Hezekiah, as works of Solomon, and 
 as portions of the sacred writings, the Hebrew 
 originals of them could have been left out of the 
 canon of Holy Scripture. 
 
 Hence there is no analogy between the critically 
 worthless evidence on the alleged authorship of 
 the apocryphal Book of Wisdom, and the evidence 
 on which the canonicity and Solomonic authorship 
 of Ecclesiastes rest 
 
 Value of Critical Research. 
 
 Many even among those who appreciate the 
 scope and results of Bibltcal Criticism, and who at 
 the same time receive with implicit faith the 
 Scriptures as the word of God, would, on being 
 convinced of the canonicity of such books as 
 Deuteronomy and Ecclesiastes, be satisfied of their 
 authorship, on account of what is plainly affirmed 
 on this point in the books themselves, similarly 
 as they require no further testimony than the 
 testimony of the New Testament in such passages 
 as Matthew 3. 3, 8. 17, 12. 17; John 12. 38; 
 Romans 10. 16, 20, to prove that Isaiah was the 
 author of the twenty-seven last chapters of the 
 book which bears his name. Yet as it is the duty 
 of pastors to aim at being able, by means of sound 
 doctrine, both to exhort and to convince gainsayers,
 
 Criticism of the Text. J 5 
 
 so the interests of truth are promoted by meeting 
 critics of what is called the destructive school on 
 the ground which they themselves have chosen, 
 and proving, from a fair criticism of the text, that 
 it does not warrant the conclusions at which 
 they have arrived. Accordingly, if the Book of 
 Ecclesiastes really is what it professes to be, a 
 treatise written by that son of David who was 
 king over Israel in Jerusalem, then, in that case, 
 anything tending to show, either from the subject- 
 matter, or from the style and language of the 
 book, that it contains nothing inconsistent with 
 the commonly acknowledged Solomonic author- 
 ship, but, on the contrary, carries within itself 
 abundant evidence of its own genuineness, ought 
 to be regarded, not as a superfluity, but as a 
 valuable service to the truth of the gospel, resting, 
 as that truth does, on the integrity and trust- 
 worthiness of those canonical Scriptures in which 
 it is revealed and asserted. 
 
 e belkbcb Closes, gt ixionlb habc bditbcb nw ; 
 for he toroit of nu. $ut if gc bditbt not his 
 ioritings, hoto shall j>e btlitbe mg tuoris ?
 
 Sufojectsmatter of Ecclesiastrs. 
 
 Views of Hengstenberg. 
 
 THOSE arguments against the Solomonic 
 authorship of Ecclesiastes which are based on 
 the subject-matter of the book are largely 
 characterised by a begging of the question, or 
 by the misapplication of general maxims to 
 particular events. With reference to certain 
 ' gratuitous appropriations of a general promise/ 
 Dr. Joseph A. Alexander, in commenting on 
 Isaiah 54. 7-8, says what may be quoted as mutatis 
 mutandis illustrative of this point : 
 
 ' With equal reason [the passage] might be pronounced descrip- 
 tive of the Egyptian and the Assyrian bondage, or of the Assyrian 
 and the Babylonian, or of the Syrian and the Roman. If, because 
 it is appropriate to one of these events, it has no reference to any 
 other, then they all may be successively excluded, and, with equal 
 ease, all may be proved to be the subject of the prophecy.' 
 
 To assume, for instance, as Bleek and Heng- 
 stenberg do, that the Book of Ecclesiastes 
 contains a history of the Jews at the date of its 
 composition, and that therefore it must have been 
 written long after the days of Solomon, is to take 
 for granted \vhat, in order that it might be worthy 
 of being believed, would need to be proved.
 
 Views of Hengstenberg. 17 
 
 Thus, for instance, so general are the terms of the 
 caution in 10. 20 against cursing the king or the 
 wealthy, and so plainly proverbial is the style of 
 the passage, that it cannot possibly prove, as 
 Hengstenberg assumes it to prove, that the book 
 was written at a time when the Hebrews were 
 subject to tyrannical heathen rulers, who employed 
 numerous spies and informers against them, and 
 thus made it dangerous for them to use plain 
 language. This begging of the question is strangely 
 inconsistent with other things in Hengstenberg's 
 introductory discussion of the authorship. He 
 begins by stating that the book evidently took its 
 occasion from passing events, but that, for two 
 reasons, the author has studiously maintained a 
 certain tone of reserve with reference to the 
 circumstances of his time, and has rather glanced 
 at them than entered into details. One of the 
 reasons assigned for this alleged reticence is the 
 aforesaid danger of plain language, and the other is 
 the author's conviction that the book was destined 
 to form part of the canonical Scriptures, and thus 
 to be of service to the Church in all ages, and that 
 consequently in Ecclesiastes, as in the Psalter, 
 prominence must be given rather to that which 
 was general and eternal in its character, than to 
 that which was special and temporary. Other 
 students of Ecclesiastes may arrive at an opposite 
 conclusion in so far as the alleged reserve and 
 omission of details are concerned, and may consider 
 that the writer is clear and specific rather than 
 reserved, in speaking of himself as the son of 
 
 B
 
 1 8 The Subject-matter of Ecclesiastes. 
 
 David, and as king over Israel in Jerusalem, and 
 that such passages as 2. 1-11, 7. 26, 12. 9, 10 
 abound in details of the minutest kind. Yet 
 while holding this view of the few historical refer- 
 ences found in the book of Ecclesiastes, one may 
 quite consistently maintain that, with the excep- 
 tion of such explicit references as these to the 
 individuality and personal experience of the writer, 
 the book, as a whole, is designed, not as a history 
 of Israel in particular, but as an exposition of 
 certain great general principles affecting man as 
 man, and applicable to Jews and Gentiles alike. But 
 be this as it may, Hengstenberg constructs from 
 various parts of the book (not specially those parts 
 which are clearly local and personal and historical, 
 but rather those which have the appearance of 
 being general and aphoristic) such a history of the 
 time in which he alleges that the book was written 
 as, if it were correct, would refute the position from 
 which he started, and would prove Ecclesiastes to 
 be the opposite of what he previously said, when 
 he described the book as general and of universal 
 application rather than specific in its scope and 
 import. 
 
 A few specimens of Hengstenberg's mode of 
 interpretation are sufficient to show how baseless 
 is the theory according to which he assumes 
 Ecclesiastes to be a description of Israel's con- 
 dition and circumstances at the time when the 
 book was written. He writes as if he were trying 
 to make general statements express specific facts, 
 rather than to ascertain the simple meaning
 
 Views of Hengstenberg. 19 
 
 which these statements already bear. Indeed, 
 according to his style of reasoning, commenta- 
 tors might make the book mean almost any- 
 thing they please. Thus he says, ' According to 
 chapter 4. 7-12, Israel was then a poor people in 
 contrast with their rich heathen tyrants. . . From 
 the seventh to the twelfth verse the author consoles 
 the people in their beggary for the loss of their 
 possessions from the thirteenth to the sixteenth 
 verse, in their bondage for the loss of their liberty.' 
 Now surely a glance at these verses is sufficient 
 to show that they contain no specific reference to 
 Israel in particular, but a general reference to 
 1 all the living which walk under the sun.' 
 
 Hengstenberg says further, ' In chapter 5. 9-19 
 and chapter 6, the nation, sighing beneath the 
 extortions of the Gentiles, is again comforted for 
 the loss of earthly good. The rich man represents 
 the Gentile, the poor man Israel.' Now this is 
 obviously mere assertion without a tittle of proof. 
 Again he states that 'according to chapter 7 
 Israel was then in the house of mourning, and 
 the heathen, on the contrary, sat in the house of 
 feasting, verse 2.' But what is there, it may be 
 asked, either in the second verse or in its context, 
 to indicate that the proverbial statement, ' It is 
 better to go to the house of mourning than to go 
 to the house of feasting,' is anything else than a 
 general maxim such as those which abound in 
 the book of Proverbs ? And further, what is there 
 to show that even if this passage does refer to the 
 then actually existing condition of the Jews, as
 
 2o The Subject-matter of Ecclesiastes. 
 
 Hengstenberg assumes to be the case, it describes 
 them as then in the house of mourning rather 
 than in the house of feasting ? What is there 
 to show that their condition when Ecclesiastes 
 was written was not that of I Kings 4. 20, where 
 the festivity of Solomon's reign is described ? 
 ' Judah and Israel were many, as the sand which 
 is by the sea in multitude, eating and drinking 
 and making merry.' There is a significant 
 similarity between the very words of this verse, 
 ' eating and drinking and making merry D^3K 
 DTiDtn DTitJn,' and the words of Ecclesiastes 8. 
 15, 'to eat and to drink and to be merry 
 moph rnncfo hub,' where, as also in 9. 7, the same 
 threefold cord occurs. Indeed the resemblance 
 between that passage in Kings and these two 
 passages in Ecclesiastes is one of those striking 
 coincidences which, as will be noticed further on, 
 point conclusively to Solomon as the author of 
 Ecclesiastes. Even if, according to Hengstenberg's 
 view, the author had in his mind's eye the actual 
 state of the Jews when he was writing, then, on 
 the assumption that they were at that time in the 
 house of feasting, the aphorism ' Better to go to 
 the house of mourning than to go to the house 
 of feasting ' might be interpreted as a seasonable 
 warning against being carried away with pride 
 and folly on account of their prosperity. 
 
 Is it possible, on any principle of fair and candid 
 interpretation, to come to any other conclusion 
 than that the first verse of the seventh chapter of 
 Ecclesiastes, like the first verse of the twenty-
 
 Views of Hengstenberg. 21 
 
 second chapter of Proverbs, announces a proverbial 
 truth akin to what the apostle Paul afterwards 
 announced in Philippians I. 21 ? Yet Hengsten- 
 berg speaks as if the statement that the day of 
 death is better than the day of one's birth were 
 not an intimation of sacred truth, but a mere 
 human expression of discontentment with the 
 existing state of affairs. ' The times,' he says, 
 ' were such as to incline men strongly to deem 
 the day of death better than the day of birth, 
 verse i.' On 10. 16, 17 he says, 'The king and 
 his nobles had surrendered themselves to rioting 
 and drunkenness.' But why may these verses, if 
 applied to specific cases, not equally well represent 
 the very opposite of this, and describe a state of 
 national prosperity in which the ' princes eat in 
 due season, for strength, and not for drunkenness' ? 
 Hengstenberg adds that ' the picture thus drawn 
 corresponds to no period but that when the 
 Persians held dominion over the. people of God.' 
 The picture thus drawn by Hengstenberg may 
 indeed be as he affirms ; but it does not follow 
 from this, that such was the picture drawn by 
 the author of the book of Ecclesiastes. With 
 ingenuity similar to that displayed by Heng- 
 stenberg, a picture might be drawn so as to 
 represent Israel in Egypt, or anywhere else that 
 one's imagination might suggest. The way in 
 which Hengstenberg draws his pictures is this: he 
 selects some general proverbial expression, and 
 fixes on some specific historical fact or epoch to 
 which the proverb seems applicable ; and he
 
 22 The Subject-matter of Ecclesiastes. 
 
 forthwith assumes that it is to that fact or epoch 
 that the proverb directly refers. In this way he 
 makes out, for instance, that the first verse of the 
 tenth chapter, instead of being a proverb of 
 general acceptation, is an historic description of 
 the Jewish nation deeply deteriorated and fallen 
 a prey to folly. So likewise he says that ' the 
 words of chapter 7. 7, "A gift destroyeth the 
 heart," and of chapter 10. 19, "Money answereth 
 all things," find their explanation and justification 
 in Ezra 4. 5, where the Persian officials are 
 clearly charged with being open to bribes.' Now 
 surely it would not be difficult to adduce many 
 other instances of bribery, such as I Samuel 8. 3, 
 to which the said words of Ecclesiastes are 
 equally applicable ; and indeed the prohibition of 
 bribery is as old as the Pentateuch, Exodus 23. 8. 
 Apart however from such passages as those 
 which are entirely general in their application, and 
 such other passages as 2. 1-10, which, though not 
 general but specific, are yet universally admitted 
 to suit the life and reign of Solomon, and therefore 
 to afford no argument against his authorship, there 
 are other specific passages, not proverbial but 
 historical, which are said to be inapplicable to his 
 time, and consequently to prove a later date, such 
 passages, for instance, as 3. 16, in contrast with 
 I Kings 3. 28: 
 
 i KINGS 3. 28. 
 
 And all Israel heard of the 
 judgment which the king had 
 judged ; and they feared the king: 
 for they saw that the wisdom of 
 God was in him, to do judgment. 
 
 ECCLESIASTES 3. 16. 
 And moreover I saw under 
 the sun the place of judgment, 
 that wickedness was there ; and 
 the place of righteousness, that 
 iniquity was there.
 
 The Life and Reign of Solomon. 23 
 
 Now notwithstanding the peaceful prosperity of 
 Solomon's career, his reign was not unalloyed. 
 On the contrary there was ample room for op- 
 pression in what is recorded in 2 Chron. 2. 17, 18, 
 where there is a note of the multitude of strangers 
 that were then in the land of Israel, and of the 
 heavy work assigned to them. It further appears 
 from such passages as I Kings 12. 4, 10, 11, 14, 
 that even the Jews accounted Solomon's yoke 
 grievous and oppressive. But further, though 
 such passages as Ecclesiastes 3. 16, 4. 1, are 
 specific in so far as they narrate what came under 
 the notice of the author, they are not specific to 
 the extent of being limited to the kingdom of 
 Israel. As Solomon had extensive intercourse 
 with foreign kings and nations, so the oppressions 
 to which the preacher refers as having been seen 
 by himself may have occurred beyond the holy 
 land. 'I saw -UNDER THE SUN the place of 
 judgment, that wickedness was there.' 
 
 The Date of Ecclesiastes. 
 
 Bleek, who concurs with Hengstenberg in denying 
 the Solomonic authorship, exemplifies the hopeless 
 uncertainty into which such denial is apt to drift 
 those who discard the universal voice of antiquity 
 on this subject. While he says that the book ' may 
 perhaps have been composed in the later period of 
 the Persian dominion, as Ewald and others assume,' 
 he adds, ' perhaps however still later, at the time 
 of the Syrian rule over Judaea.' The Speaker's
 
 24 Dates assigned to Ecclesiastes. 
 
 Commentary calls attention to the crushing fact 
 that so far are the critics who deny the Solomonic 
 authorship of Ecclesiastes from agreeing with one 
 another about the date of its composition, that the 
 various dates assigned by various critics extend 
 over eight or nine hundred years from shortly 
 after the time of Solomon to about eight years 
 before Christ. ' One spake, saying after this 
 manner ; and another, saying after that manner.' 
 
 1 It is not to be denied,' says Mr. Bullock, in the Speaker's 
 Commentary, ' that in the list of writers who maintain that the 
 language of Ecclesiastes could not have been used by a Jew in 
 Solomon's age, are to be found the names of some of the most 
 eminent Hebrew grammarians to whom ig mainly due the advance 
 of Hebrew philology in the last hundred years. But when they 
 proceed to define the time at which, according to their principles 
 of criticism, the book must have been written, they diverge so 
 widely from one another as to suggest a serious doubt whether 
 such grammatical knowledge of Hebrew as is now attainable 
 ought to be allowed all the weight that is claimed for it in decid- 
 ing the date of the composition of this book. ' 
 
 That nothing can be inferred chronologically 
 from the position of Ecclesiastes in the Hebrew 
 Canon, though Hengstenberg adduces its position 
 as a clear proof of late authorship, is evident from 
 the fact that Ruth comes after Proverbs and the 
 Song of Solomon ; while Hosea and Amos come 
 after Jeremiah and Ezekiel. 
 
 gHorb rrf our (Hob shall sfcmb for tber.
 
 3Ltnflut!3ttc ^features. 
 
 Early and Late Hebrew. 
 
 OVER and above such objections to the Solo- 
 monic authorship of Ecclesiastes as are based on 
 the subject-matter of the book, some modern critics 
 pronounce confidently in favour of a later date, on 
 account of the style in which the book is written 
 and the linguistic features by which it is charac- 
 terised. Indeed from the dogmatic manner in which 
 such critics reject the Solomonic authorship, and 
 assign later dates than the lifetime of Solomon, it 
 seems as if they claimed to be better judges than 
 those Hebraists who lived hundreds or thousands 
 of years ago in or near the time when Hebrew was 
 a living language, and who never saw cause to doubt 
 that the book of Ecclesiastes had been written by 
 that son of David who was king over Israel in 
 Jerusalem. ' If,' says Delitzsch, in his introduction 
 to Ecclesiastes-' If the Book of Koheleth were of 
 old Solomonic origin, then there is no history of 
 the Hebrew language.' 
 
 It may be observed in the outset that the point 
 at issue is not a question between the earliest and 
 the latest Hebrew ; for Solomon was in any case
 
 26 Early and Late Hebrew. 
 
 about 450 years after Moses, and thus almost 
 halfway between the early Hebrew of the Penta- 
 teuch and the late Hebrew of the Captivity. 
 Though Chaucer wrote about five hundred years 
 ago, while upwards of ten centuries elapsed 
 between Moses and Malachi, yet the difference 
 between the Hebrew of Moses and the Hebrew 
 of Malachi is slight indeed as compared or 
 contrasted with the difference between the English 
 of Chaucer's time and the English of the present 
 century ; and it is scarcely conceivable that among 
 readers intelligently acquainted with the English 
 language, even though some other language were 
 their vernacular, a poem in modern English could 
 be passed off as a thing written in Chaucer's time. 
 There is no such broad and unmistakable distinc- 
 tion however between the language of those 
 portions of Scripture which are admitted to have 
 proceeded from Solomon and the language of 
 the disputed book of Ecclesiastes. That there 
 are differences of style and diction is undeniable ; 
 but it is maintained by the upholders of the 
 Solomonic authorship that those differences are 
 quite compatible with identity of authorship, and 
 that the alleged proofs of a later date come far 
 short of vindicating any such conclusion. 
 
 Views of Grotius. 
 
 Next to Luther, who, in preparing his com- 
 mentary, experienced much difficulty from the 
 Hebrew idioms of Ecclesiastes, and whom De-
 
 Views of Grotius. 2 7 
 
 litzsch mentions as having disputed the Solomonic 
 authorship, Grotius about 1644 appears to be 
 the first modern writer of note who said that the 
 book must have been written after the days of 
 Solomon. Grotius based his argument chiefly 
 on the presence of words said to be Aramaic, or 
 at any rate characteristic of a later date than 
 the time of Solomon. ' Librum hunc Salomonis 
 esse non puto,' says Grotius, 'sed scriptum serius 
 sub illius Regis, tanquam pcenitentia ducti, nomine. 
 Argumentum ejus rei habeo multa vocabula quae 
 non alibi quam in Daniele, Esdra, et Chaldaeis 
 interpretibus reperias.' Now though Grotius states 
 that there, are many such words, he mentions only 
 four, namely, "PD, a pot, 7. 6 ; "IPS, interpretation, 
 8. 1 ; pen, a pit, 10. 8 ; and rwa, 12. 5. But 
 surely even if there were no other explanation 
 pointing in the direction of Solomon as the writer, 
 the fact of Solomon's wide dominion and extensive 
 intercourse with foreigners would amply account 
 for the presence of such words in a book like 
 Ecclesiastes, similarly as foreign words designating 
 foreign animals imported by him from other 
 countries are found in the history of his reign, 
 i Kings 10. 22. Apart from this however, the 
 words adduced by Grotius and by others on the 
 same side may be quite well accounted for without 
 the hypothesis of a later date. VD, which Grotius 
 specifies from 7. 6, where, as likewise in the first 
 verse, there is a paronomasia, cannot indicate a 
 time subsequent to the life of Solomon, for it 
 occurs as early as Exodus 16. 3, 27. 3, 38. 3, and
 
 28 Linguistic Features, 
 
 is found in the earlier as well as in the later 
 prophets, especially in I Kings 7. 45, in the very 
 history of Solomon's reign. 
 
 "itra (8. 1), which occurs nowhere else in the 
 Hebrew Scriptures, is substantially the same with 
 the old Hebrew word "IDD applied in Genesis 40, 41 
 to Joseph's interpretation of dreams. Although 
 *iE?a of Ecclesiastes thus differs in its middle 
 radical from "IDD of Genesis, and is identical with 
 the later Chaldee of Daniel (2, 4, 5, 7), which 
 prefers V to n, yet, as may be easily shown, this 
 slender resemblance between the Hebrew of 
 Ecclesiastes and the Chaldee of the Captivity is 
 overwhelmingly counterbalanced by various other 
 considerations, all converging in Solomon as the 
 author of Ecclesiastes. It may be added that the 
 interchangeableness of B> and n, as exemplified in 
 and ins, appears likewise in such words as 
 in Exodus 28. 11, and nnh in Exodus 32. 16, 
 to which the Greek forms ^apatro-o) and ^aparrco 
 correspond, and which is further illustrated by the 
 manner in which, in certain Latin verbs like quatio, 
 quassi, the one letter passes into the other. 
 
 njvax. Although rtfV3N is found in Ecclesiastes 
 12. 5 only, yet, like jyas in Exodus 23. 6, 11, and 
 Proverbs 14. 31, it is derived from HUH, a root 
 frequent in the earlier as well as in the later 
 Scriptures, and bearing to niVax a relation similar 
 to that which the verb rim, to see, bears to pnn, 
 vision, in 2 Samuel 7. 17, and the verbs rfa and 
 np3 bear to the nouns p-^j (Isaiah 3. 23, 8. 1) and p^pj 
 (Genesis 20, 5, Psalms 26. 6, 73. 13) respectively.
 
 Views of Grotius. 29 
 
 The other word specified by Grotius, namely, 
 , ditch, 10. 8 (akin to pop, Gen. 41. 47, Lev. 2. 2, 
 5. 12, 6. 8, Num. 5. 26), and also such Hebrew words 
 as JOT, season, 3. 1, and tan, to cease, 12. 3, adduced 
 by some critics to prove lateness of date, are com- 
 mon to other Semitic languages besides Chaldee. 
 
 Now the fact that the words in question do not 
 occur elsewhere in the Hebrew Scriptures than in 
 Ecclesiastes, or that the other books in which they 
 do occur are unquestionably late, is surely inade- 
 quate to prove that they were not current Hebrew 
 words even in the days of Moses or Abraham. The 
 assumption is quite arbitrary, without any evidence 
 or probability in its favour. There are, for instance, 
 some words which occur only in the earliest and 
 in the latest Hebrew Scriptures, and which, but 
 for the obstinate fact of their occurrence thus 
 early, would be included among the words 
 dogmatically asserted to be late. Such is the verb 
 iriT. 4. 13, 12. 12, found also in Ezekiel 3, 33, Daniel 
 12. 3, 2 Chronicles 19. 10, but occurring likewise as 
 early as Exodus 18. 20, besides Psalm 19. 12, 
 and 2 Kings 6. 10. Even ^2p is sometimes, as in 
 the Grammar of Gesenius, asserted to be charac- 
 teristic of the later Hebrew ; and if it were found 
 only in Esther, Ezra, and Chronicles, the assertion 
 might not be easily disproved. Yet, not to speak 
 of the fact that $>3p occurs once in the Proverbs 
 of Solomon, 19. 20, and twice in Job 2. 10, its 
 occurrence in two different parts of the book of 
 Exodus (26. 5 and 36. 12) shows that it is early 
 as well as late.
 
 30 Hebrew and Chaldee. 
 
 Take likewise the noun D\^. common to Hebrew 
 and Chaldee. It occurs eight times in the Chaldee 
 of Daniel (2. 10, 15, 4. 14, 22, 23, 29, 5. 21,29), 
 twice in the Chaldee of Ezra (4. 20, 7. 24), and 
 thrice in Ecclesiastes (7. 19, 8. 8, 10. 5) ; while its 
 root verb 3^ occurs only in Psalm 119. 133, 
 Esther 9. 1, Nehemiah 5. 15, and four times in 
 Ecclesiastes (2. 19, 5. 18, 6. 2, 8. 9). Can there 
 be any doubt that if (which is by no means 
 inconceivable) a critic of the modern school were 
 somehow unaware of the fact that BW occurs 
 also in Genesis 42. 6, he would declare this word to 
 be an incontestable evidence of the alleged lateness 
 of Ecclesiastes ? And may it not be so that the 
 few words common to Hebrew and to Chaldee, 
 and found in Ecclesiastes, but not in any of the 
 admittedly early parts of the ScriptureSj are as 
 ancient as the days of Joseph, but are not found 
 in Genesis, for the simple reason that, in the com- 
 posing of that book, there was no occasion for 
 using them ? Even Gesenius, in his Lexicon, 
 speaks of Q'paj as a word belonging to the later 
 Hebrew. Yet it occurs not only in 2 Chron. i. 11, 
 12, and Ecc. 5. 18, 6. 2, but likewise in Joshua 22. 8 ! 
 
 Further, so far is an Aramaic tinge from proving 
 lateness, that, even in the earliest stages of 
 the Hebrew tongue, Aramaisms are met with. 
 Bethuel the father-in-law of Isaac, and his son 
 Laban the father-in-law of Jacob, are both men- 
 tioned in Genesis as Syrians (25. 20, 28. 5, 
 31. 20, 24). Yegar Sahadutha, KWinl? ir, in Genesis 
 31. 47, the name given by Laban the Syrian to
 
 Views of Delitzsch. 3 1 
 
 the heap of stones which Jacob called "ipa> is 
 purely Aramaic ; and so is Man hu, Kin }, Tt 
 e'crrt TOVTO / Quid est hoc ? What is this ? the 
 question uttered by the Israelites when they found 
 in the wilderness the food to which they afterwards, 
 on account of this question, gave the name ftp 
 (Exodus 1 6. 15, 31). The book of Job, which is 
 certainly older than the days of Solomon, contains 
 Aramaisms which, as pointed out in the Speaker's 
 Commentary, are evidences rather of antiquity 
 than of lateness ; and Dr. Pusey, in his lectures 
 on Daniel the Prophet, says, with reference to the 
 Aramaic element in the book of Ruth, ' The 
 language has this remarkable characteristic, that 
 the forms which look 'like Chaldaisms occur in 
 conversation, and so represent the language of 
 peasant life, the narrative Hebrew being good.' 
 
 Views of Delitzsch. 
 
 Delitzsch, in his introduction to the book of 
 Ecclesiastes, gives a very formidable-looking list 
 of above ninety words or phrases headed thus : 
 
 ' List of tJie Hapaxlegomena, and of the Words 
 and Forms in the Book of Koheleth belonging to a 
 more recent Period of the Language? 
 
 At the end of the list he says, ' This survey of 
 the forms peculiar to the Book of Koheleth, and 
 found only in the most recent books of the Old 
 Testament, partly only in the Chaldee portions of 
 these, and in general use in the Aramaic, places 
 it beyond all doubt that in this book we have a
 
 32 Linguistic Features. 
 
 product of the post-exilian period, and, at the 
 earliest, of the time of Ezra-Nehemiah.' 
 
 Now if the list actually bore out the heading 
 prefixed to it, Delitzsch might be held to have 
 proved his point. A cursory glance at the list, 
 however, seems sufficient to shake one's confidence 
 in it ; and if it be faithfully scrutinised, it shrinks 
 down to almost nothing. As the words are 
 arranged in alphabetical order, ruV2N, already 
 referred to in pages 27, 28, stands first ; and all 
 that is said about it and about the two words next 
 to it occupies three lines, thus 
 
 ' Aviyonah, xii. 5 ; cf. Ma'seroth iv. 6, Berachoth 36 a, 
 Adam, opp. ishah, only at vii. 28. 
 Jzzen, Pie!, only xii. 9 ; not Talm.' 
 
 As at the beginning, so throughout the long list, 
 there are frequent references to the Targums, the 
 Talmud, and sundry rabbinical works. Yet the 
 occurrence of Hebrew words in such uncanonical 
 and late writings cannot prove the words to be late, 
 for earlier as well as later words and phrases are 
 thus freely used. Thus ^yaj, which occurs as early 
 as Exodus 9. 31, but nowhere else in the Scriptures, 
 appears also in the Mishna. 
 
 With reference to D*IK, as opposed to n$K in 
 Ecclesiastes /. 28, so far is this usage from being 
 late, that it is found at the very beginning of 
 the Bible, in Genesis 2. 22, the first passage where 
 woman is mentioned ; for though in the twenty- 
 third verse, where B*K vir, man, is first mentioned 
 in contradistinction to D*iX homo, fc^N is opposed to 
 n$K, yet the antiquity of the usage in Ecclesiastes
 
 A llegcd Marks of Lateness. 3 3 
 
 7. 28 is proved by Genesis 2. 22, 25, 3. 12, where 
 Disn is used -not as the proper noun Adam, but 
 as the common noun for man : nt-JK? Dnsn-jrp. 
 
 Why the Piel form ftX, connected as it is in 
 Ecclesiastes 12. 9 with other two Piel words ipn 
 and }j3Jji, should be an evidence of lateness, Delitzsch 
 does not state. The verbs jtx and t323 both of 
 frequent occurrence, especially in the earlier 
 Scriptures coincide in this respect that each is 
 always Hiphil, except once Piel }TK in this pas- 
 sage, and LJ3J in Isaiah 5. 30, which is not late 
 Hebrew. 
 
 Concerning many of the words and phrases 
 specified by Delitzsch, it may be observed that, 
 although they are either aira% X^oyueya or peculiar 
 to Ecclesiastes, they contain nothing to indicate 
 lateness. It is possible that though a root be 
 ancient, a peculiar form derived from it may bear 
 incontrovertible evidence of lateness. Thus the 
 lateness of many rabbinical words is indicated, not 
 by their roots, which are as old as the Pentateuch, 
 but by their etymological formation. On the 
 other hand such a word as Midrash, Enno, though 
 it occurs only in 2 Chronicles 13. 22, 24. 27, may 
 have been in use as early as the etymologically 
 similar word Midrac, ^ip, in Deuteronomy 2. 5, 
 the verbal root En} being found repeatedly in every 
 book of the Pentateuch. Many other ancient 
 verbal nouns precisely similar in etymological form, 
 and some of them of frequent occurrence, might 
 likewise be mentioned, such for instance as Midbar, 
 Mispar, Mikdash, Mishpat. Now if the lateness 
 
 c
 
 34 Views of Delitzsch. 
 
 of the Chronicles had been disputed, and if it could 
 have been shown that verbal forms like Midrash 
 occur only in Chronicles and in those books which 
 are admittedly late, such would have been a 
 strong argument for the lateness of the Chronicles, 
 however ancient the root form Bn^ might be proved 
 to be. Whereas, as matters actually stand, any 
 argument for lateness deduced from the mere fact 
 that En"! does not occur in the earlier Hebrew 
 might be at once rebutted by the other fact that 
 verbal forms exactly similar are of frequent occur- 
 rence in what is undoubtedly early as well as in 
 what is certainly or presumably late. 
 
 This is precisely the case of several words in 
 Ecclesiastes, adduced by Delitzsch and others as 
 characteristic of the alleged lateness of the book. 
 Thus of njno, province, he says, ' M'dinah, v. 7, 
 and in no book besides before the Exile.' So far 
 however is this from being the fact, that nfaHQ 
 occurs four times in the twentieth chapter of first 
 Kings, verses 14, 15, 17, 19. But even if, outside 
 of Ecclesiastes, this word were not found earlier 
 than the Exile, it might be replied that other 
 words etymologically similar are found in the 
 earlier Hebrew, as for instance, (from m, to strive), 
 n:np, strife, in Genesis 13. 8. Why might not 
 HiHp in like manner have been in use long before 
 the days of Solomon ? though, as there was no 
 occasion to use the word, it does not appear in 
 the Scriptures earlier than his lifetime. 
 
 So likewise of 3tf, from njy, Delitzsch says, 
 ' Inydn, exclusively in the Book of Koheleth, i. 13,
 
 The Etymology of Ecclesiastes. 35 
 
 ii. 23, 26, iii. 10, iv. 8, v. 2, 13, viii. 16, one of the 
 most extensive words of the post-biblical Hebrew.' 
 Yet other words etymologically similar occur in 
 the earliest Hebrew, as, from ruj?, 3j5, as early as 
 Genesis 31. 18, 34. 23, 36. 6. 
 
 Other five words in Delitzsch's list are |i"iD.n, 
 which occurs only in Ecclesiastes 1.15; |it)p^, 8. 4, 8, 
 tf-iBfe, 2. 21,4. 4, 5. 10; ti-iJT, i. 3, 2. 11, 13, 3. 9^ 5. 8, 15, 
 7. 12, 10, 10, 11 ; and JTI3T, i. 11, 2. 16. Now though 
 these words, except jTDf, are peculiar to Ecclesi- 
 astes, other words similarly formed occur in very 
 early Hebrew, as JUjn in Genesis 42. 19, 33. Even 
 (TOT, so far from indicating lateness, is found in 
 Exodus 12. 14, 13. 9, 17. 14, 28. 12, 29, 30. 16, 
 39. 7, Leviticus 23, 24, and in Numbers and Joshua, 
 as well as in the late books of Esther, Nehemiah, 
 Zechariah, and Malachi. 
 
 Pithgam, D3ns, in 8. 11, is indeed, as Delitzsch 
 says, ' a Hebraised Persian word ' ; and so is 
 DTiQ (2. 5), which also he mentions in his list. Yet 
 a precisely analogous case is met with in the 
 occurrence of such foreign words as nins, D^ap, and 
 D^sri in the history of Solomon's reign (i Kings 
 10. 15, 22), proving as they do that the words 
 in question can afford no evidence against the 
 Solomonic authorship of Ecclesiastes. 
 
 The admissions made by Delitzsch in some 
 parts of his list are amply sufficient to explain 
 how the words said to prove lateness of date may 
 readily have been used by Solomon. The four 
 following specimens illustrate this point : 
 
 ' Y'giyah, only xii. 12; an abstract such as
 
 36 Linguistic Features. 
 
 may be formed from all verbs, and particularly 
 is more frequently formed in the more modern 
 than in the more ancient language. 
 
 'Merots, exclusively ix. II (elsewhere m'rutsah}.' 
 Now if njrr (construct nyr) is ' an abstract 
 such as may be formed from all verbs/ why 
 (seeing that the verb yp is as early as Joshua 
 7. 3, 24. 13) should lateness be indicated by 
 the verbal noun nj/r ? The same noun written 
 as jrr, without the feminine termination, is found 
 in Genesis 31. 42, and Deuteronomy 28. 33, as 
 well as in late books like Haggai and Nehemiah. 
 And it is but one of a numerous class of nouns 
 which appear all through the Hebrew Scriptures 
 sometimes with and sometimes without the final n. 
 To this class belong nxviD in 2 Samuel 18. 27, 
 Jeremiah 8. 6, 22. 17, 23.. 10, and yil in Ecclesi- 
 astes 9. 1 1, so that the one noun prip may be set 
 over against the other nyr to show that as both 
 occur in Ecclesiastes, neither the presence nor 
 the absence of the feminine termination n can 
 indicate anything as to the time when the book 
 was written. 
 
 The third specimen which may be adduced from 
 Delitzsch's list is nnp, of which he writes, ' Mikrch, 
 more frequently in the Book of Koheleth than 
 in any other book.' Now rnpD occurs in only 
 six passages, three of which are in Ecclesiastes 
 (2. 14, 15, 3. 19 thrice, 9. 2, 3), and the other three 
 in books belonging undoubtedly to the earlier 
 Hebrew Scriptures, namely in Ruth 2. 3 and 
 I Samuel 6. 9, 20. 26. Surely there is here no
 
 Views of Delitzsch. 37 
 
 evidence of lateness, but rather evidence pointing 
 in the opposite direction. 
 
 Of Pjio, the fourth specimen, Delitzsch says, ' Sof, 
 iii. 11, vii. 2, xii. 13 ; Joel ii. 20 ; 2 Chron. xx. 16, 
 the more modern word which later displaced the 
 word ahharith) vii. 8, x. 13, but which is not exactly 
 equivalent to it ; for sof ddvar, xii. 13, which has 
 the meaning of summa summarum, ahharith davar, 
 would be inapplicable.' 
 
 Now the presence of s;iD in Joel proves that 
 this word is no evidence of lateness ; and what 
 clearer explanation of its occurrence in a writing 
 by Solomon could be given than Delitzsch's own 
 statement that mrjtf ' would be inapplicable,' and 
 that consequently some other word was needed to 
 convey the meaning intended by the author of 
 Ecclesiastes ? 
 
 These sixteen words taken from Delitzsch's list 
 afford a fair sample of the grounds on which he 
 denies the Solomonic authorship of Ecclesiastes ; 
 and were the other words (of which five, namely, 
 tan, PDU. }DT "iK>2 and tshv, have been noticed 
 already) to be similarly discussed, they might be 
 easily shown to afford no conclusive or even 
 probable evidence of a date later than the reign 
 of Solomon. It may further be observed in 
 general that the mere fact of a word being <z7ra 
 \ej6fjievov or peculiar to the book of Ecclesiastes 
 affords no evidence of lateness. The earliest as 
 well as the latest books in the Hebrew Scriptures 
 have their aira^ \eyopeva, and other words found
 
 38 Linguistic Features. 
 
 in only one book. Thus nnriOK is found only in 
 Genesis, chapters 42, 43, 44 ; and its verbal root 
 in Isaiah 40. 22 is a a7ra \eybpzvov. 
 
 Chaldaisms. 
 
 What Hengstenberg, who denies that Solomon 
 wrote Ecclesiastes, says of the Song of Solomon 
 may be applied to the book of Ecclesiastes, as 
 amply sufficient to account for those features 
 which are said to indicate lateness : ' The author 
 was not merely influenced by the tendency to 
 Aramaic forms and idioms characteristic of a later 
 period, but acted from intention and free choice.' 
 
 The similar testimony of M. Renan also with 
 reference to the conflicting views of those critics 
 who claim for the Song of Songs a later date 
 than the lifetime of Solomon is equally applicable 
 to the denial of the Solomonic authorship of 
 Ecclesiastes : ' So striking a divergence of opinion 
 is due to the incomplete method of determining 
 the date of Hebrew books introduced by Hebra- 
 ists of the school of Gesenius. Being entirely 
 pre-occupied with the details of grammar, they 
 have too much neglected historical and literary 
 considerations, no less important than philological 
 considerations in questions of the sort which we 
 are now discussing. The language of the Song 
 has appeared to those minute grammarians who 
 within the last century have resuscitated the 
 knowledge of Hebrew, to incline to the forms of 
 the Chaldaean epoch, that is the epoch beginning
 
 Chaldaisms. 39 
 
 shortly before the Captivity. They have thought 
 that some words must necessarily be assigned to 
 the Persian or even to the Grecian epoch. So- 
 called Chaldaisms, in treating of the date of the 
 Hebrew books, furnish a very dangerous criterion. 
 Such Chaldaisms are often nothing more than 
 certain dialectical peculiarities of the north of 
 Palestine, or traces of the vocabulary of the 
 common people.' 
 
 Surely these considerations are sufficient to show 
 that in any case the alleged lateness of Ecclesi- 
 astes cannot be proved from such Chaldaisms 
 and other linguistic features as are found in the 
 book, and that those characteristics are not incon- 
 sistent with the position that the book of Ecclesi- 
 astes was written by that son of David who was 
 king over Israel in Jerusalem. 
 
 toorb of @ob is ynu: he is a shicib unto them 
 that put their trust in him. gUifc thou not 
 unto his toorbs, kst he reprob* the*, 
 anb thott Jt> fount) a liar.
 
 ^osittbe CHbttirncc of t|je Solomonic &utfjorsfjip. 
 
 The Solomonic Scriptures. 
 
 NOW if the negative position be made good that 
 the alleged evidences of lateness of date are not 
 sufficient to prove such lateness, one may, with 
 the more confidence, advance to the positive posi- 
 tion of showing that Ecclesiastes bears abundant 
 internal evidence that it was written by Solomon. 
 As the historic references, which are in thorough 
 harmony with the life and-reign of Solomon, have 
 already been noticed, what remains is to compare 
 the book of Ecclesiastes, in its verbal and linguistic 
 features, with the Proverbs and the Song of 
 Solomon, and with certain other portions of the 
 Hebrew Scriptures which contain what Solomon 
 said, or describe his life and the days in which he 
 reigned. Besides the book of Proverbs (excepting 
 the two last chapters), the Song of Songs and the 
 book of Ecclesiastes, Psalms 72 and 127 are 
 ascribed to Solomon as their author. The history 
 of Solomon's life and reign also contains several 
 speeches uttered by him, and thus capable of being 
 pertinently compared in this matter with his 
 writings, similarly as the speeches of the apostle
 
 The Solomonic Scriptiires. 41 
 
 Paul which are recorded in the Acts of the 
 Apostles may be compared with the Pauline 
 epistles. Besides certain brief statements such 
 as those contained in I Kings 2. 20-45, 3. 23-27, 
 there are Solomon's prayer for wisdom, 3. 6-9, his 
 message to Hiram, king of Tyre, 5. 17-20 (3-6), 
 his addresses to the assembled congregation at the 
 dedication of the Temple, 8. 12-21, 56-61, and 
 especially his prayer on that memorable occasion, 
 23-53. To these may be added, for purposes of 
 comparison, the whole of the historic narrative of 
 his life and reign, extending over I Kings i-n ; 
 for without assuming that the historic record was 
 written by Solomon himself, it must be evident 
 that any striking similarity between the language 
 of the History and the language of Ecclesiastes 
 must be in favour of the Solomonic authorship of 
 Ecclesiastes. Making due allowance for the 
 lateness of the Chronicles, I Chronicles 22, 28, 29, 
 and the first nine chapters of the second book, may 
 to some extent be appealed to, seeing that the 
 facts and quoted words and documents embodied 
 in them and in i Kings date back to the days of 
 Solomon, though the actual compilation of the 
 Books of Chronicles is of later date. 
 
 Now to assume as a starting-point that Solomon 
 wrote the Proverbs and the Song which bears his 
 name, and thereupon as a basis to institute a 
 comparison between them and Ecclesiastes with 
 the design of showing that their author wrote it 
 also, might be viewed as a taking for granted of 
 what would need to be proved, seeing that there
 
 42 Evidence of the Solomonic Authorship. 
 
 are critics who deny even the Solomonic author- 
 ship of Proverbs and Canticles. The ground 
 occupied in this treatise however is not liable 
 to any such illogieal objection, for it may, without 
 begging the question, be at once admitted that 
 whatever points in the direction of these three 
 books having one and the same author, points 
 in the direction of that author being Solomon. 
 It is simply incredible that any other man could 
 have written all the three books. To prove 
 Proverbs, Canticles, and Ecclesiastes to have 
 proceeded from the pen of one and the same 
 author is to prove that that author was Solomon. 
 This must be conceded by even the keenest 
 opponents of the Solomonic authorship ; for there 
 is certainly nothing either in the books or 
 connected with them to indicate that all the three 
 may have been written by one person living 
 several centuries after the death of Solomon. 
 The whole circumstances of the case are directly 
 contrary to any such view. One author these 
 three books cannot possibly have had, unless that 
 author was Solomon. 
 
 Comparison of Books. 
 
 Various points deserve special notice in compar- 
 ing together different books or portions of books 
 with the view of proving sameness or difference 
 of authorship. Two books or parts of books 
 may be so closely akin to each other in their 
 scope and in the nature of their subject-matter,
 
 Comparison of Books. 43 
 
 that patent differences of style and phraseology 
 may point conclusively to difference of author- 
 ship. Thus, whereas the uniformity of style 
 by which the first and second sections of Ezra 
 (chapters 1-6 and 7-10) are characterised points to 
 identity of authorship, difference of authorship 
 between Ezra and Nehemiah is indicated not 
 only by the independent manner in which 
 Nehemiah begins, and by the insertion in each 
 book of a large portion consisting of about 
 seventy verses derived obviously from a common 
 source (Ezra 2, Nehemiah 7. 6-73), but also by 
 such differences of language and phraseology as 
 can scarcely be explained on the theory of identity 
 of authorship. ' Nehemiah,' it is observed in the 
 Speaker's Commentary, ' has a manner quite 
 peculiar to himself, and uses many words and 
 phrases which are not found in Ezra.' So 
 likewise, the difference between the language of 
 the Pentateuch and the language of the book of 
 Joshua is thus briefly described by Keil : ' The 
 book of Joshua has not the archaisms which 
 pervade all the five books of Moses equally ; and, 
 notwithstanding great agreement of language with 
 the Pentateuch, resulting from the common sub- 
 ject, yet it has many expressions and forms, 
 varying from and unknown to the Pentateuch.' 
 This diversity points plainly to difference of 
 authorship, there being nothing to account for it 
 in the general scope of the books. 
 
 It is not in this way, however, that the linguistic 
 differences between the books of Proverbs, Can-
 
 44 Diversities of Style. 
 
 tides, and Ecclesiastes, are to be explained and 
 accounted for. The divergence of these books 
 from one another in scope and subject-matter 
 necessitates difference of style, similarly as the 
 style of the Apocalypse is of necessity widely 
 different from the style of the Gospel and Epistles 
 of John. Yet however great may be the diversity 
 between the scope and the subject-matter of 
 two or more treatises from the pen of the same 
 author, and their consequent diversity of style and 
 phraseology, it may be expected that traces of 
 identity of authorship will appear on a minute 
 investigation of the linguistic features of the 
 treatises, and that those traces, being deep rather 
 than superficial, will be not one whit less con- 
 clusive than had they lain exposed on the surface. 
 Hence these pages are written with the design 
 of specifying sundry linguistic features common 
 to Ecclesiastes and Proverbs or to Ecclesiastes 
 and Canticles, which may be sufficient to prove, 
 if not separately, yet in the aggregate, that 
 Ecclesiastes must have a common authorship 
 with Proverbs on the one hand and Canticles on 
 the other, and that accordingly the book of 
 Ecclesiastes must have been written by Solomon. 
 This point may be illustrated by the following 
 notes of a lecture by the late Professor Weir of 
 the University of Glasgow, on the authorship of the 
 twenty-seven last chapters of the book of Isaiah. 
 ' Difference in style may be accounted for in 
 three ways: (i) the different portions may have 
 been composed at different periods of the author's
 
 The Book of Isaiah. 45 
 
 life, and in different circumstances ; (2) they may 
 treat of very different subjects ; (3) the subjects 
 may be presented in different forms the one in a 
 poetic form, the other in a prose form. Now any 
 one of these circumstances would be sufficient to 
 account for the difference of style and expression 
 in the later chapters of Isaiah. Yet it is probable 
 that in these last chapters all those circumstances 
 occur. For (i) the prophetic ministry of Isaiah 
 extended over not fewer than fifty or sixty years, 
 during which the Jewish State experienced great 
 changes ; (2) Again, the subject-matter of these 
 last chapters is quite peculiar. They are addressed 
 to the afflicted people of God, whom he cheers by 
 calling to mind the glorious past and announcing 
 the still more glorious future. Now surely the 
 style in which the prophet thus consoles and 
 cheers may be allowed to differ from that in 
 which he upbraids and pronounces wrath against 
 the ungodly. And lastly, this peculiarity of 
 subject seems naturally to have led to the adop- 
 tion of a form of composition more nearly 
 approaching the poetic than that which the 
 prophets usually adopted. In this way the so- 
 called Chaldaisms and other peculiarities not very 
 numerous may be accounted for. They are 
 characteristic not of a later time but of poetry ; 
 and therefore it is not necessary to admit a 
 different authorship. But again, not only do the 
 language and style furnish no argument against 
 the Isaian origin of the later part, but they form 
 an argument in favour of Isaiah's authorship. In
 
 46 Evidence of the Solomonic Authorship. 
 
 these last chapters we find the favourite phrases 
 and modes of expression employed by Isaiah. 
 Thus njnpo^ instead of njrr IOK in i. 11, 18, 
 33. 10, and in 41. 21,66. 9. 'Secondly, the WT\\> 
 *?$"}& is almost peculiar to the book of Isaiah ; and 
 it occurs in all parts of it. It is found twelve 
 times in the parts allowed to be genuine, and 
 thirteen times in the later chapters ' : 
 
 CHAPTERS 1-39. CHAPTERS 40-66. 
 
 i. 4. 29. 19. 41. 14, 16, 20. 49. 7. 
 
 5. 19, 24. 30. 11, 12, 15. 43. 3, 14. 54. 5. 
 
 10. 20. 31. 1. 45. 11. 55. 5. 
 
 12. 6. 37. 23. 47. 4. 60. 9, 14. 
 
 17- 7. 48. 17. 
 
 ' Elsewhere it is met with only six times twenty- 
 five times in the prophecies of Isaiah, and only six 
 times in the other parts of the Old Testament. 
 One of these six, namely 2 Kings 19. 22, is in a 
 prophecy of Isaiah j two* namely Jeremiah 50. 29 
 and 51. 5, are imitations of Isaiah ; and three are 
 in the book of Psalms, 71. 22, 78. 41, 89. 19 (18). 
 Gesenius allows that this peculiarity is clear and 
 striking. The third peculiarity, also allowed by 
 Gesenius, is the expression to be called for to be, in 
 i. 26, "Thou shalt be called The City of righteous- 
 ness, The Faithful city," also in 35. 8, 54. 5, 56. 7, 
 61. 6, 62. 4, 12. The fortieth chapter has evidently 
 the same authorship as the first.' 
 
 Now it may be specially observed that these 
 notes about the later part of Isaiah as compared 
 with the earlier parts are to a very great extent 
 applicable, mutatis mutandis, to Ecclesiastes as 
 compared with Proverbs on the one hand and with
 
 The Writer of the Apocalypse. 47 
 
 the Song of Solomon on the other. In like manner 
 with respect to the authorship of the Apocalypse, 
 it may be noticed that whereas Karcap^ijaavTo is 
 the verb for npl in the Septuagint version of 
 Zechariah 12. 10, 'They shall look upon me whom 
 they have pierced,' a different verb, e^etcevrrjcrav, 
 is used both in John 19. 37 and in Revelation 
 i. 7, where that passage of Zechariah is referred 
 to. This is a minute coincidence which carries 
 weight peculiarly its own in a question of author- 
 ship. The verb vucav also, which occurs only 
 three times elsewhere in the New Testament, 
 namely in Luke u. 22, Romans 3. 4, 12. 21 
 (besides the noun i/t/co? in Matthew 12. 20, 
 i Corinthians 15. 54, 55, 57), occurs in John's 
 Gospel, 16. 33, in his first Epistle, 2. 13, 14, 4. 4, 
 5. 4, 5, and frequently in the Revelation 
 
 2. 7, 11, 17, 26. 12. 11. 
 
 3- 5, 12, 21. 13. 7. 
 
 5. 5. 15. 2. 
 
 6. 2. 17. 14. 
 II. 7. 21. 7. 
 
 So likewise the peculiar use of ^6709, both in the 
 beginning of John's Gospel, i. 1, 14, in the 
 beginning of his first Epistle, i. 1, and in Revela- 
 tion 19. 13, is one of several particulars which, if 
 not separately, yet in the aggregate, point to 
 identity of authorship. 
 
 Different kinds of Resemblance. 
 It is not any resemblance between one book or 
 part of a book and another that indicates identity
 
 48 Different kinds of Resemblance. 
 
 of authorship. Various kinds of resemblance 
 may be explained on other grounds ; and indeed 
 some kinds are scarcely compatible with identity 
 of authorship. Thus, for instance, the Pentateuch 
 is a primary source from which subsequent writers 
 of Holy Scripture freely drew such materials as 
 they needed or found appropriate, similarly as 
 many patristic and modern compositions are 
 pervaded by Scripture language. So likewise the 
 prophecies of Jeremiah are largely characterised by 
 the free use of the subject-matter and phraseology 
 of earlier prophecies, which Jeremiah, by pondering 
 over them, made his own. Others also of the pro- 
 phetical books might be mentioned in which the 
 sayings of one writer are so like those of another, 
 that the one must have borrowed from the other, 
 or the two must have derived their words from a 
 common source. Thus Joshua 15. 16-19 may be 
 compared with Judges I. 12-15, Isaiah 2. 2-4 with 
 Micah 4. 1-3, Nahum 2. 1 (i. 15) with Isaiah 52. 7, 
 and Joel 3. 16 with Amos-i. 2. 
 
 Again, one book may be written avowedly in 
 imitation of another. Thus in the Prologue to 
 Ecclesiasticus it is expressly stated that the author 
 imitated Solomon. Indeed such is the kind of 
 similarity between this book and the book of 
 Proverbs, that (apart from difference of language) 
 Ecclesiasticus bears on the very face of it abundant 
 evidence that, even on the supposition that it was 
 originally written in Hebrew, its author was not 
 the author of the Proverbs of Solomon, but was 
 one who set himself honestly to work to produce
 
 A Threefold Cord. 49 
 
 similar proverbs. Resemblances of this kind 
 accordingly, though, in their own way, close and 
 extensive, do not point to sameness of authorship. 
 The resemblance however which the book of 
 Ecclesiastes bears to the Proverbs of Solomon on 
 the one hand and to the Song of Songs on the 
 other is of an essentially different kind. It is 
 evident that here there is no imitation that in 
 fact these three books are in several respects very 
 unlike one another, and that they diverge from 
 one another in style and structure and subject- 
 matter in such a way and to such an extent, 
 that, but for their common claim to Solomon as 
 their author, which a firm conviction of the truth- 
 fulness of the Scripture narrative leads many to 
 accept as a plainly revealed and incontrovertible 
 fact, one would have no interest, except from a 
 purely literary point of view, in trying to show, 
 from the internal characteristics of the three books, 
 that they must have proceeded from the pen of 
 one and the same person. 
 
 The resemblance between Proverbs and Eccle- 
 siasticus is somewhat like the resemblance between 
 two pillars similar in shape the one consisting of 
 granite or marble, and the other consisting of a 
 painted imitation, well known to have been reared 
 in a later age, as a mere imitation. Or, otherwise 
 expressed, it is like the resemblance between an 
 original painting by a skilled artist, and a picture 
 of later date, painted in imitation of it, by a 
 copyist who offers his own work as what it really 
 D
 
 50 Different kinds of Resemblance. 
 
 is. The two are in a certain way so like one 
 another that an unskilful person, uninformed of 
 the actual facts of the case, might at once con- 
 clude that both had the same author ; whereas a 
 minute investigation would disclose difference of 
 authorship. The resemblance between Proverbs 
 and Ecclesiastes, on the contrary, is like the 
 resemblance between two paintings so unlike one 
 another that at first sight a competent judge would, 
 not regard both as works of one and the same 
 painter, but yet, if he were carefully to scrutinise 
 them, would observe in their minuter and more 
 delicate features, ample evidence of the same hand, 
 and would see that their dissimilarity arose, not 
 from difference of authorship, but from difference 
 in the subjects delineated. Or, otherwise described, 
 the resemblance between Proverbs and Ecclesiastes 
 is like the resemblance between two houses widely 
 different in the purposes for which they were 
 designed, and consequently in size and architectural 
 style and construction and general appearance, 
 and even to a great extent in the materials of 
 which they are composed, yet so similar in sundry 
 minute chisellings and joinings and other respects, 
 as to indicate to an attentive observer that the 
 man who planned or built the one house planned 
 or built the other likewise. 
 
 In some ancient cathedrals different styles of 
 architecture plainly indicate the work of different 
 architects and builders, separated by centuries 
 from one another. The threefold cord of Pro- 
 verbs, Canticles, and Ecclesiastes, however, is like
 
 Evidence of the Solomonic AutJiorship. 5 1 
 
 a threefold building, in which, although there are 
 various styles of architecture, it is apparent, on 
 close inspection, that the different parts must have 
 proceeded from one and the same designer, and 
 that the architectural varieties had been adopted 
 by him because they were suitable or necessary 
 for the specific objects he had in view. Now, 
 as in this case, so likewise in the case of the 
 authorship of Solomon's Proverbs, Canticles, and 
 Ecclesiastes, the characteristic differences which 
 distinguish these books from one another contain 
 abundant traces of the fact that the three books 
 must have proceeded from one and the same 
 author. 
 
 The Proverbs of Solomon. 
 
 At the very threshold of a general comparison 
 between Ecclesiastes and the Proverbs of Solomon, 
 it may be observed that the Proverbs are not one 
 homogeneous whole, but consist of sundry books 
 or sections very far from being alike in their 
 general style and structure. Thus, after the 
 introductory verses, six in number, the nine first 
 chapters consist of a series of admonitions and 
 discourses of various lengths, moral and religious, 
 didactic, descriptive, hortatory, addressed to ""iSi 
 ' my son? who is encouraged to the love and practice 
 of virtue, and is warned against vice, which is 
 portrayed in vivid colours. Then comes a long 
 symmetrical section headed with a new title, 
 ' Proverbs of Solomon,' and extending
 
 5 2 The Proverbs of Solomon. 
 
 from the beginning of the tenth chapter to the 
 sixteenth verse of chapter twenty-second. 
 
 This section consists of short aphorisms, each 
 limited to a single verse, some of them antithetic, 
 others descriptive, others hortatory. So uniform 
 is the structure of this part, that there are as many 
 proverbs as there are verses, every verse being 
 distinct and separate from every other, unless 
 indeed, in a few instances (17. 26, 28, 18. 9, 19. 2, 
 20. 11), D3 at the beginning of a verse is held to 
 connect it with the verse preceding. 
 
 Indeed an attentive observer may notice, in 
 reading an English Bible, that, instead of each 
 chapter in the Book of Proverbs having a heading 
 of its own, as is the case throughout the rest of 
 the books in both Testaments, there stands at 
 the beginning of the tenth chapter, the following 
 brief heading, which is intended to serve for the 
 fifteen chapters from 10 to 24 chapters 11-24 
 being the only chapters throughout the authorised 
 English version of the Bible which have not 
 special headings of their own. 
 
 Heading of chapter tenth : 
 
 ' From this chapter to the five and twentieth are 
 stindry observations of moral virtues, and tJieir 
 contrary vices. 1 
 
 This heading, though it is not strictly accurate, 
 indicates the structural difference between these 
 and the nine preceding chapters ; but it overlooks 
 one or two noteworthy points 
 
 (i) The Proverbs in these chapters are not 
 chiefly antithetic, as the heading represents them
 
 Different kinds of Proverbs. 53 
 
 to be; for although fully four-fifths of the 184 
 proverbs in chapters 10 to 15 are antithetic, the 
 antithetic proverbs in chapters 1 6 to 24 are few and 
 far between less than one-fifth of the 191 proverbs 
 in chapters 16. 1 to 22. 16 being antithetic. 
 
 (2) The heading of these fifteen chapters 
 further overlooks the fact that a new and widely 
 different section begins at the seventeenth verse 
 of the twenty-second chapter, containing (besides 
 a sort of appendix, 24. 23-34, headed r6tf D3 
 D'oani') a series of miscellaneous proverbs and 
 addresses, some of them extending to two or 
 more verses, as 22. 17-21, 22-23, 24-25, 23. 1-3, 
 29-35, and so obviously unlike the preceding brief 
 aphorisms, that the divider of the text into 
 chapters and verses ought certainly to have begun 
 a new chapter at 22. 17. In style and structure 
 this section, from 22. 17 to the end of chapter 24, 
 bears a special resemblance to chapters 1-9, and 
 also to the Book of Ecclesiastes. 
 
 The last section, comprising the five chapters 
 25-29, is clearly defined by its own heading 
 1 These also are proverbs of Solomon, which the 
 men of Hezekiah, king of Judah, copied out.' This 
 section consists chiefly of short aphorisms similar 
 to those of chapters 10 to 22. 16, some in the one 
 section being verbally identical, or nearly so, with 
 some in the other, as 
 
 1 8. 8 with 26. 22 
 
 20. 16 27. 13 
 
 21. 9 25. 24 
 
 22. 3 27. 12.
 
 54 Structural Variety. 
 
 The same thing may be said even of different 
 verses in one section thus 14. 12 is identical with 
 1 6. 25. There are also however, interspersed 
 throughout the section compiled by Hezekiah's 
 copyists, some longer proverbs or addresses, ex- 
 tending over a plurality of verses, as, for instance, 
 25. 6-7, 21-22, 26. 24-26, 27. 23-27, and thus 
 resembling chapters first to ninth. 
 
 These divisions and diversities in the structure 
 of Proverbs i to 29 have led to a denial of the 
 Solomonic authorship of much in the Book of 
 Proverbs besides chapters 30, 31. Such structural 
 variety however is quite common in the Scriptures'; 
 so that in some cases where it is not disputed 
 that what purports to be one book is in reality 
 one book, the book yet consists of two or more 
 distinct sections, each o which is to some extent 
 a book in itself. 
 
 Thus, not to speak of the fivefold division of 
 the Psalter, nor of the miscellaneous sections of 
 Isaiah some of them (5. 25 ; 9 thrice ; 10. 4) 
 marked off by a common refrain, and chapters 
 36-39 constituting a portion clearly separate from 
 what precedes, yet as clearly forming part of the 
 same book the Apocalypse may be specially 
 noticed. That remarkable book is certainly one 
 whole. Yet, apart from the introductory sentences 
 (verses 1-3), the second and third chapters, includ- 
 ing the historic narrative prefixed to them in 
 I. 4-20, have a highly artificial symmetry quite 
 peculiar to them, yet not absolutely uniform ;
 
 The Words of the Wise. 55 
 
 as the different positions of the precept to him 
 that hath an ear plainly show. This unique 
 symmetry marks these chapters off with unmis- 
 takable clearness from the chapters which follow. 
 And yet it is evident, from the internal character- 
 istics of the twenty-two chapters, that they con- 
 stitute one book, all the parts of which are closely 
 connected together the relation between the two 
 sections being like the relation between the head 
 and the body, which are distinct from yet one 
 with each other. Now the case is similar with 
 Proverbs 1-29; and any successful comparison be- 
 tween these chapters and the Book of Ecclesiastes 
 with the view of proving the Solomonic author- 
 ship of Ecclesiastes, must incidentally disclose 
 such common features pervading these twenty-nine 
 chapters as will indicate that all of them are truly 
 designated Proverbs of Solomon. And here, in pass- 
 ing, notice may be taken of a remark by Delitzsch, 
 with reference to the section extending from the 
 seventeenth verse of the twenty-second chapter to 
 the end of chapter twenty-fourth, that if these 
 ' proverbs are composed by the D^n* " the wise," 
 then they are not the production of the one 
 D3n. "wise man," Solomon, but they are " the words 
 of the wise " in contradistinction to " the Pro- 
 verbs of Solomon." ' To this however it may be 
 replied that the maintenance of the Solomonic 
 authorship is not inconsistent with the supposition 
 that Solomon may have incorporated in his 
 Proverbs proverbial sayings of earlier ages, which 
 he, having been familiar with them from his youth,
 
 5 6 The Proverbs of Solomon. 
 
 had so recast and reproduced as to make his 
 own. Ancient proverbs, which might well be 
 called words of the wise, are referred to and 
 quoted in Numbers 21. 14, 15, 17, 18; I Samuel 
 24.14; Job8. 8-11, 15. 17-20. And the comparing 
 of such maxims as Proverbs 9. 10 and 24. 19 with 
 Job 28. 28 and Psalm 37. 1 respectively, is suffi- 
 cient to show that Solomon did not overlook the 
 pithy proverbial sayings which had been handed 
 down to him from former days, but stored his 
 mind with them, and was thus well qualified for 
 bringing out of his treasure things new and old. 
 Indeed in Proverbs 4. 4 he expressly states that 
 certain precepts which he rehearses had been 
 communicated to him by his father. Still further, 
 it is surely obvious that if the name D^an was used 
 to denote a certain class of persons, the words of 
 any one man in the class might correctly be called 
 D^an "nT-i- Thus in I. 6, proverbs which are 
 unquestionably Solomonic in their authorship 
 are designated, not words of Dan, as Delitzsch 
 would have it, but D^an nm. And the presence of 
 the same phrase in Proverbs 22. 17, so far from 
 supporting Delitzsch's view, points in the opposite 
 direction ; for verses 19 and 20 show clearly that 
 the D^Dan '"OT of the seventeenth verse are the 
 words of one man, who, speaking as he does in 
 the first person singular, can be none but Solomon : 
 
 19. I have made known to thee 
 
 20. Have not I written to thee . . ?
 
 Comparison of Books. 57 
 
 Ecclesiastes compared with the Proverbs and the 
 Song of Solomon. 
 
 As already observed, it is not any resemblance 
 between one book and another that is sufficient to 
 indicate identity of authorship. Many passages 
 in Ecclesiastes bear a close resemblance to pas- 
 sages in books undoubtedly written by others than 
 Solomon. Thus 10. 8 resembles Psalm 7. 16 (15) ; 
 and 5. 14 (15) resembles Job I. 21. There are 
 likewise many points in which the Pauline Epistles 
 resemble those Epistles and Gospel narratives 
 'which were not written by the apostle Paul. The 
 resemblance however, both in extent and in 
 characteristic features, between Paul's epistle to 
 the Ephesians and his epistle to the Colossians 
 is of a very different kind, pointing conclusively 
 to identity of authorship. Here the force of 
 the proof lies, not in an isolated coincidence 
 between a passage in the one book and a passage 
 in the other, for such coincidences might pro- 
 bably be proved between certain passages in any 
 two books of the Bible, but in the extent and 
 character of the coincidences subsisting between 
 the two books. Now although it cannot be said 
 of Proverbs, Canticles, and Ecclesiastes, that they 
 are alike in outward form and design, as two of 
 Paul's epistles to two different churches are, yet 
 it is perhaps not too much to affirm that, with 
 this exception, a resemblance not less close and 
 conclusive than the resemblance between Paul's
 
 58 Evidence of the Solomonic Authorship. 
 
 epistle to the Ephesians and his epistle to the 
 Colossians subsists between the three books 
 ascribed to Solomon ; and indeed their very 
 dissimilarity enhances their resemblance as an 
 evidence of their common authorship. In com- 
 paring the Book of Ecclesiastes with the Proverbs 
 and with the Canticles, so as to show that he who 
 wrote them wrote it, frequent reference must be 
 made likewise to the historic records of Solo- 
 mon's life and reign. Besides a preliminary com- 
 parison of passages in the English Bible, the 
 variety of comparisons thus instituted may be 
 arranged under these two heads 
 
 1. Identity of Words. 
 
 2. Coincidences in Style and Phraseology. 
 
 Characteristic Differences between Solomons 
 Proverbs and Ecclesiastes. 
 
 While the style and structure of Ecclesiastes 
 are widely different in various respects from the 
 style and structure of the Proverbs of Solomon, 
 yet some objects prominent in both books are 
 spoken of in both after one and the same fashion ; 
 and both are pervaded by similar exhortations 
 and precepts and proverbs the inner resemblance 
 of which, as proceeding from the same author, is 
 enhanced by external differences of connection 
 and arrangement. On the one hand, there are in 
 Ecclesiastes admonitions and addresses similar to
 
 Proverbial Sayings in Ecclesiastes. 59 
 
 those of Proverbs 1-9, and on the other hand, 
 proverbial sayings closely resembling the 375 
 brief maxims contained in Proverbs 10-22. 16. 
 Yet there is this important difference between 
 these maxims and the proverbial sayings scattered 
 throughout Ecclesiastes, that whereas each of the 
 375 proverbs stands by itself, distinct and separate 
 from every other, like a gem in a row of gems, most 
 of the proverbial sayings in Ecclesiastes are woven 
 into the texture of the book a series of them (as 
 for instance i. 4-7, 5. 8-11 (9-12), 7. 1-6) being 
 joined together like the links of a chain, and em- 
 bodied in an address of considerable length. Even 
 where there is only one aphorism, as in Ecclesi- 
 astes i. 15, or 2. 14, it does not stand by itself, but 
 is closely bound to the context, so as to have little 
 or none of the appearance of a proverb. Yet the 
 proverbial sayings in Ecclesiastes are not on this 
 account one whit less valuable, but all the more 
 so in proving the Solomonic origin of the book 
 showing, as they do, how, in a treatise constructed 
 on a plan very different from the plan of the Book 
 of Proverbs, proverbial sayings similar to those in 
 the Proverbs of Solomon proceeded undesignedly 
 and naturally from the mouth or pen of the author, 
 and thus pointed him out as the king of whom it is 
 recorded that ' he spake three thousand proverbs ; 
 and his songs were a thousand and five.'
 
 60 Evidence of the Solomonic Authorship. 
 
 Comparison of Passages. 
 
 The following specimen passages may be com- 
 pared with each other : 
 
 ECCLESIASTES 
 
 i. 8. The eye is not satisfied 
 with seeing, nor the ear filled with 
 hearing. 
 
 4. 5. The fool foldeth his hands 
 together. 
 
 7. 1. A name is better than 
 good ointment, and the day of 
 death than the day of one's birth. 
 
 12. Wisdom giveth life to them 
 that have it. 
 
 8. 5. Whoso keepeth the com- 
 mandment shall feel no evil thing. 
 
 9. 10. Whatsoever thy hand 
 findeth to do, do with thy might. 
 
 10. 7. I have seen servants 
 upon horses, and princes walking 
 as servants upon the earth. 
 
 8. Whoso breaketh a hedge a 
 serpent shall bite him. 
 
 10. If the iron be blunt, and he 
 do not whet the edge, then must 
 he put to more strength ; but 
 wisdom is profitable to direct. 
 
 12. The lips of a fool will 
 swallow up himself. 
 
 18. By much slothfulness the 
 building decayeth ; and by idle- 
 ness of the hands the house 
 droppeth through . 
 
 PROVERBS 
 
 20. 12. The hearing ear and 
 the seeing eye, the LORD hath 
 made even both of them. 
 
 6. 10, 24. 33. A little folding 
 of the hands to sleep. 
 
 22. 1. A name is to be chosen 
 rather than great riches, and 
 good favour rather than silver 
 and gold. 
 
 8. 35. Whoso findeth me findeth 
 life. 
 
 19. 16. He that keepeth the 
 commandment keepeth his own 
 soul. 
 
 3. 27. Withhold not good from 
 -them to whom it is due, when it 
 is in the power of thine hand to 
 do it. 
 
 19. 10. Delight is not seemly 
 for a fool, much less for a servant 
 to have rule over princes. 
 
 23. 32. At the last it biteth like 
 a serpent, and stingeth like an 
 adder. 
 
 27. 17. Iron sharpeneth iron ; 
 so a man sharpeneth the counten- 
 ance of his friend. 
 
 18. 7. A fool's mouth is his 
 destruction ; and his lips are the 
 snare of his soul. 
 
 14. 1. Every wise woman 
 buildeth her house ; but the 
 foolish plucketh it down with her 
 hands.
 
 Comparison of Passages. 
 
 61 
 
 ECCLESIASTES 
 
 5. 1 (2). God is in heaven, and 
 thou upon earth : therefore let 
 thy words be few. 
 
 7. 20. For (there is) not a just 
 man upon earth, that doeth good 
 and sinneth not. 
 
 8. 15. Then I commended 
 mirth, because a man hath no 
 better thing under the sun, than 
 to eat and to drink and to be 
 merry. 
 
 2. 4, 5. I made me great works : 
 I builded me houses : I planted 
 me vineyards : I made me gardens 
 and orchards, and planted in 
 them trees of every fruit. 
 
 i KINGS 
 
 {8. 27. But will God indeed 
 dwell on the earth ? Behold, the 
 heaven and heaven of heavens 
 cannot contain thee. 
 30 and 43. Hear thou in 
 heaven thy dwelling-place. 
 
 8. 46. For (there is) no man 
 that sinneth not. 
 
 4. 20. Judah and Israel were 
 many, as the sand which is by 
 the sea in multitude, eating and 
 drinking and making merry. 
 
 SONG 8. 11. 
 
 Solomon had a vineyard in 
 Baal-hamon : he let out the vine- 
 yard unto keepers ; every one for 
 the fruit thereof was to bring a 
 thousand pieces of silver. 
 
 In the preceding list such 
 ECCLESIASTES 
 
 4. 6 and 
 
 7. 8 and 
 
 7. 
 10. 
 
 and 
 and 
 
 passages as 
 PROVERBS 
 17. 1 
 16. 19 
 14. 29 
 26. 27 
 
 have not been compared together, because, although 
 there is a close verbal resemblance between one 
 passage and the other of each pair in the English 
 Bible, there is not a corresponding resemblance in 
 the words of the original however similar the 
 ideas may be.
 
 62 Evidence of the Solomonic Authorship. 
 
 Other passages might be compared in which 
 there is a deep and significant similarity, even 
 though it may not lie apparent on the surface. 
 Thus in Ecclesiastes 7. 26 the description of the 
 evil woman tells its own tale as to authorship, 
 when compared with Proverbs 5- 3-14, 7. 25-27, 
 9. 13-18 ; while on the other hand, the picture 
 of conjugal happiness in 9. 7-9 was obviously 
 painted by the same hand which produced 
 Proverbs 5. 15-19. So likewise in Ecclesiastes 
 5. 3-6 (4-7), the advice with reference to vows, and 
 the caution against drawing back from a vow on 
 the plea that it was an error, have their counter- 
 part in Proverbs 20. 25, which condemns the man 
 who, after vowing, makes inquiry. 
 
 Specimen Words. 
 
 The terms king (^O) and eyes (D^J?) may be 
 mentioned in illustration of objects which, being 
 prominent alike in the Proverbs of Solomon and 
 in Ecclesiastes, are spoken of in both books after 
 one and the same fashion. 
 
 King. Except in Proverbs and Ecclesiastes, 
 the Hebrew noun ?]?p, king, is generally used 
 either as a title of God, as in Psalm 24. 7-10, 
 Zechariah 14. 16, 17, or to designate some 
 particular king or dynasty, as in Genesis 14, 
 Joshua 12, 2 Kings 16. 19, Isaiah i. 1. The Book 
 of Ecclesiastes and the Proverbs of Solomon, 
 however, are alike in this respect, that, besides 
 mentioning, as their author, an individual king who
 
 Specimen Words. 63 
 
 was a son of David, they each contain several 
 references to kings as a class or order of men. 
 Such general references are comparatively few in 
 other parts of the Bible ; as, for instance, Job 3. 
 14, 12. 18, Proverbs 30. 31 ; whereas it is one of 
 the common characteristics of Ecclesiastes and 
 Solomon's Proverbs, that they abound in refer- 
 ences to kings, not specifically as individuals, but 
 generically as a class. Thus Ecclesiastes 2. 8, 
 4. 13, 5. 8 (9), 8. 2, 4, 10. 16, 17, 20, may be com- 
 pared with Proverbs 8. 15, 14. 28, 35, 16. 10-15, 
 19. 12, 20. 2, 8, 26, 28, 22. 11, 29, 24. 21, 25. 2-6.> 
 
 ECCLESIASTES 
 
 8. 2. I (ww/Aee)tokeepthe 
 king's commandment, and (that) 
 in regard of the oath of God. 
 
 8. 4. Where the word of a king 
 (is, there is) power. 
 
 PROVERBS 
 
 24. 21. My son, fear thou the 
 LORD and the king. 
 
 16. 10. A divine sentence (is) 
 in the lips of the king. 
 
 So likewise the advice in Ecclesiastes 10. 4, to 
 him who is in the presence of the ruler, against 
 hastily leaving his place in the event of the ruler 
 being displeased, has its counterpart in the caution 
 given in Proverbs 23. 1-3, to one sitting to eat 
 with a ruler. 
 
 The eyes. The eyes are mentioned nine times 
 in Ecclesiastes (i. 8, 2. 10, 14, 4. 8, 5. 10 (11), 6. 9, 
 8. 16, ii. 7, 9). And it may be observed that the 
 way in which they are spoken of in these passages 
 resembles the way in which they are spoken of 
 above a score of times in the Proverbs of Solomon, 
 as in 3. 7, 12. 15, 15. 30, 17. 8, 24, 22. 9, 23. 5.
 
 64 Evidence of the Solomonic Authorship. 
 
 ECCLESIASTES 
 
 1. 8. The eye is not satisfied \ 
 with seeing. I 
 
 4. 8. Neither is his eye satisfied ( 
 with riches. 
 
 2. 14. The eyes of the wise 
 man are in his head ; but the 
 fool walketh in darkness. 
 
 8. 16. Neither day nor night 
 seeth he sleep with his eyes. 
 
 PROVERBS 
 
 27. 20. The eyes of man are 
 not satisfied. 
 
 17. 24. Wisdom is before him 
 that hath understanding ; but the 
 eyes of a fool are in the end of 
 the earth. 
 
 6. 4. Give not sleep to thine 
 eyes, nor slumber to thine eyelids. 
 
 Now although the eyes are similarly spoken of 
 elsewhere, as, for instance, in Psalm 132. 4, which 
 consists of memorable words uttered by Solo- 
 mon's father, and is, mutatis mutandis, verbally 
 identical with Proverbs 6. 4, yet no such extensive 
 and minute similarity can be shown to exist 
 between Ecclesiastes and any of the non- 
 Solomonic Scriptures as that which is here ad- 
 duced in support of the Solomonic authorship 
 of Ecclesiastes. 
 
 This series of comparisons has been confined to 
 passages so resembling one another as to admit 
 of being discussed from the standpoint of the 
 English version, without special reference to the 
 original Hebrew. Further comparisons however 
 must, for obvious reasons, have the Hebrew text 
 as their basis. 
 
 ^crtptitre cannot be broken.
 
 Etientitg of 
 
 Characteristic Words and Phrases, 
 
 SOME words and phrases are pre-eminently 
 characteristic of certain books, either through 
 being peculiar to them, or through occurring with 
 much more frequency in them than in other books. 
 Thus the expression 77 /3acri\eia r)v ovpavwv, the 
 kingdom of heaven, is peculiar to the Gospel of 
 Matthew ; and the phrase BWn nnn, under the sun, 
 is peculiar to the Book of Ecclesiastes. So like- 
 wise the verb Triarevew, to believe, occurs more 
 than twice as often in the Gospel of John as in the 
 Synoptic Gospels conjointly ; and it occurs with 
 similar frequency in his first Epistle, thus consti- 
 tuting one of the evidences of the fact that the 
 Gospel and the Epistle had a common authorship. 
 
 Now a simple comparison of Ecclesiastes with 
 Proverbs, Canticles, and the historical scriptures 
 of Solomon's life and reign, is sufficient to disclose 
 a multitude of words and phrases common to 
 Ecclesiastes and to these Solomonic writings, and 
 so used in them and in it as to yield a powerful 
 chain of arguments in proof of the Solomonic 
 authorship of Ecclesiastes, Several of these words 
 may now be considered. 
 E
 
 66 Evidence of the Solomonic Authorship. 
 
 (i.) Street, Shuk pit?. 
 
 pl>, street, may be first mentioned, as being found 
 in Proverbs, Canticles, and Ecclesiastes, but 
 nowhere else in the Hebrew Scriptures. 
 
 PROV. 7.8. Passing through the street beside her corner. 
 
 SONG 3. 2. I will rise now, and go about the city in the 
 streets. 
 
 EC. 12. 4. The doors shall be shut in the street 
 5. The mourners go about in the street. 
 
 Of course numerous other words might be 
 adduced, occurring severally each of them in two 
 or three books, written respectively by two or 
 three different authors, as the verb W in Job 20. 
 9, 28. 7, Song i. 6, and the noun ii33 in Leviticus 
 7. 18, 19. 7, Isaiah 65. 4, Ezekiel 4. 14. Hence the 
 occurrence of plfc?, street, in each of the three books 
 ascribed to Solomon, and nowhere else, is here 
 mentioned, not as by itself sufficient to prove 
 identity of authorship, but as one of several items 
 which collectively establish such identity, like a 
 number of threads or fibres which, though separ- 
 ately slender, form a strong rope when plaited 
 together. It may be further noticed that not only 
 the noun, but the noun with the preposition 2, in, 
 prefixed to it, is common to all the passages, and 
 that, while the singular prate is found both in 
 Proverbs 7. 8, and in Ecclesiastes 12. 4, 5, the 
 verb 22D, to go about, is used along with the 
 noun both in Ecclesiastes 12. 5 and in Song 3.. 2.
 
 Identity of Words. 67 
 
 (2.) Delight, Tctanug 
 
 This rare noun occurs like pit? in the three books 
 ascribed to Solomon, being found once in each of 
 them Proverbs 19. 10, Song 7. 7 (6), Ecclesiastes 
 2. 8. Unlike pit? however, it is not confined to 
 these three books, but occurs also twice in the 
 prophecy of Micah (i. 16, 2. 9). The verbal root 
 Jjy is as old as Deuteronomy 28. 56, and is found 
 also in Psalm 37. 4, 11, and elsewhere. 
 
 (3.) Orchard, Pardes 
 
 Of three passages in which the Persian word 
 D*na occurs, one is in Ecclesiastes 2. 5, and another 
 in Song 4. 13 ; while the third is in Nehemiah 2. 8. 
 
 (4.) Pre-eminence, Mothar 
 
 Although jvirp, already mentioned in page 35, 
 is peculiar to Ecclesiastes, the cognate form "ifli, 
 pre-eminence or plenteousness, found once in Eccle- 
 siastes (3. 19), is found twice in Solomon's 
 Proverbs (14. 23, 21. 5), but nowhere else in the 
 Hebrew Scriptures. 
 
 (5.) Slothfulness, 'Atslah rbvy. 
 
 The verb ^VV, to be slothful, occurs only once, 
 and that as early as Judges 18. 9, Be not slothful to 
 go: ro^5 i^yrrta. The derivative noun rvbw occurs 
 in Proverbs 31. 27 only; but, with the exception 
 of these two passages, one of which is early and
 
 68 Evidence of the Solomonic Authorship. 
 
 the other possibly late, the root f>JJ is confined to 
 Ecclesiastes and the Proverbs of Solomon, hT, 
 slothful, being found fourteen times in his Proverbs, 
 while r6yy is found in Proverbs 19. 15, and also in 
 Ecclesiastes 10. 18 (already quoted in page 60), 
 where the dual D^?>7. seems to be used with an 
 intensive signification. 
 
 (6.) To embrace, Chdbak pin. 
 
 Of fourteen passages containing the root pun, the 
 large proportion of eight are in the three books 
 ascribed to Solomon, namely, 
 Four in his Proverbs 
 
 The verb pnn in 4. 8, 5. 20. 
 The noun pan in 6. 10, 24. 33. 
 Two in Canticles 2. 6, 8. 3. 
 Two in Ecclesiastes 1 3. 5 twice. 
 
 4. 5, already compared, in page 60, with 
 
 Proverbs 6. 10 and 24. 33. 
 
 The six other passages are Genesis 29. 13, 33. 4, 
 48. 10, 2 Kings 4. 16, Job 24. 8, Lamentations 4. 5. 
 
 (7.) Sweet, Mathok pino. 
 
 Of eleven passages containing the adjective 
 piriD, siveet, six are in the three books ascribed to 
 Solomon, namely 
 
 Three in his Proverbs 16. 24, 24. 13, 27. 7. 
 One in his Song 2. 3. 
 Two in Ecclesiastes 5. 11, n. 7. 
 The five other passages are Judges 14. 14, 18,
 
 Identity of Words. 69 
 
 Isaiah 5. 20 twice, Ezekiel 3. 3, and the plural in 
 Psalm 19. 11 (10). 
 
 ECCLES. 5. 11 (12). The sleep of the labouring man is SWEET. 
 
 n. 7. The light is SWEET. 
 
 SONG 2. 3. His fruit was SWEET to my taste 
 
 PROVERBS 16. 24. Pleasant words are a honeycomb 
 
 SWEET to the soul, and health to the bones. 
 24. 13. My son, eat honey, for it is good ; and honeycomb (nsj), 
 
 which is SWEET to thy taste 
 27. 7. To the hungry soul every bitter thing is SWEET. 
 
 (8.) Fool, CZsll D3. 
 
 03 is one of the most prominently characteristic 
 words common and almost peculiar to Ecclesiastes 
 and the Proverbs of Solomon. Leaving out of 
 account Isaiah 13. 10, Amos 5. 8, and Job 9. 9, 
 38. 31, where Cesil is used as a proper noun with 
 a totally different reference, ^03, /<?#/, occurs no 
 fewer than forty-nine times in the Proverbs of 
 Solomon, and eighteen times in Ecclesiastes. Now 
 it may be observed, that, if the relative sizes of the 
 two books be taken into account, 49 to 18 is nearly 
 the ratio of equality Solomon's Proverbs being 
 nearly equal to 2| times the Book of Ecclesiastes. 
 Yet ^D3, fool, is found only three times elsewhere 
 throughout the whole of the Hebrew Scriptures, 
 namely, in Psalms 49. 11 (10), 92. 7 (6), and 94. 8. 
 This frequency of ^D3 in Solomon's Proverbs 
 and in Ecclesiastes, contrasted with its absence 
 everywhere else except thrice in the Psalter, is a 
 very strong argument in support of the position 
 that the ancient testimony in favour of the
 
 7o Evidence of the Solomonic Authorship. 
 
 Solomonic authorship of Ecclesiastes is true. And 
 this argument is still further strengthened by the 
 occurrence of the phrases hoa Tiat? in Proverbs 
 
 A ...... 
 
 1 8. 6, and T'Da ntoai? in Ecclesiastes 10. 12, 
 07*03 ah in Proverbs 12. 23, 15. 7, Ecclesiastes 
 7. 4, and ho3 ah in Ecclesiastes 10. 2. 
 
 PROVERBS 18. 6. THE LIPS OF A FOOL enter into strife. 
 ECCLES. 10. 12. THE LIPS OF A FOOL will swallow up himself. 
 
 PROVERBS 12.23. THE HEART OF FOOLS proclaimeth foolishness. 
 ECCLES. 7. 4. THE HEART OF FOOLS is in the house of mirth. 
 
 (9.) Wisdom, Chocmah n3H. 
 
 A similarly strong argument is afforded by the 
 remarkable frequency of noan and its cognates in 
 the Solomonic Scriptures, as compared with their 
 occurrence elsewhere. The cognates are the verb 
 D3n, to be wise, the adjective Dan, wise, and niDan 
 in Psalm 49. 4 (3), Proverbs I. 20, 9. 1, 24. 7, 
 pointed fiicon in Proverbs 14. 1, besides the Chaldee 
 roan in Ezra 7. 25, Daniel 2. 20, 21, 23, 30, 5. 11, 
 14, and D/'Sn in Daniel 2 nine times, 4 twice, 
 5 thrice. Like 2it3, good, ^, heart, and other 
 familiar words, Dan, with its cognates, is found in 
 most of the books of the Old Testament, though 
 several are without it. It occurs repeatedly in 
 Genesis, Exodus, and Deuteronomy, but not in 
 Leviticus, Numbers, Joshua, Ruth, Canticles, 
 Nehemiah ; and of the twelve minor prophets, 
 only three, namely Hosea, Obadiah, and Zecha- 
 riah, contain it. Even in the Psalter it is found
 
 Identity of Words. 7 1 
 
 only thirteen times. Indeed, its occurrence outside 
 of the Solomonic Scriptures (unless in the Book 
 of Job, where it occurs twenty-eight times) is by 
 no means frequent. Yet the frequency of its 
 occurrence in the Solomonic Scriptures is remark- 
 able the history of Solomon's life in Kings and 
 Chronicles being taken into account, along with 
 Proverbs and Ecclesiastes. Neither in Kings 
 nor in Chronicles, though these two sections 
 contain considerably more than a fourth of 
 the Old Testament, does either the root D3H 
 or nan occur at all, except in the narratives 
 of Solomon's life and reign. Yet they abound in 
 these parts ; and as there is the same abundance, 
 or rather superabundance, not only in Solomon's 
 Proverbs but also in Ecclesiastes, and nowhere 
 else, this fact affords a peculiarly powerful argument 
 in favour of the position that Ecclesiastes, so far 
 from being later than the Captivity, is as old as 
 the time of Solomon, and that accordingly it is 
 not through ' literary embellishment,' but through 
 simple historic truthfulness, that the Book of 
 Ecclesiastes lays claim to Solomon as its author. 
 
 The Hebrew verb D3n occurs as follows : 
 
 - T 
 
 The Solomonic Scriptures 16 times. 
 Four times in Ecclesiastes 
 
 2. 15, 19, 7. 16, 23. 
 Eleven times in Solomon's Proverbs 
 
 6. 6, 8. 33, 9. 9, 12, 13. 20, 19. 20, 20. 1, 
 
 21. 11, 23. 15, 19, 27. 11. 
 Once in the History I Kings 5. 11 (4. 31).
 
 72 Identity of Words. 
 
 The non- Solomonic Scriptures (Dan) 10 times. 
 Twice in the Pentateuch 
 
 Exodus i. 10, Deuteronomy 32. 29. 
 Once in the Prophets Zechariah 9. 2. 
 Four times in the Psalter 
 
 19. 8 (7), 58. 6 (5), 105. 22, 119. 98. 
 Twice in Job 32. 9, 35. 11. 
 And in Proverbs 30. 24. 
 
 The adjective Dan occurs as follows : 
 Solomonic Scriptures 76 times. 
 Ecclesiastes 21 times. 
 Proverbs 45 times. 
 The Solomonic History ten times. 
 Elsewhere 6 1 times. 
 Pentateuch 17 times. 
 Prophets 31 times. 
 Hagiographa 13 times 
 
 Psalms 49. 11 (10), 107. 43, Proverbs 
 30. 24, Job 8 times, Esther i. 13, 6. 13. 
 The noun no^n occurs as follows : 
 Solomonic Scriptures 92 times. 
 Ecclesiastes 28 times. 
 Proverbs 37 times. 
 The History 27 times. 
 Elsewhere 57 times. 
 
 The Pentateuch 10 times. 
 The Prophets 18 times. 
 Hagiographa 29 times. 
 The Psalter six times. 
 Proverbs twice (30. 3, 31. 26). 
 Job eighteen times. 
 
 Daniel thrice (i. 4, 17, 20).
 
 Wisdom. 73 
 
 It thus appears from the preceding lists that Dan 
 and its Hebrew cognates occur 188 times in the 
 Solomonic Scriptures, and 129 times elsewhere. 
 Yet as these Scriptures comprise only about one- 
 seventh of the Old Testament, or 87 out of 630 
 pages in a consulted copy of the original, in 
 which 610 pages are Hebrew, and 20 are Chaldee, 
 the difference in frequency is much greater than 
 the difference between 188 and 129, being the 
 difference between ^ and ^, or 2'i6 and '24; 
 or, stated in a simpler form, the root Dan occurs 
 about ten times as often in the Solomonic 
 Scriptures, in proportion to their size, as in the 
 rest of the Old Testament, or, on an average, more 
 than twice for each page of these Scriptures, and 
 less than once to* four pages of the other Hebrew 
 Scriptures. Now what is material to the point 
 under discussion is the circumstance that Dan and 
 its cognates occur in Ecclesiastes with a frequency 
 similar to, though considerably exceeding, their 
 frequency in Solomon's Proverbs the proportion 
 being about 4/81 in Ecclesiastes to 373 in the 
 Proverbs of Solomon, or above 19 times in four 
 pages of Ecclesiastes to about 15 times in four 
 pages of Solomon's Proverbs. Even in the 
 Solomonic history of Kings and Chronicles the 
 root Dan occurs with greater frequency than 
 anywhere outside of the Solomonic Scriptures. 
 The proportions are these 
 
 53 times in 1 1 pages of Ecclesiastes, 
 97 times in 26 pages of Solomon's Proverbs, 
 and 38 times in 43 pages of the Solomonic history.
 
 74 Evidence of the Solomonic Authorship. 
 The following table exhibits the details : 
 
 ,-. , Proverbs of Solomonic iv^i 
 .ccies. O..A.. u;,t~ ., joo. 
 Solomon. fiistory. 
 
 Psalms 
 
 Penta- 
 teuch. 
 
 D ?Ci 
 
 4 
 
 ii 
 
 i 
 
 2 
 
 4 
 
 2 
 
 T T 
 
 21 
 
 45 
 
 10 
 
 8 
 
 2 
 
 17 
 
 T ; T 
 
 28 
 
 37 
 
 27 
 
 18 
 
 6 
 
 10 
 
 ninan 
 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 
 Times 
 Pages 
 
 53 
 II 
 
 97 
 26 
 
 38 
 43 
 
 28 
 34 
 
 13 
 
 83 
 
 29 
 
 296 
 
 Or otherwise 
 expressed 
 in decimals, 
 
 4'8i 
 
 373 
 
 88 
 
 82 
 
 'IS 
 
 09 
 
 Besides the frequency of Dan and its cognates, 
 certain characteristic phrases in which these occur 
 afford valuable testimony to the Solomonic author- 
 ship of Ecclesiastes. Thus the combination of the 
 noun noan with the verb }J13, in the phrase to give 
 wisdom, is almost peculiar to the Solomonic 
 Scriptures, being found elsewhere only in Exodus 
 31. 6, 36. 1, 2. It occurs five or six times in the 
 Solomonic history (i Kings 5. 9, 26 (4. 29, 5. 12), 
 10. 24, 2 Chronicles i. 10, 12, 9. 23), twice in 
 Solomon's Proverbs (2. 6, 29. 15), and once in 
 the Book of Ecclesiastes (2. 26). 
 
 i Ki. 5. 26 (12). JEHOVAH GAVE WISDOM to 
 
 Solomon. 
 
 PROVERBS 2. 6. JEHOVAH GIVETH WISDOM. 
 ECCLES. 2. 26. To the man that is good before 
 
 him HE GIVETH WISDOM, and 
 
 knowledge, and joy. 
 
 In like manner the phrase noan njni> occurs in 
 Proverbs i. 2, and Ecclesiastes i. 17, 7. 25, 8. 16, 
 but nowhere else in the Hebrew Scriptures. 
 
 neon 
 
 nnan
 
 The Words of tJte Wise. 75 
 
 PROVERBS i. 2. To KNOW WISDOM and instruction. 
 
 ECCLES. i. 17, 8. 16. I gave my heart TO KNOW WISDOM. 
 
 The Hiphil of the same verb JTP is conjoined 
 with nan in one of the Psalms of David (51.8 (6)) : 
 ^y"nn noan, tJwu shalt make me to know wisdom. 
 
 The seeking (E>p3) of wisdom is another phrase 
 peculiar to Solomon's Proverbs and Ecclesiastes. 
 
 PROVERBS 2. 4. If thou SEEKEST HER as silver. 
 
 14. 6. A scorner SEEKETH WISDOM, and (findeth if) not. 
 ECCLES. 7. 25. I applied mine heart to know and to search, and 
 
 to SEEK WISDOM. 
 
 The phrase D3H 2$>, the heart of a wise man, is 
 peculiar to Proverbs 16. 23 and Ecclesiastes 8. 5, 
 10. 2 ; and in only two other passages do li> and 
 Dan occur together in the same order, namely, 
 Ecclesiastes 7. 4, where the plural of Dan is used 
 (D^oan a5), and i Kings 3. 12, where God, in 
 answer to Solomon's prayer, promises him 
 J13J1 Dan a^>, a heart wise and understanding. 
 
 There is yet another expression specially 
 important, occurring, as it does, twice in Solo- 
 mon's Proverbs, and twice in Ecclesiastes, but 
 nowhere else in the Hebrew Scriptures, namely, 
 the characteristic expression, 
 
 the words of the wise : 
 
 PRO. I. 6. To understand a proverb and the interpretation, THE 
 
 WORDS OF THE WISE and their dark sayings. 
 22. 17. Bow down thine ear ; and hear THE WORDS OF THE 
 
 WISE. 
 Ecc. 9. 17. THE WORDS OF THE WISE are heard in quiet more 
 
 than the cry of him that ruleth among fools. 
 12. 11. THE WORDS OF THE WISE are as goads.
 
 76 Evidence of tJie Solomonic Authorship. 
 
 Now surely these significant facts with reference 
 to Dan and neon are sufficient to negative the 
 theory that Ecclesiastes was written after Solo- 
 mon's death, in imitation of his Proverbs, and 
 to vindicate the position that, like Solomon's 
 Proverbs, the book of Ecclesiastes must have 
 been written by the man to whom, in answer to 
 prayer, God said, ' Lo, I have given thee a wise 
 and an understanding heart,' and of whom 
 accordingly it is narrated that the wisdom of God 
 was in him, and that God gave him exceeding 
 much wisdom and understanding and largeness of 
 heart, so that his wisdom excelled the wisdom of 
 all the children of the east country, and all the 
 wisdom of Egypt I Kings 3. 12, 28, 4. 29-34. 
 
 (10.) Good, Tdbh ata 
 
 The common word 2iC2, which abounds through- 
 out the Hebrew Scriptures, being found in every 
 book except Obadiah, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, 
 and Haggai, occurs with remarkable frequency in 
 the Proverbs of Solomon and in Ecclesiastes, as 
 compared with the other Scriptures. This may be 
 seen from the following table, in which the books 
 adduced for comparison are placed according to 
 the frequency of its occurrence in them, ^D, UiD, 
 and niriB being reckoned as one word. As 
 books and chapters are of unequal lengths, the 
 number of pages in each book in the consulted 
 copy of the Hebrew Scriptures is also given, that 
 the peculiar frequency of 31B in Ecclesiastes and
 
 Identity of Words. 
 
 77 
 
 in Solomon's Proverbs, as contrasted with its 
 occurrence in the other books, may be readily 
 estimated. If the figure i be taken to denote 
 the occurrence of 21 D once on an average in 
 each page, then the frequency or paucity of its 
 occurrence in the books specified may be repre- 
 sented by the list of decimals. 
 
 Table showing the comparative frequency ofy\Q in 
 Ecclesiastes and the Proverbs of Solomon. 
 
 Books. 
 
 Times of 
 Occurrence. 
 
 Number of 
 Pages. 
 
 Decimals of 
 Frequency. 
 
 Ecclesiastes, . . 
 
 S^ 
 
 II 
 
 472 
 
 Proverbs, 
 
 61 
 
 26 
 
 2'34 
 
 Esther, . . . 
 
 23 
 
 12 
 
 I-9I 
 
 The Psalter, . . 
 
 78 
 
 83 
 
 '93 
 
 Nehemiah, . . 
 
 16 
 
 214 
 
 "74 
 
 Samuel, . . . 
 
 65 
 
 9 1 
 
 71 
 
 Genesis, . . 
 
 45 
 
 73 
 
 6 1 
 
 Deuteronomy, . 
 
 32 
 
 54 
 
 '59 
 
 Jeremiah, . . 
 
 4i 
 
 84 
 
 48 
 
 Job 
 
 14. 
 
 34. 
 
 Ml 
 
 Kings, . . . 
 
 X T- 
 
 39 
 
 JT- 
 
 94 
 
 H * 
 
 *4i 
 
 Chronicles, . . 
 
 32 
 
 96 
 
 '33 
 
 Isaiah, . . . 
 
 17 
 
 64 
 
 26 
 
 From the above table it may be observed, that, 
 while on an average 21 D occurs 
 
 less than once in each page of the Psalter, Nehemiah, Samuel, 
 
 Genesis, and Deuteronomy, 
 
 ,, ,, two pages of Jeremiah, Job, and Kings, 
 , , , , three pages of Chronicles and Isaiah, it occurs 
 
 more than TWICE in each page of Solomon's Proverbs, and 
 more than FOUR TIMES in each page of Ecclesiastes, 
 
 the relative frequency being similar to the relative 
 frequency of D2H and its cognates.
 
 78 Evidence of the Solomonic Authorship. 
 
 Better than. It may be further observed that, 
 whereas 2iL5 in the comparative degree, followed 
 by jp, and thus denoting better than, occurs but 
 seldom in the non-Solomonic Scriptures, it 
 abounds in the Proverbs of Solomon and in 
 the Book of Ecclesiastes. 
 
 It occurs only twice in the Pentateuch (Genesis 
 29. 19, Exodus 14. \%\five times in Samuel, four 
 times in Kings, and once in Chronicles, six times 
 in the Psalter (37. 16, 63. 4 (3), 84. 11 (10), 118. 
 8, 9, 119, 72), once in Isaiah (56. 5), but nowhere 
 in Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Job. 
 
 Yet it occurs twenty times in Solomon's Proverbs, 
 eighteen times in Ecclesiastes, and once in Canticles 
 (i. 2), which is oftener than it occurs throughout 
 the rest of the Old Testament, thirty-nine times 
 in the three books ascribed to Solomon, and 
 thirty times in all the other books of the Hebrew 
 Scriptures. 
 
 In these other books also it commonly occurs 
 in simple narrative, either in questions or in the 
 statement of facts, as in Judges 8. 2, 2. Kings 
 5. 12, 2 Chronicles 21. 13, Daniel I. 15. 
 
 JUDGES n. 25. And now art thou any better than Balak the 
 
 son of Zippor, king of Moab ? 
 
 I KINGS 21. 2. I will give thee for it a vineyard better than it. 
 HOSEA 2. 9 (7). Then it was better with me than now. 
 
 In Ecclesiastes, however, 21B with ' is for the 
 most part used proverbially. Now such is just the 
 style in which ' 21D is used throughout the Pro- 
 verbs of Solomon ; whereas this proverbial usage, 
 though found in a few passages elsewhere, as, for
 
 Identity of Phraseology. 
 
 79 
 
 instance, I Samuel 15. 22, Psalms 37. 16, 118. 8, 9, 
 is not frequent in the non-Solomonic Scriptures. 
 
 List of Passages in Solomon's Proverbs and in the Book of 
 Ecdesiastes, containing the characteristic expression 
 ' 31 B, better than : 
 
 ECCLESIASTES 
 
 3-22. 
 
 4. 3, 6, 9, 13. 
 
 5. 4 (5). 
 
 6. 3, 9. 
 
 7. 1,2, 3, 5, 8 (twice), 10. 
 9. 4, 16, 18. 
 
 PROVERBS 
 
 3-14. 
 
 8. 11, 19. 
 12. 9. 
 
 15.16,17. 
 16. 8, 16, 19, 32. 
 17.1. 
 19. 1, 22. 
 21. 9, 19. 
 25. 7, 24. 
 
 27. 5, 10. 
 
 28. 6. 
 
 Specimen passages : 
 
 PROVERBS 8. 11. Wisdom is BETTER THAN rubies. 
 
 15. 16. BETTER is little with the fear of Jehovah, THAN 
 
 much treasure and trouble therewith. 
 
 1 6. 19. BETTER to be of a humble spirit with the lowly 
 
 THAN to divide spoil with the proud. 
 32. He that is slow to anger is BETTER THAN the 
 mighty, and he that ruleth his spirit than 
 he that taketh a city. 
 
 17. 1. BETTER is a dry morsel, and quietness therewith, 
 
 THAN a house full of the sacrifices of strife. 
 27. 10. BETTER a neighbour near THAN a brother far off. 
 
 ECCLES. 4. 9. Two are BETTER THAN one. 
 
 13. BETTER is a poor and wise child THAN an old 
 and foolish king.
 
 8o Evidence of the Solomonic Authorship. 
 
 ECCLES. 6. 9. BETTER is the sight of the eyes THAN the wandering 
 
 of the soul. 
 7. 2. BETTER to go to the house of mourning THAN 
 
 to go to the house of feasting. 
 3. Sorrow is BETTER THAN laughter. 
 8. BETTER is the end of a thing THAN the beginning 
 thereof : the patient in spirit is BETTER THAN 
 the proud in spirit 
 
 9. 4. A living dog is BETTER THAN the dead lion. 
 16. Wisdom is BETTER THAN strength. 
 1 8. Wisdom is BETTER THAN weapons of war. 
 
 This characteristic frequency of the proverbial 
 phrase ' 21B has a cogency of its own, over and 
 above the remarkable frequency of the mere word 
 2113, or 
 
 (11.) Riches and Wealth, ntfjf and 
 
 These two words afford one of the strongest 
 evidences of the Solomonic authorship of Eccle- 
 siastes. The verb ">Kty, to be rich, occurs several 
 times throughout the Old Testament, being found 
 as early as Genesis 14. 23, and as late as Zechariah 
 II. 5. It occurs also in I Samuel 2. 7, 17. 25, 
 Jeremiah 5. 27, Ezekiel 27. 33, Hosea 12. 9 (8), 
 Psalm 49. 17 (16), 65. 10 (9), Job 15. 29, Daniel 
 II. 2, and in Proverbs 10. 4, 22, 13. 7, 21. 17, 23. 
 4, 28. 20. Of twenty-three passages containing 
 the adjective "Vtjty, a majority are found in Solo- 
 mon's Proverbs and Ecclesiastes twelve in these 
 two books of 37 or 38 pages, and eleven in the 572 
 remaining pages of the Hebrew Scriptures. Of 
 the twelve passages, nine are in Proverbs (10. 15,
 
 David and Solomon. 8 1 
 
 14. 20, 1 8. 11, 23, 22. 2, 7, 16, 28. 6, 11), and 
 three in Ecclesiastes (5. 11 (12), 10. 6, 20). The 
 eleven other passages range in point of time from 
 Moses to Jeremiah Exodus 30. 15, Ruth 3. 10, 
 Isaiah 53. 9, Jeremiah 9. 22 (23), Micah 6. 12, 
 Psalms 45. 13 (12), 49. 3 (2), Job 27. 19, and 
 2 Samuel 12. 1, 2, 4, Solomon's father, David, 
 being the rich man referred to in these three 
 verses of second Samuel. 
 
 The noun "lEty (uniformly translated riches, 
 except once in Daniel n. 2) occurs in thirty-six 
 passages, of which so large a proportion as 
 twenty-four are connected either immediately with 
 Solomon or with his father David. In so far 
 as the remaining twelve passages are concerned, 
 it may be observed that "il?y is found as early as 
 Genesis 31. 16, and as late as Esther i. 4, 5. 11. 
 The other nine of these twelve passages are 
 2 Chronicles 17. 5, 18. 1, 32. 27, Psalms 49. 7 (6), 
 112. 3, Proverbs 30. 8, Jeremiah 9. 22 (23). 17. 11, 
 Daniel n. 2 (twice). The Davidic passages con- 
 taining ~\WV are four in number, namely, Psalm 
 52. 9 (7), i Samuel 17. 25, i Chronicles 29. 12, 28. 
 Of the many Psalms ascribed in their titles to 
 David, the fifty-second is one of those historical 
 Psalms which bear with unmistakable clearness 
 the stamp of his authorship ; and the passages 
 in Samuel and Chronicles are so prominently 
 connected with David's life that they are about 
 as much to the point in a question concerning the 
 authorship of Ecclesiastes as if they directly 
 referred to that son of David who was king 
 
 F
 
 82 
 
 Identity of Words. 
 
 over Israel in Jerusalem. The same remark is 
 applicable to other Davidic passages contain- 
 ing words significantly identical with words in 
 the Book of Ecclesiastes. 
 
 Of the twenty Solomonic passages containing 
 "lEty, three are in first Kings, and other three in 
 the corresponding parts of second Chronicles: 
 eight are in the Proverbs of Solomon, and six 
 in the Book of Ecclesiastes : 
 
 i KINGS 
 
 PROVERBS 
 
 ECCLESIASTES 
 
 3. 11, 13. 
 
 3- 16. 
 
 4. 8. 
 
 10. 23. 
 
 8. 18. 
 
 5. 12, 13, 18 
 
 
 11. 16, 28. 
 
 (13, 14, 19) 
 
 2 CHRONICLES 
 
 13- 8- 
 
 6. 2. 
 
 I. 11, 12. 
 
 14. 24. 
 
 9. 11. 
 
 9. 22. 
 
 22. 1, 4. 
 
 
 So marked a preponderance of "iBty in Ecclesi- 
 astes and in Solomon's Proverbs points plainly in 
 the direction of identity of authorship, and is 
 enhanced by the fact that the same characteristic 
 word is found also in God's answer to Solomon's 
 prayer for wisdom, as narrated independently in 
 the historic record of Solomon's life and reign. 
 
 Two or three other deeply significant points, 
 belonging rather to the subsequent section on 
 coincidences in style and phraseology than to this 
 one, may, through being intimately connected with 
 "icty, be considered here. 
 
 The plural noun D^CO}, shown in page 30 to 
 occur as early as Joshua 22. 8, is connected with 
 "iE>y in 2 Chronicles I. 11, 12, and also twice in the 
 Book of Ecclesiastes (5. 18, 6. 2). Indeed D'DM
 
 Riches and Wealth and Glory. 83 
 
 11231" 
 
 ii23 3 -n:i 
 
 Tiro 4 
 
 occurs nowhere in the Hebrew Scriptures except 
 in these passages of Ecclesiastes and Chronicles, 
 and in Joshua 22. 8. Still further, 1123, glory, is 
 connected with 1BW and &&2), both in 2 Chronicles 
 i. 11, 12, and in Ecclesiastes 6. 2; and in each 
 passage, as well as in Ecclesiastes 5. 18 and 
 I Kings 3. 13, -\V9, D'pM and 1123, or some of them, 
 are represented as given by God, the verb tro, to 
 give, being used in each of the four passages. 
 
 ECCLES. 5. 18(19). Everyman 
 also to whom GOD HATH GIVEN* 
 
 RICHES 1 AND WEALTH 2 . . . 
 
 6. 2. A man to whom GOD 
 
 GIVETH 4 RICHES 1 AND WEALTH 2 
 AND GLORY 3 . . . 
 
 1 KINGS 3. 13. I HAVE 
 GIVEN 4 thee both RICHES 1 AND 
 
 GLORY 3 . . . 
 
 2 CHRON. 1. 11, 12. And God 
 said to Solomon, Because this 
 was in thine heart, and thou hast 
 not asked RICHES, 1 WEALTH, 2 
 AND GLORY, 3 and the life of them 
 that hate thee, nor yet hast asked 
 many days, but hast asked for 
 thyself wisdom and knowledge, 
 that thou mayest judge my people, 
 over whom I have made thee 
 king : wisdom and knowledge are 
 given to thee ; and I WILL GIVE* 
 
 THEE RICHES 1 AND WEALTH 2 
 
 AND GLORY, 3 such as none of the 
 kings before thee have had, 
 neither shall any after thee have 
 the like. 
 
 The extensive resemblance between these two 
 passages of Ecclesiastes, and the two passages 
 
 nrvn 
 
 D^O^DJI 
 
 roan 
 
 nconn : 
 
 1 ^ pru jnom 
 i* 
 p
 
 84 Different kinds of Coincidence. 
 
 from Kings and Chronicles respectively, is of the 
 kind already noticed in page 20, where Ecclesi- 
 astes 8. 15 is compared with I Kings 4. 20, each 
 passage being characterised by the three verbs 
 $OS. nntp' and nDtJ>. Here the coincidence is even 
 
 - T ' T T ' - T 
 
 more extensive than there ; and here, as there, it is 
 not of that obtrusive kind which might be expected 
 in a treatise written and passed off as the work of 
 one who had lived several centuries before, and 
 whose name had been furtively seized on to give 
 the book an influence which it would not other- 
 wise possess. On the contrary, the evidence 
 afforded by such coincidences is of the kind which 
 Paley brings forward piece by piece in his Horcz 
 Paulina, and with a masterly hand constructs 
 into an impregnable argument for the truth of the 
 history recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, and 
 incidentally confirmed by the Pauline Epistles. 
 The Book of Ecclesiastes does indeed contain 
 some historical notices so directly and obviously 
 identical with the historic narrative of Solomon's 
 life and reign, as to be of little evidential value in 
 the question of authorship, for the simple reason 
 that, while they might have come from the pen of 
 a truthful writer, they might with equal likelihood 
 have come from the pen of a writer professing to 
 be what he was not, and claiming for his treatise 
 an authorship which it did not possess. This 
 remark is applicable to such passages as the 
 following, in so far as the historic facts narrated 
 in them are concerned, but not in respect of 
 their deeper linguistic features ; for it will be
 
 Direct Coincidences. 
 
 pointed out further on that even some of the 
 passages here quoted from the English Bible 
 contain, in the original Hebrew, certain words or 
 phrases strikingly confirmatory of the Solomonic 
 authorship of Ecclesiastes. 
 
 i KINGS 
 
 4. 1. So king Solomon was 
 king over all Israel. 
 
 3. 12. Lo, I have given thee 
 a wise and an understanding 
 heart ; so that there was none 
 like thee before thee, neither 
 after thee shall any arise like 
 unto thee. 
 
 10. 22, 23. The king had at 
 sea a navy of Tharshish with the 
 navy of Hiram : once in three 
 years came the navy of Tharshish, 
 bringing gold, and silver, ivory, 
 and apes, and peacocks. So 
 king Solomon exceeded all the 
 kings of the earth for riches and 
 for wisdom. 
 
 4. 32. And he spake three 
 thousand proverbs : and his 
 songs were a thousand and five. 
 
 34. And there came of all 
 people to hear the wisdom of 
 Solomon, from all kings of the 
 earth, which had heard of his 
 wisdom. 
 
 Patent coincidences of this kind, though quite 
 consistent with the Solomonic authorship of 
 Ecclesiastes, cannot equal in evidential value 
 such deeper and less obvious coincidences as 
 those connected with the occurrence of "lEty and 
 certain other words in Kings, Chronicles, and 
 Ecclesiastes. Had i^y, tf DM, and Ti33 been con- 
 
 ECCLESIASTES 
 
 i. 12. I the Preacher was king 
 over Israel in Jerusalem. 
 
 16. I communed with mine 
 own heart, saying, Lo, I am 
 come to great estate, and have 
 gotten more wisdom than all 
 they that have been before me in 
 Jerusalem. 
 
 2. 8. I gathered me also 
 silver and gold, and the peculiar 
 treasure of kings and of the 
 provinces : . . . 
 
 9. So I was great, and in- 
 creased more than all that were 
 before me in Jerusalem : also my 
 wisdom remained with me. 
 
 12. 9. And moreover, because 
 the Preacher was wise, he still 
 taught the people knowledge ; 
 yea, he gave good heed, and 
 sought out, and set in order 
 many proverbs.
 
 86 Riches and Wealth and Glory. 
 
 joined in some such statement as this, ' God gave 
 me wealth and riches and glory,' the declaration 
 would have been as thoroughly consistent with the 
 Solomonic authorship as the words actually occur- 
 ring in Ecclesiastes 5. 18 (19) and 6. 2 are. Yet 
 the similarity between such a statement and the 
 historic records of Solomon's life and reign would 
 have been so direct and plain as to have been 
 of little value from an evidential point of view. 
 Most of the descriptions in Ecclesiastes, how- 
 ever, have not this kind of resemblance to the 
 Solomonic history ; and, when they are minutely 
 examined, they are seen to be such descriptions 
 as might naturally have come, not from the pen 
 of a designing imitator professing to be what 
 he was not, but from the pen of a man ripe in 
 experience, to whom, in his youth and amidst 
 circumstances which he could never forget, God 
 had promised these three' things riches, wealth, 
 and glory. Solomon, besides enjoying them him- 
 self, had seen them given to others whose cir- 
 cumstances and experience were widely different 
 from his own. Hence, with his own memorable 
 career on the background, he depicts, in his narra- 
 tive of things ' common among men,' what he had 
 seen in the lives of those to whom God had given 
 as he had given to himself riches, and wealth, 
 and glory. 
 
 Accordingly these three nouns, with the verb 
 JJ13, so far from standing obtrusively forward in 
 Ecclesiastes, as they might probably have done 
 in a description of Solomon's experience written
 
 Undesigned Coincidences. 87 
 
 by some one assuming Solomon's name, are 
 found incidentally embedded, not in the Preacher's 
 description of himself, but in his pictures of human 
 life in general, he having been taught in the vision 
 of his youthful days, as King Nebuchadnezzar was 
 taught long afterwards, that wealth and riches and 
 glory are gifts of God, and that the capacity to 
 enjoy them is likewise given or withheld by Him. 
 These words in Ecclesiastes are thus rather like 
 the hidden watermarks in one sheet of paper, which 
 prove that it and another sheet similarly marked 
 came from a common source, than like the glaring 
 characters on a spurious bank-note, ineffectually 
 claiming for it an origin and a value of which it is 
 destitute. 
 
 ' The reader will please to remember, ' says Paley, ' this word 
 utidesignedness, as denoting that upon which the construction and 
 validity of our argument chiefly depend. As to the proofs of 
 undesignedness, I shall in this place say little ; for I had rather 
 the reader's persuasion should arise from the instances themselves, 
 and the separate remarks with which they may be accompanied, 
 than from any previous formulary or description of argument. In 
 a great plurality of examples, I trust he will be perfectly convinced 
 that no design or contrivance whatever has been exercised ; and 
 if some of the coincidences alleged appear to be minute, circuitous, 
 or oblique, let him reflect that this very indirectness and subtility 
 is that which gives force and propriety to the example. Broad, 
 obvious, and explicit agreements, prove little ; because it may be 
 suggested that the insertion of such is the ordinary expedient of 
 every forgery : and though they may occur, and probably will 
 occur, in genuine writings, yet it cannot be proved that they are 
 peculiar to these. Thus what St. Paul declares in Chapter xi. of 
 I Corinthians, concerning the institution of the eucharist " For I 
 have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, 
 that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, 
 took bread ; and when he had given thanks he brake it, and said,
 
 88 Paley's Hora Paulines. 
 
 Take, eat ; this is my body, which is broken for you ; this do in 
 remembrance of me, "though it be in close and verbal conformity 
 with the account of the same transaction preserved by St. Luke, is 
 yet a conformity of which no use can be made in our argument ; 
 for if it should be objected that this was a mere recital from the 
 Gospel, borrowed by the author of the epistle, for the purpose of 
 setting off his composition by an appearance of agreement with the 
 received account of the Lord's supper, I should not know how to 
 repel the insinuation. In like manner, the description which 
 St. Paul gives of himself in his epistle to the Philippians (iii. 5) 
 " Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of 
 Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews ; as touching the law, a 
 Pharisee ; concerning zeal, persecuting the Church ; touching the 
 righteousness which is in the law, blameless," is made up of 
 particulars so plainly delivered concerning him in the Acts of the 
 Apostles, the Epistle to the Romans, and the Epistle to the 
 Galatians, that I cannot deny that it would be easy for an impostor, 
 who was fabricating a letter in the name of St. Paul, to collect 
 these articles into one view. This, therefore, is a conformity 
 which we do not adduce. But when I read in the Acts of the 
 Apostles, that when " Paul came to Derbe and Lystra, behold a 
 certain disciple was there, named Timotheus, the son of a certain 
 woman which was a Jewess ; " and when, in an epistle addressed 
 to Timothy, I find him reminded of his " having known the Holy 
 Scriptures from a child" which implies that he must, on one side 
 or both, have been brought up by Jewish parents ; I conceive that 
 I remark a coincidence which shows, by its very obliquity, that 
 scheme was not employed in its formation. In like manner, if a 
 coincidence depend upon a comparison of dates, or rather of 
 circumstances from which the dates are gathered the more 
 intricate that comparison shall be the more numerous the inter- 
 mediate steps through which the conclusion is deduced in a 
 word, the more circuitous the investigation is, the better ; because 
 the agreement which finally results is thereby farther removed 
 from the suspicion of contrivance, affectation, or design. And it 
 should be remembered, concerning these coincidences, that it is 
 one thing to be minute, and another to be precarious ; one thing 
 to be unobserved, and another to be obscure ; one thing to be 
 circuitous or oblique, and another to be forced, dubious, or fanciful. 
 And this distinction ought always to be retained in our thoughts. '
 
 The Chronicles and Ecclesiastes. 89 
 
 (12.) Knowledge, yvwa-is, owet&ijcrts, Maddct jnp. 
 
 There is yet in the passage quoted in page 83, 
 from the Chronicles, one other word which may be 
 specially noticed in connection with the authorship 
 of Ecclesiastes, namely the verbal noun jnp, found 
 thrice in 2 Chronicles I. 10, 11, 12, where it is 
 recorded that Solomon said to God, 
 
 Give me now wisdom and I irjn yift\ ni03n HDJ? 
 
 knowledge, 
 
 and that God gave him what he thus asked. Now 
 since the Chronicles, as a compilation (though not 
 in the several parts of which they are composed), 
 constitute one of the latest books in the canon, and 
 since jnp occurs nowhere else, except in Daniel 
 (i. 4, 17), which is likewise late, and in Ecclesi- 
 astes 10. 20, the impugners of the Solomonic 
 authorship of Ecclesiastes assume, without any 
 evidence to support their assumption, that JFip is 
 late, and therefore cannot have been used by 
 Solomon in the prayer ascribed to him in 
 2 Chronicles I. 8-10, and that consequently the 
 Book of Ecclesiastes cannot have been written by 
 Solomon. 
 
 Yet there is not a shred of evidence either 
 direct or presumptive to warrant the supposition 
 that JTip is not as old as the days of Solomon. 
 Though JHO is not found in those parts of the 
 Hebrew Scriptures which are indisputably early, 
 other words of the same etymological formation 
 are found in Solomonic and even in early Hebrew. 
 Being formed from in 11 , after the analogy of nouns
 
 90 Evidence of the Solomonic Authorship. 
 
 derived from verbs beginning with 3, JHO resembles 
 HBO, (from np^) in i Kings 7. 9, H3 (from naa) in 
 Leviticus 26. 21, Numbers n. 33, Proverbs 20. 
 30, and elsewhere, m> (from 3tt) in Joshua 4. 3, 9, 
 and elsewhere, and jflQ (from jri3) in Genesis 34. 12, 
 Numbers 18. 11, Proverbs 18. 16, 19. 6, 21. 14. 
 Even what Delitzsch says of JHD in his long list, 
 already mentioned in page 31, is adverse to his 
 own argument, rather than favourable to it 
 ' Madda\ x. 20 ; elsewhere only in the Chronicles 
 and Daniel ; Targum JTHO.' 
 
 Yet the difference between JH of Ecclesiastes 
 and jrn of the Targum and of the Chaldee in 
 Daniel 2. 21,4. 31, 33 (34, 36), 5. 12, is not less than 
 the difference between jno and the ancient rijn 
 of Genesis 2. 9, 17, which some deniers of the 
 Solomonic authorship of Ecclesiastes specify as 
 the word likely to have been used by Solomon. 
 Now njn does occur in the Book of Ecclesiastes, 
 being found in it no fewer than seven times ( 1 . 1 6, 1 8, 
 2. 21, 26, 7. 12, 9. 10, 12. 9), besides being found 
 above thirty times in Solomon's Proverbs, and 
 even in Daniel I. 4, alongside of JHE, njn "JJTI 
 iDI. Yet (as Delitzsch himself observes of 
 , page 37), run, though it might have suited 
 2 Chronicles I. 10, 11, 12, would scarcely have 
 suited Ecclesiastes 10. 20, where, says Dr. Pusey, 
 in the Notes to his Sixth Lecture on Daniel the 
 Prophet, jnp is ' not " knowledge," but " the place 
 of knowledge," "conscience."' Though there be 
 thus some latitude in the signification of JHB, 
 represented in the Septuagint by arvveyis in Daniel
 
 Identity of Words. 91 
 
 I. 17, 2 Chronicles I. 10, 11, 12, by crweiS^cri? in 
 Ecclesiastes 10. 20, and by fypowqcns in Daniel I. 4, 
 this latitude is not greater than the latitude of 
 signification with which the verb JTP, to know, is 
 used throughout the Hebrew Scriptures. 
 
 Hence the use of the word SHD by Solomon in 
 that portion of his memorable prayer in early life 
 which is peculiar to 2 Chronicles (other portions 
 of the prayer being peculiar to the more copious 
 record in I Kings 3.) and the subsequent use of 
 the same word in Ecclesiastes 10. 20, afford con- 
 jointly a delicate and valuable testimony to the 
 Solomonic authorship of the Book of Ecclesiastes. 
 What more natural than that he who, as king, 
 asked and received JHO, should caution others 
 against cursing the king in their own JTJO ? 
 
 And whether, in so far as different shades of 
 meaning are concerned, JHO in Solomon's prayer 
 differs from JHD in Ecclesiastes 10. 20 as avveais 
 differs from a-vvelSrjo-^ or not, this may be averred, 
 that there is assuredly no greater difference be- 
 tween the one jno and the other than the difference 
 
 T ~ 
 
 between the concrete mntfrrriK in Song 8. 4, and the 
 
 T -:ri T 
 
 abstract ranKrrnx in verse 7 of the same chapter. 
 
 (13.) Chance, Pegri WB. 
 
 From the verb WB, pepigit, found above forty 
 times in the Hebrew Scriptures, there are three 
 derivatives, namely, the proper noun Pagiel, in 
 Numbers I. 13, 2. 27, 7. 72, 77, 10. 26 ; the verbal 
 noun yaep, a mark, in Job 7. 20 only ; and the noun 
 W3, chance, which occurs only twice in the Hebrew
 
 92 Solomons Message to Hiram. 
 
 Bible. As one of the two passages containing 
 this rare noun is Ecclesiastes 9. 11, it is worthy 
 of special notice that the other passage is found 
 in Solomon's message to Hiram, king of Tyre, as 
 recorded in i Kings 5. 17-20 (3-6). 
 
 i KINGS 5. 18 (4). No adver- j y\ yjpj 
 
 sary and no evil CHANCE. 
 
 ECCLES. 9. 11. Time and 
 
 nip* 1 MSI ny 
 
 CHANCE happeneth to them all. 
 
 The value of this coincidence is enhanced by the 
 circumstance that, except in this word MS, these 
 two passages are very unlike each other, both in 
 themselves and in their contextual relations. 
 
 Summary. 
 
 This division of the treatise might be prolonged 
 by the specification of some additional words 
 comparatively frequent in Ecclesiastes and other 
 Solomonic Scriptures. 
 
 Thus the root f)71, to drop, besides appearing in 
 the name Dalphon, in Esther 9. 7, is found in five 
 passages, three of which are in the Solomonic 
 Scriptures (Proverbs 19. 13, 27. 15, Ecclesiastes 
 10. 18), the two other passages being Psalm 119. 
 28, and Job 16. 20. So likewise, of the passages 
 which contain the verb MJJ, to gush out, or its 
 derivative noun JfllD, a fountain, nearly half 
 (namely six out of fourteeii) are in Proverbs and 
 Ecclesiastes the verb MU in Proverbs i. 23, 15. 2, 
 28, 18. 4, Ecclesiastes 10. 1, Psalms 19. 3 (2), 59. 8 
 (7), 78. 2, 94. 4, 119. 171, 145. 7; and the noun 
 in Ecclesiastes 12. 6 and Isaiah 35. 7, 49. 10.
 
 Verbal Coincidences. 93 
 
 The following paragraph, written with reference 
 to the Book of Isaiah, yet applicable mutatis 
 mutandis to the Book of Ecclesiastes as compared 
 with the other Solomonic Scriptures, may be read 
 in illustration of the Solomonic authorship of 
 Ecclesiastes as indicated by the numerous verbal 
 coincidences pointed out in this division of the 
 treatise. The paragraph is quoted from Note D 
 in the Appendix to the Boyle Lectures for 1868, 
 by Professor Stanley Leathes of King's College, 
 London : 
 
 ' The result of the facts thus presented to the reader may be 
 summed up as follows : We have here a number of verbal phen- 
 omena and coincidences, some of them remarkable and even 
 striking instances of words found nowhere else but in the writings 
 ascribed to Isaiah ; but in these found indifferently in either part. 
 Most of these words are so seldom used that the possibility of 
 their having been seized upon as catch-words by an imitator is 
 precluded ; nor are they in their nature so noticeable that a pupil 
 or a careful student, who had imbibed the peculiarities of Isaiah's 
 mind or caught his style, would be likely to repeat them. They 
 belong simply to the class of casual resemblances which would 
 naturally be found in the works of one and the same mind, but 
 which are hardly to be accounted for by imitation. In some cases 
 we meet with words occurring many times in one part, and per- 
 haps only once or twice in the other ; but this fact is one which 
 points to identity of authorship, inasmuch as an imitator or a 
 writer of the same school would not employ a word only once or 
 twice which his master had used frequently. That such a word is 
 used at all, shows that it was one which the author was in the 
 habit of using ; it belonged to his vocabulary, though he may 
 have had occasion to use it at some times more frequently than at 
 others.' 
 
 |et mrj heart he sottnb in thg statutes, 
 that I he not ashamtb.
 
 Coincidences in Stgle anti 
 
 Use of Words and Phrases. 
 
 WHILE the frequency of words like 31B, 7*03, and 
 npan in two books claiming a common authorship 
 contributes to the establishment of the claim, in so 
 far as such verbal coincidences are not accounted 
 for by other circumstances : it may be also noticed 
 still further that an argument not less cogent than 
 that resulting from mere identity of words is 
 afforded by coincidence in a peculiar use of ordinary 
 words, or by the occurrence of special phrases or 
 modes of construction seldom or never used else- 
 where. 
 
 Grace, or Favour : }n. 
 
 Thus, for instance, the noun jn, grace, or favour, 
 found as early as Genesis 6. 8, occurs sixty-eight 
 times in the Hebrew Scriptures. Yet it is a note- 
 worthy circumstance, that, up to the time when 
 Psalms 45 and 84, or Solomon's Proverbs, were 
 written, this little word |n is never used absolutely, 
 without contextual qualification, but always rela- 
 tively, in connection with some other word or
 
 Evidence of the Solomonic Authorship. 95 
 
 words, similarly as the English words behalf and 
 sake are used. Genesis 39. 21 is the only passage 
 where jn appears with a pronominal suffix (inn), jn 
 occurs also in thirteen other passages of Genesis, 
 but is invariably preceded by the verb KVD, to find, 
 and followed by the dual of the noun ?y, eye. In 
 the phrase vnBC? jn, the grace of his lips, Proverbs 
 2.2. 11, }n is in the construct state ; and in Proverbs 
 31. 30, where jn is used absolutely, it has the 
 article prefixed (inn), which at once distinguishes 
 it from Solomon's use of the word. 
 
 LIST OF PASSAGES IN WHICH }n is USED RELATIVELY. 
 
 I. Passages in which }n is followed by D^JJ, so as to denote 
 grace or favour, RELATIVELY, in the eyes of some one. 
 
 I. Forty passages in which jn is preceded by tfD> to find favour 
 in the eyes of some one : 
 
 Genesis 6. 8, 18. 3, 19. 19, 30. 27, 32. 6 (5), 33. 8, 
 
 10, 15, 34. 11, 39. 4, 21, 47. 25, 29, 50. 4. 
 
 Exodus 
 
 Numbers 
 
 Deuteronomy 
 
 Judges 
 
 Ruth 
 
 1 Samuel 
 
 2 Samuel 
 I Kings 
 Proverbs 
 Esther 
 
 33. 12, 13 (twice), 16, 17, 34- 9. 
 
 ii. 11, 15, 32. 5. 
 
 24. 1. 
 
 6. 17. 
 
 2. 2, 10, 13. 
 
 i. 18, 16. 22, 20. 3, 29, 25. 8, 27. 5. 
 
 14. 22, 15. 25, 16. 4. 
 
 H.19. 
 
 3-4. 
 
 5- 8, 7- 3- 
 
 2. Three passages in which jfi is preceded \>y JDJ, to ?V favour in 
 
 the eyes of some one : Exodus 3. 21, u. 3, 12. 36. 
 
 3. Two passages in which jn is preceded by K{W> to obtain favour 
 
 ' T T 
 
 in the eyes of some one : Esther 2. 15, 5. 2.
 
 96 Coincidences in Style. 
 
 II. Two passages in Esther in which jn is followed by 
 na!>. 
 
 T T ; 
 
 1. Preceded by $&}, 
 
 T T 
 
 2. 17 : She obtained favour and mercy in his sight. 
 
 2. Preceded by J$D> 8. 5 : If I have found favour in his sight. 
 
 jn occurs only twice in the Psalter, namely, in 
 Psalms 45. 3 (2), and 84. 12 (11) ; and in each 
 passage it is used to denote, not grace or favour, 
 relatively, in the sight of some one, but grace, simply 
 and absolutely : 
 
 45. 2. GRACE is poured into thy lips. 
 
 84. 11. Jehovah will give GRACE and glory. 
 
 Whether these two Psalms, each of which is 
 ascribed to the sons of Korah, are or are not earlier 
 than the days of Solomon, is immaterial to the 
 point at issue. The 45th, from its well-known 
 resemblance to the Song of Solomon, may be 
 classed along with his writings ; and the 84th 
 sets forth the excellence of that divine worship in 
 honour of which Solomon's temple was built. 
 
 Apart from the Solomonic Scriptures and these 
 two Psalms, }n occurs absolutely only four or five 
 times in the Hebrew Scriptures. 
 
 JER. 31. I (2). The people left of the sword found grace in the 
 wilderness : -121103 |H 
 
 NAHUM 3. 4. jn naiB rmr- 
 
 ZECH. 4. 7. He shall bring forth the headstone with 
 shoutings, Grace, Grace, unto it: fi? ?n }!"! 
 12. 10. The spirit of grace : jn mi- 
 There seems to be a kind of paronomasia (similar 
 to that of Micah I. 10, 14, 15) in Zechariah's use 
 of jn, first as a shout of triumph in 4. 7, and after-
 
 Grace and Love. 9 7 
 
 wards, in 6. 14, as the name of a man, Chen, the 
 son of Zephaniah, the one usage being connected 
 with and giving emphasis to the other. 
 
 In Solomon's Proverbs fn is used with an absolute 
 signification ten times, namely, in I. 9, 3. 22, 34, 
 4.9, 5.19, H.16, 13.15, 17.8, 22.1, 28.23. 
 
 i 9 ) ( 
 
 ' Q ' \ An ornament of GRACE : }H JV17 
 
 4. y. ) 
 
 3. 34. To the lowly he giveth GRACE : fn JJV d^JJJ? 
 
 13. 15. Good understanding giveth FAVOUR : fJVin 11 31tD~^3tJ> 
 
 What bears with special force on the authorship 
 of Ecclesiastes is the fact that }H occurs as often, 
 namely twice, in that little book of eleven pages as 
 in the Psalter, which is seven times its size, and in 
 both passages is used a&so/vtefy, just as it is used in 
 the ten aforesaid passages of Solomon's Proverbs. 
 
 ECCLES. 9. 11. I returned and saw under the sun that the race 
 is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, 
 . . . nor yet FAVOUR (|n) to men of skill. 
 
 10. 12. The words of a wise man's mouth are GRACE, m. 
 
 Love : 
 
 The noun rnnx, love, occurs eighteen times in 
 Solomon's Proverbs, Canticles, and Ecclesiastes, 
 which together occupy 42 pages, and twenty-two 
 times in the other 568 pages of the consulted copy 
 of the Hebrew Scriptures. Over and above this 
 vastly preponderating frequency of mntf in the 
 three Solomonic books as compared with the 
 other books of the Old Testament, it is worthy of 
 special notice that in these three books nint? is 
 always used absolutely, without contextual qualifi- 
 cation, except twice (Proverbs 5. 19, Ecclesiastes 
 
 G
 
 98 Abstract noiins used absolutely. 
 
 9. 6) ; whereas outside of these books the opposite 
 usage prevails, ronx being never used absolutely 
 except twice, or at the utmost three times abso- 
 lutely (like ayaTrrj in I Corinthians 1 3) sixteen out of 
 eighteen times in these three books,and only two or 
 three out of twenty-two times in the other books. 
 The phrase bands of love, nans niroN, occurs in 
 Hosea n. 4 ; and in Jeremiah 2. 33 nnns is used 
 absolutely, cognate forms being used with similar 
 import in Proverbs 5. 19, 7. 18 ; Hosea 9. 10 : 
 
 JER. 2. 33. Why trimmest thou thy way to n2!"!K 
 
 seek love ? 
 
 In 2 Samuel 13. 15 the noun mns is used in close 
 
 ~ T -: r 
 
 connection with its verb 2HK. In the other non- 
 
 - T 
 
 Solomonic passages, and thrice in the Solomonic 
 history (*), mnx appears either 
 
 (i) in the construct state, as rans ten times : 
 
 Deuteronomy 7- 8. 
 
 1 Samuel 20. 17. 
 
 2 Samuel I. 26. 
 *i Kings 10. 9. 
 
 *2 Chronicles 2. 10 (11), 9. 8. 
 Jeremiah 2. 2, 31. 3. 
 Hosea 3. 1. 
 Micah 6. 8. 
 
 or (2) defined by a pronominal suffix nine times : 
 
 my love 
 thy love 
 his love 
 
 their love 
 
 Psalm 109. 4, 5. 
 2 Samuel I. 26. 
 Genesis 29. 20 ; I Samuel 18. 3, 20. 17 ; 
 
 Isaiah 63. 9; Zephaniah 3. 17. 
 Hosea 9. 15. 
 
 No such defining of mns, however, is met with 
 in Solomon's Song, where this noun occurs eleven 
 times. The peculiar expression mnNrrnN, rrjv 
 ayaTrrjv, occurs four times in Canticles (2. 7, 3. 5, 
 8. 4, 7) ; whereas in the seven other passages, and
 
 Love and Hatred. 99 
 
 four out of five times where nantf is found in Solo- 
 mon's Proverbs, it is used simply and absolutely. 
 These passages are 
 
 Proverbs 10. 12, 15. 17, 17. 9, 27. 5 four. 
 Canticles 2. 4, 5, 3. 10, 5. 8, 7. 7 (6), 8. 6, 7 -seven. 
 
 Specimen passages : 
 
 PROV. 15. 17. A dinner of herbs where LOVE is. 
 
 27. 5. Open rebuke is better than secret LOVE. 
 SONG 2. 4. His banner over me was LOVE. 
 8. 6. LOVE is strong as death. 
 
 Now what is material to the point at issue is 
 the fact that in Ecclesiastes 9. 1 the absolute 
 nans is used precisely as it is used in Solomon's 
 Proverbs and Song, yet only twice elsewhere 
 (Jeremiah 2. 33 and Hosea n. 4) throughout the 
 whole of the Hebrew Scriptures ; for in 2 Samuel 
 13. 15 nnnsi is used rather with the force of a 
 strengthening adverb than as an independent 
 noun. Hence it may be said, without any 
 overstraining of the argument, that even though 
 in the short book of Ecclesiastes there is only one 
 passage where nnnx is used exactly as it is used 
 four times in Solomon's Proverbs, and seven times 
 in his Song, yet this one passage, especially when 
 looked at along with }n in 9. 11 and 10. 12, carries 
 considerable weight in the question of authorship. 
 
 : DTOB$> bn D-rsn jrn* p nwtp-w nnnx-DJ 
 It may be further observed that, as in this 
 verse, so also in Proverbs 10. 12, 15. 17, the 
 absolute nwc?, hatred, is contrasted with the 
 absolute nnnx, love.
 
 ioo Evidence of tJie Solomonic Authorship. 
 
 My son : ^3. 
 
 The use of the expression '33, my son, in the 
 Proverbs of Solomon and the Book of Ecclesiastes 
 is unique. In them it occurs twenty-three times, 
 and always as an appellative. Elsewhere it occurs 
 between eighty and ninety times ; but more than 
 fifty of the passages may here be left out of 
 account, ^3 being used in them not as an appel- 
 lative, but in simple conversation or narrative, 
 mostly where parents are speaking of their own 
 children, as in Genesis 21. 10; but occasionally 
 to express a spiritual relationship, as in Exodus 
 4. 22, ' Thus saith Jehovah, Israel is my son, 
 my firstborn, na3 '33.' 
 
 The appellative "03 occurs about thirty times 
 elsewhere than in Solomon's Proverbs and Eccle- 
 siastes. Nearly half of these are in Genesis, where 
 the appellative '33, my son, is always but once 
 (43. 29) employed simply by parents in speaking 
 to their own sons, as in the case of Abraham 
 addressing Isaac (22. 7, 8), Isaac addressing Esau 
 (27. 1, 37), and Rebekah Jacob (27. 8,13, 43), Jacob 
 addressing Joseph (48. 19) and Judah (49. 9). The 
 other instances of the literal use of the appellative 
 '33 are Judges 17. 2, 2 Samuel 13. 25, 19. 1, 5 (18. 33, 
 19. 4), i Chronicles 22. 11, 28. 9. Elsewhere '33 is 
 used as a term of endearment or paternal regard 
 addressed to some particular person specified in 
 the context, as where, in Genesis 43. 29, Joseph 
 said to his brother Benjamin 
 
 God be gracious to thee, my son : '33 "prr D'iW
 
 The Appellative My Son. 101 
 
 So likewise Joshua addressed Achan as ^l 
 Joshua 7. 19 ; 
 
 Eli, Samuel I Samuel 3. 6, 16; 
 
 Saul, David i Samuel 24.17 (16), 26. 17, 21, 25; 
 
 Joab, Ahimaaz 2 Samuel 18. 22. 
 Now, be it observed that, in all these passages 
 without exception, the appellative "'H is used 
 specifically in the addressing of some person 
 individually, whereas never throughout Solomon's 
 Proverbs (unless indeed David's words quoted in 
 the fourth chapter extend to verse tenth) is ^2 
 used thus specifically, even though it occurs as 
 an appellative nearly as often in these Proverbs 
 as in all the rest of the Old Testament. The 
 passages containing ^3 in the Proverbs are 
 
 i. 8, 10, 15. 
 
 5. 1, 20. 
 
 23. 15,19, 26. 
 
 2. 1. 
 
 6. 1, 3, 20. 
 
 24. 13, 21. 
 
 3-1,11,21. 
 
 7-1. 
 
 27. 11. 
 
 4. 10, 20. 
 
 19. 27. 
 
 
 In these passages the appellative 'Ol is used ideally 
 by a teacher addressing his disciples as his sons. 
 This feature of Solomon's Proverbs is expressly 
 referred to in Hebrews 12. 5, where the writer 
 mentions ' the exhortation which speaketh to you 
 as to sons, MY SON, despise not thou the chasten- 
 ing of the Lord.' Now the point here calling 
 for special notice is the circumstance that only 
 once outside of Solomon's Proverbs is the appel- 
 lative ^2 used exactly as it is used /;/ these 
 Proverbs, and that that once is in Ecclesiastes 
 12. 12, where, not obtrusively, but as it were quite
 
 IO2 Phraseological Coincidences. 
 
 incidentally, the author lets fall one simple word 
 which identifies him with the author of Solomon's 
 Proverbs : ' And further, by these, MY SON, be 
 admonished.' Not so much as even once in the 
 Pentateuch, the Prophets, the Psalter, nor yet in 
 the Book of Job, is "33 used with any such ideal 
 signification. But here, once in Ecclesiastes, and 
 nowhere else in the Old Testament, is ^3 used 
 precisely as it is used in the Proverbs of Solomon. 
 Indeed so characteristic of Solomon's Proverbs 
 is this appellative ""J3, that an imitator might 
 probably have introduced it into a composition of 
 his own which he wished to pass off as a writing 
 of Solomon. Surely, however, such an imitator 
 would have employed ^2, oftener than once, and 
 would have given it a prominence similar to its 
 prominence in the Book of Proverbs. Hence its 
 occurrence once, and onry once, in Ecclesiastes, 
 and that incidentally in the end of the book, 
 is one of those unobtrusive features which seem 
 explicable only on the supposition that he who 
 wrote the Proverbs of Solomon wrote the Book 
 of Ecclesiastes likewise. 
 
 Master: toa. 
 
 The use of PJ?a in Solomon's Proverbs and in 
 Ecclesiastes deserves special notice in connection 
 with the question of authorship. If the passages 
 where Pyn, Baal, either by itself or in composition, 
 occurs as a proper noun, and Exodus 21, 22, where 
 ?i?3 occurs eleven times in the sense of owner, and
 
 Master. 103 
 
 also the ninth chapter of Judges, where the phrase 
 D3K> 1^3 occurs thirteen times, be left out of 
 account, then it may be observed that Pin occurs 
 with peculiar frequency in Proverbs and Eccle- 
 siastes, being found eleven times in Solomon's 
 Proverbs, and seven times in Ecclesiastes, while it 
 occurs only four times in Genesis, four times in 
 Isaiah, thrice in Deuteronomy, once in Leviticus, 
 Numbers, Jeremiah, Job, respectively, and very 
 seldom elsewhere. In Proverbs 12. 4, and in 
 several non-Solomonic passages, such as Genesis 
 20. 3, Proverbs 31. 11, 23, 28, $>JD denotes a 
 husband; whereas in Genesis 14. 13, 37. 19, 49. 23, 
 2 Kings i. 8, Isaiah 41. 15, Nahum I. 2, Pro- 
 verbs 1 8. 9, 24. 8, 29. 22, Daniel 8. 6, 20, Nehemiah 
 6. 18, ^ya, by a well-known idiom, denotes the 
 person or thing characterised by the noun with 
 which it stands in construction. Now it may 
 be observed that there is a marked resemblance 
 between the use of 7JD in Ecclesiastes and its use 
 in Solomon's Proverbs. Thus the plural with the 
 pronominal suffix n (rv^jn) occurs in Job 31. 39, 
 and Ecclesiastes 5. 10, 7. 12 only, and with the 
 pronominal suffix 1 (Vpyi) four times in Proverbs 
 (i. 19, 3. 27, 16. 22, 17. 8), and twice in Ecclesiastes 
 (5. 12, 8. 8), but only once elsewhere (Isaiah i. 3) 
 in the Hebrew Scriptures, except in Exodus, 
 chapters 21 and 22. 
 
 The phrase flB&i ^JD in Ecclesiastes 10. 11, 
 stands fourteenth in Delitzsch's list of words and 
 phrases said by him to belong to a more recent 
 period of the language :
 
 IO4 Phraseological Coincidences. 
 
 ' Baal hallasJion, x. 1 1 ; cf. baal bashar, corpulent, 
 Berachoth, 13$; baal hahhotam, the large-nosed, 
 carrying the nose high, Taanith 2qa.' 
 
 But why should rabbinical Hebrew be thus 
 appealed to in support of the alleged lateness of 
 Ecclesiastes, when Solomon's Proverbs contain 
 more than one phrase precisely similar to JlB^n ^>JO 
 in Ecclesiastes ? Why refer to Berachoth 1 3^, 
 and Taanith 29^, rather than to the Proverbs of 
 Solomon, where at least some of the following 
 phrases are analogous to jlB>?n ?jn in Ecclesiastes 
 io. 11? 
 
 1 8. 9, n*n^D?ja 24. 8, nteropjn 
 
 22. 24, CJK i>jn 20. 22. non f>jn 
 
 XT 7 T 
 
 23. 2, B>Bp !>JD 
 
 This is one of many instances in which words and 
 phrases quoted by Delitzscli, so far from proving 
 the alleged lateness of Ecclesiastes, point in the 
 opposite direction to Solomon as the author. 
 
 There is yet the peculiar phrase in Ecclesiastes 
 io. 20, D^ajDn 7jn, that which hath wings. Now 
 the only other passage in the Hebrew Scriptures 
 where 7JD stands in construction with *pa is Proverbs 
 1. 17, where the phrase fp3 ?y3-?3 occurs. This is 
 one of those minute and unobtrusive coincidences 
 which carry an evidential weight specially their 
 own the variation between the singular Pp3 without 
 the article in Proverbs, and the plural with the 
 article (3TD) in Ecclesiastes, detracting nothing 
 from the argument in favour of identity of author-
 
 Want of Heart. 105 
 
 ship, inasmuch as an imitator would have been 
 more likely to copy the identical phrase *1J3 ?JO 
 from Proverbs I. 17, than to introduce a phrase 
 somewhat different. 
 
 Lacking: ion. 
 
 Of sixty passages containing "ion and its 
 cognates, the large proportion of twenty-eight are 
 found in the three books assigned to Solomon 
 twenty-three in his Proverbs, one in the Song of 
 Songs, and four in the Book of Ecclesiastes : 
 
 The verb ion to lack, four times Proverbs 13. 25 ; Song 7. 3 (2) ; 
 
 Ecclesiastes 4. 8, 9. 8. 
 The noun ion want or poverty, once Proverbs 28. 22 (and in 
 
 Job 30. 3). 
 that -which is lacking, once Ecclesiastes I. 15 only. 
 
 want or poverty, eight times in Proverbs 6. 11, 
 ii. 24, 14. 23, 21. 5, 17, 22. 16, 24. 34, 28. 27; 
 (and in Deuteronomy 15. 8 ; Judges 18. 10, 
 19. 19, 20 ; Psalm 34. 10 (9) ). 
 
 Of nineteen passages containing the adjective "ion 
 thirteen are in Solomon's Proverbs, two in Eccle- 
 siastes (6. 2, 10. 3), and four elsewhere (i Samuel 
 21. 16 (15); 2 Samuel 3-29; I Kings 11. 22, 17. 16). 
 The expression Dn?~"iDn, lacking bread, occurs in 
 Proverbs 12. 9, as likewise in David's words in 2 
 Samuel 3. 29, and the expression niJian "ipn, lacking 
 understanding, in Proverbs 28. 16. In each of the 
 eleven other passages of Solomon's Proverbs the 
 phrase is 1? ion, lacking heart 6. 32, 7. 7, 9. 4, 16, 
 10. 13, 21, ii. 12, 12. 11, 15. 21, 17. 18, 24. 30.
 
 io6 Joy of Heart. 
 
 Now only once elsewhere throughout the whole of 
 the Old Testament is "ion conjoined with 27. That 
 one passage is Ecclesiastes 10. 3, where, as these 
 two words occur in a different order and construc- 
 tion, the coincidence with 27~"ipn in Solomon's 
 Proverbs is even weightier than if a phrase which 
 is so very prominent throughout his Proverbs 
 had been exactly reproduced in the Book of 
 Ecclesiastes : 
 
 When he that is a fool walketh in the way, 
 
 his heart faileth. | 1DH 137 
 
 The Jieart : 27 and 227. 
 
 .. T .. 
 
 The heart is mentioned above forty times in 
 Ecclesiastes, and above ninety times in Solomon's 
 Proverbs. Yet as it is frequently mentioned also 
 in the Pentateuch, the Psalter, Isaiah, Jeremiah, 
 Ezekiel, and some other books, the frequency of 
 the mere word 27 cannot be pressed as a conclu- 
 sive evidence of the Solomonic authorship of 
 Ecclesiastes. The case is very different, however, 
 with regard to some phrases in which 27 is found. 
 The connection of 27 with 1DH, for instance, has 
 already been mentioned as peculiar to the Proverbs 
 of Solomon and the Book of Ecclesiastes. 
 
 Joy of heart. The noun nnpB>,/0y, which occurs 
 above ninety times in the Hebrew Scriptures, is 
 construed with 227 in Isaiah 30. 29, Jeremiah 15.16, 
 and Ezekiel 36. 5, and with 27 in only two passages, 
 one of which is in the Song of Solomon (3. 11),
 
 The Heart of the Sons of Man. 107 
 
 and the other in Ecclesiastes (5. 19 (20)), the 
 phrase \zh rinpb, tJiejoy of his heart, being common 
 to both passages. Of four passages where the 
 adjective not?', merry or joyful, is joined to 27, one 
 is in Isaiah (24. 7), two are in Solomon's Proverbs 
 (15. 13, 17. 22, nK> a!?), and one in Ecclesiastes, 
 2. 10, which closely resembles Proverbs 23. 15, 
 where, as also in Psalms 16. 9, 33. 21, not? appears 
 as a verb : 
 
 ECCLESIASTES 2. 10. 
 
 PROVERBS 23. 15. 
 
 heart of the sons of man. The phrase 
 heart of the sons of man is peculiar to the 
 Solomonic Scriptures, and derives an interesting 
 evidential value of its own from the circumstance 
 that, besides occurring twice in the Book of 
 Ecclesiastes and once in the Proverbs of Solomon, 
 it is found also in Solomon's prayer at the 
 dedication of the Temple, as recorded both in 
 Kings and in Chronicles : 
 
 ECCLES. 8. 11. Because sentence against an evil work is not 
 executed speedily, therefore DTXiT-^3 2? the 
 HEART OF THE SONS OF MAN is fully set in 
 them to do evil. 
 g. 3. The HEART OF THE SONS OF MAN is full of evil. 
 
 PROV. 15. 11. DTK-^3 ni3^3 S)K mrp TM jn2Sl ^NB> Sheol 
 and destruction are before Jehovah : how much 
 more then the HEARTS OF THE SONS OF MAN ! 
 
 i KINGS 8. 39.' Thou knowest, even thou alone, the HEART OF 
 
 ALL THE SONS OF MAN, 
 
 2 CHR. 6. 30. Thou, even thou alone, knowest the HEART OF 
 
 THE SONS OF MAN.
 
 loS Phraseological Coincidences. 
 
 The heart knoivcth. In a few passages of the 
 non-Solomonic Scriptures, the verb JTP to know, 
 is connected with 2/ or 2X>, which is represented 
 (A) sometimes as the object, and (B) sometimes as 
 the subject of the knowledge. 
 
 Thus (A) in Deuteronomy 8. 2, God is repre- 
 sented as having proved Israel ' to know what was 
 in thy heart ;' and in Psalm 139. 23, David says, 
 ' Search me, O God, and know my heart.' So 
 likewise in the Solomonic Scriptures, I Kings 
 8. 39, and 2 Chronicles 6. 30, already quoted 
 overleaf, might be mentioned in illustration of 
 the same point. 
 
 (B) In Deuteronomy 29. 3 (4), Moses says, 
 ' Jehovah hath not given you a heart to know 
 (run? a?), and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto 
 this day.' In Jeremiah 24. 7, God himself says, 
 ' I will give them a heart ta know me, that I am 
 Jehovah.' The Preacher likewise uses similar 
 language in Ecclesiastes I. 17, 8. 16, where he 
 declares, ' I gave my heart to know wisdom.' In 
 Deuteronomy 8. 5 ("pUT-cy njm) and Joshua 23. 14 
 (Zma^aa Drum) also, the heart is mentioned in- 
 strumentally as the subject of knowledge. 
 
 In only four other passages of the Hebrew 
 Scriptures is there a similar combination of the 
 verb JTP with the noun 27 or 227 ; and in each 
 passage the heart is mentioned not merely as that 
 with or in which one knows, as in Deuteronomy 
 8. 5 and Joshua 23. 14 aforesaid, but as that which 
 knows. Now the point for special attention here,
 
 Heart Knowledge. 109 
 
 in connection with the authorship of Ecclesiastes, 
 is the circumstance that, whereas two of these four 
 passages are in the Book of Ecclesiastes, one is in 
 the Proverbs of Solomon (14. 10), while the other 
 is found imbedded in the words addressed by 
 Solomon to Shimei in i Kings 2. 44 : 
 
 i KINGS 2. 44. And the king said unto Shimei, Thou knowest 
 all the evil which -p^ jn THY HEART 
 KNOWETH that thou didst to David my father. 
 
 PROV. 14. 10. yTP "&> The HEART KNOWETH the bitterness 
 of one's soul. 
 
 ECCLES. 7. 22. "p^ jni, THY HEART KNOWETH that thou 
 
 thyself also hast cursed others. 
 
 8. 5. 33 n 2*? JJTi A wise man's HEART KNOWETH 
 time and judgment. 
 
 Now considering that every one of the four 
 passages in which the HEART is said to KNOW 
 something is found in words ascribed to Solomon 
 as their author, and that, except in this point, no 
 two of these passages resemble one another, the 
 extreme delicacy of their phraseological coinci- 
 dence enhances the force of the argument in favour 
 of the Solomonic authorship of the book which 
 contains two of the four passages. And the force 
 of the argument is still further enhanced by the 
 fact that, while one of the remaining passages is 
 found in Solomon's Proverbs, the other passage is 
 contained in one of those speeches of Solomon 
 which are recorded independently in the history 
 of his life and reign.
 
 1 10 The Words of the Mouth. 
 
 Word: n:n. 
 
 While the poetical noun i, "icfe, word or saying 
 (found in the Hebrew Scriptures above fifty times), 
 is placed in construction with the noun ns, month, 
 in Deuteronomy 32. 1, Proverbs 6. 2, and eleven 
 other passages, in only five passages is the 
 synonymous noun "i:n thus construed with ns. 
 Two of these passages are in Ecclesiastes, one in 
 Solomon's Proverbs, one in a Psalm of David, and 
 the other (VB-Q1) in Jeremiah 9-19 (20) : 
 
 D'POJ? 
 
 jn D:J ma 
 
 ritao irpa-nin nf>nn 
 
 PSALM 36. 4 (3). The WORDS OF his 
 MOUTH are iniquity and deceit. 
 
 PROVERBS 18. 4. The WORDS OF a 
 man's MOUTH are deep waters. 
 
 ECCLES. 10. 12. The WORDS OF a wise 
 (man's) MOUTH are grace. 
 
 13. The beginning of the- 
 WORDS OF his MOUTH is foolishness. 
 
 In several other passages, such, for instance, as 
 Deuteronomy 30. 14 and Isaiah 59, 21, i:n is 
 contextually connected with na ; but in these 
 passages the one word is not in the construct state 
 with the other. Now, as the noun na occurs above 
 450 times, and the noun "i:n above thirteen hun- 
 dred times in the Hebrew Scriptures, the fact is 
 by no means unimportant in connection with the 
 question of authorship, that of the four passages 
 containing the plural phrase na "nyif two are in 
 the Book of Ecclesiastes, one in the Proverbs of 
 Solomon, and the other in a Psalm of David.
 
 A Multitude of Words. 1 1 1 
 
 Similarly significant is the circumstance that, 
 whereas the noun 31, multitude, occurs 1 50 times 
 in the Old Testament, the phrase D'H^n 21 is 
 peculiar to Job, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes, being 
 found once in each book : 
 
 JOB ii. 2. Should a multitude of words 
 not be answered ? 
 
 PROVERBS 10. 19. IN A MULTITUDE OF 
 WORDS there ceaseth not transgres- 
 sion. 
 
 ECCLES. 5. 2 (3). The dream cometh 
 in a multitude of business, and a 
 
 fool's voice IN A MULTITUDE OF 
 WORDS. 
 
 31H 
 
 ana 
 
 But for having been already mentioned in 
 page 75, the phrase D'Dan nni, words of the wise, 
 might be here specified as a phrase peculiar to the 
 Proverbs of Solomon (i. 6, 22. 17), and the Book 
 of Ecclesiastes (9. 17, 12. 11). 
 
 Say not : 
 
 One of the most delicate of all the coincidences 
 between Solomon's Proverbs and the Book of 
 Ecclesiastes is the occurrence of the negative pre- 
 cept iDtfn-ta in Proverbs 3. 28, 20. 22, 24. 29, and 
 in Ecclesiastes 5. 5, 7. 10. The verb ls, to say, 
 is one of the most frequent of all the words in the 
 Hebrew Scriptures, being found in them consider- 
 ably more than two thousand times; and it is 
 used invariably in the Kal conjugation, except 
 in Deuteronomy 26. 17, 18, where the Hiphil,
 
 H2 The Call of Jeremiah. 
 
 Ps. 94. 4, where the Hithpael, and twenty passages 
 where the Niphal occurs. Now the Solomonic 
 use of the phrase "lENrrptf is unique. The same 
 phrase occurs only twice elsewhere throughout 
 the whole of the Old Testament, namely in 
 Deuteronomy 9. 4 and Jeremiah i. 7 the some- 
 what similar expression jnpNJI'N^ Say ye not, being 
 found in Isaiah 8. 12. 
 
 In Deuteronomy 9. 4 several words followed by 
 ">b7, saying, come between ixn~$>K, say not, and 
 the words actually forbidden to be said ; and there 
 is further in this passage an obvious reference 
 to the statement recorded by anticipation in the 
 preceding context (8. 17) as actually made by 
 Israel : 
 
 8. 17. And thou say (miONl) in thine heart, My power and the 
 
 might of mine hand hath gotten me this wealth. 
 
 9. 4. Speak not thou hlONJvi>X) jn thine heart, after that the 
 
 LORD thy God hath cast them out from before thee, 
 saying (lDsi>)> For my righteousness the LORD hath 
 brought me in to possess this land. 
 
 In Jeremiah I. 6-7 likewise, the phrase ixn-f>K is 
 preceded by certain words (^N "WJ), which, having 
 been actually said by Jeremiah, formed the ground 
 of the precept prohibiting the saying of them. 
 Jeremiah, on being called in early life to the 
 exercise of the prophetic office, pleaded his youth 
 as an excuse for declining the call : ' Ah, Lord 
 Jehovah, Behold I cannot speak, for *3JN iw.' 
 Whereupon the Lord replied, "iDNJT-ta, Say not, 
 *1W ; for unto whomsoever I shall send thee,
 
 Characteristic Phrases. 113 
 
 thou shalt go ; and whatsoever I shall command 
 thee, thou shalt speak.' Here then the phrase 
 latizr^M occurs in the midst of a simple historic 
 narrative, in which, without the use of proverbial 
 language, Jeremiah is told not to say what he had 
 just been saying. Similarly in Isaiah 8. 12, the 
 kindred yet different expression p"ttM<rn6, 'Ye 
 shall not say Treason,' is used to prohibit the 
 saying of what was actually being said. 
 
 In not one of the five Solomonic passages, 
 however, is there any antecedent statement as a 
 basis for the prohibition ; but the phrase "iDKrrta 
 is a characteristic proverbial expression, deriving 
 from its very unobtrusiveness a high value of its 
 own in connection with the question of author- 
 ship. If there were in existence some treatise 
 claiming for its author the author of the Book of 
 Ecclesiastes, and pervaded by the characteristic 
 phrase B>p$n nnn, under the sun, or a treatise 
 claiming Ezekiel for its author, and pervaded by 
 the phrase cnN~|3, son of man, this feature might, 
 instead of establishing the claim, have an opposite 
 tendency the prominence of these phrases in 
 Ecclesiastes and Ezekiel respectively being such 
 as to preclude a similar prominence of them 
 in other books from having much weight in a 
 question of authorship. The position of itttfrrta 
 in Proverbs and Ecclesiastes, however, is widely 
 different from this. In neither book is the phrase 
 prominent ; and the fact that the mode of its use 
 in these two books is peculiar to them gives it an 
 evidential value far outweighing those charac- 
 
 H
 
 i r 4 Say not. 
 
 teristics which are said to be adverse to the 
 Solomonic authorship of Ecclesiastes. 
 
 PROVERBS 
 3. 28. "lENn-^tf SAY NOT to thy neighbour, Go, and come 
 
 again, and to-morrow I will give ; when thou hast it by thee. 
 
 20. 22. "lENrr^N SAY NOT, I will recompense evil ; wait on 
 Jehovah, and he will save thee. 
 
 24. 28, 29. Be'not a witness without cause against thy neighbour ; 
 neither deceive thou with thy lips. "MONn-^tf SAY NOT, As he 
 hath done to me, so I will do to him : I will render to the man 
 according to his work. 
 
 ECCLESIASTES 
 
 5. 5 (6). Suffer not thy mouth to cause thy flesh to sin ; 
 and SAY NOT before the angel that it was an error. 
 
 7. 10. "lOXri~X SAY NOT, Why is it that the former days were 
 better than these ? for thou hast not inquired wisely concerning this. 
 
 The Dedication of Sojomoris Temple. 
 
 Between Ecclesiastes 4. 17 to 5. 6 (5. 1-7) and 
 the narrative of the dedication of Solomon's 
 Temple as recorded in Kings and Chronicles, 
 there is so close a resemblance in sundry particu- 
 lars that the one may be pertinently compared 
 with the' other in confirmation of the Solomonic 
 authorship of Ecclesiastes. As, for instance, in 
 Ecclesiastes 5. 1 (2) (already compared in page 
 61 with i Kings 8. 27, 30, 43), the Preacher 
 cautions worshippers against rash and sinful 
 words prompted by a hasty heart, and commends 
 propriety in prayer, so likewise in i Kings 8 
 Solomon mentions the plague of one's own heart
 
 The House of God. 115 
 
 (verse 38), and repeatedly refers to the prayers of 
 individual worshippers, whether Israelites (38) or 
 strangers (4-2). 
 
 It may be further observed that, as in Ecclesiastes 
 4. 17 (5. 1) the Preacher says, Keep thy feet when 
 thou goest to tlie house of God, so likewise in the 
 eighth chapter of first Kings he sixteen times uses 
 the word house with reference to the temple. In like 
 manner the phrase, Keep thy foot or feet, resembles 
 what is said about the feet in Proverbs i. 15, 
 4. 26, 27, 19. 2, 25. 17. 
 
 Specimen passages. 
 PROVERBS 
 
 4. 26. Ponder the path of thy foot ; and let all thy ways be 
 
 established. 
 19. 2. He that hasteth with his feet misseth (the mark). 
 
 i KINGS 
 8. 13. I have surely built thee a HOUSE to dwell in. 
 
 17. It was in the heart of David my father to build a HOUSE 
 
 for the name of Jehovah, the God of Israel. 
 29. That thine eyes may be open toward this HOUSE night 
 
 and day. 
 
 42. When he shall come and pray toward this HOUSE, hear 
 thou in heaven thy dwelling-place. 
 
 Now, since the expression house of God is of 
 common occurrence from the days of Jacob (Gen. 
 28. 17, 22) down to the days of Ezra (10. 1, 6, 9) 
 and Nehemiah (n. 11, 16, 22), it would be affirm- 
 ing too much to say that the Solomonic author- 
 ship of Ecclesiastes is proved by this point of 
 coincidence between i Kings 8 and Ecclesiastes 
 4. 17 to 5. 6. Yet it may be safely averred that this 
 section of Ecclesiastes contains nothing incon- 
 sistent with the Solomonic authorship of the book,
 
 1 1 6 Ecclesiastes and Malachi. 
 
 but on the contrary consists of such religious 
 counsels as a person occupying the position of 
 Solomon at the dedication of the temple might be 
 expected to give in an ethical treatise like the 
 Book of Ecclesiastes. 
 
 This circumstance derives a value of its own 
 from the fact that deniers of the Solomonic 
 authorship of Ecclesiastes are wont to impugn 
 this section in particular. It is asserted, for in- 
 stance, that because in Malachi 2. 7 the priest is 
 said to be a messenger of Jehovah of hosts, ?|N&t3n 
 in Ecclesiastes 5. 5 (6) refers, not to an angel, but 
 to the officiating priest, and that consequently the 
 Book of Ecclesiastes must be as late as or later 
 than the Book of Malachi. 
 
 ' Without doubt,' says Delitzsch, ' hammaldch is 
 an official byname of a priest a priestly title not 
 to be misunderstood and that such as was in 
 common use at the time of the author.' 
 
 Now even if "jJOn in Ecclesiastes 5. 5 were 
 what Delitzsch represents it to be, such would be 
 no evidence of the alleged lateness of the book ; 
 for this designation might, if existing in the days 
 of the prophet Malachi, have been in use as early 
 as the days of David or Solomon. Yet what 
 Delitzsch alleges, so far from being 'without 
 doubt,' is a bare unproved assertion, at variance 
 with the style and import of the Preacher's words, 
 and not warranted by the words of Malachi. In 
 Malachi 2. 7 it is predicated of the priest that he 
 is a messenger of the Lord ; and in Haggai I. 13 
 likewise the prophet Haggai is designated ' the
 
 Say not before the Angel. 1 1 7 
 
 LORD'S messenger in the LORD'S message ' : 
 whereas in Ecclesiastes 5. 5, as in Genesis 48. 16, 
 and 2 Samuel 24. 16, 17, the term *]K?on is used 
 with an absoluteness which precludes any such 
 identity of reference as Delitzsch asserts. 
 
 It may be further observed that, had the 
 officiating priest been intended in Ecclesiastes 
 5. 5, some other expression than *)&?, before or in 
 presence of, must have been used, such, for instance, 
 as the prefix ?, which actually does occur along 
 with nKn-?K in Proverbs 3. 28 : ' Say not TO 
 
 thy neighbour (or neighbours), TJni> "iDWrta.' 
 Delitzsch indeed suggests the hypothesis, 
 
 ' If we proceed on the idea that liphne hammalach is of the 
 same meaning as liphne hakkohen, Lev. xxvii. 8, 11, Num. ix. 6, 
 xxvii. 2, etc. , we have then to derive the figure from such passages 
 relating to the law of sacrifice as Num. xv. 22-26, from which the 
 words ki sh'gagah hi (Num. xv. 25 b) originate. ' 
 
 Yet this hypothesis is obviously untenable 
 presenting one's self and one's offering before the 
 priest, or coming before him, or standing before 
 him, being away from the point, in so far as the 
 phrase ^37 "in^n-psi, and say not before "i*6n is 
 concerned. On this point, Ginsburg, notwith- 
 standing his denial of the Solomonic authorship 
 of Ecclesiastes, observes, 
 
 ' The appeal to the solitary passage in Malachi ii. 7 is nugatory, 
 for there it is the predicate of JH3, priest. Besides, if a human 
 messenger or priest were meant, we should undoubtedly have had 
 :lNPBn~?K "IJDXrrPX. do not say TO the messenger^ and not 133^), 
 
 I T : -__ v - .... 
 
 before^ in the presence of. Compare Deuteronomy xxvi. 3, 5, where
 
 1 1 8 The Hebrew of King Davids Reign. 
 
 God and the priest are severally addressed God by 135^5 
 and the priest by r 
 
 The frequency with which n&OD was used from 
 the days of Abraham (Gen. 16. 7-11) down to the 
 days of Solomon, and especially in connection 
 with Solomon's father, King David (2 Samuel 
 14. 17,20, 24. 16; Psalm 34. 8(7)), to denote 
 heavenly messengers, accounts for the occurrence 
 of IODH in Ecclesiastes 5. 5. Without special 
 reference to such New Testament passages as 
 Matthew 18. 10, and I Corinthians n. 10, or even 
 to the later Hebrew of Zechariah, chapters i to 6, 
 the use of "1X? in Genesis 48. 16, Exodus 3. 2, 
 Judges 13, Hosea 12. 5 (4), is amply sufficient to 
 prove that the use of HKTDn in Ecclesiastes 5. 5 is 
 no mark of lateness, and that there is no reason 
 why the rendering angel should not be retained 
 in this passage. Such is tl}e interpretation given 
 by the Targum, and by Aben Ezra and Jerome ; 
 and it is favoured by the words of the Septuagint, 
 teal [Mr] et7r79 Trpb TrpocrcoTrov rov @eou, ' And say not 
 in the presence of God.' 
 
 This point need not have been discussed here 
 at such length, but for the sake of illustrating the 
 extreme shallowness of the arguments against the 
 Solomonic authorship of Ecclesiastes. 
 
 The Hebrew of King David's Reign. 
 
 As the latter part of David's history and the 
 earlier part of the history of Solomon are inti-
 
 The title Koheleth. 119 
 
 mately connected and intertwined, with each other, 
 so it follows, as already observed in page 81, 
 that coincidences between the language of David's 
 lifetime and the language of the Book of Eccle- 
 siastes are adverse to the alleged lateness of the 
 book, and confirmatory of its Solomonic authorship. 
 This may be illustrated by the following parti- 
 culars. 
 
 The Preacher Koheleth, TOflp. The very name 
 in Ecclesiastes I. 1, 2, 12, 7. 27, 12. 8, 9, 10, 
 carries intrinsic evidence of Solomon's authorship. 
 He and his father are the only kings, and indeed 
 the only persons after the days of Moses, who are 
 recorded to have assembled the congregation (?) 
 in the way denoted by T'Hp.n, the Hiphil of the 
 verb from which rpnp is derived. Solomon's son 
 Rehoboam is said to have assembled the warriors of 
 the house of Judah and Benjamin (i Kings 12.21, 
 2. Chronicles 1 1. 1); but nowhere else in the Hebrew 
 Scriptures is this verb predicated of any one, 
 except of God in Job n. 10, Moses, Aaron, and 
 Korah in the Pentateuch, and Gog in Ezekiel 
 38. 13 not including several passages, such as 
 Exodus 32. 1, i Kings 8. 2, where the Niphal 
 is used passively or reflexively of the people 
 being gathered or gathering themselves together. 
 Now Solomon appears with marked prominence 
 both in the narrative of David assembling the 
 princes of Israel and addressing the congrega- 
 tion (i Chronicles 28, 29), and also in i Kings 8 
 and 2 Chronicles 5, 6, 7, where Solomon is
 
 1 20 Solomon assembling the Congregation. 
 
 recorded to hav.e done the same thing after the 
 death of his father. 
 
 i KINGS 8. 1, 2. nb$E> $>rtj3* TS Then Solomon ASSEMBLED 
 
 the elders of Israel and all the heads of the tribes, the princes 
 of the fathers of the children of Israel unto king Solomon in 
 Jerusalem, to bring up the ark of the covenant of Jehovah out 
 of the city of David, which is Zion. 
 
 S?np*1i And all the men of Israel were ASSEMBLED unto king 
 
 ~: T ~ 
 
 Solomon in the month Ethanim, in the feast. 
 
 This peculiarly prominent incident in the life of 
 King Solomon amply explains and accounts for the 
 use of the enigmatical name rpnp in the Book of 
 Ecclesiastes the crowning period of Solomon's life 
 being the memorable day on which, as the advocate 
 and intercessor of the assembled Israelites, he 
 presided over them at the dedication of the temple 
 which he had built, and received such public 
 tokens of the divine favour as had not been 
 witnessed since the days of Moses, 2 Chronicles 7. 
 
 'On that great day of the consecration of the temple,' says 
 Delitzsch, ' Solomon not only called the people together, but he 
 also preached to them, he preached indirectly, for he consecrated 
 the temple by prayer ; and directly, for he blessed the people, and 
 exhorted them to faithfulness ( i Kings viii. 55-61). Thus Solomon 
 appears not only as the assembler, but also as the preacher to 
 those who were assembled ; and in this sense of a teacher of the 
 people (Ecclesiastes xii. 9), Kohekth is an appropriate name of 
 the king who was famed for his wisdom and for his cultivation of 
 the popular Mashal. It is known that in proper names the Kal 
 is frequently used in the sense of the Hiphil. Thus Kohtleth is not 
 immediately what it may be etymologically = Nip, caller, pro- 
 claimer ; but is = r6nj?B> from ^npn, to assemble, and to speak 
 to the assembly, contionari: according to which Jerome, under i. 1, 
 rightly explains: ^/fXijo-taimJj, Graeco sermone appellatur qui
 
 Feminine Forms of Nouns. 1 2 1 
 
 coetttm, id est ecclesiam congregat, quern nos nuncupare possumus 
 contionatorem, eo quod loquatur ad populum et ejus sermo non 
 specialiter ad unum, sed ad universos generaliter dirigatur.' 
 
 Yet Delitzsch, notwithstanding his own testi- 
 mony to the peculiar appropriateness of rpnp as 
 an official name of Solomon, declares a little 
 further on, that ' the Book of Koheleth bears, in 
 its second word, as on its very forehead, the stamp 
 of the Ezra-Nehemiah era to which it belongs.' 
 The ground of this assertion is the feminine form 
 of r6np, as to which Delitzsch says, 
 
 ' The name Koheleth, without Chokma being supplied, is a man's 
 name of such recent formation as Sophereth, Neh. vii. 5, for which 
 Ezra ii. 55, Hassophereth ; compare also Ezra ii. 57, 'jfH '3B- 
 The Mishna,' he adds, 'goes yet further in the coming of such names 
 for men generis fern. ... It forms feminine plurals with a masculine 
 signification, as Hadruchoth, press-treaders, Terumoth iii. 4 ; 
 Hamnfshuhhoth, surveyors, Erubin iv. II ; Hall'uzoth, speakers 
 in a foreign tongue, Megilla ii. 1, and continues these with 
 masculine predicates.' 
 
 Yet such names as Sophereth and Pochereth in 
 Ezra 2. 55, 57, Nehemiah 7. 57, 59, and Mispereth 
 in Nehemiah 7. 7, appear to be used not officially, 
 like the name Koheleth in the Book of Ecclesiastes, 
 but as ordinary proper nouns in the genealogical 
 table where they occur. So far is even the femi- 
 nine plural, as the name of a man, from indicating 
 lateness, that it is found not only in the Chronicles, 
 as in the name of one of the sons of Heman, 
 MaJiazioth (i Chronicles 25. 4, 30), but also in 
 the nameNa&ot/i, riinj, i Kings 21, and even before 
 the days of Solomon, in the name Lappidoth, 
 nwa^, Judges 4. 4, and still much earlier in the 
 name Nebaioth, JTP33, in Genesis 28. 9, 36. 3.
 
 1 2 2 Nails. 
 
 Apart from such names as these, however, the 
 manner in which Wisdom is personified in Proverbs 
 i. 20-33; 8; 9. 1-12, even though (unlike n^np) n3H 
 is invariably construed with feminine verbs, is 
 amply sufficient, on the ground of a common 
 authorship, to account for Solomon's assumption 
 of an official feminine name like Koheleth, in a 
 book written for the purpose of setting forth his own 
 experience of Wisdom and Wisdom's excellence. 
 
 Nails. The noun nnpi^p, nails, spelled as it is 
 in Ecclesiastes 12. 11, is aira^ \^op.evov. Spelled 
 however with D for B>, which is an immaterial 
 variation, it occurs four times elsewhere in the 
 Hebrew Scriptures twice with the plural termi- 
 nation D" 1 , and twice with ni D'npppl in Isaiah 
 41. 7, and nnpppa in Jeremiah 10. 4. Now of the 
 two other passages, the first (i Chronicles 22. 3) 
 is in the narrative of the preparation made by 
 David for the building of the temple by his son 
 Solomon ; and the second (2 Chronicles 3. 9) is in 
 the narrative of Solomon building the temple in 
 accordance with the arrangements previously made 
 for it by David his father : 
 
 ECCLES. 12. 11. The words of the wise are as goads, nnpb'DS 1 ! 
 and as NAILS fastened by the masters of assemblies. 
 
 1 CHRON. 22. 3, 5. And iron in abundance, D'HODE)? f r tne 
 
 NAILS, for the doors of the gates, and for the joinings, David 
 prepared. . . . And David said, Solomon my son is young 
 and tender. 
 
 2 CHRON. 3. 9. And the weight flilppp^ of the NAILS was 
 
 fifty shekels of gold. And the upper chambers he overlaid 
 with gold.
 
 The Golden Bowl. 123 
 
 Bowls. In the same narrative (2 Chronicles 
 4. 12, 13), as also in the parallel passage, I Kings 
 7. 41, 42, ' the two BOWLS of the chapiters/ TiKTiK 
 rmnan nta, are mentioned in the list of work 
 done by Hiram for King Solomon, for the house of 
 Jehovah. Now this noun n^a is found in only 
 three other passages, namely, Joshua 15. 19, and 
 the same passage repeated in Judges I. 15, 
 Zechariah 4. 3, and Eccles. 12. 6, where 3Hjn Jib, 
 ' the golden BOWL,' obviously points in the direc- 
 tion of Solomon's temple, and yields a coincidence 
 which (considering the rareness of the noun n^a) 
 is not without value in the question of authorship, 
 especially as the context in Ecclesiastes is widely 
 different from the context in the historic narrative 
 of Kings and Chronicles. 
 
 Peculiar Treasure: n?jp. The noun nbp is found 
 only eight times in the Hebrew Scriptures as 
 early as Exodus and as late as Malachi. In six 
 of the eight passages God's peculiar treasure is 
 referred to the term rtap being applied to those 
 whom He represents as peculiarly his own the 
 \abv Trepiova-iov of Titus 2. 14, and the \ao? 19 
 TrepiTTotrja-tv of I Peter 2. 9. The six passages are 
 Exodus 19. 5, Deuteronomy 7. 6, 14. 2, 26. 18, 
 Psalm 135. 4, Malachi 3. 17. 
 
 Specimen passages. 
 
 EXODUS 19. 5. Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and 
 keep my covenant, then ye shall be unto me n?JD a PECULIAR 
 TREASURE above all peoples ; for all the earth is mine. 
 PSALM 135. 4." The LORD hath chosen Jacob for himself, Israel 
 for his PECULIAR TREASURE.
 
 124 
 
 Peciiliar Treasure. 
 
 In i Chronicles 29. 3, however, nbp, translated 
 in the English Bible my own proper good, is used 
 with a different reference, to denote material wealth 
 belonging to a human king, and dedicated by King 
 David to the house of his God, as intimated by 
 him in connection with the installation of Solomon 
 as his royal successor : 
 
 i CHRON. 29. 1, 3. Furthermore, David the king said unto all 
 the congregation, Solomon my son, whom alone God hath chosen, 
 is yet young and tender, and the work is great : for the palace is 
 not for man, but for the LORD God. . . . Moreover, because I have 
 set my affection to the house of my God, I have, of mine own proper 
 good, of gold and silver, which I have given to the house of my 
 God, over and above all that I have prepared for the holy house. 
 
 Now surely, in connection with the question of 
 authorship, the fact is a deeply significant one, 
 that the only other passage in which n^JD refers, 
 not to the spiritual relation between God and his 
 people as his peculiar treasure, but to material 
 wealth, is Ecclesiastes 2. 8, where the Preacher, in 
 describing his own experience of worldly great- 
 ness, mentions r6jD in immediate connection with 
 gold and silver, exactly as King David had done 
 in publicly commending his son Solomon, when 
 yet young and tender, to the friendly regard of the 
 assembled congregation. 
 
 i CHRONICLES 29. 3. 
 The words of David. 
 
 8 am 2 n^o 1 ^- 
 
 There pertaineth TO ME PECU- 
 LIAR TREASURE !, GOLD 2 AND 
 SILVER, 3 (which) I have given to 
 the house of my God. 
 
 ECCLESIASTES 2. 8. 
 The words of Koheleth. 
 
 arm 
 
 nwnom 
 
 I gathered TO ME also SILVER 1 
 
 AND GOLD 2 AND THE PECULIAR 
 
 TREASURE 3 of kings and of the 
 provinces.
 
 The Authorship of Psalm ex. 125 
 
 The theory that in the Book of Ecclesiastes 
 some obscure imitator after the Captivity was per- 
 sonating Solomon is quite insufficient to account 
 for the minute coincidences between these two 
 passages. Like Ecclesiastes 8. 15, when compared 
 with I Kings 4. 20; and Ecclesiastes 5. 18 (19), 
 6. 2, when compared with I Kings 3-13 and 
 2 Chronicles I. 11, 12, the words of Koheleth in 
 Ecclesiastes 2. 8, when compared with the words 
 of King David in I Chronicles 29. 3, yield one of 
 the most delicate and conclusive evidences of the 
 fact that the author of Ecclesiastes can be none 
 but he whom David, in his farewell address to the 
 congregation, commended to them as his young 
 and tender son, and who himself afterwards 
 declared in Proverbs 4. 3, 4, 
 
 ' I was a son to my father a tender and only one in the sight 
 of my mother. He taught me also, and said unto me, Let thy 
 heart retain my words : keep my commandments, and live.' 
 
 Psalm no. Among all the Psalms ascribed in 
 their titles to David, the hundred and tenth Psalm 
 may be placed in the forefront as bearing pre- 
 eminently the stamp of his authorship, quite 
 irrespective of the unequivocal and emphatic testi- 
 mony of the New Testament in Matthew 22. 43- 
 45, Mark 12. 36, 37, Luke 20. 42-44, and Acts 
 2. 34. The brevity of the psalm precludes any- 
 thing like the mass of inductive evidence by which 
 the Solomonic authorship of Ecclesiastes may be 
 proved. Yet even from the seven short verses into 
 which Psalm no has been divided, the following 
 words and expressions may be quoted as occurring 
 also elsewhere in the Davidic Scriptures, and,
 
 126 Comparison of Passages. 
 
 though not peculiar to those Scriptures, yet so 
 used in them as to show how thoroughly con- 
 sistent the language of the hundred and tenth 
 Psalm is with the title, 11DTD 
 
 Other Davidic Scriptures. 
 
 Psalm no. 
 
 p'tr 1 hy -:IK : ro iron 1 mow 
 
 Sit thou at my right Because he is at my 
 hand 1 . right hand 1 , I shall not 
 
 be moved. 
 The Lord at thy right In thy right hand 1 
 
 hand 1 . 
 
 there are pleasures for 
 evermore. 
 
 o 
 
 H^-nnatK r 
 
 Thy people shall be With a freewill-offer- 
 freewill-offerings* in the ing* I will sacrifice to 
 day of thy power*. 
 
 Scatter them in thy 
 power 3 . 
 
 enp-mra 4 in the 
 
 beauties of holiness 4 . 
 
 The Lord hath smitten 5 
 kings. 
 
 thee. 
 
 enp-rrnra 4 in the 
 
 beauty of holiness 4 . 
 
 DVHDN1 5 
 And I smite 5 them. 
 
 pro 
 
 He hath smitten 5 the 
 head'. 
 
 Only God shall smite 5 
 the head 6 of his enemies. 
 
 He shall lift up 7 the My glory, and the 
 head*. lifter up 7 of my head 6 . 
 
 '*fcO* DTP 7 My head 6 
 shall be lifted up 7 . 
 
 Psalm 16. 8. 
 11. 
 
 Also 17. 7, 18. 
 36 (35), 20. 7 (6). 
 21. 9 (8). 60. 7 
 (5), 63. 9 (8), 
 108. 7 (6), 109. 
 6, 31, 142. 5 (4). 
 
 Psalm 54. 8 (6). 
 
 Ps. 68. 10 (9). 
 Ps. 59. 12 (11). 
 
 Psalm 29. 2. 
 
 1 Chron. 16. 29. 
 
 Ps. 18. 39 (38). 
 
 2 Samuel 22. 39. 
 
 Ps. 68. 22 (21). 
 
 3-4(3). 
 
 27- 6.
 
 TJie Beauty of Holiness. 127 
 
 It is worthy of particular notice that the afore- 
 mentioned expression, to smite tfie tiead, is peculiar 
 to Psalms 68 and 1 10, and Habakkuk 3. 13, and that 
 the resemblance between riinj in Psalm 1 10. 3 and 
 nuiJ DP3 in Psalm 68. 10, besides being clear and 
 close, is specially valuable on account of the cir- 
 cumstance that the contexts are dissimilar. The 
 phrase beauty or beauties of holiness, besides being 
 common to Psalms 29 and no, and I Chronicles 
 1 6. 29, occurs only twice elsewhere in the Hebrew 
 Scriptures, namely, in 2 Chronicles 20. 21, where 
 the words ^P r nn*in;> contain an obvious reference 
 to David's use of the phrase, as founded on 
 Exodus 28. 2, and in Psalm 96. 9, which the 
 sixteenth chapter of first Chronicles proves to 
 have been written by David. 
 
 'The ascription of the [hundred and tenth] psalm to David,' 
 says the late Professor J. A. Alexander of Princeton, in his 
 Explanation of the Psalms, ' is not only uncontradicted by external 
 evidence, but corroborated by the internal character of the com- 
 position, its laconic energy, its martial tone, its triumphant con- 
 fidence, and its resemblance to other undisputed Psalms of David. 
 In addition to all this, we have the authority of Christ himself, 
 who not only speaks of it as David's, but founds an argument upon 
 it, the whole force of which depends upon its having been com- 
 posed by him. ' 
 
 Between Psalm 1 10 and the Book of Ecclesiastes 
 there are two or three verbal coincidences confir- 
 matory of the Solomonic authorship of the book. 
 
 VKTP. Not to speak of the similarity between 
 the opening precept of the Psalm, Sit tJwu at my 
 right hand, TD^ 35?, and the record of Bathsheba's 
 reception by her son Solomon, in I Kings 2. 19, 
 it may be observed that the noun mn^ is peculiar
 
 1 2 8 The Morn ing of L ife. 
 
 to Psalm 1 10. 3 and Ecclesiastes 1 1. 9, 10, and that 
 in both passages it is immediately connected with a 
 noun derived from the root "int?, the nouns iriB'p in 
 the Psalm and Tvnnw in Ecclesiastes n. 10 each 
 of which is a?ra \eybpevov being synonymous, 
 though different in etymological formation : 
 
 PSALM no. 3. 
 
 ECCLESIASTES n. 9, 10. 
 In thy youth 
 
 nmo 
 
 From the womb of the morning 
 
 to thee (is) the dew of thy youth. 
 
 Youth and the morning (of life 
 
 are) vanity. 
 
 While, as already observed in page 
 no, the noun "i:n occurs above 1300 times in the 
 Hebrew Scriptures, the feminine form rnzn occurs 
 only_/?w times, namely, in Job 5% 8, Psalm no. 4, 
 Ecclesiastes 3. 18, 7. 14, 8,2 ; and invariably, except 
 in Job, it is preceded by h]3- Accordingly the 
 phrase fnyirjy is peculiar to the Book of Ecclesi- 
 astes and the hundred and tenth Psalm the 
 ancient case-ending ^ or paragogic yod being 
 appended to rrm in the Psalm, as likewise to the 
 next following word, in the name pi^-^io. 
 
 As m3T?JJ is synonymous with OT&Jf in Genesis 
 
 12. 17,20. 11, 18,43. 18, Exodus 8. 8(12), Numbers 
 25. 18, Deuteronomy 22. 24, 23. 5 (4), 2 Samuel 
 
 13. 22, 18. 5, Psalm 45. 5 (4), and elsewhere, much 
 stress cannot be laid on the use of the feminine 
 rrm instead of -QI. Yet the rareness of this 
 feminine form, and the fact that the expression 
 rnm-^j? is peculiar to Psalm no and the Book of 
 Ecclesiastes, deserves notice in connection with 
 the question of authorship.
 
 Names of God. 1 29 
 
 Psalm 109. The plural D^yo, in Ecclesiastes 
 5. 1 (2), is the fiftieth in the list of words said by 
 Delitzsch to indicate lateness : 
 
 ' M'attim, v. I ; a plur. only at Ps. cix. 8. ' 
 
 Yet the fact, thus briefly stated by Delitzsch as an 
 argument against, is on the contrary an argument 
 in favour 0/the Solomonic authorship of Ecclesi- 
 astes. Even apart from the testimony of Acts 
 I. 16, the title TiDTD ~\rb is as clearly borne out by 
 the style and composition of Psalm 109 as is the 
 title of any other Psalm ascribed to David. Hence 
 the circumstance that, whereas the singular tjyo 
 occurs above ninety times in the Old Testament, 
 the plural D^JJO is common and peculiar to Psalm 
 109. 8 and Ecclesiastes 5. 1 is a fact which bears 
 a testimony of its own to the truthfulness of the 
 title in Ecclesiastes I. 1, in-p r6np nrr. Besides 
 the verbal coincidence afforded by D^yo, there is 
 still further a striking coincidence in the manner 
 in which the word is used in both passages : 
 
 PSALM 109. 8. 
 ECCL. 5. 1 (2). 
 
 Let his days be few. 
 Let thy words be few. 
 
 D'BJflD 
 
 Names of God. 
 
 One of the most marked points of difference 
 between Solomon's Proverbs and Ecclesiastes is 
 in the use of the names of God. The theocratic 
 name Hirf is never used in Ecclesiastes. Yet 
 it occurs eighty-five times in the Proverbs of 
 Solomon ; and whereas in these proverbs God is 
 called D^nSx only four times (2. 5, 17, 3. 4, 25. 2), 
 he is called tNptoferty times in Ecclesiastes, and 
 I
 
 130 The Tctmgrammaton. 
 
 is seldom or never spoken of under any other 
 designation, except TN">U, thy Creator, in 12. 1. 
 
 Yet what is thus, from one point of view, a wide 
 dissimilarity, is, from another point of view, a close 
 coincidence. Each book is characterised by a 
 systematic uniformity regularly kept up within 
 the book from beginning to end, in the way in 
 which an author, having a special reason for using 
 one name in one of his writings and another in 
 another, might purposely use each name to the 
 exclusion of the other. While in such a case there 
 might be clear evidence of design or fixed plan 
 within the limits of each book, the coincidence, 
 in respect of the two books as compared with each 
 other, would be entirely undesigned, and directly 
 contrary to the kind of coincidence which an 
 imitator would produce. 
 
 The first book of the Psalter (Psalms 1-41), like 
 the Proverbs of Solomon, is characterised by mrp, 
 and the second book (Psalms 42-72), like Ecclesi- 
 astes, by DTPS. Yet this circumstance is in no 
 way inconsistent with the - ascription of most 
 of the Psalms in each book (as, for instance, 
 Psalms 14 and 53) to David as their author. 
 Now, in Solomon's Proverbs and in Ecclesiastes, 
 as in Psalms 1-72, the one name or the other is 
 obviously used with discriminating precision. 
 The author of the Proverbs wrote with direct 
 reference to God as the God of Israel, and to that 
 theocratic rule of which Solomon, like his father 
 before him, was the pledged defender. Hence, 
 taking up the theme which David had inculcated 
 in Psalm 34. 12 (11), Solomon introduced, as the
 
 God and Man. 131 
 
 keynote of his Proverbs, (i. 7) that mrp nT fear 
 of Jehovah, which is njn IVWO the beginning 
 of knowledge. Accordingly he designated God 
 almost exclusively by the tetragrammaton DVPN 
 being found only four times (2. 5, 17, 3. 4, 25. 2). 
 
 In so far as the occurrence of DTPS in these four 
 passages is concerned, it may be observed that 
 DTita has, in 2. 17, what mrr never takes a prono- 
 minal suffix, and is used as the correlative of nirv in 
 2. 5, of DIN, man, in 3. 4, and of D^p, kings, in 25. 2. 
 
 2. 17. Who forsaketh the guide of her youth, and forgetteth the 
 
 covenant of HER GOD : rpPPK' 
 
 5. Then shalt thou understand the fear of JEHOVAH, and 
 find the knowledge of GOD. 
 
 3. 4. So shalt thou find favour and good understanding in the 
 
 sight of GOD and MAN. 
 
 25. 2. // is the glory of GOD to conceal a matter, and the glory 
 of KINGS to search out a matter. 
 
 Throughout Ecclesiastes, however, the Preacher 
 deals with man as man, his observations extending 
 far beyond the commonwealth of Israel to ' all the 
 living which walk under the sun.' Hence there is 
 scarcely any trace of Judaism in the Book of Eccle- 
 siastes. Even in such passages as 4. 1 7 to 5. 6 (5. 1-7), 
 8. 2, 10, 9. 2, 12. 1, the references to the worship of 
 God are general rather than specific ; and it is of 
 God as D'nta, the correlative of DIN, that the 
 Preacher speaks. Accordingly there is no occasion 
 for the introduction of the theocratic name nin* 1 ; 
 and as the Almighty is therefore never called 
 JEHOVAH, so Israel, the correlative of Jehovah, is 
 never mentioned except once (i. 12), for the 
 authentication of the writer as an individual king.
 
 132 Diversity and Coincidence. 
 
 And it may be here noticed incidentally in passing, 
 as an interesting coincidence, that Israel is men- 
 tioned once, and only once, in each of the three 
 books ascribed to Solomon, namely, in Proverbs 
 i. 1, Ecclesiastes i. 12, and Canticles 3. 7. 
 
 It may be further observed that Ecclesiastes is 
 the only canonical book in which God is called 
 D'nta without being called also nin\ And while 
 indeed in the brief prophecies of Obadiah and 
 Nahum, God is conversely called rnrv without 
 being called DTPK, yet the fact that in a book of 
 the dimensions of Solomon's Proverbs God is 
 called mrp eighty-five times, and DVita only four 
 times, and this either along with rnrv (2. 5), or in 
 circumstances in which niiT could scarcely have 
 been used, is a fact which has its counterpart only 
 in the universality with which, in the Book of 
 Ecclesiastes, the name D'nta -is used to the exclu- 
 sion of nin\ Surely this circumstance, which is at 
 once a marked diversity and a marked coincidence, 
 tells a tale of its own in favour of identity of 
 authorship. 
 
 Man, Woman: npx, B*N, DTK. 
 
 T T T 
 
 MAN, in his diversified works, and labour, and 
 experience, and relations to God and to his fellow- 
 men, is the great theme of the Book of Ecclesi- 
 astes. The Preacher introduces his subject by 
 asking a question which he immediately pro- 
 ceeds to answer in detail throughout the treatise. 
 ' What profit hath MAN (Dis) in all his labour 
 which he laboureth under the sun ?' Accordingly
 
 The Preachers Theme. 133 
 
 the scope of the Preacher's inquiry leads him to 
 deal not only with human nature in the abstract, 
 but also with human nature in the concrete as 
 actually developed in the life and circumstances 
 and conduct of different men individually, whether 
 toiling hard for their daily bread, or succeeding to 
 the fruits of the labour of others. All the time 
 however, the Preacher's theme is, not K*N, but DTK 
 (2. 21-26), so that the substitution of B*K for DTK 
 wherever man in the abstract culminates in man 
 in the concrete would be out of keeping with 
 the thread of the discourse, and would tend to 
 incoherence and obscurity rather than to precision, 
 especially where the reference is not to some 
 specific person who might have been named, but 
 to every individual whom the description suits. 
 
 The occurrence of tj><K in the few passages (five 
 in number) where it does occur may be easily 
 accounted for. In not one of them does it inter- 
 fere with the Preacher's train of reasoning about 
 man as 
 
 (1) The first is I. 8 : 'All things are full of weariness ; {^itf 
 A MAN cannot utter them. ' Here the main reference is, not to man, 
 but to all things, D*"13"1!T";>3 as being Q^yy ; and while perhaps 
 ETK might not have been inadmissible, the use of {Jftf rather 
 than Q1X to denote the individual man who finds his power 
 of utterance inadequate for the occasion is peculiarly appropriate, 
 and in no way out of harmony with what is said of Q1X elsewhere 
 throughout the treatise. 
 
 (2) In 4. 4, the only passage where jn neighbour, occurs in 
 
 Ecclesiastes, the phrase injniD B^K is i n strict conformity with the 
 ancient and almost universal Hebrew usage according to which, in 
 the phrase a man and his neighbour, or one and anotJier, jn takes 
 as its correlative, not m^ but Jjntf. These words
 
 134 Men individually. 
 
 may thus be illustrated by the almost identical phrase 
 in Solomon's prayer at the dedication of the temple (i Kings 8. 31, 
 2 Chronicles 6. 22). In a third of the passages (not fewer than 
 I So in number) where jn occurs, it is conjoined with B^N as its 
 
 correlative ; yet in not more than two or three passages, if so 
 many, is it thus conjoined with m^- It is so in Proverbs 1 6. 29 ; 
 and in Job 16. 21 the correlative is, not DTK. DUt D"lK~p- 
 
 (3) The discrimination with which words are used in the Book 
 of Ecclesiastes is clearly illustrated by the occurrence of B^K rather 
 than mx in 6. 2, 3, while Qitf rather than B^X is use( i three 
 verses earlier, in 5. 18 (19). In this earlier verse the Preacher is 
 referring to rich men in general; whereas in 6. 1-6 he is referring 
 to one or more special instances of a common evil which have come 
 directly under his own notice. Accordingly, with some person 
 individually in view, he speaks of B^K> a man to whom God giveth 
 riches and wealth and glory. Hence, as Q^x rather than B^K is 
 the appropriate term in 5. 18 (19), so in like manner, on the other 
 hand, x rather than mx is similarly appropriate in 6. 2, and 
 consequently in the verse immediately following, where, though the 
 case is not actual but hypothetical, the coherence of the reasoning, 
 and the definiteness of the person hypothetically described, require 
 the continued use of B"tf, 5. 18 (19) to 6. 3. 
 
 'Every man also (D"TXn~?3 DJV to whom God hath given 
 riches and wealth, and hath given him power to eat thereof, and 
 to receive his portion, and to rejoice in his labour (as for) this, it 
 is the gift of God. For he shall not much remember the days of 
 his life ; for God answereth him in the joy of his heart. There is 
 an evil which I have seen under the sun ; and it is common to man 
 (D1Rn~?y)' A man ({J^x) to whom God giveth riches and 
 wealth and glory ; and nothing is lacking to his soul of all that he 
 desireth ; but God giveth him not power to eat thereof ; for a man 
 who is a stranger (^33 B^X) eateth it : this is vanity ; and it is an 
 evil disease. If a man (B^K) beget a hundred, and live many 
 years, . . .' 
 
 (4) As the proverbial statement in 7. 5, which is the fourth of 
 the five passages containing B^X) is not directly connected with 
 D1X as the main theme of the treatise, but occurs in the midst of a 
 series of proverbs, where the hearing of the rebuke of the wise is 
 contrasted with the hearing of the song of fools, B^X is specially 
 suitable in the phrase D^M "VB* JJQB* B^XO : ' Better to hear 
 the rebuke of the wise, than for a man to hear the song of fools.'
 
 Ideal Men. 1 3 5 
 
 (5) In 9. 15, where the Preacher is narrating simple historic 
 facts, of the actual occurrence of which he himself was aware, {jrj< 
 rather than Q"]tf is clearly the appropriate word for designating the 
 poor wise man (D3H pDQ B^K) who, in his wisdom, delivered 
 the little city from the great king, but whom, notwithstanding 
 his wisdom and achievements, man (Q1K) did not remember : 
 
 poon c^Kn-riN -or * 
 
 Now these few instances of t^x in the Book of 
 Ecclesiastes are collateral rather than directly 
 essential to the main subject of the treatise, whidh 
 is man as man, nis ; and the fact that in these 
 five passages Koheleth uses E"x (and the plural 
 D^JN, HMK in 9. 14, 12. 3), while invariably else- 
 where he uses DIN, is an evidence of the precision 
 with which he writes. The theme of his general 
 delineations is ideal men, introduced as types or 
 symbols of different classes of the human race 
 such, for instance, as the successor of the king, 
 itan nnx NITK> Dixn, or, more especially, his own 
 successor, nn rvrrp onvb (2. 12, 18). 
 
 So far however from speaking only in his 
 personal capacity, with his own son Rehoboam 
 directly in view, as David spoke when he com- 
 mended his young and tender son by name to the 
 congregation of Israel, Koheleth is reasoning 
 ethically or philosophically in the exposition of 
 great general principles for the benefit of mankind 
 at large, whether rich or poor, kings or peasants. 
 Accordingly his description must be of that general 
 kind which will suit other cases besides his own. 
 Hence he describes his successor, not as a man 
 whom he knows individually, but as an ideal or
 
 136 Man in the Concrete. 
 
 hypothetical man who may be either wise or a 
 fool ; and the scope of the treatise requires that 
 this successor be described not as a specimen of 
 B"K, but as a specimen of DTK. Indeed the very 
 theme and plan of the Book of Ecclesiastes 
 necessitate the blending of the personal with the 
 generic MAN in a way which precludes, as incon- 
 sistent with the scope of the subject, the using 
 of trx where the delineation of D1K culminates 
 in the concrete or individual man, as, for instance, 
 in the diversified yet continuous description of 
 man's labour, in I. 3, 2. 18-26, 3. 13, 5. 18 (19), 
 6. 7, 8. 15-17, thus 
 
 i . 3. What profit hath mx in all his labour which he laboureth 
 
 under the sun ? 
 3. 13. And also that Q1Kn~^3 should eat and drink and see 
 
 good in all his labour : it is the gift of God. 
 6. 7. All the labour of CH^n w for his mouth. 
 
 It is for this reason, and net through any such 
 want of precision in the selection and use of 
 words as is said to characterise late Hebrew, that 
 Koheleth uses D1K rather than B"K in 2. 12, 18. 
 
 With similarly significant precision he uses DTK 
 in speaking of 
 
 a MAN whose labour is in wisdom and in knowledge 2. 21. 
 
 and in success ; 
 
 the MAN who is good before God ; 26. 
 
 MAN rejoicing in his own works as his portion ; 3- 22. 
 
 -every MAN to whom God hath given riches and wealth, 5- 18 (19). 
 
 with power to eat thereof ; 
 
 the wisdom of MAN making his face to shine ; 8. 1. 
 MAN ruling over MAN to his hurt ; 
 
 MAX living many years, and rejoicing in them all ; II. 8. 
 
 MAN going to his eternal house (2 Cor. 5. 1). 12. 5.
 
 Man in the Abstract. 137 
 
 While indeed in such passages as these the 
 Preacher is not describing specific persons, histori- 
 cally referred to as individuals, like the poor wise 
 man of 9. 15, yet neither is he describing man 
 merely in the abstract. His theme in each instance 
 is the concrete man, whoever and wherever he is to 
 whom the description is applicable. 
 
 At the same time, these specific cases of human 
 life and experience are accompanied by sundry 
 references to mankind universally, as, for instance, 
 in 6. 7, 7. 2, 12. 13, and in these ten passages (i. 13, 
 2. 3, 8, 3. 1 0, 1 8, 1 9, 8. 1 1 , 9. 3, 1 2), where the phrase 
 3, like DTK "on in Proverbs 8. 4, 31, 15. 11, and 
 n-^D in i Kings 8. 39, denotes the human 
 family. In Proverbs 8. 4 this phrase is used along 
 with the very rare plural form D^N, men, found 
 only twice elsewhere in the Bible (Ps. 141. 4, 
 Is. 53. 3) ; but never throughout the Solomonic 
 Scriptures is the phrase DIK-^l used in contradis- 
 tinction to B*K-'ja, as in Psalms 49. 3 (2), 62. 10 (9). 
 
 The frequent use of D1K in Ecclesiastes to 
 designate MAN, not only generically but indi- 
 vidually, explains and accounts for DHK rather than 
 K^N being used as the correlative of nt?K in 7. 25-29. 
 This is the only passage where ntJ>K, woman, is 
 mentioned in the Book of Ecclesiastes (not 
 reckoning the specific reference to the wife of the 
 ideal person addressed in 9. 9). Now this is one 
 of the points in which Ecclesiastes differs from 
 Solomon's Proverbs. In them ntPN (including 
 about half a dozen passages where wife may be
 
 138 Man and Woman. 
 
 signified) occurs twenty times ; and fc^N occurs 
 with corresponding frequency eighty-five times, as 
 compared with DIN, which occurs forty-three times: 
 whereas in the Book of Ecclesiastes CJ^N occurs only 
 eight times, while DIN occurs forty-nine times. 
 This great disproportion is rendered all the more 
 noteworthy by the fact that throughout the 
 Hebrew Scriptures t^N occurs thrice as often as 
 DIN occurs. 
 
 Now surely it is obvious that, as one of the 
 most prominent of the Preacher's dissertations on 
 man culminates in the closing verses of the seventh 
 chapter, where for the first and last time in the 
 whole treatise (9. 9 being excepted) he discourses 
 on woman, the word D1K should be retained as 
 essential to the coherence of his reasoning his 
 theme in these verses being, not DIN as including 
 nc?N, but DIN as compared with HPN, or rather nc?N 
 as compared with DIN. To liave here superseded 
 DIN, which runs through the treatise from I. 3 to 
 12. 13, by fc^N, for the purpose of giving to nt?N, 
 B^N rather than DIN for its correlative, as Delitzsch 
 indicates that a writer in the days of Solomon 
 would have done, would have been to interrupt 
 the thread of the discourse by the introduction of 
 a line of argument foreign to the scope of the 
 subject. 
 
 It is indeed true that the term DIN, so far from 
 excluding ntJ>N, sometimes directly includes it, as 
 in Genesis I. 27, 5. 2, where it is applied to napil nur, 
 and in Leviticus 13. 2, where DIN corresponds to 
 the ntJ>N IN BK of verses 29, 38. Yet the fact that
 
 One Man among a thousand. 139 
 
 DIN is capable of being specialised and applied to 
 definite cases of human experience and deport- 
 ment, as, for instance, to the DTN coming after the 
 king (Ecclesiastes 2. 12), and the DIN ruling over 
 DIN to his hurt (Ecclesiastes 8. 9), and the DIN bring- 
 ing an offering to Jehovah (Lev. i. 2), and the DIN 
 pronouncing something with an oath (Lev. 5. 4), 
 and Arba the great MAN (^run DINn JOIN) among 
 the Anakim (Josh. 14. 15), and the MAN casting 
 away the idols of his silver and the idols of his 
 gold (Is. 2. 20), and a MAN who had come to seek 
 the welfare of the children of Israel (Neh. 2. 10) 
 this very fact, which is characteristic of early as 
 well as of late Hebrew (Lev. 18. 5 ; Ezek. 20. 11 ; 
 Neh. 9. 29), shows that, quite irrespective of the 
 theory of lateness, DIN may be used to desig- 
 nate him who is ideally one among a thousand, 
 S^ND nriN DIN, like the ^N-'JD nriN of Job 33. 23, 
 and with reference to whom, by way of contrast, 
 Koheleth declares TiND N^ n^N'bn nswv The 
 term DIN may thus stand in immediate contextual 
 connection with ne>N, v/hether the relation of nt?>N 
 to DIN be the relation of mother, as in Job 14. 1, or 
 the relation of wife, as in Genesis 2. 25, 3. 8, or, as 
 here in Ecclesiastes 7. 28, the relation of woman 
 in general. 
 
 The expression 1HN DIN in this verse may be 
 compared with the similar expression D1NH nnN3 
 in Judges 16. 7, 11, which is of higher antiquity 
 than the days of Solomon, and also with the still 
 more ancient iriN mrp of Deuteronomy 6. 4. So 
 likewise the qualification of DIN by the adjective
 
 1 40 The First Man Adam. 
 
 in Ecclesiastes 7. 28, coincides exactly, in 
 respect of idiom, with the qualification of DTK by 
 the adjectives J?n and Dnj? in Proverbs n. 1, 
 12. 23, a -wicked man, a prudent man. 
 
 DEUT. 6. 4. Hear, O Israel ! Jehovah our God is "IPIS !T|!T. 
 PROV. ii. 7. In the death of VBH DTK expectation perisheth. 
 12. 23. D1"iy D1X, A PRUDENT MAN covereth knowledge. 
 ECCL. 7. 28. inN DTK, ONE MAN among a thousand I have found. 
 
 The Preacher's use of DTK rather than K*N in 
 7. 28, 29, where the scope of the subject so 
 obviously requires D1X, is still further conclusively 
 vindicated from the charge of lateness by the fact 
 that Koheleth is there referring directly to the 
 original narrative of man's creation, and must 
 therefore adhere to the word used in that ancient 
 narrative, similarly as his remarks in 3. 20, 12. 7, 
 are in verbal agreement witri Genesis 2. 7, 3. 19. 
 
 The circumstances in which DIN thus occurs in 
 the opening chapters of the Bible are of course 
 peculiar ; the abstract, the generic, the concrete, 
 and the personal, being so united in and covered 
 by the one word DIN as to make the original use 
 of the word unique from certain points of view, 
 man and tJie man Adam being identical. Still 
 the introduction of B"K in Genesis 2. 23, 24, 
 immediately after the introduction of nt?x, shows 
 that in the next following verse, and again in 3. 8, 
 the historian might have used the phrase E*xn 
 H1BW rather than the phrase VIEW D"txn as readily 
 as the Preacher might have written "inx B^N rather
 
 Verbal Precision. 141 
 
 than "1DN DIN in Ecclesiastes 7. 28, had there been 
 a sufficient reason for doing so. Yet the fact 
 that the ancient historian did not so write, and 
 never in fact designated the first man as K^N except 
 in 2. 23, 3. 6, 16, where DIN was inadmissible, but 
 spoke of him as DIN even where B"N might have 
 been used, is amply sufficient to show why Kohe- 
 leth, in writing that part of Ecclesiastes which 
 directly refers to man's creation, should have 
 adhered to the style of the most ancient of all the 
 Hebrew Scriptures. 
 
 Such passages as Leviticus I. 2, 5. 4, and 
 Joshua 14. 15, referred to in page 139, prove that 
 the use of DTN to denote a man individually, is not 
 peculiar to the Solomonic Scriptures. Yet it may 
 be seen from an investigation of the passages 
 (above five hundred in number) which contain DIN, 
 that the individual signification of this term, as 
 equivalent, or nearly so, to B"K, is comparatively 
 rare outside of the writings ascribed to Solomon, 
 and more infrequent in the late than in the 
 early Hebrew ; whereas it is peculiarly frequent, 
 not only in the Book of Ecclesiastes, as has 
 already been shown, but also in the Proverbs of 
 Solomon. 
 
 Indeed DIN is used with this import oftener in 
 Solomon's Proverbs and Ecclesiastes than in all 
 the rest of the Old Testament. Thus, for instance, 
 the individual signification of DIN in the phrase 
 DIN n^N, which occurs thrice in the Psalter (32. 2 (1), 
 84. 6, 13 (5, 12)), and thrice in Solomon's Proverbs, 
 is illustrated by B*Kn ns?K in Psalm i. 1, B"
 
 142 
 
 Proverbs and Ecclesiastes. 
 
 in 112. 1, KnJN ntPK in Job 5. 17, and 
 Psalms 34. 9 (8), 40. 5 (4), 94. 12, 127. 5. 
 
 n 
 
 Proverbs 
 3-13 
 
 8. 34 
 28. 14 
 
 Blessed is the MAN 
 
 that findeth wisdom, and the MAN that getteth 
 
 understanding 
 
 that heareth me, watching daily at my doors 
 that feareth alway ; but he that hardeneth his heart 
 
 shall fall into evil. 
 
 So likewise it is a noteworthy circumstance 
 that, throughout the whole of the Hebrew Scrip- 
 tures, there are only two passages in which DIN is 
 joined to DIN by means of a preposition, and that 
 while one of these passages is in the Book of 
 Ecclesiastes, the other is in the Proverbs of Solo- 
 mon (the relation of the two words D1N2 D'iNn in 
 Genesis 9. 6 being one of mere contiguity, without 
 direct syntactical connection). 
 
 PROVERBS 27. 19. 
 DISH l!? p D 1 
 
 As in water face answereth. to 
 face, so the heart of MAN to MAN. 
 
 ECCLESIASTES 8. 9. 
 
 yb DINS DnNn o^ I^N ny 
 {$ 
 
 A time wherein one MAN ruleth 
 over ANOTHER to his own hurt. 
 
 The striking resemblance between the Book of 
 Ecclesiastes and the Proverbs of Solomon in 
 the use of DIN with an individual signification 
 is clearly illustrated also by the term DIN man, in 
 the following passages :
 
 Comparison of Passages. 
 
 PROVERBS 
 3. 30. 
 
 12. 23. 
 
 1 6. 9. 
 17. 18. 
 
 1 8. 16. 
 21. 16. 
 
 28. 2. 
 
 23. 
 
 29. 23. 
 
 Strive not with a MAN without cause, if he have 
 
 done thee no harm. 
 A prudent MAN covereth knowledge; but the 
 
 heart of fools proclaimeth foolishness. 
 A MAN'S heart deviseth his way; but Jehovah 
 
 directeth his steps. 
 A MAN void of heart striketh hands : hebecometh 
 
 surety in the presence of his friend. 
 A MAN'S gift maketh room for him. 
 The MAN that wandereth out of the way of 
 
 circumspection shall remain in the congregation 
 
 of the dead. 
 For the transgression of a land many art the 
 
 princes thereof ; but by a MAN of understanding 
 
 and knowledge, the state thereof shall be 
 
 prolonged. 
 He that rebuketh a MAN shall afterwards find 
 
 more favour than he that flattereth with the 
 
 tongue. 
 A MAN'S pride shall bring him low. 
 
 ECCLESIASTES 
 
 2. 12. 
 
 18. 
 21. 
 
 26. 
 3-22. 
 
 6. 12. 
 
 7. 20. 
 
 8. 1. 
 
 . . . the MAN that cometh after the king. 
 
 ... the MAN that shall be after me. 
 
 For there is a MAN whose labour is in wisdom and 
 
 in knowledge , and in success ; yet to a MAN 
 
 who hath not laboured therein he shall give it 
 
 as his portion. 
 For to the MAN who is good in his sight he hath 
 
 given wisdom, and knowledge, and joy; but 
 
 to the sinner he hath given travail. 
 And I saw that there is nothing better than that 
 
 MAN should rejoice in his own works, for this 
 
 is his portion. 
 Who can tell to MAN what shall be after him under 
 
 the sun ? 
 For there is no just MAN in the earth, who doeth 
 
 good and sinneth not. 
 MAN'S wisdom maketh his face to shine.
 
 144 
 
 Interchange of Words. 
 
 Solomon's characteristic use of D1K as equivalent 
 to t^K appears also in the following passages from 
 his Proverbs, where, as likewise in Job 32. 21, 
 34. 11, Psalm 140. 2 (1), B*K and D1K seem to be 
 used synonymously, for the sake of simple variety, 
 without the sharp antithesis of Psalms 49. 3 (2), 
 62. 10 (9) ; Isaiah 2. 9, 5. 15, 31. 8 : 
 
 p 
 
 PROV. 6. 12. : na ni^py 
 
 12. 14. : i<5 21^ D1K-T ^1OJ 
 
 24. so. : air-ion DIN D-D-^JTI winy 
 
 It is also worthy of particular attention, in con- 
 nection with the question of authorship, that 
 Solomon's Proverbs contain several instances of 
 DTK and 8*8 being used interchangeably with each 
 other, thus 
 
 
 Proverbs 
 
 A man of Belial 
 
 16. 27. 
 
 A wicked man 
 
 21. 29. 
 
 A foolish man 
 
 14- 7. 
 
 A man's heart 
 
 1 8. 12. 
 
 
 12. 25. 
 19. 21. 
 20. 5. 
 
 
 19. 6. 
 
 D1K 
 
 DTK 
 D1K ^D31 
 DIN 3$> 
 
 DIN }HO 
 
 Proverbs 
 
 6. 12. 
 ii. 7. 
 
 15. 20. 
 21. 20. 
 
 1 6. 9. 
 27. 19. 
 18. 16. 
 
 In like manner "p" 1 ^^7 is connected with DIN in 1 6. 9, 
 19. 3, 20. 24, and with B"K in 5. 21, 16. 2, 7, 21. 2, 8. 
 Now the rareness with which BN is used 
 throughout the Book of Ecclesiastes precludes 
 so extensive an interchange between DTK and {?'K 
 as that which pervades the Proverbs of Solomon.
 
 Identity of Usage. 
 
 Yet it is a striking fact, directly confirmatory of 
 the Solomonic authorship of Ecclesiastes, that 
 two of the eight instances of BS exemplify this 
 very interchange which is so markedly character- 
 istic of Solomon's Proverbs : 
 
 6. 2. A MAN to whom God 
 giveth riches and wealth and 
 glory, . . . 
 
 IPS 
 
 TO 
 
 HND 
 
 J . rrrr nm 
 
 6. 3. If a MAN beget a hundred, 
 and live many years, so that the 
 days of his years be many, . . . 
 
 DIN- 
 
 5. 18 (19). Every MAN also to 
 whom God hath given riches and 
 wealth, . . . 
 
 its** DTKrH>3 DJ 
 TO 
 
 nTT 1 nmn D'JBTJK ra 
 
 ii. 8. Yet if MAN live many 
 years, let him rejoice in them all, 
 and remember the days of dark- 
 ness, for they shall be many. 
 
 The relation of c*N in 6. 2, 3 to DTK in 5. 18, has 
 already been noticed in page 134; and while a 
 specific reason has been assigned for the two 
 words being used distinctively and not as mere 
 synonyms, yet the fact that, except in respect of 
 mx and &JN, 5. 18 is to a great extent verbally 
 identical with 6. 2, and 1 1. 8 with 6. 3, affords a 
 delicate point of resemblance between Ecclesiastes 
 and Solomon's Proverbs, there being in them, as 
 has just been observed, several instances of the 
 same sort of verbal identity except in respect of 
 these two words EN and DIN. This common 
 feature of the Book of Ecclesiastes and the Proverbs 
 of Solomon, viewed in connection with the other 
 
 K
 
 1 46 Solomon's Temple Prayer. 
 
 aforesaid facts about the use of DIN, is peculiarly 
 valuable in proof of the Solomonic authorship of 
 Ecclesiastes, the coincidence being neither acci- 
 dental nor within the range of such similarity as a 
 designing imitator would be at pains to produce. 
 
 The striking phraseological coincidence, in 
 respect of the phrase, heart of tJte sons of man 
 (DIN), between Proverbs 15. 11, Ecclesiastes 8. 11, 
 9. 3, i Kings 8. 39, and 2 Chronicles 6. 30, has 
 already been specified in page 107, as a most 
 valuable testimony to the Solomonic authorship 
 of Ecclesiastes, this phrase being peculiar to the 
 Solomonic Scriptures. Similarly valuable is the 
 coincidence between I Kings 8. 46, 2 Chronicles 
 6. 36, and Ecclesiastes 7. 20. Not only is DIN used 
 in both instances with the same individual import, 
 but the statements themselves are similar, though 
 not with the verbal similarity of cunningly de- 
 vised personation. In the prayer also, the words 
 for there is no man who sinneth not, are purely 
 parenthetical, and therefore not likely to have 
 been selected by an imitator ; whereas the similar 
 statement in Ecclesiastes 7. 20 occupies a 
 position of special prominence in the section 
 containing it : 
 
 ECCLESIASTES 7. 20. 
 pNl pTX PN DIN 
 
 : NBrv N^I ni 
 
 FOR there is NO just MAN in 
 the earth, WHO doeth good and 
 SINNETH NOT. 
 
 i KINGS 8. 46 and 2 CHRON. 6. 36. 
 DIN pN '3 I^NBIT '3 
 
 If they sin against thee (for there 
 
 is NO MAN WHO SINNETH NOT), 
 
 and thou be angry with them, . . ,
 
 A Woman. 147 
 
 The individual signification of DTK as one of the 
 prominent characteristics of Ecclesiastes, besides 
 being in thorough harmony with Solomon's 
 Proverbs, is thus in exact conformity with all the 
 instances of DTK (three in number) in Solomon's 
 Prayer at the Dedication of the Temple (i Kings 
 8. 38, 39, 46). 
 
 The use of m and jj"s in Ecclesiastes in the 
 characteristic way in which they are used in the 
 history and Proverbs of Solomon is one of the 
 most valuable of all those coincidences which 
 attest the Solomonic authorship of the book. 
 This coincidence does not lie exposed on the 
 surface, like mere verbal coincidence in the fre- 
 quent use of such words as ^oa and neari. But 
 it is deep below the surface, and is so peculiarly 
 intricate as to be perceptible only on such a minute 
 scrutiny and comparison of passages as lies alto- 
 gether beyond the range of an imitator personating 
 that son of David who was king in Jerusalem. 
 
 The finding of n$K. There still remains for 
 notice in this section one other coincidence of 
 special value in connection with the question of 
 authorship. In the English Bible, however, this 
 coincidence is obscured by the circumstance that 
 n$K is represented sometimes by woman and some- 
 times by wife. In Proverbs 20. 6 Solomon asks 
 the question, ' A faithful man, who can find ?' and 
 a similar question is asked in 31. 10, 'A virtuous 
 woman, who can find ?' In these passages man, 
 B*K, and -woman, nt?X, are qualified by faithful and
 
 148 The finding of Good. 
 
 virtuous respectively ; and it is said of yrrntjte that 
 her price is above rubies. In Proverbs 18. 22, 
 however, the noun nt?K, with the verb KD, is used 
 without a qualifying adjective or noun : ' He that 
 findeth ntj'S findeth lia.' So peculiar does this 
 announcement seem to have been considered, that 
 in the Septuagint, the Vulgate, and some other 
 versions, a qualifying adjective is inserted, thus 
 
 Septuagint. 'Os efy>e yvvaiKa ayadty, eZpe xri/nras. 
 Vulgate. Qui invenit mulierem bonam, invenit bonum. 
 Douay Version. He that hath found a good wife, hath found 
 a good thing. 
 
 The authorised English version of 1611, on 
 the other hand, coincides with the older versions 
 of Tyndale, Coverdale, and Cranmer, in reading 
 ' Whoso findeth a wife, findeth a good thing.' 
 On this passage Dr. Kennicott thus expatiates 
 
 ' Can it be truly said that every wife is a blessing ? Could an 
 universal maxim of this nature proceed from the wisest of men ? 
 Could such a proverb possibly be delivered by him who represents 
 the evil and the foolish woman as a curse ? . . . "Pis presumed 
 therefore that Solomon in the text before us expressed himself 
 thus, He that findeth a GOOD wife findeth a good thing? 
 
 Notwithstanding such reasoning as this, which is 
 of no critical value, it must surely be evident that 
 to qualify n^N with raiB, good, is to change a pithy 
 proverb into a pointless platitude, similarly as the 
 insertion of good before 'name' in the English 
 version of Proverbs 22. 1 and Ecclesiastes 7. 1 
 impairs the expressiveness of the original. Just 
 as in Jeremiah 5. 1, the prophet significantly 
 implies that he only is worthy of being called
 
 One among a thousand. 149 
 
 a man, K*K, who does judgment and seeks truth, 
 so likewise in Proverbs 18. 22 Solomon is speak- 
 ing, not of women or wives in general, but only 
 of her who is worthy of being called nBte. Now 
 the point of connection between this passage and 
 the Solomonic authorship of Ecclesiastes is the 
 telling fact that, whereas the same connection of 
 nt^s with NVD in the phrase to find a woman 
 or wife, occurs in one, and only one, passage else- 
 where in the Old Testament, that one passage is in 
 the Book of Ecclesiastes, where the Preacher, in 
 striking phraseological accordance with Proverbs 
 18. 22, and in anticipation of Jeremiah 5. 1, 
 declares in 7. 28, 
 
 ' One man among a thousand I have found ; but 
 a woman among all those I have not found.' 
 
 This deep phraseological coincidence between 
 Proverbs 18. 22 and Ecclesiastes 7. 28 has a 
 value peculiarly its own, and is enhanced by the 
 circumstance that there is here no such superficial 
 resemblance as it might have occurred to an 
 imitator to introduce. Indeed this is one of many 
 coincidences which, if not singly, yet in the aggre- 
 gate, point so conclusively to identity of authorship, 
 that it would be preposterous in the extreme to 
 attempt to explain them on any theory except that 
 which ascribes the Book of Ecclesiastes to the 
 same author who wrote the Proverbs of Solomon.
 
 1 50 The Fear of the Lord. 
 
 Miscellaneous Observations, 
 
 Sundry other cases of phraseological coinci- 
 dence, each possessing an evidential value of its 
 own, may be detailed seriatim. 
 
 (A) Fear thou : N*v. Of seven passages con- 
 taining the imperative Kal of the verb K"V to 
 fear, two are in the Proverbs of Solomon, and 
 two in the Book of Ecclesiastes ; and the verb 
 is invariably singular in all these four Solomonic 
 passages, whereas in the three non-Solomonic 
 passages it is plural ' : 
 
 JOSHUA 24. 14. \ 
 
 i SAMUEL 12. 24. V Fear 7 e Jehovah. 
 
 PSALM 34. 10 (9). ) 
 
 PROVERBS 3. 7, 24. 21. Fear thou J'ehovah. 
 
 ECCLES. 5. 6 (7), 12. 13. Fear thou God. 
 
 (B) Foot: pri. The noun ?J"| foot, occurs only 
 once in the Book of Ecclesiastes. Yet that one 
 passage contains a precept similar to the three 
 following precepts quoted from the Proverbs of 
 Solomon : 
 
 PROV. I. 15. Withhold thy foot from their path. 
 
 4. 27. Remove thy foot from evil. 
 25. 17. Withdraw thy foot from thy 
 
 neighbour's house. 
 
 EC. 4. 17 (5. 1). Keep thy feet when thou goest to 
 the house of God. 
 
 ion
 
 Paronomasia. 
 
 (C) The hearing of rebuke. The verbal noun 
 rnya, rebuke, occurs once in Ecclesiastes (7. 5), 
 thrice in Solomon's Proverbs (13. 1, 8, 17. 10), 
 four times in Isaiah (30. 17, 50. 2, 51. 20, 66. 15), 
 /0r times in the Psalms (18. 16 (15), 76. 7 (6), 
 80. 17 (16), 104. 7), and in 2. Samuel 22. 16, and 
 Job 26. 11. 
 
 In Proverbs 13. 1, 8, myj is connected with the 
 verb JJiDt?, &> hear ; and in only 0# of the twelve 
 other passages is there the same connection. That 
 one passage is Ecclesiastes 7. 5 : 
 
 ECCL. 7. 5. Better to HEAR THE REBUKE of 
 the wise, than for a man to 
 hear the song of fools. 
 
 PRO. 13. 1. A wise son (hearetK) a father's 
 instruction ; but a scorner 
 HEARETH not REBUKE. 
 
 8. The ransom of a man's soul is 
 his riches ; but the poor 
 
 HEARETH not REBUKE. 
 
 nan mj 
 
 :mw 
 
 (D) Paronomasia. The paronomasia common 
 to Song i. 3 and Ecclesiastes 7. 1, in each of 
 which passages Shem, Dtr, name, and Shemen, 
 JOB>, ointment^ are compared together, constitutes 
 a peculiarly telling coincidence, all the more 
 valuable from the circumstance that the theme 
 of the one passage is widely different from the 
 theme of the other : 
 
 SONG I. 3. Because of the savour 
 of thy good ointments, thy name 
 is ointment poured forth. 
 
 ECCLES. 7. 1. A name is better 
 than good ointment. 
 
 rr 
 
 DB>
 
 152 Why? 
 
 (E) Why, nQ7. The interrogative particle ntsp 
 why, is so frequent throughout the Hebrew 
 Scriptures, that little or no stress in the question 
 of authorship can be laid on the fact that, besides 
 occurring in Ecclesiastes, noi> is found also in 
 Solomon's Proverbs and Song, as, for instance, in 
 Proverbs 5. 20, 17. 16, Song I. 7. It may be 
 observed however that in Ecclesiastes 5. 5, 7. 16, 17, 
 ilD? follows a precept beginning with the negative 
 particle ?S, not, the question which nc& introduces 
 being intended as the reason why the dissuasive 
 precept is given: 
 
 5- 5 (6). ^tf Suffer NOT thy mouth to cause thy flesh to sin ; 
 fjtfl and say NOT before the angel that it was an error : no^ 
 
 WHY should God be angry at thy voice, and destroy the 
 work of thy hands ? 
 
 7. 16. Tin/K BE NOT righteous over much; *>xi an< l make 
 
 NOT thyself too wise ; flD^ WHY shouldest thou ruin 
 
 thyself? 
 17. JJEjnn~i>X Be NOT wicked over much ; ^rtJT^SO and BE 
 
 NOT foolish ; nD^ WHY shouldest thou die before thy 
 
 time? 
 
 Now it is a noteworthy circumstance that no!>, 
 preceded by ^X, is used in exactly the same way 
 in Proverbs 22. 27 : 
 
 22. 26, 27. Tin~K BE NOT among them that strike handj 
 among them that are sureties for debts. If thou hast 
 nothing to pay, HD^ WHY should he take thy bed from 
 under thee ? 
 
 (F) Ecclesiastes 12. 9, 10. The root "ipn, to 
 search, occurs only once in Ecclesiastes, namely in
 
 Concurrent Testimony. 153 
 
 the ninth verse of the last chapter ; whereas it is 
 found six times in Solomon's Proverbs (18. 17, 
 23. 30, 25. 2, 3, 27, 28. 11). One of these passages 
 (25. 2) stands first among those proverbs of 
 Solomon which the men of Hezekiah, king of 
 Judah, copied out, and illustrates the statement 
 made by Koheleth in Ecclesiastes 12. 9. As it is 
 declared in Proverbs 25. 2 to be 'the glory of 
 kings irj npn to SEARCH OUT a matter/ so in 
 Ecclesiastes 12. 9 the Preacher declares that he 
 ' gave heed, iprn and SEARCHED OUT, yea set in 
 order many proverbs.' 
 
 As with the verb ^n in verse ninth, so with the 
 verb 3TD, to ivrite, and the noun riDS, truth, in verse 
 tenth, these two words occur nowhere else in the 
 Book of Ecclesiastes. Now both these words point 
 in the direction of Proverbs 22. 20, 21, 2V\3 in 
 Ecclesiastes corresponding to Ti^TD in Proverbs, 
 and HDX "IDS in Proverbs to HDK nm in Ecclesi- 
 astes. Though one of the three words "ipn, 1TD, 
 and noK, taken singly, and compared with the 
 same word in the Book of Proverbs, might be 
 considered too slight a coincidence to found an 
 argument on, yet surely the case is different when 
 the three words, each found only once in the Book 
 of Ecclesiastes, are seen to be used by the Preacher 
 in 12. 9, 10, precisely as they are used by Solomon 
 in his Proverbs. To the concurrent testimony of 
 these three words the Preacher's own maxim 
 seems peculiarly applicable, 'The threefold cord 
 is not quickly broken.'
 
 1 54 Orthographical Diversity. 
 
 PROVERBS 
 
 25. 2. It is the glory of God to 
 conceal a matter, and the glory 
 of kings to SEARCH OUT a matter. 
 
 22. 20, 21. Have not I WRIT- 
 TEN to thee excellent things, in 
 counsels and knowledge, to make 
 thee know the certainty of words 
 
 Of TRUTH. 
 
 ECCLESIASTES 12. 9, 10. 
 
 And moreover because the 
 Preacher was wise, he still taught 
 the people knowledge, and gave 
 heed, and SEARCHED OUT, yea, 
 set in order many proverbs. 
 The Preacher sought to find out 
 acceptable words; and that which 
 was WRITTEN was upright, even 
 words of TRUTH. 
 
 (G) Feminine Forms. Such orthographical 
 varieties as the scriptio plena and the scriptio de- 
 fectiva frequently co-exist in the same paragraph 
 or sentence ; and it is perhaps not too much to 
 affirm that if any sound argument as to date 
 could be based on such orthography, the argument 
 would be not less applicable to the Proverbs of 
 Solomon than to the Book of Ecclesiastes, the 
 one book being on a par with the other in so far 
 as this point is concerned. (Page 159, further on.) 
 
 The Hebrew Scriptures exhibit a similar usage 
 with regard to masculine and feminine forms, the 
 feminine being sometimes used interchangeably 
 with the masculine, as has already been observed 
 in the thirty-sixth page of this treatise. Ana- 
 logous cases are met with in other languages. 
 Thus the singular of the Latin dies is sometimes 
 masculine and sometimes feminine. So likewise 
 in the English of two and a half centuries ago, 
 ere the possessive its had come into general use, 
 his and tier were sometimes used interchangeably, 
 as in the authorised version of Matthew 24. 32, 
 and Mark 13. 28, where the Greek avrfjs, which is
 
 Feminine Forms. 
 
 common to both passages, is translated his in the 
 one passage and her in the other : 
 
 MATTHEW 24. 32. 
 
 Now learne a parable of the 
 
 figtree : when Ilia branch is yet 
 
 tender, and putteth foorth leaues, 
 
 yee know that Summer is nigh : 
 
 MARK 13. 28. 
 
 Now learne a parable of the 
 figtree. When her branch is yet 
 tender, and putteth forth leaues, 
 ye know that summer is neere : 
 
 It is in a similar way that some Hebrew nouns, 
 such as nK, haa, faj, py, "W, P^, are used both 
 with and without the feminine termination, in a 
 manner which seems to indicate that the n is 
 little if anything more than a mere orthographical 
 variation quite unconnected with the question of 
 date. Thus, for instance, while the masculine 
 form *nv appears in Proverbs 12. 12, and its 
 plural D'HIVD in Ecclesiastes 7. 26, 9. 14, the femi- 
 nine form miD appears in Ecclesiastes 9. 12. 
 And while in Ecclesiastes I. 1, 2, 12, 12. 9, 10, 
 r6np is construed as a masculine noun, it is 
 construed with the feminine ITiDN in 7. 27 ; unless 
 indeed the suggestion be accepted that the n, in- 
 stead of being affixed to "iN, ought here, as in 
 12. 8, to be prefixed, as the article, to n?np. But 
 be that as it may, it deserves special notice 
 that, in so far as Ti and rniVD are concerned, 
 variations precisely similar may be pointed out 
 in Solomon's Proverbs, as, for instance, the 
 masculine !>JJflO in 2. 9, 4. 11, 26, and the feminine 
 form in 2. 15, 18, 5. 6, 21, p1V and Hpl* in 
 8. 8, 15, 18, 20,D^BK B"K in 20. 6, and nttlON BK 
 in 28. 20 ; to which may be added D^DDO in
 
 156 Unobtrusive Coincidences. 
 
 i Chronicles 22. 3, and HIIDDO in 2 Chronicles 
 3. 9. It thus appears that even in such minute 
 particulars as these, the Book of Ecclesiastes 
 coincides with the other Solomonic Scriptures. 
 
 Conclusiveness of the Evidence. 
 
 The multitude, variety, and character of the 
 coincidences in style and phraseology which have 
 been specified in this and the preceding divisions, 
 seem much more than sufficient to prove the Solo- 
 monic authorship of Ecclesiastes. While indeed 
 the frequent occurrence of the same words in two 
 books claiming a common authorship, such as 
 neon and ^D3 in Solomon's Proverbs and Ecclesi- 
 astes, deserves notice, yet the argument for identity 
 of authorship is based, not on such verbal coin- 
 cidences alone, but on these' coincidences viewed 
 in connection with, and as being copiously corro- 
 borated by, such manifold coincidences in phrase- 
 ology and in characteristic uses of particular words 
 as lie altogether beyond the scope of personation. 
 Like noan in Proverbs and Ecclesiastes, a-ofyia is 
 similarly frequent in Ecclesiasticus ; but this is 
 nothing more than might be expected in a book 
 written, as Ecclesiasticus was, in imitation of Solo- 
 mon's writings. Obtrusive coincidences in phrase- 
 ology likewise might, as has already been noticed 
 in pages 84 to 88 and 113, be introduced by a 
 personator claiming for his writings a fictitious 
 authorship. The verbal and phraseological re-
 
 Accumulation of Evidence. 157 
 
 semblances between the Book of Ecclesiastes and 
 the Proverbs of Solomon however are essentially 
 different in various respects from the resemblance 
 of imitation, whether it be the imitation of an 
 untruthful personator pretending that his work is 
 what it is not, or the imitation of an honest ad- 
 mirer and follower like Jesus the son of Sirach, 
 putting forth his own work as what it really is. 
 Here, in the Book of Ecclesiastes, as was observed 
 in the earlier part of this treatise, there is no 
 imitation. In scope and structure and prominent 
 phraseology the book is unique ; and in its general 
 tone and method of setting forth the topics dis- 
 cussed in it, it is to a great extent so unlike those 
 other portions of Holy Scripture which are ascribed 
 to Solomon, as to carry, on its very surface, a 
 refutation of the personation theory. At the same 
 time also, the points of resemblance between 
 Ecclesiastes and the other Solomonic Scriptures 
 are so manifold, and minute, and diversified, as to 
 yield, in proof of the Solomonic authorship, a 
 mass of evidence the cumulative force of which 
 seems incontrovertibly conclusive. 
 
 gook x>f the Ipaio shall not iepart otxt at thg nwxtth ; 
 but ihou shalt tneiiiate therein iag an& night, that 
 magtst jxbserbe to ixr ajxorbing to 
 all that is toritien therein.
 
 Syntax of Conjunctions, Uer&g, anfc 
 Pronouns* 
 
 Participles. 
 
 NOT reckoning participles used as mere nouns 
 or nominatives to verbs, as, for instance, the 
 participles in Ecclesiastes 10. 9, n. 4, it may be 
 observed that the use of participles independently 
 of other verbs, to denote continuous actions or 
 states of being, is not frequent throughout the 
 Book of Ecclesiastes. Yet the introductory para- 
 graph of the book derives a peculiar expressiveness 
 from the superabundance of such participles in 
 verses 4 to 7. Now this usage is so common 
 throughout the Hebrew Scriptures, that the occur- 
 rence of it in several passages of Solomon's Proverbs 
 cannot be pleaded as a special characteristic of 
 the books ascribed to Solomon. Yet a comparison 
 of Ecclesiastes I. 4-7 with Proverbs n. 17-19, 
 12. 1, 14. 2, 31, 15. 32, 17. 9, 19,25. 20,is sufficient 
 to illustrate how thoroughly, in this particular, 
 the style of Ecclesiastes coincides with the style 
 of Solomon's Proverbs.
 
 The use of Participles. 159 
 
 Note. In the following passages fa& participles are pointed, for 
 the sake of distinction ; and participles written in the scriptio 
 plena, mentioned under G in page 154, are marked also with 
 an asterisk prefixed. It may be further observed likewise that 
 *]7in \?7\ and IQD 2TID m the passage from Ecclesiastes 
 afford interesting specimens of the orthographical diversity referred 
 to in the said page 154. 
 
 ECCLESIASTES i. 4 to 7. 
 
 : rncfy D^IJ& pm *& ini *j!>h in 
 
 ' 
 
 ntj> Kin rnir PIXIB' loipcri Kwn Kit t^otrn mn 
 nnn sj^n* aab anio* pstf-ta aatoi* nm-ta Tjhn* 
 
 : nnn 
 ipo-^x N^n WK Dm n^n-^s 
 
 : na^ n^B' on 
 
 PROVERBS 
 
 \2. i. -ijn nnain wibn* njn nnk 1010 
 
 14- 2. : iinria* ram rtai mn Ni 11 ne^a s 
 
 ... : I 
 
 15- 32. : 35 npip* nnain jnpto 1^3 DKID* IDIO 
 i7-9- : BJI^> nnap inn n:bh nan jy^ao yt^a 
 
 19. : nap-eap inna iTaap nso nnk y^a anx 
 
 knoweth ? inv ""O. The participial expres- 
 sion ini 1 * 'p is not exclusively Solomonic, but is 
 found as early as Psalm 90. 11, and as late as 
 Esther 4-14, and also in Joel 2. 14 and Jonah 3. 9 ; 
 to which may be added W ^ in Isaiah 29. 15. 
 It occurs no fewer than four times in the Book of 
 Ecclesiastes, and likewise in Proverbs 24. 22, as 
 well as in those words of King David which are 
 recorded in 2 Samuel 12. 22. While the argument 
 thus supplied for the Solomonic authorship of 
 Ecclesiastes is not indeed so strong as if the
 
 i6o 
 
 Who knoweth ? 
 
 phrase jni 11 " occurred only in 2 Samuel 12. 22, and 
 in Solomon's Proverbs and Ecclesiastes, yet the 
 fact that it occurs six times in these, and only five 
 times elsewhere in the Hebrew Scriptures, affords 
 an argument strong enough to deserve notice. 
 
 2 SAM. 12. 22. 
 
 PROV. 24. 22. 
 ECCLES. 2. 19. 
 
 3-21. 
 6. 12. 
 8. 1. 
 
 I said, WHO KNOWETH whether Jehovah will 
 be gracious to me, that the child may live ? 
 
 And WHO KNOWETH the ruin of them both? 
 
 And WHO KNOWETH whether he shall be a wise 
 
 man or a fool ? 
 WHO KNOWETH the spirit of the sons of man 
 
 that ascendeth upward ? 
 For WHO KNOWETH what is good for man in this 
 
 life? 
 Who is as the wise man ? and WHO KNOWETH 
 
 the interpretation of a matter ? 
 
 The Preterite of the St^bstantive Verb. 
 
 The use of the Preterite TPTi in Ecclesiastes 
 i. 12 is adduced by some writers, as Delitzsch and 
 Ginsburg, in support of the theory that the Book 
 of Ecclesiastes must have been written after the 
 life of Solomon. They allege that such a state- 
 ment as : Dtevva ^oty-^y ita wn nSnp -ON could 
 not have been appropriately used by an author 
 who was King at the time when he made the 
 statement, and that as Solomon's reign extended 
 to the close of his life, the treatise containing 
 the statement must have proceeded from some 
 subsequent author speaking in the name of King 
 Solomon.
 
 Theory of Ginsburg and Delitzsch. 1 6 1 
 
 'The pneterite tense, >n^n shews,' says Ginsburg, 'that at the 
 
 T 
 
 time when this was written, Solomon was no longer king. . . . 
 As far, however, as history is concerned, we know that Solomon 
 was king till his death ; and as he, therefore, could not write, 
 " / was king, and am no more" which the Rabbins themselves 
 admit is the meaning of TPTI. we who do not believe the 
 
 T 
 
 traditional fable [that Solomon was dethroned], must conclude 
 that some one later than Solomon was the author of this book.' 
 
 Delitzsch, in his commentary on Ecclesiastes, 
 betakes himself likewise to this word Wn as a 
 
 * T 
 
 sort of peg whereon to hang a theory of his own, 
 in accordance with which, while he denies the 
 Solomonic authorship of Ecclesiastes, he yet 
 maintains that the writer does not even proj "ess to 
 be Solomon. In this way a denial of the Solo- 
 monic authorship is combined with a plea for the 
 veracity of the unknown author, whoever he was. 
 
 ' The book openly acknowledges, ' says Delitzsch, ' that it was not 
 written by Solomon himself, but by a Jewish thinker of a much later 
 age, who sought to conceive of himself as in Solomon's position, and 
 clothed his own life-experiences in the confessions of Solomon. 
 . . . When he says, " I Koheleth have been king over Israel in 
 Jerusalem," he recognises himself not as the reigning monarch, but 
 as having been king. . . . It is a vain delusion for one to persuade 
 himself that Solomon in his advanced age could say, with 
 reference to the period of his life as ruler, "I have been king," 
 fui rex he was certainly always so during the forty years of his 
 reign, and on to the last moment of his life. Or can the words 
 "I^D TVn mean sum rex ? The case is as follows : Tpn is never 
 the expression of the abstract present, or of existence without regard 
 to time ; "I am king" is expressed in this sense by the substantival 
 clause ant mtlek. ... At the most, TliTl, when it looks from the 
 present back upon the past, out of which it arose, signifies 
 " I have become," Gen. xxxii. 11 ; Ps. xxx. 8 ; Jer. xx. 7 ; 
 or when it looks back into the past as such, " I have been," 
 Josh. i. 5; Judg. xii. 2; Ps. xxxvii. 25. ... Solomon, while 
 
 L
 
 1 6 2 Rabbinical Speculations. 
 
 still living, would be able to say "|^ TPTI only in the sense of 
 "I have become (and still am) king;" but that does not accord 
 with the following retrospective perfects. . . . "I have been 
 king " Solomon, yet living, cannot say. Only Salomo redivwus, 
 here introduced as the preacher, can use such an expression. . . . 
 The author of the Book of Koheleth is so little concerned purposely 
 to veil the fiction of the Solomon-discourse in which he clothes his 
 own peculiar life-experiences, that he rather in diverse ways 
 discovers himself as one and the same person with the Salomo 
 redivivus here presenting himself. ' 
 
 Now, while one need not be surprised at vvn 
 in Ecclesiastes I. 12 having been seized on as 
 a theme for rabbinical speculations and Jewish 
 fables, it seems strange that any modern critic 
 like Delitzsch should maintain that had King 
 Solomon written the Book of Ecclesiastes, he 
 could not consistently have said "jta Ti^n ""JK, I was 
 king, but must, by placing the noun and the pro- 
 noun in apposition, have said / am king. Surely 
 an elementary knowledge of Hebrew might be 
 sufficient to show that if* King Solomon was the 
 author, the declaration ' I am king ' would not 
 have expressed the essential idea of the narrative, 
 namely the fact that Koheleth (whether he was 
 or was not king when he wrote the Book of 
 Ecclesiastes) was king at the time when he did 
 what he details throughout the treatise. 
 
 King David, at any period of his reign, might 
 have said, ' I AM now king ; and I WAS formerly 
 keeper of my father's flock.' In Ecclesiastes 1. 12, 
 however, such a difference of time would have 
 been inadmissible and inconsistent with the scope 
 of the narrative ; for whereas it is neither affirmed 
 nor denied that Koheleth was king when he wrote
 
 Koheleth as King. 163 
 
 the Book of Ecclesiastes, the fact that he was 
 king when he gave his heart to the investigation 
 mentioned in the thirteenth verse and detailed 
 throughout the treatise, is essential to the coherence 
 of the narrative. Now the preterite Wn was 
 indispensably necessary to the adequate expres- 
 sion of this fundamental fact. 
 
 That the preterite of the substantive verb rrn is 
 not incompatible with the continuance of the 
 specified state down to the time when the preterite 
 is used, is acknowledged even by Delitzsch in the 
 passage last quoted from his commentary, where 
 he mentions Genesis 32. 11 (10) as an instance of 
 wn looking 'from the present back upon the past ' : 
 
 With my staff I passed over this Jordan ; 
 and now I am become two bands. } DUHD ^Ws W^H nnjfl 
 
 This verse, and such passages likewise as 
 i Samuel 29. 8, show how thoroughly consistent 
 the words of the Preacher are with his having still 
 been king at the time when he wrote "p wn "OK. 
 
 Delitzsch says also in the same paragraph, 
 
 ' In every case where one can translate Tl^fl by " I am," as for 
 instance in Psalm Ixxxviii. 5, the present being is thought of as the 
 result of an historical past sum being equivalent to foetus sum.' 
 
 In Ecclesiastes I. 12, however, there is no occasion 
 for translating ^0 wri, 'I am king.' Indeed, 
 as already mentioned, such a translation is 
 inadmissible the fact that Koheleth was king 
 at a certain time anterior to the time when he 
 wrote the Book of Ecclesiastes being all that the 
 scope of the passage required or permitted him to
 
 1 64 Past and Present. 
 
 declare. Still it may be shown from such passages 
 as Psalm 88. 5 (4), to which Delitzsch refers, that 
 continuance down to the present moment is not 
 excluded by Tpn ; though even there WTI means 
 not sum, but fid or factus sum, and thus expresses, 
 like the perfect tense in English, a past fact con- 
 tinuing down to the present time :^rpK "DJ3 wri. 
 The preterite vvn in Exodus 2. 22 is exactly 
 similar : 
 
 Advcna PUT in terra aliena :rmaj p&o wn "ia 
 
 Even Hengstenberg, who denies the Solomonic 
 authorship of Ecclesiastes, observes in his exposi- 
 tion of Ecclesiastes i. 12, ' Koheleth says I was 
 king. . . . The use of the preterite is no argument 
 against Solomon's being the author of the book. 
 . . . The preterite is very frequently employed in 
 descriptions of a past which stretches forward into 
 the present.' Indeed this point may be amply 
 proved from the Solomonic Scriptures themselves, 
 as, for instance, by vn in Ecclesiastes 7. 19, rrn 
 in i Kings 10. 6, and nJTTi in I Kings n. 11, and 
 in 2 Chronicles I. 11. 
 
 ECCLES. 7. 19. f'yfl no^nn, Wisdom strengtheneth the wise more 
 than ten mighty men which ARE in the city ; "|tJO V 
 
 I KINGS 10. 6. And she said unto the king, The report rpfl WAS 
 true which I heard in mine own land, of thy words and of thy 
 wisdom. 
 
 Here the Queen of Sheba is obviously referring 
 to a report the continued truthfulness of which, 
 from the time when she heard it in her own 
 land, down to the moment when she was speaking
 
 I was. 165 
 
 to Solomon in Jerusalem, constituted the very 
 ground of her address. So likewise in the words 
 
 "pi? nsT nrvn in i Kings u. 11, and 'pqtapJiMtnrpn 
 
 in 2 Chronicles i. 11, certain facts are set forth 
 not merely as things of the past, but as facts 
 each of which continued down to the time when 
 the words making mention of it were uttered. 
 
 In like manner, if Solomon wrote the Song 
 which bears his name, the preterite must have 
 been used where rvn occurs in Song 8. 11, already 
 quoted in page 61, In that passage iTTi is 
 appropriate, irrespective of the question whether 
 Solomon was or was not still in possession of the 
 vineyard the essential point as to time being the 
 fact that he possessed the vineyard at the time 
 when he let it out to keepers, 
 
 : . . . ontM^ DISH-UK jn: pon tona nc6e rvn D-O 
 Ecclesiastes i. 12 may yet further be compared 
 with Song 8. 10 and Proverbs 4. 3, where, as also 
 in Proverbs 5-14, the preterite wn occurs : 
 
 ECCLES. i. 12. I Koheleth WAS 
 king over Israel in Jerusalem. 
 
 PROV. 4. 3. For I WAS a son to 
 my father a tender and only one 
 in the sight of my mother. 
 
 SONG 8. 10. I am a wall, and my 
 breasts as towers : then I WAS in 
 his eyes as one that found peace. 
 
 if]"r\ 
 
 Tl^H 
 
 nen nin 
 
 In this passage the present enjoyment of the 
 peace previously found is the mainspring of the 
 happy words in which wn occurs : not that either 
 here, or in Ecclesiastes I. 12, Wii may mean sum, 
 I am ; for in both passages it means fui, I was.
 
 1 66 The Idiom of the Substantive Verb. 
 
 But it means / was, in such a way as not to 
 exclude / am. Just as, although the date of 
 Proverbs 4. 3, 4, is probably posterior to the death 
 of Solomon's father and mother, WPI would have 
 been appropriate even had his parents been still 
 alive. What was intimated by Solomon was the 
 fact that at the time when his father taught him, 
 and said to him, ' Let thy heart retain my words/ 
 he was PBK vsb Tm 71 wb ... p. 
 
 There is yet another important point to be 
 noticed in connection with this subject, namely 
 the fact that present time and past time, sum and 
 fui, I am and I was, are brought into direct juxta- 
 position in Song 8. 10; so that there is here, in 
 the words nmn "ON, what Delitzsch says there must 
 have been in Ecclesiastes I. 12 had the Book of 
 Ecclesiastes been written by Solomon, namely 
 the noun placed in apposition with the pronoun. 
 With reference to the sister mentioned in Song 
 8. 8, it had been said in verse ninth, ' tfn noirrQN 
 If she be a wall, we will build upon her a turret of 
 silver.' Whereupon Shulamith, taking up this 
 hypothesis, declares in verse tenth, ' I am a wall, 
 and my breasts as towers : then I was in his eyes 
 as one that found peace.' Here the placing of ^N 
 in apposition with noin gives exactly the idiom 
 desiderated by Delitzsch for Ecclesiastes I. 12, if 
 written by King Solomon. Shulamith speaks of 
 her present condition as a wall, ' I am a wall,' and 
 retrospectively refers to a past time in which she 
 was or became a recipient of peace. And here it 
 may be observed, in passing, that the Hebrew,
 
 To Be and to Become. 167 
 
 unlike the Greek, the Latin, and the English 
 languages, does not distinguish verbally between 
 elvat, and jlveadai esse and fieri to be and to 
 become, but leaves that distinction to be determined 
 from the context. Even in English likewise, the 
 imperative Be is sometimes as applicable to one 
 who is as to one who is not what one is commanded 
 to be, as for instance where ytvea-Qe in I Corinthians 
 15. 58 is represented by be ye in the English 
 version : ' Therefore, my beloved brethren, BE YE 
 steadfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the 
 work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your 
 labour is not in vain in the Lord.' The substantive 
 verb rvn being similarly comprehensive, it would 
 be no answer to a comparison of Ecclesiastes I. 12 
 with Song 8. 10 to say that wn in the Song 
 includes I became ; for the same may be said of 
 wn in Ecclesiastes. As Solomon was a king, so 
 there was a past time at which he became a king ; 
 and there was likewise a past time at which 
 Shulamith became a finder of peace. Since the 
 verb irn thus covers both meanings, namely to be 
 and to become, so there is no reason why either or 
 both meanings should not be comprehended in 
 each passage. The point of essential moment is 
 the fact that whether Tpn in these two passages 
 denotes a past being or a past becoming, or 
 comprises both ideas, it does not exclude continuance 
 down to the time at which the words were uttered. 
 It is not from the mere word VPn, but from the 
 context, or from other collateral circumstances, 
 that the scope of the verb rvn, as either lying
 
 1 68 The Hebrew Tenses. 
 
 wholly in the past, or extending from the past 
 down to the present time, must be ascertained. 
 Accordingly, as the happiness of having found 
 peace was still subsisting at the time when 
 Shulamith said, : abw nxttoa VJ'JQ VTH TK, so like- 
 wise TPT! in Ecclesiastes I. 12 cannot be incon- 
 sistent with the supposition that at the time 
 when the words : D^IT3 talE^y *]ta wn r6np "OK 
 were written, he who wrote them was king over 
 Israel in Jerusalem. 
 
 It thus appears that the preterite wn is one of 
 those words which, being held forth as adverse 
 to the Solomonic authorship of Ecclesiastes, are 
 strongly confirmatory of it the consistency of the 
 declaration *]ta WTI with the position that the 
 writer was king when he wrote the book, being 
 abundantly proved by the use of the same verb 
 JIM in other parts of the Solomonic Scriptures. 
 
 The Hebrew Tenses. 
 
 The well-known Hebrew idiom represented by 
 the phrase Vau Conversive is sometimes appealed 
 to as affording conclusive evidence of the alleged 
 lateness of the Book of Ecclesiastes. 
 
 'If we possessed the original work of Sirach,'says Delitzsch, 
 ' we should then see more distinctly than from fragments that the 
 form of the language found in Koheleth, although older, is yet 
 one that does not lie much further back ; it is connected, yet 
 loosely, with the old language, but at the same time it is in full 
 accord with that new Hebrew which we meet with in the 
 Mishna. . . . The richness of the old language in mood-forms
 
 Time absolutely and relatively. \ 69 
 
 is here disappearing. . . . The historic tense, the so-called fut. 
 consecutivum, which has wholly disappeared from the Mishna- 
 language, also here, notwithstanding the occasions for its frequent 
 use, occurs only three times, twice in the unabbreviated form, 
 iv. 1, 7, and once in the form lengthened by the intentional 
 ah, i. 17, which, before its disappearance, was in frequent use. It 
 probably belonged more to the written than to the spoken language 
 of the people (cf. the Song vi. 9^).' 
 
 It will be necessary, in discussing this point, 
 to glance at the scope and import of the two 
 tenses called perfect and imperfect, or preterite 
 and future, and at the way in which these 
 tenses are used with and without the prefixed 
 conjunction 1 vau. 
 
 In English, as in Greek and Latin, the three 
 tenses expressive of the three cardinal divisions 
 of time, past, present, and future, are sometimes 
 used to denote these divisions, not absolutely, but 
 relatively, in such a way that the present tense 
 may denote time absolutely past, or time yet 
 future. Thus, in the following passages, whether in 
 the Greek original or in the English version, the 
 present tense describes facts which, at the time 
 when the record of them was made, were past : 
 
 JOHN i. 29. The next day John SEETH (/SX^Trei) Jesus coming unto 
 
 him, and SAITH (X^ei), Behold the Lamb of God. 
 41-42. He first FINDETH (eupta-Kfi) his own brother Simon, 
 and SAITH to him, We have found the Messiah, 
 which is, being interpreted, the Christ. And he 
 brought (tfyayev) him to Jesus. 
 
 12. 22. Philip COMETH and TELLETH Andrew ; and again 
 
 Andrew and Philip TELL Jesus. 
 
 13. 4. He RISETH from supper 
 
 5. He POURETH water into the bason 
 
 6. Then COMETH he to Simon Peter.
 
 170 Past, Present, and Future. 
 
 On the other hand, in Revelation I. 7 the 
 present tense (ep^erat) denotes what is future, 
 yet prior in time to the seeing mentioned in 
 the future tense (o-v/rerai) immediately afterwards. 
 Hence the relation in point of time between the 
 coming and the seeing is clearly brought out by 
 the difference of tense : ' Behold he COMETH 
 with the clouds ; and every eye SHALL SEE him.' 
 
 Such ideal representations of what is past or 
 future by means of the present tense may be 
 closely preceded or followed by verbs coincident 
 in tense with the reality. Thus, for instance, the 
 present evpicricei findeth, in John I. 41, is followed 
 by fyyayev brought, in verse 42, and ySaXXet poureth, 
 by r/p^aro began, in 13. 5. Yet in such variation 
 of tenses between the ideal present and the actual 
 past or future there is neither obscurity nor con- 
 fusion. On the contrary, through using the present 
 tense, the narrator, taking his stand at the point 
 of time in which some prominent past event 
 described by him is going on, imparts to the 
 verbal picture which he is painting a vividness 
 which it might not otherwise possess. 
 
 Now, notwithstanding sundry differences, the 
 Hebrew tenses are similarly significant. 
 
 'The strength of an ancient language lies in its verb,' says 
 Mr. Driver in his 'Treatise on the Use of the Tenses in Hebrew.' 
 ' No one can read a Greek author with profit who has not firmly 
 grasped the distinction between the aorist and the imperfect : till 
 he has done this, he will misappreciate his poetry, misconceive 
 his history, misunderstand his philosophy. In the same way, 
 without a vivid sense of the difference between the perfect and the 
 imperfect in Hebrew, it is no exaggeration to say that the force
 
 Treatise on the Hebrew Tenses. 171 
 
 and beauty of the language, its pointed and rich expressiveness, 
 are seriously blurred and lost to sight. . . . To the reader who 
 strenuously resists the temptation of considering a sentence by 
 itself without reference to the connection in which it has been 
 embedded by its author, the ceaseless variation of tense, instead 
 of being a cause of confusion, will seem one of the most telling and 
 expressive features in the language. ... In general, the limitations 
 imposed by the context are such that while precluding serious 
 ambiguity they allow ample scope for those rapid transitions, 
 the capacity for which forms an element of force almost peculiar 
 to Hebrew, and one in which it displays a decided superiority 
 over the languages of Greece and Rome/ 
 
 In describing 'the fundamental character of 
 the two tenses,' Mr. Driver thus explains 'the 
 distinction between order of time and kind of 
 time.' 
 
 ' In the first place, a particular verbal form may exhibit a given 
 action as prior or subsequent to some date otherwise -fixed by the 
 narrative : this is a difference in the order of time. But, secondly, 
 an action may be contemplated, according to the fancy of the 
 speaker, or according to the particular point which he desires to 
 make prominent, either as incipient, or as continuing, or as 
 completed ; the speaker may wish to lay stress upon the moment 
 at which it begins, or upon the period over which it extends, or 
 upon the fact of its being finished and done : these are differences 
 in the kind of time. Thus, for example, ?7ret0e and irelOet differ 
 in the order or date, not in the kind of action specified : each 
 alike expresses a continuous action, but the one throws it into the 
 past, the other places it in the present. On the other hand, Tretcrcu 
 and TTfWeiv, [ify irelcr-fls and /J.T] treWe differ in kind, not in date ; 
 in each the date is equally indeterminate, but the aorist indicates 
 a momentary act, the present one that is continuous. Now in 
 Hebrew the tenses mark only differences in the kind of time, 
 not differences in the order of time : i.e. they do not in themselves 
 determine the date at which an action takes place, they only 
 indicate its character or kind the three phases just mentioned, 
 those namely of incipiency, continuance, and completion, being 
 represented respectively by the imperfect, the participle, and the 
 perfect. ... It is of the utmost consequence to understand and
 
 172 The Preterite and the Imperfect. 
 
 bear constantly in mind the fundamental and primary facts stated 
 above : (i) that the Hebrew verb notifies the character without 
 fixing the date of an action, and (2) that, of its two forms with 
 which we have here more particularly to deal, one is calculated to 
 describe an action as incipient and so as imperfect ; the other to 
 describe it as completed and so as perfect . . . 
 
 The perfect tense, in accordance with its fundamental character, 
 is used ( I ) As equivalent to the Greek aorist, to denote an action 
 completed and finished at a definite moment in the past, fixed by 
 the narrative ; as Genesis xxxii. 11 "With my staff W12J7 I passed 
 over this Jordan." Even though the action indicated by the verb 
 should itself extend over a considerable period ; as I Kings xv. 2, 
 three years fl-jQ he reigned : Ps. xxxv. 13 f; or even though it be 
 
 '- T 
 
 repeated, as I Samuel xviii. 30. 
 
 (2) Like the Greek perfect, to denote an action completed in the 
 past, but with the accessory idea of its consequences continuing up 
 to the time at which the words are uttered : it is thus employed 
 to describe an action resulting in a state, which may be of longer or 
 shorter duration, according to the context. Thus Genesis iv. 6 
 Why ^23 hath thy face fallen ? xxxii. 11, 7 have become (LXX. 
 
 yfyova) two camps. . . . 
 
 (9) The Perfect is used where we should employ by preference 
 the pluperfect . . . Genesis ii. 2 God blessed the works which 
 e had made, LXX. & tirolf)ae. 
 
 In marked antithesis to the tense we have just discussed, the 
 imperfect in Hebrew, as in the other Semitic languages, indicates 
 action as incipient, as preparing to take place, as developing. . . . 
 The action thus exhibited as ready or about to take place may belong 
 to the past, the present, or the future; but an event ready and 
 so capable of taking place would be likely and liable to occur 
 more than once ; we thus find the imperfect employed to denote 
 reiterated actions. . . . The same form is further employed to 
 describe events belonging to the future ; for the future is emphati- 
 cally rb fj,f\\ov, and this is just the attribute specially expressed by 
 the imperfect.' 
 
 In Hebrew the imperfect tense, where it cor- 
 responds to the present tense in the passages 
 quoted in page 169 from the Gospel of John, may
 
 Distinction of Tenses. 1 73 
 
 generally be best represented by the present tense 
 in English. The difference between the preterite 
 and the imperfect appears very plainly in such 
 passages as Psalm 78. 20 : 
 
 ... ttjbtj* D^mi n^o m s i ira-nan jn 
 
 : T- T ' 
 
 Here mn represents a momentary act, done and 
 finished with a stroke, while 1SD55" represents, with 
 exquisite precision, that consequent continuous 
 flowing of the waters which, though actually past, 
 is made vividly present to the eye of the imagi- 
 nation by the difference of tense, and might be 
 expressed in English by some such periphrasis 
 as this, Behold he smote the rock ; and see how 
 the waters are overflowing ! It is strange that 
 a grammarian like Kalisch should adduce IDEE" 
 here, and IBjfan in Exodus 15. 12 (Thou didst 
 stretch out thy right hand the earth' swallows 
 them !), as instances of the future taking the 
 meaning of the pure preterite. These passages, 
 on the contrary, illustrate with peculiar clearness 
 the essential difference between the one tense and 
 the other, and show the need there is for caution 
 in judging of any suggestion that the one tense 
 may be simply equivalent to the other. The 
 specific difference between these two tenses may 
 subsist in the Hebrew original even where it can- 
 not be easily expressed in an English translation. 
 
 The Copulative Vau. 
 
 The preceding remarks are introduced as 
 preliminary to an inquiry into the use of the
 
 174 The Conjunctive prefix. 
 
 well-known prefix called Vau Conversive. Vau 
 is often prefixed to the perfect and imperfect 
 tenses as a simple conjunction. 
 
 ' We find it used,' says Mr. Driver, ' (i) upon occasions when a 
 writer wishes to place two facts in co-ordination with one another, 
 to exhibit the second as simultaneous with the first rather than as 
 succeeding it ; for instance, in the conjunction of two synonymous or 
 similar ideas : and (2), chiefly in the later books, when the language 
 was allowing itself gradually to acquiesce in and adopt the mode 
 of speech customary in the Aramaic dialects (Chaldee and Syriac), 
 in which the rival construction with -1, at least in historical times, 
 was never employed.' 
 
 An attentive perusal of the Hebrew Scriptures 
 is sufficient to show that in many instances the 
 Vau prefixed to verbs has a peculiar force of 
 its own, over and above its function as a mere 
 conjunctive particle. As the keystone of an 
 arch affects all the stones, and, by wedging them 
 together, imparts firmness to the structure, so in 
 like manner an initial pre'terite, followed by a 
 series of imperfects severally attached to it by 
 Vau Conversive, seems to impart to them its own 
 concrete force ; while conversely a series of pre- 
 terites thus joined to an initial imperfect seem, 
 through their connection with it, to receive its 
 own ideal import. ' The vau consecutivum of the 
 imperfect,' says Ewald in his Hebrew Grammar, 
 ' expresses the new progress of that which exists 
 and has happened ; and the vau consecutivum of 
 the perfect expresses the transition and succession 
 of that which is not yet, to logical reality.' 
 
 In the Masoretic system of points and accents, 
 Vau Conversive almost invariably when prefixed
 
 Van Conversive. 175 
 
 to the imperfect, and often also when prefixed to 
 the preterite, is distinguished from the simple 
 copulative vau, so as to be perceptible both to 
 the eye and to the ear. Indeed it is sometimes 
 maintained, as for instance in the aforesaid Treatise 
 on the Hebrew Tenses, that this distinction, in so 
 far as it is audible, is as old as the time when 
 the Hebrew was a living language ; and that 
 accordingly, between a verb with the simple 
 prefix vau, and the same verb with vau conver- 
 sive, there must have been a not less decided 
 vocal difference than (for instance) the difference 
 between the sound of the English verb to read in 
 the present tense, and read in the past tense. 
 
 But be this as it may, it is of importance to 
 inquire whether, as is sometimes taken for granted, 
 vau conversive can withdraw from a tense its own 
 specific temporal import, and substitute that of 
 the dominant verb, thus giving to the preterite the 
 meaning of the imperfect, and to the imperfect 
 the meaning of the preterite. There seems to 
 be no sufficient reason for concluding that this 
 is the case. As the imperfect tense is capable of 
 indicating may or might, shall or should, will or 
 wo2tld, and other modifications determined by 
 the context, and as the preterite is similarly 
 comprehensive, so vau conversive, while indeed it 
 denotes a relation not expressed by the simple 
 conjunctive vau, yet appears to be thoroughly 
 conservative of the specific import of the tense 
 to which it is prefixed. Vau conversive of the 
 preterite is, as it were, a sort of hinge, which,
 
 176 The Imperfect Tense. 
 
 without undoing the concrete force of the preterite, 
 yet makes the actuality of that concreteness condi- 
 tional on the realisation of the dominant imperfect. 
 Similarly, on the other hand, as the final knot in a 
 running series binds together into one firm texture 
 loops which would otherwise have no connection, 
 so a dominant preterite gives permanence to the 
 characteristic incipiency of the appended imper- 
 fects, by converting them into accomplished facts 
 developed from its own actuality. 
 
 'As Ewald remarks,' says Mr. Driver, 'the and or and then 
 brings the action described into a definite relation with some fixed 
 point in the previously completed past,_/r0w and out of which it 
 is regarded as arising and originating : now take away the ' ' and " 
 which thus determines this relation, and the perfect will be the 
 natural tense to employ, because all reference to the previous past 
 is gone, the connection of the action with its own antecedents is 
 severed, and it is contemplated exclusively from the writer's present. 
 Although, therefore, the "waw conversive" does not change the 
 meaning of the tense, it does alter* the aspect under which an 
 action is conceived ; it presupposes a point of view which demands 
 on our part an effort of thought before it can be appreciated and 
 realised : it effects a modification sufficiently marked to render the 
 retention of the old distinctive title not merely defensible but 
 desirable. ' 
 
 This change of aspect is very different from that 
 obliteration of the specific import of the tense 
 which vau conversive is sometimes described as 
 effecting. Thus, for instance, in Psalm 78. 20, 
 already referred to in page 173, since the gushing 
 out of the waters was the immediate result of the 
 smiting of the rock, so the initial vau of 131H is 
 pointed as vau conversive after the preterite 
 
 mi D< nin "mrrun fn 
 
 Behold he smote the rock, and waters gush out, and streams overflow.
 
 Syntax of the conjunctive van. 177 
 
 Yet the distinctive meaning of the imperfect 
 tense is as completely preserved to 111P as to IBBG? 11 ; 
 and it would be no easy matter to show that 
 the phrase ISEE" D^rm (which is strictly parallel 
 to D^O inn) means something different from what 
 D^ra IDBB*I would have meant : except that 1SB 
 without vau conversive exhibits, with peculiar clear- 
 ness, the continuity expressed by the imperfect, 
 and reflects this clearness on 131P1 in such a way 
 as to demonstrate that the specific import of the 
 tense is not superseded by the vau conversive. 
 
 It may be further observed, that as in a logical 
 syllogism a particular conclusion may be sub- 
 stituted for the universal, so, in a similar manner, 
 the simple conjunctive vau is admissible instead of 
 vau conversive in circumstances in which, mutatis 
 mutandis, the conversive could not be used instead 
 of the simple conjunctive. The simple vau might 
 be, and sometimes is, used where there does exist 
 that peculiar sequence which vau conversive is 
 employed to indicate ; whereas vau conversive 
 would scarcely be suitable unless there were such 
 sequence, or something akin to it. Or, more 
 briefly expressed, the simple vau might generally 
 be substituted for the conversive, though very 
 often the conversive could not be substituted for 
 the simple. 
 
 It may also be observed that there are many 
 passages in which either the preterite or the im- 
 perfect tense might be used, precisely as what is 
 stated in John 12. 22 (already quoted in page 
 169) might be expressed not only as it is ex- 
 
 M
 
 178 Change of stand-point. 
 
 pressed, by \he present tense, but also by the past 
 tense, thus, Philip came and told Andrew ; and 
 again Andrew and Philip told Jesus. Yet this 
 change of tense would involve a change of stand- 
 point, the incidents being now looked at, not 
 ideally as when, in the Scripture narrative, the 
 writer takes his stand at the time of their occur- 
 rence, but simply as facts past and accomplished. 
 So likewise in Isaiah 5. 2, for instance, the preterite 
 2^n seems to be placed in the midst of imperfects 
 with vau conversive (Ip 11 ! 13 3VH 3p*-DJl pl) for 
 the sake of an interesting variety, similarly as the 
 present eyelperai, riffrjcnv, and /3aXXa occur along 
 with the aorist Sie&aev, and ijp^aro in John 1 3. 4, 5. 
 The joining of the preterite or perfect tense by 
 means of vau conversive to a preceding imperfect, 
 so that it may, with the imperfect to which it is 
 joined, represent what is future, is perhaps more 
 difficult of explanation from an English point of 
 view than the joining of the imperfect to the 
 preterite is. Yet it is not altogether beyond 
 illustration. Thus, for instance, the perfect tense, 
 tJwu hast washed, expresses unequivocally what is 
 past. Yet if, without alteration of these words, 
 the little word wJten be placed before them, it 
 immediately carries the preterite into the future, 
 and thus illustrates the difference between nvm 
 and nvmi in 2 Kings 5. 10. So likewise the series 
 of perfects attached by vau conversive to an initial 
 imperfect (&) in the eleventh verse, and the fre- 
 quently recurring imperfect with vau conversive 
 prefixed to it, in this verse and elsewhere through-
 
 Naaman the Syrian. 179 
 
 out the narrative of Naaman the Syrian, show 
 clearly how the essential difference of meaning 
 between the one tense and the other is not effaced 
 by vau conversive, but might, in so far as the 
 imperfect is concerned, be expressed in English 
 by the present tense. (Whether such a method 
 of bringing out the specific import of the original 
 would or would not be suitable for a popular 
 version of the Scriptures is a point altogether 
 beyond the scope of the present inquiry, the 
 English present tense being here mentioned merely 
 in illustration of the Hebrew idiom.) 
 
 Verse 11. But Naaman is wroth, and goeth away, and saith, 
 Behold I said, Unto me he will surely come out 
 
 : jnrcDn *IDKI mporHw IT spm vnta mrr-OBO &opi nojn 
 Here Naaman pictures to himself as accom- 
 plished facts the series of actions consequent on 
 Elisha's expected coming out as if one were to say 
 in English, He will surely come out; and then there 
 is an end of the matter : the thing is done : he has 
 stood, and prayed, and waved his hand, and re- 
 covered the leper. Yet the one future and in this 
 case contingent event, namely the coming out, is 
 the pivot on which all the preterites rest, and apart 
 from which they have no actuality. It might not 
 indeed be easy to give full expression in good 
 English to the deep significance of the series of 
 preterites here linked on to the initial imperfect 
 in the Hebrew original. Yet it is surely conceiv- 
 able that a preterite might, even though thrown 
 by means of vau conversive into the future, yet 
 retain its essential import. Indeed the narrative 
 of Naaman the Syrian derives, in the text of the
 
 i So An alleged mark of lateness. 
 
 original, peculiar force from the fact that each 
 tense does retain its own specific meaning. The 
 historian is describing the series of incidents as they 
 proceed. Hence he takes for his stand-point the 
 very date of their occurrence, or rather takes no 
 fixed stand-point at all, but moves along the scene, 
 and with dramatic vividness paints it as he goes. 
 
 Frequency or Infrequency of Vau Conversive. 
 
 The alleged infrequency of Vau Conversive in 
 the Book of Ecclesiastes is, as has already been 
 observed in page 168, one of the grounds on which 
 the Solomonic authorship of the book is denied. 
 
 ' This singular construction is [says Mr. Driver] peculiar to 
 Hebrew : outside the limits of the Old Testament it occurs 
 nowhere except in the fragment dating from the ninth century B.C., 
 and preserved upon what is now known as the Moabite Stone. 
 The other Semitic languages do not hesitate to employ what might 
 seem to be the very natural and obvious construction of the perfect 
 and 1, in cases where the Hebrew regularly makes use of the 
 
 imperfect and -1 : indeed the purest Hebrew almost uniformly 
 shuns the perfect with } under these circumstances, and it is not 
 till the later language, and even then only partially, that the latter 
 is able to gain an acknowledged footing. . . . 
 
 Although in Hebrew the continuation of a historical narrative 
 is most usually expressed by the imperfect with . <\, we find, occa- 
 sionally in the earlier books of the Old Testament, and with 
 increasing frequency in the later ones, that this idiom, which is so 
 peculiarly and distinctively a creation of the Hebrew language, has 
 been replaced by the perfect with the simple or weak ivaw ) . 
 
 Generally, indeed, and invariably when the verb to which the 
 perfect is annexed is a bare imperfect, the waw prefixed to the 
 perfect is conversive, and the sense consequently frequentative ; 
 but a certain number of passages exist in which this signification 
 is out of place ; in these, therefore, we are compelled to suppose 
 that the waw is the mere copulative, and that it no longer exerts
 
 Co-ordinate facts. 1 8 1 
 
 over the following verb that strong and peculiar modifying influ- 
 ence which we term conversive. There are two principal cases in 
 which the perfect with weak waw is thus met with. The feature 
 common to them both is this that the idiom employed, instead of 
 representing a given event as arising out of, or being a continuation 
 of, some previous occurrence (in the manner of the idiom with 'l), 
 
 represents it as standing on an independent ground of its own, as 
 connected indeed with what precedes, but only externally and 
 superficially, without any inner bond of union existing between 
 them : in a word, it causes the narrative not to advance by deve- 
 lopment but by accretion. Accordingly we find it used (i) upon 
 occasions when a writer wishes to place two facts in co-ordination 
 with one another, to exhibit the second as simultaneous with the 
 first rather than as succeeding it ; for instance, in the conjunction of 
 two synonymous or similar ideas (thus, I Samuel xii. 2 VQtjn TlJpT 
 am old and grey-headed ; Is. i. 2 ^niDDlTl TIPIJ) : and (2), chiefly 
 in the later books, when the language was allowing itself gradually 
 to acquiesce in and adopt the mode of speech customary in the 
 Aramaic dialects (Chaldee and Syriac), in which the rival construc- 
 tion with . l, at least in historical times, was never employed. . . . 
 
 Those [instances of ' the perfect with weak waw''] which occur in 
 the later books may be fairly regarded as attributable to the 
 influence of Aramaic usage : but for the few which are met with 
 in the earlier books (Genesis 2 Samuel, Isaiah), it is more than 
 doubtful whether such an explanation is legitimate or admissible. 
 ... In 2 Kings, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Chron- 
 icles, this usage becomes somewhat more frequent, . . The imperfect 
 and .1, however, continues still to be distinctly the predominant 
 
 construction : even in Ezra, for example, the perfect with \ occurs 
 only iii. 10, vi. 22, 30, 36, ix. 6, 13, and in Nehemiah only ix. 7, 
 xii. 39, xiii. I, 30. Similarly in Daniel (excluding, of course, the 
 Chaldee portion, from ii. 46 to vii. 28), . } is constantly employed, 
 though in viii-xii a few instances of the perfect are met with. 
 There is only one book in the Old Testament, Qoheleth or Eccle- 
 siastes, in which this state of things is reversed, and the perfect 
 with simple waw obtains a marked and indeed almost exclusive 
 preponderance. In the whole of Qoheleth .) occurs not more than 
 three times, i. 17, iv. I, 7, whereas the other construction is of 
 constant occurrence. This circumstance, taken in connection with 
 what is uniformly observable in all other parts of the Old Testa-
 
 1 8 2 Ecclesiastes and Canticles. 
 
 ment, is by itself, quite independently of any other considerations, 
 sufficient to stamp the book as being in all probability the latest 
 in the whole canon. In the Song of Songs ,"\ occurs but twice, 
 
 vi. 9 : in this book, however, there is very little occasion for either 
 form being used, and in fact the perfect with waw occurs only 
 twice likewise, ii. 3, 10 : but its use inverse 10 [>$> 10N1 HIT Hjy, 
 according to (l) overleaf] is no criterion of date, being common 
 to all periods of the language.' 
 
 While giving due weight to what is here 
 specified as being characteristic of the Book of 
 Ecclesiastes, one may yet observe that the rare- 
 ness of-1 in Ecclesiastes, and the frequency of the 
 simple copulative vau, may be accounted for apart 
 from the theory of lateness. Be it so that the 
 simple conjunctive vau is more frequent in the 
 later than in the earlier Scriptures, and that there 
 is no trace of vau conversive beyond the close of 
 the Hebrew canon, yet, apart from the Solomonic 
 Scriptures, vau conversive is as common in the 
 latest as in the earliest b'ooks of the Old Testa- 
 ment ; and the simple conjunctive vau, though 
 said to be characteristic of lateness, is not unusual 
 even in the earlier Hebrew Scriptures. Its use 
 in the Book of Ecclesiastes is to be accounted for, 
 not by the alleged lateness, but by the scope and 
 subject-matter of the book, or, as Dr. Pusey 
 expresses it in his sixth lecture on Daniel the 
 Prophet, by ' the simple fact, that language must 
 be adapted to its subject.' 
 
 In various extensive portions of the earlier 
 Hebrew Scriptures, vau conversive is seldom met 
 with. Throughout much of the Book of Joshua, 
 for instance, its occurrences are few and far be- 
 tween. It is found only once in the Song of
 
 Vau prefixed to the Imperfect. 183 
 
 Deborah (Judges 5. 28), only once in the forty- 
 fifth Psalm (verse 8), not even once in the 
 seventy-second Psalm, which is ascribed in its 
 title to Solomon, nor so much as once in chapters 
 2, 9, 10, 14, 15, 17, 19, 21, 27, 28 of Solomon's 
 Proverbs. 
 
 The Imperfect Tense with the simple prefix. 
 
 In the Proverbs of Solomon, vau, whether con- 
 versive or simply conjunctive, is prefixed to the 
 preterite about forty times, and to the imperfect 
 tense forty-seven times. In eighteen of these 
 forty-seven instances, the prefix is pointed as vau 
 conversive, and in twenty-eight as simple vau ; 
 and once (23. 24) it is unpointed. 
 
 Vau conversive of the imperfect tense, eighteen times : 
 
 I. 24, 25. 
 
 II. 2, 8. 
 
 22. 12. 
 
 4. 4 twice. 
 
 12. 13. 
 
 24. 32. 
 
 7. 7, 13, 15. 
 
 18. 22. 
 
 25.4. 
 
 8. 30 twice, 35. 
 
 20. 26. 
 
 
 The imperfect tense with vau simply conjunctive prefixed, 
 twenty-eight times : 
 
 I. 31. 13. 5. 22. 3, 10 twice. 
 
 3. 10, 22. 14. 5, 25. 23. 16, 25. 
 
 4. 6 twice, 8. 15. 25. 25. 5. 
 
 5. 20. 16. 3. 27. 11. 
 
 9. 8, 9 twice, 11. 19. 5, 9. 29. 17 twice 
 
 20. 22. 
 
 also in Psalm 72. 4, 8, 11, 14, 15 thrice, 16, 17, 19. 
 In connection with this preponderance of vau 
 simply conjunctive over vau conversive of the 
 imperfect tense in Solomon's Proverbs and in 
 Psalm 72, it may be observed that the Book
 
 184 The Solomonic Scriptures. 
 
 of Ecclesiastes is characterised by a similar 
 preponderance ; for, whereas in Ecclesiastes vau 
 conversive is prefixed to the imperfect only thrice 
 (i. 17, 4. 1, 7), the imperfect with vau simply 
 conjunctive is found fourteen times, in 
 
 1. 18. 
 
 2. 19. 
 6. 12. 
 
 7 .7. 
 
 10. 
 
 II. 
 
 12. 4 twice. 
 5 thrice. 
 6 twice, 7. 
 
 Similarly in the Song of Solomon, vau conversive 
 of the imperfect occurs only twice (both instances 
 being in 6. 9) ; whereas the imperfect with the 
 simple prefix is found six times, in 
 
 I. 4. 
 3-2. 
 
 4. 16. 
 6. 1. 
 
 7. 1 (6. 13). 
 9(8). 
 
 Now in so far as this matter is concerned, a 
 general comparison of Ecclesiastes with the other 
 Solomonic Scriptures shows such a similarity or 
 rather sameness of usage 'as points plainly in 
 the direction of identity of authorship. Thus, in 
 the first of the fourteen instances in Ecclesiastes, 
 the imperfect with the simple prefix ( f l <l Di > 1) serves 
 the purpose of a nominative to the verb which 
 follows ; and it is a noteworthy circumstance that 
 the imperfect with the simple prefix (rPSM) is used 
 in precisely the same way in Proverbs 19. 5, 9 : 
 
 PROVERBS 19. 5, 9. 
 
 J ife tib ) Q , 3U .rt^ j AND HE THAT ) shall not escape. 
 i I UTTERETH lies ) shall perish. 
 
 ECCLESIASTES i. 18. 
 
 J Jl&OD PpDV Djn SpDVI AND HE THAT INCREASETH knowledge 
 increaseth sorrow.
 
 Co-ordinate Imperfects. l %5 
 
 In Ecclesiastes 2. 19, 7. 7, n. 8, the imperfects 
 with vau prefixed appear to denote facts co-ordi- 
 nate with facts denoted by preceding imperfects. 
 
 2. 19. And who knoweth whether rvfp he shall be wise or a 
 fool ? t37^1 yet he shall rule over all my labour. . . . 
 
 7. 7. Surely oppression "JpirT 1 maketh a wise man mad ; latfil 
 and a gift destroyeth the heart. 
 
 1 1. 8. If man live many years, l^fl riDd* l t him rejoice in them 
 all, and remember the days of darkness ; for they shall be many. 
 
 In Ecclesiastes 6. 12 also DK>JH is similarly 
 co-ordinate with what precedes it : 
 
 For who knoweth what is good for man in this life, the number 
 of the days of the life of his vanity ? DB'VI an d he spendeth 
 them as a shadow. 
 
 The same syntactical usage of co-ordinate 
 imperfects joined together by means of simple 
 vau, is met with in Proverbs 5. 20, 9. 11, 14. 5, 25, 
 15. 25, 23. 16, 25, Song i. 4, where the coincidence 
 is enhanced by the circumstance that the subjects 
 treated of are widely different from the subjects 
 in these four passages of Ecclesiastes. 
 
 PRO. 9. 11. 
 
 15. 25. 
 
 23. 15-16. 
 25. 
 
 SONG i. 4. 
 
 Specimen passages. 
 
 inS For by me thy days shall be 
 multiplied ; and years of life shall be added to 
 thee. 
 
 I niiT 1 HDS Jehovah rooteth out the house of 
 the proud ; but he establisheth the border of the 
 widow. 
 
 ni : 'JK-DJI ^ TOB*. 
 
 HOB** Thy father and thy mother shall 
 rejoice ; and she that bare thee shall be glad. 
 
 ^Ji* We will be glad and rejoice in 
 
 thee.
 
 1 86 Chronological sequence. 
 
 In Ecclesiastes 8. 10 the simple conjunctive 
 prefix \ in the expression inaJlB"! tt^rr . D'ytn 
 connects two imperfects which are not co-ordinate 
 or contemporaneous ; but the second is chrono- 
 logically consequential on the first. Now the 
 same kind of sequence is met with in Proverbs 
 13. 5, Song 3. 2, 4, 16, and also in such still earlier 
 Hebrew as 2 Samuel 3. 21 : 
 
 PROVERBS 13. 5. Tarn B*W JJKT, 
 
 SONG 3. 2. -|"jn rmiDNI VQ HDIpX 
 
 4- 16. b^l ... NT 
 
 In like manner Ecclesiastes 12. 4-7 may be 
 compared with Psalm 72. 14-17, each passage 
 containing a group of imperfects strung together 
 in chronological sequence by means of the simple 
 conjunctive prefix \ : 
 
 PSALM 72. ECCLESIASTES 12. 
 
 j 
 
 14 1p1 4 
 
 15 irn 
 
 jm s 
 
 16 NPJM "iam 
 
 n 
 
 TJie Masoretic Points and Accents. 
 
 It is chiefly on account of the perfect tense with 
 vau prefixed that a date long subsequent to the 
 days of Solomon is claimed for the Book of
 
 Questionable Punctuation. 187 
 
 Ecclesiastes. Yet, as in the case of the imperfect, 
 so in the case of the perfect, it may be observed 
 that the usage in Ecclesiastes is identical with the 
 usage in Solomon's Proverbs, and with the usage 
 in Hebrew Scriptures admittedly earlier than the 
 days of Solomon. Without calling in question 
 a remark made by Mr. Driver, that ' the cases in 
 which 1 conversive is employed are, in a syntactical 
 point of view, totally dissimilar to those in which 
 the simple \ is used,' it may be observed that 
 there are sundry passages in which the character 
 ascribed to the vau may be disputed. Either 
 the character is not indicated by the Masoretic 
 pointing at all, as in the third person of the 
 perfect tense, where, as Mr. Driver observes, ' the 
 crucial change of tone cannot take place,' or 
 for the character (whether simple or conversive) 
 which the points do indicate the other character 
 might be substituted. 
 
 ' Although in general not much improvement is effected, ' says 
 Mr. Driver, ' by deserting the Masoretic vocalization, yet we must 
 remember that the tradition of which it is the embodiment may 
 have become vitiated during the period of oral transmission prior 
 to the time when it was fixed in a written record ; this might 
 have happened from various causes, such as false analogy or a 
 misconception e.g. even in Isaiah Ixiii. 3 it is possible that pi 
 
 may be a mispunctuation for \\ , originating in the two preceding 
 
 verbs being wrongly interpreted as futures, instead of frequentatives. 
 If, therefore, adherence to the Masoretic text threatens to bid 
 defiance to the most certain results of grammatical enquiry, we 
 must, however reluctantly, consent to abandon it.' 
 
 Other passages also might be adduced in which 
 there does not seem to be any very definite or
 
 1 88 The Masoretic Points and Accents. 
 
 sufficient reason for the 1 having been pointed one 
 way rather than the other. Why, for instance, 
 should 1, when prefixed to K^K in Judges 2. 1, 
 be pointed as 1 rather than 1 after the imperfect 
 rbyx (s'3Kj ni>j?s) , and as \ rather than J three 
 times after the preterite TTUOp in Isaiah 42. 6 ? 
 
 DJ? nnnf "prisf TIVNI"- "JT3 prnxi 1 pnvn -prix-ip mrr ^s 
 
 As in 42. 6, so in 43. 4 and Ecclesiastes i. 17, 
 the sequence by which the imperfect of |H3 is 
 joined to the preceding preterite (/) appears 
 to be the sequence usually indicated by vau 
 conversive ; and as, in Ecclesiastes, runxi of I. 17 
 corresponds to the preterite Tirn in 8. 16, 
 so likewise, in Isaiah, jriKl of 43. 4 evidently 
 corresponds to Tinj of the preceding verse. Yet 
 the vau prefixed to the imperfect (*) is pointed 
 as a simple conjunctive in* Isaiah, and as vau 
 conversive in Ecclesiastes : 
 
 : . -pi-inn DTK }nsv ^nan^ rjNi D^XD "paa vina 
 : . noan njn!> ^ run&n' : njrn noan nann 
 
 Why also in Proverbs 25 should vau prefixed 
 to NV in verse 4 be conversive, while the vau 
 prefixed to pa" 1 in verse 5 is simply conjunctive ? 
 Both verbs occupy exactly the same relation to 
 the preceding infinitive absolute un, which is 
 obviously used with the force of the dominant 
 imperative in 3. 9-10, 4. 8, 9. 8, 9, 16. 3, 20. 22, 
 22. 10, 27. 11, 29. 17. In each of these nine 
 passages however, (as likewise in 25. 5), the prefix
 
 Arbitrary P^mctuat^on. 189 
 
 to the subsequent imperfect is pointed as the 
 simple conjunctive \ ; and it is not easy to see 
 any grammatical or contextual reason for the 
 diversity between } and 1 in 25. 4-5 : 
 
 m PJDDD D^D 
 
 fon 
 
 J1KD3 
 
 4. Take away the dross from the 
 
 silver ; and there shall come 
 forth a vessel for the finer. 
 
 5. Take away the wicked before 
 
 the king ; and his throne 
 shall be established in 
 righteousness. 
 
 In Psalm 18 and its parallel passage, 2 Samuel 
 22 also, the frequent occurrence of the bare im- 
 perfect in regimen with the imperfect and vau 
 prefixed, proves conclusively that the vau is not 
 conversive but simple the Hebrew imperfect 
 here corresponding to the Greek present in such 
 passages as John I. 29, 41, 12. 22, 13. 4-6, quoted 
 in page 169. This is corroborated by the coin- 
 cidence between the imperfects JflDPN r\W, DyiS 
 "b?, Dvnox and iSs 11 , with and without the prefix, in 
 verses 7, 12, 14, 16, 39 of the Psalm and its parallel. 
 Yet the prefix is pointed as vau simply conjunctive 
 only thrice (43, 46, 47) in both passages (and in 
 Psalm 1 8. 38), and as vau conversive above twenty 
 times, even though there is no dominant antecedent 
 from which it can have derived the conversive 
 character. 
 
 These remarks are introduced, not by way 
 of apology for contravention of the Masoretic 
 points and accents, for there is no such contra- 
 vention anywhere in this treatise ; but simply for 
 the sake of giving due prominence to the essential
 
 i go Completeness of the Original Text. 
 
 difference between the Masoretic punctuation and 
 the original text, and showing the precarious 
 character of arguments founded on the mere 
 pointing of words. Although, for the sake of 
 convenience, the Masoretic points are frequently 
 given in this treatise, yet no argument herein 
 adduced for the Solomonic authorship of Eccle- 
 siastes depends either on the points and accents, 
 or conversely on an interpretation different from 
 that which the points and accents indicate. What- 
 ever be their general accuracy as a traditional 
 interpretation of the text, they form no part of 
 the text, and have no independent authority of 
 their own. The position they occupy is similar to 
 that of a translation into another language. Not- 
 withstanding their extremely abstruse and cum- 
 brous complications, they are convenient in so 
 far as they correctly represent the meaning and 
 import of the sacred original. But the original is 
 complete without them ; and no one to whom the 
 unpointed text is unintelligible can have acquired 
 a satisfactory acquaintance with the language in 
 which the Old Testament was written. 
 
 The Preterite used frequentatively. 
 
 With reference to vau prefixed to the perfect 
 tense, Mr. Driver observes : 
 
 ' The most noticeable use of the perfect and ivaw conversive, 
 though the one least likely to attract attention, is as a frequentative. 
 After the list of instances [Proverbs 16. 29, 18. 10, 20. 28, 24. 16, 
 29. 6, and sundry other passages], the reader will find no difficulty 
 in recognising this force in the perfect and maw after a preceding 
 dominant imperfect : but where no such imperfect precedes, it
 
 The Preterite used freqiientatively. 191 
 
 will irresistibly occur to him to ask why the waw may not be 
 simply copulative instead of " conversive;" the more so, inasmuch 
 as owing to the verbs being almost always in the third person, the 
 crucial change of tone cannot take place ? Why, he will not 
 unreasonably ask, why should it be asserted that }t3Q{jh Ex. 
 
 xviii. 26 means and used to judge, when the obvious and natural 
 rendering seems to be simply and judged? why seek to import a 
 far-fetched and improbable sense into such a plain combination of 
 verb and conjunction ? 
 
 ' The answer to such objections will be found in the manner in 
 which the perfect and waw thus appears. In the first place, it 
 does not occur promiscuously: it is not intermingled with the 
 construction with . 1 in equal proportions, but is commonly found 
 
 thickly sprinkled over detached areas (e.g. I Sam. vii. 16). Now 
 when a writer abandons a construction which he employs in nine 
 cases out of ten in favour of another, and that, too, under the 
 peculiar circumstances just described, it is, at least, reasonable to 
 infer that he means something by the change. In the second 
 place, our knowledge that the perfect with waw conversive follows 
 the imperfect as a frequentative, coupled with the analogy presented 
 by its use in the last section, [where it is ' found without being 
 attached to any preceding verb from which to derive its special 
 signification '] raises the suspicion that it may possibly have the 
 same value even when no imperfect precedes. This suspicion is 
 strengthened by the fact that it is constantly found in company 
 with a bare imperfect, even though not actually preceded by it. 
 In the passage from Exodus, for example, IBStJ^ is immediately 
 followed by fiN'a' 1 and IBISES" if, then, these verbs are 
 frequentative (as they clearly are), 13SJJ>1 must be so too.' 
 
 That these verbs are frequentative is evident 
 enough ; but it is not equally evident that the 
 frequentative character of IDBfc? depends either 
 on the vau prefixed to it, or on the imperfects 
 following it, or on both combined. 
 
 'Both the perfect and the imperfect alike [says Mr. Driver], 
 though upon different grounds, may be employed to designate 
 those permanent relations which constitute on the one hand 
 personal habits or attributes, on the other general truths. A
 
 1 92 Contextual Considerations. 
 
 permanent relation of this sort may, firstly, be viewed as a 
 completed whole, and, as such, be denoted by the perfect ; but 
 inasmuch as a state or condition most commonly declares itself by 
 a succession of acts more or less numerous, as the case may be 
 its existence may, at the same time, with equal propriety, be 
 indicated by the imperfect as well.' 
 
 Is it not possible then that, just as in English, 
 so in Hebrew, the frequentative character of verbs, 
 whether perfect or imperfect whether with or 
 without the prefix vau, may be indicated by the 
 scope of the passages containing them ? As in a 
 popular version there is no need to translate 1BSKn 
 'and used to judge,' the frequentative meaning 
 being apparent from the words as they stand in 
 the English Bible, ' And they judged the people 
 at all seasons,' so likewise it may be inferred that 
 13D^ might have been frequentative even if 1 had 
 not been prefixed to it, and x if no simple imperfect 
 had followed it. Mr. Driver himself expressly 
 states, as already quoted in page 172, that 'the 
 perfect tense, in accordance with its fundamental 
 character, is used to denote an action completed 
 and finished at a definite moment in the past, 
 fixed by the narrative, even though the action 
 indicated by the verb be repeated.' Indeed this 
 may be proved from the context of the second 
 passage mentioned overleaf, namely I Samuel 
 7. 16. In the seventeenth verse the preterite BBB^ 
 which has no vau prefixed, is as clearly frequen- 
 tative as ESKn in the sixteenth verse is ; and the 
 same may be said of the imperfect with vau con- 
 versive tDSEJ in the beginning of verse fifteenth.
 
 Facts of Repet ition. 193 
 
 i SAMUEL 7. 15-17. 
 
 And Samuel JUDGED Israel all the days of his life. 
 H^ni And he WENT from year to year 22D1 [ ar d CIRCUITED] in 
 
 '- T : - T : 
 
 circuit to Bethel and Gilgal and Mizpeh, 03^ and JUDGED Israel 
 in all those places. And his return -was to Ramah ; for his house 
 was there : and there BatjJ he JUDGED Israel. 
 
 Here then, within the brief space of these 
 three verses, the verb t3Qfc5> to judge, which occurs 
 three times under three different aspects, has in 
 each instance the same frequentative force, the 
 imperfect with !, the perfect with 1, and the perfect 
 without 1, being all alike frequentative. Now 
 surely this fact shows that it is not by the vau 
 prefixed that the frequentative signification is 
 indicated, but by the context, or by the general 
 scope of the passage. 
 
 Mr. Driver mentions also Wj?rvi in Joshua 6. 8, 13, 
 as an instance of the preterite with vau prefixed 
 being used frequentatively, ' in the account of the 
 blowing of the trumpets during the day's march 
 round Y e richo an act which would obviously 
 involve repetition' Yet here, as in i Samuel 
 7. 15-17, the frequentative sense is not confined to 
 the preterite with vau prefixed, but characterises 
 also the preterites WV and 'Q2p, which have no 
 prefix, and the historic imperfect rab5 in verse 15. 
 
 Verses 8, 13. And THEY BLEW with the cornets n < l")S15J > 3 lypni 
 
 Verse 14. Thus THEY DID six days, Qift* T\W 15J*y i"!3 
 
 Verse 15. And it came to pass on the seventh day, that they 
 
 rose early, in the going up of the morning, I QD V I and WENT ABOUT 
 
 the city after this manner seven times : only on that day 122D they 
 
 WENT ABOUT the city seven times. 
 
 N
 
 194 The Preterite with Vau prefixed. 
 
 So likewise the preterite i^K is clearly 
 frequentative in Exodus 16. 35, where it occurs 
 twice without the conjunction : 
 
 ' And the children of Israel did eat the manna (pn~nK I^N) 
 forty years, until they came to a land inhabited : the manna they 
 did eat ("\~>3# jlOil'DN) until they came to the border of the land 
 of Canaan.' 
 
 Surely this use of the preterite in a frequenta- 
 tive sense, not only with the prefixed vau, as in 
 raaen of Exodus 18. 26, iyprn of Joshua 6. 8, 13, 
 and *]i>m, 3301, BQtn of i Samuel 7. 16, but also 
 without it, as in tax of Exodus 1 6. 35, IBW and 1330 
 of Joshua 6. 14, 15, and OBK> of I Samuel 7. 17, is 
 sufficient to show that the frequentative force of the 
 preterite does not depend on the vau. And as the 
 vau of the preterites which have the vau neither 
 attaches these preterites to preceding dominant 
 imperfects, nor serves any^purpose but that of a 
 simple copulative, it may be conclusively inferred 
 that these are not cases of vau conversive, but 
 cases of the simple conjunctive vau. Now this fact 
 has a special importance of its own in connection 
 with the alleged lateness of the Book of Ecclesiastes, 
 for it shows that that use of the conjunctive vau 
 in Ecclesiastes, which is said to indicate lateness, 
 is by no means uncommon in Hebrew of much 
 earlier date than the days of Solomon. 
 
 The Preacher's use of the Preterite with the 
 initial vau. 
 
 It may be further observed that when the Book 
 of Ecclesiastes is searched for instances of the
 
 The three Solomonic Books. 
 
 195 
 
 preterite with vau prefixed, and when these are 
 compared with similar instances in the other 
 Solomonic Scriptures and in Hebrew unquestion- 
 ably early, this alleged mark of lateness shrinks 
 into very small dimensions, or rather vanishes 
 away altogether. All the instances in the Book 
 of Ecclesiastes, including those where the vau is 
 conversive as well as those where it is simply 
 conjunctive, are forty-eight in number. Whereas in 
 the Book of Joshua the instances of vau simply 
 conjunctive, not including the instances of vau 
 conversive, are above eighty. 
 
 List of passages in which the copulative vau is prefixed to 
 the Preterite. 
 
 The Asterisks denote Vau Conversive. 
 
 ECCLESIASTES 
 
 1. 5** 13, 16. 
 
 2. 5, 9 twice, 11, 12, 13, 
 14, 15 twice, 17, 18, 
 20, 24**. 
 
 3. 13**, 22. 
 
 4. 1, 4, 7. 
 
 5. 5*, 13**, 18. 
 
 8. 10*, 15, 17. 
 
 9. 14 thrice, 15 twice, 16. 
 10. 3*. 
 
 12. 1* 2*, 3***, 4* 5* 6* 
 9 twice. 
 
 SONG 
 
 2. 3, 10, 17*. 
 4.6*. 
 
 SOLOMON'S PROVERBS 
 
 3. 24**, 26*. 
 
 4. 16*. 
 
 5. 11* 12*. 
 
 6. 11*, 22* 31*. 
 
 7. 13 twice. 
 9. 12, 14, 16. 
 
 tl. 3 TfD*. 
 1 6. 29*. 
 1 8. 10*, 17**. 
 20. 28* 
 
 22. 3, 23*, 25*. 
 
 23. 2*, 8*, 34*. 
 
 24. 12* 16*, 18* 27*, 
 
 25. 16*, 17*. [28*, 34* 
 26.19. 
 
 27. 25 twice. 
 29. 6* 9**.
 
 196 Dominant Verbs. 
 
 Vau Conversive of the Preterite. 
 
 ( I . ) The Preterite preceded by a dominant participle. 
 
 With reference to I. 5, which is the first of the 
 passages in Ecclesiastes containing vau conversive, 
 it may be observed that the dominant antecedent 
 is a participle or group of participles (TJ?n> K3 and 
 rnni?) expressive of continuity, and that the 
 preterites rnri and fcO} are here used fr-equentatively, 
 to set forth, not merely facts of repetition past 
 and completed, like the daily eating of the manna 
 in the wilderness, and the daily sounding of the 
 cornets at Jericho, but facts the repetition of 
 which continues down to the present moment ; 
 and thus renders the imperfect tense peculiarly 
 appropriate where the copulative vau does not 
 occur, as, for instance, in the words BtoB^mr, 
 2 Samuel 23. 4, and B>OB>n mm, Psalm 104. 22 
 (B>ptJ>, like the Latin dies, being sometimes mascu- 
 line and sometimes feminine). Ecclesiastes i. 4-5, 
 as thus compared with these two passages, affords 
 a clear and simple twofold instance of vau 
 conversive, the PRETERITES (/) being so appended 
 to the dominant participles (f) as to form a series 
 of verbs arranged in strict syntactical accordance 
 with the ancient idiom of the Hebrew tongue. 
 Besides being thus preceded by dominant parti- 
 ciples, these preterites merge into the participles 
 *1&OE> and rnir which follow them ; so that the 
 conversive character of the vau is attested both by 
 the participles going before and by the participles 
 coming after, as well as by the scope of the
 
 David's Charge to Solomon. 197 
 
 preterites themselves. It may be further observed, 
 for the sake of illustration, that David's farewell 
 address to Solomon contains three preterites 
 similarly preceded by the same dominant participle 
 ^'n. Whereas however the preterites in Eccle- 
 siastes i. 5 are used frequentatively in the third 
 person, the preterites in I Kings 2. 2, 3 are used 
 imperatively in the second person : Now the days 
 of David drew near that he should die ; and he 
 charged his son Solomon, saying, 
 
 I go the way of all the earth : 
 
 BUT BE THOU STRONG, AND SHOW 
 
 THYSELF a man, AND KEEP the 
 charge of Jehovah thy God, . . . 
 
 One generation passeth. away, 
 and another generation cometh : 
 but the earth abideth for ever. 
 The sun ALSO ARISETH ; AND the 
 sun GOETH DOWN, and panteth 
 unto his place where he arose. 
 
 run 11 moPD~JiM 
 
 tni Tft 1 in 
 
 HTlt 
 
 This identity of syntactical usage in two 
 prominent passages so unlike one another as the 
 Prologue to the Book of Ecclesiastes and David's 
 farewell address to Solomon is well fitted to 
 illustrate the thorough harmony between the 
 style of Ecclesiastes and the ascription of the 
 book to Solomon as its author. The following 
 passages likewise afford specimens of a dominant 
 participle, followed by the PRETERITE with vau 
 conversive, and show that in this respect the 
 syntax of Ecclesiastes I. 4, 5 is consistent not 
 only with the Hebrew of Solomon's Proverbs, but 
 also with Hebrew of much earlier date :
 
 198 Dominant Participles. 
 
 (1) EXODUS 17. 6. UBB ^y^ mvi nnsrn ititf* ^jri 
 
 : oyn nntsn n^o 
 
 T T t 
 
 Behold I stand before thee there over the rock in Horeb ; AND 
 THOU SHALT SMITE the rock, AND waters SHALL GO FORTH from 
 it, AND the people SHALL DRINK, 
 
 (2) JUDGES 7. 17. nTlV K3* ^3K mm 
 
 T T: T 
 
 And behold WHEN I come to the border of the camp, IT SHALL 
 BE that as I do, so shall ye do. 
 
 (3) i KINGS 20. 36. . . . nnxn Tjanf TIXO sjtorf* ^n 
 
 Behold WHEN thou goest from me the lion SHALL SMITE thee. 
 
 (4) JOSHUA 23. 14. B^VT)' ^^ ^K mm 
 And behold I go this day the way of all the earth ; AND YE 
 
 KNOW with all your heart and with all your soul that not one 
 thing hath failed of all the good things which Jehovah your God 
 spake concerning you. 
 
 (5) i SAMUEL 2. 13-14. . . . ron njtt K3V* mt Piaf V^O 
 
 WHEN any man sacrlficeth a sacrifice, the priest's servant 
 COMETH while the flesh is seething, and the hook of three teeth in 
 his hand, AND SMITETH it into the p'an, . . . 
 
 (6) PROVERBS 29. 9. pntW* MnV* ^1N B^~nK VSVf D3n~B^N 
 
 :nm pi 
 
 7/"a wise man contend with a foolish man, WHETHER HE RAGE 
 OR LAUGH, there is no rest. 
 
 In these and similar passages the dominant 
 participles, with the preterites attached to them 
 by means of vau conversive, express events either 
 absolutely future (i, 2, 3); or facts presently ex- 
 istent and continuous (4) ; or usages which were 
 wont to be practised habitually from time to time, 
 and thus extended from the past to the future (5) ; 
 or maxims of general application in the circum- 
 stances specified (6). Numerous other passages, 
 

 
 The use of Participles. 199 
 
 such as Genesis 48. 21, Exodus 7. 17, 27-28, 
 8. 17-18 (2-3, 21-22), IO. 4-6, might be quoted in 
 illustration of this common idiom. What remains 
 however to be specially noticed here is the fact 
 that this is the idiom of the preterites with vau in 
 Ecclesiastes i. 5, 5. 13, 8. 10, 12. 5, these preterites 
 being preceded by dominant participles, to which 
 they are joined by means of vau conversive. 
 
 12. 5. In Ecclesiastes 12. 5, as in I. 4-5, the 
 dominant participle :jVn with its preterite ^npl 
 refers to facts which, being repeated from time to 
 time, may be appropriately expressed by the 
 simple imperfect as in the former part of this 
 verse, or by a Poel participle with vau conversive 
 of the preterite as here and in i Samuel 2. 13 : 
 133DV io^v rpn-ta DTKH 
 
 For man goeth unto his eternal house ; and the mourners go 
 about in the street. 
 
 5. 12-13 (13-14). In Ecclesiastes 5. 12 the 
 dominant participle is not active, as in I. 4 and 
 12. 5, but passive. Yet the scope of the passage 
 shows that the passive participle "1BB> refers here, 
 not, as in i Samuel 9. 24, to some one special act 
 of reservation, but to a progressive or frequentative 
 storing up of wealth. What the Preacher saw was 
 not only wealth stored up, but wealth in the course 
 of being stored up ; and he is describing not 
 merely an isolated event, which, being past and 
 gone, like the taking of the silver in Judges 17. 2, 
 might have been expressed by a simple preterite, 
 or by the historic imperfect, but a course 
 of evil extending over a considerable space
 
 2oo Dominant Participles Passive. 
 
 of time, and happening on more occasions than 
 one. Accordingly the copulative vau of "12X1. and 
 Ivifn, by which these preterites are joined to 
 "viOE>, is clearly vau conversive the perishing of 
 the wealth and the begetting of a son in consequent 
 poverty being described in strict chronological 
 sequence with the treasuring up of the wealth to 
 the injury of its owner. 
 
 8. 10. In 8. 10, as in 5. 12, the dominant 
 participle is passive. This passage is considered 
 obscure, and has been variously interpreted. That 
 the J of the preterite W3J is conversive seems 
 obvious from the scope of the sentence, the 
 analogy of 5. 12-13, and the fact that INI is 
 followed by two corresponding imperfects, I3^rv 
 inan^l, they go and are forgotten. The Preacher 
 appears to be describing, not one specific burial, 
 like that of the rich man in Luke 16. 22, but a 
 frequently recurring series of events which came 
 from time to time under his own notice in the 
 vain career of the ungodly the burial of one 
 wicked man being followed by the advent of 
 another, coming and going and soon forgotten in 
 the city which had been the scene of his deeds. 
 The Preacher, in his descriptive series, mentions 
 first the burial and then the coining, similarly as 
 in i. 4, the passing away of one generation is 
 mentioned before the coming of another. 
 
 ' And so I saw the wicked D^~OP rf buried ; ^K2Y* AND THEY 
 
 -. : T T 
 
 COME ; and from the place of the holy they go ; and they are 
 forgotten in the city where they had so done. This also is vanity. ' 
 
 It is evident, from the use of the Paill
 
 Paul and Niphal participles. 20 1 
 
 synonymously with the Niphal participle 
 in Ecclesiastes 91 12, and from a comparison of 
 rnw in Genesis 22. 13 with nn in Esther I. 6, 
 that, in respect of passive signification and con- 
 sequent syntactical influence, the Preacher's use 
 of the Paul participles "not? and D'nap, as dominant 
 antecedents to preterites with vau conversive, is 
 strictly analogous to Solomon's use of dominant 
 Niphal participles in his prayer at the Dedication 
 of the Tempte, and that accordingly the thorough 
 agreement between the style of Ecclesiastes and 
 the style of Solomon's language elsewhere may 
 be illustrated, in so far as the idiom of dominant 
 participles passive is concerned, by comparing 
 Ecclesiastes 5. 12; 8. 10, with I Kings 8. 33, 35: 
 
 33. Wini'T^N \y&\* - "fDJ? epjm rf Wfcen thy people Israel 
 are smitten ... AND RETURN unto thee, AND CONFESS thy name, 
 AND PRAY, AND MAKE SUPPLICATION unto thee in this house, . . . 
 
 35. l^snnV D^IDS? IVyni^ When heaven is shut up, . . . 
 AND THEY PRAY toward this place, AND CONFESS thy name, . . . 
 
 In Ecclesiastes 10. 3 also, the vau of "iK1 is 
 similarly conversive, the preceding verbal adjective 
 ipn having the power of a dominant participle, to 
 which the preterite ~iK is accordingly attached. 
 
 ' And also when the fool walketh in the way, lEtfy* 1DH 12$> 
 his heart faileth, AND HE SAITH to every one that he is a fool.' 
 
 (2.) The Preterite preceded by a dominant imperfect. 
 
 The Book of Ecclesiastes contains twelve other 
 instances of the preterite^) with vau conversive, 
 namely 2. 24 twice, 3. 13 twice, 5. 5 (6), 12. 1, 2, 
 3 thrice, 4, 6. In them, however, the dominant 
 verb is not a participle, but a simple imperfect^*).
 
 2O2 Dominant Imperfects. 
 
 2. 24. There is nothing better 3X>K> rf ' DTN2 
 for man than that he should ' 
 
 eat AND DRINK AND CAUSE his T : v 
 
 soul TO SEE good in his labour. 
 
 3. 13. And also that every ^ftV* DnNn -t, 3 
 
 man should eat AND DRINK 
 AND SEE good in all his labour. 
 
 IttB 
 
 These two passages in Ecclesiastes contain 
 specimens of vau conversive as clear and simple as 
 are to be found anywhere in the Old Testament. 
 i'px' 1 is here a dominant imperfect, to which two 
 preterites nnB> and n&pn or nan are attached by 
 means of vau conversive, the drinking and the 
 seeing of good being described, not as independent 
 facts co-ordinate with the eating, but as the sequel 
 to it : similarly as in Genesis 25. 34 and several 
 other passages recording what Mr. Driver appo- 
 sitely calls concrete events, in contradistinction 
 to abstract possibilities, the verbs 73N and nnK>, 
 preceded by a dominant 'preterite, are placed 
 conversely in the historic imperfect with vau 
 conversive : "]!n Dp^ nen ^soi w\h fro npjn 
 
 In only two passages besides Ecclesiastes 2. 24, 
 3. 13, does nriEh occur, namely Exodus 17. 6, 
 already quoted in page 198 as an instance of the 
 preterite with vau conversive, and Jeremiah 22. 15, 
 where the vau is not conversive, but simple. 
 
 Now if Ecclesiastes 2. 24 and 3. 13 be attentively 
 compared with Jeremiah 22. 15, the sharply marked 
 distinction between vau conversive and vau simply 
 conjunctive will be at once apparent. Jeremiah 
 22. 15-16 contains a reference to certain specific 
 facts past and accomplished in the upright and
 
 The ordinary iisage. 203 
 
 prosperous career of the then deceased Josiah, 
 king of Judah. The first of these facts is therefore 
 expressed in the perfect tense 73X ; and to this 
 preterite two other preterites, nnt? and nt?y, are 
 
 A M. * ' 
 
 attached by means of vau simply conjunctive. 
 
 DID not thy father EAT AND nb*Jfi nDK^l 73X X17H T3X 
 DRINK AND DO judgment and T T ; T T : " T 
 justice? nplVI DSSJ'D 
 
 In Ecclesiastes 2. 24 and 3. 13, however, the 
 Preacher is announcing, not concrete historical 
 facts, but general maxims as applicable to the 
 future as to the past. Hence he places the 
 dominant verb in the imperfect tense, followed 
 by the preterite with vau conversive. Now this 
 is just the ordinary usage of the earliest as well 
 as of the latest biblical Hebrew, and is found even 
 in narratives ot past continuous or frequentative 
 facts, when their continuance or the repetition of 
 them from time to time is put specially forward, 
 as in i Samuel 2. 19 (nr^ynf IDK -nfeW* }Dp *?w\ 
 r\ww D^D 17), and when accordingly, if, as in 
 i Samuel 13-17 OrjT% n .^)> anc ^ 2 Samuel 12. 3 
 (23KT1 nriw 73Nn), the conjunctive prefix 
 were not attached to the verbs, they would be put, 
 not in the preterite, but in the imperfect tense. 
 
 5. 5 (6). Why should God 
 be angry at thy voice, AND 
 DESTROY the work of thy hands ? 
 
 -hy DT^sn ejvp^ 2 ' no? 
 : TT 
 
 This passage exemplifies the very common and 
 very ancient usage according to which, when two 
 verbs are appended to a particle such as ^ttt TX>
 
 204 Antecedent Particles. 
 
 }2, the first verb is put in 
 the imperfect tense, with the preterite of the 
 second verb attached to it by means of vau con- 
 versive. Genesis 3. 22, 12. 13, 18. 19, 27. 12, 
 32. 9, 12 (8, 11), 39. 9, Exodus i. 10, Deuteronomy 
 6. 18, i Samuel 1 6. 2, 17. 9, 2 Kings 5. 12, 14.10, 
 Isaiah 60. 5, Psalm 28. 1, and numerous other 
 passages, exemplify this familiar construction. 
 
 vr 
 
 : tbyk 
 
 Specimens. 
 
 GEN. 3. 22. Lest he put 
 forth his hand, AND TAKE . . . 
 AND EAT AND LIVE for ever. 
 
 Is. 60. 5. Then shalt thou inSI-'* mn31* ''NITT 
 see AND FLOW ; AND thy heart e ..... 
 
 SHALL FEAR AND BE ENLARGED. 
 
 12. 1-6. To this class of particles "IK'S belongs, 
 whether standing by itself, as in Deuteronomy 2. 25, 
 4. 6, or abbreviated to tP, as in Ecclesiastes 2. 24, 
 3. 13, already quoted in page 202, or compounded 
 into 1PK3 as in Deuteronomy 22. 26, Amos 5. 19, 
 and into itPK *W, as in Exodus 23. 30, Numbers 
 II. 20, Joshua i. 15, Hosea 5. 15, Micah 7. 9. 
 
 Specimens. 
 
 JOSHUA i. 15. Until Jehovah 
 give rest to your brethren as to 
 you, AND THEY also POSSESS the 
 land which Jehovah your God 
 giveth them ; AND YE SHALL 
 RETURN to the land of your pos- 
 session, AND POSSESS it, ... 
 
 MICAH 7. 9. Until he plead 
 my cause, AND EXECUTE my 
 judgment : . . .
 
 A series of Conversives. 
 
 205 
 
 Ecclesiastes 12. 1-6 contains six instances of 
 the preterite with vau conversive thus following a 
 dominant imperfect preceded by tfb "iK'K *iy, or by 
 "it?K abbreviated to P. Now a glance at these 
 verses is sufficient to show how thoroughly, in 
 the syntax of their verbs, as well as in other 
 respects, they coincide, not only with the Hebrew 
 of Solomon's reign, but even with Hebrew of 
 much earlier times, and thus conclusively vindicate 
 the Book of Ecclesiastes from the charge of 
 lateness. 
 
 12. 1. While the days of evil 
 come not, NOR the years DRAW 
 NIGH when thou shall say, I have 
 no pleasure in them ; 
 
 2. While the sun and the light 
 and the moon and the stars "be 
 not darkened, NOR the clouds 
 RETURN after the rain : 
 
 3,4. In the day when the keepers 
 of the house shall tremble, AND 
 the men of strength SHALL BOW 
 THEMSELVES, AND the grinders 
 SHALL CEASE because they are 
 few, AND they that look out 
 of the windows BE DARKENED, 
 AND the doors SHALL BE SHUT 
 in the street, . . . and he shall 
 rise up at the voice of the bird, 
 and all the daughters of song shall 
 be brought low. 
 
 6. While the silver cord is 
 not loosed nor the golden bowl 
 broken, nor the pitcher shivered 
 over the fountain, NOR the wheel 
 BROKEN at the cistern. 
 
 njnn 
 
 IPIK 
 
 : oswn 
 3, 4 
 
 nunon 
 
 DIPT 
 
 -^s DISH ^if-'a ... 5 
 
 nnrn rta pni'
 
 206 The Regimen of Verbs. 
 
 Here the compound particle *& IPX *iy occurring 
 in verses 1, 2, 6 respectively, and followed in each 
 instance by a dominant imperfect with vau 
 conversive of the preterite, exhibits exactly the 
 syntactical usage of Joshua I. 15 and such similar 
 passages as those specified in page 204. The B> 
 of 1JW also, in verse third, like the B> of ^MfHB? in 
 2. 24, 3. 13, is equivalent to the unabbreviated "it?N 
 of Deuteronomy 2. 25, 4. 6, and is identical with 
 the E> of majp in Song 2. 1 7, 4. 6, the "WK or the 
 B> in these and other passages being immediately 
 followed by a dominant imperfect with one or 
 more preterites attached to it by means of vau 
 conversive : 
 
 DEUT. 2. 25. *pQ 17HV tfjnV* "^DP 
 
 SONG 2. 17 ; 4. 6. D^VH 5)DJ'. 
 
 T : 
 
 Until the day break, and the shadows flee away, 
 
 With reference to the seven preterites 
 
 Verse 1. 
 
 2. 
 
 s. imynm 
 
 it may be observed that the conversive character 
 of their initial vau, as distinguished from vau 
 simply conjunctive, is confirmed, if confirmation 
 were needed, by the occurrence of several simple 
 imperfects in regimen with them, in a way which 
 would be syntactically inadmissible if the initial 
 vau of the preterites were not conversive but 
 simple.
 
 Evidence of the Solomonic Authorship. 207 
 Those imperfects are 
 
 5. 
 
 s. prn 
 
 Verse 4. 
 
 awn 
 
 Along with these syntactical features of this 
 passage, there may be noted in verse fifth, as 
 already observed in page 199, the occurrence of the 
 preterite ^Dl preceded by a dominant participle of 
 its own, and thus inserted in syntactical independ- 
 ence of the sevenfold series of preterites contained 
 in verses 1, 2, 3, 4, 6. Hence, taking the various 
 syntactical features of Ecclesiastes 12. 1-6 into 
 consideration, it may be safely affirmed that this 
 passage is so constructed in respect of its 
 participles, and imperfects, and preterites, and 
 conjunctive vaus and other particles, as to furnish 
 decisive evidence that the author of Ecclesiastes 
 was thoroughly familiar with the ancient idiom 
 of vau conversive. 
 
 It may be further observed, that the Preacher's 
 use of the preterite with vau conversive is in exact 
 conformity with Solomon's use of it, both in his 
 Proverbs and in those words of his which are 
 recorded independently in the history of his life 
 and reign. Thus, for instance, Proverbs 29. 9 and 
 I Kings 8. 33, 35, have already been quoted in 
 pages 198 and 201 to illustrate the attachment of 
 preterites to dominant participles. In like manner 
 Proverbs 3. 24; 6. 11, 22, 31; 16. 29; 18. 10, 17;
 
 208 Identity of usage. 
 
 20. 28; 23. 2, 8, 34; 24. 12; 29. 6, exemplify 
 the preterite attached to a dominant imperfect. 
 Corresponding likewise to the particles K>, n$>, and 
 &6 -\WK "iy, which immediately precede the dominant 
 imperfects in Ecclesiastes 2. 24, 3. 13, 5. 5, 12. 1-6, 
 there are in I Kings 8. 3 1 , "IB>N JIN ; and in Solomon's 
 Proverbs, JQ, 5. 10, 22. 25, 24. 18, 25. 16, 17; i>N, 
 24. 28; '3, 3. 26, 4. 16, 22. 23, 24. 16, and in 
 I Kings 8. 36, 44-50. 
 
 Specimens. 
 
 i KINGS 8. 46. ni nB3W> ifnKDH'* '3 
 
 When they sin against thee . . . AND THOU ART ANGRY with 
 them, . . . 
 
 PROVERBS 3. 24. -|n;jB> nmjn> 
 
 If thou liest down, thou shalt not be afraid ; BUT THOU SHALT 
 LIE DOWN, AND thy sleep SHALL BE SWEET. 
 
 20. 28. : ; . . nym* i ny * 
 
 Mercy and truth preserve the king; AND his throne is UPHOLDEN 
 by mercy. 
 
 25. 17. : IfcWtjn/ IW^-JB 
 
 Withdraw thy foot from thy neighbour's house ; lest he be full 
 
 Of thee, AND HATE THEE. 
 
 It thus appears that the Preacher's manner of 
 using the preterite with vau conversive affords, 
 from its coincidence with the usage in the other 
 Solomonic Scriptures, a valuable testimony to the 
 Solomonic authorship of Ecclesiastes. Indeed, 
 as is indicated by the list in page 195, vau con- 
 versive of the preterite is proportionately more 
 frequent in Ecclesiastes than in the Proverbs of 
 Solomon, being found thirty or thirty-one times
 
 Biblical Hebrew. 209 
 
 in them, and nineteen times in Ecclesiastes, which 
 is less than half their size. This fact is amply 
 sufficient to prove that Koheleth was thoroughly 
 familiar with the idiom of vau conversive, and 
 that consequently the allegation of lateness on 
 account of the infrequency of the imperfect with 
 vau conversive is altogether untenable. It is 
 indeed true, as mentioned in Delitzsch's Com- 
 mentary on Ecclesiastes, and in the Treatise on 
 the Hebrew Tenses, that the future or imperfect 
 with vau conversive occurs very seldom (namely 
 thrice) in Ecclesiastes, and is quite common in 
 all the other books of the Old Testament, except 
 Canticles, where it occurs only twice. It is im- 
 possible, however, for this circumstance, which 
 must be viewed, not as if it stood by itself, but 
 in connection with the frequency of the preterite 
 and vau conversive, to carry any weight whatever 
 in opposition to the Solomonic authorship of 
 Ecclesiastes vau conversive of the preterite being 
 equally alien with vau conversive of the imperfect 
 to post-biblical Hebrew. 
 
 ' Like the construction with -I [says Mr. Driver], ' the present 
 
 idiom [' the perfect with strong waw '] is hardly found beyond the 
 Old Testament: it is never met with in Aramaic (Chaldee and 
 Syriac), and according to Ewald, occurs only very rarely in the 
 Mishna. As I wished to learn more exactly what was involved 
 in the latter statement, I applied to my friend Dr. Neubauer, 
 Sub-Librarian of the Bodleian Library, whose intimate acquaintance 
 with the wide field of talmudic and mediaeval Hebrew is well 
 known, for further information : and he very kindly wrote me that 
 though it was used by modern writers in imitation of the Biblical 
 idiom, there was no ) conversive in rabbinical Hebrew, or in the 
 language of the Mishna.' 
 
 O
 
 2 1 o The Preterite wit/i Simple Vau. 
 
 Thus then the frequency of the preterite with 
 vau conversive throughout the Book of Ecclesiastes 
 is amply sufficient to refute the assertion that the 
 author was not familiar with the idiom of vau 
 conversive, and to show that, in so far as this 
 point is concerned, there is no affinity between the 
 style of Ecclesiastes and the style of post-biblical 
 Hebrew. 
 
 The Preterite with Simple Vau. 
 
 Deducting 19 from 48, there yet remain for 
 examination twenty-nine instances of the preterite 
 with vau prefixed. In every one of these twenty- 
 nine cases the vau appears to be not conversive, 
 but simply conjunctive ; and to some extent they 
 may, like the nineteen preceding cases, be classi- 
 fied. Eight of the twenty-nine preterites are in 
 the third person singular,' namely IDvBTH, with a 
 pronominal suffix in 5. 18 (19), a series of five 
 preterites in 9. 14, 15, and two in 12. 9 ; whereas 
 all the others twenty-one in number, including a 
 series of eleven in chapter second are in \hzfirst 
 person singular, being eminently characteristic of 
 Ecclesiastes as an autobiography. 
 
 When estimated along with vau conversive of 
 the preterite, these twenty-one must be viewed, 
 not numerically as so many independent instances 
 of simple vau outnumbering the instances of vau 
 conversive, but rather, like the conversives in 
 12. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, as parts of one series. Hence it 
 may be said that, in so far as distinct and separate 
 cases are concerned, vau conversive is more fre-
 
 Preponderance of Vau Conversive. 211 
 
 quent throughout Ecclesiastes than simple vau, 
 the distinct instances of each being 
 
 VAU CONVERSIVE, 
 
 After dominant participles. 
 
 I. 
 
 II. 
 III. 
 IV. 
 
 1.5, 
 
 5-13, 
 
 8. 10, D'-Qp 
 
 TO ^ "iSn 
 i z. t*, |/i i 
 
 After a verbal adjective. 
 
 v. 1 10. 3, ton 
 
 ^4/fer dominant imperfects. 
 
 VI. 
 
 VII. 
 
 VIII. 
 
 2.24; 
 5-5, 
 
 12. 1 tO 6. 
 
 A series of six. 
 
 
 SIMPLE VAU, 
 
 
 Page 
 
 Prefixed to the third 
 
 Page 
 
 196 
 
 
 person. 
 
 
 199 
 
 I. 
 
 5.18. 
 
 218 
 
 2OO 
 
 II. 
 
 9. 14-15. 
 
 214 
 
 199 
 
 III. 
 
 12. 9. 
 
 211 
 
 2O I 
 
 Prefixed to the first person 
 
 
 
 
 singular. 
 
 
 2O2 
 
 IV. 
 
 The series of 
 
 221 
 
 203 
 
 21 preterites in 
 
 to 
 
 2O4 
 
 the first person 
 
 252 
 
 
 singular. 
 
 
 (i.) The Preterites in the Third Person. 
 
 12. 9. In Ecclesiastes 12. 9, two preterites 
 and }pn) without, and TWO (JTK1 and 1pm) WITH, 
 the copulative vau are clearly frequentative, the 
 particle "riy and the general scope of the passage 
 making it evident that these four verbs express 
 courses of action extending over a considerable 
 space of time : 
 
 Ji3PI 1J3R1 ftfttt ' *TC& liy And moreover, because the 
 Preacher was wise, he still taught the people knowledge, AND 
 GAVE EAR, AND SEARCHED OUT, yea set in order many proverbs. 
 
 Now alongside of this verse, such similarly fre- 
 quentative PRETERITES WITH VAU (*) as those 
 in Numbers II. 8, i Samuel 16. 23, 2 Samuel 15. 
 2, 5, and i Kings 9. 25 (besides Joshua 6. 13, and 
 i Samuel 7. 16, already quoted in page 193), may 
 be quoted to show how thoroughly consistent the
 
 212 Frequentative Preterites. 
 
 idiom of the preterites in Ecclesiastes 12. 9 is 
 with the Hebrew of Solomon's time, and with 
 the Hebrew of his father David, as well as with 
 the still earlier Hebrew of Samuel, Joshua, and 
 Moses : 
 
 1 SAM. 16. 23. nTTl* AND IT CAME TO PASS when the spirit of 
 God was upon Saul, npj>1* THAT David TOOK the harp, ft))* AND 
 PLAYED with his hand, niTl* AND Saul WAS REFRESHED, and it 
 
 - T : 
 
 was well with him ; n~ID1 * AND the evil spirit DEPARTED from him. 
 
 2 SAM. 15. 2. l)pyi* D1^2S D^BTO* AND Absalom ROSE 
 UP EARLY, AND STOOD beside the way of the gate : \"|^ and it 
 
 came to pass when any man who had a controversy came to the 
 king for judgment, that Absalom called unto him, . . . 
 
 5. iTni* AND IT CAME TO PASS when a man came near to do 
 him obeisance, : ifrpK^* "6 P'tnm* H^OK D^'l* THAT HE 
 PUT FORTH his hand AND TOOK him AND KISSED him. 
 
 [NOTE. In 2 Samuel 15. 2-6, the use of these six preterites 
 with the prefix vau in regimen with vau conversive of the imper- 
 fect cirri, tOp_ s 1i "IDX'I, blH) corroborates what has already 
 been said in pages 192-194, to show that vau prefixed to preterites 
 used frequentatively in such passages as I Samuel 7. 16 is not con- 
 versive, but simply conjunctive. This is specially obvious from the 
 use of nTII in verse fifth synonymously with ij-pi in verse second.] 
 
 I KINGS 9. 25. n?JJ!Tl* AND three times in a year Solomon 
 OFFERED burnt-offerings and peace-offerings upon the altar which 
 he had built to Jehovah ; VEpiTl and he burned incense . . . 
 D^>Kr|* AND HE FINISHED the house. 
 
 [NOTE. According to the Masoretic punctuation, Tt2p!Tl in this 
 verse is pointed, not as the preterite *Vt3prn but as the infinitive 
 absolute "VEpni , even though it seems to be strictly parallel to 
 i"6yni> and though the Hiphil infinitive absolute of this verb is 
 found nowhere else in the Scriptures, VBpni being uniformly 
 pointed as the preterite, except here. Still, as throughout this 
 treatise no argument adduced for the Solomonic authorship of
 
 The Manna in the Wilderness. 2 1 3 
 
 Ecclesiastes is based on an interpretation different from that 
 which is indicated by the Masoretic points, it may be observed 
 that even if "VEpn be here viewed as the infinitive rather than as 
 the preterite, the preterite rpjjni is conclusive of the point for 
 which i Kings 9. 25 is quoted. 
 
 The preterite D/tJn* though not frequentative, illustrates the 
 preterites with simple vau in Ecclesiastes 9. 14, 15, about to be 
 examined.] 
 
 In connection with this subject, Numbers n. 8 
 is peculiarly interesting on account of the multitude 
 of preterites with vau which are here comprised 
 within the small compass of one moderately sized 
 sentence. These preterites are FIVE, which is 
 more than twice the number in Ecclesiastes 12. 9. 
 Besides these, there are here, as in Ecclesiastes 
 12. 9, two preterites^) which, having no prefix, 
 show conclusively what has already been men- 
 tioned in page 192, that it is not by the vau, but by 
 the scope of the passage in the original Hebrew, 
 precisely as in the English translation, that the 
 frequentative force of the preterites is determined. 
 
 THE MANNA. 
 The people went about, AND 
 
 GATHERED it, AND GROUND it 
 
 in mills, or beat it in a mortar, "iSMni* "I3*in^ Wl* IN 
 AND BOILED it in a pan, AND 
 
 MADE cakes of it, AND the taste ^ n<1 ^ inx 1&W "'I" 123 
 of it WAS as the taste of fresh oil. tt^n *l^ DJ7D3 
 
 Here then, in the most ancient of the Hebrew 
 Scriptures, is a case remarkably similar, in the 
 syntax of the preterites, to the case of Ecclesiastes 
 12. 9, where two of the preterites, Tf> and }pn, 
 like the two preterites 1BB> and 131 here, stand by 
 themselves, ivitJiottt the prefix vau ; while the other 
 preterites, standing in regimen with them, have it.
 
 214 The Poor Wise Man. 
 
 9. 14-15. If the series of preterites in Ecclesi- 
 astesQ. 14-15 be appealed to as an unmistakeable 
 fivefold specimen of the preterite with vau simply 
 conjunctive, where there is that kind of sequence 
 which admits the use of the historic imperfect, it 
 may be replied that, while indeed the well-known 
 vau conversive of the imperfect is very common 
 throughout the Hebrew Scriptures, yet, in the 
 earlier as well as in the later Scriptures, the 
 preterite with simple vau is used in circumstances 
 strictly analogous to those of Ecclesiastes 9. 14-15, 
 with a frequency amply sufficient to prove that the 
 occurrence of this idiom in this passage cannot 
 indicate lateness. 
 
 This wisdom also I saw under the sun, and it was great unto 
 me a little city, and few men in it ; fcQ}* AND THERE CAME 
 
 T 
 
 against it a great king ; 13D1* AND HE BESIEGED it, riJ2}* AND 
 
 - T : T T 
 
 BUILT against it great bulwarks : NXD1* AND THERE WAS FOUND 
 
 . T T 
 
 in it a poor wise man ; NliTB^O}* AND HE DELIVERED the city, 
 in his wisdom. 
 
 That this fivefold specimen of the preterite with 
 simple vau is in thorough harmony with the 
 Hebrew of Solomon, and also with the Hebrew 
 of David, may be proved from i Samuel 17. 34-35, 
 2 Samuel 12. 16, 13. 18, 16. 13, 23.20, I Kings 
 6. 32, 35, Proverbs 7. 13, 22. 3, 27. 25. 
 
 SOLOMONIC PASSAGES. 
 
 PR. 7. 13. AND SHE CAUGHT 
 
 npswr n npwn* 
 
 him, AND KISSED him : she . w nnMn > n ^. B 
 
 strengthened her face, and said 
 to him, . . . 
 
 NOTE. That the vau prefixed to two of the three preterites in 
 this verse is not conversive but simple, is evident from the scope of
 
 Similar Solomonic Passages. 215 
 
 the passage (there being no such connection between pip^rim and 
 the imperfect ;nXD of verse 12, or any other preceding word, as the 
 sequence indicated by vau conversive involves), and from the fact 
 that these two preterites with vau are in regimen with the third 
 preterite ntj/n> which has no vau, and to which lE^m is appended 
 by vau conversive of the imperfect, in the same way as, conversely, 
 in 2 Samuel 3. 21, the imperfects ims 1 "! HSSpK) H^NI 
 are in regimen with the preceding imperfect HDIpK, and with 
 rotal appended to them by vau conversive of the preterite. 
 
 ray 
 
 (Like IJJpJYI* my'* Joshua 6. 8. 
 
 Bn-n-ur -vvn 
 : onn 
 
 PR. 22. 3. But the simple pass 
 
 On AND ARE PUNISHED. 
 
 27. 25. The hay disappeareth ; 
 AND tender grass SHOWETH 
 ITSELF ; AND herbs of the 
 mountains ARE GATHERED. 
 
 I KINGS 6. 32, 35. And the two doors were of oil-tree ; y^pl AND 
 
 ~ T ; 
 
 HE CARVED upon them carvings of cherubim and palm trees and 
 openings of flowers ; r\QY\ AND HE OVERLAID them with gold ; 
 TV) and he spread the gold upon the cherubim and upon the palm 
 
 trees. . . . y-jpl AND HE CARVED cherubim and palm trees and 
 openings of flowers, nS^fl AND OVERLAID them with gold fitted 
 upon the graven work. 
 
 These two preterites with simple vau (yi'pl and 
 nsyi), twice embedded in the Solomonic history 
 in regimen with the historic imperfect, have a 
 special value of their own. Occurring as they 
 do incidentally in the independent narrative of 
 Solomon's great work, the building of the Temple, 
 they supply a cogent proof of the fact that the use 
 of the preterite with simple vau prefixed is in 
 thorough harmony with the Hebrew of Solomon's 
 lifetime. And it is an interesting circumstance 
 that the same idiom occurs in the ancient narrative 
 of the construction of the Tabernacle :
 
 2 1 6 Similar Davidic Passages. 
 
 EXODUS 36. 38. nSVI AND HE OVERLAID their chapiters and 
 
 their fillets with gold. 
 38. 28. AND HE OVERLAID their chapiters, pern 
 
 AND FILLETED them. 
 DAVIDIC PASSAGES. 
 
 In respect of the preterite with vau prefixed, the 
 style of Ecclesiastes 9. 14-15 (gtfrbhn NVOl), 
 so far from being too late for Solomonic Hebrew, 
 coincides substantially (except as to mere verbal 
 arrangement) with the style of 2 Samuel 23. 20. 
 
 He smote ... and he went | TjM tfini ron K1H 
 down AND SMOTE the lion ... ' . nn|WrnH n?ri? * 
 
 Be it further observed that while Ecclesiastes 
 9. 14-15 contains five specimens of the preterite 
 with the simple vau prefixed, David's words in 
 i Samuel 17. 34-35 contain no fewer than eight 
 specimens of the same idiom a fact which seems 
 amply sufficient (even apart from the numerous 
 other specimens) to disprove the allegation that 
 such preterites in the Book of Ecclesiastes indicate 
 an authorship later than the days of Solomon. 
 
 And David said unto Saul, Thy servant fiTl was keeping his 
 father's sheep ; j$21 * AND THERE CAME the lion and the bear, 
 
 T 
 
 1 * AND TOOK a lamb out of the flock. 
 
 AND I WENT FORTH after him, 
 
 AND SMOTE HIM, AND DELIVERED 
 
 it from his mouth. And he arose 
 against me ; AND I CAUGHT him 
 by his beard, AND SMOTE HIM, 
 
 AND SLEW HIM. 
 
 vnam 
 
 ^y 
 
 vnam 
 
 VBD 
 
 Tiprnm 
 : vrvnm 
 
 Even independently of the accentuation (on which, 
 as was stated in page 190, none of the arguments 
 for the Solomonic authorship of Ecclesiastes is
 
 The Regimen of the Historic Imperfect. 217 
 
 founded), the merely copulative character of the 
 vau prefixed to these eight preterites might be 
 inferred, if proof of what is so obvious were needed, 
 not only from the preceding preterite rvn, but also 
 from the occurrence in the midst of them of 
 an imperfect with vau conversive Dp" 1 "!, which would 
 be inadmissible if the vau of the preterite were 
 conversive. The preterite with simple vau is placed 
 similarly in regimen with the historic imperfect in 
 Genesis 49. 23, Judges 3. 23 (: $>im Tbpn), 2 Sam. 
 12.16, 13.18, 1 6. 13, Job 1.1-5, and other passages. 
 
 GEN. 49. 23. But the archers 
 have sorely grieved him, AND 
 SHOT at him, and hated him. 
 
 2 SAMUEL 12. 16. And David 
 
 }j-|!tt21 I^TTl * irrn'1 
 
 D1 *Ttt 
 
 fasted a fast, AND CAME AND wfc 
 
 LAY ALL NIGHT upon the earth. 
 
 J 3- 18. N 5 1 And his attendant brought her out, >JJJ1* AND 
 BOLTED the door after her. 
 
 16. 13. Shimei went along by the side of the mountain over 
 against him, and cursed as he went, ^pD" 1 "! and threw stones at 
 him, IQJfl* AND DUSTED him with dust. 
 
 19. (17-19) 16-18. And Shimei 
 hasted, . . . and went down with 
 the men of Judah . . . AND 
 THEY CROSSED the Jordan before 
 the king ; AND the ferry-boat 
 
 WENT OVER, . . . 
 
 -DJ? TM 
 
 pvn irtan* min 11 
 rmyn main * : "jtan 
 
 It thus appears that this idiom, said by deniers 
 of the Solomonic authorship of Ecclesiastes to be 
 eminently characteristic of late Hebrew, is quite 
 common in the Hebrew of David and Solomon, as 
 well as in Hebrew of much earlier date. Hence 
 its occurrence in Ecclesiastes 9. 14-15; 12. 9, so far
 
 2 1 8 The Syntax of Solomonic Hebrew. 
 
 from being adverse to the Solomonic authorship 
 of Ecclesiastes, is strikingly confirmatory of it. 
 
 5. 18. The only other instance of the third 
 person preterite with simple vau prefixed is 
 to^ni in 5.18 (19). This may be compared with 
 such Solomonic passages as Proverbs 9. 12, 14, 
 26. 19, i Kings 3. 11, and 2 Chronicles 7. 12, 16, 
 which, though widely dissimilar in scope and 
 subject-matter, do yet coincide with Ecclesiastes 
 5. 18 in respect of the usage under discussion 
 the preterite with vau in each passage being 
 closely preceded by a simple preterite (^). 
 
 ECCLES. 5. 18 (19). Every man also to whom God ]f\)f hath 
 given riches and wealth, lo^ni* AND HATH GIVEN HIM POWER 
 to eat thereof. 
 
 1 KINGS 3. 11. And God said unto him, Because fiPXK^ thou 
 
 hast asked this thing, rpNK^NTl and hast not asked for thyself 
 many days, neither hast asked for thyself riches, nor hast asked 
 the soul of thine enemies, fi^Kt^'BUT HAST ASKED for thyself 
 
 T : - T : 
 
 understanding to hear judgment ; . . . 
 
 2 CHRONICLES 7. 12. inyQB^ I have heard thy prayer, 
 TnfQI * AND HAVE CHOSEN this place. . . . 
 
 16. And now vujnpni* TTirQ^ * nay e chosen AND SANCTIFIED 
 this house. . . . 
 
 PROV. 9. 12. If thou art wise, 
 thou art wise for thyself ; BUT if 
 THOU SCORNEST, thou alone shalt 
 bear it. 
 
 13-14. She is simple, and ; nD'Hin^"^ 1 ! JlVflS 
 
 knoweth nothing, AND SITTETH -irm 
 
 at the door of her house, ... ' 
 
 26. 19. So is the man that 
 deceiveth his neighbour, AND 
 SAITH, Am not I in sport ? 
 
 SONG 2. 3. In his shadow 
 I delighted AND SAT DOWN; . . . 
 
 -isi injr
 
 Antiquity of the Idiom in question. 219 
 
 Various passages might be quoted to prove that 
 the Preacher's use of the preterite with simple 
 Vau is in thorough harmony, not only with the 
 usage in the other Solomonic Scriptures, but with 
 the usage in the most ancient Hebrew. 
 
 2 SAMUEL 15. 30. And all the people that were with him !|Sn 
 covered every man his head ; s^jfl AND THEY WENT UP, weeping 
 as they went up. 
 
 JUDGES 16. 18. fcOpfll rPUWl And she sent and called for 
 the lords of the Philistines, . . . ^y\ AND the lords of the 
 Philistines WENT UP unto her. 
 
 GENESIS 15. 6. rQtJTVI nifTQ pX!"l1 AND HE BELIEVED in 
 Jehovah; and he counted it to him for righteousness. 
 
 21. 25. rGiiTl AND Abraham REPROVED Abimelech. 
 
 28. 6. And Esau saw lpl-^3 that Isaac had blessed Jacob, 
 n-iW] AND HAD SENT him away to Padan-aram. 
 
 34. 5. AND Jacob KEPT SILENCE. 
 37. 3. And Israel loved Joseph . . . 
 AND MADE for him . . . 
 
 The narrative of the journeyings of the children 
 of Israel, as recorded in Numbers 10. 11-28, 
 contains SEVEN instances of the preterite with 
 simple vau prefixed : 
 
 17, 18. T)!ini AND the tabernacle WAS TAKEN DOWN ; sjyDJl 
 AND the sons of Gershon and the sons of Merari SET FORWARD, 
 bearing the tabernacle. JJD31 AND the standard of the camp of 
 Reuben SET FORWARD according to their hosts ; . . . . 
 
 21. IVDJI AND the Kohathites SET FORWARD bearing the 
 sanctuary ; ^piTl AND THEY SET UP the tabernacle. . . . 
 
 22. JJDJ1 AND the standard of the camp of the children of 
 Ephraim SET FORWARD according to their hosts ; . . . 
 
 25. JJD31 AND the standard of the camp of the children of Dan 
 
 SET FORWARD, . . .
 
 22O Evidence of Vau being Conversive. 
 
 That this vau is not conversive, but simple, is 
 evident, not only from the circumstance that there 
 is no dominant imperfect or other antecedent to 
 which these preterites could be attached by means 
 of vau conversive, but also from their contiguity 
 to imperfects with vau conversive 1VD31 in verses 
 17 and 21 corresponding to Wp1 of verses 12 and 
 13, and S?Dn in verses 18, 22, "and 25, to J?D1 of 
 verse fourteenth. Even if a suggestion, in the 
 Treatise on the Hebrew Tenses, be accepted, that 
 ' the writer passes in verse 17 from the description 
 of a particular case, with which he began, 11-16, 
 to that of the general custom : [and] hence 
 [introduces] the striking series of perfects with 
 1 17-27,' such can in no way indicate that the vau 
 is conversive, facts of repetition being expressed 
 as readily by the preterite without as by the 
 preterite with the vau. This has been shown 
 already in pages 192-194, '213, and is apparent 
 on the face of Exodus 16. 35, Numbers n. 8, 
 Joshua 6. 13-15, i Samuel 7. 16-17, and numerous 
 other passages. 
 
 In so far as the Preacher's use of the third 
 person preterite with simple vau prefixed is 
 concerned, the clear and cogent testimony of the 
 passages which have been quoted and discussed 
 under this head, and to which other passages 
 syntactically similar might be added, seems much 
 more than sufficient to rebut the charge of 
 lateness, in so far as that charge is founded on 
 the idiom in question, and to prove that, in 
 respect of this point, there is no reason to doubt 
 the truthfulness of the title which ascribes the
 
 Ecclesiastes as an Autobiography. 221 
 
 authorship of the Book of Ecclesiastes to that son 
 of David who was king over Israel in Jerusalem. 
 
 (2.) The Preterites in the First Person singular. 
 
 Of the twenty-nine cases of the preterite with 
 simple vau prefixed, the large proportion of twenty- 
 one are in the first person singular, as already 
 stated in page 210. Yet these twenty-one com- 
 prise only thirteen different words, there being 
 among them several instances of one word re- 
 peated. And even the thirteen, so far from being 
 thirteen distinct and separate specimens, indicating 
 such a predominance of simple vau over vau con- 
 versive, as is said to be ' characteristic of a later 
 period,' may be viewed rather as parts of one 
 connected series pre-eminently characteristic of 
 Ecclesiastes as an autobiography, in which the 
 writer, acting 'from intention and free choice,' 
 employs the first person singular of the preterite 
 twenty-one times with and fifty-three times without 
 the conjunctive particle, in detailing his own past 
 observation and experience. Indeed he uses the 
 first person of the imperfect or future tense only 
 seven times, thrice with (i. 17; 4. 1, 7) and four 
 times without vau conversive (2. 1, 3, 18 ; 7. 23) : 
 to which may be added four instances of the pre- 
 sent participle with ^JN (2. 18; 4. 2; 7. 26 ; 8. 12), 
 a fifth (4. 8) being contained, not in the Preacher's 
 own words, but in the quoted words of an ideal 
 person whom he describes. 
 
 From the following list it appears that most of 
 the preterites in the first person singular which 
 occur with the prefix occur also without it.
 
 222 'Preterites with the Simple Van prefixed. 
 
 ^*% 
 
 
 ^ s 
 
 .K 
 
 ^ 
 
 |- 
 
 tS J^S 
 
 s l- s 
 
 .ft E * 
 
 * . -s 
 
 till 
 
 dN 
 
 
 i: ^-s-l 
 
 Ci Tj- t- 
 
 * 
 
 -,5 '3 !! 
 
 OO N I ~J 
 
 
 |f|| 
 
 r~T ss a ?o 
 
 ~* r-t g rt I-H 
 
 <* 
 
 5 jp 
 
 w M cj od 
 
 4 
 
 
 . \O ^ ^' 
 
 
 
 c? -rJ ^ oU *^ 
 
 
 a 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 *-2" 1 74 
 
 S 
 
 ;KI 
 
 ^.r * | rtj 
 
 i 
 
 
 2 * 1-1 . - JH VQ ^ 
 
 s z 
 
 
 OO N M M t{ M 
 
 t^. c< 
 
 1 
 
 ">!> * 
 
 <N f^ ^ ^ 
 
 * 
 
 oo * 
 
 3 
 
 *- *" ** . *"" 
 
 ~ * * 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 4 oo' 
 
 *2 i * 
 
 COWN^WOO ^-0\ N 
 
 N N CO 
 
 *! 
 
 M 
 
 
 
 caF!; 1-^ fi 
 
 CQ^-fif-' ^N r 
 
 'gcfFc ? 
 
 s 
 
 s p n n 
 | F ? g 
 
 The Preterites 
 
 1 11 1 1 8 I i 1 
 
 tx C^ ^ -" M rXtn IA 
 
 ts -S 
 
 -r! * 
 
 g - 1 a 
 
 " S 5 B 
 
 -G & 2i u 
 
 
 G a c a a a & c c 
 
 C C C B 
 
 
 -^ro^xovo t^OO 
 
 2 = 2 X
 
 Preterites without the Vau. 
 
 22 
 
 iili 
 
 
 5T 
 
 
 *t fe* > 
 
 t "^-S 
 
 
 00 
 
 
 e.s-g * 
 
 "Sis 
 
 ^ ^ 
 
 *5* gj -v* %j 
 
 Ci 
 
 S2" <" <x> 
 
 CJ 
 
 o 
 
 o }p 
 
 ~ 
 
 i. *>. 
 
 N t^ 
 
 
 
 
 to 
 
 
 
 
 vn 
 
 
 o" 
 
 f 
 
 <N" 
 
 8 
 
 oo' 
 
 <* 
 
 rt" 
 
 2 
 
 u 
 
 ec 
 
 ro 
 
 *2 
 
 a 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 4 
 
 o 
 
 Cfl 
 
 cf 
 
 O 
 
 S 
 
 E 
 
 i < 
 
 ec" 
 
 8 
 
 * 
 
 1 
 
 eo" 
 4 
 
 oo 
 
 | 
 
 
 
 W oo af 
 
 00 
 
 
 
 ~ * 
 
 c^ 
 
 
 C<) O 
 
 eo^iot-ooSSSISS 
 
 CO lr^ 
 
 
 M 
 
 
 ti 
 
 HI 
 
 HH N 
 
 wwrOMi-iwi-iro N 
 
 -* 1 -O 
 
 
 n: n 
 
 cn^r^nxQSiCg 
 
 S g 
 
 a 
 1 
 
 fc^ 
 
 E H f || 1 
 
 
 j 
 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 1 
 
 
 | 
 
 y 
 
 .2 ^ 
 
 rt G 
 
 
 The Pret 
 
 i> 
 
 ui ^3 
 <A cS 
 
 ^ S 
 
 O "w TS M <u Ji 
 
 "rt D cS "-7! ^ <' 4> 
 "ti CJ Xi ^Q <l| i ^r .^ 
 
 lo-^^^^^'S ^ 
 
 1 1 1 ? ? I 4 1 J I -s 
 
 g^SwibjO^^g^C 
 
 1 1 
 
 0, 
 
 
 w N 
 
 CO *4" ^^ ^O t^ OO O^ O t^ el 
 
 CO Tl-
 
 224 The Preterite and the Imperfect. 
 
 This characteristic use of the preterite with 
 simple vau is accounted for, not by the modern 
 theory of alleged lateness, but by the nature and 
 circumstances of the book being such as to render 
 the preterite with simple vau preferable to the 
 imperfect with vau conversive. To most of these 
 twenty-one preterites the following description, 
 already quoted in page 181 from the Treatise on 
 the Hebrew Tenses, is applicable : 
 
 ' The idiom employed, instead of representing a given event as 
 arising out of, or being a continuation of, some previous occurrence 
 (in the manner of the idiom with -^), represents it as standing on 
 
 an independent ground of its own, as connected indeed with what 
 precedes, but only externally and superficially, without any inner 
 bond of union existing between them : in a word, it causes the 
 narrative to advance not by development but by accretion' 
 
 Now this is clearly illustrated by the very first 
 instance of the preterite with simple vau, namely 
 "firm in i. 13, as compared with HJJJIKI in the 
 seventeenth verse. The one word is obviously 
 synonymous with the other, except in so far as 
 the specific import of this idiomatic variation is 
 concerned. 
 
 TJie P readier* s use of the Imperfect with 
 Vau Conversive. 
 
 As already noticed in page 169, Delitzsch says 
 of "Wiw, that 'the so-called fut. consecutivum, 
 which has wholly disappeared from the Mishna- 
 language, also here . . . occurs only three times, 
 twice in the unabbreviated form, iv. i, 7, and once
 
 Interchange of Tenses. 225 
 
 in the form lengthened by the intentional ah, \. 17, 
 which, before its disappearance, was in frequent 
 use.' Yet this very form rwnxi occurs, not only in 
 Ecclesiastes I. 17, and in such late Hebrew as 
 Ezekkl 1 6. 11, Daniel 9. 3, and Nehemiah 2. 1, 6, 9, 
 but also in Numbers 8. 19, Judges 6. 9, I Samuel 
 2. 28, 2 Samuel 12. 8, Psalm 69. 12. Hence it 
 cannot indicate lateness. 
 
 Be it observed, with reference to Tirwi and ronxi 
 in Ecclesiastes I. 13, 17, that, by a most interesting 
 coincidence, a similar interchange between the 
 PRETERITE^) and the imperfect^ of the verb jru runs 
 through the history of Solomon's reign. Thus 
 
 i KINGS 
 
 4.29. And God gave ) . , 
 
 ! wisdom to 
 5-12. And Jehovah | Solomon 
 
 fl A \T~C- * 
 
 i KINGS 
 
 JU 
 
 10. 10. jflflV And she gave to the king 120 talents of gold . . . 
 which the queen of Sheba njJI^ GAVE to king Solomon. 
 
 T : i T 
 
 27. "pon JflT And the king made silver to be in Jerusalem as 
 stones ; and the cedars jny* h MADE as the sycamores. 
 
 " 18 - : -6 tn^-rw b -IDK onto ira 
 
 i KINGS 5. 25 (11), and 9. 11-12. ECCLESIASTES 5. 18 (19), 6. 2. 
 
 jrp^-ra m^n^ jru^ no^sjn ^tfu' it^x Disn-^3 DJ 
 
 : njB>3 njjy DTTI^ no^t? lo^tJTii D^DSJI iK'y D^ 
 
 no^ n^on m^ rx : . . . woo 
 
 oin UDT*-! . tnai 
 : no!?B> i^-n^ nt^x ' : . . . won 
 
 Coincidences so minute and incidental as these, 
 between the phraseology of Ecclesiastes and the 
 phraseology of the independent historic record of 
 
 p
 
 226 Discriminating use of the Tenses. 
 
 Solomon's life and reign, are not without value in 
 considering whether there is reason to doubt the 
 truthfulness of the Preacher's claim to be Solomon. 
 The coincidences, if superficial from one point of 
 view, are deep from another, with a depth and a 
 superficiality such as no personator of king Solo- 
 mon would have been likely to devise, yet such as 
 may be easily accounted for on the supposition 
 that Koheleth was the king whose reign the 
 historian was describing. 
 
 In connection with this point there yet remains 
 the crucial question, why in the first chapter of 
 Ecclesiastes the Preacher used the preterite with 
 simple vau "'Jjirw at the beginning of verse thirteenth, 
 and the imperfect with vau conversive runso at the 
 
 * J T ; V IT 
 
 beginning of verse seventeenth. What Mr. Driver 
 says of verbs denoting actions continued or 
 repeated is applicable to I Kings 5. 25 (11), in 
 explaining the occurrence of both the preterite 
 }ru and the imperfect fry in that short sentence : 
 
 4 Whether in cases like these the perfect or imperfect is employed, 
 depends naturally upon the animus loquentis : if the speaker does 
 not desire to lay any special stress on the frequency or continuance 
 of an event, the simplest and most obvious way of designating it 
 will be by the employment of the perfect.' 
 
 While the preterite jrw expresses Solomon's gift 
 simply as a fact past and accomplished, the 
 repetition of the fact year by year is brought 
 sharply out by the imperfect }rp, which fits the 
 subsequent words nitJO rut?- 
 
 In i Kings 9. 11 also, the imperfect |JV TN 
 corresponds to the present elra /3a\Xet in John
 
 The great historic announcement. 227 
 
 13. 5, already referred to in pages 169, 170;: 
 whereas the preterite fnj in verse 11 has obviously 
 the force of the PLUPERFECT : 
 
 Then giveth king Solomon to Hiram twenty cities in the land 
 of Galilee ; and Hiram went forth from Tyre to see the cities- 
 which Solomon HAD GIVEN him. 
 
 So likewise, though on different grounds, it is 
 not without reason that in the first chapter of 
 Ecclesiastes the preterite with simple vau is used 
 in the thirteenth verse, while the imperfect with 
 vau conversive is used in verse seventeenth. In 
 verse thirteenth Tirm comes immediately after the 
 great historic announcement 
 
 tfifcwra *xrv*hv *f?& wn rfenp OK 
 
 I KOHELETH WAS KlNG OVER ISRAEL IN JERUSALEM. 
 
 This fact stands out in bold relief as a sort 
 of crown or keystone to the several subsequent 
 sections of the book, and thus occupies a com- 
 manding position by itself, essentially different 
 from the subordinate position of the Tyri announce- 
 ment in Proverbs 4. 3, which is bound to the 
 preceding context by the particle 'a, and to the 
 subsequent context by vau conversive of the 
 imperfect (verses 1-4) : 
 
 Hear ye sons the instruction of a father ; and attend to know 
 understanding. For I give you good doctrine : forsake ye not 
 my law. For I was a son to my father a tender and only one in 
 the sight of my mother. And he taught me, and said unto me, 
 Let thy heart retain my words : keep my commandments, and live. 
 
 Here the statement in the fourth verse is the 
 direct historic sequel to the announcement in the
 
 228 Different kinds of sequence. 
 
 third, and is therefore bound closely to it by 
 means of the historic imperfect 'T}*): 
 
 h nnsi TM -^vh vin p -o 
 
 For I was a son to my father . . . and he taught me, and said 
 unto me, . . . 
 
 As on the contrary, however, the Wn announce- 
 ment of Ecclesiastes is syntactically isolated from 
 what precedes it, so likewise it has no closer or 
 more special connection with the announcement 
 which happens to come immediately after it 
 than with many other subsequent announcements 
 throughout the treatise, all of which point back 
 to this one verse as their headpiece, containing as 
 it were the fully expressed nominative to all the 
 seventy-three subsequent preterites in the first 
 person, throughout the Book. Hence Eccle- 
 siastes I. 12, like Genesis I. 1, does not admit of 
 the next verse being attached to it by means of that 
 intimate connection which vau conversive of the 
 imperfect represents. Accordingly, as the second 
 verse in the Book of Genesis is joined to the first, 
 not by the well-known historic NTI, or Its feminine 
 equivalent, but by the simple conjunctive vau of 
 nrvn pxm, so here, in the Book of Ecclesiastes, 
 the great outstanding fact of the twelfth verse 
 refuses to be bound by the strong conversive vau 
 of jnsi or n:nsi to the sequel, and accepts only 
 the simple conjunctive vau of Tinjl, which, while 
 sufficient to indicate the fact that it was when 
 Koheleth was king that he gave his heart to 
 wisdom, yet leaves to the twelfth verse that
 
 TJu Preacher's discrimination. 229 
 
 position of isolated paramount pre-eminence 
 which it was meant to occupy. 
 
 The circumstances of HJFWI at the beginning of 
 the seventeenth verse are essentially different ; 
 for there the Preacher mentions his HAVING GIVEN 
 his heart to wisdom as directly consequent on his 
 heart having seen the wisdom and knowledge of 
 which he had just been speaking in verse six- 
 teenth : 
 
 And my heart saw much wisdom 
 and knowledge ; AND I GAVE my heart 
 to know wisdom. 
 
 rain nsi 
 
 runs! :njm 
 iron 
 
 The connection between njo and run&tt is thus 
 precisely the connection which the historic imper- 
 fect is commonly used to express. But the same 
 cannot be said of the connection between wn of 
 verse twelfth and Wm of verse thirteenth the 
 connection between these two verses being no 
 deeper or stronger than that simple superficial 
 connection which is indicated by vau as a mere 
 conjunctive particle. 
 
 It thus appears that the use of the preterite 
 Tiru'i in the beginning of verse twelfth, and the 
 historic imperfect n:n.S1 in the beginning of verse 
 seventeenth, implies a peculiarly clear and accurate 
 discernment of the circumstances in which vau 
 conversive is specially appropriate, and of the 
 circumstances in which it is not so. Indeed the 
 Preacher's use of Virm and run&o is so pointed 
 and delicate, and so thoroughly consistent with 
 the fundamental principles of Hebrew Syntax,
 
 230 And I returned and saw. 
 
 that even if njrifcO were the only instance of vau 
 conversive throughout the Book of Ecclesiastes, 
 it would be enough to show that the author, so 
 far from being but slightly acquainted with the 
 idiom in question, had a firm grasp of it, and used 
 it with a discrimination amply sufficient to vindi- 
 cate for him, in so far as vau conversive of the 
 imperfect is concerned, the position occupied by 
 that son of David who was king over Israel in 
 Jerusalem. 
 
 As with WU1 and runw, so likewise with Ws~n 
 and n&OKl. The occurrence of the imperfect with 
 vau conversive (nsnsi) in 4. 1, 7, while the preterite 
 with simple vau (TiWl) is found in 2. 13, 3. 22, 
 4. 4, 8. 1 7, indicates very clearly the discrimination 
 with which the Preacher used the one tense and 
 also the other, prefixing simple vau to the preterite, 
 and vau conversive to the imperfect. In the 
 expression niojo ^K TOt^l art the beginning of verses 
 first and seventh, in chapter fourth, the seeing is 
 the immediate sequel to the returning. 'And I 
 returned and saw.' Accordingly the imperfect 
 ns"iK is joined by means of vau conversive to 
 VQ5? as its dominant preterite. There is no such 
 intimate connection, however, between TQJn and 
 its preceding context ; but, on the contrary, both 
 in the first verse, and again in the seventh, Tilt^ 
 introduces a new and independent meditation, 
 attached by mere juxtaposition to the previous 
 section, and having nothing like that immediate 
 consequential relation to it which is indicated by 
 vau conversive of the imperfect A comparison
 
 Nekemiafi and Zechariah. 231 
 
 of Ecclesiastes 4. 1, 7, with Zechariah 5. 1, 6. 1, 
 and Nehemiah 2. 15, the only passages containing 
 aitJW, may show how different are the circum- 
 stances in which the imperfect 31BW is used in 
 these three passages from the circumstances in 
 which the preterite TI3B>1 is used here in Eccle- 
 siastes, there being here no such historic sequence 
 as that which renders 31BW specially appropriate 
 in the writings of Zechariah and Nehemiah, where 
 it occurs quite naturally in the midst of a series of 
 imperfects with vau conversive. 
 
 : 3H5W 
 
 NEH. 2. 15. And I was view- 
 ing the wall ; and I returned 
 and came by the gate of the 
 valley, and returned. 
 
 ZECHARIAH 4. 13 to 5. 1, and 5. 10 to 6. 1. 
 
 31BW ION 1 "! 
 (3BW 6. 1) 
 
 And I said . . . And he said 
 . . . And I returned and lifted 
 up mine eyes, and saw. 
 
 The use of these and a multitude of other 
 historic imperfects throughout the Books of 
 Zechariah and Nehemiah, rather than their cor- 
 responding preterites, is identical with the use of 
 n:nxi and n&oxi in the Book of Ecclesiastes. The 
 discrimination which led the Preacher to use the 
 historic imperfect n&ONl in 4. 1, 7, led him to use 
 the preterite with simple vau Trwi in 2. 13, 3. 22, 
 4. 4, 8. 17. There is here in this diversity of tense 
 the very opposite of that want of familiarity with 
 vau conversive which deniers of the Solomonic 
 authorship allege. The Preacher used vau conver- 
 sive in the two passages (4. 1, 7), because it was
 
 232 The language of -Soliloquy. 
 
 strictly appropriate in immediate connection with 
 TQt?i ; and he refrained from using it in the four 
 other passages, for the simple reason that it 
 did not suit them. Now, in each instance, the 
 preceding context has but to be attentively 
 examined in order that it may be seen how, while 
 the sequence between TQK> and n&ONI is clear and 
 close, and exactly the sequence expressed by the 
 historic imperfect, there is no such sequence in 
 the other cases. On the contrary, in each instance 
 Wini or 'men stands at the beginning of an 
 independent meditation or soliloquy, not indeed 
 entirely detached from the preceding context, but 
 yet connected with it in a way quite different from 
 the way in which the several clauses and para- 
 graphs in historic and prophetic narratives are 
 linked together by means of vau conversive. 
 
 ECCLESIASTES 3. 21 to 4. 1. Who knoweth the spirit of the 
 sons of man that ascendeth upward, and the spirit of the beast 
 that descendeth downward to the earth ? 
 
 TPNTI And I saw that there is nothing better than that man 
 should rejoice in his own works, for this is his portion ; for who 
 shall bring him to see that which shall be after him ? 
 
 H&OX1 "'JN TDtJ* 1 ! And I returned and saw all the oppressions 
 which are done under the sun. 
 
 4. 2-4. And I was commending the dead who are already dead 
 more than the living who are yet alive. And better than both of 
 them is he who hath not yet been, who hath not seen the evil work 
 which is done under the sun. 
 
 "OX 'TT'fcOl And I saw every labour . . . 
 
 6-7. Better is a handful with quietness than both the fists full 
 
 with labour HIT mjnv 
 
 ''JN TQJJ'I And I returned and saw vanity under the sun.
 
 Separate Meditations. 233 
 
 Now surely it is obvious that in not one of 
 these four cases where the preterite with simple 
 vau (Waal or Ti3En) stands at the beginning of a 
 sentence is there that sequence for the expression 
 of which the historic imperfect is specially appro- 
 priate. 
 
 The same may be said likewise of the preterites 
 and WK11 in 8. 15, 17 : 
 
 8. 14-15. There is a vanity which is done upon the earth, that 
 there be just men unto whom it happeneth according to the work 
 of the wicked, and there be wicked men unto whom it happeneth 
 according to the work of the just. I said that this also is vanity. 
 AND I COMMENDED mirth, . . . 
 
 16-17. When I gave my heart to know wisdom and to see the 
 business which is done upon the earth (for also by day and by 
 night sleep with one's eyes one seeth not), tJVtO"! THEN I SAW all 
 the work of God, that man cannot find out the work which is done 
 under the sun. 
 
 Had the commending of mirth been the 
 immediate sequel to the affirmation of vanity, 
 then the historic imperfect rather than the 
 preterite of the verb mt? would here have been 
 the appropriate tense. The analogy of the other 
 parts of Ecclesiastes, however, shows that this 
 commendation is a separate soliloquy, resulting 
 indeed perhaps from the picture of vanity 
 described and declared in the preceding context, 
 yet introduced after such a break as rendered the 
 preterite more suitable by far than the historic 
 imperfect would have been. The preterite Trwi 
 is used with similar discrimination two verses 
 further on, immediately after a parenthetical 
 clause, which introduces such a break as, even
 
 234 The usage in the Pentateuch. 
 
 apart from other considerations, is amply sufficient 
 to explain why the preterite with simple vau 
 should have been preferred to the imperfect with 
 vau conversive. 
 
 The preceding remarks about the discrimination 
 with which the Preacher uses sometimes the 
 preterite with the simple vau, and sometimes the 
 historic imperfect, may be illustrated by the 
 similarly discriminating use of the words ta?M n&in 
 and f'N^l trjw at the beginning of Exodus 36 and 
 37 respectively. The thirty-fifth chapter ends 
 with a public intimation made by Moses in verses 
 30 to 35, about the calling and qualifications of 
 Bezaleel and Aholiab : 
 
 1 And Moses said unto the children of Israel, See, Jehovah hath 
 called by name Bezaleel . . . and Aholiab. . . . Them hath he 
 filled with wisdom of heart to do every work of the engraver and 
 the deviser and the embroiderer, . . . $^2 i1C?Jfl THEN 
 WROUGHT Bezaleel and Aholiab and every wise-hearted man.' 
 
 Now here comes in, immediately after the 
 quoted speech of Moses, the resumption of the 
 historic narrative which had been interrupted by 
 the insertion of his words. Hence the use of the 
 preterite with simple vau (ntPyi) in preference to 
 the historic imperfect (t?jn) is accounted for by 
 the break in the sequence of the history. The 
 beginning of chapter 37, on the other hand, is a 
 direct continuation of the historic narrative which 
 occupies the whole of chapter 36 the preterite 
 rvffy and the historic imperfect W) being used 
 interchangeably fifty times in these two chapters.
 
 The historic imperfect. 235 
 
 Accordingly the closeness of the historic sequence 
 renders B>JW suitable for 37. 1, similarly as, con- 
 versely, the interruption of the sequence renders 
 new suitable for 36. 1. Now the coincidence in this 
 respect between Ecclesiastes and Exodus (not to 
 speak of the general usage throughout the Hebrew 
 Scriptures) is so clear and striking as to refute the 
 allegation that the Preacher's use of the preterite 
 with simple vau prefixed is a mark of lateness. 
 
 Ecclesiastes as an Ethical Treatise. 
 
 Delitzsch says, as quoted in page 169, that in 
 the Book of Ecclesiastes ' the historic tense, the 
 so-called/ft/, consecutivum, occurs only three times, 
 notwithstanding the occasions for its frequent use.' 
 These alleged occasions might have been examined 
 had they been specified ; but in the absence of 
 any such specification, the statement is not entitled 
 to much weight. In Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Zechariah, 
 and Nehemiah, where, as in Ecclesiastes, there is 
 an abundance of verbs in the first person singular, 
 such verbs usually appear, not in the preterite, 
 as in Ecclesiastes, but in the imperfect tense with 
 vau conversive. There are ten instances of this in 
 Jeremiah 32. 8-13 ; and the one word "lOKJ, "IE1K1, 
 mNl, corresponding to TTiDKI in Ecclesiastes 2. 15, 
 9. 16, occurs no fewer than seventeen times in 
 Zechariah, and twenty-one times in Nehemiah. 
 Hence it is argued by deniers of the Solomonic 
 authorship of Ecclesiastes that as the idiom of the 
 historic imperfect thus abounds even in such late 
 books as these, it must a fortiori have pervaded
 
 236 History and Prophecy. 
 
 the Book of Ecclesiastes also, had Ecclesiastes 
 been written by Solomon. 
 
 Yet the cases are essentially dissimilar. The 
 narratives in Ecclesiastes are of a different kind 
 from the narratives recorded by Jeremiah the 
 prophet and Nehemiah the statesman. In respect 
 of vau conversive, the language of prophecy is 
 syntactically the same as the language of history. 
 But a very different style and idiom may be 
 expected in a soliloquy like the Book of Eccle- 
 siastes. Nehemiah and Jeremiah were detailing, 
 with the precision of trustworthy historians, a 
 series of events in 'which they themselves had 
 played prominent parts, both as speakers and as 
 actors. The Book of Ecclesiastes, however, is not 
 a history, but an ethical discourse, in which sundry 
 facts are mentioned, not from the stand-point of 
 the historian or annalist, but from the stand-point 
 of a philosopher or moralist. The Preacher is not 
 rehearsing, as Jeremiah and Nehemiah are doing, 
 a series of simple historical events which occurred 
 at some particular dates ; but he is writing a moral 
 treatise founded on his own experience, and on 
 his observation of the world around him. Now 
 the difference is wide and obvious between what 
 one man says and does in the progress of events 
 which he records historically, and what another 
 man says and concludes in a treatise descriptive of 
 his cogitations, and reasonings, and inferences 
 from what he has felt and known and witnessed. 
 In this way difference of tense and sequence may 
 often be accounted for by difference in the
 
 Ecclesiastes as an Ethical Treatise. 237 
 
 circumstances of narration. One thing may be 
 seen or said and reported by two different persons, 
 speaking or writing from different points of view, 
 in such a way that the one person naturally uses 
 the imperfect with vau conversive, while the other 
 uses the preterite either with or without vau 
 simply conjunctive. An annalist or historian, 
 recording in historic sequence some things which 
 he saw and other things which he said in the 
 course of certain historic transactions, might 
 naturally place his verbs, except the dominant 
 ones, in the historic imperfect. Whereas a different 
 writer, or even the same writer, rehearsing in a 
 moral discourse, the same or other things standing 
 prominently forward in his own past experience, 
 or in his general knowledge of ' the business which 
 is done upon the earth,' might, with equal 
 discrimination, use a series of preterites either 
 with or without the simple vau, according to the 
 style and structure of his treatise. Hence, as the 
 Book of Ecclesiastes, from beginning to end, 
 consists of this peculiar kind of didactic compo- 
 sition, there is very little occasion for that historic 
 sequence which vau conversive of the imperfect is 
 specially fitted to represent. And as the Hebrew 
 Scriptures contain no other book which, as a 
 whole, resembles Ecclesiastes in this respect, the 
 fact that the historic imperfect occurs frequently 
 in simple history like that of Jeremiah 32 and 
 Nehemiah 13 affords no reason for inferring that 
 Solomon would, in writing such a treatise as 
 Ecclesiastes, have used the historic imperfect in
 
 238 I said in my Heart. 
 
 circumstances essentially different from the cir- 
 cumstances in which Jeremiah and Nehemiah 
 used it. To decide against the Solomonic author- 
 ship of Ecclesiastes on this ground would be as 
 preposterous as it would be to compare, for some 
 analogous purpose, Cicero with Livy, or Homer 
 with Herodotus. 
 
 Although the Book of Ecclesiastes, as an ethical 
 treatise, may be said to be unique, yet there occur 
 here and there throughout the other Scriptures 
 sayings which resemble and illustrate the sayings 
 of Koheleth, and with which accordingly his 
 language may be compared. Now as there is, for 
 instance, a wide and obvious difference between the 
 saying of a thing in one's own heart and the saying 
 of a thing in the midst of important historical 
 transactions, so it appears that Scripture writers, 
 detailing in historic sequence what they themselves 
 said and did, use, besides the preterite, the historic 
 imperfect, as nnpkl in Nehemiah 13. 9, 11, 17, 19, 
 21, 22; whereas, for devotional and didactic 
 utterances like those of Ecclesiastes 2. 1, 2, 15, 
 the preterite "WEN is generally, though not 
 universally (Psalm 77. 11 [10]), employed ; as in 
 
 Isaiah 38. 10, 11. Psalms 
 
 49. 4. 30. 7 (6). 82. 6. 
 
 Jerem. 10. 19. 31. 15, 23 (14, 22). 89. 3 (2). 
 
 Jonah 2. 5 (4). 32. 5. 116. 11. 
 
 Job 31. 24. 39. 2 (1). 119. 57. 
 
 32. 7, 10. 41. 5 (4). 140. 7 (6). 
 
 Song 7. 9 (8). 75. 5 (4). 142. 6 (5).
 
 Historic Facts and Moral Lessons. 239 
 
 Specimens. 
 
 TTllDK ^81 \ I h ave laboured in vain. Isaiah 49. 4. 
 And I said, ( I am cast out of thy sight. Jonah 2. 5 (4). 
 
 ( I will take heed to my ways. Psalm 39. 2 (1). 
 W1OK I sa id j i w iu g up to the palm tree. Song 7. 9 (8). 
 
 From this list it is evident that THDN in 
 Ecclesiastes 2. 1, 2, 3. 17, 18, 6. 3, 7. 23, 8. 14, is 
 in thorough harmony with the Hebrew of David's 
 time. And although in none of the passages in 
 the list is the prefix 1 attached immediately to 
 vnK, as it is in Ecclesiastes 2. 15, 9. 16, yet the 
 circumstances of the case are amply sufficient to 
 show that even if (as Delitzsch alleges, but does 
 not attempt to prove, or even to illustrate) there 
 were occasions for the frequent use of the historic 
 imperfect with vau conversive, Tnoxi does not 
 supply one of these occasions. Had the Preacher 
 been an actor in the scene of the poor wise man 
 in 9. 13-15, and had he, in the course of the events 
 which he is describing, said, 'Wisdom is better 
 than strength,' similarly as Amos said, ' A basket 
 of summer fruit ' (8. 2), and Jeremiah said ' Figs ' 
 (24. 3), and Nehemiah said, ' Why is the house of 
 God forsaken?' (13. 11), the historic imperfect 
 "iD&fl or moKI would undoubtedly have been the 
 appropriate word. But when one considers that 
 the Preacher was not an actor in the scene, and 
 that his words which follow his description of it 
 are simply the moral lesson which he, in the 
 capacity indicated by the title rpnp, deduced from 
 the incident, one may see how peculiarly appro- 
 priate the preterite TnNl is, and how unwarrant-
 
 240 Arrangement of Words. 
 
 able it would therefore be to infer from the vau 
 prefixed to TIIDK that the treatise is later than the 
 lifetime of Solomon. 
 
 It may be further observed that, in so far as 
 this point is concerned, the phrase ^H TPDfcfl in 
 Ecclesiastes 2. 15, 9. 16, is virtually identical with 
 TnDK 'JK'i in Isaiah 49. 4, Jeremiah 10. 19, Jonah 
 2. 5, it being usual for the nominative to follow 
 the verb in Ecclesiastes ; whereas, in the non- 
 Solomonic Scriptures, the nominative generally 
 precedes the verb. The difference is one of mere 
 verbal arrangement, like the difference between 
 / said and said /, or the difference between 
 prniK "fax and fax prrrot in Exodus 16. 35, 
 -j-n^ nyr nns-^ in i Kings 8. 39, and njrr "TiJ? nns-a 
 in 2 Chronicles 6. 30, "isyn 3B*1 and 31KTI rmm in 
 Ecclesiastes 12. 7. Similar diversity of arrange- 
 ment is met with in n. 9 and 12. 14, and in 
 Proverbs I. 31, 3. 10, and many other passages. 
 
 That Solomon would not have been deterred 
 from using the simple vau at the beginning of a 
 clause merely because the initial word happened 
 to be such a preterite as could not be superseded by 
 the historic imperfect, is evident from the fact that 
 Solomon does actually prefix 1 to the preterite of 
 this very verb 1EK in Proverbs 9. 16, after having 
 used the same preterite without the prefix, in 
 verse fourth, precisely as in Ecclesiastes the 
 Preacher uses THEN both with and without the vau : 
 
 PROVERBS 9. 4. : ^ rnpK 2^ IDH ran ."ID" 1 TlEfC 
 
 16. : -6 nnosi afc-iorn ran ID' nsr'
 
 Absence of Historic Sequence. 241 
 
 In the seventh chapter of Job likewise, TDDK is 
 used with the conjunctive vau in verse fourth, and 
 without it in verse thirteenth. That the vau of 
 Job's TTIDN1 is not conversive but simple, is evident 
 both from its relation to the preceding preterite 
 and from the analogy of verse thirteenth : 
 
 TllD 
 
 JOB 7. 4. If I have lain down, I have 
 also said, When shall I arise . . . ? 
 
 13. When I have said, My bed shall 
 comfort me : . . . 
 
 As with THOK, so with TPfcO and other preterites 
 in the first person. There is obviously a wide 
 difference between the narrating of what one has 
 seen in the course of events of which one is 
 writing the history, and the narrating of what one 
 has seen in the course of one's general observation 
 and experience, to which one is referring in the 
 midst of a moral treatise. Hence to affirm that 
 because n&oxi is specially appropriate for the 
 historic narrative, it ought to be adopted rather 
 than TV&rn in the moral treatise where historic 
 sequence is immaterial, if not positively inappro- 
 priate ; and that it would have been so adopted 
 in Ecclesiastes had the book been written by 
 Solomon, is to confound together two things 
 essentially distinct from each other. That Kohe- 
 leth was thoroughly familiar with the historic 
 imperfect is evident from the fact that he does 
 actually twice employ it in his use of this very 
 verb nso, where it suits his purpose to do so on 
 account of the close connection between the 
 
 Q
 
 242 Discrimination in the use of the Tenses. 
 
 returning and the seeing mentioned in 4. 1, 7, 
 nxixi ^x TQtyi, already quoted in page 230. 
 
 In Song 6. 9, where there is a similarly close 
 connection between the seeing and the blessing 
 and praising, there is the same discrimination in 
 the selection of the imperfect with vau conversive. 
 In that passage the verb ntf") appears as the 
 dominant preterite, to which the other verbs are 
 attached in the historic imperfect, exactly as njoxi 
 is attached to TDK* in Ecclesiastes 4. 1,7: 
 
 : nMrpi D^J^BI nia^o nviB>&n nm nisi 
 
 Daughters saw her and blessed her : 
 
 Queens and concubines and they praised her. 
 
 That Koheleth does not prefer n&ONI to TVfcOl in 
 Ecclesiastes 2. 13; 3. 22; 4. 4; 8. 17, where there is 
 not the same close sequence which characterises 
 4. 1, 7, so far from indicating lateness, affords an 
 interesting exemplification of the accuracy of him 
 who gave ear and searched out and set in order 
 many proverbs. 
 
 Be it further observed that, while the preterite 
 WtO and the historic imperfect n&OKI are alike 
 common in simple historic narrations, niOfcO is 
 seldom or never used in the way in which Wan is 
 used in Ecclesiastes. On the other hand, the 
 occurrence of TVtf-i in Psalms 37. 25, 35; 55. 10 (9); 
 119. 96, 158; Proverbs 24. 32; Job 4. 8 ; 5. 3 ; 
 Jeremiah 4. 23-26, .and in sundry other passages, 
 might be mentioned in illustration of the harmony 
 between the Preacher's use of TP&O and the usage 
 in the Hebrew of David and Solomon, as well as 
 throughout the Hebrew Scriptures generally.
 
 Co-ordinate Preterites. 243 
 
 PSALM 37. 25. But I have not seen 2TJ73 p'"l"TPX"l N^l 
 
 the righteous forsaken. 
 
 35. I have seen the wicked terrible. p-\y 
 
 PROVERBS 24. 32. I saw, '(yea) I ; j -|D10 
 
 received instruction. 
 
 Co-ordinate or Synonymous Preterites. 
 
 As the synonymous preterites IDS and *m are 
 common to Ecclesiastes 2. 15 and Numbers 23. 19, 
 and the simple vau is prefixed to the second 
 preterite in both passages, a comparison of the 
 passages with each other is sufficient to show that 
 the Preacher's use of TTQTi is no mark of lateness. 
 
 NUMBERS 23. 19. njo^T &l -iifp nfc?y & 
 
 Hath he said ; and will he not do ? 
 
 And hath he spoken ; and will. he not confirm it ? 
 
 ECCLESIASTES 2. 15. : . . . ^3 Trim <3$>3 'J 
 
 And I said in my heart, As it happeneth to the fool, it happeneth 
 also to me ; and why was I then more wise ? And I spake (or 
 declared) in my heart that this also is vanity. 
 
 So likewise Ecclesiastes I. 16 and 2. 9 illustrate 
 what Mr. Driver (as already quoted in page 181) 
 calls ' the conjunction of two synonymous or 
 similar ideas,' and concerning which he observes 
 that the use of the copulative vau in Song 2. 10 
 ' is no criterion of date, being common to all 
 periods of the language.' Now the identity of 
 the usage in this respect in Ecclesiastes I. 16, 2.9 
 with the usage in Canticles 2. 10, and throughout 
 the Hebrew Scriptures, whether written before, in, 
 or after the days of Solomon, may be clearly seen 
 from a simple comparison of passages :
 
 244 The Second Chapter of Ecclesiasles. 
 
 Ecci.. I. 16. Lo I have mag- 
 nified and increased wisdom. 
 
 2. 9. And I became great, 
 and increased. 
 
 SONG 2. 10. My beloved 
 answered and said to me. 
 
 i KINGS 8. 47. We have 
 sinned, and have done per- 
 versely. 
 
 run 
 neon 
 
 nn 
 
 TIDE? 
 
 PSALM 38. 9 (8). I am feeble 
 and sore broken. 
 
 66. 14. Which my lips uttered 
 and my mouth spake. 
 
 i SAM. 12. 1. And I am old 
 and gray-headed. 
 
 Deuteronomy 2. 30 ; Joshua 9. 12; Judges 5. 26; 
 Psalms 22. 15 (14); 34. 11 (10); 131. 2; Isaiah 
 i. 2, and other passages, might be similarly quoted 
 in further illustration of the same usage. 
 
 The Second Chapter of Ecclesiastes. 
 
 The second chapter of Ecclesiastes, which consti- 
 tutes one prominent section distinctly marked off 
 from what precedes and from what follows, contains 
 the large proportion of twelve out of the twenty- 
 one instances of the preterite first person singular 
 with the vau prefixed ; besides nineteen instances 
 without the vau. Now it may be specially observed 
 that the structure of this leading chapter, viewed as 
 a whole, is amply sufficient to explain and account 
 for the use of the simple vau throughout it, and 
 consequently also in the other passages where the
 
 Expressiveness of t fie Preacher s Style. 245 
 
 vau is similarly prefixed to the first person singular 
 of the preterite. The Preacher is here detailing 
 minutely at considerable length his own past works 
 and experiences. In doing so, he adopts that 
 well-known and peculiarly graphic style in which 
 various actions and incidents, instead of being 
 linked together by conjunctions, are stated sepa- 
 rately in such short clauses or sentences as might, 
 in English, be marked off from one another by 
 colons or even by periods. Conjunctive particles, 
 except such as are necessary for the joining 
 together of words within a clause, are used spar- 
 ingly or not at all ; and each fact is pushed 
 forward by itself into emphatic isolation, syntacti- 
 cally independent of the context. Not until the 
 salient facts have been thus briefly stated one by 
 one as so many distinct premises, equipped in that 
 rhetorical force which the premises of logical 
 syllogisms lack, does the writer bring in, to bind 
 the whole together, a chain of deductions or con- 
 sequences rendered all the more cogent by the 
 free and copious use of simple connecting particles, 
 such as would, had they been introduced earlier, 
 have detracted from the expressiveness of the 
 composition. 
 
 Such brilliant collocations of brief emphatic 
 statements whether ethical or historical some- 
 times followed and sometimes not followed by a 
 connected series of inferences, are by no means 
 uncommon in the Hebrew Scriptures, as well as 
 in other writings. One of the earliest specimens 
 is the Song of Moses in Exodus 15, commemorat-
 
 246 Groups of Simple Preterites. 
 
 ing the overthrow of the Egyptians. Another is 
 the animated description of Jael and Sisera in 
 Judges 5. 24-31, abounding, like Ecclesiastes 2. 1-8, 
 in simple preterites, and sparkling, like the Song 
 of Moses, with that poetic fire for which, from 
 the very nature of the case, there was little 
 opportunity in the pensive soliloquy of Koheleth. 
 The twenty-ninth Psalm also is another specimen. 
 Proverbs 9. 1-3 is another ; and so is Song 5. 1-8 ; 
 both of which passages, in their grouping of 
 preterites, closely resemble Ecclesiastes 2. 4-8. 
 
 PROVERBS 9. 1-3. Wisdom HATH BUILDED her house : 
 SHE HATH HEWN OUT her seven pillars. 
 SHE HATH KILLED her killing SHE HATH MINGLED 
 
 her wine yea SHE HATH FURNISHED her table. 
 SHE HATH SENT FORTH her maidens : 
 She crieth upon the highest places of the city. 
 
 SONG 5. 1. I HAVE COME to my garden, my sister spouse : 
 I HAVE GATHERED my myrrh with my spice : 
 I HAVE EATEN my honeycomb with my honey : 
 I HAVE DRUNK my wine with my milk. 
 
 3. I HAVE PUT OFF my coat : how shall I put it on ? 
 I HAVE WASHED my feet: how shall I defile them ? 
 
 7. The watchmen that go about in the city FOUND me : 
 They SMOTE me : they WOUNDED me. 
 The keepers of the walls TOOK AWAY my vail from me. 
 
 ECCLES. 2. 4-5. I MADE my works GREAT : 
 
 I BUILT me houses : I PLANTED me vineyards : 
 I MADE me gardens and orchards, . . . 
 
 The opening sentences of Macaulay's ' History 
 of England,' and likewise chapters second and 
 third in the first book of the Histories of Tacitus,
 
 Illustration from Tacitus. 247 
 
 supply well-known specimens of the same vivid 
 style in other languages : 
 
 TACITUS I. 2. Opus aggredior opimum casibus, atrox prasliis, 
 discors seditionibus, ipsa etiam pace ssevum. 
 
 Quatuor principes ferro interempti. 
 
 Trina bella civilia, plura externa ac plerumque permixta. 
 
 Prospers in Oriente, adversse in Occidente res. 
 
 Turbatum Illyricum : Galliae nutantes : perdomita Britannia et 
 statim missa : coortre in nos Sarmatarum ac Suevorum gentes : 
 nobilitatus cladibus mutuis Dacus : mota prope etiam Parthorum 
 arma falsi Neronis ludibrio. . . . 
 
 The second chapter of Ecclesiastes contains two 
 principal parts, between which verses 9 and 10 form 
 a sort of connecting link. In the first part the 
 Preacher not as an historian but as a moralist 
 details various facts in his past career. These 
 facts he groups together in verses 1-8, so con- 
 structing the verses as to make them syntactically 
 independent of one another. The leading word in 
 each verse is a preterite in the first person singular. 
 This preterite is the second word in the second 
 verse (TnOK pint?;)) ; whereas in each of the seven 
 other verses the preterite stands at the beginning 
 of the verse. Verse fourth consists of three, and 
 verse eighth of two independent clauses, each 
 beginning with a preterite in the same person and 
 number. Verse fifth also has two initial preterites 
 in the first person singular ; but here the second 
 clause is so closely connected with, and conse- 
 quent on the first, that the second is attached to 
 the first by means of the copulative vau, thereby 
 incidentally occasioning the presence of a simple 
 preterite with vau prefixed to it : 'I made me
 
 248 Symmetry of the Second Chapter. 
 
 gardens and orchards, TiytMl and planted in them 
 trees of every fruit.' 
 
 Now the sequence between the first and the 
 second clause of this verse is such as might have 
 admitted the use of the historic imperfect, the con- 
 nection between the waging of the gardens and the 
 planting Q{ fruit-trees in them being the connection 
 commonly expressed through the attaching of the 
 historic imperfect to a dominant preterite. Yet 
 not to speak of the fact that nowhere throughout 
 the Hebrew Scriptures does the verb JN3J appear 
 in the first person of the imperfect, whereas VttJtM is 
 found ten times (2 Samuel 7. 10, and I Chronicles 
 17. 9, Jeremiah 2. 21, 24. 6, 32. 41, 42. 10, 45. 4, 
 Ezekiel 36. 36, Amos 9. 15, Ecclesiastes 2. 4, 5) 
 it may be observed that the introduction of the 
 imperfect tense into Ecclesiastes 2. 5 would have 
 marred the symmetry of the section, much of the 
 vividness of which lies in 'the luxuriance of its 
 preterites, and would have bound together as one 
 what the writer clearly intended to be viewed as 
 two distinct and practically separate statements, 
 the making of the gardens being viewed as one 
 fact, and the planting of fruit-trees in them as 
 another. It may be still further observed, that, 
 while rhetorical force is sometimes impaired by 
 sameness of style and repetition of words, there 
 are other cases in which such sameness and such 
 repetition are peculiarly emphatic. It is so in the 
 Songs of Degrees ; and it is so here. Even the 
 repetition of TiJ?L33 in the fifth verse, after it had 
 been used in the fourth, has its own appropriate
 
 Initial Preterites. 
 
 emphasis, like the repetition of painted in the 
 stanza, 
 
 ' Day after day day after day, we stuck ; nor breath, nor motion : 
 As idle as a painted ship upon a painted ocean. ' 
 
 The following is a list of the initial preterites 
 aforesaid, in verses 1-8 : 
 
 1. I said in my heart. "^lo ^3tf WlOtf 
 
 2. Of laughter I said ^>\r\f. 
 
 3. I searched in my heart. 13^3 THD 
 ( I made my works great : 
 
 4. J I built me houses : 
 
 ( I planted me vineyards. D^IDIS v 
 
 5. I made me gardens and 
 
 orchards, and planted in 
 them treej of every fruit. 
 
 6. I made me pools of water. 
 
 7. I got servants and maidens. 
 
 8. 
 
 I gathered me also silver 
 
 and gold. 
 
 I gat me men singers 
 and women singers. 
 
 "^ Twy ) 
 
 nntn 
 
 wy T 
 
 9. And I was great and 
 increased above every one that 
 was before me in Jerusalem. 
 
 Verses 9, 10 contain a summary of the preced- 
 ing series, to which they are accordingly attached 
 by means of vau. The verses that follow in the 
 second part of the chapter contain a graphic 
 description of the manner in which Koheleth 
 thought and reasoned and deduced inferences 
 from his past experience which he had just been 
 describing. Hence verses 11, 12, 13, 15, 17, 
 18, 20 begin with preterites, precisely as verses
 
 250 A Scries of Results. 
 
 1, 3, 4, 5, G, 7, 8 begin ; yet with this difference, 
 that as verses 11-20 constitute a chain of infer- 
 ences from verses 1-10, so the preterites in the 
 second series of verses receive severally the con- 
 junctive prefix, similarly as in a logical syllogism, 
 the word therefore links the conclusion to the 
 premises. Accordingly, as from the very nature 
 of the case, the first person singular of the preterite 
 abounds not only in the introductory verses 1-8, 
 but also in the verses which follow, being found 
 twelve times in verses 1-8, and nineteen times in 
 verses 9-26, so it happens that, as verses 9, 11, 12, 
 13, 15, 17, 18, 20, like verses 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, begin 
 every one with a preterite, these preterites appear 
 with that conjunctive vau purposely prefixed to 
 each of them, which is purposely excluded from 
 the beginnings of the preceding verses : 
 
 9. And I was great, and \" 
 
 increased. ' ' And I spake. 
 
 11, 12. And I turned. 17, 18. And I hated. 
 
 13. And I saw. 20. And I went about. 
 
 Now it is surely obvious that the vau is thus 
 prefixed to these preterites not in consequence of 
 the book having been written at a time when the 
 well-known idiom of vau conversive had begun to 
 lose its hold, and to be superseded by the linguistic 
 features of post-Biblical Hebrew, as deniers of the 
 Solomonic authorship allege (for the occurrence of 
 vau conversive twice in verse 24, and twenty times 
 elsewhere throughout Ecclesiastes, proves the con- 
 trary), but in consequence of the author having 
 adapted his words to his subject, and designedly 
 preserved throughout the composition a structural
 
 Connecting Particles, 251 
 
 symmetry which indicates thorough familiarity 
 with the idiom of the tongue in which he was 
 writing. ' The Preacher sought to find out accept- 
 able words.' His theme rendered the preterite 
 specially appropriate for the narration of the 
 various things, then past and accomplished, which 
 he had done, and seen, and inferred. Accordingly, 
 in the large section which consists of the second 
 chapter, he did not use the imperfect tense in the 
 first person at all, except subordinately, in verses 
 1, 3, 18, where it was indispensable in contradis- 
 tinction to the preterite. Further, as it was his 
 evident design to give special emphasis to the 
 introductory statements in verses 1-8 by isolating 
 them from one another, so it was equally his 
 design to weave his deductions therefrom into 
 one continuous whole, by means of the connecting 
 particles 1 and N 3. The eighteen verses from 
 verse ninth to the end of the chapter (except 
 verses 14 and 24) are thus joined together by 
 means of these two particles, as deliberately as the 
 preceding verses are kept distinct and separate 
 from one another, without connecting particles. 
 In this way the six verses 16, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26 
 respectively begin with 'a, and the ten verses 9, 
 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20 with 1. Hence in 
 each of these ten verses the initial word, what- 
 ever it was, received the copulative vau, which 
 accordingly appears prefixed to Pb at the begin- 
 ning of verse 10, to ""B at the beginning of verse 
 19, and to sundry preterites at the beginning of 
 verses 9, 11, 12, 13, 15, 17, 18, 20 ; as mentioned 
 in page 250.
 
 252 Appropriateness of the Preterite. 
 
 To have either dropped the conjunctive prefix 
 altogether wherever the initial word of a clause 
 happened to be a verb in the preterite tense, or 
 to have pushed the preterite away from the 
 beginning of the clause to a subordinate position 
 in it, that the prefix and the preterite might not 
 stand together, or to have substituted the imper- 
 fect with vau conversive for the preterite with 
 simple vau, as if (notwithstanding that the idiom 
 in question is as old as the Hebrew of Genesis) 
 there were, between the prefix and the preterite, 
 some grammatical incompatibility requiring the 
 preterite to give way to the prefix, would have 
 been to introduce unnecessarily such a change of 
 style as would ha\ie impaired the symmetrical 
 structure of the composition. Indeed the historic 
 imperfect would be obviously unsuitable as a 
 substitute for the preterite with simple vau, in the 
 Preacher's autobiography. Hence the allegation 
 that the author of Ecclesiastes uses the preterite 
 with vau simply conjunctive where Solomon would 
 have used the imperfect with vau conversive, is 
 not only unsupported by evidence, but is con- 
 tradicted by those syntactical features which 
 characterise the Hebrew Scriptures from Moses 
 to Malachi. Accordingly there would be no 
 extravagance in maintaining that such recourse to 
 vau conversive, though suggested by modern 
 impugners of the Solomonic authorship of Eccle- 
 siastes, as the idiom which Solomon must have 
 adopted, is an expedient which would not for a 
 moment have been thought of by an author of 
 the time and standing of Solomon.
 
 Retrospective Lists. 253 
 
 I. Retrospective List of the Preterites with Vau prefixed. 
 
 
 Van 
 conversive. 
 
 
 Simple Vau. 
 
 
 Chap. 
 
 
 Page 
 
 
 Page 
 
 
 Third Person. 
 
 
 Third Person. 
 
 First person Singular. 
 
 
 I 
 
 5 twice 
 
 196 
 
 
 13, 16 
 
 227, 243 
 
 2 
 
 24 twice 
 
 202 
 
 
 5, 9 twice, 11,12, 
 
 244-252 
 
 
 
 
 
 13, 14, 15 twice, 
 
 231, 243 
 
 
 
 
 
 17, 18, 20 
 
 
 3 
 
 13 twice 
 
 202 
 
 
 22 
 
 231 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 
 1,4,7 
 
 230 
 
 5 
 
 5, 13 twice 
 
 203, 199 
 
 18 
 
 
 218 
 
 8 
 
 10 
 
 200 
 
 
 15, 17 
 
 233 
 
 9 
 
 
 
 14 thrice, 15 twice 
 
 16 
 
 214, 239 
 
 10 
 
 3 
 
 2O I 
 
 
 
 
 12 
 
 1,2, 3 thrice 
 
 205 
 
 
 
 
 
 4, 5,6 
 
 199 
 
 9 twice 
 
 
 211 
 
 II. Retrospective List of Passages throughout the Solomonic 
 Scriptures, compared with one another in the Sections on the 
 Syntax of Conjunctions and Verbs. 
 
 Page 
 
 Ecclesiastes 
 
 Proverbs 
 
 Canticles 
 
 i Kings 
 
 158 
 
 i. 4-7 
 
 12. 1 ; 14-2; 15. 32; 
 
 
 
 159 
 
 2. 19; 3. 21; 6. 12; 8. 1 
 
 24. 22. [17. 9, 19. 
 
 
 
 l6o 
 
 I. 12 ; 7. 19 
 
 4.3 
 
 8.10,11 
 
 10. 6; li. 11. 
 
 184 
 
 I. 18 
 
 19. 5, 9. 
 
 
 
 185 
 
 2. 19; 6. 12; 7.7; ii. 8 
 
 9. 11; 15-25; 23. 16, 25 
 
 i. 4. 
 
 
 1 86 
 
 8. 10 
 
 13.5 
 
 3- 2 54- 16. 
 
 
 197 
 
 I. 4-5 ; 12. 5 
 
 29. 9 
 
 
 2. 2-3. 
 
 199 
 
 5. 12-13; 8. 10; 9. 12 
 
 
 
 8. 33, 35. 
 
 203 
 
 5. 5 ; 12. 1-6 
 
 3. 24; 20. 28; 25. 17 
 
 2. 17; 4. 6 
 
 8. 46. 
 
 211 
 
 12. 9 
 
 
 
 9. 25. 
 
 214 
 
 9. 14-15 
 
 7. 13 ; 22. 3 ; 27. 25 
 
 
 6. 32, 35. 
 
 218 
 
 5. 18 (2 Chronicles 7. 12, 16) 
 
 9. 12-14; 26. 19 
 
 2. 3 
 
 3-11. 
 
 225 
 
 i. 13, 17; 5- 18; 6. 2 
 
 4.1-4 
 
 
 5.9,25,26; 
 
 
 
 
 
 9. 11-12; 
 
 238 
 
 2. 1, 2, 15 
 
 9. 4, 16 
 
 7-9. 
 
 1 10. 10, 27; 
 
 241 
 
 2. 13, 24 ; 4. 1, 4, 7 
 
 24. 32 
 
 6. 9. 
 
 Li i. 18. 
 
 243 
 
 i. 16 ; 2. 9, 15 
 
 
 2. 10 
 
 8.47. 
 
 246 
 
 2.4-8 
 
 9. 1-3 
 
 5- 1-7. 

 
 254 Evidence of the Solomonic Authorship. 
 
 While it is the object of this portion of the 
 treatise to establish the negative position, that in 
 Ecclesiastes the rareness of the imperfect with vau 
 conversive, and the manner in which the preterite 
 appears with simple vau prefixed, are in no way 
 inconsistent with the Solomonic authorship of the 
 book, it may be observed, as recapitulated in the 
 second of the two retrospective lists, that the inves- 
 tigation of the usage which is said to indicate 
 lateness has, on the contrary, disclosed several 
 striking coincidences between Ecclesiastes and 
 the other Solomonic Scriptures, and has thus 
 incidentally augmented the mass of arguments 
 and evidences in favour of the positive position 
 that the Book of Ecclesiastes was written by 
 Solomon. 
 
 Ecclesiastes compared with Joshua. 
 
 Perhaps some objector may still urge, in dis- 
 paragement of the Solomonic authorship of 
 Ecclesiastes, that when, in other books, vau as a 
 simple connecting particle occurs at the beginning 
 of a clause containing a preterite, some word 
 is usually brought between the preterite and the 
 connecting particle. Several passages some of 
 them as early as Genesis have already been 
 quoted in which this plan has not been adopted, 
 and in which accordingly the syntax is precisely 
 that which is said to indicate lateness in Eccle- 
 siastes. It may be replied still further, however, 
 that, over and above isolated specimens, there is
 
 The Book of Joshua. 255 
 
 one book, and that not an ethical treatise later 
 than the days of Solomon, but a history written 
 several centuries before his birth, in which the 
 simple vau appears prefixed to the preterite with 
 far greater comparative and absolute frequency 
 than even in the Book of Ecclesiastes. 
 
 Throughout the Book of Joshua, which is more 
 than three times the size of Ecclesiastes, vau con- 
 versive of the imperfect abounds in regular series, 
 in strict accordance with the character of the book 
 as an historic narrative. Yet in the fifteenth 
 chapter the preterite with simple vau appears as 
 often as in the whole Book of Ecclesiastes, namely, 
 twenty-nine times. Again it appears 
 
 Eleven times in 16. 2-8, 
 
 Twice in 17. 7-9, 
 
 Twenty-two times in 18. 12-21, 
 
 And twenty-one times in 19. 11-34, 
 making, with 6. 8, 13, and 9. 12, already noticed 
 in pages 193 and 244, eighty-eight instances of 
 this usage in the Book of Joshua. 
 
 In so far as the preterite with simple vau pre- 
 fixed is concerned, the usage in Ecclesiastes is 
 identical with the usage in Joshua ; and the 
 reason for the usage is as apparent in the one 
 book as in the other. As already observed, there 
 is no canonical book with which, as a whole, 
 Ecclesiastes can be adequately compared in its 
 character as an ethical treatise. The Book of 
 Ecclesiastes is not a history but a moral discourse ; 
 whereas Joshua is one of the oldest of the strictly 
 historical books. Accordingly the imperfect with
 
 256 Geographical Statistics. 
 
 vau convcrsive abounds in it ; and, in like manner, 
 vau conversive of the preterite is not uncommon. 
 Yet there are embedded in this history sundry 
 statistics which, though they belong to the history, 
 do not contain that kind of subject-matter for 
 the expression of which the historic imperfect is 
 specially appropriate. These statistics comprise 
 the specification of landmarks and boundaries ; 
 and it is in them that the preterite with simple 
 vau is found about three times as often as in 
 the Book of Ecclesiastes. It is interesting to 
 observe that the historic imperfect appears and 
 disappears according as one passes out of the 
 statistics into the history proper, and out of the 
 history proper into the statistics. Thus, in 
 chapter fifteenth, the idiom of the historic imper- 
 fect is carried on to the second verse, from the 
 very beginning of the bgok ; but after the second 
 verse it disappears throughout verses 3 to 13. 
 The imperfect rrrp occurs without a prefix in verse 
 fourth, and the participle ros in verse 7 ; but, 
 with these exceptions, every verb in verses 3-12 
 is a preterite with simple vau prefixed. There are 
 no fewer than six instances in verse third, three in 
 the fourth verse, and twenty in verses 6-11. Now 
 this peculiarity is easily explained by the fact that 
 these verses are occupied with a geographical 
 description of the territory of Judah. 
 
 Accordingly it is evident that there was no 
 occasion for the historic imperfect, the sequence 
 being different in kind from the sequence of a 
 series of historic events. Hence the simple
 
 History and Geography. 257 
 
 sequence indicated by vau as a mere connecting 
 particle was not only sufficient, but was also more 
 appropriate than the sequence indicated by vau 
 conversive could have been. 
 
 The section consisting of the fifteenth chapter 
 is joined on as a whole by means of TV1 at the 
 beginning of verses 1 and 2 to what precedes it. 
 But when the boundary is described as having 
 gone out in one direction, and passed along 
 towards another, and come up or round to a third, 
 and so forth, there is here, in the subject-matter 
 of the composition, no more historic sequence 
 than in a list of names joined together one after 
 another by the simple connecting particle 1, and. 
 Accordingly the vau is here prefixed to the 
 preterites KV', "iny, r6y, 2DJ, vn, nxn precisely as it is 
 prefixed to such simple preterites as T\r\), TPIJ, 
 TPN-i, <nyr, vinos in the Book of Ecclesiastes. 
 
 The greater part of Joshua 15 (verses 21-62) 
 is occupied with a list of cities and villages, in the 
 naming of which, verbs are unnecessary. Hence, 
 except the initial Vm in verse 21, by which the 
 connection with what precedes is historically kept 
 up, there is no verb throughout these verses there 
 being no occasion for one. Between the descrip- 
 tion of the boundaries and the list of the towns, 
 however, there is, in verses 13-19, a brief historic 
 narrative in which the imperfect with vau conver- 
 sive abounds, occurring eleven times in it ; while 
 the preterite with vau conversive occurs thrice. 
 
 As in chapter 15, so in chapters 16, 17, 18, 19, 
 the descriptions of the boundaries are characterised 
 
 R
 
 258 Two kinds of going up. 
 
 by the preterite with simple vau ; while the historic 
 narratives in these, as in the purely historic 
 chapters, are characterised by the imperfect with 
 vau conversive. In the statistical portions, how- 
 ever, the historic imperfect, except in the common 
 word TPl, is used very sparingly. Yet wherever 
 it does appear, it seems to be used with a discrimi- 
 nation similar to that with which the Preacher uses 
 it in the Book of Ecclesiastes. Thus, for instance, 
 the going up of the lot, recorded in Joshua 18. 11, 
 and 19. 10, was a simple transaction in the series 
 of historic events narrated in the Book of Joshua. 
 It is accordingly inserted in the narrative by 
 means of vau conversive of the imperfect (?JW). 
 On the other hand, the going up of the boundaries 
 in certain directions was not an historic transac- 
 tion, but a geographical fact. Hence this fact is 
 inserted in the record by/neans of the preterite 
 with simple vau prefixed (npjfl.) : 
 
 19. 10. ^trn *nun Vi I 18. 11. $nia f>jn 
 11. no^ D^UJ r6jn 12. ^2an r6jn 
 
 In like manner NVI is pointed as the preterite 
 with simple vau (Njn) sixteen times in the geo- 
 graphical descriptions of chapters 15, 16, 18, 19; 
 whereas it is pointed as the imperfect with vau 
 conversive in the historic announcement Tvun NV'i 
 in 1 6. 1, 19. 1, 24, 21.4; and even with ^nj as its 
 nominative in 18. 11 and 19. 47, where the going 
 forth of the border is mentioned, not geographically ', 
 but historically :
 
 Tzvo kinds of passing over, 259 
 
 vrn ... no" TVI : . . -iasn nn^K-rvao KXM 16. 2-3. 
 
 : no 11 
 nTi Snjn NVM : nmro Dr6m ^aa w 5-7. 
 
 nn!> Saan 
 
 nni^D TVI : nmr rntDO mix najn nmro Jnaan 3021 
 
 : pTn K^I inn 11 ! ya_ai 
 : nno p-aa ha: wn 19. 47. : ofnia haa KXJ 18. 1 1. 
 
 So likewise in 18. 9, the passing of the men over 
 the land who were sent to describe it, being an 
 historic event, is expressed by the imperfect with 
 vau conversive (ViajW) ; whereas the passing of the 
 border over in the directions specified in verses 
 13, 18, 19 of the same chapter was and is a sub- 
 sisting geographical fact, and is accordingly 
 expressed by the preterite with simple vau 
 
 18. 9. And the men went and Visa 
 PASSED OVER through the land. 
 
 13. And the border PASSED 
 OVER from thence toward Luz. 
 
 Now to this sharply-drawn distinction between 
 >SM and r6yi, najn and iajn in the Book of Joshua, 
 the distinction in the Book of Ecclesiastes between 
 vau conversive of the imperfect and simple vau 
 prefixed to the preterite is precisely analogous. 
 The frequency also with which, in Joshua 15-19, 
 the preterite receives the prefix vau as a simple 
 connecting particle, shows how thoroughly con- 
 sistent the usage in Ecclesiastes is with the idiom 
 of early Hebrew. Even if, except in the Book of 
 Joshua, there were no specimen of the same usage 
 in the early Hebrew Scriptures, the eighty-eight 
 specimens in that ancient book would be amply 
 sufficient to refute the argument that the Book of
 
 260 The Tenses in Joshua. 
 
 Ecclesiastes must be late on account of the way 
 in which in Ecclesiastes the simple conjunctive 
 vau is prefixed to the preterite twenty-nine times, 
 which is scarcely one-third of eighty-eight. 
 
 This comparison of Ecclesiastes with Joshua 
 might be closed here but for the circumstance 
 that Mr. Driver, in his treatise on the Hebrew 
 Tenses, assigns to the preterites in question a 
 frequentative signification, and maintains that the 
 vau prefixed to them is vau conversive. 
 
 ' It is highly improbable [says he] that the perfect and waw 
 should be a mere alternative for .\: and its known meaning elsewhere 
 
 affords a strong presumption that here, too, it has a frequentative 
 force, descriptive of the course which the boundary used to take 
 used to take, namely (not, as though a participle, continuously took), 
 whenever any one passed along it or examined it.' 
 
 This theory is based on the fact that in chapter 1 6 
 
 ' Verse 8, the imperfect, the constant companion of the perfect 
 with waw conversive, makes its appgarance : ^pi, the force of which 
 
 cannot be mistaken, vindicates and establishes for all the neigh- 
 bouring and preceding perfects with waw, the frequentative sense 
 assigned to them above. Nor is this all. In xvii. 9 we have the 
 perfect again : verse 10 we have the attendant imperfect pyjQV 
 By the side of the long series of perfects and waw xviii. 12-21, we 
 find verse 20, and the Jordan 713^ used to bound it on the east : 
 with verse 21, V!Y| of cities, cf. xxi. 40, n^Tlfl similarly used.' 
 
 This explanation of the preterite with vau in 
 Joshua 15 to 19 can scarcely be accepted without 
 clear and cogent evidence in its favour. Yet 
 notwithstanding the clearness and cogency of 
 many of the illustrations and arguments contained 
 in the treatise on the Hebrew Tenses, it may be 
 questioned whether the instances adduced in the 
 above extract are sufficient to prove that the
 
 Repetition and Perpetuity. 261 
 
 preterites under discussion are frequentative and 
 their initial vau consequently conversive. 
 
 There is a wide difference between a fact 
 subsisting continuously from age to age, like a 
 landmark or local boundary, and an act or 
 practice repeated from time to time, like the 
 sounding of the trumpets at Jericho, or the daily 
 eating of the manna in the wilderness. And 
 there certainly does not appear to be anything in 
 the topographical descriptions recorded in Joshua 
 15-19,10 suggest the idea that the boundary 'used 
 to take' a certain course 'whenever any one 
 passed along it or examined it,' or to indicate 
 that such an idea may have been present to the 
 mind of the historian. 
 
 With reference to the imperfects "p*, pyJSF, and 
 haa*, it may be observed that there is this in com- 
 mon between verbs used frequentatively and verbs 
 denoting continuous existence, that repetition on 
 the one hand and perpetuity on the other, may 
 both of them be appropriately expressed either 
 by the preterite or by the imperfect tense. The 
 following words of Mr. Driver, some of which 
 are already quoted in pages 191-2, are to a great 
 extent applicable to this point : 
 
 ' Both the perfect and the imperfect alike, though upon different 
 grounds, may be employed to designate those permanent relations 
 which constitute on the one hand personal habits or attributes, 
 on the other general truths. A permanent relation of this sort 
 may, firstly, be viewed as a completed whole, and, as such, be 
 denoted by the perfect ; but inasmuch as a state or condition most 
 commonly declares itself by a succession of acts more or less 
 numerous, as the case may be its existence may, at the same
 
 262 Syntactical Connection. 
 
 time, with equal propriety, be indicated by the imperfect as well. 
 It is accordingly at once intelligible upon what principle we 
 frequently find the two tenses alternating for example in the 
 two members of a verse when used in this way ; the interchange 
 being naturally encouraged by the pleasing variety produced by 
 its adoption.' 
 
 Now why may not the usage here so distinctly 
 described by Mr. Driver himself furnish the true 
 explanation of the occurrence of the simple 
 imperfects "{?, pyJD', and iw in Joshua 16. 8 ; 
 17. 10 ; 1 8. 20, respectively ? 
 
 ( 1 6. 8.) That, as he observes, ' the force of ^ 
 cannot be mistaken' may be at once admitted ; but 
 his other remark is not so unimpeachable, that this 
 "1^ ' vindicates and establishes for all the neigh- 
 bouring and preceding perfects with waw, the 
 frequentative sense assigned to them above.' 
 That this might be pr6ved or rendered even 
 probable, it would need to be shown that there 
 subsists between "p* and those preterites some 
 syntactical connection stronger than that of mere 
 contiguity, or that TT* bears to them or to some of 
 them a dominant relation, in virtue of which their 
 initial vau is conversive. Yet there is no vestige 
 of any such connection or relation, beyond the 
 bare fact that, if the character of vm, further on 
 in the same sentence with "p*, were not othenvise 
 determined, and if the context permitted (which 
 it does not) the sentence to be translated pro- 
 spectively thus : ' From Tappuach the border 
 SHALL GO OUT seaward to the brook Kanah ; and 
 the goings forth thereof SHALL BE toward the sea,' 
 then, in that case, the initial 1 of I'm might be
 
 Syntactical Isolation. 263 
 
 viewed as vau conversive, attaching its preterite to 
 "fc as a dominant imperfect. The sentence, how- 
 ever, stands in absolute isolation, detached from 
 what precedes, and also from what follows it : 
 
 no'n vnssn vm nap !>m no* hnan ^ msno 
 
 From Tappuah the border goeth seaward to the brook Kanah ; 
 and the outgoings of it were seaward. JlNf This is the inheritance 
 of the tribe of the children of Ephraim by their families. 
 
 Here then, the continued subsistence of the 
 border makes the bare imperfect "H? 11 as thoroughly 
 appropriate as, from a different point of view, the 
 simple preterite would have been, and is in 17. 7, 
 if the vau of "pni in that passage is not conversive 
 but merely conjunctive. It is surely obvious, 
 however, that between "p* and the ten preterites 
 with vau which precede it in chapter 16, there 
 cannot possibly be any such syntactical connec- 
 tion as is necessary for constituting the relation 
 of vau conversive ; and no preterite with vau 
 prefixed, except vm of the same sentence, comes 
 nearer in the following context than "^JTI in 17. 7. 
 
 (17. 10.) The tense of fljttB' in 17. 10 may be 
 similarly accounted for. Between the preterite 
 TVl at the beginning of verse ninth, and the 
 imperfect pwa* 1 in the tenth verse, Wl is twice 
 interposed in a way which precludes any such 
 connection between the preterite and the imperfect 
 as that suggested by Mr. Driver. So likewise, 
 while pwa\ besides being closely preceded, is also 
 closely followed by w, there is not throughout 
 verses 11-17 any preterite with vau prefixed. 
 Hence the syntactical isolation of PWS' from all
 
 264 Topographical Facts. 
 
 such preterites precludes pwe" 1 from indicating that 
 the initial vau of such preterites is conversive. 
 
 (18. 20.) While a flowing river, pre-eminently 
 conspicuous as a great natural landmark, may, in 
 its character as a local boundary, be described 
 with exquisite appropriateness by verbs in the 
 imperfect tense, as "PD" 1 in Genesis 2. 10, and 
 har in Joshua 18. 20, be it further observed that 
 har (which is peculiar to this verse) does not 
 bear to any preterite with vau prefixed that 
 dominant relation without which it cannot indi- 
 cate that the vau is conversive. On the contrary, 
 it is syntactically isolated from every one of the 
 twenty-two preterites with vau in the chapter 
 the isolating words ; 3JJ ?iaj nt of verse 19 standing 
 between haj' and the twenty-one preterites which 
 precede it ; while the similarly isolating words 
 p^a ''Ja rbru nxr stand between it and rm, the 
 solitary preterite by which it is followed.in verse 21. 
 
 In this respect har and vm of 18. 20, 21 may be 
 contrasted with rivr and rvm in 17. 18. Here rprr, 
 so far from being isolated as SniP is in 18. 20, 
 stands prominently forward as a dominant imper- 
 fect to the preterites nTTi intoai ; the initial vau of 
 both verbs being accordingly vau conversive : 
 
 Kin -ly-'-a ^-n-n^' in ^ 
 
 ~f? nv 
 
 For the mountain shall be 
 thine (for it is a wood) ; AND 
 THOU SHALT CUT IT DOWN ; 
 
 AND the outgoings of it SHALL 
 BE thine. 
 
 Mr. Driver says, in-the end of the extracts quoted 
 in page 260, 'With verse 21, Vrn of cities, compare
 
 Synonymous Expressions. 265 
 
 xxi. 40, nj vp nn similarly used.' But surely it would 
 be more to the point to compare D^yn vni in 18. 21 
 with D^yn Vi|H in 15. 21, since the one passage ob- 
 viously coincides with the other. Surely a simple 
 comparison of the two is sufficient to show that 
 vm is synonymous with Vm; and that accordingly 
 as the vau prefixed to the imperfect YTP is clearly 
 conversive, so the vau prefixed to the preterite 
 vn must be simply conjunctive. This may be 
 abundantly corroborated by comparing together 
 also such passages as 16. 8 and 17. 9. 
 
 16. 8. rio-in vnxvn rm 
 17- 9- noTi vn&wn Tn 
 
 In like manner rvm in 15. 4 ; 1 8. 12, 14, 19, and Vrn 
 in 15. 7, 11 ; 16. 3 ; 19. 14, 22, correspond to TVi 
 in 19. 33, and rm in 19. 29. 
 
 Now it may be observed incidentally that 'nn 
 is one of those compounds which, being of frequent 
 occurrence, are sometimes used as if they were 
 simple uncompounded words. Hence TPl, though 
 singular, appears occasionally where other verbs 
 would likely be plural (as here in 17. 9). And 
 besides being suitable for strict historic sequence, 
 it may be used, and is here used, synonymously 
 with Vftt, where the verb, had it been some other 
 verb than rvn, would have appeared in the preterite 
 with simple vau prefixed, according to what is 
 stated in page 177. The historic imperfect VPi is 
 even the initial word not only of Joshua and of 
 Judges (each of which books is closely joined to the 
 book immediately preceding it), but also of Ruth, 
 Samuel, Ezekiel, Jonah, and Esther a position
 
 266 Correspondence of Tenses. 
 
 occupied by the historic imperfect of no other 
 verb Sip 111 ! of Leviticus I. 1, and "DTI of Numbers 
 i. 1, being not cases in point, inasmuch as Exodus, 
 Leviticus, and Numbers are in reality not three 
 separate books, but only three parts of one book. 
 
 With reference to the preterites under discus- 
 sion, it may be admitted as ' highly improbable 
 that the perfect and waw should be a mere alter- 
 native for -1'; for it has been shown that both in 
 Ecclesiastes and in Joshua the preterite with 
 simple vau prefixed is used where that strict 
 historic sequence does not exist, for which vau 
 conversive of the imperfect is specially appropriate. 
 The use of W. synonymously with vm, however, 
 is not an instance of the preterite being an 
 alternative for -1, but an instance of -1 being an 
 alternative for the preterite, yet only in the case 
 of the substantive verb rpr. 
 
 This important fact also must be specially 
 noticed, that the occurrence of TPl in 15. 2 ; 19. 10, 
 18, 25, 33, in regimen with such preterites as r6jn 
 and yJDl, is directly contradictory of the sup- 
 position that their initial vau is vau conversive. 
 Vau conversive of the future is associated, not 
 with vau conversive of the preterite, as the 
 supposition in question would imply, but with the 
 simple preterite, similarly as vau conversive of the 
 preterite is associated with the simple future. 
 Hence the historic imperfect TPI indicates that 
 the preterites found in regimen with it are simple, 
 and that accordingly their initial vau is not con- 
 versive, but merely conjunctive.
 
 The Regimen of Verbs. 267 
 
 There is yet another circumstance which proves 
 that the vau prefixed to the preterites cannot be 
 conversive. That circumstance is the fact that 
 the three preterites "Oy, KV, and WE) occur without 
 as well as with the vau, and have precisely the 
 same temporal signification without it which they 
 have with it. In this respect they are analogous 
 to WU, VPDK, WK1, and the other preterites in 
 the Book of Ecclesiastes which occur both with 
 and without the simple vau prefixed. 
 
 19. 12-13. . . . and went up to 
 Yaphia, and from thence passed 
 over eastward, . . . 
 
 16-17,32-33. The.. . lot went 
 forth . . and their border was . . 
 
 34 And it reached to Zebulun 
 from the south ; and to Asher it 
 reached from the west, (sea), . . . 
 
 ncnp iny DB>I : IPS' 
 
 (: yaB>n inijn KV 40.) 
 aaao jtara 
 
 tf D 
 
 Now the placing of these bare preterites along- 
 side of the preterites with vau prefixed, makes 
 it clear that as there is no temporal difference 
 between "ay and "lajn, yja and yJBl, so the vau has 
 not the force of vau conversive, but is simply 
 conjunctive. In so far as NX" 1 is concerned, it may 
 be observed (in accordance with what is already 
 noticed in page 258) that since the going forth of 
 the lot, like the going up of it, is of the nature 
 of an historic transaction, the simple perfect K^ 
 corresponds to the historic imperfect K^ (1,24) ; 
 whereas, on the other hand,sinceiayand yjD describe 
 geographical facts, "iayi and yJSl are identical with 
 them in respect of tense the vau exerting no 
 conversive power whatever, and serving only
 
 268 Comparison of Passages. 
 
 the purpose of a mere connecting particle. Thus 
 the supposition that the vau prefixed to the 
 preterites is conversive, is negatived alike by 
 the correspondence of N to NV*1_ and by the 
 
 correspondence of "QJM and WB1 to "ny and W3. 
 
 - T ; - T -T -T 
 
 This important point receives a remarkably 
 clear corroboration from Numbers 34. 1-12, which 
 closely coincides with the geographical portions 
 of Joshua 15-19, except in this noteworthy 
 particular, that, whereas in the Book of Joshua 
 the allocation of the land is described as past 
 and completed, it is prescribed in the Book of 
 Numbers as something yet future. The charac- 
 teristic preterites rvm, vm, 2D31, najn, N^"i, m are 
 common to both sections ; whereas the passage 
 in Numbers contains also Drpixnm and nnoi. 
 
 s 
 
 Now, in the question at issue, the testing-point of 
 difference is this, that in Numbers 34. 1-12, certain 
 verbs analogous to the bare preterites "QJJ, K\ 
 and JN3 in Joshua 19. 13, 17, 32, 34, 40 stand, not in 
 the preterite, but in the imperfect tense. These 
 bare imperfects are ?ari in verse 2, iTiT 1 in verses 
 6, 7, 9, rrnn in verse 12, and isnn in verses 7, 8. 
 Yet unlike the imperfects lf?\ p]a, and ^3T, 
 pointed out by Mr. Driver in Joshua 16. 8 ; 17. 10 ; 
 1 8. 20, these imperfects in the twelfth chapter 
 of Numbers stand, not syntactically isolated 
 from the preterites with vau, but intimately 
 associated with them in such a way as to make 
 it unmistakeably clear that these preterites with 
 vau correspond, not as in Joshua to preterites
 
 An Ancient Illustration. 269 
 
 without vau, but to the imperfects without vau. 
 In other words, the initial vau of the preterites in 
 Numbers 34. 1-12 is obviously conversive, attach- 
 ing them to the imperfects as dominant verbs. 
 
 Here then the facts and reasons which prove 
 the initial vau of the preterites in Numbers 34. 
 1-12 to be conversive, prove, on comparison, the 
 initial vau of the preterites in Joshua 15-19 to be 
 not conversive but simple, and thus strictly analo- 
 gous to the initial vau of the simple preterites in 
 the Book of Ecclesiastes. 
 
 It may be observed still further that the Book 
 of Joshua, in its geography, like the Book of 
 Ecclesiastes, in its character as an ethical treatise, 
 is almost unique there being no other lengthy 
 portion of Holy Scripture occupied with a geo- 
 graphical description similar to that contained in 
 Joshua 15 to 19. Yet there is one short passage 
 (not later but earlier than Joshua) with which, in 
 this matter, and consequently in respect of Tense, 
 Joshua 15-19 may be compared. That passage, 
 namely Numbers 21. 15, occurs not in an address 
 pointing forward to the future like Numbers 34. 
 1-12, just discussed, but in a narrative of past 
 events in the history of the children of Israel : 
 
 :asi ta:6 JJKWI.* ny nae6 HIM* IPK n^mn IEW 
 
 And the stream of the brooks, which stretcheth to the dwelling 
 of Ar, AND LEANETH to the border of Moab. 
 
 Here the bare preterite HGJ corresponds exactly to 
 "uy and yJS in Joshua 19. 13, 34, while, with equal 
 exactness, jy^i corresponds to r6yi, yjsi, nan, NVl, 
 2DJ1 in the immediate context of "ay and yJD and 
 throughout the geographical parts of Joshua 15-19.
 
 270 Language adapted to its Subject. 
 
 Now although, in respect of subject-matter, 
 there is a wide and obvious difference between 
 the geography of these five chapters and the 
 autobiography of Ecclesiastes, yet the Book of 
 Ecclesiastes and the geographical portions of the 
 Book of Joshua are alike in respect of the rareness 
 of that peculiar sequence for the expression of 
 which vau conversive of the imperfect is specially 
 adapted. There was very little occasion for the 
 use of the historic imperfect either in the geo- 
 graphical outlines recorded by the ancient historian 
 or in the ethical discussions of Koheleth. Hence 
 the frequency of the preterite with simple vau in 
 Ecclesiastes, and its much greater frequency in 
 Joshua 15-19, are to be explained and accounted 
 for on one and the same common principle, that 
 ' language must be adapted to its subject.' 
 
 This identity of usage affords a valuable con- 
 firmation of the fact that the Preacher's mode of 
 employing the preterite with simple vau prefixed, 
 so far from indicating lateness, is in thorough 
 harmony with the Hebrew style and diction which 
 prevailed not only in the days of Solomon, but 
 even at a much earlier date. 
 
 Revi&v of the Evidence. 
 
 It is the aim and object of the fifteen Sections 
 on the Preacher's use of the conjunctive prefix to 
 establish not only the negative position that his 
 usage is in no way inconsistent with the Solomonic 
 authorship of Ecclesiastes, but also the positive
 
 Solomons Prayer and Song. 2 7 1 
 
 position that it vindicates the truthfulness of the 
 ascription of the authorship to King Solomon. 
 
 Mr. Driver, after mentioning that ' in the Song 
 of Songs -\ occurs but twice, vi. 9,' adds, as quoted 
 in page 182, ' In this book, however, there is very 
 little occasion for either form being used.' Now 
 this selfsame reason is surely a sufficient explana- 
 tion of the fact that vau conversive of the imper- 
 fect occurs only thrice in the larger Book of 
 Ecclesiastes. In this, as in various other respects, 
 Ecclesiastes coincides not only with the Song of 
 Solomon, but also with Solomon's Prayer at the 
 Dedication of the Temple the historic imperfect 
 being found in that memorable prayer only once 
 (i Kings 8. 24). The multitude of facts and illus- 
 trations already adduced, show clearly that here 
 in Ecclesiastes, as in the Prayer and in the Song 
 of Solomon, there is ' very little occasion ' for vau 
 conversive of the imperfect. Yet where there is 
 such occasion, namely in 1. 17 and 4. 1,7 (examined 
 in pages 226 to 232), the historic imperfect is used 
 with a discrimination which proves the author's 
 familiarity with it. 
 
 Similarly conclusive is the Preacher's use of the 
 preterite with vau conversive. The occurrence of 
 this idiom in Ecclesiastes, not only thrice,but above 
 six times thrice, is amply sufficient to vindicate 
 the book from the charge of lateness in so far as 
 this point is concerned. Mr. Driver says, as 
 quoted in page 181, that in Ecclesiastes 'the 
 perfect with simple waw obtains a marked and 
 indeed almost exclusive preponderance.' Now,
 
 272 Classification of Preterites. 
 
 surely the preponderance of twenty-nine over 
 nineteen can scarcely be called ' almost exclu- 
 sive' ; and even although the preterite with simple 
 vau has the numerical preponderance over the 
 preterite with vau conversive, yet the preponder- 
 ance is the other way, if, instead of being merely 
 counted, the instances on both sides are classified 
 and estimated accordingly. As has already been 
 pointed out in pages 210 and 221, all the twenty- 
 one instances of the first person singular with 
 simple vau belong to one distinct series, naturally 
 pervading Ecclesiastes as an autobiography, and 
 therefore entitled to be reckoned in this classifica- 
 tion, not as t^vcnty-one y but merely as one. In like 
 manner the five instances of the third person in 
 9. 14-15 form similarly but one group; to which 
 there fall to be added the pair of instances in 12. 9, 
 and the one instance standing by itself in 5. 18 
 four being thus the aggregate number of classified 
 cases of the preterite with simple vau. (Page 211.) 
 
 On the side of vau conversive the largest number 
 of preterites thus grouped together are seven, in 
 12. 1-6, as quoted in page 205. Of the twelve 
 instances which remain, the four in 2. 24, 3. 13 form 
 one group (page 202). There are also a pair of in- 
 stances in i. 5, and another pair in 5. 13 ; whereas 
 the four in 5. 5, 8. 10, 10. 3, 12. 5, respectively, stand 
 each one by itself as an independent instance 
 eight being thus the aggregate number of classified 
 cases of the preterite with vau conversive. 
 
 It thus appears (notwithstanding the mere 
 numerical preponderance of 29 over 19) that, in
 
 The First personal Pronoun. 273 
 
 respect of classification, and syntactical value, 
 and variety as to style and diction, the preponder- 
 ance is on the side of vau conversive rather than 
 on the side of the simple vau. And it appears still 
 further, that even in respect of botJi uses of the 
 conjunctive particle (the conversive and the si mple] 
 there subsists, in so far as the Syntax of the Tenses 
 is concerned, a deep and extensive coincidence 
 between the style of Ecclesiastes on the one hand, 
 and the style of the Solomonic History and the 
 Proverbs and Song of Solomon on the other. 
 Accordingly that which is urged as one of the 
 strongest of the arguments against, turns out on 
 the contrary to be one of the strongest of the 
 evidences in favour of the Solomonic authorship 
 of Ecclesiastes. ' I took thee,' said Balak to 
 Balaam, ' to curse mine enemies ; and behold 
 thou hast altogether blessed them.' 
 
 The Pronoun of the First Person Singular. 
 
 One pre-eminent feature in the Book of Ecclesi- 
 astes is the frequency with which Koheleth uses the 
 first personal pronoun 'OX, and places it after the 
 preterite to which it is the nominative. As already 
 stated in page 222, Ecclesiastes contains nineteen 
 instances of ""JK thus placed immediately after its 
 verb. In the non-Solomonic Scriptures *JK as a 
 separate nominative is not uncommon where the 
 speaker, as the subject of the verb, occupies a 
 position of special prominence ; as, for instance, in 
 Genesis 14. 21-24, where Abram declines the offer 
 
 S
 
 274 Position of the Nominative. 
 
 made by the king of Sodom, and assigns, as the 
 reason of his declinature (verse 23), 
 
 Lest thou shouldest say, TnE>J?n "^K I have enriched Abram ; 
 
 and in i Kings 21. 7, where Jezebel says to Ahab, 
 
 jnx "OX I will gi ye to thee the vineyard of Naboth the Jezreelite. 
 As in these two passages, so likewise generally 
 (though not universally) elsewhere than in Ecclesi- 
 astes and Canticles, 'JN, when expressed separately 
 from the verb to which it is the nominative, is 
 placed before the verb, as in Genesis 48. 22 ; Judges 
 17. 2; I Samuel 12. 2; 2 Samuel 19. 21 (20); Psalms 
 2. 6; 3. 6 (5); 17. 4,6; 116. 11; Job 5.8; 19. 25; 
 2 Chron. 2.1 ; 6. 2. In the Book of Ecclesiastes, how- 
 ever, "ON is placed invariably after the verb, except 
 where some other word intervenes, as in I. 12, 16. 
 In connection with this point, it is a noteworthy 
 circumstance that in the only instances (two in 
 number) in which "OX is used as the nominative to 
 a preterite in the Song of Solomon, it is placed 
 immediately after its verb, exactly as it is placed 
 nineteen times in the Book of Ecclesiastes : 
 
 5. 5. I arose to open to my Ht"I? nnsk "ON TlOp 
 
 beloved. 
 6. I opened to my beloved. "HI*! 7 ^X TinJlD 
 
 In Proverbs 24. 32 likewise, "OJK follows its verb 
 in the imperfect tense with vau conversive, simi- 
 larly as "OK follows the simple preterite in the Book 
 of Ecclesiastes ; for there is no reason to doubt 
 that, as indicated by the accents, 'MK in this 
 passage is nominative to the preceding rather 
 than to the following verb :
 
 Preterites with the Nominative. 275 
 
 Now while it appears from such passages as 
 2 Samuel 12. 28, Job 13-13, Ezekiel 16. 60, 62, that 
 the placing of ""JK after its verb is not confined 
 exclusively to the Solomonic Scriptures, yet, con- 
 sidering the infrequency of this arrangement 
 except in the Book of Ecclesiastes, the fact of its 
 occurrence in Proverbs 24. 32 and Song 5. 5, 6 is 
 not without value in connection with the question 
 of authorship. 
 
 It may be further observed that the manner in 
 which "OX is used in the Book of Proverbs, where it 
 occurs seven times (i. 26; 8. 12, 14, 17, 27; 23. 15; 
 26. 19), is confirmatory of the Solomonic author- 
 ship of Ecclesiastes. Only once in the Proverbs 
 (8. 12) is ^K the nominative to a preterite ; and in 
 that one instance the usage coincides exactly with 
 the usage in Ecclesiastes I. 12. In each passage 
 there is inserted, between "OK and the verb to which 
 it is the nominative, a characteristic feminine 
 noun in apposition to it : 
 
 PROVERBS 8. 12. riDIJ? Tl33t? HCOn "ON 
 ECCLESIASTES i. 12. & w 
 
 Thus then, whereas in the whole of Solomon's 
 Proverbs and Song 'OK is the nominative to a 
 preterite only thrice, it is a circumstance neither 
 uninteresting nor insignificant, that while the 
 usage in Proverbs 8. 12 differs from the usage in 
 Song 5. 5, 6, each of these two usages has its exact 
 counterpart in the Book of Ecclesiastes. So like- 
 wise, in Ecclesiastes 2. 14, 15, ^fcTDJ, though not 
 peculiar to the Solomonic Scriptures (Job 13. 2 ;
 
 276 The Preacher s personal experience. 
 
 33. 6; Hosea 4. 6), may be compared with 'JN D3 
 in Proverbs I. 26 ; 23. 15, similarly as PiX'DJ in 
 Ecclesiastes 7. 22 may be compared with nriK'DJ in 
 Proverbs 26. 4, and 1E'p3 nom in Ecclesiastes 7. 29 
 with HT Dm in Proverbs 18. 8 and 26. 22. In 
 Ecclesiastes 3-14; 8. 15, also, as in Proverbs 10. 22, 
 24; H.28; 13. 13; 23. 11 ; 28. 10, Kin, as a separate 
 nominative, precedes its verb, which is in the 
 imperfect tense; whereas in Ecclesiastes 9. 15, 
 where u?E> is preterite, Nin, like ^N, follows its verb. 
 With reference to the Preacher's frequent use of 
 \3N as a separately expressed nominative to the 
 first person preterite, even Hengstenberg, who 
 denies the Solomonic authorship of Ecclesiastes, 
 observes, 
 
 ' When the writer says, " I spake," the " I" is emphatic : "/ 
 spake." Some will have it that ''jx frequently occurs in this book 
 along with the first person of the verb superfluously even where 
 no emphasis whatever is intended, as for example in chapters i. 16, 
 ii. 11, 14, 18, Hi. 17. In such cases, however, ijj$ is by no means 
 pleonastically used. It calls attention to the importance of the 
 person who is speaking, who is declaring his experiences. ' 
 
 To the same effect Dr. Pusey also, who, on the 
 other hand, accepts the Scriptural testimony to 
 Solomon as the author of Ecclesiastes, says, in the 
 notes to his sixth lecture on Daniel the Prophet, 
 
 ' Of course, if the use of the personal pronoun with the personal 
 verb, ">JX TnDX is emphatic, it is no mark at all of modernness. 
 
 Solomon is giving his own personal experience, in a matter in 
 which no other had experience so large, of the vanity of everything 
 human, out of God. If any one will examine the cases in which 
 iJK is added, and those in which it is not, in Ecclesiastes, he will 
 
 see that it has been added, not pleonastically, but on a definite 
 principle.'
 
 Testimony of the Moabite Inscription, 277 
 
 The Moabite Stone. 
 
 In connection with the syntax of conjunctions, 
 verbs, and pronouns, the question of the author- 
 ship of Ecclesiastes may be illustrated in various 
 interesting particulars by reference to the inscrip- 
 tion on the Moabite Stone. The style of the 
 inscription and the style of Ecclesiastes resemble 
 each other (i) in the remarkable frequency with 
 which the first personal pronoun (^N in Ecclesiastes, 
 and "px on the Stone) is used as a separate 
 nominative to the preterite tense of verbs, and (2) 
 in a sharply-drawn distinction between the historic 
 sequence of the imperfect with vau conversive, 
 and the aggregation of sundry facts expressed by 
 means of preterites syntactically independent of 
 one another. As these facts, though historical, 
 are not consequential one on another, they are 
 strung together by means of simple vau, used in 
 the inscription precisely as it is used in the Book 
 of Ecclesiastes ; with the exception of a simple 
 incidental difference in verbal arrangement, result- 
 ing from the order in which the preterite and its 
 nominative are placed relatively to each other. 
 In Ecclesiastes the vau is prefixed immediately 
 to the preterite, in consequence of the preterite 
 preceding its nominative : whereas in the Moabite 
 Inscription, the vau is prefixed immediately to the 
 nominative, in consequence of the nominative 
 preceding its preterite ; similarly as is the case in 
 Psalm 31. 23, Isaiah 49. 4, Jeremiah 10. 19, and 
 Jonah 2. 5, already mentioned in page 240.
 
 278 Illustrative extracts from 
 
 1 I Mesha (ani) the son of Chemoshgad, king of Moab, the D 
 
 2 ibonite My father reigned over Moab thirty yrs ; and I reign 
 
 3 ed after my father And I made this high place to Chemosh in Korcha 
 
 4 - - because he saved me from all the spoilers, ) 
 
 and because he made me look on all my haters | Om ) 
 
 5 ri, king of Israel, he also afflicted Moab many days, ) 
 
 because Chemosh was angry with his la 
 
 6 nd j And his son succeeded him ; and he also said, I will afflict Moab. | ) 
 
 In my days he said - - - \ 
 
 7 and I shall look on him and on his house I 
 
 14 ... And Chemosh said to me, Go take Nebo over Israel | - - - 
 
 15 went in the night, and fought against it from the rise of ) 
 
 the morning until noon ; | and I \ 
 
 1 6 took it and slew altogether seven thousand 
 
 17 and I took from thence the v 
 
 1 8 essels of Jehovah ; and I brought them before Chemosh | ) 
 
 ' and the king of Israel buil^ \ 
 
 19 Yahaz, and dwelled in it in his warring against me | ) 
 
 And Chemosh drove him out from before me ; and \ 
 
 20 I took from Moab two thousand men, all the poor thereof, | ) 
 
 and placed them in Yahaz, and took it | \ 
 
 21 to add to Dibon 1 1 built Korcha, the wall of the forests, and the wa/7 of 
 
 22 the mound and I built the gates thereof; and I built the towers ) 
 
 thereof | and \ 
 
 23 I built the king's house [ and I made the prisons of the trespassers ) 
 
 in the midst of J 
 
 24 the city | And (there was) no cistern in the midst of the city in ^ 
 
 Korcha ; and I said to all the people, Make to j 
 
 25 yourselves every man a cistern in his house | And I dug the trench \ 
 
 for Korcha . . . \ 
 
 26 Israel | I built Aroer ; and I made the highway in Arnon ; . . .
 
 the Moabite Stone. 279 
 
 -in - axo njoa p y&?o "px i 
 
 ata "JJKI np jpto? axo ^y 1^0 . "-ax I ^y 2 
 
 a I nmpa K>oa^> nxr noan . pyi I 'ax . -inx *n 3 
 
 oy I 'jut? ba 'jx-in s ai pi^n . bo "wn a yp 4 
 
 xa J^OD ejjn *a pi jo' nso ns uyi - nt^ o . 5 
 
 . nox 'O'a I 2so ns wy n oa IOSM njn na^n'-i I nv 6 
 
 I nrmi nn . KISI 7 
 
 nna . n . rnx i troa . -iox"i 14 
 mnt^n yjno na nnni'Ni . n^a ^n 15 
 
 . rfa . j-inxi . nm 16 
 17 
 
 31 IK'' 1 l I C>O3 3B OH . 3PIDK) Hin 11 ^ 18 
 
 BO PO3 . nanri I ^ riDnrna . na . a^i . jn 19 
 
 ^n^a nxtrxi I ntn . b PK jnso asoo np 20 
 
 om pyn non . nmp *naa ^s* I pn ^y . nDD^ 21 
 
 I nn^njio *naa IJKI rvw *roa IJNI I !>ayn 22 
 
 pa p Ksn . 'xb "n^y 12x1 I ^o na ^rua - "p 23 
 
 i^y . nyn . W nosi nmpa ipn . aipa . jx . nai I npfi 24 
 
 nrraon *ma *PNI I nn'-aa ia B>K na 25 
 
 iyiy vua . n3x I !?x-i^' 26
 
 280 The two parts of the Inscription. 
 
 In so far as vau conversive and the pronoun "ptf 
 are concerned, the ancient inscription from which 
 the preceding extracts are taken may be viewed 
 as consisting of two parts the first ending and 
 the second beginning at the perpendicular stroke 
 between pH and "pK in line 21. In the first part 
 the preterite of the first person, with the separate 
 nominative "px, occurs only once (TD7D ~pN1 lines 
 2-3) ; while the historic imperfect abounds in it, 
 being found twenty-nine times nineteen in the 
 first person, and ten in the third. In the second 
 part, on the contrary, the historic imperfect occurs 
 very seldom, only twice (")E>H1 24, NI2W 30) in lines 
 21-30, the four last lines, 31-34, being too much 
 mutilated for discussion here. On the other hand 
 the first person of the preterite, preceded imme- 
 diately by "px as its nominative expressed 
 separately, occurs twelve' times in lines 21-30 
 aforesaid. There are also, without a separate 
 nominative, [Tfjcnnn / devoted, and TIED" 1 / added, 
 in lines 17 and 29 respectively. 
 
 List of all the preterites in the first person -with "p&$ in lines 1-30. 
 
 
 Times 
 
 Lines 
 
 TOpQ "p N1 And I reigned. 
 
 2 
 
 2, 28. 
 
 ( "PK I built. 
 
 4 
 
 21, 26, 27 twice. 
 
 i *PK1 And I built. 
 
 4 
 
 22 twice, 23, 29. 
 
 iftWy "ptfl And I made. 
 
 2 
 
 23, 26. 
 
 THS 13 Kl And I dug. 
 
 I 
 
 25- 
 
 This list exhibits all the instances of "ptf in 
 lines 1-30, except one, namely "pS as the initial 
 word of the inscription. Hence it appears that
 
 Discrimination of Tenses. 281 
 
 *PN, as a separately expressed nominative, is used 
 nowhere with the imperfect tense, but only with 
 the preterite, which thus corresponds exactly in 
 syntactical character to the preterite with ''JN in 
 the Book of Ecclesiastes. 
 
 Be it further observed that the king of Moab, 
 like Koheleth, uses the first person of two verbs 
 both in the historic imperfect and in the preterite 
 with simple vau, and manifests, in this diversified 
 usage, a discrimination resembling that with which 
 Koheleth wrote Timi in Ecclesiastes I. 13 and 
 ronro in i. 17, ^N WK"H in 2. 13, 4. 4, and njn1 in 
 4. 1, 7. The verbs used by Mesha both in the 
 preterite and in the imperfect tense are run and 
 n^y. They occur in the historic imperfect as pxi 
 and EWi in the ninth line, where there is that 
 strict chronological sequence for the expression of 
 which vau conversive of the imperfect is specially 
 appropriate : ' AND I BUILT Baal-Meon, AND 
 MADE in it the ditch.' On the other hand, the 
 preterites vm "pHl and Ti^y "pxi occur in lines 
 22, 23, 26, 29, in the midst of sundry verbs placed 
 in co-ordination with one another : ' And I built 
 the king's house ; and I made the prisons,' 22-23. 
 
 Note. The co-existence of the scriptio plena nrPSH i n line 25 
 with the scriptio defectiva nj"Q21 in line 7, and J-Q in lines 27, 30, 
 illustrates what has already been said in pages 154 and 159, with 
 reference to such orthographical diversity, and shows the need 
 there is for caution in considering either the one scriptio or the 
 other as a possible evidence of date. 
 
 Now, in view of the actual facts of the case, can 
 there be any doubt that if only the second part of 
 the inscription on the Moabite Stone had been
 
 282 Modern Criticism. 
 
 extant, such critics as deny the Solomonic author- 
 ship of Ecclesiastes on account of the manner in 
 which the preterite with simple vau occurs where 
 they assert that Solomon must have used the 
 historic imperfect, would have maintained that the 
 inscription cannot be as ancient as the days of 
 Mesha, king of Moab? seeing that whereas lines 
 21-30 contain thirteen instances of the simple 
 preterite, they contain only two instances of the 
 historic imperfect. Can there be any doubt that if 
 the inscription, instead of being actually extant 
 in the veritable stone on which it was originally 
 carved, had been found copied into an old manu- 
 script, such critics would have maintained that 
 the authorship of the second must be different 
 from the authorship of the first part ? seeing that, 
 whereas the historic imperfect abounds in the first, 
 it is almost entirely excluded from the second 
 part, and that, whereas the first person preterite 
 with "px abounds in the second, it occurs only 
 once in the first part. The structural difference 
 in style and diction between the first and the 
 second part of the Moabite inscription, even 
 though the two parts form but one consecutive 
 narrative, is greater by far than the corresponding 
 difference between Solomon's Proverbs and the 
 Book of Ecclesiastes, even though Ecclesiastes 
 and the Book of Proverbs are different books, 
 composed on widely different plans. 
 
 Accordingly, in the inscription on the Moabite 
 Stone, this syntactical difference, identical in 
 kind, but much greater in degree than the corre-
 
 Language adapted to its subject. 283 
 
 spending difference between the style of Eccle- 
 siastes and the style of Solomon's Proverbs, 
 exposes, with a silent emphasis of its own, the 
 inconclusiveness of that argument for the alleged 
 lateness of Ecclesiastes which is founded on the 
 infrequency of the historic imperfect, and the 
 numerical frequency of the preterite with simple 
 vau. Those who, in accepting the testimony of 
 Holy Scripture, maintain that Solomon's Proverbs 
 and Ecclesiastes have a common authorship, need 
 be at no loss to account for the difference between 
 the two parts of the Moabite Inscription the 
 dictum already quoted, ' that language must be 
 adapted to its subject,' being a sufficient explana- 
 tion. The first part narrates a series of events 
 detailed in historic sequence, according to the 
 order in which they occurred ; whereas the facts 
 recorded in the second part were mostly separate 
 from, or co-ordinate with one another, and are 
 therefore enumerated as so many different achieve- 
 ments, requiring the conjunctive particle vau to be 
 used not in its conversive but in its simple capacity. 
 Hence even the several operations at Korcha, like 
 the Preacher's making of gardens and orchards, 
 and planting trees in them (2. 5), are mentioned in 
 lines 21-23 as so many distinct performances : 
 
 I built Korcha, the wall of the forests, and the wall of the mound. 
 And I built the gates thereof; and I built the towers thereof; and 
 I built the king's house ; and I made the prisons . . . 
 
 I made my works great : I built me houses : I planted me 
 vineyards : I made me gardens and orchards, and planted in them 
 trees of every fruit ; I made me pools of water . . .
 
 284 What Mesha did. 
 
 At the same time the historic imperfect, the twice 
 where it does occur in the second part of the 
 inscription, is used with a precision similar to that 
 with which it is thrice used in Ecclesiastes -the 
 order for the making of the cisterns being such a 
 sequel to the fact that there was no cistern in the 
 city, and the placing of the poor in the cities which 
 had been built being such a sequel to the building 
 of them, as rendered lONI in line 24, and NKW in 
 line 30, preferable to the corresponding preterites 
 with simple vau : ... DP NKW . . . [*n]J3 
 
 The Moabite Stone appears to have been carved 
 by Mesha in glorification of himself and his 
 tutelary god Chemosh, and may suggest to one's 
 mind the following words from the beginning of the 
 last ode in the third book of the Odes of Horace 
 
 ' Exegi monumentum fere perennius 
 Regalique situ Pyramidum altius ; 
 Quod non imber edax, non Aquilo impotens 
 Possit diruere, aut innumerabilis 
 Annorum series, et fuga temporum.' 
 
 Accordingly the superabundance of "ptf in the 
 second part of the Moabite Inscription occurring 
 as it does twelve times in lines 21-29, where the 
 king of Moab is rehearsing severally his own 
 achievements is easily accounted for. Koheleth 
 uses "'JK with similar frequency ; yet not in his 
 own praise, as Mesha does, but in a spirit of 
 self-humiliation, as one who has experienced 
 the vanity of mere worldly magnificence, and has 
 been impressed by the unspeakable importance of 
 fearing God and keeping His commandments.
 
 The Relative Pronoun. 285 
 
 The Relative Pronoun. 
 
 One other point (and a most interesting and 
 valuable point it is) remains yet to be noticed 
 in attestation of the Solomonic authorship of 
 Ecclesiastes, namely the Preacher's use of fc? as a 
 contraction for "itPK. By a curious coincidence, 
 the English word that corresponds exactly to "it?N 
 both as a relative pronoun and as a conjunction, 
 similarly as to corresponds to ? both as a simple 
 preposition and as the sign of the infinitive. The 
 particle W, as a contraction for "it^N, occurs as early 
 as Genesis and as late as Ezra. Yet it is very 
 sparingly used except in two small books, where 
 it superabounds in a most remarkable manner, 
 with proportionately equal frequency, being found 
 more than twice as often in these two books as 
 in the rest of the Old Testament, even though 
 they comprise not more than one thirty-sixth 
 part of the whole volume. These two books are 
 Ecclesiastes and the Song of Solomon ; and while 
 W for IK'S occurs fewer than fifty times elsewhere, 
 it occurs a hundred times in them namely, thirty- 
 two times in the Song, and sixty-eight times in 
 Ecclesiastes, which is fullytwice the sizeof the Song. 
 While, in the List of Words and Forms said by 
 Delitzsch to indicate lateness, he includes the 
 prefix >, on the ground that 'it is used in the 
 Book of Koheleth quite in the same way as in the 
 Mishna', he at the same time observes 
 
 ' >, this in and of itself is in no respect modern, but, as the 
 Babyl.-Assyr. sa, the Phoen. >j$, shows, is the relative (originally 
 demonstrative) belonging to the oldest period of the language, 
 which in the Mishna has altogether supplanted the "|{JJJ$ of the 
 older Heb. book-language.'
 
 286 
 
 List of Passages. 
 
 List of Passages containing the contracted form o 
 ( I . ) The two Proper Nouns, 
 
 Methu.r//ael Genesis 4. 18 twice. 
 Mi-sv^ael Exodus 6. 22, Leviticus 10. 4, 
 
 Daniel i. 6, 7, 11, 19 ; 2. 17, Neh. 8. 4. 
 
 (2. ) The ordinary prefix >. 
 
 JV0fc. Where the \y in any of the following passages is preceded by some 
 other prefix Q five times, 3 four times, Q twice, and 1 once), the prefix is 
 inserted after the verse figure. 
 
 ECCLESIASTES 
 
 1. 3, 7, 9 four times, 
 10, 11 twice, 
 
 14, 17. 
 
 2. 7, 9, 11 twice, 
 12, 13, 14, 15, 
 162, 17, 18 thrice, 
 191, 19, 
 
 20, 21 twice, 
 22, 24, 26. 
 
 5.4O, 143, 14, 
 15 twice, 
 17. 
 
 6. 3, 10 twice. 
 
 7. 10, 14, 24. 
 
 172. 
 9. 5, 12, 123. 
 
 SONG OF SOLOMON 
 
 1. 6 thrice, 
 
 7 twice, 12. 
 
 2. 7, 17. 
 
 3. 1, 2, 3, 4 four times, 
 5, 7, 11. 
 
 4. 1, 2 twice, 
 6. 
 
 5- 2, 8, 9. 
 
 10. 3 3, 5, 14, 16,17. . 6. 5 twice, 
 
 3. 13, 14, 15, 18, 22. | ii. 3, 8. 
 
 4. 2, 10. 
 
 12. 3, 73 9. 
 
 6 twice. 
 8. 4, 8, 12. 
 
 THE OTHER HEBREW SCRIPTURES. 
 
 Genesis 6. 3 3. 
 
 Psalm 122. 3,4. 
 
 Job 19. 29. 
 
 Judges 5. 7 twice. 
 
 123. 2. 
 
 Lam. 2. 15, 16. 
 
 6. 17. 
 
 124. 1, 2, 6. 
 
 4 .9. 
 
 7.12. 
 
 129. 6, 7. 
 
 5. 18. 
 
 8. 26. 133. 2, 3. 
 
 Ezra. 8. 20. 
 
 2 Kings 6. 11D. 
 
 135- 2, 8, 10. 
 
 i Chron. 5. 20. 
 
 Jonah i. 72, 122. 
 
 136. 23. 
 
 27. 27. 
 
 4. 10. 
 
 137. 8 twice, 9. 
 
 
 
 144. 15 twice. 
 
 
 146. 3, 5. 

 
 Ecclesiastes and Canticles compared. 287 
 
 Now it would be simply out of the question to 
 attribute this coincidence to design on the part of 
 an imitator trying to pass off his composition as 
 a work of Solomon. The wide difference in style 
 and subject-matter between the two books pre- 
 cludes any such supposition, and at the same time 
 enhances the coincidence in a way which tells 
 very decidedly in favour of identity of authorship. 
 It may be further observed, that whereas the full 
 form IPX is found nowhere throughout the Song, 
 except in its title nn^ ns?K Dn^n -PB> (i. 1), 
 which may be compared with riD^E? in 3. 7 
 "iCJ'Nl occurs above eighty times in Ecclesiastes, 
 which is oftener than the contracted form E> occurs. 
 And, on the other hand, throughout the whole of 
 Solomon's Proverbs, the full form "it?K is used 
 invariably to the exclusion of the contracted form 
 (2.15; 3. 12; 6.7; 17. 8; 21. 1; 22. 28; 23.!; 24. 293; 
 2 5- [1>] 7, 28). It thus appears that, in this minute 
 point wherein Solomon's Proverbs and Song differ 
 from each other, the Book of Ecclesiastes coincides 
 both with the Proverbs on the one hand, and with 
 the Song on the other, as in the case of 'JN, men- 
 tioned in page 275. 
 
 The contraction t? appears to be used chiefly, 
 though not exclusively, in colloquial Hebrew, simi- 
 larly as in English the contractions can't, dont, 
 won't, are used for can not, do not, will not. Hence 
 it is interesting to notice that while in Jonah I. 7 
 t? was thus used by the sailors in their conversa- 
 tion with one another, they used the full form itJ>K 
 in their more deliberate and formal interrogation
 
 288 Colloquial style. 
 
 of the fugitive passenger, after the lot had fallen 
 on him : 
 
 And they said every one to his neighbour, Come and let us cast 
 lots, that we may know ''O^a FOR WHOSE CAUSE this evil is 
 
 upon us. And they cast lots ; and the lot fell upon Jonah. And 
 they said unto him, Tell us, we pray thee, iQ^ I^Ka FOR WHOSE 
 CAUSE this evil is upon us ? 
 
 This feature in the use of W for "IB>K explains 
 the frequency of its occurrence in two books so 
 widely dissimilar in many respects as Canticles 
 and Ecclesiastes. These two books coincide in 
 this point, that each of them is colloquial the 
 Canticles, as containing a series of dialogues in 
 which the conversation is carried on with the 
 utmost natural freedom, and Ecclesiastes, as a 
 soliloquy largely characterised by the conversa- 
 tional style of discourse, x freely used by the 
 Preacher in communing with his own heart. 
 
 The Book of Ecclesiastes contains several 
 instances of "iB'K and B> used interchangeably with 
 each other. Indeed both forms co-exist sometimes 
 in the same sentence or context in such a way as 
 to exemplify that play upon words which is not 
 uncommon in the Hebrew Scriptures, and which 
 often gives an interesting vivacity to the style of 
 the composition : thus 
 
 5- s, ; DJE> mrriPK ns 
 
 4. : n^n N^I nnntpo irarvb 
 8. 7. rprr ns?N3 ^ 
 
 14. JPJOS? . . . 
 
 10. 14. rprr
 
 Interchange of Forms. 
 
 289 
 
 List of additional Passages in which > and 1JJ*X ar e used 
 thus interchangeably in Ecclesiastes, 
 
 tay 
 
 1.3; 5. 15, 17. 
 
 8.17. 
 
 rrn 
 
 1. 9; 2.9; 3.15; 6.10; 
 
 i. 10, 16; 4. 16. 
 
 
 7.24; 12.73, 9. 
 
 
 pprr 
 
 I. 9; 2. 18; 3. 22; 
 
 8.12. 
 
 
 8. 7; 10. 14. 
 
 
 pn 
 
 2. 7. 
 
 7. 19. 
 
 ntPW 
 
 I. 9; 2. 17. 
 
 I. 13;4.3; 8.9,14,16,17; 
 
 
 
 9. 3, 6. 
 
 DJ 
 
 I. 17; 2. 15; 8. 14. 
 
 7.22. 
 
 B* 
 
 2.13. 
 
 4. 9; 8. 14. 
 
 133 
 
 2. 163; 4.2. 
 
 2. 12. 
 
 16 
 
 2. 21; 7. 14. 
 
 3. 11;4. 3,13; 5.4; 7.21; 
 
 
 
 10.15; 12.1,2,6. 
 
 sin 
 
 2. 22. 
 
 6.10; 7. 2 a. 
 
 IKl- 111 
 
 3-14. 
 
 8.12. 
 
 So likewise iKfc IV in Ecclesiastes 2. 3, 12. 1, 2, 6, 
 may be compared with W *W in Song 1. 12, 2. 7, 17, 
 3. 4, 5, 4. 6, 8. 4 (Judges 5. 7, Psalm 123. 2) ; and 
 parr -i^S in Ecclesiastes 8. 3 with ranfiP in Song 
 2. V", 3.6, 8.4. 
 
 As the expression "it?K ?3 occurs no fewer than 
 nine times in the Book of Ecclesiastes, namely, in 
 1.13,16, 2.10, 3.14, 4.16, 6.2, 8.3,9.3,6,10, 
 it may be noticed that the same expression occurs 
 also in Proverbs 17. 8 and 21. 1, and four times in 
 those words of Solomon which are recorded in 
 i Kings, namely in 2. 26, 5. 20 (6), 8. 43, 56, besides 
 9. 4 and 10. 2. Now while indeed, in the question 
 
 T
 
 2 go Sameness of Usage. 
 
 of authorship, little or no stress can be laid on 
 these instances of an expression so simple and 
 common throughout the Hebrew Scriptures as 
 IC'S f3, yet it is a noteworthy circumstance that, 
 whereas the phrase fair "it?N~73 is found only twice 
 in the Old Testament, one of the passages is in 
 Solomon's Proverbs (21. 1), and the other in the 
 Book of Ecclesiastes (8. 3), the similar phrase 
 "an IK'S 73, in which the verb is preterite, being 
 found in Psalms 115. 3 and 135. 6. 
 
 List of Passages in which t^ is prefixed more than once to the same 
 word in Ecclesiastes. 
 
 I nTI seven times i. 9, 2. 9, 3. 15, 6. 10, 7. 24, 
 1 12. 73, 9 ; (Psalm 124. 1, 2). 
 
 1 rriT 1 five times I. 9, 2. 18, 3. 22, 8. 7, 10. 14. 
 ' ViT 1 thrice I. 11 twice, 6. 3. 
 
 n^J? nt?J?J twice i. 9, 2. 17. 
 
 t f Tltay thrice 2. 1 1,' 19, 20. 
 t W thrice- 1. 3, 5. 15, 17. 
 
 K2 thrice 5. 143, 15, u. 8. 
 
 723 twice 731 4. 10, 7131 n. 3. 
 
 73K 73X 11 twice 2. 24, 3. 13. 
 
 "p?D twice 10. 16, 17. 
 
 QJ thrice i. 17, 2. 15, 8. 14. 
 
 "133 twice 2.163, 4.2.' 
 
 N7 twice 2. 21, 7. 14; (Psalm 124. 6, 129. 7). 
 
 There are not many instances of the E> being 
 prefixed to the same word both in the Book of 
 Ecclesiastes and in the Song of Solomon. Yet, 
 in both books, the & is used in the same manner, 
 being repeatedly prefixed, in each book, to verbs 
 in the preterite and also to verbs in the imperfect
 
 Important Coincidences. 291 
 
 tense, and to nouns and particles. This identity 
 of itsage is perhaps even more valuable, from an 
 evidential point of view, than extensive identity of 
 words with t? prefixed to them would have been. 
 Such mere verbal identity might have been 
 designedly adopted on a large scale by an imi- 
 tator ; whereas the resemblance actually existing, 
 while it cannot be accounted for on the theory of 
 imitation, is just such a resemblance as might be 
 expected from both books having the same author. 
 And the few specimens of verbal identity which 
 do exist are so unobtrusive, and so contextually 
 dissimilar, as to be well worthy of notice in con- 
 nection with the question of authorship. Thus, 
 for instance, t? is followed immediately by the 
 article in Ecclesiastes 1.7, 7. 10 (D^TUnTand D'nvn?), 
 and also in Song i. 12 (itant?), but nowhere else. 
 So likewise in Ecclesiastes 
 
 2. 11, 1>JJt? may be compared with l7ytJ> in Song 4.2, 6.6. 
 
 2. 11, 19, 20, irtaw " TIKVD5? TnnyC' 3- 4. 
 
 4.10,11. 3,^iNp, ta*p i> nia'p 2.17,4.6. 
 
 2.7,3.5,8.4. 
 
 In Ecclesiastes 8. 1 7, ta, in the phrase ne> tan, is 
 identical with ta in ^B>, Song i. 6, 8. 12 (Jonah 
 1.12), and in nntata, 3. 7. In Ecclesiastes 10. 16, 17 
 also, "ptafc?, when thy king, may be compared with 
 itartJ?, When the king, in Song i. 12. Be it also 
 observed that "OXt? is common and peculiar to 
 Ecclesiastes 2. 18 and Song I. 6, and DJtfc? to 
 Ecclesiastes 3. 18, Song 6. 5 (and Lamentations 
 4. 9), and that the expression -V D^a, in the day
 
 29 2 Frequency of the Abbreviation. 
 
 when, occurs near the end of both books in pass- 
 ages otherwise very unlike each other : 
 
 ECCLESIASTES 12. 3. IN THE DAY WHEN the keepers of the 
 
 house shall tremble. 
 SONG 8. 8. IN THE DAY WHEN she shall be spoken for. 
 
 Over and above such telling coincidences as 
 these, one of the main evidences for the Solomonic 
 authorship of Ecclesiastes, in so far as the relative 
 pronoun is concerned, is the remarkable frequency, 
 already mentioned, with which the abbreviated 
 form E> is used in the Book of Ecclesiastes and 
 in the Song of Solomon, as compared with its use 
 in the other books of the Old Testament. Such 
 numerical frequency in the case of a mere particle 
 like V as a contraction for *it?K is even more valu- 
 able in some evidential respects than the frequency 
 of prominent words like ^D3 and neon. 
 
 On this point Dr. Pusey says, in the introduction 
 to his Commentary on the Book of Jonah, 
 
 ' There is absolutely no plea whatever for making this an 
 indication of a later style, and yet it occurs in every string of 
 words, which have been assumed to be indications of such style. 
 It is not Aramaic at all, but Phoenician and old Hebrew. In 
 Phoenician, esh is the relative, which corresponds the more with 
 the Hebrew in that the following letter was doubled, as in the 
 Punic words in Plautus, syllohom, siddoberim, it enters into two 
 Proper names, both of which occur in the Pentateuch, and one, 
 only there ; Methushael, "a man of God," and Mishael, the same 
 as Michael, "who is like God?" literally "Who is what God 
 is?" Probably, it occurs also in the Pentateuch in the ordinary 
 language, Genesis vi. 3. Perhaps it was used more in the dialect 
 of North Palestine. Probably it was also the spoken language, 
 in which abridged forms are used in all languages. Hence 
 perhaps its frequent use in the Song of Solomon, which is all
 
 Dr. Puseys testimony. 293 
 
 dialogue, and in which it is employed to the entire exclusion of 
 the fuller form ; and that, so frequently, that the instances in the 
 Canticles are nearly a fourth of those in the whole Old Testament. 
 In addition to this, half of the whole number of instances, in which 
 it occurs in the Bible, are found in another short book, Eccle- 
 siastes. In a book, containing only 222 verses, it occurs 66 
 times. This, in itself, requires some ground for its use, beyond 
 that of mere date. Of books which are really later, it does not 
 occur in Jeremiah's prophecies, Ezekiel, Daniel, or any of the six 
 later of the Minor Prophets, nor in Nehemiah or Esther. It 
 occurs once only in Ezra, and twice in the first book of Chronicles, 
 whereas it occurs four times in the Judges, and once in the Kings, 
 and once probably in Job. Its use belongs to that wide principle 
 of condensation in Hebrew, blending in one, in different ways, 
 what we express by separate words. The relative pronoun is 
 confessedly, on this ground, very often omitted in Hebrew poetry, 
 when it would be used in prose. In the Canticles Solomon does 
 not once use the ordinary separate relative, asher. Of the nine- 
 teen instances in the Psalms almost half, nine, occur in those 
 Psalms of peculiar rhythm, the gradual Psalms ; four more occur 
 in two other Psalms, which belong to one another, the latter of 
 which has that remarkable burden, for His mercy endureth for ever. 
 Three are condensed into a solemn denunciation of Babylon in 
 another Psalm. Of the ten Psalms, in which it occurs, four are 
 ascribed to David, and one only, the I37th, has any token of 
 belonging to a later date. In the two passages in the Chronicles, 
 it occurs in words doubly compounded. The principle of rhythm 
 would account for its occurring four times in the five chapters of 
 the Lamentations of Jeremiah, while in the fifty-two chapters of 
 his prophecies it does not occur once. Two of the instances in the 
 Lamentations are words in the mouth of the heathen, ii. 15, 16. 
 In Job also, it is in a solemn pause. Altogether, there is no 
 proof whatever that the use of she for asher is any test of the date 
 of any Hebrew book, since (l) it is not Aramaic, (2) it occurs in 
 the earliest, and (3) not in the latest books : (4) its use is idiomatic, 
 and nowhere except in the Canticles and Ecclesiastes does it 
 pervade any book. Had it belonged to the ordinary idiom at the 
 date of Ezra, it would not have been so entirely insulated as it is, 
 in the three instances in the Chronicles and Ezra. It would not 
 have occurred in the earlier books in which it does occur, and would 
 have occurred in later books in which it does not. In Jonah, its
 
 294 Arguing in a Circle. 
 
 use in two places is peculiar to himself, occurring nowhere else in 
 the Hebrew Scriptures. In the first, its Phcenician form is used 
 by the Phoenician mariners ; in the second it is an instance of the 
 spoken language in the mouth of the Prophet, a native of North 
 Palestine, and in answer to Phoenicians. In the third instance, 
 (where it is the simple relative) its use is evidently for condensa- 
 tion. Its use in any case would agree with the exact circumstances 
 of Jonah, as a native of North Palestine, conversing with Phoe- 
 nician mariners. The only plea of argument has been gained by 
 arguing in a circle, assuming without any even plausible ground 
 that the Song of Solomon or Psalms of David were late, because 
 they had this form, and then using it as a test of another book 
 being late ; ignoring alike the earlier books which have it and the 
 later books which have it not, and its exceptional use (except in 
 the Canticles and Ecclesiastes), in the books which have it.' 
 
 This testimony from the pen of Dr. Pusey is 
 enhanced by the circumstance that his references 
 to Ecclesiastes and the Song of Solomon are purely 
 incidental, and that accordingly, while he states 
 the fact of the peculiar frequency of B> for ~it?X in 
 these two books, the scope of his subject does not 
 lead him even to allude to this common feature 
 of Ecclesiastes and Canticles as an evidence of 
 identity of authorship. But indeed the simple 
 facts of the case are in themselves the best of all 
 arguments in support of the position that Ecclesi- 
 astes and the Song of Solomon had one and the 
 same author. In these facts similarity and dis- 
 similarity are so blended together as to bear their 
 united testimony to the Solomonic authorship of 
 Ecclesiastes. The Book of Ecclesiastes and the 
 Song of Songs are so extremely unlike one another 
 in scope and style and subject-matter, that any 
 theory of the one having been written in imitation 
 of the other would be even more preposterous than
 
 Similarity and Dissimilarity. 295 
 
 such a theory with reference to Ecclesiastes and 
 Solomon's Proverbs would be. Notwithstanding 
 the wide dissimilarity already mentioned in page 
 50 as subsisting between Proverbs and Ecclesi- 
 astes, it is not too much to assert that the Book 
 of Ecclesiastes is more like, in its general scope, to 
 the Book of Proverbs than to any other book in 
 the Hebrew Scriptures. Whereas, except in those 
 unobtrusive features which point in the direction 
 of a common authorship, there are no two books 
 in the Old Testament more unlike one another 
 than Canticles and Ecclesiastes. Hence, if there 
 were in the Book of Ecclesiastes such designed 
 imitation of Solomon's writings as is sometimes 
 alleged, it would be imitation of his Proverbs 
 rather than imitation of his Song. Yet the char- 
 acteristic abbreviation of "IB'K no fewer than sixty- 
 eight times in so comparatively small a treatise as 
 Ecclesiastes, introduces such a divergence from 
 the style of Solomon's Proverbs, in which "it^K is 
 invariably unabbreviated, as an imitator would 
 most likely have avoided. And even if the theory 
 (however untenable) were put forward, that the 
 writer may have been imitating Solomon's Song, 
 that again would be refuted by the fact that, while 
 the abbreviated form E> does indeed occur sixty- 
 eight times, the unabbreviated lt?K occurs upwards 
 of eighty times in Ecclesiastes; though it is not 
 found even once in the Song, except in the title. 
 
 The similarity and dissimilarity which thus 
 meet and are interwoven with each other in the 
 diversified uses of the Relative Pronoun in the
 
 296 The Consistency of Truth. 
 
 three books ascribed to Solomon as their author, 
 exemplify a consistency so simple and artless as 
 to be untrammelled by anything like a straining 
 after that appearance of consistency which an 
 imitator would be at pains to exhibit. Hence it 
 may be said with reference to the Preacher's use 
 of "itW abbreviated and unabbreviated, that it 
 lies altogether beyond the range of cunningly 
 devised imitation, and is explicable only on the 
 ground of that simple honest truthfulness which 
 has no need of stratagem for the vindication of 
 its consistency. 
 
 e!81hatoeber things torn toritien aforetime toere toritten 
 
 for our learning, that toe through patience 
 
 anb comfort of the (Scriptures 
 
 might habe hope.
 
 The non- Solomonic Proverbs. 
 
 WHILE there is nothing in the different sections 
 of Proverbs 1-29 to indicate difference of author- 
 ship, or to give countenance to the suggestion that 
 some portions of these twenty-nine chapters may 
 not have proceeded from the pen of Solomon, and 
 while, on the contrary, the truth of the titles with 
 which chapters I, 10, and 25 begin is abundantly 
 attested, there is no reason to suppose that 
 Solomon wrote either of the two last chapters in 
 the Book of Proverbs. On the contrary, each of 
 these chapters claims, in its opening words, a 
 different authorship ; and this claim is amply 
 corroborated by the style and language of the 
 chapters, and by their wide divergence from 
 Solomon's acknowledged writings. 
 
 In so far as the general scope of the Proverbs 
 is concerned, the difference between these two 
 chapters and the Proverbs of Solomon is perhaps 
 not greater than the difference between Solomon's 
 Proverbs and the Book of Ecclesiastes. Indeed 
 the fact that Proverbs 30, 31 resemble the 'hwb 
 rvcb& to the extent of what is implied by the 
 Hebrew noun h/WQ, is sufficient to show that these 
 two chapters have been appended to Solomon's
 
 298 The Book of Proverbs. 
 
 Proverbs, similarly as the men of Hezekiah 
 appended to the previously existing volume those 
 proverbs of Solomon which they copied out. That 
 there might, however, be no mistake as to the 
 authorship of chapters 30 and 31, and no risk of 
 confounding them with Solomon's words, each 
 chapter begins with a designation of its own 
 author. 
 
 Over and above a general proverbial similarity, 
 there are undoubtedly some such striking coin- 
 cidences between Proverbs 30 and 31 and the 
 Proverbs of Solomon as might, if there were 
 identity of authorship, be adduced in illustration 
 of it. Thus the root Din, which is peculiarly 
 prominent in the Solomonic Proverbs, is found 
 also in Proverbs 30. 3, 24, and 31. 26, as men- 
 tioned in page 72. The root EHp, on the other 
 hand, while it abounds in most of the books of 
 
 * 
 
 the Old Testament, is found only once in the 
 Book of Ecclesiastes (8. 10), and twice in Solo- 
 mon's Proverbs (9. 10, 20. 25). Now it may be 
 observed that (besides neon, wisdom} not only the 
 plural D^tJnp, but the very phrase D^EHp njrn is 
 common to the words of Solomon in Proverbs 
 9. 10, and the words of Agur in Proverbs 30. 3 : 
 
 9. 10. The fear of Jehovah is the beginning of WISDOM ; AND 
 
 THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE HOLY is understanding. 
 30. 3. I neither learned WISDOM, NOR know THE KNOWLEDGE 
 
 OF THE HOLY. 
 
 There is likewise an obvious resemblance 
 between what is said by Solomon in 19. 10 about 
 a servant having rule over princes, and what is
 
 Agur and Solomon. 
 
 299 
 
 said by Agur in 30. 22 about a servant reigning 
 also between Solomon's reference to loftiness of 
 eyes (D^y DVi) in 21. 4, and Agur's reference to 
 the same subject (V3'y ion-no) in 30. 13. 
 
 Along with these may be mentioned the close 
 verbal resemblance between 31. 28, and Song 6. 9 
 the one passage having been written apparently 
 with special reference to the other : 
 
 SONG 6. 9. ; ni^Wl ' D^^SI ni3$>O mi Wl 
 PROV. 31. 28. 
 
 nun 
 
 man 
 
 The following words also occur both in the 
 Proverbs of Solomon and in the two last chapters 
 of the Book of Proverbs, but nowhere else : 
 
 pOZ " 
 
 6. 11 5-30. 8. 
 
 10. 15, 13. 18, 24. 34, 28. 19 531. 7. 
 
 ant i 6. 6 ; Q^Ojn the ants, 30. 25. 
 coverings of tapestry, 7. 16 ; 31. 22. 
 
 In like manner the following expressions are 
 common to Solomon's Proverbs and Proverbs 
 31, 32 : 
 
 Proverbs 
 
 30. 19. D^ta 
 
 30. 22. 
 
 31-4. 
 
 31. 10. 
 31- 10. 
 
 31- 10. 
 
 . 18.1 nnno mo ^ 
 
 Now while some of these coincidences are 
 undoubtedly analogous to some of those which 
 
 Other Passages. 
 
 Pt 
 
 Exodus 15. 8. 
 
 23. 34. 
 
 
 12. 11, 
 
 
 28. 19. 
 
 Judges 5. 3, Hab. i. 10. 
 
 8. 15. 
 
 
 20. 6. 
 
 Ruth 3. 11. 
 
 12. 4. 
 
 Job 28. 18, Lam. 4. 7. 
 
 8. 11. 
 
 
 3- 14.
 
 300 The value of Coincidences. 
 
 have been adduced in proof of the Solomonic 
 authorship of Ecclesiastes, yet it may be observed 
 that i, 3, 5, 6 are not peculiar to the Book of 
 Proverbs, that i, 2, 7 have little or no phraseo- 
 logical importance, and that all the coincidences 
 are just such as might be expected in what 
 these two chapters profess to be writings com- 
 posed on a plan similar to that of Solomon's 
 Proverbs, and accordingly attached as a fitting 
 appendix to them. Hence, making ample allow- 
 ance for the weight which would be due to these 
 coincidences if there were any reason to claim 
 Solomon as the author of Proverbs 30, 31, it may 
 yet be affirmed that there is here no such propor- 
 tionate aggregation of striking coincidences as that 
 which may be adduced in proof of the Solomonic 
 authorship of Ecclesiastes. On the contrary, 
 sundry particulars might be specified to confirm 
 (if confirmation were needed) the fact that the 
 two last chapters in the Book of Proverbs are not 
 Solomonic. Even the disclaimer in 30. 3, which, 
 in its phraseology, so closely resembles 9. 10, is 
 more like the language of a different author, well 
 acquainted with and making direct reference to 
 9. 10, than like the language of the same person 
 who had written 9. 10. So likewise, even if the 
 suggestion were accepted that KB>O, with the 
 article in 30. I, and without it in 31. 1, is not the 
 common noun for a burden, but the name of a 
 place, Massa, this word, thus explained, would still 
 point away from Solomon for the authorship of 
 the chapters. It may be observed, however, that
 
 The Prophetic Scriptures. 301 
 
 the intimate connection of Kfc?on in 30. 1 with the 
 technical word DNJ, appears to indicate that KB>O 
 in these two chapters has the same meaning 
 which it bears in Isaiah 13. 1; 21. 1, 11, 13, 
 Jeremiah 23. 36, Nahum i. 1, Malachi I. 1, and 
 about a dozen other passages, where it denotes, 
 not a material burden, but a prophetic message 
 entrusted to some one commissioned by the Lord 
 to publish it. The verb DK3 is found above 350 
 times in the Hebrew Scriptures ; and always 
 (except once in Jeremiah 23. 31) it is in the 
 participial form. It occurs seven times in the 
 Pentateuch (Gen. 22. 16, Num. 14. 28, 24. 3, 4, 15 
 twice, 16), twice in the Psalter (36. 2 (1), no. 1), 
 and also in Proverbs 30. 1, and 2 Chronicles 34. 27. 
 Except in these comparatively few instances 
 (eleven out of above 350), this verb is confined 
 exclusively to the prophetic Scriptures DW2J 
 strictly so called and is invariably used in these 
 Scriptures to introduce what God said, either 
 directly or through the medium of a prophet. 
 Now, although King David spoke as a prophet 
 (Acts 2. 30), there is no evidence that Solomon 
 ever did so. Hence, whereas D&O is applied to the 
 prophetic utterances of David in 2 Samuel 23. 1-7, 
 it does not occur even once (nor yet does KtS>) 
 throughout the whole of the Solomonic Scriptures. 
 Still further, even K>D, though found as early as 
 Exodus 23. 5, and used there and in Numbers 4 
 and n, and above twenty other passages, to denote 
 literally a burden, is never used with a spiritual 
 reference to denote an oracular saying or prophecy
 
 3O2 Difference of Vocabulary. 
 
 till above a century after the days of Solomon, 
 the first instance being in 2 Kings 9. 25, in the 
 days of Elisha the prophet. 
 
 The divine name, in its singular form m$>s, is of 
 very rare occurrence except in the Book of Job, 
 being found forty-one times in that one book, and 
 only fifteen times elsewhere in the Hebrew Scrip- 
 tures. One of these fifteen is in Proverbs 30. 5 ; 
 but nowhere in the Solomonic Scriptures is rrpx 
 met with. The expression TvK, my God, found 
 neither in Ecclesiastes nor in Solomon's Proverbs, 
 occurs in Proverbs 30. 9 ; whereas the simple 
 plural form D % niK, found thrice in Solomon's 
 Proverbs, and forty times in Ecclesiastes, does not 
 appear in Proverbs 30, 31. The tetragrammaton 
 mrp also, is found only once in the words of Agur 
 (verse 9), and once in Proverbs 3 1 (verse 30) ; 
 whereas it occurs eighty-five' times in the Proverbs 
 of Solomon, as already mentioned in page 132. 
 
 It may be likewise observed that although 
 merchants and merchandise are spoken of in such 
 passages as I Kings 10. 15, 28, Proverbs 3. 14, 
 Song 3. 6, the term ^Jtta, as applied to a mercJiant, 
 is alien to the Solomonic idiom. Indeed this 
 name, even in its literal acceptation of Canaanite, 
 occurs only once (i Kings 9. 16) in the whole of 
 the Solomonic Scriptures. Hence the use of ^wa 
 in Proverbs 31. 24, as in Job 40. 30 (41. 6), Isaiah 
 23. 8, Zechariah 14. 21, to designate a merchant, 
 is not without interest in illustration of the differ- 
 ence between the vocabulary of Proverbs 3 1 and 
 the vocabulary of the Solomonic Scriptures.
 
 Agurs peculiar style. 
 
 303 
 
 The following eight words are peculiar to the 
 undermentioned verses of Proverbs 30, 31, every 
 one of them, except po, being cnra^ \eyofievov : 
 
 30. is, 
 
 28, 
 
 31, THT 
 D1p!>K 
 33, fc thrice. 
 
 19, 
 
 27, 
 
 Similarly rare also, though not peculiar to the 
 Book of Proverbs, are the following six words, 
 being found only in the passages here specified 
 
 Drip' 
 
 pD 
 
 Pr&verbs 
 
 30. 14 
 
 17 
 
 30 
 
 31 
 
 31- 19 
 24 
 
 The otJur Passages. 
 
 Joel i. 6, Job 29. 17. 
 
 Genesis 49. 10. 
 
 Isaiah 30. 6, Job 4. 11. 
 
 Genesis 30. 35; 32. 15, 2 Chron. 17. 11. 
 
 2 Samuel 3. 29, Nehemiah 3 eight times. 
 
 Judges 14. 12, 13, Isaiah 3. 23. 
 
 It may be further observed that Agur has a 
 style peculiar to himself. His graphic arrange- 
 ment of the twelve objects specified in verses 
 18-23, 29-31, into three several groups of three 
 objects increased to four, though similar to the 
 mention of three and four transgressions eight 
 times in Amos i. 3 to 2. 6, is unique, especially 
 when viewed in connection with his enumeration 
 of two things in verses 7-9, four things in verses 
 24-28, and two things increased by a third, and 
 then by a fourth, in verses 15-16 ; to which may be 
 added his description of four generations severally, 
 in verses 11-14. The words of Agur are certainly 
 proverbial ; but it is after a fashion of their own, 
 widely different from that in which the
 
 304 Difference of Authorship. 
 
 are proverbial. In fact the thirtieth chapter of 
 the Book of Proverbs constitutes a literature sui 
 generis analogous indeed to the Proverbs of 
 Solomon, and therefore annexed to them, yet 
 forming a composition as distinct and unique as 
 the Book of Ecclesiastes or the Song of Songs. 
 
 It is likewise worthy of notice that, in the last 
 chapter of the Book of Proverbs, the Aramaic 
 form ~Q, for p son, occurs thrice in the second 
 verse, but nowhere else in the Hebrew Scriptures, 
 except in the last verse of the second Psalm. 
 
 The alphabetic structure of the bright picture 
 with which the Book of Proverbs ends (31.10-31) 
 is not in itself an evidence of a date later than the 
 days of Solomon ; for some of David's Psalms, 
 such as Psalms 25 and 34, are composed on the 
 same artistic plan. Yet there is no instance of 
 this peculiar kind of symmetry anywhere in the 
 Solomonic Scriptures. 
 
 In short, while the dissimilarity between the 
 Book of Ecclesiastes and the Proverbs of Solomon 
 is fully accounted for by difference in scope and 
 subject-matter, and while the deep and minute 
 and extensive resemblances between the one 
 book and the other point conclusively to identity 
 of authorship, it may be observed that, notwith- 
 standing sundry resemblances, the dissimilarity 
 between the Proverbs of Solomon and the two 
 last chapters of the Book of Proverbs can be 
 accounted for only on the ground of such difference 
 of authorship as the several titular verses respec- 
 tively intimate.
 
 The Epilogue. 305 
 
 The Epilogue to Ecclesiastes. 
 
 It is affirmed by some critics who deny the 
 Solomonic authorship of Ecclesiastes, that the 
 Epilogue, consisting of the last six or seven verses, 
 must be the composition of a later writer than the 
 unknown personator to whom the authorship of 
 the Book without the Epilogue is ascribed. Among 
 the advocates of this view may be mentioned the 
 German authors Doderlein, 1784; Schmidt, 1794; 
 Umbreit, 1818, and Knobel, 1836. It is main- 
 tained by such critics that the Epilogue is 
 superfluous and aimless, and that the manner in 
 which the writer speaks in the third person, and 
 refers to a future judgment, is not in keeping with 
 the style and subject-matter of the treatise. ' The 
 notion of God holding a future set judgment ' [it 
 is said] ' is inconsistent with the Preacher's view 
 (iii. 17, v. 8, xi. 9) of retribution being restricted 
 to the natural consequences of man's actions.' 
 Yet there is no such restriction, either in the 
 passages specified or anywhere else in the Book 
 of Ecclesiastes. On the contrary, the declaration 
 with which the Epilogue ends is in thorough har- 
 mony with what is taught throughout the treatise 
 there being nothing to limit to the present life 
 the judgment mentioned by Koheleth. In 3. 16-17 
 the wickedness prevailing in the place of judgment 
 (cation Dlpo) which the Preacher saw under the 
 sun is mentioned in contrast with the fact that 
 God shall judge the righteous and the wicked ; 
 and the words of 12. 14 are mutatis mtitandis 
 identical with the corresponding words of 11. 9 : 
 
 U
 
 306 The Prologiie of the Apocalypse. 
 
 3. 16-17. I saw under the sun the place of judgment, that 
 wickedness was there, and the place of righteousness, that wicked- 
 ness was there. I said in my heart, God shall judge the righteous 
 and the wicked. 
 
 11. 9. God shall bring 
 thee into judgment. 
 
 12. 14. God shall bring 
 every work into judgment. 
 
 In like manner the use of the third person 
 .rather than the first, so far from being at variance 
 'with the Preacher's usage, is in exact conformity 
 'with it the name fipnp being connected with a 
 verb in the first person only once (i. 12), whereas 
 it is connected twice (i. 2 ; 7. 27) with a verb in 
 the third person, precisely as in 12. 8, 9, 10. 
 
 In this respect the Prologue of the Apocalypse 
 resembles the Epilogue of Ecclesiastes. As in 
 Ecclesiastes so in the Revelation, the writer 
 generally speaks in the first person. He thus 
 uses fyevofirjv in I. 9, 10 ; '4. 2 ; tf/covo-a in I. 10 ; 
 4. 1, and above twenty times besides ; and elSov 
 (corresponding to TV&n of Ecclesiastes) in 1. 12, 17; 
 4. 1, 4, and above forty times besides. In the 
 same way the name 'Iwdvvr)? is used thrice (i. 9 ; 
 21.2; 22. 8) in the first person, and is immediately 
 preceded, in each instance, by e>ya>, exactly like 
 n^np ^K in Ecclesiastes I. 12. In the Prologue, 
 however, 'ladwr)? is used twice in the third person, 
 like r6np in Ecclesiastes i. 2; 7. 27; 12. 8, 9, 10. 
 Yet who would think of questioning the genuine- 
 ness of the Prologue to the Apocalypse on that 
 account ? In the Prophets likewise, the first and 
 the third person are sometimes used interchange- 
 ably, as for instance in Isaiah 7. 3 and 8. 1 ; Ezekiel
 
 The First and the Third Person. 307 
 
 I. 1-4 ; Zechariah 7. 1, 4, 8. And it is worthy of 
 special notice that I Kings 2. 45 contains an 
 instance of Solomon speaking of himself in the 
 third person, similarly as the Preacher speaks in 
 the Book of Ecclesiastes. 
 
 I KINGS 2. 44-45. And the king said unto Shimei, Thou 
 knowest all the evil which thy heart knoweth that thou didst to 
 David my father ; and Jehovah shall return thy wickedness upon 
 thine own head ; AND KING SOLOMON shall be BLESSED ; and 
 the throne of David shall be established before Jehovah for ever. 
 
 Even Ginsburg, who denies the Solomonic 
 authorship of Ecclesiastes, says 
 
 ' As to the assertion that verses 9 14 are not genuine, and 
 have been added by a later hand, it is most arbitrary, and to be 
 repudiated. Nothing can be more weak than the arguments 
 brought to support this allegation.' 
 
 The Epilogue contains nothing akin to those 
 features in Proverbs 30, 31 which have already 
 been mentioned as corroborating the ascription of 
 these two chapters to other authors than Solomon. 
 On the contrary, the Epilogue is identical in style 
 and diction with the rest of the book. It contains 
 indeed one ajra^ \ey6/j,evov, namely Jn?, in verse 12. 
 This however is in strict accordance with the fact 
 that a?raf Xeyo/iei/a are not uncommon throughout 
 Ecclesiastes and Canticles. Though even the 
 familiar noun ISO also is found nowhere in 
 Proverbs, Canticles, and Ecclesiastes, except in 
 the same sentence with J!"6, yet it occurs in the 
 important phrase PIOTP nm "iSD-^y in I Kings 1 1. 41. 
 
 It may be likewise observed in connection with 
 the expressions n:nn DvtJ>D and ruin D'nQD, verses 9, 
 12, that rmn, the infinite absolute Hiphil of nn,
 
 308 Phraseology of the Epilogue. 
 
 though it occurs upwards of fifty times in the 
 Hebrew Scriptures, is appended immediately to 
 a plural noun in & only eight times that seven of 
 the eight are in the Solomonic Scriptures that of 
 these seven, two are in the history of Solomon's 
 reign, and Jive in Ecclesiastes, and that two of the 
 five are in the Epilogue, and the three others in 
 the earlier parts of the book, the solitary non- 
 Solomonic passage being Isaiah 30. 33 (nmn D^Jfl) ; 
 along with which Joshua 22. 8 may be mentioned 
 as containing nmn appended to a plural noun in rri 
 very many garments, TKQ nnn JYiOTt?. 
 
 I KINGS 10. 10. Very many spices. TKD ni~in 
 
 11. 
 
 ECCLESIASTES 
 5.6(7); 6. 11. 
 
 11. 8. 
 
 12. 9. 
 12. 
 
 Very many almug trees. 
 
 Many words. 
 Many years. 
 Many proverbs. 
 Many books. 
 
 rmn 
 ruin 
 win 
 
 mn onao 
 
 This minute coincidence is valuable in connec- 
 tion with the Solomonic authorship of the whole 
 Book of Ecclesiastes. And it may be noticed 
 also in passing, that the infinitive construct Kal of 
 nm with the preposition 3, is peculiar to Proverbs 
 29. 2, 16, and Ecclesiastes 5. 10 (11), and that this 
 infinitive occurs only once elsewhere, namely in 
 Exodus ii. 9 (TiaiD nm 
 
 PROVERBS 29. 2. 
 
 16. 
 
 ECCLESIASTES 5. 10. 
 
 The following coincidences, most of which have been discussed 
 already, may be tabulated here, as affording superabundant 
 evidence that the Epilogue must have been written by the author 
 of Ecclesiastes :
 
 Coincidence in Words and Phrases. 309 
 
 List of Coincidences. 
 
 Note. The points are inserted in some words to indicate complete verbal identity. 
 
 
 Verse 
 
 Words in the Epilogue. 
 
 Illustrative Passages. 
 
 Pages of 
 Refer- 
 ence. 
 
 Ecclesiastes 
 
 Proverbs 
 
 I 
 
 9,12 
 
 ""T 
 
 i 2. 15 ; 
 
 
 
 
 
 inr 
 
 ) 6. 8, 11; 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ( 7. 11, 16 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 
 TITJPI 
 
 i ii'. s 
 
 (iKi.io.10,11) 
 
 308 
 
 
 
 
 ( 1.9; 2.9; 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 9 
 
 n^ntz^ 
 
 T T V 
 
 3-15; 6. 
 
 
 290 
 
 
 
 
 ( 10; 7. 24 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 
 ipn 
 
 
 25.2 
 
 152 
 
 5 
 
 
 jpn 
 
 i. 15; 7. 13 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 10 
 
 ppa 
 
 7. 28 
 
 
 
 7 
 
 
 KP$> 
 
 7- 27; 8. 17 
 
 19. 8 
 
 
 8 
 
 
 37D 
 
 
 22. 20 
 
 153 
 
 9 
 
 
 IB" 
 
 7. 29 
 
 
 
 10 
 
 
 nox 
 
 
 22. 21 
 
 153 
 
 ii 
 
 11 
 
 D'oan ^iri 
 
 9-17 
 
 I. 6; 22. 17 
 
 75 
 
 12 
 
 
 rinwwb 
 
 ^D^"l?DDfcD 
 ^nVUDDlD 
 
 i Ch. 22. 3\ 
 
 2 Ch. 3. 9 ) 
 
 122 
 
 13 
 
 12 
 
 aa 
 
 
 22 times 
 
 IOO 
 
 14 
 
 
 inr 
 
 4. 13 
 
 
 
 IS 
 
 
 Pi?. P 
 
 4. 8, 16 
 
 
 
 16 
 
 
 w 
 
 1.8; 10.15 
 
 
 35.133 
 
 
 
 
 (2. 3; 4.5; 
 
 4. 22; 5 . 11; 
 
 
 17 
 
 
 wa 
 
 5- 5(6); 
 
 14.30 
 
 
 
 
 
 ( ii. 10 
 
 
 
 18 
 
 13 
 
 f)io 
 
 3- ii; 7- 2 
 
 
 37 
 
 19 
 
 
 NT; D*n5n'nK 
 
 5- 6 (7) 
 
 
 150 
 
 20 
 
 
 T 'iitr vniyo 
 
 8. 5 
 
 19. 16 
 
 
 21 
 
 14 
 
 nt^y^D~x^ 
 
 ~: i~ T 
 
 8. 9, 17 
 
 
 
 22 
 
 
 t^iBL^^n x^i^ D^n/xn 
 
 ii. 9 
 
 
 305
 
 3 TO Genuineness of the Epilogue. 
 
 This list includes not every word common to 
 the Epilogue and the rest of Ecclesiastes, but 
 only certain words and expressions which seem 
 specially noteworthy in connection with the 
 question of authorship. Word after word, and 
 expression after expression, are, as it were, 
 packed into the small compass of these six verses, 
 not with the artifice of imitation, but freely and 
 naturally, with the artless simplicity of truth, in 
 such a way and to such an extent as to supply 
 superabundant evidence of identity of authorship. 
 ' An epilogue, from the same hand as the book, 
 seals its truth,' says Delitzsch : ' it is written as 
 from the very soul of Solomon ; it issues from the 
 same fountain of wisdom.' 
 
 The Denial of the Solomonic A uthorship. 
 
 If the Davidic authorship of Psalms 5, n, 18, 
 27, 29, 65, 68, 138 were denied on account of the 
 TEMPLE being mentioned in them, whereas the 
 temple was built by Solomon, the inconclusive- 
 ness of the argument might be proved by reference 
 to i Samuel i. 9 ; 3. 3, where the ancient 
 TABERNACLE ? then located at Shiloh, is called 
 niPP ^STi. So likewise, if the antiquity of an 
 English book, understood, on good authority, to 
 have been written in the latter part of the sixteenth 
 century, were impugned on account of the posses- 
 sive pronoun its being found in it, yet not in the 
 English Bible of 1611, which affords abundant 
 scope for the said pronoun, it might be replied, as 
 pointed out by Mr. Aldis Wright in his Bible
 
 Random Assertions. 311 
 
 Word Book of 1866, that its, though not common 
 so long ago as 1598, was then in use. 
 
 Not less inconclusive are the arguments against 
 the Solomonic authorship of Ecclesiastes. These 
 arguments are largely characterised by exaggera- 
 tion, or irrelevancy, or begging of the question, or 
 misrepresentation of the simple facts of the case. 
 In addition to what has been said already on this 
 point (as, for example, in pages 16, 37, 118, 162), 
 some further illustrations may now be adduced. 
 
 Thus, for instance, Chambers's Encyclopaedia 
 of 1868 and 1879 contains the following state- 
 ment in an article on the Book of Ecclesiastes : 
 
 ' Its authorship is commonly ascribed to Solomon. In support 
 of this opinion, however, there is not a vestige of internal evidence 
 except what arises from the dramatic use of his name, an expedient 
 in all probability resorted to by the writer to give force and 
 emphasis to his own reflections, inasmuch as Solomon was held 
 by the Jews to be the perfection of human wisdom.' 
 
 Over against this sweeping negative assertion, 
 there may be set the mass of internal evidence 
 supplied by the many coincidences in words and 
 style and phraseology which have been detailed and 
 commented on in the precedingpages of this treatise. 
 The following quotation is from a Critical 
 History and Defence of the Old Testament 
 Canon, 1845, by the late Professor Moses Stuart 
 of Andover (a book received in January 1879, 
 since the conclusion to this treatise was begun, 
 and more than twenty months after the reference 
 to Chaucer in the twenty-sixth page of the treatise 
 was printed) :
 
 3 i 2 Differences in Style and Diction. 
 
 ' ECCLESIASTES was regarded by all the ancients as a produc- 
 tion of Solomon. But doubts respecting such an origin have 
 recently been brought forward, and seem to be of such a nature as 
 cannot easily be solved. . . . The diction of this book differs so 
 widely from that of Solomon in the book of Proverbs, that it is 
 difficult to believe that both came from the same pen. Chaucer 
 does not differ more from Pope, than Ecclesiastes from Proverbs. 
 It seems to me, when I read Coheleth, that it presents one of 
 those cases which leave no room for doubt, so striking and promi- 
 nent is the discrepancy. In our English translation this is in some 
 good measure lost, by running both books in the same English mold. 
 There is only a single trait of resemblance which any one would 
 consider as marked or noticeable ; and this is, the sententious or 
 apothegmatic turn of the book. In this respect one is often led to 
 direct his thoughts toward the book of Proverbs, which abounds in, 
 and almost wholly consists of, sayings of such a sententious nature. 
 Yet how very different is the diction and style of each book, in the 
 original Hebrew. And then the general circle of thought is still 
 more discrepant. The philosophic doubts and puzzles of Ecclesiastes, 
 and the manner of discussing them, have no parallel either in 
 Proverbs, or in any other part of the Hebrew Scriptures.' 
 
 The wide difference in what Moses Stuart here 
 
 x 
 
 calls ' the general circle of thought ' is, as has 
 already been noticed, amply sufficient to account 
 for whatever differences there are in diction and 
 style. And it may also be observed incidentally 
 that these differences, so far from being ' in some 
 good measure lost in our English translation/ are 
 reproduced about as exactly as the conditions 
 and circumstances of translation admit of, and 
 must thus to a great extent be obvious to attentive 
 English readers. It may be observed still further 
 that there is no greater difference in diction and 
 style between Ecclesiastes and the Proverbs of 
 Solomon than between Solomon's Proverbs and 
 his Prayer at the dedication of the Temple.
 
 Exaggerated Statements. 313 
 
 Nor is it more unlikely that king Solomon 
 should have written two books differing as his 
 Proverbs and the Book of Ecclesiastes differ from 
 each other, than that he should have uttered songs 
 as well as proverbs, and should have spoken, not 
 only of trees from the cedar in Lebanon to the 
 hyssop, but also of beasts, and birds, and creeping 
 things, and fishes. Hence the linguistic differences 
 between Ecclesiastes and the Proverbs of Solomon 
 are a necessary result of corresponding differences 
 in scope and subject-matter, similarly as the style 
 of Macaulay's History differs from the style of his 
 poetry. But where there is no such difference 
 in scope and subject, there is identity of style, as, 
 for instance, in the multitude of passages specified 
 and compared together throughout this treatise. 
 Similarly diversified and extensive are the scope 
 and style of Aristotle's writings. 
 
 On the other hand, the linguistic difference 
 between Pope and Chaucer is wide and funda- 
 mental, even where the poems are alike in scope 
 and subject-matter. This may be clearly seen by 
 comparing Pope's Temple of Fame with Chaucer's 
 House of Fame, or Pope's translation of the 
 Merchant's Tale with Chaucer's original. Accord- 
 ingly the exaggerated character of the statement, 
 ' Chaucer does not differ more from Pope, than 
 Ecclesiastes from Proverbs/ must appear from an 
 attentive comparison of Pope with Chaucer, and 
 Ecclesiastes with Proverbs. Even the wide differ- 
 ence in orthography between Pope and Chaucer 
 is sufficient to refute the statement in question,
 
 3 1 4 Chaucer and Pope compared. 
 
 there being no such orthographical difference 
 between the Book of Ecclesiastes and the Proverbs 
 of Solomon. (Pages 154, 159.) Still further, the 
 plain and palpable difference between the antique 
 style of Chaucer in the fourteenth century, and the 
 style of Pope in the eighteenth, whose language 
 differs little, if at all, from the English of the 
 present day, has no counterpart in the Scriptures 
 ascribed to Solomon as their author. 
 
 Specimens for Comparison. 
 
 CHAUCER. 
 
 THE BEGINNING OF THE PROLOGUE 
 
 TO THE CANTERBURY TALES. 
 Whan that Aprille with his schowres 
 swoote 
 
 The drought of Marche hath perced to 
 the roote, 
 
 And bathed every veyne in swich 
 licour, 
 
 Of which vertue engendred is the flour ; 
 
 Whan Zephirus eek with his swete 
 
 breethe 
 
 Enspired hath in every holte and 
 heethe 
 
 The tendre croppes, and the .yonge 
 sonne 
 
 Hath in the Ram his halfe cours 
 i-ronne, 
 
 And smale fowles maken melodic, 
 That slepen al the night with open 
 eyhe, 
 So priketh hem nature in here 
 
 corages : 
 Thanne longen folk to gon on 
 
 pilgrimages, 
 
 And palmers for to seeken straunge 
 strondes, 
 
 To feme halwes, kouthe in sondry 
 londes ; 
 
 And specially, from every schires 
 ende 
 
 Of Engelond, to Canturbury they 
 wende. 
 
 POPE. 
 
 WINTER Lines 45-60. 
 No grateful dews descend from 
 
 evening skies, 
 
 Nor morning odours from the flowers 
 arise ; 
 
 No rich perfumes refresh the fruitful 
 field, 
 
 Nor fragrant herbs their native incense 
 yield. 
 
 Tke balmy zephyrs, silent since her 
 death, 
 
 Lament the ceasing of a sweeter 
 breath ; 
 
 The industrious bees neglect their 
 golden store ; 
 
 Fair Daphne 's dead, and sweetness is 
 no more. 
 
 No more the mounting larks, while 
 Daphne sings, 
 
 Shall, listening in mid air, suspend 
 their wings ; 
 
 No more the birds shall imitate her 
 lays, 
 
 Or hushed with wonder, hearken from 
 the sprays : 
 
 No more the streams their murmur 
 shall forbear, 
 
 A sweeter music than their own to hear, 
 
 But tell the reeds, and tell the vocal 
 
 shore, 
 
 Fair Daphne 's dead, and music is no
 
 The Bible and Criticism. 315 
 
 In a volume of lectures on 'The Bible and 
 Criticism (1878),' Dr. Rainy of the New College, 
 Edinburgh, says 
 
 ' You must face the combined force of the probabilities, whatever 
 it may be worth. For anything I know, the separate indications 
 of a late age in the Book of Ecclesiastes may all be separately 
 explained away without a great strain on one's sense of the 
 possible and the probable. But that, to me, is no satisfaction at 
 all. For, really, what I have to deal with is the improbability of 
 a book of an early age combining all those separate and inde- 
 pendent marks of a late one. ... I see, on principles such as 
 those explained by Delitzsch in his Introduction to his Commen- 
 tary [as quoted from in page 161 of this treatise], that it is far less 
 certain than I used to think it that the book claims literally to 
 have been written by Solomon. On the other hand, although 
 I daresay arguments can still be found to explain away every 
 separate indication of a later date, just as in the days of old, I am 
 far less disposed to be satisfied with that kind of arguing, and far 
 more disposed to defer to the combination of signs or symptoms 
 which indicate for that interesting and striking book of Scripture 
 a very late position in the canon. ' 
 
 Now there is here a plain begging of the question. 
 If the features under discussion actually are what 
 Dr. Rainy sets out by calling them, ' indica- 
 tions of a late age,' then there is an end of the 
 matter. This, however, so far from being an axiom 
 to be taken for granted, is the very point to be 
 proved, if it is capable of proof. It is maintained 
 on the other side that these features are not indica- 
 tions of a late age, but are in thorough harmony 
 with the Hebrew of Solomon's lifetime, and may 
 be shown to be so, without being explained 
 away. In a good case there is no need for 
 recourse to so unsatisfactory a process. The 
 counsel intrusted with the defence of an accused
 
 3 1 6 Explaining away of facts. 
 
 person clearly proved to have committed the 
 crime laid to his charge, may attempt to explain 
 it away by putting forward, as theoretically 
 possible, sundry abstract arguments which, if 
 they were shown to be facts, would clear the 
 accused, but which, being destitute of reality, are 
 of no effect in opposition to the facts actually 
 arrayed against him. The defence of the Solo- 
 monic authorship of Ecclesiastes would be similarly 
 inadequate if the denial of that authorship were 
 supported by an array of pertinent facts, each of 
 them separately confronted by nothing better 
 than a theoretical suggestion that the fact, 
 considered singly by itself, is not absolutely in- 
 compatible with the supposition that the Book of 
 Ecclesiastes may have been written by Solomon. 
 What Dr. Rainy calls the combined force of 
 probabilities would be as cogent on his side of the 
 controversy if it existed there, as it is on the other 
 side. If, for instance, Delitzsch's long list, men- 
 tioned in page 31 of this treatise, could be met with 
 nothing more effectual than the explaining away 
 of every word singly, such explanation would be 
 obviously inconclusive as an answer to the modern 
 theory of lateness. When it is shown, however, 
 as mentioned in page 32, that lateness cannot be 
 indicated by the fact of several words and phrases 
 in the list being either peculiar to the Book of 
 Ecclesiastes, or common to it and the Targums 
 or the Talmud that other words and phrases 
 said to prove lateness are common to Eccle- 
 siastes and the Hebrew of Solomon's reign, or
 
 An accumulation of Ciphers. 317 
 
 even Hebrew of still earlier date, and that the 
 references given, under several words, to post- 
 biblical Hebrew indicate nothing whatever as to 
 the date of the Scriptures which contain those 
 words, this accumulation of relevant facts is very 
 different from the process of explaining away. 
 Most of Delitzsch's ninety-six words and phrases 
 are either actually favourable to the Solomonic 
 authorship, or are obviously in no way unfavourable 
 to it. Hence, in so far as evidence of lateness 
 is concerned, they are like mere ciphers, any 
 accumulation of which is equal to nothing. 
 
 What Mr. Burgon (now Dean of Chichester) 
 says in the following extracts from his discussion 
 of the objections to the genuineness of the last 
 twelve verses of the Gospel of Mark (published in 
 1871) is applicable mutatis mutandis to the sub- 
 ject of this treatise. And it may be observed that 
 the expression combined force is common to his 
 remarks and the remarks of Dr. Rainy, as already 
 quoted overleaf in page 315. After having 
 examined 25 of 27 alleged differences of 
 phraseology in Mark 16. 9-20, said to indicate 
 difference of authorship, Mr. Burgon adds, 
 
 ' There will perhaps be some to remark, that however success- 
 fully the foregoing objections may seem to have been severally 
 disposed of, yet that the combined force of such a multitude of 
 slightly suspicious circumstances must be not only appreciable, but 
 even remain an inconvenient, not to say a formidable fact. Let 
 me point out that the supposed remark is nothing else but a 
 fallacy ; which is detected the instant it is steadily looked at. 
 For if there really had remained after the discussion of each of 
 the foregoing xxv Articles, a slight residuum of suspiciousness,
 
 318 Multiplication of Nothings. 
 
 then of course the aggregate of so many fractions would have 
 amounted to something in the end. But since it has been proved 
 that there is absolutely nothing at all suspicious in any of the 
 alleged circumstances which have been hitherto examined, the 
 case becomes altogether different. The sum of ten thousand 
 nothings is still nothing. 
 
 ' Exactly so Professor Broadus : " Now it will not do to say that 
 while no one of these peculiarities would itself prove the style to 
 be foreign to Mark, the whole of them combined will do so. It 
 is very true that the multiplication of littles may amount to much ; 
 but not so the multiplication of nothings. And how many of the 
 expressions which are cited, appear, in the light of our examination, 
 to retain the slightest real force as proving difference of author- 
 ship? Is it not true that most of them, and those the most 
 important, are reduced to absolutely nothing, while the remainder 
 possess scarcely any appreciable significance ? " 
 
 ' This may be conveniently illustrated by an appeal to the only 
 charge which remains to be examined, (xxvi. and xxvii.) The 
 absence from these twelve verses of the adverbs evBtus and iraKiv, 
 (both of them favourite words with the second Evangelist,) has 
 been pointed out as one more suspicious circumstance. . . . Now, 
 How can it possibly be more suspicious that wdXiv should be absent 
 from the last twelve verses of S. Mark, than that it should be away 
 from, the first forty-five? Again. Since eiWws is not found in the 
 xii th or the xiii th chapter of this same Gospel, nor ird.\u> in the 1 st , 
 vi*, ix*, or xiii* chapter, (for the sufficient reason that neither 
 word is wanted in any of those places,) what possible "suspicious- 
 ness"can be supposed to result from the absence of both words from 
 the xvi* chapter also, where also neither of them is wanted ? . . . 
 
 [How striking is the similarity between these facts and the 
 analogous facts stated in pages 182-3 an( ^ 2 7 Z > with reference to 
 the use of Vau Conversive in the Book of Ecclesiastes !] 
 
 ' Not only is the precariousness of all such Criticism as has been 
 brought to bear against the genuineness of S. Mark xvi. 9-20 
 excessive, but the supposed facts adduced in evidence have been 
 found out to be every one of them mistakes; being either, 
 ( I ) demonstrably without argumentative cogency of any kind ; 
 or else, (2) distinctly corroborative and confirmatory circum- 
 stances : indications that this part of the Gospel is indeed by 
 S. Mark, not that it is probably the work of another hand.'
 
 DelitzscJis List of Words. 319 
 
 This description of the arguments adduced 
 against the genuineness of Mark 16. 9-20 suits ex- 
 actly Delitzsch's arguments against the genuineness 
 of Ecclesiastes. Besides the 21 words referred to 
 in page 37, the following ten, likewise contained in 
 Delitzsch's list, are specified in the undermentioned 
 pages of this treatise as in no way inconsistent 
 with the Solomonic authorship of Ecclesiastes : 
 
 Baal hallashon . 
 Divrath . . 
 
 Page 
 103 
 128 
 
 Masmeroth .... 
 M'attim 
 
 Page 
 122 
 I2Q 
 
 Lahdg .... 
 
 Madda' . , . 
 
 307 
 
 89 
 
 'Atsaltayim .... 
 t9 . 
 
 mm y 
 6 7 
 28? 
 
 Malak .... 
 
 \sy 
 
 116 
 
 Shaharuth .... 
 
 ***3 
 128 
 
 To these 3 1 specimens, many others might be 
 added, to show how largely Delitzsch's list is made 
 up of words which, in so far as the point at issue 
 is concerned, do not need to be even explained, 
 much less to be explained away the facts speci- 
 fied with reference to them giving either no 
 indication whatever as to date, or such indications 
 as are thoroughly consistent with the Solomonic 
 authorship of Ecclesiastes. 
 
 Additional Specimens from DelitzscKs List. 
 
 Hhuts min, only at ii. 25 (Chald. bar min) ; frequent in the 
 
 Mishna, e.g. Middoth ii. 3. 
 L'vad, tantummodO) vii. 29 ; similar, but not quite the same, at 
 
 Isa. xxvi. 13. 
 
 Mishlahhath, viii. 8 (cf. Ps. Ixxviii. 49). 
 Nahag, ii. 3, as in the Mishna, e.g. Aboda Zara iii. 4, 54$ ; 
 
 cf. Targ. Koh. x. 4. 
 ^2Di hithpa., only a,t xii. 5. 
 SecM, exclusively x. 6.
 
 20 Irrelevant References. 
 
 Sichluth, i. 17 (here with {?), ii. 3, 12, 13, vii. 25, x. 1, 13 
 
 (synon. k'siluth, Prov. ix. 13). 
 * AdZn (formed of |n~iy)> adhuc, with x? nondum, iv. 3. 
 
 *Adenah (of ad-henndh\ adhuc, iv. 2 ; Mishnic fHJ?, 
 
 <?.. Nedarim xi. 10. 
 mj? Hithpa. only at xii. 3. 
 
 1 Amad, ii. 9, viii. 3, as Jer. xlviii. 11 ; Ps. cii. 27. 
 P]T1, Niph. part., only Hi. 15. 
 R e uth, besides the Chald. parts of Ezra, occurs only seven times 
 
 in the Book of Koheleth, i. 14, ii. 11, 17, 26, iv. 4, 6, vi. 9. 
 Rafyon, i. 17, ii. 22, iv. 16 ; elsewhere only in the Chald. 
 
 parts of Daniel and in the Targ. 
 Shiddah and plur. Shiddotk, exclusively ii. 8. 
 
 Hithpa., only viii. 10, the usual word in the Talm., 
 
 e.g. Sanhedrin 133. 
 
 JJ> Hithpo., vii. 16. 
 Shiphluth, x. 18, elsewhere only Targ. Jer. xlix. 24. 
 Tahath hashshemesh, i. 3, agreeing with the Greek \i(f> rj\i(f, or 
 
 VTfb Tbv TJXtOI'. 
 
 Takkiph, in O. T. Heb. only vi. 10 ; elsewhere iu the Chald., 
 Targ., Talm. , 
 
 The three following quotations from Delitzsch's 
 List (asurim, b'huroth, and miskeri) illustrate the 
 fact, already noticed in page 35, that even some 
 of his own statements, so far from telling against 
 the Solomonic authorship of Ecclesiastes, are 
 decidedly favourable to it : 
 
 Asurim, only vii. 26 ; cf. Judg. xv. 14 ; Seder olam rabba, c. 25 ; cf. 
 at iv. 14. 
 
 Now even the passage which Delitzsch here specifies from the 
 Book of Judges is sufficient to rebut the charge of lateness, the 
 plural of the verbal noun *V|DK being common to both passages, 
 and used in both, in precisely the same manner : 
 
 JUDGES 15. 14. And V^IDX l" s BANDS were melted from off his hands. 
 ECCLESIASTES 7. 26. Her hands are D'HIDN BANDS.
 
 Fiitility of the argument for Lateness. 321 
 
 Even the phrase house of prisoners in Ecclesiastes 4. 14, to which 
 Delitzsch refers, is found also, though with a slight difference in 
 spelling, as early as Judges 16. 21, 25. 
 
 Befiuroth, only xi. 9, xii. 1 ; cf. Mifchurav, Num. xi. 28. 
 Mtsken, only iv. 13, ix. 15, 16 ; but cf. miskenuth, Deut viii. 9, 
 and m'sukan, Isa. xl. 20. 
 
 In the first of these two cases, the abstract noun 
 occurs in Ecclesiastes, and the corresponding adjective in the 
 Pentateuch ; whereas conversely in the second case the adjective 
 (pDE) appears in Ecclesiastes and the noun in the Pentateuch. 
 This fact is sufficient to show that neither the one word nor the 
 other is an evidence of lateness. 
 
 Bihel, only v. 1, vii. 9 ; as Hiph. Esth. vi. 14 ; cf. the transitive use of 
 the Pih. Esth. ii. 9, like Targ. baJul (=ithbt?iel) and bthilu, haste. 
 
 Yet the Niphal of this verb occurs as early as Genesis 45. 3, 
 Exodus 15. 15, and also in Judges 20. 41, I Samuel 28. 21, 
 2 Samuel 4. 1, Psalms 6. 3, 4, 11 ; go. 7. Even the Piel of ^n3 
 occurs not only in the Book of Ecclesiastes, as mentioned by 
 Delitzsch, and in Daniel 1 1 . 44, and Ezra 4. 4, but also in Job 
 22. 10, and Psalm 2. 5. Indeed the use of the verb pfQ in 
 Ecclesiastes 5. 1 ; 7. 9 ; 8. 3, as compared with its use in the 
 Davidic Scriptures and in Proverbs 28. 22, might be mentioned 
 even in confirmation of the Solomonic authorship of Ecclesiastes. 
 
 B'cJien, viii. 10 ; Esth. iv. 16 ; elsewhere only Targ., e.g. Isa. xvi. 5. 
 
 Yet there is no reason why the preposition 3 prefixed to n 
 should indicate lateness, when the similar preposition $> is prefixed 
 to p in precisely the same manner, as early as Genesis 4. 15, and 
 frequently elsewhere throughout the Old Testament. ' There is 
 no principle,' says Dr. Pusey, ' on which pa should be thought to 
 be late, being formed in the same way as p^j, p-^JJ, p-'nriN- 
 It has a meaning, which there was not often occasion to express in 
 the simple construction of Hebrew, "it being thus." In Esther 
 both words occur in conversation. ' 
 
 X
 
 322 Marks of genuineness. 
 
 ' Another complaint:' says Mr. Burgon in his defence of Mark 
 1 6. 9 20, ' d.va.\r)<t>drjvai, which is found in verse 19, occurs 
 nowhere else in the Gospels. (l.) True. S. Mark has no fewer 
 than seventy-four verbs which " occur nowhere else in the 
 Gospels :" and this happens to be one of them. What possible 
 inconvenience can be supposed to follow from that circumstance ? 
 (2.) But the remark is unreasonable. ' A.va\T)<f>6rivai and dwiXij^tj 
 are words proper to the Ascension of mir LORD into Heaven. The 
 two Evangelists who do not describe that event, are without these 
 words : the two Evangelists who do describe it, have them. 
 (S. Mark xvi. 19. S. Luke ix. 51. Acts i. 2.) Surely, these are 
 marks of genuineness, not grounds for suspicion ! ' 
 
 Gibber, only at x. 10, to exert oneself ; elsewhere : to prevail. 
 
 Now although, under the Masoretic system of punctuation, the 
 verb 13J is pointed as Piel only here and in Zechariah 10. 6, 12, 
 yet such passages as Genesis 7. 18-24; 49. 26; Exodus 17. 11; 
 I Samuel 2. 9 ; 2 Samuel I. 23 ; II. 23, where the same verb is 
 pointed as Kal, are amply sufficient to show the futility of the 
 argument for lateness founded on the use of "Qji in Ecclesiastes 
 10. 10. 
 
 Additional Specimens. 
 
 Sundry other words might be similarly dis- 
 cussed. Yet as they have really no bearing 
 on the question of lateness, it seems more than 
 sufficient simply to append to what Delitzsch 
 says of some of them a few passages which 
 contain the same or cognate words, and thus 
 show that the words in question, so far from 
 vindicating the theory of lateness, are in thorough 
 harmony with the ascription* of Ecclesiastes to 
 Solomon as its author.
 
 Comparison of Passages. 
 
 ,23 
 
 Passages which contain the 
 same or cognate words, 
 and thus rebut the 
 argument for lateness. 
 
 Genesis 27. 29 ; Isaiah 
 1 6. 4; Job 37.6. 
 
 I Samuel 21. 14 (13); 
 Job 12. 17. 
 
 Genesis 48. 1 ; 
 
 I Sam. 19. 14; 22. 8; 
 
 Song 2. 5 ; 5. 8. 
 Gen. 9. 2 ; 35. 5. 
 
 I Samuel 27. 1 ; 
 Job 6. 26; Is. 57. 10. 
 
 Gen. 12.11,14; 29. 17; 
 
 39. 6; 41. 2, 4, 18 ; 
 
 i Samuel 16. 12 ; 
 
 Proverbs n. 22; 
 
 Song i. 8, 15, 16; 
 
 2. 10, 13; 4. 1, 7; 
 
 5. 9; 6. 1, 4, 10. 
 Numbers 18. 2, 4 ; 
 
 Deut. 28. 12, 44; 
 
 Proverbs 1.9; 4. 9 ; 
 
 19- 17. 
 
 Gen. 41. 7, 22; Ruth 
 
 r. 21; 2 Sam. 23. 11; 
 
 Proverbs 17. 1. 
 Gen. 37. 28; Ex. 19.13; 
 
 Proverbs 13. 12 ; 
 
 Song i. 4. 
 Genesis 41. 16 ; 
 Prov. 15. 1,23; 29. 19. 
 
 Now such words as these, though tabulated by 
 Delitzsch, have no force whatever, either singly 
 or combined, as arguments for the alleged lateness 
 
 Additional specimens from DelitzscKs 
 alleged marks of lateness. 
 
 Hoveh, ii. 22 ; cf. Shabbath, vi. 6, 
 
 Erubin i. 10, Jebamoth xv. 2. 
 Holelotk, i. 17, ii. 12, vii. 25, ix. 3 ; and 
 
 holeluth, madness, only in the Book of 
 
 Koheleth, x. 13. 
 Holah (ma turn), aegrum, v. 12, 15 ; for 
 
 this nahhlah is used in Isa. xvii. 11; 
 
 Nah. iii. 19 ; Jer". x. 19, xiv. 17. 
 Hhathhhatim, only at xii. 5. 
 B>Ki, Pih-, only ii. 20. 
 
 Talm. Nithpa. J^STIJ, to abandon 
 
 T : 
 
 hope, e.g. Kelim xxvi. 8. 
 Yapheh, iii. 11, v. 17, as, e.g. Jer. 
 Pesachim ix. 9 (b. Pesachim 99) : 
 " Silence is well becoming (PIS' 1 ) the 
 wise ; how much more fools ! " 
 
 Lavah, viii. 15, as in the Mishna : to 
 conduct a guest, to accompany a 
 traveller; . . . cf. 1^ Q5>>, a standing 
 
 surname, Negalm, xiv. 6. 
 M'leah, gravida, only xi. 5, as in the 
 Mishna, e.g. Jebamoth xvi. 1. 
 
 Mashak, ii. 3 ; cf. Chagiga 14 a, 
 Sifri 135(5, ed. Friedmann. 
 
 'Anah, v. 19, x. 19.
 
 324 Illustrative List from Genesis. 
 
 of Ecclesiastes. Their nothingness in this respect, 
 besides being directly demonstrated by the 
 passages appended above, might be indirectly 
 illustrated by compiling, with reference to even 
 the early Hebrew Scriptures, a list similar to the 
 list with which Delitzsch attempts to disprove the 
 Solomonic authorship of Ecclesiastes. The Book 
 of Genesis, for instance, might be thus scrutinised ; 
 and a multitude of words might be picked out and 
 tabulated some occurring only in Genesis some 
 being peculiar to Genesis and late Hebrew, or to 
 Genesis and the Chaldee Scriptures, and some 
 being used in the Targums or in the Talmud in the 
 same way as they are used in Genesis. And the 
 list thus made out might be set over against 
 Delitzsch's list, with the view of showing the incon- 
 clusiveness and irrelevancy of such evidence : 
 
 Illustrative List from Genesis, resembling DelitsscKs 
 List from Ecclesiastes. 
 
 NOTE. The following Table gives a complete list of all the passages 
 containing every word severally specified from Genesis, except the three 
 words DTX, and |PI and QUO- 
 
 Chapter I. in2, I- 2 ; Isaiah 34. 11 ; Jeremiah 4. 23. 
 
 jpp-1, expanse, 6, 7, 8, 14, 15, 17, 20 ; Ps. 19. 2 (1) ; 150. 1 ; 
 
 Ezek. i. 22, 23, 25, 26 ; Daniel 12. 3. 
 2. DTK) inan, 2. 22, 25 ; 3. 12, in apposition with ntJ>X 
 
 'woman, as in Ecclesiastes 7. 28. (Pages 32, 140.) 
 3- S|1S5> 3- 15, Psalm 139. 11 ; Job 9. 17. 
 
 Compare JOSS? KMTlX m the Targum of Prov. 15. 19 ; 
 and in the Talmud, as cited by Rabbi Jona, the words 
 
 : ypipn hy pnn nx 
 
 ', pain, 3. 16, 17 ; 
 5. 29 only. 
 
 , interpretation, 40. 5, 8, 
 12, 18 ; 41. 11 only. 
 
 Similar to the abstract nouns 
 ending in p, which are peculiar 
 to the Book of Ecclesiastes. 
 (Page 35.)
 
 The Vocabulary of Genesis. 325 
 
 Ch. 3. nyt, siveat, 3. 19, a.X. Compare in Ezek. 44. 18 the cognate 
 a.X. yfi, explained in the Talmud by pyiflOt? D^pE3- 
 Compare also the noun xyt an( i the verb yfn, 
 in the Talmud. 
 
 6. DJtJQj 6. 3. Onkelos, *j f)H3- See {j> for -)>x, preceded 
 by 2 in Jonah I. 7, 12 ; EC. 2. 16 ; 8. 17, and followed 
 by D3 in. EC. I. 17 ; 2. 15 ; 8. 14 only, besides Genesis 
 6. 3. Compare p2, EC. 8. 10; Esther 4. 16. 
 See Delitzsch, as quoted from in page 321. 
 haD, <&&* 6. 17; 7. 6, 7, 10, 17 ; 9. 11, 15, 28 ; 10. 1, 32; 
 II. 10; Psalm 29. 10. Compare J^13D in the 
 Targum of Habakkuk 3. 5. 
 
 15. -|J-Q, divide, division, 15. 10 ; Song 2. 17 ; Jer. 34. 18, 19. 
 
 jnrQrHfci 2 Samuel 2. 29. 
 nfti'y, darkness, 17 ; Ezekiel 12. 6, 7, 12. 
 
 19. D'HIJD, X 9- 11 5 2 Kings 6. 18. 
 
 24. K1SDO, provender, 24. 25, 32 ; 42. 27 ; 43. 24 ; 
 
 Judges 19. 19, from the Chaldee tfSD> use d i n the 
 Talmud, but not in the Old Testament. 
 'ni3"liO> precious things, 24. 53 ; 2 Chron. 21. 3 ; 32. 23 ; 
 Ezra I. 6. Compare IJQ, Deuteronomy 33. 13-16 ; 
 Song 4. 13, 16 ; 7. 14, also the name Magdiel, 
 Genesis 36. 43 ; I Chronicles I. 54. 
 
 2 5- Dfc& D1tf!> 2 5- 23 ; 27. 29 ; and never again till the Book 
 of Psalms also in Solomon's Proverbs, Isaiah, Jer. 
 51. 58, Hab. 2. 13, only. Always plural, except in 
 Gen. 25. 23 ; Prov. II. 26 ; 14. 28 ; Is. 51. 4. 
 
 27- D^yDE, 27. 4, 7, 9, 14, 17, 31 ; moJHMDi Prov. 23. 3, 6. 
 jT)n, 29 ; Isaiah 16. 4 ; xin, Job 37. 6 ; Eccles. 2. 22 ; 
 ' cf. Shabbath, vi. 6, Erubin i. 10, Jebamoth xv. 2.' 
 Delitzsch, as quoted at the top of page 323. 
 
 30. {jVifl, 30. 35; 32. 15; Prov. 30. 31; 2Ch. 17. 11. (Page 303.) 
 
 3 1 - D^TQ, spotted, 31. 10, 12 ; Zechariah 6. 3, 6. 
 
 34- H1X) the verb to consent, 34. 15, 22, 23 ; 2 Kings 12. 9. 
 
 35- pK(n)-rrO3i 35- 16 ; 48. 7 ; 2 Kings 5. 19. 
 
 Cognates the verb 133, Job 35. 16 ; 36. 31. 
 i"l"OD) Amos 9. 9, and in the Talmud. 
 V33 ! Sam. 19. 13, 16. "P33i Job and Isaiah. 
 123D 2 Kings 8. 15. 1230, Ex. 27, 35, 38, 39. 
 133, the river Chebar in Ezekiel.
 
 326 Inconclusive Arguments. 
 
 (Chapter 35. ) ' K'var, adv., [Ec.] i. 10, ii. 12, 16, iii. 15, iv. 2, vi. 10, 
 ix. 6, 7 ; common in the Mishna, e.g. Erubin iv. 2, 
 Nedarim v. 5 ; in Aram. , more frequently in the sense 
 of " perhaps " than of " formerly." ' Delitzsch. 
 
 39- jn> favour, with a pronominal suffix (^n) 39- 21 only. 
 (Page 95.) 
 
 4 1 - "TTl. TTl, 41- 42; Ezek. 16. 11 ; Talmud *nri. 
 
 Compare Tn2~l> DH2110. Proverbs 7. 16 ; 31. 32. 
 (Page 299.) 
 
 42. J^pt?, ruler, 42. 6 ; EC. 7. 19 ; 8. 8 ; 10. 5. Chaldee of 
 Daniel 2. 10, 15 ; 4. 14, 22, 23, 29 (17, 25, 26, 32) ; 
 5. 21, 29 ; Ezra 4. 20; 7. 24. Compare pt^BS EC. 
 8. 4, 8, ' nowhere else in O. T. Heb., but in the Mishna, 
 e.g. Kidditshin iii. 6.' Delitzsch. (Pages 30, 35.) 
 
 43- D"0t32 nuts, 43. 11 ; proper noun Joshua 13. 26. 
 Mishna X3D2- 
 
 45- }JJt3 45- 17 ; Isaiah 14. 19. Compare Aramaic fJJB. pj/tj. 
 pro, 23 ; 2 Ch. u. 23 ; Chaldee Daniel 4. 9, 18 (12, 21). 
 
 47. xn, Ecce, 47. 23 ; Ezek. 16. 43 ; Chaldee Daniel 2. 43 ; 
 3. 25. Compare in> Ezek. 2. 10 ; and ^x> EC. 10. 16. 
 
 49- H Pip's 49- 10 5 Proverbs 30. 17. (Page 303.) 
 "6^3n> 12 a.X. Compare nv?3n Prov. 23. 29 o.\. 
 
 50- D3n, to embalm, 50. 2, 3, 26 j^Song 2. 13 ; Aramaic 
 
 It would be easy to expand this list to much 
 larger dimensions, by the insertion of other words 
 not more irrelevant than those which abound in 
 Delitzsch's list. These, however, may suffice to 
 show how the same style of argument which he 
 applies to Ecclesiastes might be applied to other 
 Hebrew Scriptures, and how accordingly, since 
 the particulars here specified about Genesis cannot 
 prove Genesis to be later than Moses, neither can 
 the particulars about the Book of Ecclesiastes 
 prove that book to be later than Solomon. If it 
 be said that certain abstract nouns ending in p 
 are peculiar to Ecclesiastes, it may be said of
 
 The Targums and the Talmud. 327 
 
 certain other abstract nouns with the same 
 termination, that they are peculiar to Genesis. 
 So likewise words peculiar to Ecclesiastes and 
 Esther or Daniel can no more prove Ecclesiastes 
 to have been written after the days of Solomon 
 than words peculiar to Genesis and Proverbs, or 
 Canticles, or Isaiah, or Ezekiel, can prove Genesis 
 to have been written after the days of Moses. 
 And if any useful purpose could be served by 
 ransacking the huge mass of post-biblical Hebrew 
 for the sake of comparing with its vocabulary the 
 vocabulary of Genesis, it might not be difficult to 
 compile therefrom a list as much larger than 
 Delitzsch's list as the Book of Genesis is larger 
 than the Book of Ecclesiastes. 
 
 But, after all, what object could be gained, in 
 connection with the question of authorship, by 
 comparing the language of Ecclesiastes with the 
 language of the Targums and the Talmud ? Even 
 the latest date which may, with any show of 
 plausibility, be assigned to Ecclesiastes, is long 
 prior to the date of the earliest of these post- 
 biblical records ; and there is a correspondingly 
 wide divergence in language and style and idiom. 
 In fact the chasm is so great, both in time and in 
 linguistic features, that the similarity, whatever 
 be its extent and character, can prove nothing 
 about the authorship of Ecclesiastes being every 
 whit as consistent with the date required by 
 the ascription of the book to Solomon as with 
 the latest date assigned to it by the deniers of 
 the Solomonic authorship.
 
 328 The Chaldee of Daniel and Ezra. 
 
 This point may be illustrated by the following 
 sentences from the Speaker's Commentary, for 
 though they were written with reference to the 
 Chaldee of Daniel, they are a fortiori applicable 
 mutatis mutandis to the subject of this treatise : 
 
 ' Biblical Aramaic belongs to an altogether different age, and 
 probably to an altogether different country, from the Aramaic of 
 the Targums and of the Talmud. The differences between them 
 are enormous. Five or six centuries at least separate the Chaldee 
 paraphrases of the Bible of the Targums from the passages in 
 Daniel and Ezra. . . . The distinctions between Biblical and 
 Targum Chaldee are marked by a breadth and character which it 
 is impossible to mistake. The great gulf of time between the 
 composition of the literary remains to be consulted is, however, 
 very suggestive of the greatest caution in arguing from the Biblical 
 idiom to that of the Targums, or vice versa ; and it tends to limit 
 comparison of the Biblical passages to themselves. ... If it be 
 a true postulate of criticism that the pages of every author should 
 reflect undesigned traces of the language as well as of the customs 
 of his time, the Book of Daniel stands the test well. ' 
 
 Any striking resemblances in style and diction 
 which may be made out between the Hebrew of 
 Ecclesiastes and the Aramaic literature of post- 
 biblical times, may, without recourse to the process 
 of explaining away, be accounted for from the 
 circumstance that Ecclesiastes is just such a book 
 as Jewish expositors were likely to adopt for their 
 pattern, abounding as it does in reasonings and 
 inferences and moral lessons from the writer's 
 personal observation and experience. 
 
 ' Most of the words, ' says Dr. Pusey, ' selected to prove its late 
 date, are simply abstract words, formed naturally from ordinary 
 Hebrew roots. Several of Gesenius' list of words, which were to 
 prove the late date of Ecclesiastes, were such abstract words, 
 ending in ji, J T , flu. . . . The invalidity of such proof was, at last,
 
 Herzfeld on Ecclesiastes. 329 
 
 observed by Herzfeld, who, in 1838, swept away most of the 
 rubbish which had hitherto been relied upon. . . . Six only of 
 the words accumulated by his predecessors, as marks of modern 
 Hebrew, passed muster with him. (i) The interjection itf " woe," 
 
 w * 
 
 iv. 10, x. 16, an onomapoeticum, which must have been very old 
 in the language, since the word n'K (of some shrill-voiced bird in 
 
 T - 
 
 Lev. xi. 14, and Deut. xiv. 13) is formed from it. Both it and i^ 
 lived on in Talmudic. (2) Granting that \y, for 1{J>K, is Phoenician 
 
 and old, the conjunction p{>, viii. 17, is to be modern. But ~>$ too 
 is Phoenician [fjjnjriD *?W p]. (3) }33 [discussed in page 321] 
 is to be modern, "because it only occurs besides in Esth. iv. 16;" 
 and (4) ^^> vi. 6, " because it only occurs besides in Esth. 
 vii. 4, and the coalition of two conjunctions points to a late time." 
 It is utterly unlikely that ^^ should be a compound of EX and }>; 
 
 i. because they are incompatible conjunctions ; 2. because }>{$ 
 (for V1X) i s a s i m pl e conjunction in Ch. Syr. Sam. And very 
 probably l">&{ in Hebrew is the same conjunction, only pointed 
 wrong. ... (5) "jno, occurring x. 20, and else only in Daniel 
 
 T ~ 
 
 and Chronicles, instead of the old flJH or rnSJTIO-" But jnft, 
 
 T T -: - T _ 
 
 Eccl. x. 20, is not "knowledge," but "the place of knowledge," 
 "conscience." . . . Neither Djn, "knowledge," nor rQBTID> 
 "device, purpose," would have expressed the idea [page 90]. 
 (6) " "ini" 1 ! a s a particle of comparison, whereas, earlier, the com- 
 parison had been expressed by the syntax only." It is clear from 
 the cases in which inii occurs, that it is no mere particle of 
 
 comparison. . . . No one word has been found to characterise an 
 age later than Solomon's. 
 
 The author of Ecclesiastes uses no one word " purely Chaldee " 
 (i.e. East- Aramaic). Now so far from this being evidence of a 
 later origin, it rather fits in with the circumstances of Solomon. 
 Solomon, both from his empire and his domestic life, had occasion 
 (6 be familiar with West- Aramaic; and, in fact, there are words, 
 and one form of West-Aramaic, but not one form or word peculiar 
 to East- Aramaic, with which we have no account of his intercourse. 
 But the Hebrews in the Captivity were in continual intercourse
 
 33O East and West Aramaic. 
 
 with East-Aramaic, and had none with the West. In the Captivity 
 then we should have expected exactly the reverse, that there should 
 have been words peculiar to East-Aramaic, and none peculiar to 
 the West. The Aramaic words then of Ecclesiastes (as far as they 
 go) suit the time of Solomon, not that of the Captivity.' 
 
 Even Moses Stuart, notwithstanding his denial 
 of the Solomonic authorship of Ecclesiastes, says, 
 in his aforementioned book on the Old Testament 
 Canon 
 
 ' The appeal usually made to the language or diction of the book, 
 in proof of a very late age, will hardly stand the test. Knobel, in 
 his recent and much praised commentary on the book of Eccle- 
 siastes, asserts and has endeavoured to show, that the book is 
 deeply tinctured with Chaldaisms, and words of the later Hebrew. 
 He even thinks that it savours strongly of the diction of the Rabbins 
 and Talmudists. But the scores of his Chaldaisms have been 
 reduced by a later writer, better acquainted with this idiom, 
 (Herzfeld, a German Jew, in his notable work, Coheleth trans- 
 lated and explained, 1838), to some 8 or 10 ; and his later Hebrew 
 words (some scores more), to some 11-15. The investigation ot 
 Herzfeld is so thorough, that appeal from it seems to be nearly out 
 of the question.' 
 
 In similar terms, Hengstenberg, another denier 
 of the Solomonic authorship, says in Kitto's 
 Cyclopaedia of Biblical Literature : 
 
 ' Many opponents of the Solomonic authorship certainly went 
 much too far in their assertions. The Grecisms which Zirkle thought 
 that he had found have now generally been given up. The Rabbin- 
 isms likewise could not stand the proof. The words, significations, 
 and forms which seem to appertain to a later period of Hebrew 
 literature, and the Chaldaisms, an abundance of which Knobel 
 gathered, require, as Herzfeld has shown, to be much sifted. 
 According to Herzfeld, there are in Koheleth not more than 
 between eleven and fifteen ' young Hebrew ' expressions and con- 
 structions, and between eight and ten Chaldaisms. Nevertheless, 
 it is certain that the book does not belong to the productions of the 
 first, but rather to the second period of the Hebrew language.
 
 Different Classes of Literature. 331 
 
 This alone would not quite disprove the authorship of Solomon, 
 if we could produce any weighty argument in its favour. We 
 could suppose that Solomon, in a philosophical work, found the 
 pure Hebrew language to be insufficient ; and had, therefore, 
 recourse to the Chaldaizing popular dialect, by which, at a later 
 period, the book-language was entirely displaced. This supposi- 
 tion could not be rejected ci priori, since almost every one of the 
 Hebrew authors before the exile did the same, although in a less 
 degree. There exist, however, no weighty positive reasons for 
 supposing Solomon to be the author ; and the striking difference 
 between the language of Koheleth and the language of the Pro- 
 verbs renders that explanation quite inadmissible. This difference 
 would prove little if the two books belonged to two entirely 
 different classes of literature ; that is, if Koheleth bore the same 
 relation to the Proverbs as the Song of Solomon does : but since 
 Koheleth and the Proverbs belong essentially to the same class, 
 the argument taken from the difference of style must be admitted 
 to be perfectly conclusive.' 
 
 Would it be surprising if, when so vast a pre- 
 ponderance of the particulars said to prove the 
 alleged lateness of Ecclesiastes have been rejected 
 as irrelevant even by deniers of the Solomonic 
 authorship, the few that remain should be found 
 similarly incapable of proving, or even helping 
 to prove, that Ecclesiastes was not written by 
 Solomon ? Surely the multitude and variety of 
 the coincidences specified throughout this treatise 
 between the Book of Ecclesiastes and the other 
 Solomonic Scriptures constitute ' weighty positive 
 reasons for supposing Solomon to be the author' 
 of the book. And although, in so far as ' different 
 classes of literature' are concerned, the literary 
 difference between Ecclesiastes and Solomon's 
 Proverbs is not so great in extent and character 
 as the difference between the Proverbs and the
 
 332 A lleged marks of Lateness. 
 
 Song of Solomon, yet it is sufficiently great to 
 account for the fact of two books from the pen 
 of one and the same author differing from each 
 other as the Book of Ecclesiastes differs from the 
 Proverbs of Solomon, and to show accordingly 
 that ' the argument taken from the difference of 
 style ' is by no means ' conclusive.' 
 
 Any remaining alleged marks of lateness are 
 so few and so inconclusive that their 'combined 
 force,' be it what it may, may, without any attempt 
 at the ' explaining away' process, be left to assert 
 itself for what it is worth when confronted with 
 the many and diversified proofs of the Solomonic 
 authorship. And (with the substitution of prove 
 for reprove in the English version of Job 6. 25) 
 those who, without undervaluing the worth of 
 sound criticism, do yet accept as true the testimony 
 of Ecclesiastes to its own x authorship, may con- 
 fidently reply to those who impugn that testimony, 
 ' How forcible are right words ! but what doth 
 your arguing prove ?' 
 
 TJie Testimony of tJie Scriptures to tJteir own 
 A nthorship. 
 
 Although, as was noticed at the beginning of 
 this treatise, the Scriptures are silent as to the 
 authorship of some of their constituent parts, yet 
 their testimony is very specific with reference to 
 the authorship of other parts, comprising the 
 greater portion of the sacred canon. The circum-
 
 TJie Fact of A iithorship. 333 
 
 stances in which and the persons by whom the 
 books thus authenticated were written, are men- 
 tioned with a precision clearly incompatible with 
 the suggestion that the trustworthiness of the 
 documents is not affected by the denial of the 
 authorship thus ascribed to them. 
 
 The fact of authorship is intimated in various 
 ways. Sometimes it is simply mentioned that a 
 certain person said or spoke what is recorded. In 
 other instances, where some one is named as the 
 author, the record is called his writing or his 
 words ; or the word of Jehovah is said to have 
 come to him, or God is said to have spoken to, or 
 by, or through him. Sometimes also the circum- 
 stances in which the message was given and the 
 relative record was prepared are described with 
 interesting minuteness, as for example in the 
 thirty-sixth chapter of Jeremiah : 
 
 Verse 4. And Jeremiah called Baruch the son of Neriah ; and 
 Baruch wrote upon a roll of a book, from the mouth of Jeremiah, 
 all the words of Jehovah, which he had spoken unto him. 
 
 17-18. And they asked Baruch, saying, Tell us now, How didst 
 thou write all these words from his mouth ? And Baruch said to 
 them, He pronounced unto me all these words with his mouth ; 
 and I wrote with ink in the book. 
 
 This important topic may be further illustrated 
 by four lists, the first of which contains sundry 
 passages analogous to the title of Ecclesiastes, 
 the construct "n^i words of, being prefixed to the 
 name of the person to whom the authorship of the 
 words is ascribed.
 
 334 TJte Words of Kokeletk. 
 
 First List. 
 
 ECCLESIASTES I. 1. The WORDS OF Koheleth, son of David, 
 
 king in Jerusalem. 
 PROVERBS 30. 1. The WORDS OF Agur, son of Jakeh. 
 
 31. 1. The WORDS OF king Lemuel, the burden which 
 
 his mother taught him. 
 
 JOB 31. 40. The WORDS OF Job are ended. 
 2 SAM. 23. 1. Now these are the last WORDS OF David. 
 
 1 KINGS 5. 21 (7) And it came to pass when Hiram heard the 
 
 WORDS OF Solomon, that he rejoiced greatly. 
 
 2 CHRON. 29. 30. And Hezekiah the king, and the princes, 
 
 commanded the Levites to praise Jehovah in 
 
 the WORDS OF David and of Asaph the seer. 
 AMOS I. 1. The WORDS OF Amos who was among the herdmen 
 
 of Tekoa. 
 
 HAGGAI 1. 12. The WORDS OF Haggai the prophet 
 NEHEM. I. 1. The WORDS OF Nehemiah, son of Hachaliah. 
 JEREM. I. 1. The WORDS OF Jeremiah, son of Hilkiah, of the 
 
 priests who were in Anathoth, in the land of 
 
 Benjamin. 
 26. 20. Urijah, the son of Shemaiah, of Kirjath-jearim, 
 
 prophesied against this city, and against this 
 
 land, according to all the WORDS OF Jeremiah. 
 36. 10. And Baruch read in the book the WORDS OF 
 
 Jeremiah. 
 
 51. 64. Thus far are the WORDS OF Jeremiah, 
 LUKE 3. 2-4. The word of God came unto John the son of 
 
 Zacharias in the wilderness : . . . as it is written 
 
 in the book of the WORDS of Esaias the prophet 
 
 It is evident that these and similar passages 
 expressly ascribe to the persons named the 
 authorship of the D'HTi. This ascription does not 
 indeed in every case necessarily imply that the 
 person named was the actual penman of the 
 written document in which his D^-QT are recorded ; 
 but it certainly does imply that the D*"ai were 
 spoken if not written by him. The words quoted
 
 Names and Official Titles. 335 
 
 from Job 31. 40, for instance, refer, not to the 
 authorship of the Book of Job, but simply to Job 
 as the speaker of the words attributed to him in 
 the book which bears his name. It appears also 
 from the Book of Jeremiah, chapters 36 and 45, 
 that Baruch sometimes acted as amanuensis to 
 the prophet Jeremiah. Yet the question of 
 authorship is no more affected by this incidental 
 circumstance than by the fact that, while the 
 apostle Paul wrote, with his own hand, his epistle 
 to the churches of Galatia (6. 11), Tertius acted 
 as his amanuensis in the writing of his epistle 
 to the saints in Rome (16. 22). 
 
 Were it to be urged with reference to the phrase 
 r6np nm, that while the other names to which the 
 construct *"m is prefixed are simple proper nouns, 
 r6np is, as mentioned in pages 119-122, an official 
 title, and that therefore, in so far as the question 
 of authorship is concerned, Ecclesiastes I. 1 is not 
 analogous to such passages as Amos I. 1, Jeremiah 
 i. 1, Nehemiah I. 1, it might be replied that even 
 official titles may come to be used as ordinary 
 names, and that n?np appears to be so used in the 
 Book of Ecclesiastes, and to be accordingly on a 
 par with the other names to which "nm is prefixed. 
 Such titles as Rabshakeh (2 Kings 18. 17-37 ; 
 19. 4, 8), Ebedinelech (Jer. 38. 7-12 ; 39. 16), 
 Rabsaris and Rabmag (Jer. 39. 3, 13), seem to be 
 used, not only in their official character, but also 
 as names of the persons designated. Sophercth 
 also, like KoJuleth, appears not only with the
 
 336 Jedidiah, 
 
 article in Ezra 2. 55, but also in Nehemiah 7. 57, 
 as a proper noun without it. 
 
 It is likewise a deeply interesting fact that 
 Kohcleth is not the only name, besides Solomon, 
 which was given to that son of David who was 
 king over Israel in Jerusalem. In the narrative of 
 Solomon's birth (2 Samuel 12.24-25), it is recorded, 
 not only that David called his name Solomon, but 
 also that 'Jehovah loved him, and sent by the 
 hand of Nathan the prophet, and called his name 
 JEDIDIAH, because of Jehovah.' Yet this name, 
 notwithstanding the peculiarly honourable dis- 
 tinction in which it originated, never appears again 
 in the Scriptures. 
 
 Now, even if there were no clew to the origin of 
 the name Koheleth^ would it be too much to infer 
 from its occurrence in Ecclesiastes, that Solomon 
 must have been called Kokeleth similarly as he 
 was called Jedidiah ? Surely then, a fortiori, the 
 application of the verbal root of r6np to Solomon 
 in i Kings 8. 1 may be viewed as plainly pointing 
 to his assembling of the congregation at the 
 dedication of the temple, as the great historic fact 
 which explains and accounts for the use of the 
 name Koheleth in the Book of Ecclesiastes. 
 
 This is corroborated by the statement in Ecclesiastes 12. 9, 
 ' And moreover because Koheleth was wise, he still taught the 
 people knowledge.' The people Qyn figure prominently in the 
 reign of Solomon. Yet they are not so much as mentioned in 
 the brief episode of Adonijah. Even the formal salutation, ' Let 
 king Adonijah live,' was uttered not by the people but by the 
 select company whom he had called together. Immediately, 
 however, on Solomon being anointed, the cornet was sounded, and
 
 Solomon and the People. 337 
 
 all the people said, ' Let king Solomon live ' ; and all the people went 
 up after him ; and \hz people piped with pipes, and rejoiced with 
 great joy. In his prayer at Gibeon likewise, Solomon repeatedly 
 mentioned the people ; and it was with a view to judging the 
 people, and going out and coming in before them, that he asked 
 for wisdom and knowledge. Now in connection with this point, 
 it is a peculiarly interesting circumstance that, whereas only once 
 in Ecclesiastes, besides 12. 9, does the noun Qy, people, occur, 
 what the Preacher says of Qjjn in that one passage (4. 16) is 
 strikingly similar to what Solomon said of Qyn in his prayer at 
 Gibeon similar however not with the superficial similarity of 
 imitation, but with the deep resemblance of identity of authorship. 
 In contrasting a poor and wise child with an old and foolish king, 
 Koheleth represents the child as standing up in the king's stead, 
 and adds, Qyn-^3^ PP~PK> ' There is NO END OF ALL THE 
 PEOPLE.' Now this statement coincides most remarkably with 
 what Solomon said in his prayer at Gibeon (i Kings 3. 7-8), 
 when, after making special mention of his kingly office, and also 
 of his youth, he adds, ' I know not how to go out or come in ; and 
 thy servant is in the midst of thy people that thou hast chosen 
 A GREAT PEOPLE, THAT CANNOT BE NUMBERED NOR COUNTED 
 
 FOR MULTITUDE.' In Ecclesiastes 4. 16, as in 6. 2 (discussed in 
 pages 83-87), the Preacher is detailing, not his own case, but a 
 case widely dissimilar, especially in the circumstances of the 
 succession to the throne. Yet in describing a young person (T">^) 
 succeeding to a kingdom, Koheleth (if he was Solomon) reverts 
 naturally to the style of delineation which he had used in his own 
 case, in his memorable prayer for wisdom, when, in early life, he 
 became king over a great people. Now this is not the superficial 
 resemblance of imitation, but such deep resemblance as might be 
 expected to have resulted from identity of authorship. 
 
 Here also it may be noticed incidentally that (difference of 
 circumstances being taken into account) the Preacher's pensive 
 exclamation (IO. 16), lyj "ptat? pK "l^S. coincides very 
 strikingly with the manner in which (in I Kings 3. 7) Solomon, 
 when he succeeded to the throne, spoke of himself as jjjp lyj. 
 
 It may be further observed that twelve times in his prayer at the 
 dedication of the temple Solomon mentioned *J)Oj;, thy people. 
 Accordingly the intimation that because Koheleth was wise he 
 still taught the people knowledge, besides fitting exactly Solomon's 
 
 Y
 
 338 Koheleth the son of David. 
 
 prayer for a wise and an understanding heart, illustrates very 
 forcibly the connection between the verb pnp' 1 in I Kings 8. 1, 
 and the cognate noun rvllp i n the Book of Ecclesiastes. Indeed 
 this connection, though not mentioned in Professor Blunt's volume, 
 belongs to that class of valuable undesigned coincidences on which 
 he founds his argument for the veracity of the Scriptures. 
 
 Even irrespective of the important historic fact 
 in which the name rpnp appears to have originated, 
 the specification of the Preacher as D^Wl *pD TTVp 
 gives to the official title the characteristic definite- 
 ness of a proper noun, and thus makes the 
 expression, Koheleth, son of David, strictly parallel 
 to such names and designations as Jeremiah, son 
 of Hilkiah, and Nehemiah t son of Hachaliah. 
 Hence the analogy is complete between Eccle- 
 siastes i. 1 and the other passages quoted in page 
 334, in exemplification of the construct "'"ilT as 
 indicating authorship. 
 
 Three Additional Lists. 
 
 The superabundance and consequent importance 
 of the biblical testimony to the human authorship 
 of many portions of Holy Scripture may be 
 similarly illustrated by copious quotations and 
 references. In the first of the three following 
 lists, for instance, the divine origin of certain 
 specified portions of Scripture, as being what, in 
 2 Timothy 3. 16, the apostle Paul calls 6eo- 
 TTveva-Tos, is mentioned in immediate connection 
 with the human authors through whom those 
 Scriptures were originally published.
 
 The Divine and the Human. 339 
 
 Second List, 
 
 And the word of Jehovah was (or came) unto | 7^ ffirP~"Q"T TV1 
 Samuel, 
 
 Nathan, .... 
 Solomon, 
 
 Jehu, the son of Hanani, . 
 Elijah 'the Tishbite, . . 
 Shemaiah, the man of God, 
 Isaiah, .... 
 Jeremiah, . . . 
 
 1 Sam. 15. 10. 
 
 2 Sam. 7. 4. 
 
 1 Kings 6. 11. 
 
 16. 1. 
 
 ,, 21.17,28. 
 
 2 Chron. 1 1. 2. 
 Isaiah 38. 4. 
 
 Jeremiah 28. 12 ; 29. 30 ; 
 
 32. 26 ; 33. 1, 19, 23 ; 
 
 34. 12 ; 35. 12 ; 36. 27 ; 
 
 37. 6 ; 42. 7 ; 43- 8 5 
 
 twelve times. 
 
 Jonah, .... Jonah I. 1 ; 3. 1. 
 Zechariah, . . . Zechariah 7. 8. 
 
 And the word of Jehovah was (or came) unto me "ip^ : nine 
 times in Jeremiah (i. 4, 11, 13; 2. 1 ; 13. 3, 8; 16. 1 ; 18. 5; 
 24. 4) ; thirty-nine times in Ezekiel (3. 16; 6. 1 ; 7. 1 ; II. 14 ; 
 12. 1, 8, 17, 21, 26 ; 13. 1, and twenty-nine times besides) ; also 
 twice in Zechariah (4. 8 ; 6. 9). 
 
 The word which was (or came) in l) lD"T l ~?K HTl 
 
 unto Jeremiah from Jehovah. j^-p 
 
 Jeremiah 7. 1 ; n. 1 ; 18. 1 ; 21. 1 ; 30. 1 ; 32. 1 ; 34. 1, 8 ; 
 35. 1 ; 40. 1, ten times. 
 
 Similar statements occur in Jeremiah I. 9 ; 25. 3 ; 32. 6 ; 
 39. 15 ; 46. 1 ; 47. 1 ; 49. 34; Ezekiel I. 3; Hosea I. 1 ; Joel 
 I. 1 ; Micah I. 1 ; Zephaniah I. 1 ; Haggai, I. 1, 3 ; 2. 1, 10, 20 ; 
 Zechariah I. 1, 7 ; 7. 1, 4 ; 8. 18 ; Malachi I. 1, and elsewhere. 
 
 Third List. 
 
 Passages in which the Scriptures specified are represented as having been 
 
 uttered verbally. 
 
 i. THE DIVINE AND THE HUMAN GOD SPEAKING BY OR THROUGH MAN. 
 LEV. 27. 34. These are the commandments which Jehovah 
 commanded Moses for the children of Israel, in mount Sinai. 
 NUM. 36. 13. These are the commandments and the judgments 
 which Jehovah commanded by the hand of Moses unto the 
 children of Israel, in the plains of Moab,at the Jordan of Jericho.
 
 340 The Word of J ehovah. 
 
 DEUT. I. 3. And it came to pass in the fortieth year, in the 
 eleventh month, on the first day of the month, Moses spake 
 unto the children of Israel according to all that Jehovah had 
 given him in commandment unto them. 
 
 6. I, And these are the commandment, the statutes, and the 
 judgments which Jehovah your God commanded to teach you. 
 
 2. SAM. 23. 2. The Spirit of Jehovah spake in me ; and his word 
 was upon my tongue. 
 
 1 KINGS 8. 53. D~Q"1, Thou spakest by the hand of Moses thy 
 
 servant, when thou broughtest our fathers out of Egypt, 
 O Lord Jehovah. 
 
 1 6. 34. The word of Jehovah which he spake by the hand of 
 Joshua the son of Nun (Joshua 6. 26). 
 
 17. 16. The word of Jehovah which he spake by the hand of 
 Elijah. 
 
 2 KINGS 14. 25. The word of Jehovah, the God of Israel, which 
 
 he spake by the hand of his servant Jonah the prophet, son 
 
 of Amittai, who was of Gath-hepher. 
 JER. 46. 13. The word which Jehovah spake unto Jeremiah the 
 
 prophet. 
 2 CHRON. 36. 21, 22. The word of Jehovah in the mouth of 
 
 Jeremiah. 
 NEHEMIAH 9. 14. Thou commandedst to them precepts, and 
 
 statutes, and a law, by the hand of Moses thy servant. 
 MALACHI 3. 22 (4. 4). Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, 
 
 which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, even 
 
 the statutes and judgments. 
 
 2. THE HUMAN. 
 
 DEUT. i. 1. These be the words which Moses spake unto all 
 Israel beyond the Jordan, in the wilderness. 
 
 5-6. Beyond the Jordan, in the land of Moab, began Moses 
 to declare this law, saying, Jehovah our God spake unto us in 
 Horeb, saying, Ye have dwelt long enough in this mountain. 
 
 4. 44-46. This is the law which Moses set before the children of 
 Israel. These are the testimonies and the statutes and the 
 judgments which Moses spake unto the children of Israel 
 in their going forth from Egypt, beyond the Jordan, in the 
 valley over against Beth-peor, . . . 
 
 31. 30. And Moses spake in the ears of all the congregation of 
 Israel the words of this song, until they were ended.
 
 Hitman Authorship of the Scriptures. 341 
 
 DEUT. 32. 44-45. And Moses came and spake all the words of 
 this song in the ears of the people, he and Hoshea the son 
 of Nun. And Moses made an end of speaking all these words 
 unto all Israel. 
 
 33. 1. And this is the blessing, wherewith Moses the man of God 
 blessed the children of Israel before his death. 
 
 PSALM 90. Title: A prayer of Moses the man of God. 
 
 2 SAMUEL 22. I. ) David spake to Jehovah the words of this 
 
 PSALM 18. Title. \ song. 
 
 PSALM 7. Title: Shiggaion of David, which he sang to Jehovah, 
 
 concerning the words of Cush, a Benjamite. 
 17 and 86. Title : A prayer of David. 
 142. Title: Maschil of David; a prayer when he was in the cave 
 
 HAB. 3. 1. A prayer of Habakkuk the prophet upon Shigionoth. 
 
 JOHN 12. 41. These things said Esaias when he saw his glory, and 
 spake of him. 
 
 Fourth List. 
 
 Passages in which the "writing of the Scriptures referred to is expressly 
 mentioned. 
 
 EXODUS 24. 4. nri2V| And.Moses WROTE all the words of Jehovah. 
 
 NUMBERS 33. 1-2. These are the journeys of the children of Israel, 
 who went forth from the land of Egypt according to their 
 hosts, by the hand of Moses and Aaron. And Moses WROTE 
 their goings forth according to their journeys, by command of 
 Jehovah ; and these are their journeys according to their 
 goings forth. 
 
 DEUT. 31. 9. And Moses WROTE this law, and gave it unto the 
 priests, the sons of Levi, who bore the ark of the covenant of 
 Jehovah, and unto all the elders of Israel. 
 22. And Moses WROTE this song in that day, and taught it to 
 
 the children of Israel. 
 
 24-26. And it came to pass when Moses had made an end of 
 WRITING the words of this law in a (or the) book until they 
 were finished, that Moses commanded the Levites who bore 
 the ark of the covenant of Jehovah, saying, Take this book of 
 the law, and put it at the side of the ark of the covenant of 
 Jehovah your God, that it may be there for a witness against 
 thee.
 
 342 The Writing of the Scriptures, 
 
 JOSHUA 24. 26. And Joshua WROTE these words in the book of 
 the law of God. 
 
 I SAMUEL 10. 25. And Samuel told the people the manner of the 
 kingdom, and WROTE it in the book, and laid it up before 
 Jehovah. 
 
 ISAIAH 38. 9. The WRITING of Hezekiah, king of Judah, when he 
 had been sick, and was recovered from his sickness. 
 
 JER. 36. 1-2. And it came to pass in the fourth year of Jehoiakim, 
 son of Josiah, king of Judah, that this word came unto Jeremiah 
 from Jehovah, saying, Take to thee a roll of a book, and 
 WRITE upon it all the words which I have spoken unto thee 
 against Israel, and against Judah, and against all the nations, 
 from the day I spake unto thee, from the days of Josiah, even 
 unto this day. 
 
 32. And Jeremiah took another roll, and gave it unto Baruch 
 the scribe, the son of Neriah; and he WROTE thereupon 
 from the mouth of Jeremiah all the words of the book which 
 Jehoiakim king of Judah had burned in the fire ; and there 
 were added besides unto them many like words. 
 51. 60. And Jeremiah WROTE in a book all the evil that should 
 come upon Babylon. 
 
 MARK 10. 5. Jesus answered 'and said to them, For your 
 hardness of heart he [Moses] .WROTE you this commandment 
 (Deut. 24. 1). 
 
 JOHN 5. 46-47. Had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed 
 me ; for he WROTE of me. But if ye believe not HIS 
 WRITINGS, how shall ye believe my words ? 
 
 1 COR. 14. 37. If any one think himself to be a prophet or spiritual, 
 
 let him acknowledge that the things which I WRITE to you 
 are commandments of the Lord. 
 
 GAL. 6. 11. See in how large letters I HAVE WRITTEN to you 
 with mine own hand. 
 
 2 THESS. 3. 17. The salutation of Paul with mine own hand, which 
 
 is a token in every epistle : so I WRITE. 
 PHILEMON 19. I Paul HAVE WRITTEN with mine own hand. 
 REV. i. 11. What thou seest WRITE in a book ; and send it to 
 
 the seven churches.
 
 The Trustworthiness of tJte Scriptures. 343 
 
 Many other passages declaratory of authorship 
 might be added. But these are sufficient to 
 illustrate the prominence given by the Scriptures 
 to their own authorship, and to show how extra- 
 vagant, in the face of such prominence, is the 
 modern theory that their trustworthiness cannot 
 be affected by the denial of the authorship which 
 they claim. To withdraw from the category of 
 things to be implicitly believed, those manifold 
 notes of authorship which are scattered with 
 profusion throughout the sacred volume, would 
 involve an extensive mutilation of it. And there 
 does not appear to be any definite principle on 
 which some of those notes can be thus withdrawn, 
 and others left to occupy that position of authority 
 which is claimed for the written word of God. If, 
 for instance, it is lawful to call in question the 
 Solomonic authorship of Ecclesiastes, can it be 
 unlawful to call in question the Mosaic authorship 
 of Deuteronomy ? And if the Mosaic authorship 
 of Deuteronomy is given up as incredible, can 
 the New Testament, in which that authorship is 
 distinctly and repeatedly acknowledged by the 
 Saviour as well as by his apostles, make good its 
 claim to one's implicit confidence ? 
 
 Precision of the Scriptural Notes of Authorship. 
 
 It appears from the precision with which the 
 authorship of many portions of the Bible is re- 
 corded, that this point, so far from having been 
 treated as a thing of nought, was attended to 
 with the utmost care by the writers of Holy
 
 344 Precision as to Authorship. 
 
 Scripture. For example, the note in the end of 
 Jeremiah 51,' Thus far are the words of Jeremiah,' 
 exemplifies the accuracy of the person by whom 
 it was appended to Jeremiah's prophecies. 
 
 'Whoever it was that added chapter lii.,' says the Dean of 
 Canterbury in the Speaker's Commentary, ' he evidently felt that 
 it was his duty to point out that it was not written by Jeremiah. 
 It is an instance of the scrupulous care taken by the Jews of the 
 sacred writings committed to their keeping.' 
 
 With similar precision the authorship of the 
 Book of Deuteronomy up to the end of chapter 33 
 is attested. Who appended the record of the 
 death and burial and greatness of Moses is not 
 mentioned. But as if to prevent the obviously 
 post-Mosaic authorship of chapter 34 from mili- 
 tating against the fact (denied by the shallow 
 carping criticism of modern unbelief) that Moses 
 was the author of the rest of the book, it is 
 recorded immediately before the Song of Moses, 
 and reiterated immediately after it, that Moses 
 spake in the ears of all the congregation of Israel 
 the words of this song until they were ended, his 
 making an end of writing the words of this law in 
 a book having been mentioned a few verses earlier 
 (31. 24-30 ; 32. 44-47). In like manner also the 
 authorship of the thirty-third chapter is defined 
 by the words which stand at the beginning of it, 
 ' And this is the blessing wherewith Moses the 
 man of God blessed the children of Israel before 
 his death. And he said, Jehovah came from 
 Sinai, and arose from Seir. . . .'
 
 Ecclesiastes and Deuteronomy. 345 
 
 The A uthorship of Deuteronomy. 
 
 As the denial of the Solomonic authorship of 
 Ecclesiastes is intimately connected with the 
 denial of the Mosaic authorship of Deuteronomy 
 and other disputed portions of Holy Scripture, a 
 few specimens of the arguments adduced against 
 the Mosaic authorship may be looked at in illus- 
 tration of the subject of this treatisdP 
 
 The author of the article ' Bible ' in the Encyclo- 
 pedia Britannica says, in a separate relative print 
 on the Pentateuchal Legislation, 
 
 1 Suppose the case that, after the original laws had long been 
 current in historical form, it became necessary to introduce, under 
 adequate prophetic authority, some new ordinance to meet the 
 changing conditions of political, social, and religious life . . . how 
 could such a law be added to a statute book which had the peculiar 
 shape of a history of Israel in the Wilderness ? Apparently, says 
 criticism, the only way to make the new law an integral part of 
 the old legislation was to throw it into such a form as if it had 
 been spoken by Moses, and so incorporate it with the other laws. 
 Of course, if this plan was adopted the statute book ceased to be 
 pure literal history. The ascription of a law to Moses could no 
 longer be taken literally, but could only indicate that the law was 
 as much to be observed as if it came from Moses, and that it was 
 a legitimate addition to his legislation. . . . There is no deceit 
 implied in the use of an artificial literary form proceeding on a 
 principle well understood, and so it is a pure question of literary 
 and historical evidence whether the Hebrews did at one time 
 recognise and use such a principle. There is one piece of direct 
 historical evidence which seems to shew that they did, for in 
 Ezra ix. 11, a law is quoted from Deuteronomy vii., expressed in 
 words that throw it back into the Wilderness period, and yet the 
 origin of this law is ascribed not to Moses but to the Prophets. ' 
 
 Now, not to speak of the circumstance that if 
 Deuteronomy had been composed and published
 
 346 The Patriarch of the Prophets. 
 
 in the way here suggested, it must be a very 
 deceptive book, it may be observed that the 
 solitary passage specified from the Book of Ezra 
 recoils on the theory in support of which it is 
 adduced, and at once proves the inconclusiveness 
 of the argument, and the accuracy of the refer- 
 ence given by Ezra. Without overlooking the 
 fact that in Genesis 20. 7 Abraham is mentioned 
 as a prophet, Closes may be said to be the very 
 patriarch of the prophets. The emphatic way 
 also in which his unique position in this capacity 
 is declared at the very end of the Pentateuch, 
 would in itself be amply sufficient to vindicate 
 Ezra's designation of him as a prophet this 
 designation being peculiarly natural in the lips of 
 a late author like Ezra, who lived when the pro- 
 phetic office had almost passed into abeyance. 
 To this might be added, if further vindication of 
 Ezra's reference to Moses were necessary, the 
 statement in Hosea 12. 14 (l3), where, in imme- 
 diate connection with the prophets spoken of in 
 verse 11 (10), as a class or order of men, Moses, 
 without being named, is expressly designated a 
 prophet : ' N^JTI And by a prophet, Jehovah 
 brought up Israel from Egypt ; and by a prophet 
 he -was preserved.' 
 
 Over and above such considerations as these, 
 the precision of Ezra is proved by the circum- 
 stance, evident from the very words which he 
 uses, (such prominent words as !m vf?D, riKDB, cm, 
 HID, being nowhere in Deuteronomy 7) that, so far 
 from quoting some single passage of Scripture,
 
 The Accuracy of Ezra. 347 
 
 he is giving the substance of a plurality of divine 
 messages announced from time to time by various 
 prophets. If it may be said that one of these 
 messages is in the seventh chapter of Deuteronomy, 
 it may be said with not less certainty that 
 another of them is in the twenty-first chapter of 
 2 Kings. There (verses 7, 8, 10), in close connection 
 with what ' the Lord spake by the hand of his 
 servants the prophets,' the historia'n records what 
 ' the Lord said unto David and unto Solomon his 
 son/ and refers to ' the law which my servant 
 Moses commanded.' It is likewise noteworthy 
 that the phrase DW3Jn inay T3 in Ezra 9. 1 1 is 
 mutatis mutandis identical with DW3Jn VT3y-T3 
 in 2 Kings 21. 10; and that whereas the phrase 
 na-$>X na or risk na occurs in Numbers -12. 8; 
 2 Kings 10. 21 ; 21. 16 ; Ezra 9. 11, its application 
 to places is peculiar to Ezra and 2 Kings. The 
 superlative accuracy of Ezra's words, as referring 
 to other prophets besides Moses, is thus evident. 
 
 The aforesaid article ' Bible ' in the Encyclopedia 
 Britannica contains the following statement : 
 
 'A good deal may be said in favour of the view that the 
 Deuteronomic style, which is very capable of imitation, was 
 adopted by writers of different periods. But even so it is difficult 
 to suppose that the legislative part of Deuteronomy is as old as 
 Moses. If the law of the kingdom in Deuteronomy xvii. was 
 known in the time of the Judges, it is impossible to comprehend 
 Judges viii. 23, and above all I Samuel viii. 7.' 
 
 The writer of the article says also in a supple- 
 ment to the separate print quoted from in page 
 345 of this treatise,
 
 348 The Law of the Kingdom. 
 
 ' The law of the kingdom is one of the best secondary proofs 
 that the legislative kernel of Deuteronomy was not known to the 
 prophet Samuel, who, with this passage (Deuteronomy xvii. 14 
 sf<?.) before him, could not have represented it as a great wicked- 
 ness to ask a king (i Samuel xii. 17).' 
 
 Yet the fact that Deuteronomy 17. 14 represents 
 the proposal for a king as possibly resulting from 
 a motive by no means devout and noble (I will 
 set over me a king like all the nations (D*WT793) 
 that are round about me), viewed in connection 
 with the fact that this very motive did prompt the 
 people to demand a king D^Jn-^33 ut32K^(i Samuel 
 8. 5), is amply sufficient to account for the Lord's 
 declaration, ' Me they have rejected ' (verse 7), and 
 for Samuel's displeasure, not merely because they 
 desired a king, but because they cherished such a 
 desire when Jehovah their God was their king 
 (: DMta capita mm, 12. 12). The circumstances 
 and spirit in which the people thus asked for a 
 king gave abundant reason for Samuel (even if 
 Deuteronomy 17. 14-20 was in his mind and before 
 his eyes) to charge them with wickedness in the 
 making of their request (12. 17). Indeed the 
 general style and drift of the narrative, and the 
 way in which (after the manner of Deuteronomy 
 17. 16-20) the aged prophet, besides blaming the 
 people, conjoins his warnings against sinning in 
 the future, with a highly encouraging promise of 
 prosperity in the event of faithfulness, constitute 
 valuable cumulative evidence that Samuel spoke 
 with direct reference to Deuteronomy. The 
 legislation in Deuteronomy and the narrative in
 
 Samuel and Deuteronomy. 349 
 
 Samuel coincide likewise in sundry other par- 
 ticulars, as, for instance, in setting forth the duty 
 of fearing the Lord and obeying his law, and in 
 showing that the choosing (inn) and the placing 
 (DIP) of the king proceeded from the people and 
 also from the Lord (Deuteronomy 17. 14, 15, 19 ; 
 i Samuel 8. 5; 10. 19, 24; 12. 13, 14). Indeed 
 the narrative of I Samuel 8 to 12, abounding as it 
 does in allusions to the Pentateuch and to the 
 bygone history of Israel, supplies a clear and 
 cogent illustration of the ' good deal [which] may 
 be said in favour of the view that the Deuteronomic 
 style was adopted by writers of different periods.' 
 The words of Gideon in Judges 8. 23 give no 
 countenance to the suggestion that the law of the 
 kingdom in Deuteronomy 17 was unknown in the 
 time of the Judges : 
 
 JUDGES 8. 22. And the men of Israel said unto Gideon, Rule 
 thou among us, both thou, and thy son, and thy son's son ; for 
 thou hast saved us from the hand of Midian. 
 
 23. And Gideon said unto them (iJX ^PDX"^) I will not rule 
 among you ; and my son shall not rule among you ; Jehovah shall 
 rule among you. 
 
 Now be it observed that Gideon's verb ?? bears 
 to the noun "D in Deuteronomy 17. 14, 15, the 
 relation which the general word rule bears to the 
 specific word reign, and while sometimes used of 
 kingly authority, as in I Kings 5. 1 (4. 21), is 
 equally applicable to any other kind or rank of 
 authority, as in Genesis 3. 16 ; 4. 7; 24. 2 ; 45. 8, 26 ; 
 Psalm 105. 20, 21; and in Deuteronomy 15. 6, the 
 only passage in Deuteronomy where the verb
 
 350 The J udges and Deuteronomy. 
 
 occurs. Even if, in the reading of the eighth 
 chapter of Judges, there seemed to be some 
 plausibility in the suggestion of the Encyclo- 
 paedia Britannica, that the law of the kingdom in 
 Deuteronomy 17 was unknown in the times of 
 the Judges, such plausibility must at once vanish 
 away on arriving at the second verse of the ninth 
 chapter, where Abimelech, the son of Gideon, 
 using the same verb ^BTD, bids his kindred say 
 to all the lords of Shechem, 'What is good for 
 you ? Shall seventy men, even all the sons of 
 Jerubbaal, rule among you ? or shall one man 
 rule among you ? and remember ye that I am 
 your bone, and your flesh.' These words of 
 Abimelech go a much greater length towards 
 indicating an acquaintance with Deuteronomy 
 17. 14-15 than it is possible for Gideon's words 
 to seem to incline in the Opposite direction. 
 
 Even if Gideon's general verb ^D be viewed as 
 equivalent to the specific verb "jta, this can in no 
 way give soundness to the argument of the 
 Encyclop&dia Britannica against the Mosaic 
 authorship of Deuteronomy. What is the grand 
 distinguishingfeature of Midian's defeat and Israel's 
 triumph ? Is it not the fact, reiterated over and 
 over again with striking emphasis, that the work 
 was the work of God, and not the work of man ? 
 This fact pervades the historic narrative of 
 Judges 6, 7, 8. ' Jehovah is with thee, thou 
 mighty man of valour' is the encouraging 
 announcement with which the angel of the Lord 
 salutes Gideon in 6. 12. And when, as in verses
 
 Midiaris Defeat and Israel's Triumph. 351 
 
 14-16, Gideon is represented as saving Israel and 
 smiting Midian, his doing it is attributed to the 
 fact that the Lord sends him and is with him. 
 In verses 36, 37 Gideon speaks of his own hand 
 as the mere instrument by means of which the 
 Lord does the work. In 7. 2 to 7 the Lord pre- 
 scribes certain arrangements, for the express 
 purpose of preventing Israel from vauntingly 
 saying, ' Mine own hand hath saved me.' In 
 7. 7, 9, 15, 22 ; 8. 7 also, the deliverance is directly 
 ascribed to mfp, and in 7. 14 ; 8. 3 to DTita. 
 
 7. 15. Arise ; for Jehovah hath given into your hand the host 
 of Midian. 
 
 8. 3. Into your hand God hath given the princes of Midian. 
 
 Now what, on the other hand, is the ground on 
 which in 8. 22 the men of Israel say to Gideon, 
 ' Rule thou among us, both thou, and thy son, and thy son's son '? 
 
 In the words which immediately follow, they give 
 the reason of their request, namely, 
 
 ' for thou hast saved us from the hand of Midian. 
 
 Here there is on their part a plain and obvious 
 overlooking of the great, fundamental, oft-repeated 
 fact that not Gideon but Jehovah had been their 
 deliverer. And what more pointed or emphatic 
 way could Gideon have adopted of calling their 
 attention to that fact, than the way he did adopt, of 
 declining the invitation, and suggesting that HE who 
 had given them the victory should be their ruler ? 
 
 Verse 23. 'And Gideon said unto them, I (ijtf) will not rule 
 among you ; and my son shall not rule among you : Jehovan 
 shall rule among you.'
 
 352 Shallow Arguments. 
 
 To take no notice of the special circumstances 
 in which Gideon was speaking, even though the 
 record of those circumstances shows with the 
 clearness of noonday that his words can have no 
 bearing whatever on the Mosaic authorship of 
 Deuteronomy, and to exhibit accordingly, in total 
 isolation from its context, Judges viii. 23, as 
 indicating that the law of the kingdom in Deutero- 
 nomy xvii. cannot have been known in the time 
 of the Judges, is to employ a kind of argumentation 
 which is not only inconclusive, but is even below 
 the lowest grade of plausibility. Indeed, a poorer 
 argument than the appeal of the Encyclopedia 
 Britannica to Judges 8. 23 is scarcely conceivable. 
 It is so shallow as to admit of being easily refuted 
 
 by 
 
 ' Yon cottager, who weaves at her own door, 
 Pillow and bobbins all her little store, 
 Content though mean, and cheerful if not gay, 
 Shuffling her threads about the livelong day 
 Just earns a scanty pittance, and at night 
 Lies down secure her heart and pocket light ; 
 [Who], for her humble sphere by nature fit, 
 Has little understanding and no wit ' 
 Receives no praise, but, though her lot be such, 
 (Toilsome and indigent) [who] renders much 
 Just knows, and knows no more, her Bible true 
 A truth the brilliant Frenchman never knew ; 
 And in that charter reads with sparkling eyes, 
 Her title to a treasure in the skies.' 
 
 Even she might tell, in her own humble way, with 
 the English version of the Book of Judges in her 
 hand, that Gideon refused the offered dominion 
 because he was not the author of the deliverance on 
 account of which the dominion was offered to him.
 
 A Sign and Witness to Jehovah. 353 
 
 Similarly inconclusive is the following statement 
 in the aforesaid supplement : 
 
 ' It is clear that Isaiah, who predicts as a victory of true religion 
 the erection in Egypt of a ma^eba to Jehovah, knew nothing of 
 Deut. xvi. 22, where the ma^eba is called hateful to Jehovah.' 
 
 But (not to speak of Jacob's example, as recorded 
 in Genesis 28. 18-22; 31. 13; 35. 14) it may be 
 observed that there is a wide and essential 
 difference between setting up a niVO to Jehovah 
 (mrpf)) in the land of Egypt for a sign and for a 
 witness to him in the day when he shall be known 
 there (Isaiah 19. 19-21), and setting up ' ("!$>) to 
 thyself a niVD, which Jehovah thy God hateth.' 
 
 The following extract is taken from the last 
 paragraph of the Appendix to the Supplement : 
 
 'The words, "Moses wrote this precept" occur in Mark but 
 not in Matthew ; which shows that the evangelists are not report- 
 ing our Lord's words verbally, and that nothing can be based on 
 mere verbal points. . . . The precept about re-marriage is the 
 Deuteronomic precept; the 'law of divorce is in Deuteronomy 
 assumed as current law, and, therefore, presumably is of imme- 
 morial date, an ancient custom, which Moses, as our Lord puts it, 
 according to Matthew, permitted rather than approved. . . . It is 
 plain that in John vii. 22, "Moses gave you circumcision" 
 Moses means no more than the old dispensation, for it is imme- 
 diately added that, strictly speaking, that rite is patriarch al. ' 
 
 Now it must surely be obvious that the process is 
 a very short one by which the writer of the article 
 ' Bible ' in the Encyclopedia Britannica here lays 
 down a sweeping principle which, if it were well 
 founded, would, on being applied to the Gospel 
 narratives, involve in hopeless uncertainty the 
 
 z
 
 354 P a r all d Passages. 
 
 whole series of words and sayings attributed in 
 the New Testament to the Lord Jesus. Two 
 evangelists, narrating with substantial harmony a 
 certain incident of his public ministry, severally 
 represent him to have said something. But the 
 something reported by the one is different from 
 (though thoroughly consistent with) the something 
 reported by the other. Therefore (so says the 
 modern criticism in question), 'the evangelists are 
 not reporting our Lord's words verbally'; and 
 so it cannot be conclusively inferred from Mark 
 10. 5 that Jesus did attribute to Moses the precept 
 which that passage represents him as having said 
 that Moses wrote. Now since Matthew 19. 8 is 
 quite compatible with Mark 10. 5, is it not possible 
 that what Jesus actually said is 'reported verbally' 
 in both passages ? May he not have declared that, 
 ' for your hard-heartedness, Moses wrote you this 
 commandment, [and] suffered you to put away 
 your wives' ? the one passage being thus supple- 
 mentary rather than destructive of the other. 
 
 It is in this manner that the Saviour's words 
 in Matthew 26. 26 and Luke 22. 19 must be read 
 and interpreted : 
 
 MATTHEW 26. 26. Take, eat : this is my body. 
 LUKE 22. 19. This is my body which is given for you : this do 
 in remembrance of me. 
 
 Similarly, the four Gospels concur in recording 
 that the inscription on the cross contained the 
 words, 6 /8ao-tXev9 rwv 'lovBalwv, TJie King of the 
 Jews. In Matthew 27. 37 these words are pre- 
 ceded by the affirmation, Ouro<? eaTtv 'Irjcrovs, This
 
 The man Moses. 355 
 
 is Jesus ; and in Luke 23. 38 by Ouros 
 whereas in John 19. 19, which does not contain 
 OI/TO? (TTLV, the name 'Irjo-ovs is followed by the 
 designation 6 IVa&>pato9, the Nazarene. Since 
 these variations are thus clearly complementary of 
 the simple designation "O /3a<riXei>9 rwv 'Iov$al&v 
 in Mark 15. 26, so likewise the words ascribed to 
 Jesus in Matthew 19. 8 cannot detract from the 
 value of the words ascribed to him in Mark 10. 5, 
 as containing his explicit acknowledgment of the 
 Mosaic authorship of Deuteronomy. Indeed the 
 fact that Deuteronomy 24. 1-4 was written by 
 Moses belongs to the very essence of the narrative 
 recorded in Matthew 19. 3-9 and Mark 10. 2-12, 
 and cannot be eliminated from it. 
 
 The scope of the Saviour's answer to the Jews 
 in the Temple at the Feast of Tabernacles, as 
 recorded in John 7. 16-24, shows that Mwvarjs in 
 verse 22 is identical with Mowo-rjs in verse 19, 
 and that, as in verse 19 the name is used with 
 its ordinary personal application, so likewise in 
 verse 22 it denotes not ' the old dispensation,' but 
 the man Moses : 
 
 19. Hath not Moses given to you the Law ? 
 22. Therefore hath Moses given to you circumcision, not because 
 it is of Moses, but of the fathers. 
 
 Invariably throughout the Gospel of John (where 
 Moses is named oftener than in any one of the 
 Synoptic Gospels) the name is used to denote 
 Moses personally. And even in Luke 16. 29, 31, 
 and 2 Corinthians 3. 15, where the Book of the Law 
 is called Moses, it is so designated on account of
 
 356 T/ie ordinance of Circumcision. 
 
 the man Moses having, with unbroken unanimity, 
 been acknowledged as its author. 
 
 It may be observed still further, that John 7-22, so 
 far from favouring the denial of the Mosaic author- 
 ship of the Pentateuch, points emphatically in the 
 opposite direction. It is conceivable that had the 
 words ov% OTI e/c rov Mwvaea)*; ecrrlv not been con- 
 tained in the gospel narrative, some modern critics 
 might, through overlooking the precept of circum- 
 cision in Leviticus 12. 3, have held up John 7. 22 
 as an evidence of the alleged inaccuracy of Holy 
 Scripture. They might have pointed with an air 
 of triumph to the seventeenth chapter of Genesis 
 as proving conclusively that Moses did not give 
 circumcision to the Jews the rite having been 
 enjoined and practised long before his birth. 
 Now the explicit manner in which the original 
 institution of circumcision is here mentioned in 
 the same sentence with the Saviour's reference to 
 
 * 
 
 the Mosaic precept of Leviticus 12. 3, precludes 
 the assertion that the reference in John 7. 22 to 
 Moses must have resulted from a slip of memory 
 or some other inadvertence, and vindicates the 
 accuracy of the evangelist in what he here says about 
 the enactment and re-enactment of circumcision. 
 
 Indeed the Saviour's words on this theme are 
 specially noteworthy on account of their precision. 
 His statement that Moses gave circumcision is as 
 strictly and literally true as is the other statement 
 that circumcision is not of Moses but of the 
 fathers. It appears from Joshua 5. 5 that Moses 
 enjoined circumcision at a time when, through the
 
 The discontinuance of Circumcision. 357 
 
 force of circumstances, the ordinance had fallen 
 into desuetude, and when accordingly it was 
 expedient that a written injunction on the subject 
 should be inserted in the Law, to impress on the 
 minds of the people the fact that the patriarchal 
 ordinance, though temporarily in abeyance, had not 
 been abrogated, but must be resumed on the first con- 
 venient opportunity. But for the minuteness with 
 which the discontinuance and the resumption of 
 circumcision are thus explained and accounted for 
 in Joshua 5. 2-9, the modern criticism which denies 
 the Mosaic authorship of Deuteronomy must, if 
 impartially applied to the rest of the Pentateuch, 
 have denied the antiquity of Genesis also. In Joshua 
 5. 4-5 two important facts are mentioned namely 
 (i) that all the males among the people who went 
 forth from Egypt had been circumcised ; and (2) 
 that those born in the wilderness were not circum- 
 cised. Now, had only the second of these two 
 facts appeared in the Scripture narrative, and had 
 there been no record of the fact that circumcision 
 was actually practised by the Israelites in Egypt, 
 then, according to the kind of criticism represented 
 by the article 'Bible' in the Encyclopedia Britannica, 
 the inference would have been inevitable, that Joshua 
 could have known nothing more about the seven- 
 teenth chapter of Genesis than Gideon and Samuel 
 could have known about the seventeenth chapter 
 of Deuteronomy, or Isaiah could have known 
 about Deuteronomy 16. 22. It must, on the con- 
 trary, be 'dramatically/ or 'in a pictorial manner,' 
 that the origin of circumcision is referred to the
 
 358 Precarious Criticism. 
 
 days of Abraham, so as to connect the seal of 
 the covenant with Abraham's faith. And the 
 author of Genesis 17, whoever he was, must have 
 resorted to this device because ' he knew that the 
 people could be better taught by picture and 
 parable than by argument,' and because the 
 ordinance of circumcision is ' to be viewed as a 
 development of the old legislation under prophetic 
 authority to meet the new needs of a later age.' 
 
 The precariousness of this kind of criticism is 
 demonstrated by the fact that a short sentence in 
 Joshua 5. 5 precludes the application of it to the 
 ordinance of circumcision. The narrative of 
 Joshua 5. 2-9 refutes, with a clearness and cogency 
 of its own, the modern postulate that because 
 certain Jewish practices were at variance with 
 certain Pentateuchal precepts, therefore the pre- 
 cepts cannot have been in existence at the date 
 of the practices, and must accordingly, notwith- 
 standing the Mosaic authorship which they claim, 
 have been devised long after the days of Moses. 
 How easily might the facts said to disprove the 
 Mosaic authorship of such precepts be shown to 
 be thoroughly consistent with it, if some relative 
 or collateral facts now unknown had been left on 
 record, similarly as the discontinuance and the 
 resumption of circumcision have been ! 
 
 Evidently, however, the Bible was not written 
 for the purpose of carrying on a controversy with 
 such criticism as that by which its veracity has in 
 recent times been assailed. The facts and doctrines 
 which it records are addressed, not to the eye of
 
 Christian Faith. 359 
 
 scepticism, but to the eye of faith. At the same 
 time, the trustworthiness of the Scriptures and the 
 truthfulness of their claims in matters of author- 
 ship rest on such testimony as is amply sufficient to 
 vindicate an intelligent belief in that authorship, 
 and to show accordingly that Christian faith is 
 not a blind or credulous or imbecile principle, 
 impervious to sound argument, and needing the 
 truth to be taught ' in a pictorial manner,' through 
 * what was strictly an application of the spirit of 
 Mosaic teaching,' being put 'in the form of words 
 uttered by Moses.' On the contrary, the faith of 
 Christianity is a faith founded on fact, and ready, 
 in virtue of the evidence on which it rests, and 
 through the enlightenment and joy and strength 
 of character which it imparts, to vindicate its own 
 consistency against the groundless and conflicting 
 theories of doubt and unbelief. ' The entrance of 
 thy words giveth light ; it giveth understanding to 
 the simple." 
 
 Solomonic Notes of A uthorsJiip. 
 
 The notes of authorship in Solomon's Proverbs 
 and in the Book of Ecclesiastes are pre-eminently 
 explicit. Besides the note ^B> titles in Proverbs 
 i.l; 10. 1, Solomon, in 22. 20 (already quoted in 
 page 56), expressly refers to proverbs written by 
 himself : Ti3rD &6n, ' Have not I written to thee 
 excellent things ?' So likewise, in connection with 
 the question of authorship, the announcement
 
 360 The Writings of Solomon. 
 
 at the beginning of the twenty-fifth chapter is 
 remarkable for its clearness and minute precision. 
 If any passage of Holy Scripture is stamped on 
 its very forefront with marks of simple honest 
 truthfulness, Proverbs 25. 1 is so : 
 
 ' These also are proverbs of Solomon, which the men of 
 Hezekiah, king of Judah, copied out.' 
 
 This verse is valuable not only for what it 
 directly testifies with reference to the series of 
 proverbs at the head of which it stands, but also 
 for its undesigned coincidence with I Kings 5. 12 
 (4. 32), and for its incidental testimony to the fact 
 that in the days of King Hezekiah the preceding 
 proverbs were known and acknowledged as un- 
 doubted proverbs of Solomon. Yet as it appears 
 from i Kings 5. 12 that Solomon uttered many 
 proverbs besides those which had been collected 
 into the sacred volume, this, fact in the Solomonic 
 history accounts for the source from which the 
 men of Hezekiah selected and transcribed the 
 proverbs preserved in chapters 25 to 29 of the 
 canonical Book of Proverbs. 
 
 It may be further observed that, in the manner 
 of declaring the Solomonic authorship, the opening 
 verse in the Book of Ecclesiastes resembles closely 
 the opening verse in the Proverbs of Solomon. 
 Without actually naming Solomon, which would 
 have been out of keeping with the plan of the 
 treatise, Ecclesiastes I. 1 coincides with Proverbs 
 I.I in calling the author TiVp ; and while, in the 
 title to the Proverbs, he is further defined as
 
 Solomonic Notes of Authorship. 361 
 
 ta, he is defined in the title to the Book of 
 Ecclesiastes with equal precision as DPETTa "|7D, 
 a title still further amplified in verse 12, where 
 both definitions are combined. 
 
 PROVERBS i. 1. The Proverbs of Solomon, son of David, king 
 
 of Israel. 
 ECCLESIASTES i. 1. The words of Koheleth, son of David, king 
 
 in Jerusalem. 
 12. I Koheleth was king over Israel in Jerusalem. 
 
 The difference of designation between Proverbs 
 i. 1 and Ecclesiastes i. 1 on the one hand, and 
 the subsequent coincidence between Ecclesiastes 
 I. 12 and Proverbs i. 1 on the other, are thus 
 characterised by the undesignedness of truth, 
 rather than by the device of personation. 
 
 Besides the note of authorship in the beginning 
 of the first chapter of Ecclesiastes, a differently 
 expressed yet similarly explicit note occurs near 
 the end of the last chapter (verses 9, 10) : 
 
 And moreover because the Preacher was wise, he still taught 
 the people knowledge, and gave ear, and searched out, yea, set in 
 order many proverbs. 
 
 The Preacher sought to find out acceptable words ; and that 
 which was WRITTEN was upright, even words of truth. 
 
 The searching out and setting in order many 
 proverbs, and the seeking to find out words which 
 are acceptable and upright and true, and the 
 writing of such words, are actions which point most 
 distinctly to Koheleth, not merely as the theme 
 of the Book of Ecclesiastes, but as the author of 
 the book mna in Ecclesiastes 12. 10 coinciding
 
 362 The Book of the Words of Solomon. 
 
 with TOrD in Proverbs 22. 20, as was pointed out 
 in page 153 of this treatise. 
 
 These two concurrent references to Solomon 
 as the author of the writings in question are 
 corroborated and enhanced by what is recorded 
 independently in the Solomonic history. Thus, 
 for instance, a volume called The Book of the 
 Words of Solomon, no?t? 'nil ISO, is expressly 
 mentioned in the end of the narrative of Solomon's 
 life and reign : 
 
 i KINGS n. 41. And the rest of the words of Solomon, and all 
 that he did, and his wisdom, are they not written in the book of 
 the words of Solomon ? 
 
 In like manner, Esther 2. 23 ; 10. 2 ; I Kings 
 14. 19, 29; 15. 7, 23, 31, and above twenty-five 
 subsequent passages throughout the two books of 
 Kings, contain the similar phrase D^BTi '"in "IQD, 
 as being descriptive of certain annals in which 
 facts and events not recorded in the canonical 
 Scriptures were detailed. I Kings 1 1. 41, however, 
 is the only passage in which the phrase "nin "ISD is 
 prefixed to the name of a person. An equivalent 
 Greek phrase, clearly expressive of authorship, 
 occurs in Luke 3. 4, where the words o>9 yeypcnrTai, 
 ey /3i'/2A,&> \6ya)v 'Haalov rov TrpcxfirJTOV are applied 
 to a quotation (fywvr) fiowvros, 40. 3) from that 
 section of the Book of Isaiah which is said, by 
 modern critics of the rationalistic school, to be 
 later than the lifetime of the prophet. 
 
 Throughout the Hebrew Scriptures the noun 
 m or nnm is used with considerable latitude of
 
 Words and Works. 363 
 
 reference, to include deeds as well as words, as, for 
 instance, in I Kings 14. 19, "jta 1BW Drta "15?K. As 
 in English, the written words of an author are 
 called his works, so conversely in Hebrew a man's 
 works, rehearsed in speech or writing, are called 
 his D'-im the noun *12*T being thus used of one's 
 zvorks viewed as matters expressed in words either 
 spoken or written, and recorded in the Book of 
 the D'B'n '"in. 
 
 In i Kings 14. 29 ; 15. 7, 23, 31 ; 16. 14, and 
 several other passages, the '"irn of the person 
 named are mentioned along with n^j? *IK>K-;O, and 
 are said to be written in the D'O'n **im *IDD, a 
 phrase obviously denoting a book in which words 
 and deeds are detailed, *1'n DV-QT It thus 
 appears that the no^ '"in "12D must have been, 
 what is very common in the present day, a 
 volume containing not only a man's writings, but 
 also a memoir of his life. Hence i Kings 11. 41 
 (like 5. 12 already noticed in page 360) throws a 
 flood of light on Proverbs 25. 1. The Book of 
 the '"irn of Solomon, containing, as it did, a 
 record of his D'*im and his works and his wisdom, 
 supplied an ample repository from which 
 Hezekiah's copyists might select and transcribe 
 those proverbs of Solomon which they added 
 to the canonical TOTtf Wb then in existence. 
 
 Without overlooking the fact that there are 
 passages in which it is apparent from the context 
 that '"13*1 prefixed to a man's name does not 
 necessarily indicate anything as to authorship,
 
 364 Solomonic Literature. 
 
 and without attempting to found on the unique 
 phrase PIDTP "HT7 1QD any argument which it 
 cannot bear, the fact may be reiterated as a note- 
 worthy one, that Solomon is the only person to 
 whose name the words "H21 "ISO are prefixed 
 these words being peculiar to I Kings it. 41, 
 and the passages (between thirty and forty in 
 number) which contain the technical post-Solo- 
 monic phrase D^OTI "nn 1DD. Now if Solomon 
 was the author of the three canonical books 
 ascribed to him, and also of the miscellaneous 
 literature specified in i Kings 5. 12-1 3 (4. 32-33), it is 
 not surprising that, while one volume was sufficient 
 for the annals of his royal successors, his own 
 words and works and wisdom should have required 
 for themselves a "ISO of unusual dimensions. 
 Accordingly the reference to a n?B> "nm nao in 
 I Kings II. 41, like the Taro declaration in Pro- 
 verbs 22. 19-21, and the rrfention of a nfhv 3TDO 
 in 2 Chronicles 35. 4, illustrates the statement 
 nox nm IP* 3irD1 in Ecclesiastes 12. 10, and thus 
 confirms the Solomonic authorship of Ecclesiastes. 
 It may be further observed also that, while the 
 testimony of such passages as Ecclesiastes I. 1 and 
 12. 10 is abundantly explicit, the fact of Solomon's 
 authorship, so far from depending exclusively 
 on two or three verses, permeates the whole 
 Book of Ecclesiastes as an autobiography, in 
 which Koheleth is rehearsing what he saw, and 
 what he knew, and what he said, and what he 
 experienced.
 
 The naming of Authors. 
 
 365 
 
 The Witness of the New Testament to the 
 Authorship of the Old. 
 
 The New Testament contains many and widely 
 diversified references to the authorship of various 
 parts of the Old Testament, seven or eight men 
 being named as the authors of certain specified 
 portions of the Hebrew Scriptures. These men 
 are Moses, David, Elijah, Isaiah, Hosea, Joel, 
 Jeremiah, and Daniel ; and the following lists 
 exhibit the relative particulars. . 
 
 MOSES. 
 
 
 Subjects of Reference. 
 
 Moses named in 
 
 Exodus 
 
 Lev. 
 
 Deut. 
 
 I 
 
 The cleansing of the 
 leper, 
 
 ( Matt. 8.4 ) 
 < Mark i. 44 V 
 ( Luke 5. 14 J 
 
 
 14.1-32. 
 
 
 2 
 
 Thebill of divorcement, 
 
 ( Matt. 19. 3-8 ) 
 \ Mark 10. 2-9 { 
 
 
 
 24. 1-4. 
 
 
 
 (Matt. 22. 23-32.) 
 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 The Resurrection, 
 
 < Mark 12. 18-27 > 
 
 3-6 
 
 
 (25- 5-6). 
 
 
 
 (.Luke 20. 27-38 J 
 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 Father and Mother, . 
 
 Mark 7. 10 
 
 20. 12 
 21. 17 
 
 I 20. 9. 
 
 5- 16. 
 
 S 
 
 The days of 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 purification, . 
 
 Luke 2. 22-24 
 
 
 12. 
 
 
 6 
 
 Circumcision on the 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 eighth day, 
 
 John 7. 22-23 
 
 
 12. 3. 
 
 
 7 
 
 The Prophet like Moses, 
 
 Acts 3. 22-23; 7. 37 
 
 
 
 i8.15.19. 
 
 8 
 
 The righteousness of 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 the law, . 
 
 Romans 10. 5 
 
 
 18. 5. 
 
 
 9 
 
 A foolish nation, 
 
 19 
 
 
 
 32- 21. 
 
 10 
 
 The unmuzzled ox, 
 
 i Cor. 9. 9 
 
 
 
 25. 4. 
 
 II 
 
 The Blood of the 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Covenant, 
 
 Heb. 9. 19-20 
 
 24. 3-8. 
 
 
 
 12 
 
 Moses afraid, 
 
 12. 21 
 
 
 
 9. 19. 
 
 13 
 
 The Song of Moses, 
 
 Rev. 15. 3 
 
 iS-1-18 
 
 
 32. 4.
 
 3 66 
 
 Old Testament Authors. 
 
 DAVID. 
 
 
 Subjects of Quotation. 
 
 David named in 
 
 Psalms quoted. 
 
 
 
 /Matt. 22. 41-45 "\ 
 
 
 I 
 
 David's Lord, . 
 
 ) Mark 12. 35-37 ( 
 ) Luke 20. 41-44 ( 
 
 no. 1 
 
 
 
 (.Acts 2. 34-35 J 
 
 
 2 
 
 Judas Iscariot, 
 
 Acts i. 16, 20 
 
 69. 26 (25) ; 109. 8 
 
 3 
 
 The Resurrection of the 
 Messiah, 
 
 ( Acts 2. 25-31 ; ) 
 1 13. 35-37. f 
 
 16. 8-11 
 
 4 
 
 The conspiracy against God, Acts 4. 25-26 
 
 2.1-2 
 
 5 
 
 The blessedness of pardon, \ Romans 4. 7-8 
 
 32. 1-2 
 
 6 
 
 Judgments on the wicked, j n. 9-10 
 
 69. 23-24 (22-23) 
 
 7 
 
 To-day, .... Hebrews 4. 7. 95. 7-8. 
 
 ISAIAH. 
 
 
 
 Passages from 
 
 
 
 
 Isaiah. 
 
 Quoted in 
 
 I 
 
 The Remnant, . , 
 
 i. 9; 10. 22-23 
 
 Romans 9. 27-29 
 
 
 
 
 ( Matthew 13. 14-15; 
 
 2 
 
 Eyes and ears and heart, . 
 
 6. 9-10 
 
 < John 12. 39-41 ; 
 
 
 
 
 (Acts 28. 25-27 
 
 3 
 
 Galilee of the Gentiles, 
 
 8. 239. 1 0-2) 
 
 Matthew 4. 14-16 
 
 4 
 5 
 
 The Root of Jesse, . 
 Hypocrisy, 
 
 II. 10 
 29. 13 
 
 Romans 15. 12 
 Matt. 15. 7-8 ; Mark 7. 6 
 
 6 
 
 The voice of one crying, . 
 
 40. 3-5 
 
 ( Matt. 3. 3 ; Luke 3. 4-6 ; 
 I John i. 23 
 
 7 
 
 The hope of the Gentiles, . 
 
 42.1-4 
 
 Matthew 12. 17-21 
 
 8 
 
 Unbelief 
 
 53-1 
 
 John 12. 38 ; Rom. 10. 16 
 
 9 
 
 The bearer of our griefs, . 
 
 4 . 
 
 Matthew 8. 17 
 
 10 
 
 The Ethiopian treasurer, . 
 
 7-tf 
 
 Acts 8. 27-35 
 
 ii 
 
 The Book of Esaias the ) 
 prophet, . . . j 
 
 61. 1-2 
 
 Luke 4. 17-19 
 
 12 
 
 Esaias is very bold, . 
 
 65- 1-2 
 
 Romans 10. 20, 21. 
 
 ELIJAH. 
 
 What he saith in Elias. 
 i Kings 19. 10-18 ; Romans n. 2-4. 
 
 JOEL. 
 
 The outpouring of the Holy Spirit. 
 Joel 3 (2. 28-32) ; Acts 2. 16-21. 
 
 HOSEA. 
 
 Sons of the living God. 
 Hosea 2. 1, 25 (i. 10 ; 2. 23) ; Romans 9. 25-26. 
 
 JEREMIAH. 
 
 A voice in Ramah Matthew 2. 17-18 ; Jeremiah 31. 15. 
 The buying of a field Matthew 27. 9-10 ; Jeremiah 32. 6-25, 42-44. 
 
 DANIEL. 
 
 The abomination of desolation. 
 Daniel 9. 27 ; n. 31 ; 12. 11 ; Matthew 24. 15 ; Mark 13. 14.
 
 Ancient uncial Manuscripts. 367 
 
 As the note of authorship in the received text of Mark 13. 14 
 is not contained in some of the most ancient Manuscripts (K B D L), 
 it is omitted from several critical editions of the New Testament. 
 Yet it is found in the twelve uncials, AEFGHKMSUVXT. 
 Since, however, the genuineness of the similar note (rb p-ri6v Sia 
 Acm-ijX roO irpo<p^Tov) in Matthew 24. 15 is undisputed and indis- 
 putable, the text of Mark 13. 14 need not be here discussed. 
 
 Note on Mark i. 2. 
 
 There does not seem to be sufficient authority for superseding 
 ev rots irpo<f>-ffra.is in Mark I. 2 by iv r<f 'H<ratq. T(p irpo^ry, as 
 Tischendorf, Scrivener, Alford, Tregelles, and some other critics 
 propose to do. The name of Esaias indeed appears in the four 
 uncial Manuscripts X B D L, and also in A, and in between 
 twenty and thirty cursive manuscripts. But the thirteen uncials 
 AEFGHKMPSUVm have the reading of the received 
 text, ev TO?S n-po^rcus : and in this they are supported by a large 
 majority of cursive manuscripts, and by the Peshito, the Armenian, 
 the Ethiopic, and the Arabic Version. In the Speaker's Commen- 
 tary it is observed that the four manuscripts N B L A ' belong to 
 one school of recension ; [and though] of high authority, are not, 
 strictly speaking, independent witnesses.' Even Tischendorf, 
 who maintained that the famous Codex Sinaiticus (N) bears 
 traces of having been written by four copyists, maintained also 
 that one of the four was the writer of the Codex Vaticanus (B). 
 Yet notwithstanding his unmeasured praise of Codex X, he says 
 of certain errata in a print of Codex B, ' tamen haec quoque 
 satis cum universa scripturse Vaticanse vitiositate conveniunt.' 
 
 Mr. Burgon, also, has shown conclusively that the Codex 
 Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus, though pre-eminently ancient, 
 are not superlatively accurate, and are sometimes so much at one 
 in their very mistakes as, when not corroborated by other evidence, 
 to be of little or no authority. He writes, 'Discrepant as the 
 testimony of these two MSS. is throughout, they yet, strange to 
 say, conspire every here and there in exhibiting minute corruptions 
 of such an unique and peculiar kind as to betray a (probably not 
 very remote) common corrupt original. These coincidences in 
 fact are so numerous and so extraordinary as to establish a real 
 connexion between those two codices ; and that connexion is fatal
 
 368 Inaccuracies in Manuscripts. 
 
 to any claim which might be set up on their behalf as wholly inde- 
 pendent witnesses. . . . Codex B comes to us without a history : 
 without recommendation of any kind, except that of its antiquity. 
 It bears cases of careless transcription in every page. . . . The 
 Codex Sinaiticus abounds with " errors of the eye and pen, to an 
 extent not unparalleled, but happily rather unusual in documents 
 of first-rate importance." On many occasions, 10, 20, 30, 40 words 
 are dropped through very carelessness. In this way 14 words have 
 been omitted from Cod. X in S. Mark xv. 47 xvi. I : 19 words in 
 S. Mark i. 32-4 : 20 words in S. John xx. 5, 6 : 39 words in 
 S. John xix. 20, 21. " Letters and words, even whole sentences, 
 are frequently written twice over, or begun and immediately can- 
 celled : . . ." ... In Codex N, we find the name of "Isaiah" 
 (TJCTCUOU) thrust into S. Matthew xiii. 35, in defiance of authority 
 and of fact. . . . Among all our Manuscripts of a thousand years 
 old and upwards, there is not a solitary example containing the 
 name of Esaias in the text referred to, except the Sinaitic, to which 
 a few of less than a thousand years old may be added.' This 
 strange ascription of Psalm 78. 2 to Esaias, viewed in connection 
 with the occurrence of Isaiah's name in Matthew 3. 3 and Luke 
 3. 4, may help to account for the introduction of the same name 
 at a very early date into the text of Mark I. 2. 
 
 The paraphrastic Codex Cantab rigiensis (D) is notorious for its 
 inaccuracy. ' That venerable copy of the Gospels [says Mr. 
 Burgon] is of the vi th century. It is, in fact, one of our five 
 great uncials. No older MS. of the Greek Text is known to 
 exist, excepting always A, B, C, and N. And yet no text is 
 more thoroughly disfigured by corruptions and interpolations 
 than that of Codex D.' 'No known manuscript contains [says 
 Scrivener in his ' Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New 
 Testament'] so many bold and extensive interpolations (six 
 hundred, it is said, in the Acts alone), countenanced, where they 
 are not absolutely unsupported, chiefly by the Old Latin and some 
 of the Syriac versions.' 
 
 The Codex Parisiensis Regius (L), assigned to the eighth century, 
 is so closely related to the Codex Vaticanus as to be of little value 
 as a separate witness to the text of the New Testament. ' As 
 for the scribe who executed Codex L, [says Mr. Burgon,] he was 
 evidently incapable of distinguishing the grossest fabrication from 
 the genuine text. . . . Codex L exhibits an exceedingly vicious 
 text.'
 
 Latin Versions of the Scriptures. 369 
 
 The Codex San Gallensis (A), though called uncial, is not written 
 in uncial characters. ' The penmen [says Scrivener] seem to have 
 known but little Greek, and to have copied from a manuscript 
 written continuously, for the divisions between the words are 
 sometimes absurdly wrong. . . . There is no question that this 
 document was written by Latin (most probably by Irish} monks, 
 in the west of Europe, during the ninth century. ' 
 
 The Italic, the Vulgate, and the Memphitic Version favour the 
 insertion of the name of Isaiah in Mark i. 2. But they are too 
 intimately connected with the Vatican Manuscript to have much 
 value from an evidential point of view. ' The relation in which 
 [says Scrivener] Codex L and the Memphitic version stand to 
 Codex B is too close to allow them their full value as independent 
 witnesses unless when they are at variance with the great 
 uncial.' 
 
 In so far as the Latin versions are concerned, any confirmation 
 which they might be supposed to give to the insertion of Isaiah's 
 name in the text of Mark I. 2 is nullified by the circumstances of 
 their composition. It was on account of the extremely corrupt 
 state of the Latin text, especially in the Gospels, that, near the 
 end of the fourth century, Jerome was induced to undertake that 
 recension of which the Vulgate is the result. ' Verum non esse 
 quod variat, ' he wrote in his Preface to the Gospels, ' etiam 
 maledicorum testimonio comprobatur. Si enim Latinis exemplari- 
 bus fides est adhibenda, respondeant quibus : tot enim sunt 
 exemplaria poene quot codices. Sin autem veritas est quaerenda 
 de pluribus : cur non ad Graecam originem revertentes, ea quae vel 
 a vitiosis interpretibus male edita, vel a prsesumtoribus imperitis 
 emendata perversius, vel a librariis dormitantibus aut addita sunt, 
 aut mutata, corrigimus?' 
 
 But although, in these circumstances, Jerome consulted early 
 Greek manuscripts, and introduced extensive changes into the 
 Latin text, he yet aimed rather at a mere revision of the old Latin 
 version than at an independent translation from the original. 
 And it is a noteworthy circumstance that, notwithstanding the 
 retention of Isaiah's name in the revised Latin version of Mark i. 2, 
 Jerome declared, ' Nomen Isaiaa putamus additum scriptoris vitio.' 
 At a still earlier date Eusebius wrote, -ypci^ews kari <r</>d\fjia. Now 
 such statements as these from the pens of Eusebius and Jerome 
 not only neutralise the testimony of the Latin versions, and even 
 the testimony of the ancient manuscripts X and B, but actually 
 2 A
 
 370 Manuscript Authority. 
 
 disprove it, and confirm the reading of the Received Text in 
 Mark I. 2. 
 
 Both readings appear, from the extant remains of Irenseus, to 
 have been in existence so long ago as the second century. Two 
 passages of the Latin version (the Greek original being lost) have 
 in prophetis ; whereas a third passage contains the name of Esaias 
 both in the Greek and in the Latin. Yet the antiquity which 
 may thus be claimed for ei- T$ 'H<ratp T$> irpofiriTri does not prove 
 it to be the genuine reading. For, as even Mr. Scrivener, who is 
 among the upholders of this reading, observes, ' It is no less true 
 to fact than paradoxical in sound, that the worst corruptions to 
 which the New Testament has ever been subjected, originated 
 within a hundred years after it was composed ; that Irenaeus and 
 the African Fathers and the whole Western, with a portion of the 
 Syrian Church, used far inferior manuscripts to those employed by 
 Stunica, or Erasmus, or Stephens thirteen centuries later, when 
 moulding the Textus Receptus. ' 
 
 Whatever weight may be due to the manuscripts and versions 
 which favour the insertion of Isaiah's name, it is not too much to 
 affirm that, in quality as well as in number (the authorities on both 
 sides being weighed as well as counted), there is a decided pre- 
 ponderance for the reading of the Received Text in Mark I. 2. 
 The valuable Codex Alexandrinus (A), almost equal in antiquity 
 to N and B, is a host in itself. Andr although the testimony of the 
 ancient palimpsest C is unattainable (the part which contained 
 Mark I. 1-16 being lost), yet the testimony of the twelve afore- 
 mentioned uncials, which range from the sixth to the tenth century, 
 is by no means unimportant. The following brief notes on five of 
 them (K M P S U) are from Scrivener's Introduction : 
 
 ' K. Codex CYPRIUS shares only with Codd. K BM S U the 
 advantage of being a complete uncial copy of the Four Gospels. 
 ... It is an oblong quarto, in compressed uncials, of about the 
 middle of the ninth century at the latest. 
 
 M. Codex CAMPIANUS contains the Four Gospels complete in a 
 small quarto form, written in very elegant and minute uncials of 
 the end of the ninth century. ... Its readings are very good. 
 
 P. Codex P contains,, on 43 leaves, 31 fragments of 486 verses 
 [including Mark I. 1-10], taken from all the four Evangelists. . . . 
 Tischendorf assigns P to the sixth century. 
 
 S. The earliest dated Biblical manuscript yet discovered was 
 written A.D. 949. [It] contains the four Gospels entire.
 
 Errors of Transcription. 3 7 1 
 
 U. It contains the four Gospels entire, carefully and luxuriously 
 written in two columns of 21 lines each on the quarto page, 
 scarcely before the tenth century.' 
 
 Superior in point of antiquity to the oldest Manuscripts of the 
 original and the oldest versions which contain the name saias, is 
 the Peshito Syriac Version, which dates back to the second century 
 and supports the reading of the Received Text in Mark I. 2 
 ' The Peshito has well been called [says Scrivener] " the Queen of 
 versions " of Holy Writ, for it is at once the oldest and one of the 
 most excellent of those whereby God's Providence has blessed and 
 edified the Church.' 
 
 The introduction of Isaiah's name into Mark I. 2 seems to have 
 arisen from the fact that one of the two passages there quoted 
 from the prophetic Scriptures is in the Book of Isaiah ; whose 
 name may accordingly have been marked in the margin of some 
 manuscripts, and ultimately imported into the text of others. 
 That this is the origin of the reading tv r<p 'Hcrafy T$ irpo(p-/irri 
 seems to be indicated by the presence of the article as a prefix to 
 'Hcrcuciin the four manuscripts X B L A. Unless tv r$ ''B.aaiq. be 
 the genuine reading in Mark I. 2, this phrase (though similar to 
 (v rip 'Ocr?;^ in Romans 9. 25) is alien to the Greek of the New 
 Testament. For whereas the name of Isaiah occurs in Mark 7. 6, 
 and in the seventeen other passages specified in page 366, it is used 
 invariably without the article, even though in most of the passages 
 the name is accompanied by the designation prophet 
 'Htratas 6 irpo<j>rfn]s, once John I. 23. 
 
 'Hcnuou TOU irpo<f>riTov, eight times Matthew 3. 3 ; 4. 14 ; 
 8.17; 12.17; Lukes. 4; 4. 17; John 12. 38 ; Acts 28. 25. 
 rov Trpo(priT-r)v 'Hffaiav, twice Acts 8. 28, 30. 
 
 Surely this usus loquendi is sufficient to show that if the name 
 Esaias in Mark I. 2 had been genuine, the article would have been 
 confined to irpo<p^T-y, as in Codex D; On the other hand Isaiah's 
 name may, with the utmost readiness, have been inadvertently 
 foisted into the text between the TOIJ and the Tryxx^^Tcwy, an 
 interpolation which would lead, mutatis mutandis, to the substitu- 
 tion of the singular for the plural, and the repetition of the article 
 before irpocp-ffra.^ thus changed into irpotprjTri. 
 
 But even if it were proved that the genuine reading is tv T< 
 'HffcupToj irpo(f>-f]rri, the fact that one of the two passages conjointly 
 quoted from the Old Testament is in the Book of Isaiah would
 
 372 
 
 Epitome of Citations. 
 
 be sufficient to rebut the charge of inaccuracy in so far as that 
 charge is based on the alleged occurrence of Isaiah's name in 
 Mark i. -2. 
 
 Epitome of the passages in which Old Testament authors 
 are cited by name in the New Testament. 
 
 MATTHEW 
 
 LUKE 
 
 ROMANS 
 
 2. 17-18 
 
 2. 22-24 
 
 4. 7-8 
 
 3-3 
 
 3-4-6 
 
 9. 25-26 
 
 4. 14-16 
 
 4. 17-19 
 
 27-29 
 
 8. 4 
 
 5- 14 
 
 10. 5 
 
 17 
 
 20. 27-38 
 
 16 
 
 12. 17-21 
 
 41-44 
 
 19 
 
 13. 14-15 
 
 
 20, 21 
 
 15- 7-8 
 
 
 ii. 2-4 
 
 19. 3-8 
 
 JOHN 
 
 9-10 
 
 22. 23-32 
 
 i. 23 
 
 15- 12 
 
 41-45 
 
 7. 22-23 
 
 > 
 
 24. 15 
 
 12. 38 
 
 
 27. 9-10 
 
 39-41 
 
 
 
 
 i CORINTHIANS 
 
 
 
 9. 9 
 
 MARK 
 
 ACTS' 
 
 
 i. 44 
 
 i. 16-20 
 
 
 7.6 
 
 2. 16-21 
 
 HEBREWS 
 
 10 
 
 25-31 
 
 . i 
 
 10. 2-9 
 12. 18-27 
 
 34-35 
 3. 22-23 
 
 4. 7 
 9. 19-20 
 
 12. 21 
 
 35-37 
 
 4. 25-26 
 
 
 13. 14 
 
 7-37 
 
 
 
 8. 28-35 
 
 
 
 13. 35-37 
 
 REVELATION 
 
 
 28. 25-27 
 
 15-3.
 
 Old Testament Authors. 
 
 373 
 
 
 Quotes 
 
 Times 
 
 From 
 
 I 
 
 Matthew 
 
 13 
 
 Jeremiah, Isaiah, Moses, David, 
 
 
 
 
 Daniel. 
 
 2 
 
 Mark 
 
 7 
 
 Moses, Isaiah, David, Daniel. 
 
 3 
 
 Luke 
 
 6 
 
 Moses, Isaiah, David. 
 
 4 
 
 John 
 
 4 
 
 Isaiah, Moses. 
 
 5 
 
 Acts 
 
 10 
 
 David, Joel, Moses, Isaiah. 
 
 6 
 
 Romans 
 
 10 
 
 David, Hosea, Isaiah, Moses, 
 
 
 
 
 Elijah. 
 
 7 
 
 I Corinthians 
 
 Once 
 
 Moses. 
 
 8 
 
 Hebrews 
 
 Thrice 
 
 David, Moses. 
 
 9 
 
 Revelation 
 
 Once 
 
 Moses. 
 
 
 Total, 
 
 55 
 
 
 
 Quoted 
 
 
 In 
 
 I 
 
 Moses 
 
 13 
 
 Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, 
 
 
 
 
 Acts, Romans, I Corinthians, 
 
 
 
 
 Hebrews, Revelation. 
 
 2 
 
 David 
 
 7 
 
 Matthew, Mark, Luke, Acts, 
 
 
 
 
 Romans, Hebrews. 
 
 3 
 
 Elijah 
 
 i 
 
 Romans. 
 
 4 
 
 Isaiah 
 
 12 
 
 Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, 
 
 
 
 
 Acts, Romans. 
 
 5 
 
 Joel 
 
 I 
 
 Acts. 
 
 6 
 
 Hosea 
 
 I 
 
 Romans. 
 
 7 
 
 Jeremiah 
 
 2 
 
 Matthew. 
 
 8 
 
 Daniel 
 
 I 
 
 Matthew, Mark. 
 
 
 Total, 
 
 38 
 
 
 These lists are deeply interesting and instruc- 
 tive in connection with the theme of this treatise. 
 The large proportion of seven out of SEVENTEEN 
 passages cited from the Pentateuch as having 
 Moses for their author are in Deuteronomy -five 
 others being in Exodus, and jive in Leviticus. 
 
 In this enumeration, however, the citation of Deuteronomy 
 25. 5-6 by the Sadducees in Matthew 22. 24 ; Mark 12. 19 ; Luke
 
 3 74 The Law and the Prophets. 
 
 20. 28, is not taken into account ; nor yet such passages as Acts 
 7. 44 ; Hebrews 8. 5, where the reference is rather to the historic 
 fact of the divine direction given to Moses in Exodus 25. 40 and 
 26. 30, than to Moses as the author of the Pentateuch. Neither 
 does the list include such passages as Luke 16. 29, 31 ; 24. 27, 44 ; 
 John I. 17 ; 5-46; Acts 26. 22 ; 28. 23, where, though Moses is 
 named as the author of the Law, no passage in the Pentateuch is 
 expressly specified; nor such passages as Matthew I. 22; 2.5, 
 15, 23; 21. 4; 27. 35; John 6. 45; Acts 13. 40; 15. 15, where, 
 though the prophet or prophets are mentioned, no prophet in 
 particular is named. 
 
 Next to the Law of Moses, in respect of the 
 number of passages ascribed to an author by name, 
 comes the book which stands first among the 
 D^nns D^SUJ. And it is a noteworthy circum- 
 stance that seven out of the twelve passages thus 
 cited are found in the section attributed by some 
 modern critics to an author whom they designate 
 ' the Great Unnamed,' but whom the apostle 
 Paul, and the disciple that Jesus loved, and the 
 author of the Gospel of Matthew, and the writer 
 of the two treatises to Theophilus, did not hesitate 
 to name. 
 
 It may be noticed that, whereas the naming of Moses, David, 
 Elijah, and Jeremiah is not confined to the passages in which 
 their words are quoted, the name of Isaiah is never mentioned in 
 the New Testament except in immediate connection with some 
 quotation from his prophecies. In this respect there is a complete 
 contrast between the naming of Isaiah and the naming of Solomon. 
 Although direct quotations from the Proverbs of Solomon are 
 found in seven passages of the New Testament, Solomon is not 
 named in any one of the seven ; and although the passages in 
 which he is named (which are nine in number) clearly refer to 
 his works, or wealth, or wisdom, or to the general history of his 
 life and reign, none of them contains a quotation from his 
 writings.
 
 References to Solomon. 
 
 375 
 
 List of the Passages in -which Solomon is named. 
 
 Matthew i. 6, 7 
 6. 29 
 12. 42 
 
 Luke II. 31 
 
 12. 27 
 
 John 10. 23 
 
 Acts 3. 11 
 5-12 
 7- 47. 
 
 List of New Testament quotations from the Proverbs of Solomon. 
 
 Hebrews 12. 5-6 Proverbs 3. 11-12. 
 
 James 4. 6 ; I Peter 5. 5 34. 
 
 1 Peter 4. 8 10. 12. 
 
 18 H.31. 
 
 Romans 12. 20 25. 21-22. 
 
 2 Peter 2. 22.. 26. 11. 
 
 List of references to Passages attributed to Solomon as their author. 
 
 Proverbs 3. 3 
 12 
 
 9. 1-5 
 10. 12 
 13-7 
 25. 6, 7 
 Song 5. 2 
 
 7. 14 (13) 
 
 8. 11-12 
 
 Ecclesiastes i. 3 
 
 9-7 
 10 
 
 n. 5 
 12. 5 
 
 2 Corinthians 3. 3. 
 Revelation 3. 19. 
 Matthew 22. 1-4. 
 James 5. 20. 
 2 Corinthians 6. 10. 
 Luke 14. 7-11. 
 Revelation 3. 20. 
 Matthew 13. 52. 
 Matthew 21. 33-34. 
 Mark 12. 1-2. 
 Luke 20. 9-10. 
 Matthew 16. 26. 
 Mark 8. 36. 
 Luke 9. 25. 
 Acts 2. 46. 
 John 9. 4. 
 3-8. 
 2 Corinthians 5. 1. 
 
 Of the seven Psalms ascribed in the New 
 Testament to David, jive, namely 16, 32, 69, 109, 
 1 10 are expressly assigned to him in their Titles, 
 each title containing the well-known word TttP ; 
 whereas Psalms 2 and 95 have no title. 
 
 It may be observed however, with reference to the second Psalm, 
 that the first of the five books of Psalms (1-41) has every appear- 
 ance of being exclusively Davidic. Thirty-seven Psalms in it are 
 severally ascribed to David, the remaining four, namely, I, 2, 10, 
 33, being untitled. Now while the first Psalm is introductory, 
 the second is the complement of the first the ^TtJ>K at the begin- 
 ning of the first being repeated in the end of the second, and the
 
 376 The Psalms of David. 
 
 closing announcement of the first, TU^fl D'yCH "PTl being 
 followed up by the words of warning in the last verse of the 
 second, *pT 1*72SnV The tenth, in like manner, is not an 
 entirely separate psalm ; but is one in scope and alphabetic 
 structure with the ninth. It appears likewise from the way in 
 which Psalm 32 ends and 33 begins, that 32 and 33 are meant to 
 be read together, either in one Psalm or as twin songs, not admit- 
 ting a separating title between them. It may thus be inferred 
 from the character, position, and surroundings of Psalm 2 (not to 
 speak of its resemblance to Psalm 1 10), that there is no ground 
 for disputing the ancient ascription of the second Psalm to David. 
 
 Note. The article 'Bible' in the Encyclopedia Britannica 
 asserts that 'an imperfect acrostic, like Ps. ix., x., cannot have 
 proceeded in its present form from the first author.' Yet if mere 
 critical conjecture were admissible in discussing the question of 
 authorship, it must surely be obvious that a transcriber deliberately 
 altering a Psalm would be far more likely to complete ' an imper- 
 fect acrostic, like Ps. ix., x.,' than to mutilate an acrostic originally 
 perfect, and that accordingly the incompleteness of the alphabetic 
 structure is favourable to the supposition that ' Ps. ix., x. [must] 
 have proceeded in its present form from the first author,' rather 
 than to the contrary supposition. 
 
 The same may be said of the ninety-fifth Psalm. There is no 
 necessity for either appealing to the Septuagint, in which this 
 Psalm bears the title, ATvos <p5rjs r$ Aavid, or pleading that in 
 Hebrews 4. 7 David is a technical name for the Psalter. How- 
 ever common it may be in modern times, as for instance in the 
 title-pages of metrical Psalm-Books, to speak of the Psalter under 
 the designation The Psalms of David, no passage of Scripture 
 gives countenance to the theory that in Hebrews 4. 7 the writer of 
 the epistle had any other design in using the phrase tv Aavid than 
 to represent as words of David the words which he was quoting 
 from the ninety-fifth Psalm. Psalms 95 and 96, like 9 and 10, or 
 32 and 33, are twin songs, bearing ample traces of David's author- 
 ship. That David wrote the ninety-sixth is evident from the 
 occurrence of more than three-fourths of it in I Chronicles 16. 23-33. 
 The verbs p~j and ni"lK> are common to both Psalms ; and so is the 
 phrase flirV "OB?- In 95- 3 and 96. 4 also, Jehovah is said to be 
 bnj great, and to be pre-eminent D^n^N~>3~i>y above all gods ; 
 and in 95. 5 his making of the sea corresponds to his making of 
 the heavens, as mentioned in 96. 5. In all these points also, the
 
 Tke Rock of Salvation. 377 
 
 coincidence between Psalms 95 and 96 extends to the Davidic 
 hymn recorded in the sixteenth chapter of I Chronicles. Sundry 
 coincidences similarly telling might be pointed out between Psalm 
 95 and certain Psalms expressly ascribed in their titles to David. 
 Thus, in the phrase \%W* "T) (verse 1), the noun ~\\$ Rock, as a 
 designation of the Lord, is conspicuously though not exclusively 
 Davidic. Moses was familiar with ll, both literally (Ex. 17. 6 ; 
 33. 21, 22 ; Deut. 8. 15) and allegorically (Deut. 32. 4, 15, 18, 30, 
 31). This divine title occurs thrice in both records of David's 
 song of victory (2 Samuel 22 and Psalm 18, verses 3, 32, 47), 
 and also in the six Davidic Psalms numbered 19, 28, 31, 61, 62, 
 144, besides Psalms 73, 78, 89, 92, 94, 95 ; and 71, which is joined, 
 as obviously Davidic, to 70, without an intervening title. In 
 2 Samuel 23. 3, which is likewise Davidic, and also in Isaiah 
 8. 14 ; 17. 10; 26. 4 ; 30. 29 ; 44. 8, and Habakkuk I. 12, -|i is 
 used with the same divine reference. The specific phrase, Rock of 
 Salvation, besides being as old as Deuteronomy 32. 15, is found in 
 David's words recorded in 2 Samuel 22. 47, and in those words of 
 his which Ethan mentions in Psalm 89. 27. The verbs \\Tflf an d 
 JT)3i besides being conjoined in 95. 6, co-exist in 22. 30 (29), which 
 is Davidic. And in three Psalms ascribed to David (25. 4 ; 
 103. 7 ; 143. 8), as well as in the three anonymous Psalms 
 I. 6 ; 67. 3 (2) ; and 95. 10, the noun "p"j way, is joined to 
 the verb jni to know. In three Psalms (89, no, 132), besides 
 95. 10, the verb J?2tJ> to swear, is connected with niiT 1 as its sub- 
 ject. Now Psalm no is designated TiETD TH^ J and in Psalms 
 89. 4, 36, and 132. 11, which is post-Davidic, it is to David that 
 Jehovah is said to have sworn. The last word of Psalm 95 
 (nni3D rest) occurs likewise not only in the same I32d Psalm 
 (verses 8, 14), in close proximity to the name of David, but also 
 in the second verse of Psalm 23, which is intituled "in? 
 
 (It may be mentioned here that Elijah is included in the list on 
 page 366, because ev 'H\ia in Romans n. 2 is the same in phrase- 
 ology as ev Aa/3t5 in Hebrews 4. 7. It is however altogether 
 immaterial to the theme of this treatise to inquire whether the 
 phrase ev 'H\i<? denotes, in the history of Elijah, or in a portion of 
 Scripture technically called Elijah, or in the recorded words of 
 Elijah, or whether, in respect of authorship, the name of Elijah is 
 or is not on a par with the other names mentioned in the list.
 
 378 Quotations from the Psalms. 
 
 For whether Elijah wrote the sacred narrative of his own prophetic 
 career or not, he was undoubtedly the author of the words ascribed 
 to him in Romans n. 2-3.) 
 
 The evidence supplied by the position and 
 vocabulary of Psalms 2 and 95 to their Davidic 
 authorship is here specially referred to for the 
 purpose of exemplifying the precision of the New 
 Testament, in every instance in which a passage 
 quoted from the Old is ascribed to David as its 
 author. Sundry other quotations, replete with 
 inductive evidence of the accuracy of the Scriptures 
 in matters of authorship, may be given in further 
 illustration of the subject of this treatise. 
 
 Three Classes of Quotations from t/ie Book of Psalms. 
 I. Psalms ascribed, in (heir titles, to David 
 
 Babes and sucklings 
 
 What is man ? 
 
 The garments and the vesture 
 
 My brethren 
 
 The volume of the book 
 
 The lifted heel 
 
 Zeal : Reproach 
 
 Psalm 
 8. 3 (2) 
 
 5-7 (46) 
 
 22. 19. (18) 
 
 23 (22) 
 
 40. 6-8 
 
 41. 10 (9) 
 69. 10 (9) 
 
 Quoted in 
 Matthew 21. 16. 
 Hebrews 2. 6-8. 
 John 19. 24. 
 Hebrews 2. 12. 
 10. 5-9. 
 John 13. 18. 
 John 2. 17; Rom. 15.3. 
 
 II. Psalms ascribed, in their titles, to other Psalmists. 
 I. The sons of Korah : 
 
 44. 23 (22) Romans 8. 36: As it is written, For thy sake we are 
 killed all the day : we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter. 
 
 45. 7-8 (6-7) Hebrews I. 8-9 : But unto the Son [he saitk], 
 Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever : . . . 
 
 2. Asaph ; 
 
 78. 2 Matthew 13. 35 : That it might be fulfilled which was 
 spoken through the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in 
 parables : I will utter things which have been kept secret from the 
 foundation of the world.
 
 Different Modes of Citation. 3 79 
 
 78. 24 John 6. 31 : Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, 
 as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat. 
 
 82. 6 John 10. 34 : Jesus answered them, Is it not written in 
 your law, I said, Ye are gods ? 
 
 3. Ethan the Ezrahite mTKn JTV&6 ^3B> 
 
 Psalm 89. 21 (20), and I Samuel 13. 14 Acts 13. 22 : He raised 
 up to them David as king, to whom also he gave testimony and 
 said, I have found David the [son] of Jesse, a man after my heart, 
 who shall do all my will. 
 
 III. Unfitted Psalms, with which may be mentioned Psalm IO2, 
 
 as having the anonymous title 
 
 A prayer of the afflicted . . . ijjj") rpan 
 
 
 Psalm 
 
 Quoted in 
 
 Written in the second psalm 
 
 2. 7 
 
 Acts 13. 33. 
 
 The thoughts of man 
 
 94. 11 
 
 i Cor. 3. 20. 
 
 The earth and the heavens 
 
 102. 26-28 (25-27) 
 
 Heb. i. 10-12. 
 
 The angels 
 
 104. 4 
 
 7. 
 
 Liberality & righteousness 
 
 112. 9 
 
 2 Cor. 9. 9. 
 
 Belief and speech 
 
 116. 10 
 
 4. 13. 
 
 The praise of the Lord 
 
 117. 1 
 
 Rom. 15. 11. 
 
 
 
 Matt. 21. 42. 
 
 The head of the corner 
 
 
 Mark 12. 10-11. 
 
 
 
 Luke 20. 17. 
 
 In the following additional instances, citations from the Old 
 Testament are introduced in various ways, without any human 
 author being actually named : 
 
 I. The simple well-known formula y^ypairrat, it is written. 
 Matthew 4. 4-10; Luke 4. 4, 8; John 12. 14; Romans I. 17; 
 3. 4, 10; 10. 15 ; i Cor. i. 19, 31 ; i Peter i. 16, and elsewhere. 
 2. X^yet y&p >] ypa(f>r], for the scripture saith. 
 
 Romans 9-17 
 10. 11 
 I Timothy 5. 18 
 
 Exodus 9. 16. 
 Isaiah 28. 16. 
 Deuteronomy 25. 4. 
 
 3. 6 p6/xos, ike Law. 
 
 Psalms 35. 19; 69. 5 (4) John 15. 25: That the word might 
 be fulfilled which is written in their law (iv rep vo/j,({i avrwv), They 
 hated me without a cause.
 
 380 Precision in Quoting. 
 
 Isaiah 28. 11-12 I Corinthians 14. 21 : In the Law it is written, 
 With other tongues and with other lips I will speak to this people ; 
 and yet they will not hear me, saith the Lord. 
 
 Note. The manner in which quotations from the Psalter and 
 the Book of Isaiah are introduced as being written in the Law, 
 shows the accuracy of the sacred writers in points of authorship. 
 The saying quoted in John 10. 34, from Psalm 82. 6, is taken 
 from the Law of Moses (Exodus 21. 6; 22. 7-8 (8-9)); and the 
 words quoted in I Corinthians 14. 21 from Isaiah 28. 11-12 contain 
 a distinct reference to Deuteronony 28. 49. It thus appears then 
 that both in John 10. 34, and also in I Corinthians 14. 21, the 
 comprehensive term p6/uos is peculiarly appropriate for carrying 
 back the reference, not only to the passage directly quoted, but 
 also to one still earlier, in which it had its origin. 
 
 In John 15. 25 also, the phrase v rip v6fjUj) avrlav contains a 
 pointed reference to the fact that the sacred writings of the Old 
 Covenant, viewed as one whole, constituted the Law of the Jews. 
 Accordingly the avruv here (like the vpuv of 10. 34, quoted in 
 page 379), is emphatic in a way which necessitated the employment 
 of some such word as i/6/uos rather than the name of the human 
 author of the Psalm from which the quotation is given. 
 
 With similar precision the designation 6 irpo^^rTjs is applied in 
 Matthew 13. 35 to the author of Psalm 78, which is intituled 
 P]DX7 T'SK'D- Now, in connection with this point, it is a 
 noteworthy circumstance that in 2 Chronicles 29. 30 Asaph is 
 designated nf/in C]DS> represented by 'A<ra(j> 6 irpo^TT/y in the 
 Septuagint version of the passage : v/ju>ew rbv Kvpiov ev \6yois 
 Aavld Kal 'A.cra^> TOV Trpotftrfrov. It may be further observed that, 
 besides the prophetic style of the opening verses (1-8), the historical 
 character of the seventy-eighth Psalm connects it very closely 
 with those historic books (Joshua to Kings) which are called 
 D^lt^fcO D^JOU ; similarly as, even independently of the Messianic 
 application of Psalm 22, the character of that Psalm, especially 
 in its concluding verses (22 to 31), connects it with the other 
 division of the prophetic Scriptures, 
 
 It may be incidentally noticed that Old 
 Testament writers, quoting from earlier Scriptures, 
 are similarly accurate in their notes of authorship,
 
 Jeremiah and Zechariak. 
 
 Specimens. 
 
 
 The Original 
 Passages. 
 
 Referred to in 
 
 
 Exodus 20. 25 
 
 Joshua 8. 31. 
 
 
 Lev. 23. 33-43 
 
 Neh. 8. 13-18. 
 
 abite 
 
 Deut. 23. 3-5 
 
 Neh. 13. 1-3. 
 
 'oses 
 
 24. 16 
 
 2 Kings 14. 6. 
 
 
 Joshua 6. 26 
 
 I Kings 1 6. 34. 
 
 
 Micah 3. 12 
 
 Jer. 26. 17-18. 
 
 I 
 
 Jer. 25. 11-13 ; 
 29. 10-14 
 
 / 2 Ch. 36. 22. 
 ) Ezra I. 1. 
 
 
 
 ( Daniel 9. 2. 
 
 there being no instance of one author having been 
 named by mistake for another. 
 
 Subject. 
 
 The altar of whole stones 
 The Feast of Tabernacles 
 The Ammonite and the Moabite 
 The Book of the Law of Moses 
 The rebuilding of Jericho 
 Micah the Morasthite 
 
 Cyrus king of Persia 
 
 NOTE ON MATTHEW 27. 9-10. 
 
 That which was spoken tlirough Jeremiah the 
 prophet, as quoted in Matthew 27. 9-10, occupies, 
 among the discussions of Biblical Criticism, a 
 position altogether sui generis. By commentators 
 and critics of widely divergent views and senti- 
 ments, speaking different languages, and separated 
 from one another by many centuries, the quotation 
 in question has been assigned, with remarkable 
 unanimity, not to Jeremiah, as is expressly 
 declared in the sacred narrative, but to Zechariak. 
 And thus such critics as deny the Solomonic 
 authorship of Ecclesiastes are in the habit of 
 appealing to Matthew 27. 9-10 as containing an 
 indubitable proof of their theory, that in matters 
 of authorship the testimony of the Scriptures is 
 not entitled to implicit belief. 
 
 Hence an important link would be wanting td
 
 382 Retrospective Remarks. 
 
 that chain of argument which it is the design of 
 this treatise to present, if Matthew 27. 9-10 were 
 passed over unnoticed. In the course of centuries, 
 however, the subject has assumed such dimensions, 
 and so multifarious and external to the main scope 
 of this treatise are the points to be looked at in 
 vindication of the accuracy of the sacred narrative, 
 that a separate inquiry into this interesting and 
 instructive topic seems unavoidable, if justice is 
 to be done to it. Accordingly that which was 
 spoken through Jeremiah the prophet, as quoted 
 in Matthew 27. 9-10, must be reserved for 
 subsequent investigation. 
 
 Retrospective Remarks. 
 
 Even apart from the question of divine inspira- 
 tion, is not the fact a peculiarly significant one, 
 that, in so far as the point of authorship is con- 
 cerned (Matthew 27. 9-10 being reserved for special 
 discussion), there is unbroken accuracy in the 
 manner in which quotations from the Scriptures 
 of the Old Covenant are introduced into the 
 books of the New? Yet if the theory were 
 well founded that accuracy in matters of author- 
 ship need not be looked for in the Scriptures, 
 how comes it to pass that out of the seven 
 Psalms ascribed in the New Testament to David, 
 five are intituled Tf6, while the two others bear 
 indubitable traces of having proceeded from 
 David's pen ? How comes it to pass that not 
 even one of those Psalms quoted in the New
 
 Speculative Criticism. 383 
 
 Testament, which are either probably later than 
 the days of David, as Psalm 102, or are ascribed 
 in their titles to other authors (44, 45, 78, 82, 89), 
 is attributed to David, whose familiar name occurs 
 above fifty times in the New Testament ? How is 
 it that every one of the passages ascribed in the 
 New Testament to Moses, or David, or Isaiah, or 
 Elijah, or Hosea, or Joel, is found among the words 
 ascribed in the Old Testament to the same author ? 
 Surely if the alleged want of precision in matters 
 of authorship were actually existent, it would 
 appear in at least a few of the fifty-one New 
 Testament passages in which these Old Testament 
 passages are thus quoted or referred to, or in some 
 of the many other passages which contain quota- 
 tions from the Old Testament. 
 
 Surely the proof (if proof it can be called) 01 
 such want of precision would not be entirely 
 problematical. Surely it would not be (as it is) 
 dependent exclusively on the arguments of those 
 modern critics who deny the genuineness of much 
 which the Scriptures ascribe to Moses, and David, 
 and Solomon, and Isaiah. Surely, in addition to 
 the multitude of abstract arguments which have 
 been constructed and pressed into the service of 
 this criticism, there would be some groundwork of 
 undeniable concrete facts, on which the results 
 of the criticism could be based. 
 
 To plead, in these pages, for the genuineness ot 
 Deuteronomy, or Ecclesiastes, or any other im- 
 pugned portion of the Bible, on the ground of the
 
 384 Trustworthiness and Inspiration. 
 
 divine inspiration and consequent veracity of the 
 Scriptures, would be to introduce a kind of argu- 
 ment completely extraneous to the scope of this 
 treatise, and tending, through its irrelevancy, to 
 weaken rather than to strengthen the proof. The 
 line of discussion strictly adhered to is grounded 
 on the position that the first thing to be settled 
 is, not the inspiration of the documents, but their 
 trustworthiness, as borne out by their subject- 
 matter and linguistic features. And in no instance 
 where their divine inspiration is alluded to, is it 
 adduced as an argument for establishing or helping 
 to establish their genuineness. Throughout this 
 treatise the inspiration of the Scriptures is viewed 
 as lying in a different department of theology. 
 Hence, so far from being here adduced as an 
 element of immediate proof, or even of remote 
 corroboration, it is merely looked at incidentally 
 as a subject, the discussion of which is ulterior 
 to the scope of the present inquiry. The position 
 here occupied is not that of those who argue that 
 because a certain document is Oeoirvevcrros, there- 
 fore it must be trustworthy, but the position that 
 if, as the modern criticism in question alleges, the 
 document were proved to be inaccurate in respect 
 of the human authorship which it claims, its claim 
 to divine inspiration must be thereby imperilled. 
 If it were proved untrustworthy in its claim to 
 have been written by Moses or by Solomon, the 
 question could be more easily asked than answered, 
 how, in such circumstances, it could make good its 
 claim to have been given by inspiration of God.
 
 Apologetic Suggestions. 385 
 
 Sometimes indeed it is averred apologetically 
 that the authorship claimed by Deuteronomy and 
 Ecclesiastes is a mere literary device, and that 
 therefore the claim ought not to be represented 
 as meant for purposes of deception. 
 
 ' If [says the Encyclopedia Britannicd\ the author [of Deutero- 
 nomy] put his work in the mouth of Moses instead of giving it, 
 with Ezekiel, a directly prophetic form, he did so not in pious 
 fraud, but simply because his object was not to give a new law, 
 but to expound and develop Mosaic principles in relation to new 
 needs. And as ancient writers are not accustomed to distinguish 
 historical data from historical deductions, he naturally presents his 
 views in dramatic form in the mouth of Moses.' 
 
 But to this it may be replied, as already indi- 
 cated in the introductory pages of this treatise 
 (7 to 15), that if the authorship of the Scriptures 
 were what the modern critical theory in question 
 represents it to be, there must have been wide- 
 spread actual deception of colossal dimensions 
 yet not in spite of what is declared in the Scrip- 
 tures themselves, but as the direct natural con- 
 sequence of it, and as, in fact, the very result 
 intended to be produced. A clear intelligent 
 apprehension of the literary character of such a 
 book as The Pilgrim's Progress, and an accurate 
 knowledge of the facts and circumstances in 
 which it was composed, and of the design with 
 which it was published, could in no way detract 
 either from its literary value or from its moral 
 influence. Whereas a knowledge of the fact (if it 
 were a fact) that Deuteronomy was not written by 
 Moses nor Ecclesiastes by Solomon, and that the 
 2 B
 
 386 Consistency of the New Testament. 
 
 claim of these two books to have been written by 
 these authors respectively is what Bleek calls 
 ' a literary embellishment,' would have defeated 
 the very object of the embellishment, and deprived 
 the books of the influence which the embellish- 
 ment was intended to secure. In such circum- 
 stances the alleged detection of the true state of 
 the case by those critics who deny the commonly 
 acknowledged authorship, must involve the rejec- 
 tion of much in the Scriptures as essentially 
 untrue. And it may be pertinently asked, hoiv, 
 if Moses had actually written Deuteronomy, and 
 Solomon Ecclesiastes, these facts could have been 
 stated more clearly or unequivocally than they 
 are stated in Ecclesiastes and Deuteronomy ? 
 
 In the preceding section, the witness of the 
 New Testament to the authorship of the Old is 
 adduced, not to prove from the authority of the 
 apostles, or even from >the authority of their 
 Master, that what the Old Testament says of its 
 own authorship must be true, but simply to show 
 that the witness of the New Testament, whatever 
 be its value, is consistent with itself, and is 
 unequivocally on the side of the authorship 
 implied and asserted in the original documents : 
 that, in fact, the manner in which, throughout 
 the New Testament, viewed merely as a collection 
 of literary documents, Old Testament authors are 
 named and referred to, can give no pretext for the 
 insinuation that accuracy in matters of authorship 
 is not a characteristic of the Scriptures. 
 
 What an amount of credulity is necessary to the
 
 Credulity of the destructive Criticism. 387 
 
 acceptance of the modern theory which denies to 
 certain parts of the Old Testament the authorship 
 which they claim ! unless indeed the theory be 
 substantiated by a clearness of evidence or cogency 
 of argument such as its advocates have never yet 
 adduced. Is it not remarkably strange that if the 
 Pentateuch, or at least the Book of Deuteronomy, 
 is such a medley of heterogeneous materials as the 
 denial of its Mosaic authorship implies, the fact 
 and circumstances of its post-Mosaic origin must 
 have faded away from the field of human know- 
 ledge more than 1850 years ago, so completely 
 that Jews and Samaritans, Pharisees and Sad- 
 ducees alike, were at one with the Lord and his 
 disciples in accepting it as a genuine work of 
 Moses ! Is it not remarkably strange, that if 
 Ecclesiastes is in reality one of the latest books 
 of the Old Testament, it should so easily have 
 gained universal acceptance as a canonical work 
 of Solomon, without any trace having been left 
 behind of the date and circumstances of its fabri- 
 cation ! Is it not strange that, more than eighteen 
 centuries ago, not only the name, but the very 
 existence of the author who wrote, the twenty- 
 seven chapters which immediately follow the 39th 
 chapter of Isaiah, should have been totally lost 
 sight of ; and that at a still more remote period, 
 the writers of the Apocrypha should have been 
 ignorant of the fact (if it is a fact) that there had 
 lived at no very great interval from their own days, 
 such a prince of prophets as ' the great unnamed ' 
 must have been !
 
 388 The Scope of Textual Criticism. 
 
 How can it be accounted for that the internal 
 features now declared to prove that Isaiah did not 
 write chapters 40 to 66 of the book which bears 
 his name, and that Solomon did not write Ecclesi- 
 astes, nor Moses Deuteronomy, escaped the notice 
 of all students of the Scriptures in apostolic and 
 pre-apostolic times ? It is easy to see how, 
 through the multiplication of versions and manu- 
 scripts during many centuries, textual criticism 
 should have a character and standing now which 
 were non-existent two thousand years ago. But 
 if Coverdale's version of the Book of Proverbs and 
 the 1611 version of the Book of Ecclesiastes were 
 to be put into the hands of an intelligent English 
 reader, he would not need any very pre-eminent 
 critical acumen to enable him to discern that both 
 versions cannot have proceeded from one and the 
 same translator. So likewise, if Deuteronomy 
 and Ecclesiastes really were, in point of author- 
 ship, and in the circumstances of their composition, 
 what the modern criticism in question represents 
 them to be, their character in these respects must 
 have been not less apparent eighteen hundred or 
 two thousand years ago than it is alleged to be 
 now, and must thus have rendered it impossible 
 for Deuteronomy to be then universally accepted 
 as part of the Law of Moses, and Ecclesiastes as 
 a genuine work of Solomon.
 
 The Question of Authorship. 389 
 
 The Importance of the point at issite. 
 
 As already observed, the question of the 
 authorship of Ecclesiastes does not stand alone, 
 but is comprised under the great question whether 
 the testimony of the Scriptures to their own 
 authorship is worthy of being believed. Now 
 this question directly affects the trustworthiness 
 of what is recorded to have been said by the 
 Lord and his apostles, and the credibility of the 
 Scriptures in general. Indeed, so minute and 
 extensive are the references throughout the 
 Scriptures to their own authorship, that the 
 treating of their authorship as a matter of little 
 or no consequence must tend to sap the very 
 foundations of the Christian religion, and to 
 leave no divine revelation at all, except such 
 fragments as the critic chooses to accept on the 
 ground that they have commended themselves 
 to his own intellectual faculties. If, for instance, 
 the modern denial of the Mosaic authorship of 
 Deuteronomy is true, and the many things which 
 that book says of its own authorship are conse- 
 quently false, then the apostle Paul must have 
 been greatly mistaken in believing, as he confessed 
 to Felix that he did believe, ' all things which are 
 written in the Law and in the Prophets.' The 
 words of the same apostle likewise, when on the 
 Sabbath-day in the synagogue of Antioch, he 
 preached Jesus, assume as a fact the Davidic 
 authorship of the sixteenth Psalm, intituled
 
 39 The Apostles Peter and Paul. 
 
 in? DD3B, and thus coincide with the words of 
 the apostle Peter, when, on the day of Pentecost, 
 he asserted in Jerusalem the fact of David's 
 authorship as an essential part of his argument 
 in connection with the Saviour's Resurrection. 
 
 The Apostle Paul in Antioch of Pisidia. Acts 13. 35-37. 
 
 Wherefore also in another (psalm) he saith, Thou wilt not give 
 thy holy one to see corruption. For David indeed, having served 
 his own generation by the will of God, fell asleep, and was laid 
 unto his fathers, and saw corruption. But he whom God raised 
 saw no corruption. 
 
 The Apostle Peter in Jerusalem. Acts 2. 25-35. 
 
 For David saith concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always 
 before my face, because he is at my right hand, that I should not 
 be moved. Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was 
 glad ; and moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope : because 
 thou wilt not leave my soul unto Hades ; neither wilt thou give 
 thy holy one to see corruption. Thou hast made known to me 
 the ways of life : thou shalt make me full of joy with thy counten- 
 ance. Men, brethren, let me ffeeiy speak unto you of the 
 patriarch David, that he both died and was buried, and his 
 sepulchre is with us until this day. Therefore being a prophet, 
 and knowing that, with an oath, God had sworn to him that of 
 the fruit of his loins according to the flesh he would raise up the 
 Christ to sit upon his throne, he foreseeing this, spake of the 
 resurrection of the Christ, that his soul was not left unto Hades, 
 neither did his flesh see corruption. This Jesus God raised up, 
 whereof we all are witnesses. Being therefore exalted by the 
 right hand of God, and having received from the Father the pro- 
 mise of the Holy Spirit, he hath shed forth this which ye now see 
 and hear. For David did not ascend into the heavens: but he 
 himself saith, The Lord said to my lord, Sit thou at my right hand, 
 until I make thine enemies the footstool of thy feet. 
 
 Not less explicit is the Saviour's reference to 
 David as the author of Psalm no (Matthew
 
 The Authorship of Psalm ex. 391 
 
 22. 41-45 ; Mark 12. 35-37 ; Luke 20. 41-44). 
 Indeed the validity of his argument hinges on 
 the fact that David wrote the Psalm ; and his 
 words are rendered worse than nugatory by the 
 denial of the Davidic authorship : 
 
 Jesus answered and said while he taught in the temple, How 
 say the scribes that the Christ is David's son ? For David himself 
 saith [in the Holy Spirit] in the Book of Psalms, The Lord said 
 to my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies 
 the footstool of thy feet. David therefore calleth him Lord ; and 
 how is he his son ? 
 
 If the clear and simple testimony thus borne 
 by the Scriptures to their own authorship and to 
 the circumstances in which they were written be 
 rejected as incredible, can it be surprising that the 
 same kind of criticism which produces this result 
 should lead many of its votaries to go a little 
 farther (if indeed it be farther), and to reject as 
 still more incredible such miracles in the Old 
 Testament and in the New as they do not think 
 fit to believe ? There is but one step, if so much, 
 between disbelief of the human authorship ascribed 
 to some portions of the Scriptures, and disbelief of 
 their divine inspiration, and of the miracles which 
 they record. If it is incredible, for instance, that 
 Solomon wrote Ecclesiastes, or that Moses spoke 
 and wrote those things which, in the Pentateuch 
 and in the New Testament, he is declared to have 
 spoken and written, can it be less incredible that 
 the Lord spoke to Moses, or that the word of the 
 Lord came to Solomon, or that God should raise 
 the dead ? Yet the miracles of both Testaments
 
 39 2 The Solomonic Histories. 
 
 are so wrought into the very essence of Judaism 
 and Christianity, that it would be as impossible 
 to separate either Christianity or Judaism from 
 those miracles as to separate a picture from the 
 canvas on which it is painted, or a figure wrought 
 in tapestry from the threads of which the tapestry 
 is composed. ' Now if Christ be preached that he 
 hath risen from the dead, how say some among you 
 that there is no resurrection of the dead ? But if 
 there be no resurrection of the dead, then Christ 
 hath not risen. And if Christ hath not risen, then 
 our preaching is vain, and your faith is also vain.' 
 
 The Books of Kings and Chronicles. 
 
 The Books of Kings and Chronicles, like the 
 Book of Samuel (for each of the three works con- 
 stitutes only one book the divisions into two 
 being post-biblical and arbitrary), are included 
 among those portions of Holy Scripture the im- 
 mediate authorship of which is not expressly 
 recorded. There seems, however, to be no reason 
 for doubting the Talmudic ascription of the Book 
 of Kings to Jeremiah, 
 
 (niypi D'afo naoi nao ana rvv), 
 
 or the tradition that the Book of Chronicles was 
 written about a century later, probably by Ezra. 
 The fact that the last chapter of Kings is almost 
 identical with the last chapter of Jeremiah seems 
 to point in the direction of Jeremiah, even though 
 the note at the end of Jeremiah 51 (' Thus far are 
 the words of Jeremiah') indicate a different author-
 
 The Prophets and the Hagiographa. 393 
 
 ship for the last chapter. So likewise the fact that 
 the Book of Ezra begins as the Book of Chronicles 
 ends points to Ezra as the probable compiler of 
 the Chronicles. And as Ezra was simply a priest, 
 whereas Jeremiah was also a prophet, so, in strict 
 harmony with this diversity, the Book of Chroni- 
 cles, as a priestly document largely concerned with 
 the Temple service, is placed among the Hagio- 
 grapha (D'HirD). On the other hand, the Book of 
 Kings, as a theocratic record, bears to the Books 
 of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and the other prophets, a 
 relation similar to the relation borne by the 
 Chronicles to the Book of Psalms, and is accord- 
 ingly included among the prophetic Scriptures 
 (DWHJ). While the Book of Kings carries down 
 the history of the ten tribes to the overthrow of 
 the kingdom of Israel, and the history of the 
 kingdom of Judah to the time of the Captivity, 
 the Book of Chronicles (which gives a continuous 
 narrative of the kingdom of Judah, but says very 
 little about the kingdom of Israel) reaches to the 
 end of the Captivity, and contains ample internal 
 evidence that it is one of the latest accessions to 
 the Old Testament Canon. 
 
 It appears from sundry particulars in the Books 
 of Kings and Chronicles that the writers, whoever 
 they were, were rather the compilers or editors 
 than the authors of the books. They mention 
 with remarkable precision other writings as con- 
 taining full authentic biographies of the kings 
 whose reigns they themselves have sketched 
 merely in outline. Thus, for instance, it is re-
 
 394 Books of Reference. 
 
 corded in 2 Chronicles 26. 22, that 'the rest of the 
 acts "nm of Uzziah, the first and the last, did 
 Isaiah the prophet the son of Amoz write.' So 
 likewise it is evident from the extensive verbal 
 agreement between Isaiah 36-39 and 2 Kings 
 1 8. 13 to 20. 19, that this portion of the Book of 
 Kings was taken from a document of which the 
 prophet Isaiah was the author. 
 
 The compiler of the Book of Kings mentions 
 expressly three sources of full written information 
 on the subjects of his historic outline. These are : 
 
 1. The Book of the Words of Solomon, i Kings 
 1 1. 41, already noticed in page 362. 
 
 2. The Book of the Chronicles (D^Tl nan ISO) 
 of the Kings of Judah, fifteen times 
 
 1 Kings 14. 29 ; 15. 7, 23 ; 22. 46 (45). 
 
 2 Kings 8. 23; 12. 20 (19); 14. 18; 15. 6, 36; 16. 19; 
 
 20. 20 ; 21. 17, 25 ; 23. 28 ; 24. 5. 
 
 3. The Book of the Chro'nicles of the Kings of 
 Israel, eighteen times 
 
 1 Kings 14. 19 ; 15. 31 ; 16. 5, 14, 20, 27; 22. 39. 
 
 2 Kings i. 18; 10. 34; 13. 8, 12; 14. 15, 28; 
 
 15. 11, 15, 21, 26, 31. 
 
 The above list exhibits in bold relief the unique 
 prominence of the n7t? *Q"n occupying a "IDD by 
 themselves, as compared with the memoirs of 
 fifteen kings of Judah, comprised in one ISO, and 
 the memoirs of eighteen kings of Israel, comprised 
 in another "IBD. 
 
 The compiler of the canonical Chronicles men- 
 tions the Book of the Kings of Israel once
 
 Sundry Ancient Books. 395 
 
 (2 Chronicles 20. 34), and the Book of the Kings 
 of Israel and Judah, or Judah and Israel, eight 
 times (i Chronicles 9. 1 ; 2 Chronicles 16. 11 ; 
 25. 26 ; 27. 7 ; 28. 26 ; 32. 32 ; 35. 27 ; 36. 8) 
 one and the same compendium (different, how- 
 ever, from the canonical Book of Kings), being 
 obviously denoted by these three designations. In 
 addition to this comprehensive "ISO, the chronicler 
 mentions in i Chronicles 27. 24 the chronicles 
 (D^OTi nm) of king David ; and he concludes his 
 biography of David by declaring in 29. 29-30, 
 
 "PH "HlTl And the words (or acts) of David the king the 
 first and the last behold they are written in the words of Samuel 
 nKhrU and in the words of Nathan the prophet, and in the words 
 
 of Gad ninn w ^h a ^ his re ig n an< i his might* and the times that 
 went over him, and over Israel, and over all the kingdoms of the 
 countries. 
 
 With similarly explicit minuteness, the chroni- 
 cler says in the end of his memoir of Solomon, 
 
 And the rest of the fiD^t? " l ")21 the first and the last are they 
 not written in the words of Nathan the prophet, and in the 
 prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, and in the visions of Iddo ntHH 
 concerning Jeroboam, the son of Nebat ? 2 Chronicles 9. 29. 
 
 He likewise refers for further particulars about 
 
 the words of Shemaiah the prophet, and Iddo, 
 
 Rehoboam 
 
 Abijah 
 
 Jehoshaphat 
 
 Joash 
 
 Hezekiah 
 
 Manasseh 
 
 to 
 
 to 
 
 to 
 
 to 
 and 
 
 2 Chronicles 12. 15. 
 the Midrash (t*mi3) or narrative of the prophet 
 
 Iddo. 13. 22. 
 
 the words of Jehu, the son of Hanani. 20. 34. 
 the Midrash of the Book of the Kings. 24. 27. 
 the vision of Isaiah the prophet, son of Amoz. 
 
 32. 32. 
 
 the words of the kings of Israel, 
 the words of "fin- 33- 18, 19.
 
 396 The Functions of a Compiler. 
 
 Now, be the dates of actual compilation what 
 they may, the Books of Kings and Chronicles 
 exhibit abundant traces of the fact that these 
 books consist largely of direct quotations from 
 ancient documents, reaching back respectively 
 to the times of the several kings whose words and 
 deeds they record. 
 
 ' With respect to' the use made by the writer of Kings of the 
 materials at his disposal,' says Professor Rawlinson, in The 
 Speakers Commentary, ' it must be observed, in the first place, 
 that, 'mainly, he exercised the office of a compiler. He did not 
 recast the entire history, and express it, as a modern historian 
 would do, in his own words, but was content to employ himself in 
 selecting, arranging, sometimes slightly modernising, inserting the 
 necessary connecting links, and so weaving into a whole, the 
 various narratives of earlier wrkers whereof he made use. This 
 is 'evident, both from the retention of obsolete or provincial forms 
 in particular narratives (as in 2 Kings iv, the suffix ^3 for "n, verses 
 2, 3, 7 ; TlK f r J"IX> verses 16, 23), and from the occurrence of a 
 number of statements which were inappropriate at the time when 
 the compiler wrote (as in I Kings_,viii. 8 ; ix. 21 ; xii. 19 [the 
 expression unto this day n?n DVH 1]}])- It is further rendered 
 apparent by the close verbal agreement between 2 Kings xviii. 15 
 to xx. 19, and Isaiah xxxvi.-xxxix., which can only have arisen from 
 the writer's extracting without alteration Isaiah's account of the 
 reign of Hezekiah as it occurred in the State-annals. Another 
 indication of the same is furnished by the verbal agreement 
 between great part of Chronicles and Kings, which is often best 
 accounted for by supposing that the two writers made verbatim 
 extracts from the same authority.' 
 
 ' One of the most pressing wants of the Jewish community after 
 their return from Babylon [says the Bishop of Bath and Wells 
 in Smith's Dictionary,] would be trusty genealogical records, 
 and if there were any such in existence, the arrangement and 
 publication of them would be one of the greatest services a person 
 in Ezra's situation could confer. ... As regards the materials 
 used by him, and the sources of his information, they are not 
 difficult to discover. The genealogies are obviously transcribed
 
 Value of the Historic Evidence. 397 
 
 from some register, in which were preserved the genealogies of 
 the tribes and families drawn up at different times. This appears 
 from the very different ages at which different genealogies termi- 
 nate, indicating of course the particular reign when each was 
 drawn up. Thus, for instance, ... the line of the high-priests 
 (i Chr. vi. 1-15) must have been drawn up during the captivity; 
 that in 50-53, in the time of David or Solomon ; those of Heman 
 and Asaph in the same chapter in the time of David ; that of 
 the sons of Azel (l Chr. viii. 38) in the time of Hezekiah ; that 
 of the sons of Zerubbabel (i Chr. iii. 19-24) in the time of Ezra, 
 and so on. 
 
 The same wide divergence in the age of other materials embodied 
 in the books of Chronicles is also apparent. Thus the information 
 in I Chronicles i. concerning the kings of Edom before the reign 
 of Saul, was obviously compiled from very ancient sources . . . 
 while other records used by the compiler are as late as after the 
 return from Babylon, such as 2 Chronicles xxxvi. 20 sqq.; . . . 
 Hence it is further manifest that the Chronicles, though put into 
 their present form by one hand, contain in fact extracts from the 
 writings of many different writers, which were extant at the time the 
 compilation was made. . . . All these several works have perished, 
 but the most important matters in them have been providentially 
 preserved to us in the Chronicles.' 
 
 [What is thus true of the Book of Chronicles resembles what the 
 beloved disciple has left on record with reference to the composition 
 of his Gospel (John 20. 30-31): 'And many other signs indeed 
 Jesus did in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in 
 this book. But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus 
 is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing ye might have 
 life in his name. '] 
 
 The manner in which the writers of the Books 
 of Kings and Chronicles have to so great an extent 
 acted simply as compilers or copyists of the 
 original documents which had been handed down 
 to them, makes the Solomonic history in those 
 books vastly more valuable as a witness to the 
 Solomonic authorship of Ecclesiastes than it could 
 otherwise have been. Indeed so slight are such
 
 398 Histories of the Kings. 
 
 features of lateness as may be due to the dates of 
 compilation, that the Solomonic history may be 
 viewed as virtually belonging to the era in which 
 Solomon lived, and as accordingly similar in this 
 respect to those Solomonic proverbs which the 
 men of Hezekiah copied out. Whether the words 
 of Nathan, and the prophecy of Ahijah, and the 
 visions of Iddo, specified in 2 Chronicles 9. 29, 
 were included in the Book of the words of Solomon 
 specified in I Kings n. 41, or were different 
 writings, both passages testify to the existence of 
 abundant documentary matter for the composition 
 of the twofold Solomonic history. And it may 
 be further observed that, next to the history of 
 David, that of Solomon, both in Kings and in 
 Chronicles, is larger by far than the history of 
 any other king of Israel or Judah. Next in extent 
 to the history of Solomon are the histories of 
 Ahab and Hezekiah 
 
 Solomon, . I Kings I to II nearly 26 pages ) o\ 
 
 2 Chronicles 1-9, 13 pages ) 
 
 (or fully 43 pages, if I Chronicles 22, 28, 
 
 and 29 be included). 
 Ahab, . . I Kings 16. 29 to 22. 40, . fully 12 pages ) 
 
 2 Chronicles 18, 2 pages > 
 
 Hezekiah, . 2 Kings 18, 19, 20, . . . nearly 6 pages ) 
 2 Chronicles 29, 30, 31, 32, nearly 8 pages ) 
 
 The two histories of the life and reign of Solo- 
 mon have much in common ; and even those parts 
 (by no means inconsiderable) which are peculiar 
 to the one or to the other, enhance the interest of 
 the evidence in favour of the Solomonic authorship
 
 Sundry Differences. 399 
 
 of Ecclesiastes. The subject-matter of the 170 
 verses constituting I Kings I ; 2'; 3. 16-28 ; 4. 2-19 ; 
 ii. 1-40, is peculiar to the Book of Kings, except 
 in a few particulars common to these verses, and 
 four verses (i Chronicles 29. 22-24 ; 2 Chronicles 
 10. 2) in the Book of Chronicles. Solomon's 
 prayer at Gibeon also, and God's answer to it, are 
 more copiously recorded in I Kings 3. 6-14 than 
 in the parallel passage, 2 Chronicles I. 8-12: 
 whereas, on the other hand, Solomon's message 
 to Hiram, king of Tyre, and Hiram's reply, are 
 more copiously recorded in 2 Chronicles 2. 3-16 
 than in the parallel passage, I Kings 5. 16-23 (2-9). 
 And not a dozen of the seventy verses constituting 
 those three chapters (22, 28, 29) of I Chronicles 
 which belong about as much to the history of 
 Solomon as to the history of David, have any 
 counterpart in the Books of Samuel and Kings. 
 
 The differences between the parallel passages 
 of the Solomonic history in Kings and Chronicles 
 are similar in character to the differences in the 
 four Gospels between two or more narratives 
 of the same events. Such differences do not 
 necessarily detract from the trustworthiness of 
 the documents. Difference of time may lead to 
 difference of orthography. Hence it is that the 
 spelling in English Bibles printed in the present 
 century is very different from the spelling in the 
 original edition of 1611. So likewise one writer 
 may give simply the substance of a speech which 
 another writer quotes verbatim ; and when two 
 compilers select and abridge from a common
 
 400 Comparison of Parallel Passages, 
 
 source, each may insert extracts which the other 
 omits. This is clearly illustrated by the case of 
 Solomon's message to Hiram, king of Tyre. In 
 the consulted copy of the Hebrew Bible, the 
 message occupies nine lines in I Kings 5. 17-20, 
 and i6| lines in 2 Chronicles 2. 2-9 (3-10). Yet 
 scarcely \\ lines are common to both passages. 
 The two however are in thorough harmony with 
 one another, each compiler having transcribed 
 chiefly such parts of the message as are not 
 contained in the record of the other compiler. 
 Two lines are common to Solomon's prayer at 
 Gibeon, as recorded in I Kings 3. 6-9, where it 
 occupies nearly 8 lines, and in 2 Chronicles I. 8-10, 
 where it occupies scarcely 4^ lines. His prayer 
 at the Dedication of the Temple occupies about 
 61 lines in I Kings 8. 23-53, and about 59 lines 
 in 2 Chronicles 6. 14-42. In the Book of Kings, 
 27^ verses, from verse 23 to x the middle of verse 50, 
 occupying 55^- lines, are nearly identical with 26 
 verses (14-39) occupying 55 lines in the Book of 
 Chronicles : whereas the 5^ concluding lines in 
 i Kings 8 and the four in 2 Chronicles 6 are 
 peculiar to each book respectively, yet in a way 
 which is quite consistent with the supposition that 
 the prayer as originally uttered contained the 
 words peculiar to each passage. 
 
 A comparison of the parallel passages in the two- 
 fold history of Solomon's life may suffice to show 
 that two similar yet not identical expressions 
 may both have been used exactly as recorded. 
 Thus, for instance, Solomon may at Gibeon have
 
 Hasty Inferences. 401 
 
 prayed both for J?b> 3$>, as recorded in I Kings 3. 9, 
 and also for jnoi noan, as recorded in 2 Chronicles 
 i. 10. The similarity between these two expres- 
 sions is not so great as the similarity between 
 
 ion 3 in pay-Dj; rwj? nns 1 and 
 run ^run iDi-in-nx ib ic^ni 3 
 
 or between . . . IKO^y W p 1^-jnni 3 and 
 
 UN in nnn "ay-nx n:6n nn* 
 
 THOU HAST SHOWED UNTO THY SERVANT DAVID MY FATHER 
 GREAT MERCY, 1 according as he walked before thee in truth, and 
 in righteousness, and in uprightness of heart with thee. 
 
 AND THOU HAST KEPT FOR HIM THIS GREAT MERCY, 2 
 
 that thou hast given him a son sitting upon his throne, 3 
 
 as it is this day. And now O Jehovah my God 
 thou hast made thy servant king, instead of David my father; 4 . . 
 
 Now it is conceivable that had one of each of 
 the two pairs of expressions occurred in Kings 
 and the other in Chronicles, some modern critics 
 would have represented them as affording conclu- 
 sive proof of irreconcilable verbal discrepancy. 
 The fact however that all the four expressions 
 occur in the first half of the prayer as recorded 
 in i Kings 3. 6-9, shows the untrustworthiness of 
 much of the current criticism on the differences 
 between parallel passages, and enhances the value 
 of the testimony borne by the Books of Kings 
 and Chronicles conjointly and severally to the 
 Solomonic authorship of Ecclesiastes, each of 
 these histories containing independent evidence 
 peculiar to itself, and at the same time corroborative 
 of the evidence contained in the other history. 
 
 While it is a noteworthy fact that two indepen- 
 2 c
 
 4O2 Concurrent Testimony. 
 
 dent histories, such as Kings and Chronicles, and two 
 books so unlike one another as the Proverbs and 
 the Song of Solomon, concur in testifying to the 
 Solomonic authorship of Ecclesiastes, what has 
 been observed already may be reiterated here, 
 that their testimony is enhanced by its rich variety. 
 The evidence which pervades these four witnesses 
 includes what is superficial and also what is deep. 
 It subsists both in their subject-matter and in 
 their linguistic features ; and it extends not only 
 to words, but also to style and phraseology. It 
 may be noticed still further, as a circumstance 
 giving peculiar value to this evidence, that the 
 striking similarity in some points is associated 
 with such wide dissimilarity in others, as is clearly 
 antagonistic to the modern theory of imitation. 
 In short, the twofold history of Solomon's life and 
 reign confirms the position maintained throughout 
 this treatise, that Ecclesiastes is not such a Book 
 as a personator would have been likely to devise 
 and put forth as a writing of Solomon, or to 
 succeed in getting the Jews to accept as a work 
 of that son of David who was king over Israel in 
 Jerusalem. 
 
 The Proof of the Solomonic Authorship of 
 Ecclesiastes. 
 
 If Solomon was the author of the Proverbs and 
 the Song ascribed to him, and if the twofold 
 history of his life and reign is trustworthy, then 
 the materials from which the Solomonic author-
 
 Copiousness and Variety of the Proof. 403 
 
 ship of Ecclesiastes may be proved and illustrated 
 are more extensive and diversified than those 
 which are available for the proof of the authorship 
 of any other disputed portion of Holy Scripture. 
 The wide divergence of Ecclesiastes in scope and 
 style and structure from Solomon's Proverbs, and 
 the still wider divergence from the Song of 
 Songs, enhance the interest and value of the 
 evidence for identity of authorship. Indeed proof 
 abundantly conclusive might have been obtained 
 from a simple comparison of Ecclesiastes with 
 the Proverbs and the Song. But when to this 
 diversified evidence there is superadded the 
 evidence from the two independent historic 
 records, it follows that, as, on the one hand, if 
 Solomon had not been the author of Ecclesiastes, 
 there would have been a superabundance of 
 materials from which to show the improbability 
 of the contrary affirmation, so, on the other hand, 
 if the claim of Ecclesiastes to have been written 
 by Solomon is true, as, until a comparatively 
 recent date, it was universally acknowledged to 
 be, then the proof of the Solomonic authorship 
 must, if adequately demonstrated, have a richness 
 and conclusiveness peculiarly its own. In short, 
 the series of arguments constituting the cumulative 
 evidence of Solomon's authorship must, if success- 
 fully grasped and arranged, be unique in the 
 extent and variety and character of the sources 
 and materials from which they are drawn. 
 
 The different parts of the Pentateuch are so 
 uniform in their style and structure, and so inti-
 
 404 The Book of Daniel. 
 
 rnately connected together, that even though 
 Deuteronomy does not begin with the copulative 
 vau, as Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers do, the 
 proving of its Mosaic authorship resembles what 
 it would be to prove that the fifth Book of Livy 
 was written by the same historian who wrote the 
 four preceding books. As the Book of Daniel, 
 also, is the only canonical Scripture containing 
 words recorded to have been uttered by the pro- 
 phet whose name it bears, and as he is never 
 even named elsewhere in the Old Testament, 
 except in Ezekiel 14. 14, 20; 28. 3, the materials 
 for proving the genuineness of the Book of Daniel 
 are necessarily circumscribed as they would not 
 have been had there been extant an independent 
 record of Daniel's life, or even some other canonical 
 book bearing his name as its author. As already 
 noticed at pages 40-41, the Book of the Acts of the 
 Apostles is related to the, Pauline Epistles simi- 
 larly as the Solomonic history is related to the 
 writings of Solomon. Yet so homogeneous and 
 like one another are these Epistles, that to prove 
 the genuineness of one of them by comparing it 
 with the others would be, not so much to prove 
 the genuineness of one independent whole like the 
 Book of Ecclesiastes, from the genuineness of other 
 independent wholes like the Proverbs and the 
 Canticles, as to prove the genuineness of one part 
 of a series from the genuineness of the other parts. 
 It would be like proving, for instance, one of the 
 Georgics to have been written by Virgil, from its 
 resemblance to the other Georgics. Conversely,
 
 Independent Evidence. 405 
 
 the Gospel, the Epistles, and the Revelation of 
 John are similar in their independence of one 
 another to Solomon's Proverbs, Canticles, and 
 Ecclesiastes. Yet any little scraps of evidence 
 which might be picked out of the Synoptic Gospels 
 and the Acts of the Apostles for the purpose of 
 proving that the Apocalypse must have been 
 written by the Apostle John, would be very dif- 
 ferent in extent and character from that copious 
 independent evidence of the Solomonic authorship 
 of Ecclesiastes which is supplied by the historic 
 substratum of Kings and Chronicles. 
 
 The Book of Ecclesiastes stands the various 
 available tests to which it may be subjected, and 
 comes out of the crucible with its genuineness 
 untarnished. It may happen in the case of an 
 accused person, that two or three of the witnesses 
 appealed to in. his defence have little or nothing 
 to say ; or their evidence may be considerably 
 shaken, if it is probed and sifted. It is far other- 
 wise, however, with the evidence for the Solomonic 
 authorship of Ecclesiastes. The more it is searched 
 into, the clearer and more copious is it seen to be. 
 If the Proverbs and the Song of Solomon, and 
 the Solomonic histories of Kings and Chronicles, 
 together with the Hebrew of the Davidic Scrip- 
 tures, be viewed as witnesses, then every one of 
 them testifies plainly and unequivocally and 
 independently that the language of Ecclesiastes 
 is the language of that son of David who was 
 king over Israel in Jerusalem.
 
 406 A Conceivable Rejoinder. 
 
 A Conceivable Rejoinder. 
 
 It is conceivable that the force of the evidence 
 for the Solomonic authorship of Ecclesiastes might 
 be confronted with an indirect argument founded 
 on a comparison of books known and admitted to 
 have been written respectively by different authors, 
 in different epochs of Hebrew literature. Two or 
 three canonical books might in this way be selected 
 and experimented on ; and an array of words and 
 phrases might be picked out, and exposed to view, 
 as either peculiar to the books thus examined, 
 or found very seldom elsewhere in the Hebrew 
 Scriptures. And it might be argued that, as the 
 list thus obtained cannot prove identity of author- 
 ship, so neither can the multitude of coincidences 
 between Ecclesiastes and the other Solomonic 
 Scriptures prove the Book of Ecclesiastes to have 
 been written by Solomon. ' 
 
 This argument may be easily answered. It is 
 indeed true, as already noticed in the section on 
 Different Kinds of Resemblance, and illustrated 
 by the section on the Non-Solomonic Proverbs 
 (pages 47-51 and 297-304), that, as on the one 
 hand, there may be diversity of style where there 
 is identity of authorship, so on the other hand, 
 there may be coincidences in style where there 
 is difference of authorship. Hence it is quite 1 
 possible that the writings of different persons 
 may exhibit such points of agreement as, if there 
 were identity of authorship, might be adduced to 
 illustrate or confirm it. In the absence of this
 
 Character and Extent of Coincidences. 407 
 
 identity, however, such coincidences may be 
 accounted for by the circumstances in which 
 they occur, as for instance where an author sub- 
 sequent to Moses, writes with obvious reference 
 to something recorded in the Pentateuch ; or a 
 prophet takes up and incorporates in his own 
 prophecy, the divine utterances of a predecessor 
 in the prophetic office. 
 
 'It is now owned, well nigh on all hands,' says Dr. Pusey, 
 ' that the great prophecy, three verses of which Isaiah prefixed 
 to his second chapter, was originally delivered by Micah. . . . 
 Nahum and Zephaniah use language of Isaiah ; Zephaniah uses 
 that of Habakkuk, as also of Joel, Amos, Micah ; Habakkuk's 
 hymn shews one well acquainted with the Psalms. Whom does 
 not Jeremiah employ ?' 
 
 Yet the character and extent of such coincidences 
 as these, and the circumstances in which they 
 occur, are sufficient to show that they have little 
 or no bearing on the question of authorship, and 
 cannot detract from the evidential value of the 
 accumulated mass of coincidences by which the 
 Solomonic authorship of Ecclesiastes is attested. 
 
 This treatise, however, is based not merely on 
 the existence of those coincidences viewed by 
 themselves, though even that (as may hereafter 
 be noticed) would be sufficient to prove the point 
 at issue, but on the coincidences as confirmatory 
 of the claim made by Ecclesiastes to have been 
 written by that son of David who was king over 
 Israel in Jerusalem. This claim, which permeates 
 the book from beginning to end, and is ratified by 
 the universal tradition of antiquity, is, as it were,
 
 408 The circumstances of Coincidence. 
 
 the foundation of the manifold argument in favour 
 of the Solomonic authorship. And the richly 
 diversified coincidences are the filling in or super- 
 structure, resting on the foundation, and at the 
 same time proving it to be sound and trustworthy. 
 ' When there does exist external evidence,' says 
 Dr. Tregelles, ' and when internal proofs as to 
 style, manner, verbal expression, and connection 
 are in accordance with such independent grounds 
 of forming a judgment ; then these internal con- 
 siderations possess very great weight.' On the 
 other hand, any array of coincidences which 
 might be pointed out between two or three books 
 written respectively by different authors, would 
 somewhat resemble an arch without a keystone, 
 or a series of ciphers without a figure in front of 
 them highly valuable if they were attached to 
 such a figure, but worth nothing when standing 
 by themselves. 
 
 Yet even apart from this point, the hypothesis 
 of two or more books by different authors, coincid- 
 ing with one another, as Ecclesiastes coincides 
 with the Solomonic histories and with the Pro- 
 verbs and the Song of Solomon, may be left out 
 of account as actually impossible. While it is 
 indeed conceivable that if, for the purpose of 
 illustration, one were to search for coincidences 
 where it is known and admitted that there is not 
 identity of authorship, one might find interesting 
 literary resemblances between any two canonical 
 books by different authors, the coincidences thus 
 obtained would (however skilfully they might be
 
 The Burden of Proof. 409 
 
 woven into a plausible argument) be quite beneath 
 comparison with the multitude of coincidences 
 between Ecclesiastes and the other Solomonic 
 Scriptures singly, and a fortiori conjointly. As 
 already expressed in pages 319-327, it would be 
 no difficult matter to show the inconclusiveness of 
 Delitzsch's tabular argument against \.\\.z Solomonic 
 authorship of Ecclesiastes, by compiling from some 
 other book a list similar to his list compiled from 
 Ecclesiastes. Any attempt, however, to detract 
 from the force of the cumulative argument for the 
 Solomonic authorship of Ecclesiastes, by con- 
 structing an analogous argument for an unreal 
 authorship hypothetically assumed, would but tend 
 to exhibit in bold relief the weakness of theargument 
 thus constructed, and the impregnable strength of 
 the argument against which it had been aimed. 
 
 The Burden of Proof. 
 
 In so far as the authorship of Ecclesiastes is 
 concerned, the burden of proof lies, not on those 
 who accept what the book says of its own author- 
 ship, and the relative testimony of antiquity, but 
 on those who deny that Ecclesiastes was written 
 by Solomon. From a strictly logical point of 
 view it would be sufficient to show how incon- 
 clusive are the arguments on which this denial is 
 based, and how utterly inadequate to disprove the 
 authorship against which they are directed. Yet 
 the circumstances of the case call for something 
 more than the merely negative process of exposing
 
 4io Sufficiency of Proof . 
 
 the unsoundness of the modern criticism which 
 denies the Solomonic authorship of Ecclesiastes. 
 So confident is the tone with which it is asserted 
 that the Book of Ecclesiastes cannot have been 
 written by Solomon so widespread is the accept- 
 ance of this assertion, as if it had been con- 
 clusively proved, and so extensively is it employed 
 as a crutch by means of which the accredited 
 authorship of other portions of Holy Scripture is 
 attacked, that it becomes of the utmost import- 
 ance for those who uphold the truthfulness of the 
 Scriptures in matters of authorship, to deal with 
 the subject as thoroughly as if the burden of proof 
 rested on themselves, and to advance accordingly 
 from the negative position of rebutting the 
 contrary arguments, to the positive position of 
 demonstrating, from the internal literary features 
 of the Book of Ecclesiastes, that it must have 
 been written by Solomon. ' 
 
 It would be logically sufficient to show that 
 Ecclesiastes contains nothing (whether in language 
 or in subject-matter) inconsistent with what is 
 asserted in its title. If there is no such incon- 
 sistency, there can be no ground for impugning 
 the title, supported as it is by the unanimous 
 voice of antiquity. To establish identity of 
 authorship in the case of two books, one or both 
 of them anonymous, and having no external 
 testimony to the authorship, it would be neces- 
 sary to show, from their internal features, not 
 only that one of them may have been written by 
 the author of the other, but that it must have
 
 The Extent of the Evidence. 411 
 
 been so. Mere* compatibility of style and subject 
 would be insufficient. Identity of authorship 
 might indeed be thereby proved possible, yet it 
 would not be proved to be an actual fact, seeing 
 that the writings of different authors might, from 
 various causes, coincide to a considerable extent 
 with one another. If, however, as in the case of 
 Ecclesiastes, an ancient book claims to have been 
 written by a certain author, and the claim appears 
 to have been universally admitted till modern 
 times, and to have been called in question only 
 recently, and that, not through the discovery 
 of some historic evidence showing it to be false, 
 but on the mere allegation that the claim is 
 inconsistent with the internal features of the 
 treatise, then nothing more is necessary in vindi- 
 cation of the treatise than to show that the alle- 
 gation is groundless. If the phraseology and 
 the substance of Ecclesiastes are in harmony 
 with the Hebrew and the history of Solomon's 
 life and reign, then the Solomonic authorship 
 must be acknowledged as an established fact, 
 even if the Book of Ecclesiastes did not contain 
 anything peculiar to the Solomonic Scriptures, 
 or used with much greater comparative frequency 
 in them than elsewhere in the Bible. 
 
 The evidence of the Solomonic authorship of 
 Ecclesiastes, however, goes much further than this, 
 both in minuteness and in the extent of the 
 sources from which it is derived. Besides stand- 
 ing the test of Solomon's Proverbs, Ecclesiastes 
 stands the test of his Song also. Nor is this all.
 
 412 Similarity and Dissimilarity. 
 
 For if Ecclesiastes be similarly tried by either 
 or both the independent histories of Solomon's 
 life and reign, or even by the Hebrew of King 
 David, the result is the same. Still further, the 
 agreement between the Book of Ecclesiastes and 
 the other Solomonic Scriptures is thorough and 
 all-pervading. It extends not only to what is 
 superficial or prominent, but also to what is deep 
 and delicate, and quite beyond that kind of 
 resemblance which a personator would strive to 
 produce. 
 
 As already mentioned, it may be here noticed 
 also again, that the very similarity, in manifold 
 particulars, between Ecclesiastes and the other 
 Solomonic Scriptures is associated with such 
 dissimilarity in other particulars as a designing 
 imitator would have carefully obviated. Thus, for 
 instance, while such a designer, writing after the 
 Captivity, yet wishing his treatise to be accepted as 
 a genuine work of Solomon, might have adopted, 
 from Solomon's Proverbs, a profusion of such pro- 
 minent leading words as 7*03 and nDan,itis not likely 
 that he would have hit upon such simple unob- 
 trusive expressions as lENrrta in Proverbs 3. 28 ; 
 20. 22 ; 24. 29, and -[id JTT in I Kings 2. 44. And 
 it is still more unlikely that he would have placed 
 in the very forefront of his fabrication such salient 
 phrases as nil mjn, which, though it occurs nine 
 times, and B>DtJ>n nnn which, though it occurs 
 twenty-nine times in Ecclesiastes, are entirely alien 
 to the other Solomonic Scriptures; or that he would
 
 Cumulative Value of the Evidence. 413 
 
 have excluded the tetragrammaton, which occurs 
 eighty-five times in Solomon's Proverbs ; or would 
 have called God DTita forty times, when He is so 
 designated in the Proverbs of Solomon only three 
 or four times. Solomon, actuated by no sinister 
 motive, but seeking uprightly, in the abundance of 
 his wisdom, to find out acceptable words, might 
 vary his style and phraseology in accordance with 
 the scope of his subject. But the variation which 
 would thus be perfectly natural to him, was the very 
 kind of variation which a personator, writing under 
 Solomon's name, would have studiously avoided. 
 
 The richly diversified character and cumulative 
 value of the evidence for the Solomonic author- 
 ship of Ecclesiastes, are specially noticed in pages 
 20, 49, 57, 84, 93, 124, 147, 156, 207, 254, 273, 294, 
 336, and elsewhere throughout this treatise. 
 
 Closing Observations. 
 
 It is stated in the Introduction to this treatise, 
 and is repeatedly noticed afterwards, that the 
 arguments here adduced in proof of the Solomonic 
 authorship of Ecclesiastes are based on the fact 
 that the book claims to have been written by 
 Solomon, and are offered on the ground that the 
 denial of the Solomonic authorship is equivalent 
 to an impeachment of the trustworthiness of the 
 document. Yet although the unequivocal char- 
 acter of the claim is thus the occasion of the 
 writing of the treatise, and the proving of the 
 truthfulness of the claim is the object for which
 
 4 1 4 Internal L iterary Features. 
 
 the treatise is written, there is no intention of 
 representing the claim as essential to the validity 
 of the proof. On the contrary, it is here 
 maintained that, altogether irrespective of the 
 truthfulness or untruthfulness of the claim, and of 
 the consequent moral character of the document, 
 and quite independently of any considerations 
 connected with the inspiration of the Scriptures 
 or with their trustworthiness as a divine revelation 
 demanding to be implicitly believed, the internal 
 literary evidence for the Solomonic authorship of 
 Ecclesiastes is overwhelmingly conclusive. 
 
 If, for instance, it were asserted that in the 
 poem ' On the receipt of my Mother's picture out 
 of Norfolk,' some unknown writer is personating 
 the author of the poem on ' Truth/ the expression 
 the skies, common to both poems, might be 
 relevantly appealed to in proof of a common 
 authorship : 
 
 ' Her title to a treasure in the skies. ' 
 
 ' The son of parents passed into the skies. ' 
 
 Yet it is by no means inconceivable that coin- 
 cidences equally clear and close and striking 
 might be found in compositions by different 
 authors. So it is with some of the evidence for 
 the Solomonic authorship of Ecclesiastes. It 
 has been freely admitted and expressly stated 
 throughout this treatise, that sundry important 
 coincidences, though valuable in attestation of 
 the truthfulness of the claim of Ecclesiastes to 
 have been written by Solomon, might not be
 
 Illustrative Hypothesis. 4 1 5 
 
 absolutely conclusive independently of the claim. 
 This admission, however, does not extend to the 
 various particulars of the proof, when viewed not 
 severally one by one, but collectively as a great 
 cumulative whole. On the contrary, it must be 
 here reiterated and asserted in the close of the 
 treatise, that quite irrespective of the claim and 
 of the external historic testimony to its truthful- 
 ness, the internal features of Ecclesiastes are more 
 than sufficient to prove that the book must have 
 been written by Solomon, and cannot have been 
 written by some unknown personator, living in a 
 subsequent age of Hebrew literature. 
 
 Suppose, for one moment, that the Book of 
 Ecclesiastes had not been comprised in the Canon 
 of Holy Scripture 
 
 That the opening verse had not contained the 
 words DUETTO "l^D nvrp 
 
 That the title had been simply n!?np -nn, 
 without any specification of who Koheleth was 
 
 That the great historic announcement, 
 
 ' I Koheleth was king over Israel in Jerusalem,' 
 had been non-existent 
 
 That Jerusalem had been neither named nor 
 alluded to, anywhere in the book 
 
 That the author had made no specific references 
 to himself, except such as would have suited 
 several other persons besides Solomon 
 
 And that, instead of having been handed down 
 with unbroken unanimity as a well-authenticated 
 writing of Solomon, Ecclesiastes had ' been lately 
 discovered in the library of the Escurial, and
 
 416 Convergent Testimony. 
 
 [had] come to our hands destitute of any extrinsic 
 or collateral evidence whatever,' or that it had 
 been found, as an unknown and anonymous work, 
 inscribed in the Sinaitic Manuscript, or carved on 
 the back of the Moabite Stone, without anything 
 in the carving to indicate which of the two 
 inscriptions had been first engraved, and that 
 thus it could have been scrutinised and judged 
 of from an exclusively philological and literary 
 point of view, without the character of Holy 
 Scripture being affected by the conclusions 
 arrived at as to its origin and authorship 
 
 Even then, in such circumstances as these, a 
 careful critical examination of the words and 
 style and phraseology and general contents of 
 Ecclesiastes thus modified, must have led to the 
 inference that the book is what it claims to be, a 
 record of the words of that son of David who was 
 king over Israel in Jerusalem. 
 
 As various hitherto unseen marks of genuine- 
 ness and pre-eminent value might, in a process of 
 rigorous investigation, be detected in a jewel of 
 sterling quality, now for the first time alleged to 
 consist of base materials, so likewise, when the 
 Book of Ecclesiastes, quite irrespectively of its 
 canonical status, is subjected, on account of the 
 denial of the authorship which it claims, to a 
 thorough and impartial scrutiny, numerous minute 
 and delicate and hitherto unnoticed traces of its 
 Solomonic authorship are thereby disclosed all 
 bearing a convergent united testimony to its 
 unsullied genuineness, trustworthiness, and truth.
 
 Review of the Evidence. 4 1 7 
 
 1 It was even to have been expected, ' says Mr. Burgon in his 
 vindication of Mark 16. 9-20, ' from what is found to have been 
 universally the method in other parts of Scripture, ... that the 
 SPIRIT would not leave Himself without witness in this place. It 
 was to have been anticipated, I say, that Eternal Wisdom would 
 carefully . . . make provision : meet the coming unbelief (as His 
 Angel met Balaam) with a drawn sword : plant up and down 
 throughout these Twelve Verses of the Gospel, sure indications of 
 their Divine Original, unmistakable notes of purpose and design, 
 mysterious traces and tokens of Himself; not visible indeed to 
 the scornful and arrogant, the impatient and irreverent ; yet clear 
 as if written with a sunbeam to the patient and humble student, 
 the man who " trembleth at GOD'S Word." Or, (if the Reader 
 prefers the image,) the indications of a Divine Original to be 
 met with in these verses shall be likened rather to those cryptic 
 characters, invisible so long as they remain unsuspected, but which 
 shine forth clear and strong when exposed to the Light or to the 
 Heat; (Light and Heat, both emblems of Himself !) so that even he 
 that gropeth in darkness must now see them, and admit that of a 
 truth " the LORD is in this place " although he " knew it not !" ' 
 
 On a review of the evidence detailed throughout 
 this treatise, the conclusion seems inevitable, that 
 there is no personation of an unreal authorship in 
 the Book of Ecclesiastes 
 
 That the opening verse expresses not a fiction 
 but a fact 
 
 That it is because the Book of Ecclesiastes was 
 written by Solomon, that it claims to be a record 
 of the ' words of Koheleth, son of David, king in 
 Jerusalem' 
 
 That the declaration ' I Koheleth was king over 
 Israel in Jerusalem ' is not false, but true 
 
 And that accordingly, in respect of authorship, 
 the Book of Ecclesiastes is what it professes to be. 
 2 D
 
 4 1 8 Conchisiow. 
 
 About a thousand years after the days of King 
 Solomon, the apostle Paul declared in his Epistle 
 to the Churches of Galatia, ' Now the things which 
 I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not.' 
 Similarly explicit is the manner in which the 
 author of Ecclesiastes vouches for the veracity 
 of his own autobiography. And as Paley, in his 
 Horce Paulina;, exhibits, on an impregnable basis, 
 the genuineness of the Pauline Epistles, the reality 
 of the persons and transactions referred to in them, 
 and the truthfulness of the relative historic narra- 
 tion ; so, in like manner, it is not too much to affirm 
 that the Book of Ecclesiastes contains superabun- 
 dant internal evidence of the fact that it cannot 
 have proceeded from the pen of a personator, 
 declaring himself to be what he was not, but must 
 have been written in the artlessness of simple open 
 honesty, by the same gifted^ author who declares in 
 the Book of Proverbs, ' Have not I written to thee 
 excellent things, in counsels and knowledge?' 
 Accordingly the various facts and arguments here 
 adduced in proof of the Solomonic authorship of 
 Ecclesiastes may be briefly summed up in one 
 short sentence, declaratory of the great principle 
 which this treatise is intended to vindicate : 
 
 THE PREACHER SOUGHT TO FIND OUT ACCEPTABLE 
 
 WORDS 5 AND THAT WHICH WAS WRITTEN 
 WAS UPRIGHT, EVEN WORDS OF TRUTH.
 
 They have Moses and the Prophets : let them hear them. 
 
 IJ they hear not Moses and the PropJiets, neither will they be persuaded 
 though one rise from the dead. 
 
 DISSERTATION 
 
 ON 
 
 tohtdt teas spokot through Jmmwh 
 the 
 
 as quoted in Matthew 27. 9-1O. 
 
 Thou Lord Jehovah hast said unto me, Buy to thyself the 
 field for silver. 
 
 They shall buy fields for silver ... in the land of Benjamin, 
 and in the places round about Jerusalem. 
 
 Beginning from Moses and/ram all the Prophets, fie expounded to them in 
 all the Scriptures, the things concerning himself.
 
 THAT WHICH WAS SPOKEN THROUGH 
 JEREMIAH THE PROPHET. 
 
 The State of the Case. 
 
 AMONG the 55 New Testament passages, in 
 each of which some person is expressly named as 
 the author of an Old Testament passage quoted 
 or referred to, Matthew 27. 9-10 occupies a unique 
 position. In every one of the other passages, 
 except Acts 4. 25 and Hebrews 4. 7, the name 
 given in the New Testament coincides with the 
 authorship specified in the Old. And even in so 
 far as these two passages are concerned, there is 
 not so much as a shadow of evidence for supposing 
 that their ascription of Psalms 2 and 95 to David 
 is incorrect. On the contrary (as mentioned in 
 page 378), the Davidic authorship of these two 
 psalms is clearly borne out by the internal features 
 of the psalms themselves. 
 
 On the other hand, critics of contrary schools 
 are agreed in maintaining that in Matthew 27. 9-10, 
 the evangelist is really quoting Zechariah 1 1. 12-13, 
 notwithstanding that he expressly ascribes to the 
 prophet Jeremiah the words which he quotes : 
 
 Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, 
 saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him 
 that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value, 
 and gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord appointed me.
 
 Views of Commentators. 421 
 
 Views of Commentators and Critics. 
 
 While critics of the rationalistic school freely 
 point to this passage as containing an undeni- 
 able specimen of inaccuracy on the part of the 
 evangelist, commentators and critics who are not 
 willing to admit the charge of inaccuracy, attempt, 
 in various ways, to explain how the writer of the 
 Gospel narrative here ascribes to the prophet 
 Jeremiah a passage which they are at one with 
 their opponents in attributing to Zechariah. 
 
 The Commentary of Matthew Henry, though 
 not considered pre-eminently critical, gives in few 
 words some of the attempted explanations, thus 
 
 ' Then was fulfilled that -which was spoken by Jeremy the 
 prophet. The words quoted are found in the prophecy of 
 Zechary, ch. xi. 12. How they are here said to be spoken by 
 Jeremy is a difficult question ; but the credit of Christ's doctrine 
 doth not depend upon it ; for that proves itself perfectly divine, 
 though there should appear something human as to small circum- 
 stances in the penmen of it. The Syriac version, which is ancient, 
 reads only, It was spoken by the prophet, not naming any, whence 
 some thought that Jeremy was added by some scribe ; some think 
 that the whole volume of the prophets being in one book, and the 
 prophecy of Jeremiah put first, it might not be improper, currents 
 calamofor a transcriber to quote any passage out of that volume, 
 under his name. The Jews used to say, The spirit of Jeremiah 
 was in Zechariah, and so they were as one prophet. Some sug- 
 gest that it was spoken by Jeremiah, but written by Zechariah ; or 
 that Jeremiah wrote the ninth, tenth, and eleventh chapters of 
 Zechariah.' 
 
 This topic is discussed at great length in Pool's 
 Synopsis, from which a few illustrative sentences 
 may be here appended :
 
 422 Synopsis of Theories. 
 
 ' Per leremiam Prophetam. Hie nodus vindice dignissimus : 
 qui vetustissimos quosque Interpretes torsit : de quo quot homines 
 tot sententise. In Jeremia hcec prophetia nullibi invenitur, sed in 
 Zacharia. (Quid ergo hie leremias? Hie variant :) 
 
 Resp. I. Erat in Evangelista memorise lapsus. Sed hunc non 
 patitur Spiritus Sanctus dictans, et salva Scripturse fides. 
 
 2. Est error Scribarum. Syrus Interpres (sicut et Pers. ) nullius 
 Prophetse nomen hie habet : Nomen ergo 'lepe/jlov ex margine 
 irrepsit in textum. . . . Non placet : quia omnes omnino Codices 
 Graeci constanter leremiam hie legunt. Jam enim ab Origenis 
 temporibus laboratum ut hie nodus solveretur ; qui labor super- 
 vacuus fuerat, siqua exemplaria caruissent nomine leremice. 
 Neque verh potuit unius Exscriptoris error in omnia exemplaria 
 manare : multo credibilius est a Syro id nomen omissum, quia 
 constabat in Scriptis Jeremise istud non reperiri. . . . 
 
 3. Evangelista consulto et Divina providentia unius Prophetas 
 nomen pro alio posuit, ad innuendum, uno eodemque Spiritu 
 Prophetas (omnes) impulses fuisse. 
 
 [This is the view adopted by the present Bishop of Lincoln.] 
 
 4. Zacharias binominis erat, dictusque est et leremias. 
 Sed probanda erat hoec conjectura.' 
 
 In his English Annotations on Matthew 27. 9 
 Pool says 
 
 ' It is observable that Zechariah hath many things found in 
 Jeremiah, and it is not improbable that the very same thing was 
 prophesied by Jeremiah, though afterward repeated by Zechariah, 
 and only in the writings of Zechariah left upon sacred record.' 
 
 Bengel, in his Gnomon of the New Testament, 
 says, in commenting on Matthew 27. 9 
 
 ' Aperte apud Zachariam hsec verba extant ; quern Matthasus non 
 ignoravit : confer 21. 4.' 
 
 Mr. Scrivener (1845) says, in his Notes on the 
 Gospel of Matthew (27. 9), 
 
 ' However 'lepeplov may perplex us, it is unquestionably the true 
 reading. No solution seems so easy as Lightfoot's, who supposes
 
 The Speaker s Commentary. 423 
 
 that the book of Jeremiah, being actually arranged by the Jews as 
 the first of all the prophets (Bava Bathra), gave its name to the 
 whole body of their writings ; an opinion which is somewhat 
 countenanced by ch. xvi. 14. ' 
 
 Alford says, in his Critical Greek Testament 
 
 ' The citation is not from Jeremiah, and is probably quoted from 
 memory and inaccurately. . . . Various means of evading this have 
 been resorted to, which are not worth recounting. Jer. xviii. 1, 2, 
 or perhaps Jer. xxxii. 6-12, may have given rise to the mistake : 
 or it may have arisen from a Jewish idea (see Words-worth h. 1.), 
 ' ' Zechariam habuisse spiritum Jeremise. " The quotation here is 
 very different from the LXX, and not much more like the Hebrew. ' 
 
 The following sentences are from the Speaker's 
 Commentary on Matthew 27. 9 : 
 
 ' It is evident that the passage here referred to is that noticed in 
 the margin of the Authorised Version; i.e. Zechariah xi. 13. 
 Why the name of Jeremiah should have been substituted for that 
 of Zechariah is uncertain. [One] explanation adopted by many 
 critics, both ancient and modern, [is] that it was simply an error, 
 the name of the well-known Jeremiah naturally occurring to the 
 writer's memory. It is not, however, probable that St. Matthew, 
 who is specially conversant with the prophetic writings, should 
 have made such a mistake. . . . Another explanation is that the 
 name of Jeremiah stood in the beginning of the volume which was 
 in the transcriber's hands, and that, when references were made to 
 a collection of writings (as, for instance, to the books of Psalms 
 and to the Proverbs), it was usual to quote the name given in the 
 general inscription. Now, it is well known that the order of the 
 prophetic books, as received in the Hebrew church in St. Matthew's 
 time, ran thus : Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah, the twelve minor pro- 
 phets. Thus always in the Talmud, and at present in the MSS. of 
 the French and German Jews. . . . Other suggestions have little 
 weight. It has been supposed that St. Matthew refers to a writing 
 of Jeremiah not extant in our MSS., but preserved by oral tradi- 
 tion. Thus Origen, Euthymius, Zygabenus, and some modern 
 critics, as Kuinoel and Ewald.'
 
 424 The Bampton Lectures on Zechariah. 
 
 Mr. Plumptre, in Bishop Ellicott's New Testa- 
 ment Commentary for English Readers, favours 
 the hypothesis 
 
 ' that the writer quoted from memory, and that recollecting the 
 two conspicuous chapters (xviii. and xix.) in which Jeremiah had 
 spoken of the potter and his work, he was led to think that this 
 also belonged to the same group of prophecies. 1 
 
 Keil, in his Commentary on the Minor Prophets, 
 
 says 
 
 ' Matthew quotes the words of Zechariah as " that which was 
 spoken by Jeremy the prophet," whereas all that he quotes is taken 
 simply and solely from the prophet Zechariah. The reading 'lepe/u/ew 
 in Matthew is critically unassailable; and the assumption that 
 Matthew refers to some lost scripture, or to a saying of Jeremiah 
 handed down by oral tradition, and others of a similar kind, are 
 simply arbitrary loopholes, which cannot come into any further 
 consideration at all.' 
 
 In the tenth chapter of The Bampton Lectures 
 for 1878, Mr. Wright of Belfast says 
 
 ' As regards the citation of this prophecy of Zechariah in the 
 Gospel of St. Matthew, as a prophecy of Jeremiah, it is most easily 
 explained as a simple slip of memory. ... By whom the mistake 
 was indeed actually made, whether by the writer or the scribe, 
 cannot be ascertained. But no real danger accrues to the authority 
 of Scripture as a Divine revelation by such an admission.' 
 
 Yet there is an incalculably wide gulf between 
 the one alternative and the other the error of a 
 mere copyist being something essentially different 
 from an error attributed to the original writer of 
 the Gospel narrative. 
 
 The conflicting attempts to interpret Matthew 
 27. 9-10 as exhibiting a veritable quotation of
 
 Views of Critics. 425 
 
 Zechariah n. 13, are peculiarly interesting and 
 instructive. 
 
 ' Grotius has maintained,' says the Bampton Lecturer, ' that the 
 money was cast to the potter to show that the Lord did not value 
 the pieces of silver more than broken pieces of pottery. This 
 explanation seems to leave out of sight the fact that the price was 
 offered in derision. Moreover, as Keil has noted, a potter has not 
 merely to deal with potsherds. Others have imagined that the 
 clay with which the potter is accustomed to work is referred to, 
 and that the meaning is identical with our expression, Throw it 
 into the dirt or mud (v. Hofmann). Potter's clay is not, however, 
 mud or mire (Kohler) ; but compare Isaiah xli. 25. ... There is 
 no necessity whatever to suppose that "the potter" specially 
 employed in making pots for the temple was alluded to, as 
 Hengstenberg imagines. . . . Neither is to cast anything to the 
 potter equivalent to casting it into an unclean place. Hengsten- 
 berg's theory on this point is based upon the supposition that there 
 is a reference in the prophecy of Zechariah to a prophecy of 
 Jeremiah, and that the potter mentioned by Jeremiah (chapters 
 xviii. 2, and xix. 2) had his pottery in the valley of Hinnom, 
 which had been made an unclean place by Josiah (2 Kings 
 xxiii. 10). This, however, cannot be proven. On the contrary, 
 as Keil has observed, the passage in Jer. xix. 1, 2, implies that the 
 potter's house there spoken of was inside the city. . . . The idea 
 that the money was taken by the prophet to the temple in order 
 that it might be carried thence unto the potter, is a rather strained 
 interpretation of verse 13. The explanation of Hengstenberg has 
 solely arisen from a wish to make out that the prophecy of Zechariah 
 is a renewal and repetition of the previous prophecy of Jeremiah, 
 and that St. Matthew has, therefore, quoted the whole as written 
 in the book of Jeremiah. But there is no real ground for identify- 
 ing the prophecies of Jeremiah with those of Zechariah, except 
 that in both prophecies "a potter" is spoken of; all the rest is 
 simple imagination. 
 
 I regret to observe, however, that Hengstenberg's view of this 
 matter has been indorsed by Archdeacon Lee, in his interesting 
 treatise on The Inspiration of Holy Scripture, 3d edit., 1864. 
 
 Kliefoth's attempt to explain the mention of "the potter," 
 must also, though well-meant, be rejected. Convinced of the
 
 426 Conflicting Interpretations 
 
 fanciful character of Hengstenberg's hypothesis, and yet bearing in 
 mind that this prediction is adduced by St. Matthew, not as a 
 prophecy of Zechariah, but as a prediction of Jeremiah, Kliefoth 
 maintains that it is not to be connected with the passage in Jer. xix. , 
 in which the potter's vessel, and not the potter himself, comes 
 under consideration, but must rather be connected with that of 
 Jer. xviii., where the potter himself is spoken of. In the latter 
 passage God is represented in his dealings toward Israel by the 
 potter, who did with the clay as he thought fit, moulding it into 
 various forms, and breaking up any vessel that displeased him. 
 . . . And inasmuch as ... the words used in Zechariah would 
 be regarded as really based on the prophecy of Jeremiah, the 
 evangelist in the New Testament quotes the prophecy of Zechariah 
 as, properly speaking, belonging to Jeremiah. 
 
 This interpretation is no doubt ingenious, but the more it is 
 considered, the less satisfactory does it appear. It is almost im- 
 possible to consider that Jahaveh refers to himself in the command, 
 " Cast it to the potter." The people in whose ears Zechariah first 
 delivered his prophecy could not by any possibility have thus 
 understood his words. Nor would any students of the prophetic 
 scriptures have imagined such an interpretation. The whole is 
 evidently devised in order to avoid admitting a mistake of some 
 kind or other in the Gospel of St. Matthew.' 
 
 The following is Mr. Wright's own explanation, 
 
 ' The fulfilment of the prophecy actually recorded by the evan- 
 gelist was in itself most remarkable. The slight differences in the 
 minor details do not in the least detract from its peculiar signi- 
 ficance. The thirty pieces of silver paid to Judas by the chief 
 priests and elders of the Jews were in reality the price at which 
 those representatives of the Jewish nation valued the services of 
 our blessed Lord. By fixing that as the price for his person they 
 manifested how much they despised him and his work. No pro- 
 phet, as in the prophetic picture, but the traitor Judas it was who 
 received that despicable price. But Judas as one of the chosen 
 twelve might well in this particular be regarded as the represen- 
 tative of our Lord. The money paid to him was virtually paid to 
 his Master as a compensation for his toil. It is most remarkable 
 that Judas was ultimately driven by remorse for the crime he had 
 committed to bring the thirty pieces of silver into the temple of
 
 The price paid to Judas. 427 
 
 God, and that he, when the chief priests listened coldly to his 
 confession of guilt, should in very deed have dashed down the 
 pieces of silver on the pavement of the house of the Lord. And 
 it is even still more remarkable that those unfeeling priests did not 
 venture to cast that money into the treasury, but deterred, not- 
 withstanding their callousness, by the prohibition of the law in 
 Deuteronomy xxiii. 18, took counsel and bought with the paltry 
 sum a potter's field, probably denuded of the clay which had once 
 made it valuable. Thus it happened that the money literally 
 passed into a potter's hand, one might almost say, having been flung 
 to him in the house of the Lord. ... It only remains to note in 
 general that the quotation of the passage by the evangelist is a 
 free quotation from the Hebrew, given, one might almost say, 
 with a running commentary. ' 
 
 Now, would it be saying too much to suggest 
 that the explanation here given by the Bampton 
 Lecturer, like the explanations to which he 
 himself takes exception, does not meet the facts 
 of the case ? It is surely evident from the Gospel 
 narrative (Matt. 26. 14-16, Mark 14. 10-11, Luke 
 22. 3-6), that the price given to Judas had no 
 connection with the value put on the services of 
 Jesus, but was offered simply for the doing of a 
 deed which Judas volunteered to do on being 
 paid for it, and for the doing of which, the chief 
 priests were willing to hire his offered services. 
 
 To say that ' Judas as one of the chosen twelve 
 might well in this particular be regarded as the 
 representative of our Lord,' and that ' the money 
 paid to him was virtually paid to his Master as a 
 compensation for his toil,' is to say what needs to 
 be only looked at in order that its untenableness 
 may be seen. And it may be noticed still 
 further, that while the ")i s is indispensably
 
 428 The defining of the Field. 
 
 necessary to the coherence of the narrative in 
 Zechariah n. 13, the mention of a /cepayiteik in 
 Matthew 27. 7, 10, as having either owned or 
 occupied the field bought with the price of blood, 
 is a mere incidental circumstance which (though 
 useful for defining the field at the time when the 
 Gospel of Matthew was written) might be left 
 entirely out of view without the essence of the 
 narrative being in any way affected thereby. And 
 it may be observed in passing that, as the second, 
 like the first treatise to Theophilus (unlike the 
 Gospel of Matthew), had no special relation either 
 to the Jews or to Jerusalem, the Aramaic name 
 1 Atce\.8afj,a, given to the field on account of the 
 circumstances of its purchase, is mentioned and 
 explained in the parallel passage of the Acts 
 of the Apostles (i. 18-19), without any reference 
 to the /cepa/iew of Matthew 27. 7-10. 
 
 The very great amount, of labour which has 
 been expended in manifold efforts to explain 
 Matthew 27. 9-10 as embodying a quotation from 
 Zechariah n. 13 might, if such were necessary, 
 be still further illustrated by quotations from 
 Lightfoot (1618), Whitby, Gill, Barnes, T. H. 
 Home, E. Henderson, and other writers. Perhaps 
 it would not be too much to affirm that all the 
 explanations which proceed on the assumption 
 that the evangelist is quoting, not (as he says he 
 is) from Jeremiah, but from Zechariah, being at 
 variance with the actual facts of the case, are 
 lame, or otherwise inadequate. So far from 
 satisfactorily clearing up the matter, they rather
 
 The Trustworthiness of the Scriptures. 429 
 
 exemplify the truth of the Preacher's words, 
 ' That which is crooked cannot be made straight ; 
 and that which is wanting cannot be numbered.' 
 
 Accordingly Matthew 27. 9-10, when viewed as 
 containing a quotation from Zechariah rather 
 than from Jeremiah, is a source of perplexity and 
 embarrassment to devout students of Holy Scrip- 
 ture who try to interpret the passage in such a 
 way as ' to avoid admitting a mistake of some 
 kind or other in the Gospel of St. Matthew.' 
 Whereas, on the other hand, critics who freely 
 ascribe such mistakes to the human authors of 
 the canonical Scriptures hold up this passage as 
 an unequivocal specimen of inaccuracy, and hurl 
 it, like a stone from a sling, against the view of 
 those who stand out for the trustworthiness of 
 the Scriptures. It is pleaded that if Matthew 
 27. 9 be thus inaccurate, other passages may be 
 similarly so, and that therefore the claim of 
 Deuteronomy to have been written by Moses, and 
 the claim of Ecclesiastes to have been written by 
 Solomon, may turn out to be of no more account 
 than the claim of the words quoted in Matthew 
 27. 9-10 to have been spoken by Jeremiah the 
 prophet. Hence, as the Solomonic authorship of 
 Ecclesiastes, so far from being isolated, is included 
 under the general question, whether the testimony 
 of the Scriptures to their own authorship is 
 worthy of being believed, it is of importance, in 
 connection with the theme of the treatise on the 
 authorship of Ecclesiastes, to prove (if it is a fact 
 capable of being proved) that the ascription of
 
 430 The Point of the Quotation. 
 
 the quotation in Matthew 27. 9-10 to Jeremiah 
 the prophet is strictly correct. For if this be 
 demonstrated, then the 55 passages in which 
 certain persons (namely, Moses, David, Elijah, 
 Isaiah, Hosea, Joel, Jeremiah, and Daniel) are 
 named as the authors of certain words or passages 
 in the Old Testament, present an unbroken front 
 in favour of the trustworthiness of the Scriptures 
 in matters of authorship. Whereas the quotation 
 in Matthew 27. 9-10, if accepted as a quotation 
 from the Book of Zechariah, may be compared to 
 a breach in one's armour, or to ' a broken tooth 
 and a foot out of joint.' 
 
 The Point of the Quotation. . 
 
 One of the first questions for settlement in 
 connection with the theme of this dissertation is, 
 What is the event, or incident, or transaction, 
 which involved a fulfilling of the ancient prophecy 
 quoted in Matthew 27. 9-10 ? The buying of a 
 field is obviously the incident in question. It is 
 not what Judas did that is here introduced as 
 a fulfilment of an ancient prophecy. Had his 
 betraying of Jesus been the salient event, the 
 quotation would have been introduced earlier, 
 either in the narrative of his negotiating with the 
 chief priests, or where his fulfilling of the bargain 
 he had made with them is recorded (26. 14-16, 
 48-49). In John 13. 18, Psalm 41. 10 (9) is thus 
 quoted in connection with the treachery of Judas; 
 and in Acts i. 20, Psalms 69. 26 (25), and 109. 8,
 
 The Buying of a Field. 43 1 
 
 are similarly quoted in connection with the sequel 
 to that treachery. In Matthew 27. 9-10, however, 
 it is not in reference to Judas, but in reference to 
 what was done with the silver which he had cast 
 down in the temple, that the ancient prophecy is 
 quoted. ' Then was fulfilled that which was 
 spoken through Jeremiah the prophet, saying, 
 And they took the thirty pieces of silver, . . . 
 and gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord 
 appointed me.' With the silver the chief priests 
 bought a field. Accordingly an Old Testament 
 passage must be sought for in which tJu buying of 
 a field is mentioned, the field being the ipsum 
 corpus of the quotation. Now it is a most 
 important, yet strangely overlooked fact, that 
 neither in verses 12-13, nor anywhere in the 
 eleventh chapter of Zechariah, is a field so much 
 as mentioned. Indeed only once in the Book of 
 Zechariah does rnK>, the word for field, occur, 
 namely, in 10. 1, where the Lord is represented 
 as giving grass in the field, rnt?3 3C?y a passage 
 which has no bearing whatever on the subject in 
 question. 
 
 Keil, though maintaining (as already noticed in 
 page 424) that all the quotation is taken simply 
 and solely from the prophet Zechariah, does not 
 specify any passage from which the mention of a 
 field can possibly have been quoted. 
 
 Making due allowance for the latitude with 
 which Old Testament passages are quoted in the 
 New Testament (not always verbatim, but some- 
 times mutatis mutandis, and sometimes in an
 
 43 2 The hire of the Labourer. 
 
 abridged form), the fact that Zechariah n. 13 
 contains no reference either to a field or to the 
 buying of a field, seems to prove conclusively that 
 this cannot be the passage quoted in Matt. 27. 9-10. 
 What is thus demonstrated at the very threshold 
 of the inquiry is corroborated by the express 
 terms and general purport of Zechariah II. 10-13. 
 The prophet, acting on the principle set forth 
 in Numbers 18. 31, Deuteronomy 24. 15, and 
 reiterated long afterwards in Luke 10. 7, John 
 4. 36, i Timothy 5. 18, that the labourer is worthy 
 of his "GB> or /uo-009, asks for his reward or hire 
 (^35?). Acting at the same time, however, also 
 on the other principle set forth in such passages 
 as Exodus 25. 2, 35. 21-29, Matthew 10. 8, 
 2 Corinthians 8. 1-12, 9. 5-13, he wishes nothing 
 to be given but what is given cheerfully, as a 
 freewill offering prompted by a willing heart. 
 Accordingly he subjects fyis request to the con- 
 dition of the giving being good in the eyes of those 
 whom he is addressing ; and he expressly forbids 
 them to give on any other condition (n. 12) : 
 
 ihn &6-DK1 nap-un oa^jn HIB-DK 
 
 ' If it be good in your eyes, give me my reward ; but if not, forbear. ' 
 
 In response to this appeal, they weigh for his 
 reward thirty pieces of silver (*p3 D^t?) ; which he 
 accepts as the amount or amplitude of the price 
 (-ipTi VJK) at which he was priced of them. And, 
 by divine command, he casts the silver to the "TCV 
 in the house of Jehovah. 
 
 Now it is indeed true that the rpiaKovra
 
 Neither Field nor Piirchase. 433 
 
 dpyvpta of Matthew 26. 15 ; 27. 3, 9 coincide in 
 number and in material with the t\D3 D^fc? of 
 Zechariah 11. 12, 13. Here, in the eleventh 
 chapter of Zechariah, however, there is neither 
 field nor purchase nothing, in fact, to establish 
 such a resemblance between this passage and 
 Matthew 27. 9-10 as is necessary to constitute a 
 fulfilment of TO prfOev $ia . . . rov 7rpo(f>r/Tov. 
 
 The laborious efforts put forth to prove such a 
 resemblance have rather an opposite tendency, 
 being not only unsupported by adequate evidence, 
 but also directly at variance with the scope and 
 context of Zechariah n. 12-13, and thus calculated 
 to suggest such a similitude as that of Isaiah 
 28. 20 : ' The bed is shorter than that a man can 
 stretch himself on it, and the covering narrower 
 than that he can wrap himself in it.' 
 
 i 
 The Thirty Pieces of Silver. 
 
 The complimentary manner in which Zechariah 
 speaks of his reward as "ipTi Vis is said to be 
 ironical. And the coincidence between the D H t^fc? 
 *]D3 which had been weighed out to him, and the 
 tfttyff D^t? 5]D3 prescribed in Exodus 21. 32 as 
 the compensation to be given to a master whose 
 servant had been pushed by an ox, is adduced to 
 prove that the offer of f)D3 D'W&J' was an insult to 
 the prophet and to his divine Master; who accord- 
 ingly directed him to fling it with indignant scorn 
 to a potter, assumed to have been in or beside the 
 2 E
 
 434 The Price. 
 
 temple, and said to be a representative of what 
 was base and menial and contemptible. 
 
 Illustrative Quotations. 
 
 Jerome. ' Projice illud ad statuarium : pro quo in Hebrseo 
 legitur JOSER, id est, rbv TrXdorTjv , quern nos, fictorem et figulum 
 possumus dicere. Et est sensus, Projice precium meum ad 
 figulum, qui Creator et fictor est omnium. Nee dixit, Depone ; 
 sed, Projice, ut fictoris plastseque judicio merces Domini pen- 
 deretur : et eipuviKus precium suum, id est, Divinas majestatis, in 
 triginta cernens argenteis, et tarn vili mercede se proditum : 
 Decorum, inquit, precium quo afpreciatus sum ab eis, hoc autem 
 pressius est legendum cum irrisione et subsannatione dicentis : 
 Tanto me populus meus et pauperes quondam gregis, et a me 
 electi in filios emendum atque vendendum precio judicarunt ! Et 
 tuli, ait Dominus per prophetam, sicut mihiaDeo fuit imperatum, 
 triginta argenteos, et non eos deposui, sed projeci in domum 
 Domini ad fictorem. 
 
 Calvin. Deo vile pretium, tanquam subulco, dant. . . . 
 Testatur Deus se abominari mercedem tarn contumeliosam. 
 
 Grotius, Afferte mercedem meant. Pro opera quam impendi 
 tamdiu vobis protegendis. Loquitur ut pastor loqueretur domino 
 gregis. Et si non, quiescite. Si nihil me meritum putatis, nihil date. 
 Decorum pretium quo appretiatus sum ab eis. Est irrisio, qualis 
 ilia apud Taciturn, egregium pretium laboris cepi, Historiarum 5. 
 
 Vatablus. Ironice autem hasc dicta sunt. 
 
 Clarius. Ironice dictum est. 
 
 Drusius, Hoc dicit elpuvevdfifvos, ut videtur. 
 
 Matthew Pool. A goodly price that I was prized at of them : in 
 an irony God upbraids the shepherds of his people, who prized the 
 great Shepherd no higher. 
 
 Dr. Gill. Verse 13. . . . Cast it unto the potter ; for the purchase 
 of his field, in order to make a burying-ground of it for strangers : 
 a goodly price that I was -valued at of them ; this is sarcastically 
 said ; meaning that it was a very poor price ; and shewed that 
 they had no notion of the worth and value of Christ, the Pearl of 
 great price.
 
 The Niimber of Pieces. 435 
 
 Thomas Scott. He [the prophet] demanded his wages for feed- 
 ing the flock, if they thought good to give him any ; and he 
 received "thirty pieces of silver," probably shekels of about the 
 value of half a crown or three shillings each. These the Lord 
 directed him to cast unto the potter ; disdaining, that he or his 
 shepherd should be valued at so paltry a sum : and accordingly 
 the prophet cast them to the potter in the house of the Lord ; 
 either the potter came thither for that purpose, or he was at work 
 near the temple. 
 
 Newcome. Give me my price. Rate my labours as a true 
 shepherd. And they rated it contemptuously ; thirty pieces of 
 silver being the price of a slave, Ex. xxi. 32. . . . 
 
 The Speaker's Commentary. Thirty pieces of silver. A paltry 
 amount compared with the service rendered. Thirty shekels of 
 silver was the standard price of a slave . . . a goodly price 
 Literally, magnificence of price, i.e. a magnificent price, spoken 
 ironically. 
 
 Keil. To offer such wages was in fact "more offensive than 
 a direct refusal " (Hengstenberg). Jehovah therefore describes 
 the wages ironically as " a splendid value that has been set upon 
 me." As the prophet fed the flock in the name of Jehovah, 
 Jehovah regards the wages paid to His shepherd as paid to Him- 
 self, as the value set upon His personal work on behalf of the 
 nation, and commands the prophet to throw this miserable sum to 
 the potter. 
 
 The Bampton Lectures for 1878. The shepherd demanded 
 some return for his unrequited toil (comp. Deut. xxxii. 6) ... in 
 order to try whether the people would submit themselves further 
 to his guidance. It was an attempt to bring them to consider the 
 position in which they stood with regard to Jahaveh himself, whose 
 representative the good shepherd was. . . . The remuneration 
 offered to the shepherd by his miserable flock expressed most fully 
 their utter disregard for his care, and their ingratitude for the 
 mercies vouchsafed to them. 
 
 f>r. Marcus Dods : Handbook to the Post-Exilian Prophets 
 (1879). To offer this sum was equivalent to telling the Shepherd 
 of Israel that they could any day buy a common slave who would 
 be as useful to them as He had been. It was either a studied 
 insult, or most probably one of those insults people commit 
 through sheer stupidity and incapacity to understand the persons
 
 436 An untenable Position. 
 
 and things they have to do with. . . . A goodly price, this magni- 
 ficent price, is, of course, ironical a price you might give for a 
 dish which is produced in thousands, and which will soon find its 
 way to the ashpit with other broken ware ; a price you might 
 give for the easiest manufacture this is the price at which men 
 value the visitation of heaven, the labour of God, the one excep- 
 tional thing which throws a light on the world's history, and 
 which nothing can replace.' 
 
 It is because the untenableness of an untenable 
 position may often be best exposed through a 
 simple exhibition of the grounds and arguments 
 advanced in support of it, that these extracts 
 from the writings of various commentators and 
 critics are here given the" earliest being above a 
 thousand years old, and the latest dating no farther 
 back than the present year 1879. Amidst sundry 
 differences, all are alike in the negative fact that 
 they make no attempt to reconcile the fundamental 
 prominence of a field in Matthew 27. 9-10 with 
 the absence of even the most distant allusion to a 
 field in the eleventh chapter of Zechariah. The 
 extracts coincide also in representing the reward 
 given to the prophet as contemptible, and his 
 praise of it as consequently ironical. 
 
 ' -HX m. pr. amplitude,' says Gesenius in his Thesaurus, ' inde 
 i) pallium amplum, Micha II, 8, i.q. TWltf. 2) magnificentia, 
 unde Zach. XI, 13 : -|pTl IIS magnificentia pretii, pretium 
 
 T : - 
 
 magnificum, quae verba ironice dicta sunt. ' 
 
 In opposition to this suggestion, however, it 
 may be specially observed that, apart from 
 Zechariah n. 13, there is no instance of irony 
 anywhere in the Book of Zechariah, and no
 
 No Evidence of Irony. 43 7 
 
 instance of either *HK or Ip 11 having ever been 
 used ironically in the Hebrew Scriptures. 
 
 X- The verb "HX, to be wide, or ample, occurs in Exodus 15. 
 
 - T 
 
 6, 11, Isaiah 42. 21 only, and the cognate noun ")"JK in Micah 2. 8, 
 Zechariah n. 13 only. The corresponding feminine nTHX. 
 garment, is found, however, twelve times (Gen. 25. 25 ; Joshua 7. 
 
 21, 24 ; I Kings 19. 13, 19 ; 2 Kings 2. 8, 13, 14 ; Ezek. 17. 8 ; 
 Jonah 3. 6 ; Zechariah II. 3; 13. 4). Besides a few names (as 
 Adar and Adrammelech), there is also the cognate adjective THtf 
 
 in Exodus 15. 10 ; I Samuel 4. 8; Psalms 8. 2, 10 (1, 9); 16. 3 ; 
 76. 5 (4) ; 93. 4 ; 136. 18 ; Isaiah 10. 34 ; 33. 21 ; Jer. 14. 3 ; 
 25. 34-36 ; 30. 21 ; Zechariah II. 2, and nine times besides. 
 "|p^ . The verb ~|pi to be priced, prized, precious, occurs in 
 
 I Samuel 18. 30 ; 26. 21 ; 2 Kings I. 13, 14 ; Is. 13. 12 ; 43. 4 ; 
 Zechariah u. 13 ; Ps. 49. 9 (8) ; 72. 14; 139. 17 ; Pr. 25. 17 ; and 
 
 the cognate noun -|p>, honour, preciousness, price, in Job 28. 10 ; 
 
 Psalm 49. 13, 21 (12!, 20) ; Proverbs 20. 15 ; Jer. 20. 5 ; Ezek. 
 
 22. 25 ; Zech. n. 13 ; Esther I. 4, 20 ; 6. 3, 6, 7, 9, 11 ; 8. 16. 
 
 Along with ipi may be mentioned the adjective "|pi, precious, in 
 
 I Samuel 3. T;' 2 Sam. 12. 30 ; I Kings 5. 31 (17) ^7. 9, 10, 11 ; 
 io.2, 10, 11; Ps. 116. 15; Pr. I. 13; 3. 15; EC. 10. 1; Is. 28. 16; 
 Jer. 15. 19 ; Zechariah 14. 6, and about twenty times besides. 
 
 Now it is obvious that none of the passages 
 (above a hundred in number) which contain either 
 of the two roots VJK and "ip 11 countenances the 
 suggestion that in Zechariah n. 13 the paren- 
 thetical clause Dn^yo Trip 11 nt?N np^n YJK is ironical. 
 There does not seem to be much reason for 
 supposing that the noun TTK, in either of the two 
 passages where it occurs, denotes anything more 
 than the extent or amplitude or sum-total of that 
 to which it refers whether a garment, as in 
 Micah 2. 8, or a certain amount of silver, as here
 
 43 8 The amount of the Price. 
 
 in Zechariah ir. 13. Dr. Pusey, in his Commen- 
 tary on the Minor Prophets, says that "HK ' in 
 Micah ii. 8, is used of a wide garment, i.q. nTiK,' 
 and that in Jonah 3. 6, mix ' expresses size, not 
 magnificence, since a wide garment of hair, such 
 as the prophets afterwards wore (Zech. xiii. 4 ; 
 2 Kings ii. 13, 14), was so called, Gen. xxv. 25.' 
 Even if it be held, however, that the free render- 
 ings of the Vulgate and the English Bible (decorum 
 pretium and a goodly price} are substantially 
 equivalent to the Hebrew original, it does not 
 follow that it must have been ironically that the 
 silver given to the prophet was called "ip^n mx. 
 Besides being unsupported by the analogy of even 
 one passage of Scripture, either in the Book of 
 Zechariah or elsewhere, the ironical interpretation 
 is contradicted by the style and facts and circum- 
 stances of the narrative. Although the old 
 rabbinical saying that silver is enumerated in 
 the Law by shekels, in the Prophets by pounds, 
 and in the Hagiographa by talents, is not worth 
 very much, yet the indefiniteness of the phrase 
 p|D3 D^t? in Zechariah n. 12, as compared with 
 the more specific expression DvpB* D^K* ^03 in 
 Exodus 21. 32, must detract from the strength of 
 the argument founded on the partial coincidence 
 between these two phrases, if the argument had 
 any strength. There is indeed no reason to 
 suppose that the silver weighed out to the pro- 
 phet was less than thirty shekels. But even on 
 the assumption that it was the same in value 
 as the compensation allowed to the master of an
 
 Different kinds of Service. 439 
 
 injured servant, it does not follow therefrom that 
 the amount was paltry, or that the offer of it 
 must have been insulting to the prophet. 
 
 Note. The Hebrew "J2JJ and theGreek SoCXoj, like their similarly 
 comprehensive representative, servant, in the English Bible, are 
 applicable not only to the limited servitude permitted among the 
 Jews (which was something very different from abject slavery), 
 but also to free labour voluntarily rendered for hire, as well as to 
 services of the highest and holiest and noblest kind services 
 which, being utterly incompatible with slavery, would make the 
 word slave quite unsuitable for a translation of either *oy or SoOXos 
 in an English version of the Scriptures. 
 
 Specimen passages : 
 
 Exodus 14. 31 
 32.13 
 i Kings 8. 23-30 
 2 Kings 5. 6 
 
 Nehemiah I. 6, 11 
 Job 42. 8 
 Ps. 119. 13 times 
 Isaiah 65. 13-15 
 
 Joel 3. 2 (2. 29) 
 Matt. 20. 27 
 Acts 2. 18 
 4. 29 
 
 Rom. I. 1 
 6. 16 
 Col. 4.1,7,12 
 Rev. 22. 3. 
 
 Although Exodus 21. 2-6 deals expressly with 
 the case of Hebrew servants, it is sometimes 
 maintained that verse 32 refers exclusively to 
 foreign servants. Yet even if this interpretation 
 were proved to be correct, it would not follow 
 that the price was either insignificant or con- 
 temptible. In cases of actual slavery, where 
 human beings are treated as the mere property 
 of those who are acknowledged as their owners, 
 the prices put upon able-bodied slaves are by no 
 means inconsiderable. And it is plain from what 
 is detailed in the last chapter of Leviticus, with 
 reference to fifty, thirty, twenty, fifteen, ten, five, 
 and three shekels respectively, that thirty shekels
 
 440 Different quantities of Silver. 
 
 of silver were not reckoned either ignominious in 
 number or paltry in value. 
 
 Sundry other passages supply superabundant 
 evidence of the same fact. The silver prescribed 
 in Exodus 30. 11-16 (with which 38. 25-26 may 
 be compared), to be given as mrp nDlirrnx 
 D3*nB>S3~7]7 "1B37, by rich and poor alike among them 
 that were numbered from twenty years old and 
 upwards, was half a shekel. Notwithstanding the 
 moral and religious corruption disclosed in the 
 narrative of Judges 17-18, Micah's offer of C|D3 mwy 
 yearly, with food . and clothing, to the hireling 
 Levite who, on these terms, became his priest, 
 affords conclusive evidence of the groundlessness 
 of the supposition that the offer of *|D3 D^t? to 
 Zechariah, in response to his own request for 
 '"D*c>, was an insult. This evidence is corroborated 
 by the giving of a fourth part of a shekel of silver 
 to Samuel (i Samuel 9. 8) when Saul and the 
 servant of Saul went to ask him to tell them their 
 way. It was for seventeen shekels of silver that 
 the prophet Jeremiah, in obedience to the word 
 of Jehovah, bought a field in Anathoth from 
 Hanameel his uncle's son. And it appears from 
 the solemn stateliness with which the transaction 
 and its concomitant formalities were carried out, 
 that the purchase and the price were the opposite 
 of contemptible. Jeremiah 32. 6-25. 
 
 Note. It is quite at variance with the series of events narrated 
 in the thirty-second chapter of Jeremiah, and with the value at 
 which silver is estimated throughout the Scriptures, to depreciate
 
 Groundless Conjectures. 441 
 
 the f)D3 D^Kv^ of Zechariah II. 12 as contemptible on account of 
 the purposes to which it is conjectured, without a tittle of evidence, 
 that the silver may have been appropriated. If, for instance, 
 as is stated in the Handbook already quoted from in page 435, 
 ' no piece of ground is so worthless, so much a place for shot 
 rubbish, as a worked-out brickfield or potter's clay-hole,' then 
 neither thirty nor even seventeen silverlings could have been the 
 price of such a field. So likewise, if (as hereafter quoted in page 
 450, from the Bampton Lectures of 1878), 'the productions of a 
 poor worker in clay were of so little value that when marred by 
 any accident they could easily be replaced at a trifling expenditure 
 of cost or toil,' then it could not have been for the purchase of 
 such productions that Zechariah cast the Pp3 D^EvB* to the IVi 1 "- 
 On the contrary, even in the present century, and much more in 
 the days of Zechariah, C]DD D^tJvK' would have been amply 
 sufficient to purchase earthenware of considerable costliness. 
 Now this simple fact directly refutes explanations like that of 
 Koehler, who, as quoted by Keil, says, 'The amount is just large 
 enough to pay a potter for the pitchers and pots that have been 
 received from him, and which are thought of so little value, that 
 men easily comfort themselves when one or the other is broken.' 
 
 Another peculiarly interesting proof of the value 
 of the reward given to the prophet Zechariah may 
 be obtained from a comparison of Nehemiah 5. 15 
 with Malachi I. 8. Here the Lord, through the 
 prophet Malachi, complains of oblations which 
 were worse than contemptible, and which accord- 
 ingly, so far from being spoken of as the P|D2 D^t? 
 were by Zechariah in the words ipTi TIN, are 
 indignantly denounced on account of their base- 
 ness and profanity. 
 
 And if ye offer the blind for sacrifice, is it not evil ? 
 And if ye offer the lame and the sick, is it not evil ? 
 Bring it now to thy governor : Will he be pleased with thee, or 
 accept thy face ? saith Jehovah of hosts.
 
 44 - The alleged Irony disproved. 
 
 Here the offering is tested, as to its character, by 
 the manner in which the governor would treat it, 
 if it were presented to him. Now it appears from 
 Nehemiah 5. 15 that the governors who preceded 
 Nehemiah, and who must therefore have ruled in 
 Jerusalem about the very time when Zechariah 
 prophesied there, exacted from the people ' bread 
 and wine, besides forty shekels of silver.' This 
 fact with reference to forty shekels, clearly indi- 
 cates that the thirty pieces of silver weighed out 
 to the prophet Zechariah cannot have been an 
 insult, and that in n. 13, as elsewhere throughout 
 his prophecies, he was speaking, not in irony, but 
 in simple happy literal truthfulness, when he 
 characterised the gift as DiT^JW Trip 11 *1K>N IpTi VTK- 
 
 The Givers of the Silver. 
 
 * 
 
 What is thus evident from these words, viewed 
 in connection with the gift to which they refer, 
 and illustrated by sundry passages where various 
 quantities of silver are mentioned, is corroborated 
 by the prophet's account of those who gave him 
 the silver. They were the poor of the flock, who 
 observed him, and saw that what he did was the 
 word of Jehovah. This description is plainly 
 incompatible with the alleged irony of the phrase 
 
 Hence Keil maintains that DiT^K in verse 12 refers not to the 
 }XVn M 3JJ of the immediately preceding sentence, but to the whole 
 flock; and the Bampton Lecturer, that the phrase j^VH ")]} is
 
 The Flock. 443 
 
 itself a designation of the whole flock, and implies not merely 
 affliction, but moral wretchedness on the part of those to whom it 
 refers. 
 
 Verse 12. ' DHvK (to them),' says Keil, ' so far as the grammatical construc- 
 tion is concerned, might be addressed to the wretched among the sheep, 
 inasmuch as they were mentioned last. But when we bear in mind that the 
 shepherd began to feed not only the wretched of the sheep, but the whole flock, 
 and that he did not give up any one portion of the flock by breaking the staff 
 Favour, we are forced to the conclusion that the words are addressed to the 
 whole flock, . . .' 
 
 'The phrase which occurs in verse 7,' says the Bampton Lecturer, 'and 
 again in verse 11, rendered in our A.V. by "the poor of the flock," is more 
 correctly understood to mean "the most wretched sheep, "or "the most miserable 
 flock." It is a description not merely of a certain portion of the sheep, but of 
 the flock in general. . . . Compare, on the superlative force of the expression, 
 Jer. xlix. 20; I. 45 ; 2 Chron. xxi. 17. The JKVn "3JJ have been explained by 
 others as a portion of the larger flock, either as part of the human race (von 
 Hofmann), or the true children of God everywhere (Kliefoth), or the godly 
 and pious in Israel, the ecclesia pressa. But the passages of Jeremiah referred 
 to show that it is quite lawful to explain the expression of the whole of the 
 people. ' 
 
 Such reasonings as these seem to be not only negatively 
 inconclusive, but positively inconsistent with the scope and 
 grammatical construction of the passage. In so far as the syntax 
 is concerned, the construct phrase JXVH "'''JJJ is equivalent to a 
 single word ; and there is no grammatical principle in accord- 
 ance with which }K!"I> unlimited by iijy, can be the antecedent 
 of the pronoun QH in the composite word DHvS- On the 
 contrary Qn vX must refer to the noun in the construct state as 
 exclusively as if the text had contained the word Q^jy instead of 
 the phrase JX^H "Jtf. 
 
 The passages specified for comparison by the Bampton Lecturer 
 refute his own interpretation. As the phrase Jtf^n ^Jtt? m 
 Jeremiah 49. 20 and 50. 45 denotes, not the smallest flock, but 
 the small ones of the flock, and VJ2 fDp i n z Chronicles 21. 17 
 denotes, not his youngest sons, but the youngest one of his sons, 
 so likewise the analogous phrase JXVH "W must denote, not the 
 poorest flock, but the poor of the flock, distinguished from the 
 flock at large (}X!"l), which corresponds to the piXD ^{j* of 
 verse sixth.
 
 444 Zioris King. 
 
 Indeed it iu quite out of keeping with the whole scope of the 
 narrative to suppose that the prophet should have deigned to ask 
 remuneration from a flock so degenerate as he represents the 
 inhabitants of the land to have been, and that he should have 
 presented such a request immediately after he had broken the 
 staff of Beauty which symbolised the covenant made with the 
 peoples, on behalf of Israel. Whereas it is perfectly consistent 
 and natural to suppose that when he had thus broken the staff, 
 he should test the fidelity of those who still adhered to him, by 
 asking them for his hire. Verse 12. ' If it be good in your eyes, 
 give me my hire (or reward) ; but if not, forbear.' 
 
 The Poor of the Flock, 
 
 As the suggestion that the phrase "ipTi TIN is 
 ironical detracts from the character of the fKn "Jj; 
 who offered the f]M D^t? to the prophet, it may 
 be noted as an argument overwhelmingly conclu- 
 sive against the alleged irony, that, whereas the 
 adjective *jy occurs also in Zechariah 7. 10 ; 9. 9, 
 and above seventy times elsewhere in the Hebrew 
 Scriptures, it is never applied in any one of these 
 passages to a case of moral turpitude, but 
 invariably denotes simple affliction, poverty, or 
 meekness, not only unstained by guilt, but often 
 characterised by pre-eminent honour. Such is the 
 obvious import of "oy in Zechariah 9. 9, where it is 
 said of Zion's Kin 
 
 : nururp Tjrjn "iiDrry am yy sin ytrm 
 
 A multitude of other passages similarly illustrative 
 of the same point might be specified in proof of 
 the fact that in Zechariah n. 7, 11, the phrase 
 }Kn "jy cannot denote a flock which is wretched 
 or disreputable, but must have a highly honourable
 
 The Remnant of Israel. 445 
 
 signification, such as that which it bears in 
 Zephaniah 3. 12, 
 
 And I will leave in the midst of thee a people p^ ijy ; and 
 they shall tmst in the name of Jehovah. The remnant of Israel 
 shall not do iniquity, nor speak falsehood ; neither shall a deceit- 
 ful tongue be found in their mouth ; for they shall feed, and lie 
 down ; and none shall make them afraid. 
 
 Similarly illustrative Passages. 
 
 Ex. 22. 24 (25) ; Lev. 19. 10 ; 23. 22 ; Deut. 24. 12, 14, 15 ; 
 Job 24. 4, 9, 14; Psalms 35. 10; 72. 2, 4, 12 ; 74. 19, 21 ; 86. 1 ; 
 Prov. 31. 9, 20; Isa. 3. 14, 15; 10. 2, 30; 14. 32; 54. 11 ; 66.2; 
 Jeremiah 22. 16 ; Ezekiel 16. 49 ; 18. 12, 17 ; 22. 29. 
 
 This, which is obviously the natural meaning 
 of the phrase }NVH "ty, is corroborated by what 
 the prophet affirms concerning these poor ones, 
 namely, that they observed him (^rix D'nDB'n), and 
 that, when he broke his staff DWriK, they knew it 
 was by the word of the Lord he was acting. 
 
 Verse 11. ' And it was broken in that day; and so the poor of 
 the flock who observed me knew that this was the word of Jehovah.' 
 
 The Observing of the Prophet. 
 
 The verb ">K> occurs above 450 times in the 
 Hebrew Scriptures. Yet the passages in which 
 it is used of observing in a hostile or sinister way 
 are fewer than three per cent, of this large 
 number. And in these few passages the unworthi- 
 ness of the observing is determined rather by the 
 context than by the verb itself, as, for instance, 
 by the design with which David's house was 
 watched (i Sam. 19. 11 ; Psalm 59, title), and by 
 the character of the statutes of Omri which were 
 kept or observed, as mentioned in Micah 6. 16.
 
 446 The Observing of the Prophet. 
 
 This point is similarly illustrated by Job 24. 15 ; 
 Psalms 31. 7 (6); 56. 7 (6); 71. 10; Jeremiah 
 20. 10 ; Jonah 2. 9 (8). 
 
 The verb "|)3E> is largely used to denote the keeping of 
 Doors or gates 2 Kings 22. 4 ; 23. 4; Neh. n. 19; 13. 22. 
 The divine law, statutes, testimonies Lev. 18. 5, 26, 30; Ps. 119. 
 The covenant Gen. 17. 9, 10; Exod. 19. 5; Ps. 78. 10; 132. 12. 
 The Sabbaths Ex. 31. 13 ; Lev. 19. 3, 30 ; Isa. 56. 2, 4, 6. 
 The word and ways of the Lord Gen. 18. 19 ; Dt-33.9; Ps. 37. 34. 
 The mouth Psalm 39. 2 (1) ; Proverbs 21. 23; Micah 7. 5. 
 The soul Deuteronomy 4. 9 ; Proverbs 13. 3 ; 19. 16. 
 
 This verb is used likewise of the manner in 
 which the Lord observes (Job 10. 14; 13. 27; 
 33. 11 ; Ps. 130. 3), and preserves (Ps. 97. 10; 121; 
 Prov. 2. 8 ; 3. 26), and also of the manner in which 
 men keep or preserve things intrusted to them, 
 and mark or observe or take notice of persons 
 and facts, as when Adam was placed in the 
 garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it (Gen. 
 2. 15), and Jacob observed the word of Joseph 
 (Gen. 37. 1 1), and Eli observed the mouth of 
 Hannah (i Sam. i. 12). 
 
 These illustrations, to which many others might 
 be added, are amply sufficient to show that the 
 verb "IDS? in Zechariah n. 11 cannot indicate 
 hostility against the prophet, on the part of those 
 whom he describes as observing him. On the 
 contrary, it may be conclusively inferred, not only 
 from their knowledge ' that this was the word of 
 Jehovah,' but also from the unsullied integrity 
 implied by the phrase }XVn "jy, that their observ- 
 ing of Zechariah must have been after the manner
 
 Sacred Liberality. 447 
 
 mentioned in Proverbs 27. 18 : 'Whoso keepeth a 
 fig-tree shall eat the fruit thereof; and he that 
 observeth. his master shall be glorified.' 
 
 Now who can fail to see a clear and close 
 connection between the observing of the prophet 
 Zechariah, and the words of Psalm 123. 2 ? 
 
 ' Behold as the eyes of servants unto the hand of their masters 
 as the eyes of a maid unto the hand of her mistress so our eyes 
 unto Jehovah our God, until that he be gracious to us. ' 
 
 The Worth of the Price. 
 
 These poor ones were acting on the great 
 principle which underlies Zechariah 2. 12-13 (8-9), 
 and which the Saviour afterwards announced to 
 his disciples, in Matthew 10. 40-42. 
 
 He that toucheth you toucheth the apple of his eye . . . and 
 ye shall know that Jehovah of hosts hath sent me. 
 
 He that receiveth you receiveth me ; and he that receiveth me 
 receiveth him that sent me. He that receiveth a prophet in the 
 name of a prophet, shall receive a prophet's reward ; and he that 
 receiveth a righteous man in the name of a righteous man, shall 
 receive a righteous man's reward. And whosoever shall give to 
 drink unto one of these little ones a cup of cold water only in the 
 name of a disciple, verily I say unto you, he shall in no wise lose 
 his reward. 
 
 In accordance with this principle, the poor of the 
 flock showed their attachment to the prophet and 
 to his divine Master by promptly responding to 
 the suggestion, 'If it be good in your eyes, 
 give me my reward.' They weighed out to him 
 spa wvhw ; and he accepted the reward as the 
 "ipTi "TIN, at which he was priced by them, his 
 estimate being obviously based, not merely on the 
 intrinsic worth of the silver, but on the fact that the
 
 448 The Appreciation of the Gift. 
 
 givers of it were JKVn "jy a small, despised, 
 afflicted remnant, like those to whom the Saviour 
 afterwards addressed the cheering words 
 
 ' Fear not, little flock ! for it is your Father's good pleasure to give 
 you the kingdom. Sell the things which ye have; and give alms: 
 make to yourselves bags which wax not old a treasure in the 
 heavens which faileth not, where no thief approacheth, neither 
 moth cormpteth. For where your treasure is, there will your heart 
 be also.' Luke 12. 32-34. 
 
 In his appreciation and acceptance of the gift 
 offered by the poor of the flock, the prophet 
 Zechariah acted on the principle subsequently 
 announced by the apostle Paul to the Church in 
 Corinth (2 Cor. 8. 12), ' If there be first a willing 
 mind, it is accepted according to that which a 
 man hath not according to that which he hath 
 not.' And in characterising the price as "ipTi YIN, 
 he but anticipated the gracious words of Him 
 to whom all the prophets give witness who, 
 when he saw the rich casting their gifts into the 
 treasury, and a certain poor widow casting in two 
 mites, called his disciples and said to them 
 
 ' Verily I say unto you, This poor widow hath cast in more than 
 all they who have cast into the treasury. For they all did cast in 
 of their abundance, but she, of her want, did cast in all that she 
 had, even all her living. ' 
 
 Note. From the phraseology of Coverdale's version of 1535, it 
 may be inferred that the translator attributed an honourable 
 character to the }XVH "}]), and accordingly (so far from forcing 
 on Zechariah's words "|pTl "HX an ironical meaning alien to the 
 scope of the prophecy) interpreted them in their natural significa- 
 tion, as expressing the prophet's appreciation of the gift. Indeed 
 the pathos of Coverdale's rendering of this passage is exquisite : 
 
 Verses 10-13. ' I toke also my louynge meke staff, and brake 
 it, that I might disanull the conuenaunt, which I made with al]
 
 What was done with the Silver. 449 
 
 people, And so it was broken in that daye. Then the poore 
 symple shepe that had a respecte vnto me, knewe therby, that it 
 was the worde of the LORDE. And I sayde vnto them : yff ye 
 thynke it good, brynge hither my pryce : yf no, then leaue. So 
 they wayed down xxx. syluer pens, y e value that I was prysed at. 
 And the LORDE sayde unto me : cast it vnto the potter (a goodly 
 pryce for me to be valued at of them) and I toke the xxx. syluers 
 pens, and cast them to the potter in the house of the LORDE.' 
 
 The Disposal of the Silver. 
 
 The prophet states briefly that by divine com- 
 mand he cast the *|D3 DWC? to the ivi" 1 in the house 
 of Jehovah. It is similarly recorded in Judges 
 17. 4, that after Micah restored the silver which 
 he had taken from his mother, she gave *|D3 DT1KO 
 to the *V]i, to be devoted to purposes of idolatry. 
 
 ZECHARIAH u. 12-13. 
 And they weighed for my 
 hire thirty of silver. And Jeho- 
 vah said unto me, Cast it unto 
 the -|}fli the amplitude of the 
 
 price that I was priced at of 
 them. And I took the thirty 
 of silver and cast it (in) the 
 house of Jehovah unto the "i^fl>. 
 
 JUDGES 17. 4. 
 
 And he returned the silver to 
 his mother : and his mother 
 took two hundred of silver, and 
 gave it to the founder ; and he 
 made thereof a graven image 
 and a molten image : and they 
 were in the house of Micah. 
 
 As the ascription of the quotation in Matthew 
 27. 9-10 to Zechariah involves the theory that 
 the price (^03 D'B^t?) was contemptible that the 
 givers of it were disreputable, and that the prophet's 
 description of it as "ipTi "ttK was ironical, so 
 likewise it involves the supposition that (like 
 the English verbs fling and spurn) the Hebrew 
 verb "|^P, as used in Zechariah n. 13, implies an 
 indignant rejection of the silver. 
 2 F
 
 450 Different kinds of Casting. 
 Thus Matthew Henry 
 
 ' The silver being no way proportionable to his worth, it is thrown 
 to the potter with disdain ; " Let him take it to buy clay with, or 
 for any use that a little money will serve to, for it is not worth 
 hoarding ; it may be enough for a potter's stock, but not for the 
 pay of such a Shepherd, much less for his purchase." ' 
 
 The Bampton Lectures for 1878, Chapter x. 
 
 ' The indignant command of Jahaveh, who marked the insult 
 conveyed by the ungrateful flock, was : " Fling it to the potter 
 a magnificent price at which I was priced by them." For Jahaveh 
 identifies himself with the shepherd, and the indignity offered 
 to the latter was an insult offered to God. The word we 
 have rendered " fling " is properly to cast out, and is used of 
 flesh thrown to the dogs (Exod. xxii. 30, verse 31 in the English 
 version), of a corpse cast out without burial (Jer. xxvi. 23, 
 xxxvi. 30, etc.), and of idols flung to the moles and to the bats 
 (Isa. ii. 20). Note especially the use of the verb in Ezek. xvi. 5. 
 The price so insultingly offered to the shepherd was to be flung to 
 a potter as one of the lowest of the labouring classes, to be cast to 
 a poor worker in clay, whose productions were of so little value 
 that when marred by any accident they could easily be replaced at 
 a trifling expenditure of cost or toil. The price offered by the 
 people to the Lord was so mean and despicable that it could only 
 be regarded as offered in mockery, and hence the worthless silver 
 was not to be cast into the treasury, or used for pious purposes, 
 but flung to one of the lowest of the people, thrown back to one 
 of themselves, even as a dishonoured carcase was flung upon the 
 graves of the common people (Jer. xxvi. 23).' 
 
 Now it is undoubtedly true that the verb *fa 
 may be used to express the act of scornfully 
 thro wing away objects of contempt or aversion, as in 
 the passages here specified. In cases of this kind, 
 however, the character of the casting away is 
 determined, not by the verb, but by the circum- 
 stances in which it is used. And if, instead of 
 merely a few of the passages where ~p& occurs
 
 Casting, in the New Testament. 45 1 
 
 being picked out, all the passages (about 120 in 
 number) be duly considered, it must be apparent 
 that the Hebrew *pt? corresponds very closely to 
 the Greek /SaXXety, and that the one verb, like the 
 other, is applicable, not only to such casting away 
 as is indignant or contemptible, but also to such 
 casting away as is merely menial, or physical, 
 and thus unconnected with mental emotions, and 
 even to such casting as is of the holiest and most 
 honourable kind. 
 
 The verb /3aXXeti> is thus variously used in the 
 New Testament to denote such actions as 
 
 The casting of unfruitful trees into the fire 
 The casting of a net or a hook into the sea 
 
 Casting a net and one's-self into the sea 
 Casting into prison 
 
 The casting of pearls before swine 
 The casting away of bad fishes 
 Casting the children's bread to the dogs 
 The pouring of precious ointment on the 
 
 head of Jesus 
 The casting of the lot 
 
 The casting of seed upon the earth 
 The rich casting their gifts into ^ 
 the treasury, and the poor widow \ 
 casting in thither two mites J 
 
 The pouring of water into the bason 
 The putting of the sword into the sheath 
 Putting one's finger into the print of the 
 nails, and one's hand into the side 
 
 Mt.3.10; 7.19; Lk.3-9. 
 Matt. 4. 18; 13. 47; 
 
 17. 27 ; Mark i. 16. 
 John 21. 6, 7. 
 Matt. 5. 25; 18. 30; 
 
 Luke 12. 58; 23. 19, 
 
 25; Johns. 24; 
 
 Acts 16. 23, 24, 37 ; 
 
 Revelation 2. 10. 
 Matt. 7. 6. 
 Matt. 13. 48. 
 Matt. 15. 26; Mk. 7. 27. 
 
 Matt. 26. 12. 
 Mk. 1 5. 24; Luke 23. 34; 
 John 19. 24. 
 Mark 4. 26. 
 
 Mark 12. 41-44; 
 Luke 21. 1-4. 
 
 John 13. 5. 
 John 1 8. 11. 
 
 John 20. 25, 27.
 
 452 Casting, in the Old Testament, 
 
 Similarly diversified is the manner in which the 
 synonymous Hebrew verb "pt? is applied to such 
 actions as 
 
 Hagar's casting of Ishmael under one of 
 
 the shrubs 
 
 The casting of Joseph into a pit 
 The casting of the rods to the ground 
 The casting of torn flesh to the dog 
 Moses casting out of his hands the tables 
 
 of the testimony 
 Aaron casting the gold into the fire, 
 
 and Moses casting the dust of the 
 
 gold into the brook 
 Joshua casting the lot 
 The casting away of dead bodies 
 
 Casting the altars into the brook Kidron 
 ' Let us break asunder their bands, and 
 
 CAST away from us their cords ' 
 The wicked casting behind him the words 
 
 and the law of God 
 ' CAST upon Jehovah thy ^n* 1 , and he will 
 
 sustain thee ' 
 
 The Lord castingforfh his ice like morsels 
 A man casting away the idols of his silver 
 
 and the idols of his gold 
 The casting of a hook into the river 
 ' Thou hast CAST all my sins behind thy 
 
 back' 
 
 ' CAST away from you all your transgres- 
 sions ' 
 
 Casting salt on the burnt-offering 
 The casting of Jonah into the depth 
 ' Thou wilt CAST all their sins into the 
 
 depths of the sea' 
 
 The casting of wickedness into the midst 
 of the ephah, and the casting of the 
 weight of lead on the mouth thereof 
 
 Genesis 21. 15. 
 Gen. 37. 20, 22, 24. 
 Ex. 4. 3 ; 7. 9, 10, 12. 
 Ex. 22. 30 (31). 
 
 Ex. 32. 19; Deut. 9. 17. 
 Exodus 32. 24. 
 
 Deuteronomy 9. 21. 
 Joshua 1 8. 8, 10. 
 Joshua 10. 27 ; 
 
 2 Samuel 18. 17 ; 
 
 2 Kings 9. 25, 26 ; 
 
 Isa. 14. 19 ; 34. 3 ; 
 
 Jer. 26. 23 ; 36. 30. 
 2 Chron. 30. 14. 
 
 Psalm 2. 3. 
 Ps. 50. 17; 
 Neh. 9. 26. 
 
 Ps. 55. 23 (22). 
 Ps. 147. 17. 
 
 Isaiah 2. 20. 
 Isaiah 19. 8. 
 
 Isaiah 38. 17. 
 
 Ezekiel 1 8. 31. 
 Ezekiel 43. 24. 
 Jonah 2. 4 (3). 
 
 Micah 7. 19. 
 
 Zechariah 5. 8.
 
 Moses, Elijah, and Elisha. 453 
 
 Now a simple glance at these passages is suffi- 
 cient to illustrate the great variety of the circum- 
 stances in which this verb "pK> is used, and to 
 prove accordingly that nothing beyond the mere 
 physical act of casting to, or casting away, or cast- 
 ing down, or casting forth, is indicated by the verb, 
 and that any ethical features of the casting, whether 
 favourable or unfavourable, must, if ascertained 
 at all, be ascertained from the context. In the 
 very first passage where this verb occurs, namely 
 Genesis 21. 15, the casting is not that of indignant 
 scorn, but that of motherly affection. And the 
 thorough suitableness of \>W for expressing the 
 casting of that which is prized or appreciated by 
 him who casts it, is evident likewise from the fact 
 that this very verb "]?&? is used with reference to 
 
 Moses casting into the waters of Marah the 
 
 tree which made them sweet 
 Elijah casting his mantle upon Elisha 
 Elisha casting the healing salt into the waters 
 Elisha casting the meal into the pot, 
 
 and the wood into the water where the iron 
 
 had sunk 
 
 Exodus 15. 25. 
 
 1 Kings 19. 19. 
 
 2 Kings 2. 21. 
 
 4. 41. 
 
 6. 6. 
 
 In two passages besides Zechariah n. 13 the 
 verb T5B> is applied to the casting of silver. These 
 are Ezekiel 7. 19, where it is said of the people in 
 their dissatisfaction and distress, that ' they shall 
 cast away their silver in the streets ' and 
 2 Chronicles 24. 10-11, where the casting of silver 
 into the chest for the repair of the house of 
 Jehovah is recorded. Now while it is clear from 
 the context that the casting away referred to in
 
 454 The Acceptableness of the Gift. 
 
 Ezekiel 7. 19 was of the unfavourable kind 
 described in the passage last quoted from the 
 Bampton Lectures (page 450), it is equally clear 
 from the context of "pP in 2 Chronicles 24. 10, 
 that the casting of the silver into the chest was 
 done, not in a spirit of indignation, but joyfully, 
 in obedience to the injunction which Moses the 
 servant of God laid upon Israel in the wilderness. 
 Accordingly nothing disparaging to the suffi- 
 ciency of the price given to Zechariah can be 
 legitimately inferred from the fact that what he 
 did with it is expressed by the verb "&?. On the 
 contrary, the fact that where "]^ is employed to 
 express the indignant casting away of something 
 obnoxious, this characteristic of the act is indicated 
 not by the verb but by its context, is in itself 
 confirmatory of what it is hoped has been 
 abundantly proved already, that there is no irony 
 in the words of the prophet, and that the gift 
 which he received from the poor of the flock was 
 ample and acceptable, like the two mites which 
 the poor widow cast into the treasury, and which 
 He who beheld the multitude casting money in 
 thither praised, in language similar to that used 
 by the prophet, when he spoke of the amount or 
 amplitude of the price at which he was valued by 
 his poor followers. 
 
 The Fashioner. 
 
 The next point for consideration is the meaning 
 of *TCVn in Zechariah n. 13. The supposition
 
 The Verb to Form or Fashion. 455 
 
 that this is the passage quoted in Matthew 27. 
 9-10 has led to the interpreting of lVn as synony- 
 mous with o /cepa/itey?. And the potter is viewed 
 as the representative of that which was base and 
 contemptible as, according to Fausset, ' the most 
 suitable person to whom to cast the despicable 
 sum,' and according to the Bampton Lecture, 'one 
 of the lowest of the labouring classes, a poor 
 worker in clay, whose productions were of little 
 value.' Yet such depreciation of the ~iV in 
 Zechariah n. 13 is scarcely in keeping with the 
 analogy of Holy Scripture, in those passages 
 where a potter is mentioned as an emblem of 
 spiritual truth. In Isaiah 45. 9; Jeremiah 18. 1-11 ; 
 Romans 9. 20-24, for instance, the fashioner of 
 clay, so far from representing what is mean or 
 base, is employed to represent the majesty of 
 God ; and in no passage where a potter is spoken 
 of, does the context indicate that his position or 
 employment was viewed as an emblem of degra- 
 dation. 
 
 But be that as it may, the question still remains, 
 whether, apart from the supposed quotation of 
 Zechariah n. 13 in Matthew 27. 9-10, there is 
 any reason for concluding that this "W was a 
 potter. Nothing of the kind is indicated either by 
 the context or by the verb "IX", of which ivi" is the 
 participle. The Hebrew Scriptures contain 62 
 instances of the verb IX 11 ; of which 43 (including 
 Zechariah n. 13 twice, and 12. 1) are in the 
 participial form. This verb denotes simply to 
 form or fashion, but indicates nothing whatever
 
 456 The Fashion tng of Man. 
 
 with reference to the material which is formed or 
 fashioned that point being generally determined 
 by the context. From the verb "15P is derived 
 the noun "IV* denoting frame or formation (Psalm 
 103. 14), and applicable both to mental thoughts, 
 as in Genesis 6. 5 ; 8. 21, and to material objects, 
 as in Isaiah 29. 16 ; Habakkuk 2. 18. The other 
 passages containing this noun are Deuteronomy 
 31. 21 ; i Chronicles 28. 9 ; 29. 18 ; Isaiah 26. 3 : 
 along with which may be mentioned the plural 
 ony (n^i) in Job 17. 7. 
 
 The first passage containing the verb "TCP is 
 Genesis 2. 7-8, where it occurs twice, man (D1XH) 
 being the object formed or fashioned, and dust 
 from the ground (nDTNPTfO "isy) being the material. 
 Similarly the formation of lower animals is 
 recorded in verse 19. 
 
 7-8. "|X"V And Jehovah Elohim FORMED (or FASHIONED) man 
 <7/"dust from the ground ; and breathed into his nostrils the breath 
 of life ; and man became a living' soul. And Jehovah Elohim 
 planted a garden in Eden eastward ; and there he put the man 
 
 Whom HE HAD FASHIONED (-^ ~\W$). 
 
 19. And Jehovah Elohim FASHIONED from the ground every 
 animal of the field, and every fowl of the heavens. 
 
 The next passage (after the aforesaid noun "> 
 in Genesis 6. 5 ; 8. 21 ; and Deuteronomy 31. 21) 
 is 2 Samuel 17. 27-29, where it is recorded 
 that Shobi and Machir and Barzillai brought 
 ' ->>T 'bl maoi aaspo, and wheat and barley' and 
 other victuals to David and the people that were 
 with him in the wilderness. 
 
 God is the former or fashioner referred to in the 
 following passages.
 
 God as a Fashioner. 
 
 Note. For the sake of uniformity in translation the Hebrew verb 
 List is invariably represented by the English verb fashion. WhetheryiJrw or 
 fashion is the more suitable word need not be here discussed ; but it is certainly 
 desirable that in this, as in other cases, uniformity should be strictly observed, 
 except where it is precluded by difference of idiom. 
 
 The Asterisks denote the Participle. 
 
 Psalm 33. 15. 
 74- 17. 
 
 94. 9. 
 
 Isaiah 43. 1. 
 
 6-7. 
 
 21. 
 
 44-2. 
 21. 
 
 24. 
 45- 6-7- 
 
 HE FASHIONETH their hearts alike. 
 
 Thou hast set all the borders of the 
 earth : summer and winter THOU HAST 
 FASHIONED THEM. 
 
 He that planteth the ear, shall he not 
 hear ? If HE FASHIONETH the eye, shall 
 he not see ? 
 
 (With Him the Psalmist contrasts IV*, the 
 fashioner of 7DJ?i in verse 20. ) 
 
 But now thus saith Jehovah thy Creator, 
 O Jacob, AND THY FASHIONER, O 
 Israel, Fear not; for I have redeemed 
 thee : I have called thee by thy name ; 
 thou art mine. 
 
 I will say to the north, Give up, and to the 
 south, Keep not back : bring my sons 
 from far, and my daughters from the 
 end of the earth, even every one who is 
 called by my name, and whom I have 
 created for my glory; WHOM I HAVE 
 FASHIONED, yea made. 
 
 This people I HAVE FASHIONED for my- 
 self; they shall show forth my praise. 
 
 Thus saith Jehovah who made thee AND 
 
 FASHIONED THEE. 
 
 Remember these things, O Jacob and 
 Israel ; for thou art my servant : I 
 FASHIONED THEE : thou art a servant 
 to me, O Israel, thou shall not be for- 
 gotten of me. 
 
 Thus saith Jehovah thy Redeemer, and 
 
 THY FASHIONER. 
 
 I am Jehovah ; and there is none else : 
 FASHIONING light, and creating dark- 
 ness making peace, and creating evil : 
 I Jehovah 
 
 DfTW 
 
 pun 
 
 vmv
 
 458 
 
 Jehovah our Fashioner. 
 
 Isaiah 45. 9. 
 
 11. 
 
 18. 
 
 49. 5. 
 
 Woe to him that striveth with HIS 
 FASHIONER a potsherd with potsherds 
 of the ground : shall clay say TO THE 
 FASHIONER OF IT, What makest thou ? 
 
 Thus saith Jehovah, the Holy One of 
 Israel, AND HIS FASHIONER. 
 
 Thus saith Jehovah who created the 
 heavens God himself WHO FASHIONED 
 the earth and made it he established 
 it : he created it not in vain : HE 
 FASHIONED IT to be inhabited I am 
 Jehovah ; and there is none else. 
 
 Jehovah MY FASHIONER. 
 
 64. 7 (8). And now, O Jehovah, thou art our father : 
 we are the clay, and thou OUR 
 FASHIONER ; and we all are the work 
 of thy hand. 
 Jerem. i. 5. Before I FASHIONED THEE in the belly, 
 
 I knew thee. 
 
 10. 16 ) He is the FASHIONER OF all ; and Israel I^V 
 51. 19) is the sceptre of his inheritance: 
 
 Jehovah of hosts is his name. 
 1 8. 11. Thus saith Jehovah, Behold I FASHION 
 
 evil against you. 
 
 33. 2. Jehovah WHO FASHIONTH it, to establish it. 1V* 
 Amos 4. 13. HE THAT FASHIONETH the mountains. 
 
 7. 1. Thus did the Lord Jehovah show to me ; 
 
 and behold HE WAS FASHIONING vjj. 
 Zech. 12. 1. The burden of the word of Jehovah for 
 Israel, saith Jehovah, who stretcheth 
 out the heavens, and foundeth the 
 earth, AND FASHIONETH the spirit of 
 man within him. 
 
 The verb iy occurs also in 2 Kings 19. 25; Isaiah 22. 11* ; 
 27. 11*; 37. 26; 46. 11; Psalms 104, 26; 139. 16. 
 
 Now it may be observed with reference to the 
 preceding passages, containing as they do 37 of 
 the 62 instances of the verb W, that with the 
 exception of the two instances in Isaiah 45. 9 ; 
 
 TOP* 
 
 mvi 
 
 my
 
 The Fashioning of Metals. 459 
 
 64. 7, and perhaps 2 Samuel 17. 28, not one of 
 the passages refers to the specific work of a 
 potter. The ntf'* ^a of 2 Samuel 17. 28 may 
 have been either earthenware, or metallic, or both. 
 And so likewise there is nothing to indicate what 
 the material or materials were, in which the 
 fashioners (D'nxvn*) mentioned in I Chronicles 
 4. 23 wrought. It is also a noteworthy circum- 
 stance, obscured indeed by the word potter in the 
 English Bible, yet by no means unimportant, that 
 in Isaiah 64. 7 (8) the prophet refers not less 
 directly to man's original formation from the dust, 
 as recorded in Genesis 2. 7, and alluded to in Job 
 4. 19; 10. 9; 13. 12; 33. 6, than to the special 
 work of a potter. 
 
 That -ttV* in Psalm 2. 9 and Jeremiah 19. 1, 11, 
 and D'"W* in Isaiah 30. 1 4, refer to a potter or the 
 work of a potter, is evident, not from the mere 
 verb "rtf, but from the fact that the vessel fashioned 
 by the "W is described as being broken to 
 pieces. On the other hand, the scope of Isaiah 
 54. 16-17 shows that in the phrase T^> "W 'b'b 
 the reference is, not to earthen vessels, but to 
 metallic weapons or instruments, fashioned by 
 the smith, who bloweth in the fire of coal, and 
 bringeth forth a ^3 for his work. In this respect 
 the Hebrew "IV is analogous to the English nouns 
 pot and cup. As in an English narrative the 
 mention of a cup being broken to pieces by falling 
 to the ground, indicates that the cup cannot have 
 been made of gold or silver, so in like manner 
 the shivering 1 of the vessels mentioned in Psalm
 
 460 The Fashioning of Clay. 
 
 2. 9, Isaiah 30. 14, and Jeremiah 19. 1-11, indicates 
 that the vessels must have been made of 
 earthenware, and that accordingly the fashioner 
 in each of these instances was spotter. 
 
 Similarly, the specification of clay (ion) as the 
 material operated on by the "itf* twice mentioned 
 in Isaiah 29. 16, and also by the ")V* mentioned 
 six times in Jeremiah 18. 2-6, proves that in each 
 of these instances the fashioner spoken of was a 
 potter. And the same fact is proved with reference 
 to the "iyp* of Isaiah 41. 25, by the mention of 
 tru, as the material which he trode, and the "iV* 
 of Lamentations 4. 2, by the mention of tnn-^33, 
 as the vessels which he made. 
 
 It is evident, however, not only from the 
 diversified manner in which IV is applied to God 
 as the divine fashioner, but also from the use of 
 "IS* in Isaiah 44. 9*, 10, 12; 54. 17; and Habakkuk 
 2. 18**, that this Hebrew word has no such exclu- 
 sive reference to earthenware as the Latin fictilis 
 and the English potter and pottery have. On the 
 contrary, as by the usage of the English language 
 the common noun pot, unlike its cognates potter 
 and pottery, is applicable to metallic vessels, as 
 well as to vessels of earth, so likewise the Hebrew 
 participial noun ivi" 1 or itf is every whit as 
 applicable to A FASHIONER of WOOD or METAL as 
 to a fashioner of clay. 
 
 Is. 44. 9-12. THE FASHIONERS OF a graven image (PDD-'HV' 1 *) 
 are all of them emptiness ; . . . Who HATH FASHIONED a God 
 6tf "IV~ 1| D)> or molten a graven image profitable for nothing ? . . . 
 The smith -with an axe both worketh in the coal, and FASHIONETH
 
 The specific work of a Potter. 46 1 
 
 IT with hammers (im^" 1 ni3pQJl)> an< i worketh with the arm 
 of his strength. 
 
 HABAKKUK 2. 18-19. What hath a graven image profited, that 
 THE FASHIONER THEREOF (y^) hath graven it a molten image 
 and a teacher of falsehood, that THE FASHIONER OF HIS FASHION 
 (ilV 1^) trusteth thereupon, to make dumb nothings ? Woe to 
 him that saith to wood, Awake! Arise! to a silent stone 
 It shall teach ! Behold it is laid over with gold and silver ! and 
 no breath is in the midst of it. 
 
 From this investigation of #//the passages (except 
 Zechariah n. 13) that contain the verb IV, to 
 fashion, along with which the few passages con- 
 taining the cognate verbal noun "iiP have been 
 noticed, it appears that above three-fourths of 
 them have no reference whatever to the specific 
 work of a potter, and that such reference, in the 
 few passages where it does exist, is indicated, not 
 by "IV, but by the context. Had the facts been 
 the other way had "i** 1 been found to refer 
 invariably, or even in an overwhelming majority 
 of passages, to the fashioning of earthenware, this 
 circumstance might have constituted a strong 
 inductive reason for inferring the existence of the 
 same reference in Zechariah n. 13, if nothing in 
 the context had precluded it. But in the actual 
 circumstances of the case, the conclusion seems 
 inevitable, that, unless the context of "ivvn in 
 Zechariah n. 13 contains something favourable 
 to the supposition that in this passage "iwn refers 
 to a fashioner of clay, the translation potter must 
 be given up, as not only negatively unproved, but 
 as positively disproved by the unvarying usage of 
 the Hebrew Scriptures.
 
 462 A T o Potter in Zechariatis Prophecies. 
 
 Is there then, it must now be asked, anything 
 in the verse under discussion, or in the chapter 
 containing it, or even in the Book of Zechariah, to 
 indicate that the "ivi" 1 of Zechariah II. 13 was a 
 potter? The answer to this question is easy and 
 conclusive. Potter, as a translation of "iyp in 
 Zechariah 11. 13, stands isolated from its context, 
 without anything either in the verse, or in the 
 chapter, or in Zechariah's prophecies, or in the 
 prophecies of his coadjutor Haggai, or even in 
 the contemporary history recorded in the Book of 
 Ezra, to explain or justify such a rendering of the 
 Hebrew original. Nowhere throughout the Books 
 of Ezra, Nehemiah, Haggai, Zechariah, and 
 Malachi, is there even so much as the remotest 
 allusion to a potter, or to a potter's clay, or to the 
 specific work of a potter, or to vessels fashioned 
 by a potter. 
 
 Note It is indeed true that the-noun Q^, employed in Isaiah 
 41. 25 to denote material operated on by a *iV> occurs also in 
 Zechariah 9. 3 and 10. 5. In these two passages, however, the 
 phrase flliin t^D denotes, as is expressed in the English Bible, 
 mire of the streets, and is thus quite unconnected with the work of 
 a potter. 
 
 The untenableness of potter in Zechariah n. 13 
 is still further apparent from the circumstance 
 that the house of Jehovah was the place in which 
 the prophet cast the silver to the "W. Now (except 
 on the supposition that this "lV was a potter) 
 a potter in the house of Jehovah is a person 
 absolutely unknown, not merely to the Book of 
 Zechariah, but to the whole volume of the Scrip- 
 tures. And the unexplained introduction of such
 
 Groundless Conjectzires. 463 
 
 a person in this solitary passage, without anything 
 either preceding or following "iwn to throw light 
 on such a topic, is altogether incompatible with 
 the scope and analogy of the sacred oracles. 
 
 Note. The mention of the ^y^ in 14. 21 as being no more in 
 the house of Jehovah of hosts is not a case in point. The ^yj3 
 was the well-known proverbial representative of mere worldly 
 commerce, intruded, like the sale of the oxen and sheep and doves 
 of John 2. 14, into the sacred precincts of the temple. Hence the 
 aphorism at the very end of the Book of Zechariah, besides being 
 illustrated by such passages as Isaiah 23. 8 ; Hosea 12. 8 (7) ; 
 Zephaniah I. 11, explains itself with a clearness like that which 
 characterises the Saviour's words, ' Make not my Father's house a 
 house of merchandise, ' John 2. 16. 
 
 No such aphoristic clearness characterises 
 Zechariah n. 13, with "iV interpreted to mean 
 potter. It is easy, according to this interpretation, 
 to speak of ' the temple potter,' as Fausset does, 
 or to conjecture with Calvin that the silver was 
 cast to a potter, ' ut emat sibi lateres vel tegulas 
 ad reficiendum Templum,' or with Kliefoth, as 
 quoted in the Bampton Lecture, that, ' in going 
 forth to obey the Divine command the prophet 
 found a potter in the temple, and flung down to 
 him the money.' For such conjectures there is 
 not a tittle of evidence nothing in fact to indi- 
 cate that any such person as ' the temple potter ' 
 was in existence. And it may be further observed, 
 that while indeed it appears from such passages 
 as Leviticus 6. 21 (28) ; 14. 5, 50 ; Numbers 5. 17, 
 that earthen vessels were not absolutely alien to 
 the services of the Sanctuary, yet the Scripture 
 references to the sacred use of such vessels are 
 neither many nor prominent.
 
 464 A Fashioner of Silver. 
 
 Hence it appears that the representing of itf 11 
 by potter in Zechariah II. 13, besides being 
 unwarranted by the context, and by the general 
 scope of the Book of Zechariah, is directly at 
 variance with the uniform testimony of the Scrip- 
 tures, in all the other passages where "IV occurs. 
 
 Since it is thus apparent that the fashioner 
 mentioned in Zechariah n. 13 cannot have been 
 a potter, the next point for inquiry is whether 
 this verse, or the chapter or book containing it, 
 gives any information as to the material which 
 this "iV fashioned. One does not need to travel 
 beyond even the thirteenth verse for clear and 
 conclusive evidence on this point. The material 
 which, by divine command, the prophet cast to 
 the "ttV, explains unequivocally what kind of a 
 fashioner the "ttV was. It is indeed true that silver 
 may be used for money as ^well as in the fashion- 
 ing of such ^ as abounded in the house of Jehovah. 
 Yet it may be expected that when the use of 
 silver as money is intended, that fact will be 
 apparent from the context, especially if the silver 
 is given to a workman who (as in the case of a 
 potter) does not use silver in his ordinary occupa- 
 tion. Accordingly the weighing out of silver as the 
 price of purchased land is narrated in Genesis 23 
 and Jeremiah 32. And the appropriation of some 
 of the silver mentioned in 2 Kings 12, 22, and 
 2 Chronicles 24 for money-payments to carpenters, 
 builders, masons, stone-hewers, iron-founders, and 
 coppersmiths, and for the purchase of timber and 
 hewed stone to repair the breaches of the house of
 
 The Four Craftsmen. 465 
 
 Jehovah, is expressly detailed in 2 Kings 12. 11-16; 
 22. 4-7, and 2 Chronicles 24. 11-13. Apart, how- 
 ever, from some such contextual explanation, the 
 casting of silver to spotter is about as incongruous 
 as the casting of clay to a silversmith. Hence it 
 seems to follow, with overwhelming conclusiveness, 
 from the simple mention of silver as the substance 
 cast to the "Wi 11 , without even the remotest hint 
 that it was given as a money payment, and without 
 any other substance being either named or indi- 
 cated as the material to be operated on by the 
 fashioner, that the "Up" 1 in Zechariah II. 13 was 
 not a potter, but a silversmith. 
 
 While accordingly the verse in which the 1VT 1 is 
 mentioned appears in itself, as compared with the 
 other passages where "IX* occurs, to be absolutely 
 conclusive on this point, it may yet be not unin- 
 teresting to inquire, for the sake of corroboration, 
 whether the general scope of the Book of 
 Zechariah throws any light on "iwn in II. 13, as 
 thus interpreted of a silversmith. Here again 
 there need be no difficulty in finding a ready 
 and relevant answer. 
 
 In Zechariah 2. 3 (i. 20) the prophet mentions 
 that the Lord showed him four D^n. Now this 
 verbal noun, which denotes craftsmen, is directly 
 connected with "W m Isaiah 54. 16-17, and is 
 applicable to workers in 
 
 stone Exodus 28. 11 ; 2 Samuel 5. 11 ; I Chronicles 22. 15. 
 wood 2 Sam. 5. 11 ; 2 Kings 12. 12 (11); I Chr. 14. 1 ; Is. 44. 13. 
 iron Isaiah 44. 12 ; 2 Chronicles 24. 12. 
 gold Hosea 8. 6. 
 silver Hosea 13. 2. 
 
 2 G
 
 466 
 
 References to Metals. 
 
 Nowhere, however, in the Scriptures is this 
 noun cnn applied to a potter. And while indeed 
 there is nothing to prove that the "ivi 11 to whom 
 Zechariah cast the silver, was one of these four 
 craftsmen, yet the mention of them so early in 
 the Book of Zechariah as 2. 3 is sufficient to 
 show that the application of "Wn in n. 13 to a 
 fashioner of metal does not introduce an idea alien 
 to the general scope of Zechariah's prophecies ; 
 as the idea of a potter in the house of Jehovah is. 
 
 What is thus indicated by the mention of four 
 craftsmen near the beginning of the book is 
 rendered still more obvious by what is said near 
 the end of it (in 13. 9) about gold and silver : 
 
 ' I will bring the third part through the fire, and will try them as 
 silver is tried, and will prove them as gold is proved.' 
 
 The application of "fifvn to. a fashioner of metal 
 is yet further corroborated by the interesting 
 circumstance that the Book of Zechariah, in 
 proportion to its size, is pre-eminently rich in the 
 frequency of its references to metals, and in the 
 variety of the metals mentioned in it. Zechariah 
 is, in fact, the only book in the Bible, besides 
 Numbers (31. 22) and Ezekiel, in which gold, 
 silver, copper, tin, and lead are all named : 
 
 4. 2, 12 twice ; 6. 11 ; 13. 9 ; 14. 14. 
 
 4. 10. 
 
 5- 7, 8. 
 
 6. 1. 
 
 6. 11 ; 9. 3 ; n. 12, 13 ; 13. 9 ; 14. 14. 
 
 9.3. 
 
 Gold 
 
 Six times 
 
 Tin 
 
 Once 
 
 Lead 
 
 Twice 
 
 Copper 
 Silver 
 
 Once 
 Six times 
 
 Fine gold 
 
 Once 
 
 17 times.
 
 What Zechariah did. 467 
 
 This cumulative confirmatory evidence is 
 enhanced in a most interesting manner by a 
 special narrative which throws a flood of light on 
 "Wn, as applied to a silversmith. The prominence 
 given to the gold and silver vessels of the sanctuary 
 throughout the Scriptures, and particularly in that 
 part of the Book of Ezra which refers to the days 
 of Haggai and Zechariah, might indeed suffice to 
 account for the presence of a fashioner of gold or 
 silver in the house of Jehovah, and to show that 
 this is as thoroughly natural and appropriate to 
 Zechariah n. 13, and to the whole Book of 
 Zechariah, as the idea of a potter in the house of 
 Jehovah is unnatural, and far-fetched, and incon- 
 sistent with the scope of Zechariah's prophecies. 
 
 There is, however, a superabundance of corro- 
 borative testimony on this point the incident 
 now to be considered being not the least important 
 part of it. It is a noteworthy circumstance that, 
 whereas the Book of Zechariah narrates chiefly 
 what the prophet saw, and what he said, there are 
 two of the fourteen chapters, and only two, namely 
 chapters sixth and eleventh, which record also what 
 he did, in contradistinction to what he saw or said. 
 On both occasions SILVER was used by Zechariah 
 in obedience to a divine command. On the second 
 occasion he was ordered to cast to the fashioner 
 the spa D'B^t? which the poor of the flock had 
 weighed out to him. Whereas on the first occa- 
 sion he had been ordered to take silver and gold, 
 and to make crowns, and set them on the head 
 of Joshua the high priest, in symbolic repre-
 
 468 A Silver Crown. 
 
 sentation of Him who should sit and rule as 
 priest on His throne. And it was intimated that 
 these crowns should be for a memorial in the 
 temple of Jehovah the very place in which the 
 prophet subsequently cast the silver to the 
 fashioner. The coincidence thus apparent between 
 these two narratives is clear and striking, 
 the first narrative being amply sufficient to 
 account for the presence of a ivi 11 in the house of 
 Jehovah, and for the prophet being commanded 
 to cast the thirty pieces of silver to the "Mi 11 , as 
 recorded in the second narrative. 
 
 It may be further observed, as peculiarly note- 
 worthy, that Zechariah 6. 11 is the only passage in 
 which silver is mentioned as the material of a 
 crown. In Ezekiel 16. 10-13, indeed, gold and 
 silver are mentioned among the materials with 
 which Jerusalem was adorned. But though a 
 crown of beauty is named among the jewels there 
 specified, there is nothing to indicate that any 
 part of the silver entered into the composition of 
 the crown. Golden crowns are mentioned in 
 2 Samuel 12.30 ; I Chronicles 20. 2 ; Esther 8. 15; 
 Psalm 21. 4 (3) ; Revelation 4. 4 ; 14. 14. Whereas 
 in Job 19. 9 ; 31. 36 ; Proverbs 4. 9 ; 12. 4 ; 14. 24; 
 16. 31; 17. 6; Song 3. 11; Isaiah 28. 1, 3, 5 ; 
 62. 3; Jeremiah 13. 18; Lamentations 5. 16; 
 Ezekiel 21. 31 (26) ; 23. 42, crowns are mentioned 
 either allegorically, or without reference to their 
 material composition. In the Scriptures, how- 
 ever, Zechariah 6. 1 1 is unique in its reference to 
 silver as a material for the making of a crown.
 
 The Fashioning of Silver. 469 
 
 Even if there was a considerable interval of 
 time between the incidents of the sixth chapter 
 and the incidents of chapter eleventh, and if 
 accordingly there is no reason to suppose that the 
 cjD3 ttvhv of II. 12, 13 were used for the making 
 of the silver crown prescribed in the sixth chapter, 
 yet the narrative recorded in chapter sixth proves 
 nevertheless that a fashioner must have been 
 employed by the prophet Zechariah in the making 
 of gold and silver jewels for the house of Jehovah. 
 Whereas, on the contrary, as already noticed, 
 there is not so much as even the slightest trace of 
 Zechariah having had any dealings whatever with 
 a potter ; as Jeremiah unquestionably had. 
 
 In commenting on Zechariah n. 13, the 
 Bampton Lecturer says 
 
 ' There is not the slightest necessity on critical grounds to 
 translate the noun which occurs here by anything else than " a 
 potter." The verb (^"0 from which the participial noun which is 
 
 - T 
 
 here used ("ivi" 1 ) is derived, signifies to form, to fashion (Ps. Ixxiv. 
 
 17; sometimes with the special signification of moulding out of 
 clay, Gen. ii. 7, 8, 19). When the participle is used as a noun it 
 occurs in the special signification of a potter (as Isa. xxix. 16, 
 xxx. 14, xli. 25, xlv. 9 ; Jer. xviii. 2-6, xix. 1 ; i Chron. iv. 23, 
 etc. ). But the verbal form often retains its participial meaning, 
 and is followed by the accusative of the thing formed, whether a 
 real or an ideal creation (as Hab. ii. 18 ; Isa. xlv. 7, 18 ; Ps. 
 xciv. 20). . . . The verb is occasionally used of fashioning or form- 
 ing metals (Isa. xliv. 12, etc.). But this translation is impossible 
 in this place, unless it be intended only as a paraphrase. ' 
 
 Yet nothing is said in the Lectures to show how 
 fashioner as a translation of "W in Zechariah 1 1. 13 
 is either impossible or paraphrastic. Fashioner
 
 47 Paraphrastic Renderings. 
 
 is a strictly literal translation, importing into the 
 version neither more nor less than what is expressed 
 by the original word "W. On the other hand, 
 potter is obviously paraphrastic, importing into 
 the version, not only the simple act or opera- 
 tion, which is all that the verb IV expresses, but 
 also an explicit reference to the material alleged 
 to have been operated upon. In this respect 
 potter, as a paraphrastic and sometimes positively 
 misleading representative of *W, resembles gold- 
 smith as the rendering of spiv or tpX in Isaiah 
 40. 19; 41. 7 ; 46. 6; Nehemiah 3. 8, 32; and 
 slave as a suggested rendering of T1V and SouXo?. 
 
 But be this as it may, the Bampton Lecture on 
 the Crowning of the High-Priest shows that the 
 viewing of the "i^ in Zechariah 1 1. 13 as a fashioner 
 of metal is not so untenable or inconsistent with 
 th*e scope of the prophecy as the Lecture on the 
 Good Shepherd represents ft to be. After quoting, 
 in the Lecture on Zechariah 6. 9-15, a remark of 
 Hengstenberg, that ' the prophet can hardly have 
 been a goldsmith, and yet he was ordered to make 
 the crown,' the Bampton Lecturer adds, ' The 
 direction to make the crown signifies nothing 
 more than that the prophet, in some way or other, 
 was to get the crown or crowns duly made.' Now 
 surely these words imply such intercourse with a 
 fashioner of silver and gold as is amply sufficient 
 to account for "iVn in Zechariah 11. 13 being 
 used with reference to a fashioner of silver, and 
 to explain accordingly the presence of such a 
 fashioner in the house of Jehovah.
 
 Points of Coincidence. 471 
 
 The Consensus of Critics and Commentators. 
 
 The largeness of the number of critics and 
 commentators who have assigned the quotation 
 in Matthew 27. 9-10 to Zechariah, and have 
 accordingly viewed "ipTi Vis as ironical, and 
 )V as referring to a potter, cannot, in the circum- 
 stances of the case, carry much weight, but may 
 be easily accounted for. So far from being in the 
 position of judges or witnesses severally inde- 
 pendent of one another, one has followed in the 
 wake of another ; and the current interpretation 
 has, throughout many centuries, been handed 
 down from one critic to another, till at length it 
 appears to have been accepted without inquiry, 
 by many writers, as if it were an undisputed and 
 indisputable fact that the evangelist is quoting, 
 not from Jeremiah, but from Zechariah. 
 
 The coincidence between the rpiaKovra apjvpia 
 of Matthew 27. 9 and the *|D3 D'B^P of Zechariah 
 II. 12, 13 seems to have been the pioneer in this 
 old and extensively adopted interpretation. The 
 words Kal e\aj3ov also are common to the 
 Septuagint and the Gospel, though not in respect 
 of number and person. Then the designating of 
 the rpidtcovra dpyvpia as rr)v rifjwjv rov Teri/j,r)- 
 fjievov, ov erif^ija-avro djrb vlG>v 'IcrparfX, coincides 
 clearly and closely with the designating of 
 the sjoa D'B^P as Dtffap 'mp' 1 it?K ip'n VTK. 
 And since a /cepa/iev? is mentioned in Matthew 
 27. 10, while "WV in Psalm 2.9; Isaiah 29. 16 ;
 
 47 2 The Treasury. 
 
 30. 14 ; 41. 25 ; Jeremiah 18 and 19, refers to a 
 fashioner who was a potter, it is inferred that the 
 "liT of Zechariah n. 13 must likewise have been 
 a potter. And thus it is concluded that it must 
 be from Zechariah u. 13, and cannot be from 
 the Book of Jeremiah, that the evangelist is 
 quoting in Matthew 27. 9-10. 
 
 The Testimony of the Septuagint. 
 
 In connection with this point, it is worthy of 
 special inquiry, whether, if Zechariah n. 12-13 
 were looked at independently of Matthew 27. 9-10, 
 "Wfl would be held to refer to spotter. To this 
 question a negative answer is given by the old 
 Jewish interpretation of "iV as denoting treasury 
 (Targum, K73"iON), as if "liV were equivalent to 1V1K. 
 Since this rendering, however, though adverse 
 to potter, is uncalled for, 'and unsupported by 
 evidence, it may be left out of account. 
 
 4 No two words, in any language, ' says Dr. Pusey, ' are more 
 distinct than 1V1X an d "lV both of them also being, in their 
 several senses, common words. "1^1 N, "treasure," or at times 
 
 T 
 
 "treasury," occurs 79 times in the O. T. ; 1^1, lit. "former," 
 
 occurs 41 times, besides these verses. There is not the slightest 
 approximation of the meaning of the two roots ; "|VX is. " treasured 
 U P;" "IVS "made." Since then, apart from inspiration, every 
 writer wishes to be understood, it is, in the nature of things, 
 absurd to suppose, that, had Zechariah meant to say, " Cast into 
 the treasury," he should not have used the word, which every- 
 where else, 79 times, is used to express it, but should have used a 
 word, which is always, viz. 41 times, used of something else. . . . 
 The Hebrew- Arabic translation, which Pococke so much valued 
 (I2th cent.) has twice TNV^Nj (used chiefly of a gold-smith).'
 
 The Furnace. 473 
 
 In the Septuagint "WiTi (being represented by 
 TO xGwevTiipiov, the furnace) is interpreted, not as if 
 it had some connection with potter's clay, which, 
 as already observed, is utterly alien to the Book 
 of Zechariah, but in its obvious relation to the 
 precious metal which was cast to the ~W. 
 
 And the Lord said unto me, Cast them [the Tpi&Kovra dpyvpovs] 
 into the furnace ; and I shall see whether it is proved in like 
 manner as I was proved by them. And I took the thirty pieces 
 of silver, and cast them into the house of the Lord, into the furnace 
 (els rb x 
 
 Now although, strictly speaking, "iVn denotes, 
 not TO xwvevTijpiov the furnace, but the fasJiioner 
 who makes use of the furnace, yet the Septuagint 
 rendering, with which, in this point, the version of 
 Symmachus coincides, has a special value of its 
 own. For it proves that many years before the 
 Gospel of Matthew was written, or the events 
 recorded in it had occurred, and when it was thus 
 impossible for the Alexandrian translators to be 
 influenced by Matthew 27. 9-10, "IW in Zechariah 
 II. 13 was interpreted as referring, not to a 
 fashioner of clay, but to a fashioner of the material 
 which the prophet gave to the "W. And it may 
 be here noticed incidentally, that the Septuagint 
 rendering of ~)V is thus directly adverse also to 
 the ironical interpretation of the phrase ")pT! YTK. 
 
 Inadequate Explanations. 
 
 If it be proved that potter is inadmissible 
 as a translation of "IXV in Zechariah n. 13, and 
 that here this participial noun refers, not to a
 
 474 The Traditional Interpretation. 
 
 fashioner of clay, but to a fashioner of silver, it 
 must follow from this, independently of other 
 elements of proof, that the quotation contained in 
 Matthew 27. 9-10 cannot have been taken from 
 Zechariah n. 12-13. Even apart from these 
 points, however, the advocates of the common 
 traditional method of interpreting Zechariah 
 ii. 12-13 cannot, with their utmost ingenuity, get 
 the one passage to fit the other in such a way 
 as to give even plausibility to the . assertion that 
 the evangelist is quoting, not from Jeremiah, but 
 from Zechariah. Even if the phrase }SVn "jy be 
 interpreted as implying moral wretchedness, and 
 the phrase "ipTi YTN be viewed as ironical, and 
 "ixvn as denoting the potter, still, as already 
 observed, Zechariah makes no mention either of a 
 field or of the purchase of a field. And yet the 
 purchase of a field is the transaction in which the 
 prophecy quoted by the evangelist was fulfilled. 
 
 So obviously incompatible with each other, as 
 the quotation and the passage quoted from, are 
 Matthew 27. 9-10 and Zechariah n. 12-13, that 
 many advocates of the common view either 
 acknowledge that their theory does not adequately 
 account for the discrepancy, or the explanations 
 which they offer are plainly below the mark. 
 Thus Alford says, as already noticed in page 423, 
 ' The quotation here is very different from the 
 LXX, and not much more like the Hebrew.' 
 
 Archbishop Newcome, who accepts the tradi- 
 tional view, asks in his Notes on Zechariah, 
 
 ' how the transaction related by the evangelist can be considered as
 
 Laborious Efforts. 475 
 
 a fulfilment of that which was spoken by the prophet, considering 
 the striking difference in some of the circumstances. In the one 
 case thirty pieces of silver were given as wages for service ; in the 
 other, they were paid as the price of a man's blood ; in the one, 
 they were thrown with contempt to the potter ; in the other, they 
 were cast down in the temple in a fit of remorse, and taken up by 
 others who employed them in the purchase of the potter's field.' 
 
 The Editor of the Speaker's Commentary says 
 in his special note on Matthew 27. 9 
 
 4 The words of St. Matthew differ both from the rendering of the 
 Septuagint and from the Hebrew, of which he frequently gives an 
 independent translation. The difference is so great as to make it 
 certain, either that he did not write with the original text before 
 him, or that his object was simply to note coincidences in leading 
 points.' 
 
 Well might Matthew Pool confess, in attempt- 
 ing to prove that the quotation is from Zechariah 
 II. 12-13, 
 
 ' It is a very hard text as it lies in the prophet to give a just 
 account of. ... But how Matthew saith this was spoken by 
 Jeremy the prophet is a harder knot. It is observable that 
 Zechariah hath many things found in Jeremiah, and it is not 
 improbable that the very same thing was prophesied by Jeremiah, 
 though afterward repeated by Zechariah, and only in the writings 
 of Zechariah left upon sacred record. ' ( Partly quoted in page 422. ) 
 
 With the many laborious and limping attempts 
 to make straight that which is crooked, or to 
 number that which is wanting, may be contrasted 
 the following clear and concise note in Mr. 
 Burgon's Treatise of 1861, on Inspiration and 
 Interpretation : 
 
 ' St. Matthew is charged with a bad memory, because he ascribes 
 to "Jeremy the prophet" words which are said to be found in 
 Zechariah. Strange that men should be heard to differ about a 
 plain matter of fact ! / have never been able to find these words 
 in Zechariah yet ! '
 
 476 Different modes of quotation. 
 
 Quotations and References. 
 
 In order that the matter at issue may be fully 
 and satisfactorily discussed, sundry important 
 points, apt to be overlooked, require attentive 
 consideration. There is, for instance, an essential 
 difference between directly quoting a passage, as 
 Deuteronomy 25. 4 in I Corinthians 9. 9 and 
 I Timothy 5. 18, and simply referring to a passage, 
 as Leviticus 1 2. 3 in John 7. 22-23 (Page 355). And 
 even where there is not a mere reference, but a 
 veritable quotation, the Old Testament passage 
 may be quoted either verbatim from the Septuagint, 
 as Isaiah 53. 1 in John 12. 38 and Romans 10. 16, 
 or, mutatis mutandis, as Isaiah 6. 10 and 29. 10 
 in Romans n. 8, or in an abridged form, as 
 Exodus 15. 1-18 in Revelation 15. 3-4. Or the 
 substance rather than the words may be given, 
 as the substance of Genesis 12. 7; 13. 15 ; 15. 18; 
 17. 8, in Acts 7. 5. 
 
 Two or more passages also from different parts of 
 a book, or even from different books, may be quoted 
 together, as in Mark i. 2-3 ; Acts I. 20; 13. 22 ; 
 Romans 3. 10-18, without any occasion for their 
 respective differences in position and authorship 
 being mentioned. 
 
 I TlM. 5. 18. For the Scripture saith, Bow dXotDvra ofl 
 
 ROM. IO. 16. For Esaias saith, Ktfpte, T/J tirlffrevo-e TTJ &Korj TJ/J.WV ; 
 
 ACTS 7. 5. And he promised to give it to him for a possession, 
 
 and to his seed after him. 
 ACTS I. 20. For it is written in the Book of Psalms, Let his 
 
 habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein ; and 
 
 his office let another take.
 
 Difference in Number and Person. 477 
 
 Difference of Person. 
 
 One of the simplest and most common of the 
 changes denoted by the phrase mutatis mutandis 
 is change of person, as where the him in John 
 19. 37 corresponds to the me in Zechariah 12. 10, 
 and the imperative *]PI Smite, in Zechariah 13. 7, is 
 changed into the first person, JTaTa|<w, / will smite, 
 in Matthew 26. 31 and Mark 14. 27. 
 
 They shall look unto me whom they pierced. 
 They shall look unto 14m whom they pierced. 
 Smite the Shepherd. | I will smite the Shepherd. 
 
 Now it is thus that critics, in attempting to 
 explain Matthew 27. 9-10 as containing a quota- 
 tion from Zechariah n. 13, sometimes try to 
 account for the differences, in respect of person, 
 between the two passages. 
 
 'The words in the Gospel, "they took the thirty pieces of 
 silver,"' says the Bampton Lecturer, 'assume the place of "I 
 took " in Zechariah, because the chief priests in this particular 
 acted as Caiaphas before them (John xi. 49-52) in God's stead, 
 and unwittingly fulfilled the Divine will. " The price of him that 
 was valued" is (as Keil well expresses it) a free translation of the 
 words in Zechariah, "a goodly price at which I was priced;" 
 and the clause that follows in the Gospel, viz., "whom they of 
 the children of Israel did value," corresponds to the concluding 
 words of the sentence in the prophet, ' ' at which I was priced by 
 them." Further the words in Matthew xxvii. 10, "and gave 
 them for the potter's field," coincide with the words in Zechariah, 
 " and I cast it to the potter in the house of the Lord," while the 
 concluding words of the quotation in St. Matthew, ' ' as the Lord 
 appointed me," seem to refer to the original direction of the Lord 
 concerning the money, namely, " Cast it to the potter." ' 
 
 Yet this attempted explanation does not fit the 
 facts of the case, and utterly fails to account for 
 the difference between the they, the him, and the
 
 478 Two incompatible passages. 
 
 me, of Matthew 27. 9-10, which severally denote 
 different individuals, and include difference of 
 number as well as difference of person : whereas 
 the corresponding words, /, /, and me in the 
 passage from which the quotation is said to have 
 been taken, denote one and the same individual, 
 namely the prophet Zechariah. 
 
 MATTHEW 27. 9-10. 
 
 Kai 
 
 And they took the 
 thirty pieces of 
 silver 
 
 ZECHARIAH n. 13. 
 
 And I took the 
 thirty pieces of 
 silver 
 
 nnpsi 
 
 (the price of him 
 who was priced, 
 whom they of the 
 children of Israel 
 did price) 
 
 (the amount of the 
 price that I was 
 priced at of them) 
 
 fiat 
 
 and they gave them 
 for the potter's field 
 
 as the Lord 
 appointed me. 
 
 and I cast it unto 
 the fashioner. 
 
 And the Lord said 
 unto me, Cast it 
 unto the fashioner. 
 
 Now it is obvious on the face of the passage, that 
 in Zechariah n. 12-13 he who took the silver and 
 cast it to the fashioner was the same person 
 who had been priced, and whom the Lord had 
 appointed to cast the price to the fashioner. In 
 Matthew 27. 9-10, on the contrary, tliey who took 
 the thirty pieces of silver, and gave them for the 
 potter's field, were different, not only from him 
 who had been priced, but also from the me whom
 
 Change of Person. 479 
 
 the Lord had appointed to buy a field. Or, in 
 other words, where the Prophecy mentions only 
 one individual, namely Zechariah himself, as 
 having been priced, and also as having taken the 
 price, and done with it what the Lord told him 
 to do, the Gospel mentions severally three, namely, 
 (i) one as having been priced, and (2) a plurality 
 of others as having taken the price and bought 
 a field with it, and yet (3) another as having 
 previously bought a field at the Lord's bidding. 
 Hence the passage from which the evangelist 
 is quoting must contain both a third person 
 plural and a first person singular the third as 
 representing certain persons purchasing a field, 
 and the first as representing the prophet, who 
 declares that, by divine appointment, he himself 
 had previously made a similar purchase. By no 
 competent process of mutation can these two (the 
 third person plural and the first person singular) 
 be got out of a passage which, like Zechariah 
 II. 13, contains only one of them. 'That which 
 is wanting cannot be numbered.' The them 
 (DiT^yo) in the parenthetical clause, has a different 
 reference, to be hereafter considered. 
 
 The syntax of a passage into which a quotation 
 is introduced may indeed permit or require a 
 grammatical change of person as, for instance, 
 the substitution of the third for the first person. 
 Accordingly if the quotation in Matthew 27. 9-10 
 had really been taken from Zechariah n. 13, the 
 third person might have been substituted for the 
 first, somewhat in the following manner
 
 480 An impossible mutation. 
 
 Then was fulfilled that which was spoken through Zechariah 
 the prophet, where it is said that he took the thirty pieces of silver, 
 the price at which they of the children of Israel had priced Mm, 
 and that lie gave it to the fashioner, as the Lord had appointed him. 
 
 Now this mutatis mutandis quotation is thoroughly 
 consistent with itself, and with the original passage. 
 There is no confusion of persons, and no mention 
 of individuals not mentioned in the original. On 
 the contrary, the identity of the prophet speaking 
 in the first person throughout Zechariah n. 13, 
 and spoken of in the third person throughout the 
 hypothetical quotation, is clear and obvious. 
 
 No contextual circumstances can import into a 
 quotation the mention of new individuals having 
 no counterpart in the passage quoted. For one 
 individual three times mentioned in the passage 
 as originally written, three different individuals 
 cannot be substituted in the passage as quoted 
 elsewhere. Yet this is the impossible process of 
 mutation required by the theory that Zechariah 
 II. 13 is quoted in Matthew 27. 9-10. Hence, 
 even independently of the fact already noticed in 
 page 433, that, as Zechariah n makes no mention 
 of a field, the quotation about the purchase of a 
 field cannot have been taken from that chapter, 
 the irreconcilable difference in respect of person 
 between Matthew 27. 9-10 and Zechariah n. 13 
 proves that the quotation contained in the one 
 passage cannot have been taken from the other, 
 and that accordingly the original of the passage 
 quoted in Matthew 27. 9-10 must be looked for 
 elsewhere than in the Book of Zechariah.
 
 The purchase of Fields with Silver. 481 
 
 The Buying of Fields for Silver. 
 
 The parenthetical clause rrjv rifjirjv rov rert^rj- 
 fiivov, ov erif^rjo-avro airo vlwv 'Jcrpa^A, being 
 reserved for special consideration afterwards, 
 Matthew 27. 9-10 stands thus 
 
 ' Then was fulfilled that which was spoken through Jeremiah 
 the prophet, saying, And THEY took the thirty pieces of silver, . . . 
 and gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord appointed ME.' 
 
 Here the prophet mentions that they did what 
 the Lord appointed him to do. Now the question 
 immediately arises, What was the thing which 
 they did ? To this question, the answer on the 
 face of the record is plain and clear. They bought 
 a field for silver. Another question immediately 
 ensues, and is as easily answered as was the 
 previous question : Where is it recorded that the 
 Lord appointed the prophet to buy a field for 
 silver? As already noticed in page 431, no such 
 appointment is recorded, or even so much as hinted 
 at, in the Book of Zechariah. In not one of the 
 five passages (6. 11; 9.8; u. 12-13; 13.9; 14-14) 
 where silver is mentioned, is it spoken of as money 
 paid in buying and selling ; and throughout the 
 Book of Zechariah there is no reference either to 
 the purchase of a field, or even to the purchase of 
 anything. 
 
 A chapter in the Book of Jeremiah, however, 
 contains sundry copious and minute details with 
 reference to the purchasing of fields for silver. 
 Now in perusing that chapter, one need have no 
 difficulty in finding the record of a divine com- 
 2 H
 
 482 Jeremiah buying a Field. 
 
 mand to the prophet to buy a field for silver, or, 
 in other words, to do the very thing the doing 
 of which forms the essence of the transaction 
 recorded in Matthew 27. 6-10, as involving a fulfil- 
 ment of that which was spoken through Jeremiah 
 the prophet. When Jeremiah was in the court of 
 the prison, his cousin Hanameel came to him, and 
 requested him to buy his field in Anathoth, in the 
 land of Benjamin. This the prophet did, knowing 
 that it was the word of Jehovah ; and the trans- 
 action was duly completed and attested, the legal 
 formalities being carefully observed, and the 
 records of the purchase deposited in an earthen 
 vessel, that they might stand many days. After 
 giving the record of the purchase to Baruch, 
 whom he had charged to put the documents into 
 an earthen vessel, the prophet prayed to Jehovah, 
 and, after adoring him on account of his majesty, 
 and omnipotence, and love, and on account of his 
 dealings with Israel, he concluded the prayer with 
 the words, ' And 
 
 THOU LORD JEHOVAH HAST SAID UNTO ME, 
 
 BUY THEE THE FIELD FOR SILVER, 
 
 and take witnesses ; for the city is given into the hand of the 
 Chaldeans. ' 
 
 Is it conceivable that two passages could be so 
 worded as to be more clearly identical in their 
 reference to one and the same transaction than 
 are these words of Jeremiah 32. 25, in which the 
 prophet refers to the Lord having directed him 
 to buy a field for (or with) silver, and the corre-
 
 Fields in the suburbs of Jerusalem. 483 
 
 spending words of Matthew 27. 10, icada 
 jjiot, Kvpios, as the Lord appointed me ? 
 
 Since these words, referring to what Jeremiah 
 was appointed to do, and did, constitute only part 
 of that which was spoken through Jeremiah the 
 prophet, as quoted in Matthew 27. 9-10, and since 
 the quotation includes a they as well as a me, and 
 intimates what the they did, as well as what the 
 me had been appointed to do, that part of the 
 quotation which refers to what they did must now 
 be considered. ' They took the thirty pieces of 
 silver, . . . and gave them for the potter's field.' 
 The question now at once arises, Does the thirty- 
 second chapter of Jeremiah refer to any other 
 persons besides the prophet, as buying fields with 
 silver? Again the answer is plain and clear and 
 explicit. In the last verse of the chapter, which 
 is also the last sentence of the prophecy, the Lord 
 declares that they shall do the very thing which 
 he had ordered the prophet Jeremiah to do, 
 namely, buy fields with (or for) silver : 
 
 up' spaa rvn&> 
 
 FIELDS FOR SILVER THEY SHALL BUY S 
 
 and they shall write and seal (it) in a book, and take witnesses 
 in the land of Benjamin, and in the suburbs of Jerusalem, and in 
 the cities of Judah, and in the cities of the mountain, and in the 
 cities of the plain, and in the cities of the south ; for I will cause 
 their captivity to return, saith Jehovah. 
 
 Now in illustration of the exactness with which 
 this prophecy was fulfilled to the very letter in the 
 purchase of the potter's field with the rpiaKovra 
 apyvpta which Judas cast down in the Temple, it
 
 484 Fields bought for Silver. 
 
 may be observed that it was in the suburbs of 
 Jerusalem or in the land of Benjamin, which 
 extended to the precincts of the holy city, that 
 the potter's field was situated. 
 
 The resemblance between the Gospel narrative 
 and the corresponding passage in the Book of 
 Jeremiah (whether the Hebrew original or the 
 Septuagint version be considered) is close and 
 obvious : 
 
 Verse 25. K.OJ. av X^yets irp&s i&, Kr^crai creaimjj rbv aypbv dpyvptov. 
 44. Kai KT-f]ffovTa.i dypobs if tipyvpLtfj. 
 
 MATTHEW 27. 6-7. oi d dpx te P e ' s \afifamt TCL dpytipm . . . 
 fjyopaffav e avT&v rbv aypbv TOU Kepa.fj.tus els Ta<priv TOIS &vois. 
 
 In the Hebrew, as in the Greek, the tJiey is 
 impersonal, being expressed, not by a separate 
 pronoun, but merely in the person of the verb. 
 And for the simple imperfect up* in Jeremiah 
 32. 44, where the futurity of the purchase is 
 indicated, the aorist, preceded by the conjunction 
 /cal, and thus corresponding to W|?1, is used in the 
 Gospel narrative, to describe the purchase as a 
 transaction then past /cat e'A,a/3oi> KOI e&wicav. 
 
 Each section of the quotation contained in 
 Matthew 27. 9-10 has thus its exact counterpart 
 in Jeremiah 32. And the way in which silver is 
 mentioned in both counterparts (verses 25 and 44) 
 is specially noteworthy. God directed the prophet, 
 not only to buy a field, but to buy a field with or 
 for silver. And what was prophesied about those 
 who should do what he had been directed to do 
 was, not merely that they should buy fields, but 
 that they should buy fields /0r silver,
 
 The essential point. 485 
 
 Verse 25. And thou O Lord Jehovah hast said unto me, Buy 
 thee the field for silver. 
 
 44. They shall buy fields for silver ... in the land of 
 Benjamin, and in the suburbs of Jerusalem. 
 
 In neither verse, however, is any amount of 
 silver prescribed the quality not the quantity of 
 the material being the essential point in the 
 narrative. While indeed, as mentioned in the 
 ninth verse, the silver which Jeremiah weighed 
 out to his cousin amounted to seventeen shekels, 
 this detail is entirely subordinate, and does not 
 belong to that part of Jeremiah's words which is 
 quoted in the New Testament. Still further, 
 though the amount paid by the prophet is thus 
 incidentally mentioned as an actual fact past 
 and accomplished, no amount is mentioned as 
 payable or to be paid by other purchasers. And 
 indeed no amount could have been mentioned 
 consistently with the scope of the prophecy, seeing 
 that different fields bought and sold at different 
 times might bring different prices. What is pre- 
 dicted is that they shall BUY FIELDS FOR SILVER, 
 so that while, in point of fact, the chief priests paid 
 rpidfcovra dpyvpta for the potter's field, and while 
 that which was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet 
 was thus fulfilled on the payment of thirty pieces 
 of silver, it would have been equally fulfilled had 
 half or double of that amount been given. 
 
 The fact that the field purchased by the high 
 priests was a potter s field is similarly incidental. 
 What was predicted was that fields (nttB>) should 
 be bought for silver. Hence the prophecy was
 
 486 An Earthen Vessel. 
 
 fulfilled to the very letter in the purchase of a 
 field which happened to be or to have been owned 
 or occupied by a Kepa^ev^. But it would have been 
 equally fulfilled had the owner or occupant been 
 a gardener, or a merchant, or a shepherd, or a 
 fuller, as in 2 Kings 18. 17 and Isaiah 7. 3 ; 36. 2. 
 It is perhaps not undeserving of special notice, 
 however, in connection with even this incidental 
 point, that the idea of a potter is not alien to the 
 thirty-second chapter of Jeremiah, as it certainly 
 is to the whole Book of Zechariah. The Lord, 
 besides telling Jeremiah to buy the field for silver, 
 directed him (in verse 14) to put the writings of the 
 purchase in an earthen vessel, KnrPpa, that they 
 might continue many days. In two other passages 
 likewise Jeremiah speaks of earthenware tnrt; and 
 in each of them he mentions it in immediate 
 connection with the fashioner^ who as already 
 observed in page 460, must in each of these two 
 cases have been a potter. 
 
 LAM. 4. 2. The precious sons of Zion comparable to pure gold 
 how are they accounted as earthen bottles, the work of the 
 hands of a ivi" 1 
 
 JER. 19. 1. Thus saith Jehovah, Go and buy Jjnn "IYP p2p3- 
 
 Now as the potter's earthen cruse played an 
 important part in the transactions and symbolism 
 of the nineteenth chapter of Jeremiah, when the 
 prophet, by divine appointment, broke the cruse 
 before the eyes of the men who accompanied him 
 'to the valley of the son of Hinnom, so, in like 
 manner, the position occupied by the fcjnrP73 in 
 the transactions of the thirty-second chapter was
 
 The Potter's Field. 487 
 
 so prominent, that the evangelist, when inserting 
 TO) /cepa/ieo)s in Matthew 27. 10, may possibly 
 have had in view the Enn" 1 ^ of Jeremiah 32. 14. 
 Just as the drawn-off shoe gave a name to the 
 house mentioned in Deuteronomy 25. 10 (And the 
 name thereof shall be called in Israel >wn p^n m), 
 so the VVrfa in which the Lord told the 
 prophet Jeremiah to deposit the records of the 
 purchase may have fixed the name potter's field 
 on the land bought by Jeremiah, and may thus 
 have enhanced, in a peculiarly striking manner, 
 the coincidence between the purchase made by 
 him, and the similar purchase made long after- 
 wards by the chief priests, when they bought the 
 potter's field for silver, so fulfilling ' that which was 
 spoken through Jeremiah the prophet.' 
 
 The manner in which, in Matthew 27. 9-10, the 
 evangelist quotes two brief clauses from the 
 detailed narrative in Jeremiah 32, is analogous to 
 the manner in which the apostle Paul quotes from 
 the Book of Genesis in the fourth chapter of his 
 Epistle to the Churches of Galatia 
 
 4. 21-22. Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law Do ye 
 not hear the law ? For it is written that Abraham had two sons, 
 one by the bondmaid and one by the free woman. 
 
 The two clauses of this quotation do not occur 
 together anywhere in the Pentateuch ; but they 
 are taken from the series of historic facts recorded 
 in Genesis 16 and 21, similarly as the twofold 
 quotation in Matthew 27. 9-10 is taken from the 
 series recorded in Jeremiah 32.
 
 488 Parenthetical Clauses. 
 
 The Price of him that was priced. 
 
 The parenthetical clause inserted by the evan- 
 gelist in the middle of that which was spoken 
 through Jeremiah the prophet, and reserved in 
 page 481 for subsequent inquiry, must now be 
 specially considered. 
 
 Here and there throughout the Scriptures (as, 
 for instance, in I Chronicles 5. 1-2; John II. 2), 
 clauses purely incidental or parenthetical have 
 been inserted for explanation, or definition, or 
 illustration yet in such a manner as neither 
 to produce confusion nor to preclude textual 
 accuracy. In some cases the relation of the 
 clauses to one another seems to be more or less 
 problematical. Thus, for instance, it might be 
 asked whether in John 4. 9 the words, ' for Jews 
 have no dealings with Samaritans/ form part of 
 what the woman of Samaria said to Jesus, or were 
 inserted as explanatory, by the evangelist. So 
 likewise, a similar question might be asked with 
 reference to the words avrq ea-rlv epr)/j,os in Acts 
 8. 26, or the statement about the purchase of the 
 field of blood in Acts 1. 18-19. Yet the ascertaining 
 of the exact connection between such clauses 
 and their context may sometimes be of much 
 importance towards a clear understanding of 
 the passages examined. Of extraneous clauses 
 appended to or embedded in New Testament 
 quotations from the Hebrew Scriptures, there is 
 a notable instance in Romans 10. 5-8 :
 
 No part of the Quotation. 489 
 
 , For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, that 
 the man who doeth those things shall live in them. But the 
 righteousness of faith speaketh thus, Say not in thy heart, Who 
 shall ascend into heaven ? that is to bring Christ down or, 
 Who shall descend into the abyss ? that is to bring Christ up 
 from the dead. But what doth it say ? The word is nigh thee, 
 in thy mouth and in thy heart that is the word of the faith 
 which we preach. 
 
 Could any one imagine that the clauses here 
 printed in thick type were given by the apostle 
 Paul as part of the quotation from Deuteronomy 
 30. 12-14 ? Is it not clear as noonday that these 
 clauses are explanatory or expository, and not 
 intended to be understood as quoted from the 
 Hebrew Scriptures ? 
 
 Now it is worthy of special notice, in connection 
 with the theme of this dissertation, that there is 
 similarly appended to the very first Old Testament 
 quotation which occurs in the Gospel of Matthew 
 an explanatory clause (o ecrrt fjiedep/jiTjvevofjievov, Med' 
 r//jiwv 6 0e6<j), which could scarcely be mistaken 
 for part of the quotation from Isaiah 7. 14, to 
 which the words TO pydev VTTO TOV Kvpiov Sia TOV 
 7rpo<f)r)Tov refer : 
 
 MATTHEW i. 22-23. Now all this came to pass, that it might be 
 fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, 
 saying, Behold the virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth 
 a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which, being 
 interpreted, is, God with us. 
 
 One other illustration may be given from the 
 narrative common to Matthew 21. 12-13 ; Mark 
 ii. 15-17; Luke 19. 45-46. It is reported that 
 when Jesus cast out of the temple the buyers and
 
 49 It w Written. 
 
 the sellers, and overthrew the tables of the money- 
 changers, and the seats of them that sold the doves, 
 he said, ' It is written, My house shall be called a 
 house of prayer ; but ye have made it a den of 
 robbers.' Now, notwithstanding the intimate 
 connection between these two clauses, the first 
 clause, to the exclusion of the second, constitutes 
 the quotation designated by the familiar word 
 FeypaTrrai, It is written Isaiah 56. 7 being the 
 passage quoted from. The second clause, however, 
 though not included in the quotation, but addressed 
 directly to those who were being expostulated 
 with, contains a specific reference to Jeremiah 
 7. 11, from which the phrase (rmfi\atov X^crrwy 
 (corresponding to the Hebrew D^ViD rny), as 
 applied to the house of God, is obviously taken. 
 Yet if, in Matthew 21. 13, Esaias had been named 
 as the author of the words* quoted, would any one 
 have thought of charging the evangelist with 
 inaccuracy, because the sentence prefaced by 
 yeypciTrrai, contains, besides the quotation from the 
 Book of Isaiah, a phrase taken from the Book of 
 Jeremiah ? How then could there be any ground 
 for impeaching the accuracy of Matthew 27. 9, if 
 it should turn out that the parenthetical clause in 
 the end of that verse, so far from being included 
 in the quotation from Jeremiah, contains a clear 
 and direct reference to the writings of some other 
 prophet ? 
 
 With regard to the scope and subject-matter of 
 the various New Testament quotations from and 
 references to the Hebrew Scriptures, two points
 
 Historical Quotations. 49 1 
 
 illustrative of the question at issue may be here 
 noticed. Some of the Old Testament passages 
 which are either quoted or referred to in the New 
 Testament announce general principles or precepts; 
 as where the maxim rrrp VMOK3 pnx, The just shall 
 live by his faith (Habakkuk 2. 4), is quoted in 
 Romans I. 17, Galatians 3. 11, Hebrews 10. 38. 
 In certain other cases, however, the record of some 
 historic fact is quoted in connection with a similar 
 fact to which the words of the passage are appli- 
 cable. Thus, for instance, the precept given 
 originally in Exodus 12. 46, with reference to the 
 paschal lamb, nTOtMTKi> DJ>, Ye shall not break a 
 bone thereof, and repeated almost verbatim in 
 Numbers 9. 12 (with which Psalm 34. 21 (20) may 
 be compared), was fulfilled also at the place called 
 Calvary, as mentioned in John 19. 36 : 
 
 For these things came to pass that the Scripture might be 
 fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken. 
 
 So likewise the words in Hosea n. 1, 
 
 Out of Egypt I called my son | ij^j TlfcOp 
 
 descriptive originally of Israel's deliverance from 
 Egyptian bondage 7KTB* "ijtt ^a, are applied in 
 Matthew 2. 15 to the return of the child Jesus 
 from Egypt to the land of Israel : 
 
 MATTHEW 2. 14-15. He [Joseph] took the little child and his 
 mother by night, and departed into Egypt, and was there until 
 the death of Herod, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken 
 by the Lord through the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt I called 
 my son.
 
 49 2 Incidental Details. 
 
 The weeping of Rachel for her children, as 
 described in Jeremiah 31. 15, is quoted in like 
 manner in Matthew 2. 17-18, with reference to the 
 slaughter of the little children in Bethlehem. 
 Now to this, the quotation in Matthew 27. 9-10 
 from the same Book of Jeremiah, is strictly 
 analogous, in so far as the point at issue is 
 concerned. Similarly, however, as the reference 
 in Galatians 4. 22 (already quoted in page 487) is 
 twofold, the quotation in Matthew 27. 9-10, instead 
 of being confined to one sentence in the Book of 
 Jeremiah, as the quotation in Matthew 2. 18 is, 
 comprises two parts of the thirty-second chapter 
 of Jeremiah (i) the record of what the Lord 
 appointed me to do, namely, to buy a field for 
 silver, as declared in verse 25 ; and (2) the record 
 of what they did, namely, bought a field for silver, 
 as predicted in verse 44 -a past event when the 
 evangelist referred to it, but one of a series of 
 future events when Jeremiah prophesied 'they 
 shall buy fields for silver ... in the land of 
 Benjamin, and in the suburbs of Jerusalem.' 
 
 The nature of this prediction did not admit of 
 the amount of the silver being specified, seeing 
 that the prices paid for the fields bought and sold 
 from time to time might vary. Hence the fact 
 that the silver given to Judas, and afterwards paid 
 for the potter's field, amounted to thirty pieces, 
 did not and could not come within the scope of 
 the prophecy. Considering however the minute 
 coincidences traced between sundry facts recorded 
 in the Gospel of Matthew and sundry Old Testa-
 
 Thirty pieces of Silver. 493 
 
 ment passages which fit and illustrate those facts, 
 it would be quite in keeping with the usual style 
 of the evangelist, to seize upon even so incidental a 
 detail as the number of the pieces of silver paid for 
 the field, and to illustrate it by an Old Testament 
 passage (if one were in existence) specifying the 
 same amount, and not inconsistent with the direct 
 quotation from the Book of Jeremiah, nor other- 
 wise unsuitable for the purpose the evangelist had 
 in view. The detail, being purely incidental, the 
 parenthetical reference to it would be something 
 quite distinct from the fulfilment of the prophecy, 
 but would nevertheless be thoroughly in keeping 
 with the scope of the narrative. 
 
 Suppose, for instance, the conjecture to be well 
 founded, that thirty pieces of silver had been 
 deliberately fixed on by the chief priests in their 
 negotiations with Judas, because such was the 
 amount of the compensation payable, according 
 to Exodus 21. 32, for injury done to a servant, 
 and that accordingly there had been, as is alleged 
 by sundry critics and commentators, a special 
 insult involved in the number being thirty, what 
 could have been more thoroughly in keeping with 
 the style of the Gospel narrative than for the 
 evangelist to have written somewhat to the 
 following effect ? 
 
 Then was fulfilled that which was spoken through Jeremiah the 
 prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver (the price 
 given in Israel to the master of a servant who had been pushed by 
 an ox), and they gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord 
 appointed me.
 
 494 Twenty pieces of Silver. 
 
 Could any person with the least claim to being a 
 critic or an expositor of Holy Scripture have 
 imagined, in these circumstances, that the paren- 
 thetical clause was intended by the evangelist to 
 form part of the quotation, and that he accordingly 
 perpetrated a blunder in ascribing to the prophet 
 a passage found, not in the Book of Jeremiah, but 
 in the Book of Exodus ? Surely it would have 
 been apparent, from the parenthetical character 
 of the parenthetical clause, that the clause was not 
 meant for part of the quotation, and that therefore, 
 as the evangelist did not ascribe the clause to 
 Jeremiah, it was groundless to charge him with 
 inaccuracy in his reference to that which was 
 spoken through Jeremiah the prophet. 
 
 Take, for illustration, another supposition. 
 Suppose that the price paid for the potter's field 
 had been twenty instead o thirty pieces of silver, 
 and that accordingly the passage had stood 
 somewhat as follows : 
 
 Then was fulfilled that which was spoken through Jeremiah the 
 prophet, saying, And they took the twenty pieces of silver (the 
 price of him whose brethren sold him into Egypt) ; and they gave 
 them for the potter's field, as the Lord appointed me. 
 
 Or suppose that the price paid for the betrayal of 
 Jesus, and thereafter for the potter's field, had been 
 as high as four hundred shekels of silver, and that 
 the passage had accordingly been as follows : 
 
 Then was fulfilled that which was spoken through Jeremiah the 
 prophet, saying, And they took the four hundred shekels of silver 
 (the price paid to Ephron the Hittite for the field of Machpelah 
 as a burial-place, by him who was a stranger and sojourner among
 
 Four hundred shekels of Silver. 495 
 
 the children of Heth) ; and they gave them for the potter's field, 
 as the Lord appointed me. 
 
 Who would have thought of asserting, in such 
 circumstances, that the evangelist had inaccurately 
 quoted, as having been spoken by Jeremiah, a 
 passage found, not in his prophecies, but in the 
 Book of Genesis ? Who would have imagined, in 
 direct contravention of the simplest rules of syntax, 
 that the me whom the Lord had appointed to buy 
 a field was grammatically the same individual who 
 had been sold to the Ishmaelites, or the same who 
 had bought the field of Machpelah for a burial-place? 
 It would have been apparent at a glance that the 
 parenthetical clause could not possibly have been 
 intended to be understood as part of that which 
 was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet. 
 
 Now if the passage, as it actually stands in the 
 Gospel of Matthew, be scrutinised and interpreted 
 according to the ordinary rules of syntax, irrespec- 
 tive of any preconceived impression that the 
 quotation is taken from Zechariah n. 13, the 
 conclusion must be similarly clear and inevitable, 
 that the him who was priced or valued, and the me 
 whom the Lord appointed to buy a field, cannot 
 have been one and the same man, and that 
 accordingly the parenthetical clause and the 
 words following it, ' and gave them for the potter's 
 field, as the Lord appointed me,' cannot conjointly 
 have been quoted from Zechariah n. 13, where 
 the person who was priced or valued was the same 
 person who was appointed to give the silver to the 
 fashioner.
 
 496 Subordinate Coincidences. 
 
 If, however, the clause as it stands in Matthew 
 27. 9 be looked at in the same way as a paren- 
 thetical clause referring to the case of an injured 
 Hebrew servant, or to the price put upon Joseph, 
 or to the purchase of the field of Machpelah, would 
 have been looked at, and be viewed accordingly 
 as a mere incidental reference to something else, 
 which appropriately illustrates a subordinate 
 detail of the narrative recorded in Matthew 27, 
 the true state of matters will become perfectly 
 apparent. It will be seen that the clause- is no 
 part of the quotation, but is embedded in it in 
 such a way as not to be included in TO faOev &ia 
 'lepepiov TOV -Trpotyijrov. And whatever be the 
 book which contains the subject of the reference, 
 the thorough accuracy of the manner in which the 
 words fulfilled in the buying of the potter's field 
 are ascribed to Jeremiah the prophet will thus 
 remain unimpeachable. 
 
 Now if the suggestion that in the number thirty 
 there is an insulting allusion to the D^pt? D^t? f)D2 
 allowed for injury done by an ox to a Hebrew 
 servant is a mere conjecture, unsupported by even 
 a tittle of evidence, and if accordingly some other 
 mention of thirty pieces of silver be searched for 
 in elucidation of the parenthetical clause in 
 Matthew 27. 9, the similarly parenthetical clause 
 in Zechariah n. 13 stands out in plain and bold 
 relief, as being the obvious theme of the reference 
 in Matthew 27. 9, yet forming no part of the 
 quotation. And if these two clauses be looked 
 at as (what they really are) simple parenthetical
 
 Two Parenthetical Clauses. 497 
 
 remarks, the difficulties which are said to beset 
 the interpretation and vindication of Matthew 
 27. 9-10 as containing a quotation from the Book 
 of Jeremiah at once disappear. On the one hand 
 that which purports to have been spoken through 
 Jeremiah the prophet, turns out to be quoted 
 from Jeremiah 32. 25, 44, not loosely, but with 
 thorough accuracy. On the other hand likewise 
 the parenthetical clause in Matthew 27. 9 coin- 
 cides exactly with Zechariah n. 13, to which it 
 unmistakably refers. And as the scope of the 
 context requires the first person in Zechariah's 
 prophecy to be changed into the third person 
 in the Gospel, so the him of Matthew 27. 9 
 corresponds to the / of Zechariah n. 13; simi- 
 larly as in Acts 2. 27, 31, my is changed into his, 
 and the second person of the active into the third 
 person of the passive : 
 
 27. Thou wilt not leave my soul. | His soul was not left. 31. 
 
 MATTHEW 27. 9. 
 
 TT)V TlfJiT)V TOV 
 
 a.irb vi&v ' 
 
 the price of him who was priced, 
 whom they of the children of 
 
 ZECHARIAH n. 13. 
 
 -IpTI TTK 
 
 the amount of the price at 
 which I was priced by them. 
 
 Israel did price. 
 
 Between these two parenthetical clauses, viewed 
 in their actual relation to each other the one 
 being, not quoted, but simply referred to in the 
 other there is the most thorough agreement. 
 The price 1 , \he pricing*, \hepricers*, and the person 
 priced*, in Zechariah n. 13, are clearly and ex- 
 pressly specified by the evangelist in Matthew 
 2 I
 
 49 8 The Price and the Pricing. 
 
 27. 9, without even the most distant approach to 
 that confusion of persons and circumstances which 
 is the immediate and inevitable result of assuming 
 that, as the parenthetical clause in Matthew 27. 9 
 is taken from the Book of Zechariah, the quotation 
 which immediately precedes and follows the 
 parenthetical clause must likewise have been 
 taken, not only from the same book, but actually 
 from the same sentence in the same book : 
 
 the price, . . . 
 the pricing, . . 
 the pricers, . . 
 the person priced, 
 
 d7r6 viuv 'l 
 
 TO 
 
 -]pin 
 
 Trip" 1 
 
 The phrase CLTTO viwv 'laparjK, as nominative to 
 , deserves particular notice. 
 
 There does not appear to be any reason for preferring to the 
 words ' whom they of the children of Israel did value,' the marginal 
 reading in the authorised English' Version of Matthew 27. 9, 
 ' whom they bought of the children of Israel.' 
 
 'The marginal note of Auth. " whom they bought of the children of Israel" 
 is [says Mr. Scrivener] the rendering of all Eng. before Auth. It is perhaps 
 derived from an over-literal interpretation of Vulg., "quern appretiaverunt a 
 filiis Israel." But without stopping to enquire whether rifi^v can properly be 
 used in the two different senses of " value " and " buy" in the same verse, or 
 whether that verb ever signifies " to buy," any farther than such a notion is 
 included in the act of valuing ; it is a fatal objection to this mode of rendering, 
 that it is neither suitable to the sense of the passage, nor to the language of 
 Zechariah (chapter xi. 13). ... I acquiesce then in the version of Auth. 
 " whom they of the children of Israel did value : " the only difficulty of which 
 arises not from eTijujcrairo, but from the construction of airb vHav 'IcrparjA. as 
 a species of nominative before it ; for which compare chapter xxiii. 34 e avriav 
 airoKTevelre.' 
 
 This kind of Hellenistic nominative is in strict accordance with 
 the Hebrew idiom in such passages as Psalm 72. 16 ' they of the 
 city shall flourish, ' "VyE IV'TP represented in the Septuagint by 
 e%a.vQ-})(rovffiv tic TroXews. Now such a nominative obviously denotes 
 a part as contradistinguished from the -whole, and is accordingly
 
 They of the Children of Israel. 499 
 
 adverse to Keil's suggestion (quoted in page 443) that the -whole 
 flock is denoted by QH vK ' n Zechariah II. 12. 
 
 It is an important fact, in connection with the 
 parenthetical clause of Matthew 27. 9, that the 
 expression bti^W ^3, sons or children of Israel, 
 though of frequent occurrence throughout by far 
 the greater part of the Old Testament, is found 
 nowhere in the Book of Zechariah, nor indeed 
 anywhere from Nahum to Malachi inclusive. This 
 circumstance proves that rrjv ri/Jirjv rov TTi/j,r)fj,vov, 
 bv erifAtja-avTO cnro vlwv 'Icrpa^X, cannot be a quo- 
 tation, but must be a mere reference, inserted 
 parenthetically in the quotation, yet forming no 
 part of it. When accordingly this parenthetical 
 clause is examined by itself, as distinct from the 
 preceding and the following context, it exhibits 
 exactly the kind of expression that the evangelist 
 might naturally employ, in referring to the faithful 
 remnant who waited on the prophet, and belonged 
 to that class of persons concerning one of whom 
 the Saviour long afterwards declared, 
 
 ' Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is DO guile.' 
 
 Now while indeed such passages as Ezekiel 2. 3 ; 
 Acts 3. 12 ; 5. 21, prove that the words f>&OB* , 
 viol 'I<rpar)\ and even 'lo-parjXirai, might be 
 applied to the people at large, without the 
 exclusively honourable reference which character- 
 ises 'Iapar)\lTr]<i in John I. 48 (47), and 'Iapar)\ in 
 Galatians 6. 16 (with which Romans 9. 6 may 
 be compared), yet it is perhaps not too much to 
 affirm that Matthew's phrase, they of the children
 
 500 The Thirty Pieces of Silver. 
 
 of Israel, is not the kind of expression likely to 
 have been applied in the Gospel narrative either 
 to the chief priests who hired Judas Iscariot, or to 
 so disreputable a class of persons as the Bampton 
 Lecturer maintains that the JXVn "3y of Zechariah 
 ii. 7, 11 were. On the contrary, the expression 
 they of the children of Israel is as appropriate 
 for designating the steadfast adherents of the 
 prophet, as it is inappropriate for designating 
 either the degenerate inhabitants of the holy 
 land in his days, or the Jewish chief priests who 
 covenanted with Judas about five hundred years 
 afterwards. Indeed it is abundantly evident 
 from the . scope and phraseology of Matthew's 
 words, that the coincidence noted by him lies, not 
 between the ap^iepd^ and the |SVn "jy, but between 
 the rpiaKovra apyvpia and the fJD3 D^fc? the 
 spa D^t? being the price put upon the prophet 
 Zechariah, and the rpiaKoma apyvpia the price 
 put upon Him -to whom all the prophets bear 
 witness. The relation between the parenthetical 
 clause in Matthew 27. 9 and the similarly paren- 
 thetical clause in Zechariah 1 1. 13 is thus analogous 
 to the relation between Isaiah 8. 18 and Hebrews 
 2. 13, where the words of the prophet Isaiah, 
 ' Behold I and the children whom Jehovah hath 
 given to me,' are applied to Jesus. The prophets 
 Isaiah and Zechariah were naiD HJ>JN, men of sign, 
 like the companions of Joshua the high priest, as 
 mentioned in Zechariah 3. 8. And thus it is that 
 what the prophet Zechariah narrates concerning 
 himself in n. 13 is referred to in connection with
 
 An impossible construction. 501 
 
 the price given for the betrayal of Jesus. But the 
 Gospel narrative indicates no coincidence whatever 
 between the a/rj^epei? and the IKVn "jy. And the 
 impossibility of any such coincidence is proved 
 by the fact already noticed in page 479, that the 
 they who gave the rpiaKovra dpyvpta for the field, 
 namely the chief priests, are clearly contradis- 
 tinguished from the they of the children of Israel. 
 It would be forcing on the words of the evangelist 
 a meaning and construction which they do not 
 and cannot bear, to maintain that the one they is 
 identical with the other. Yet this impossible 
 construction is involved in the theory which treats 
 the whole passage from Kal eXaftov to fioi, Kvpio? 
 as a quotation of Zechariah n. 13. 
 
 The attempts, in accordance with this theory, 
 to explain the presence of 'lepepiov in Matthew 
 27. 9 are hopelessly lame and inadequate. In 
 Smiths Dictionary, for instance, an elaborate and 
 valuable article on Zechariah concludes thus 
 
 ' It has been conjectured . . . that some early annotator wrote 
 'lepf/jilov on the margin, whence it crept into the text. The choice 
 lies between this, and a slip of memory on the part of the Evangelist 
 if we admit the integrity of our present Book of Zechariah, unless, 
 indeed, we suppose, with Eichhorn, who follows Jerome, that an 
 Apocryphal Book of Jeremiah is quoted.' 
 
 Similarly poor and halting is the suggestion in 
 Keil's Introduction to tJie Old Testament, that 
 
 ' the quotation in Matthew xxvii. 9, where Jeremiah is named 
 instead of Zechariah, is to be explained from this circumstance, 
 that the prophecy in question, which is Zechariah's, points back to 
 Jeremiah xviii. and xix. as the fundamental passage.'
 
 5O2 Where the Mistake lies. 
 
 Yet, like the eleventh chapter of Zechariah, these 
 two chapters in the Book of Jeremiah contain no 
 reference to either field or purchase a fact which 
 proves that Keil's suggestion is untenable. 
 
 In his Commentary on the Minor Prophets also, 
 Keil, after having stated that the quotation 'is taken 
 simply and solely from Zechariah,' concludes that 
 
 ' if it is impossible to show any connection between our pro- 
 phecy and the prophecies of Jeremiah, there is no other course left 
 than to follow the example of Luther, namely, either to attribute 
 the introduction of Jeremiah's name in Matthew xxvii. 9 in the 
 place of that of Zechariah to a failure of memory, or to regard it 
 as a very old copyist's error, of a more ancient date than any of 
 the critical helps that have come down to us.' 
 
 When on the other hand, however, the quota- 
 tion in Matthew 27. 9-10 is accepted as what the 
 evangelist declares it to be, TO pyOev Sia 'lepeyiuou 
 TOV 7rpo(f>iJTov, and when the parenthetical clause 
 in the midst of it is recognised as an incidental 
 reference to the parenthetical clause in Zechariah 
 ii. 13, Matthew 27. 9-10 will be found to contain 
 no such 'hard knot' as Pool imagines. The per- 
 plexity caused by 'lepe/jilov to so eminent a critic 
 as Mr. Scrivener will vanish away. And it will 
 be seen that 'the mistake' lies, not in the written 
 words of the evangelist, as was taken for granted 
 by Alford, but in maintaining with him that 'the 
 citation is not from Jeremiah,' or with the Speaker's 
 Commentary, that, for some ' uncertain ' reason, 
 ' the name of Jeremiah [has] been substituted for 
 that of Zechariah,' or with Keil, that what 
 ' Matthew quotes is taken simply and solely from 
 the prophet Zechariah,' and that 'Jeremiah is
 
 Jeremiah, Zechariah, and Matthew. 503 
 
 named instead of Zechariah.' (Pages 422-4, 475, 
 501.) ' The foolishness of God is wiser than men ; 
 and the weakness of God is stronger than men.' 
 
 If the quotation from Jeremiah 32. 25, 44, and 
 the parenthetical reference in the midst of it to 
 Zechariah II. 13 be duly compared with these 
 passages respectively, the precision by which the 
 words of the evangelist are characterised will be 
 apparent. And so will the nugatory character of 
 the manifold efforts to prove that the quotation 
 is taken from Zechariah n. 13, and to account, on 
 this hypothesis, for the presence of 'lepefjulov in the 
 text of Matthew 27. 9. 
 
 Then was fulfilled that which was spoken through Jeremiah the 
 prophet, saying, 
 
 And they took the thirty pieces 
 of silver, 
 
 Jeremiah and (Zechariak). 
 
 They shall buy fields for silver 
 
 (the price of him who was priced, 
 whom they of the children of 
 Israel did price); 
 
 (the amount of the price that 
 I was priced at of them) 
 
 and they gave them for the 
 potter's field, 
 
 And fields shall be bought in 
 this land. 
 
 as the Lord appointed me. 
 
 Thou O Lord Jehovah hast said 
 unto me, Buy to thyself the 
 field for silver. 
 
 It may be observed that the evangelist, in 
 quoting from the Book of Jeremiah, adheres 
 closely to the original, the changes introduced in 
 the process of mutation being few and slight. 
 The sharp distinction in number and person 
 between the they and the me of Jeremiah is strictly 
 kept up in Matthew. Kvpios indeed is in the
 
 504 The Buying of Fields. 
 
 third person in Matthew 27. 10, whereas mrp 
 is in the second person in Jeremiah 32. 25. Yet in 
 verses 6 and 8, to which the prophet refers in 
 verse 25, nirp is in the third person, precisely as 
 its correlative Kvpios is, in Matthew 27. 10 : 
 
 MAT. 27. 10. As the Lord appointed me. 
 
 JER. 32. 6-8. And Jeremiah said, The word of the LORD came 
 unto me, saying, Behold Hanameel, the son of Shallum thine 
 uncle, cometh unto thee, saying, Buy thee my field which is in 
 Anathoth ; . . . And Hanameel my uncle's son came unto me 
 unto the court of the prison, according to the word of the LORD, 
 and said unto me, Buy now my field which is in Anathoth, which 
 is in the land of Benjamin ; . . . Buy it for thyself. And I knew 
 that this was the word of the LORD. 
 
 25. Thou O Lord Jehovah hast said unto me, Buy thee the 
 field for silver. 
 
 It may be further observed that, as that part of 
 the quotation which refers to the prophet himself 
 has thus a twofold basis inverses 6-8 and 25 of the 
 original narrative, so likewise that part which refers 
 to others doing as Jeremiah had been appointed 
 to do has also more than one counterpart, in 
 verses 15, 43, and 44 of Jeremiah's prophecy. 
 
 MAT. 27. 9-10. They took the thirty pieces of silver, . . . and 
 gave them for the potter's field. 
 
 JER. 32. 15. Thus saith Jehovah of hosts, the God of Israel, 
 Houses, and fields, and vineyards shall yet be bought in this land. 
 
 43. And fleldr shall be bought in this land. 
 
 44. They shall buy fields for silver . . . in the land of Benjamin, 
 and in the suburbs of Jerusalem, and in the cities of Judah, and in 
 the cities of the mountain, and in the cities of the plain, and in the 
 cities of the south.
 
 Quoting a Prophet by name. 505 
 
 The complex character of Matthew 27. 9-10, as 
 containing not only a quotation from one prophet, 
 but also a reference to another prophet, is quite 
 in keeping with the general style of Matthew's 
 Gospel. As already noticed in page 490, there is 
 a similar instance in 21. 12-13, where a reference 
 to Jeremiah 7. 11 is annexed to a quotation from 
 Isaiah 56. 7. So likewise in Matthew 21. 5 the 
 words ' Tell ye the daughter of Zion,' are quoted 
 from Isaiah 62. 1 1 ; while the words which follow 
 are quoted from Zechariah 9. 9 
 
 Behold thy King cometh to thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, 
 and a colt the foal of an ass. 
 
 That in 27. 9 Matthew should introduce a refer- 
 ence to Zechariah, without naming him, is quite 
 in keeping with this passage (21. 5), and also with 
 26. 31, where (as also in John 19. 37) the same 
 prophet is quoted from without being named : 
 
 It is written, I will smite the shepherd ; and the sheep of the 
 flock shall be scattered abroad. 
 
 That, on the other hand, Matthew should not only 
 quote from Jeremiah, but should also name him, is 
 in keeping with Matthew 2. 1 7-1 8, where Jeremiah is 
 both named and quoted from. Jeremiah is likewise 
 named once besides in the same Gospel (16. 14), 
 but nowhere else throughout the New Testament. 
 One other point tnay yet be noticed in explana- 
 tion of the manner in which the evangelist has 
 combined a reference to Zechariah with a quotation 
 from Jeremiah. The coincidence in the number 
 of silverlings is, of course, an amply sufficient
 
 506 The Word of Jehovah. 
 
 explanation. But it may be noted also that, as 
 there is a close coincidence between the coming of 
 ~]]}W thy salvation in Isaiah 62. 11, and tJte coming 
 of "pta thy king in Zechariah 9. 9 the two 
 passages conjointly quoted in Matthew 21. 5 so 
 likewise there is a similarly close coincidence 
 between Zechariah n and Jeremiah 32, in 
 respect of the fact expressed in the words of 
 Matthew 27. 10, KaOa a-vvera^e /j,oi Kvpios, as tile 
 Lord appointed me. As Jeremiah declares con- 
 cerning the proposal that he should purchase his 
 cousin's field (32. 8), ' And I KNEW THAT THIS 
 was THE WORD OF JEHOVAH,' so in like manner 
 Zechariah declares (i I. 11) that, when the staff DJtt 
 was broken, ' The poor of the flock who observed me 
 KNEW THAT THIS was THE WORD OF JEHOVAH.' 
 There is thus (except in the necessary difference 
 of number and person in the verb JTP) a verbatim 
 coincidence between Kin mrp-iTT 13 ijm 
 in Zechariah n. 11, and Kin nw-im a jn&N 
 in Jeremiah 32. 8. 
 
 Now this coincidence, viewed in connection with 
 the coincidence between the *JD3 D'BW and the 
 Tpid/covra dpyvpia, exemplifies Matthew's thorough 
 familiarity with the Book of Jeremiah on the one 
 hand (quoted in 2. 18 also), and likewise with 
 the Book of Zechariah on the other, as quoted in 
 21. 5 and 26. 31, and shows how natural and 
 eminently characteristic of this evangelist is the 
 insertion of a reference to Zechariah in the 
 midst of what is here quoted from Jeremiah. 
 As Jeremiah was the person whom the Lord
 
 Minute Coincidences. 507 
 
 appointed to buy a field for silver, and who 
 predicted that others would make similar pur- 
 chases in the land of Judah and Benjamin, and 
 as accordingly it is to the transactions narrated in 
 the thirty-second chapter of Jeremiah that the 
 evangelist specially refers, so Jeremiah is named 
 as the author of the quoted words which were 
 fulfilled in the purchase of the potter's field with 
 the silver returned by Judas Iscariot. 
 
 Yet the facts narrated in the thirty-second of 
 Jeremiah, though coincident with the second 
 purpose to which the Tpidtcovra dpyvpia were 
 appropriated, namely the buying of a field, 
 exhibit no counterpart to the first purpose, 
 namely, the putting of a price on Jesus. Hence 
 the evangelist, in order that he might make the 
 comparison minutely complete, not only in 
 respect of the transaction which forms the main 
 theme of the narrative, but also in respect of the 
 prior transaction viewed perspectively on the 
 background, introduces a subordinate allusion to 
 a different Old Testament incident, which turns 
 out to be an exact counterpart to the prior trans- 
 action. The coincidence extends not only to the 
 number of the pieces of silver, but also to the 
 circumstance that the writer of the prophetic 
 narrative represents the S)D3 D^fc? as a price at 
 which he himself had been priced, and thus speaks 
 of them in a way which fits, with remarkable pre- 
 cision, the rpiaKovra apjvpia paid to Judas, as 
 the price for the betrayal of his Master. 
 
 Now this insertion of a reference to Zechariah in
 
 508 . No Apology needed. 
 
 a qiwtation from Jeremiah is something very 
 different from a ' mistake,' or a ' slip of memory.' 
 The obvious design of the evangelist is to point 
 out, not merely a general agreement, but also 
 minute coincidences, even in subordinate details, 
 between the Gospel narrative and the prophetic 
 Scriptures. What he writes he writes with 
 thorough precision. Hence the twofold quotation 
 from Jeremiah 32, instead of exhibiting such 
 divergence from the text of the Hebrew original 
 as is alleged, is given with substantial accuracy. 
 And at the same time, the parenthetical reference 
 to Zechariah II. 13 is similarly exact. 
 
 Accordingly it turns out that what some com- 
 mentators and critics apologise for as possibly an 
 early textual corruption, or even an error on the 
 part of the evangelist, needs no apology, but may, 
 like the silver to which it refers, be cast into the 
 crucible without any risk of deterioration. ' The 
 words of the LORD are pure words, as silver tried 
 in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.' 
 
 Antiquity of the View advocated in this Dissertation. 
 
 The ascription of the words under discussion in 
 Matthew 27. 9-10 to Jeremiah and Zechariah 
 conjointly, though not general among critics and 
 commentators, is by no means confined to recent 
 times, but dates back to the days of Augustine, 
 who, though he knew little of Greek, and still 
 less of Hebrew, and was thus, in this respect, not
 
 Augustine s Interpretation. 509 
 
 so advantageously situated as his contemporary 
 Jerome, yet gave a clearer and more consistent 
 explanation of Matthew 27. 9-10 than Jerome 
 did. 
 
 About the end of the fourth century, Augustine, 
 in his Harmony of the Gospels, says in the latter 
 part of a lengthened discussion on the theme of 
 this dissertation, 
 
 Est apud Jeremiain, quod emerit agrum a filio fratris sui, et 
 dederit ei argentum; non quidem sub hoc nomine pretii quod 
 positum est apud Zachariam, triginta argenteis; verumtamen 
 agri emptio non est apud Zachariam. Quod autem prophetiam de 
 triginta argenteis ad hoc interpretatus sit Evangelista, quod modo 
 de Domino completum est, ut hoc esset pretium ejus, manifestum 
 est. Sed ad hoc pertinere etiam illud de agro empto quod 
 Jeremias dixit, hinc potuit mystice significari, ut non hie Zacharise 
 nomen poneretur, qui dixit triginta argenteis, sed Jeremise, qui 
 dixit de agro empto ; ut lecto Evangelio atque invento nomine 
 Jeremiae, lecto autem Jeremia et non invento testimonio de triginta 
 argenteis, invento tamen agro empto, admoneatur lector utrumque 
 conferre, et inde sensum enucleare prophetise, quomodo pertineat 
 ad hoc quod in Domino impletum est. Nam illud quod subjecit 
 huic testimonio Matthseus cum ait, 'Quern appretiaverunt filii 
 Israel, et dederunt eos in agrum figuli, sicut constituit mihi 
 Dominus,' nee apud Zachariam nee apud Jeremiain reperitur. 
 Unde magis ex persona ipsius Evangelistse accipiendum est 
 eleganter et mystice insertum, quia hoc ex Domini revelatione 
 cognoverit ad hanc rem, quse de Christi pretio facta est hujusmodi 
 pertinere prophetiam. Liber quippe empti agri apud Jeremiam 
 jubetur mitti in vas fictile ; et emitur hie de pretio Domini ager 
 figuli, et hoc ad sepulturam peregrinorum, tanquam ad perman- 
 sionem quietis eorum qui in hoc saeculo peregrinantes consepeliuntur 
 Christo per Baptismum. Nam et illam emptionem agri hoc 
 significare Jeremise dixit Dominus, quia erit permansio de captivitate 
 liberatorum in ilia terra. Haec tanquam delineanda arbitratus sum, 
 cum admonerem quid in his propheticis testimoniis in unum 
 redactis et evangelicse narrationi collatis, diligentius attentiusque 
 requiratur.
 
 510 The Thirty-second of Jeremiah. 
 
 In Pool's Synopsis the views of Glassius (1623) 
 and Heinsius (1640), are thus stated 
 
 Est hie ffijyxvffis duorum locorum Propheticorum, ex quibus 
 sine dubio coaluit hoc testimonium, scilicet ex Jer. 32 et Zach. II. 
 Similia exempla alibi occurrunt. Conflatur unum testimonium 
 Matth. 21. 5, ex Esa. 62.. 11, et Zach. 9. 9, item Matth. 21. 13, 
 ex Esa. 56. 7, et Jer. 7. 11, item Act. I. 20, ex Psal. 69. 26, et 
 I09 . 8, item I Pet. 2. 7, ex Psal. 118. 22, et Esa. 8. 14. Vide 
 et Rom. 3. 10, et 9. 33. Illud insuper usitatum est, ut cum verba 
 aut testimonia duorum sunt, aut altero oniisso, alter tantum 
 nominetur, aut totum testimonium, quasi unius tantum esset, 
 significetur. . . . Causa autem cur Matthasus Jeremiamhicnominat, 
 est, quod rationem hie reddere voluit non tain pretii quo Christus 
 emptusest, (de quo loquitur Zacharias, ) quam agri eo pretio empti, 
 de quo nihil dicit Zacharias, dixit vere Jeremias, c. 32. 7. Quod 
 de pretio hie dicitur, est ex Zacharia ; quod de agro, ex Jeremia. 
 . . . Qui ager typus erat hujus agri de quo hie Matthaeus loquitur. 
 Ad analogiam autem inter typum et antitypum sufficiunt duo : 
 
 1. Quod ager Jeremise cesserit peregrinis, nee tamen emptus turn 
 videbatur domino, aut domest.icis, quam externis et peregrinis ; 
 ager apud Matth. in sepulttiram peregrinorum emptus erat. 
 
 2. Quod agri a Jeremia empti mgnumenta in vase figuli fuere 
 reposita, id quod typicum fuisse constat ex eo quod talia monumenta, 
 extra hujusmodi vasa, in scriniis et articulis diutissime serventur ; 
 ager autem Matth. ager figuli appellatur. . . . Zacharias porro 
 verba ita Jeremias verbis junxit Matthasus, ut hujus verba inserat, 
 illius interrumpat. 
 
 Dr. Edward Burton, late Canon of Christ 
 Church, and Regius Professor of Divinity in the 
 University of Oxford, says in his English Notes 
 to the New Testament in Greek (1831), 
 
 ' The Pseudo-Athanasius and Epiphanius suppose Matthew to 
 have quoted both prophets. F. Woerger contends that he meant 
 to quote Jer. xxxii. and alluded to the field which Jeremiah bought.' 
 
 Canon Farrar observes likewise, in his Life of Christ (1874), 
 that ' St. Matthew, ever alive to Old Testament analogies, con- 
 nects this circumstance [the purchase of the potter's field] with
 
 The EartJien Vessel. 511 
 
 passages (apparently) of Jeremiah (xviii. 1, 2 ; xxxii. 6-12) and 
 Zechariah (xi. 12, 13).' 
 
 On the same side is Theophylact of Bulgaria, in the eleventh 
 century. He however hazards the strange and altogether unsup- 
 ported and untenable conjecture that in Matthew 27. 9, /ca/ ought 
 to stand between 'le/Dc/it'ou and rov Trpo<f>rfrov, so as to represent 
 that which was fulfilled as having been ' spoken through Jeremiah 
 and the prophet,' Jeremiah being expressly named, and Zechariah 
 being designated the prophet. 
 
 These extracts, varying in some respects from 
 one another, concur in referring to the thirty- 
 second chapter of J.eremiah for the quotation 
 found in Matthew 27. 9-10. Yet though they all 
 contain a clew to the solution of the question at 
 issue, some of them are too brief to prove the 
 correctness of Tepe/itby, while others are warped 
 by adventitious expressions which detract from 
 the value of their testimony. What Augustine, 
 followed by Glassius, says about the earthen 
 vessel in which the records of Jeremiah's purchase 
 were deposited, is deeply valuable, as pointing out, 
 in so far as the Kepapevs is concerned, an important 
 coincidence between Matthew 27. 10 and Jeremiah 
 32. 14. But one great defect is the overlooking 
 of the distinction between a quotation and a refer- 
 ence. Through neglect of this distinction there is 
 a tendency to speak as if there were in the text of 
 the Gospel narrative a confusing (tri/y^t-crt?) of two 
 quoted passages (one from Jeremiah and one from 
 Zechariah) with each other, and a consequent 
 discrepancy between Matthew 27. 9-10 and the 
 two passages alleged to be quoted in it. Thus 
 even Augustine says that the words ' quern
 
 5 1 2 The precision of tJie Evangelist. 
 
 appretiaverunt filii Israel, et dederunt eos in 
 agrum figuli, sicut constituit mihi Dominus ' are 
 not found either in Zechariah or in Jeremiah. 
 Yet, except as regards figuli, for which (as noticed 
 in page 486) the counterpart must be sought in 
 the cnmija of Jeremiah 32. 14, the words et 
 dcdcrunt cos in agrum figuli, with the Greek 
 original of which they are a translation, correspond 
 exactly to mirn njpJI in Jeremiah 32. 43, the con- 
 versive character of the vau disappearing in the 
 application of the prediction to an accomplished 
 fact, KCU eSutcav. The words sicut constituit mihi 
 Dominus, with their Greek original, have likewise 
 their obvious counterpart in verse 25, in the words 
 rnrr -onx "ta rrvox nnsi. Since however the words 
 represented by quern appretiaverunt filii Israel form 
 part of the parenthetical clause which is not a 
 quotation but an incidental reference, what is 
 needed in them is, not that the words expressing 
 the reference be found in the passage referred to, 
 but simply this, that the fact referred to be 
 correctly described by the evangelist. Now 
 in this respect his words are unimpeachable 
 in point of accuracy ; for though (as observed 
 in page 499) the phrase tJtey of the children of 
 Israel is not found in the Book of Zechariah, 
 yet this phrase indicates with exquisite precision 
 the ]KXn "3y of Zechariah n. 7, 11. Indeed the 
 introduction of some such expression as they of tJie 
 childrett of Israel into the Gospel narrative is 
 peculiarly appropriate for defining the ttiem (Drv 
 of Zechariah n. 13.
 
 Minute Accuracy. 513 
 
 Attention to the difference between a quotation 
 and a reference would obviate such difficulties as 
 that alleged by Augustine. And as to the mixture 
 which Glassius calls or/y^uo-t?, the only word 
 having even the shadow of a resemblance to any 
 such thing is rpiaxovra, inserted in the quotation, 
 though not found in Jeremiah 32. Yet as the 
 ground of Matthew's parenthetical allusion to 
 the prophet who was priced at *|D3 D*EB> is the 
 fact that the apyvpia given for the potter's field 
 were thirty in number, so the insertion of the 
 word Tpuucovra before apyvpia in Matthew 27. 9 is 
 a necessary preliminary to the introduction of the 
 reference to Zechariah n. 13 which immediately 
 follows 
 
 ' the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him who was priced.' 
 
 It seems thus apparent that the manner in 
 which the evangelist quotes that which was spoken 
 through Jeremiah tJie prophet, and combines with 
 the quotation a parenthetic reference to the price 
 at which the prophet Zechariah had been priced, 
 is neither confused nor otherwise incorrect, but 
 is characterised, on the contrary, by minute 
 accuracy. So far from a mixture of two passages 
 from different authors, the parenthetical clause in 
 Matthew 27. 9 is as distinct from the quotation in 
 the midst of which it stands, as the corresponding 
 parenthetical clause in Zechariah n. 13 is distinct 
 from the preceding and the following context. 
 
 2 K
 
 514 The Authorship of Zechariah. 
 
 The Authorship of the Book of Zechariah, 
 
 Apart from the ascription of the quotation in 
 Matthew 27. 9-10 to Zechariah n. 13, the modern 
 theory which assigns the six last chapters in the 
 Book of Zechariah to one or two unnamed authors, 
 who are conjectured to have lived and written 
 before the Captivity, and consequently before the 
 days of the prophet Zechariah, resembles the 
 modern theory about the authorship of Ecclesi- 
 astes, in being altogether dependent on the internal 
 features of the book. The prevailing view with 
 reference to the said quotation seems to have been 
 the pioneer of the criticism which has culminated 
 in the disintegration of the book called by the name 
 of the prophet Zechariah. 
 
 In two respects this criticism presents a contrast 
 to the similar criticism on the Book of Isaiah. 
 While the 27 last chapters of Isaiah are assigned 
 to a later author than the prophet whose name the 
 book bears, the six last chapters of Zechariah 
 are assigned to one or two earlier authors. And 
 whereas the modern theory about Isaiah 40-66 
 directly contradicts the witness of the New 
 Testament, which expressly acknowledges Isaiah 
 as the author of these twenty-seven chapters, 
 it was, on the other hand, from regard for the 
 witness of the New Testament, understood to 
 acknowledge Jeremiah as the author of a passage 
 contained in the third of the six last chapters in 
 the Book of Zechariah, that Zechariah's authorship 
 of them was first denied.
 
 Mede on Jeremy and Zachary. 5 1 5 
 
 ' It may seem,' says Joseph Mede, in the earlier half of the 
 seventeenth century, ' the Evangelist would inform us that those 
 latter chapters ascribed to Zachary are indeed the prophecies of 
 Jeremy, and that the Jews had not rightly attributed them. Cer- 
 tainly, if a man weighs the contents of some of them, they should 
 in all likelihood be of an elder date than the time of Zachary ; 
 namely, before the Captivity; for the subjects of some of them 
 were scarce in being after that time. And the chapter out of 
 which St. Matthew quotes (chapter xi. ) may seem to have some- 
 what much unsuitable with Zachary's time ; as a prophecy of the 
 destruction of the Temple, then when he was to encourage them to 
 build it. And how doth the sixth verse of that chapter suit with 
 his time ? There is no scripture saith they are Zachary's ; but there 
 is a scripture saith they are Jeremy's, as this of the evangelist. As 
 for their being joined to the prophecies of Zachary, that proves no 
 more they are his, than the like adjoining of Agur's proverbs to 
 Solomon's proves they are therefore Solomon's ; or that all the 
 psalms are David's, because joined in one volume with David's 
 psalms. ... It is certain that Jeremy's prophecies are digested in 
 no order, but only as it seems they came to light in the scribe's 
 hands. Hence sometimes all is ended with Zedekiah ; then we 
 are brought back to Jehoiakim, then to Zedekiah again. Whereby 
 it seems they came not to light to be enrolled secundum ordinem 
 temporis, nor all together, but as it happened in so distracted a 
 time. And why might not some not be found till the return from 
 Captivity, and be approved by Zachary, and so put to his volume 
 according to the time of their finding and approbation by him, and 
 after that some other prophecies yet added of his?' 
 
 The illustrations here adduced by Mede are 
 adverse rather than favourable to his own 
 theory. While indeed Agur's proverbs are 
 appended to the proverbs of Solomon, it is with 
 a title of their own, expressly intimating Agur's 
 authorship, that they are so appended. And there 
 is no evidence of any psalm being ascribed to 
 David of which he was not the author. Even 
 Jeremiah's prophecies, though not arranged in
 
 5 1 6 Notes of Aiithorship. 
 
 chronological order, are carefully grouped together 
 as his, and besides bearing titles declaratory of 
 his authorship, are collectively authenticated with 
 the specific certification placed at the end of them, 
 : irvoT nm rumy. The many instances already 
 given in the section on the testimony of the 
 Scriptures to their own authorship (pages 332-344) 
 exhibit a still more extensive induction of facts, 
 which amply warrant the inference that if the 
 alleged pre-exilian authorship of Zechariah 9-14, 
 or the alleged post-exilian authorship of Isaiah 
 40-66, were a reality, the sacred text would contain 
 some notification of the difference of authorship. 
 
 As with Ecclesiastes, so with the Book of 
 Zechariah. While the deniers of the genuineness 
 maintain that the subject-matter is inconsistent 
 with the commonly accepted authorship, they are 
 not at one among themselves as to the date or 
 dates of composition. And while some of them 
 ascribe the six last chapters to one author, others 
 maintain that the author of chapters 12, 13, 14 
 must have been a different person from the author 
 of chapters 9, 10, II. 
 
 'This is certain,' says Bishop Kidder, 'that such things are 
 contained in these chapters [9-14] as agree well with the time of 
 Jeremiah, but by no means with that of Zechariah.' 
 
 On the other hand, Archbishop Nevvcome (with 
 whom Bleek is in substantial agreement), says 
 
 ' I conclude from internal marks in chapters ix., x., xi., that these 
 three chapters were written much earlier than the time of Jeremiah, 
 and before the captivity of the ten tribes. Israel is mentioned, 
 ix. 1, xi. 14; (but that this argument is inconclusive, see Malachi
 
 Conflicting Theories. 517 
 
 ii. 11) ; Ephraim, ch. ix. 10, 13, x. 7, and Assyria, ch. x. 10, 11. 
 They seem to suit Hosea's age and manner. But whoever wrote 
 them, their divine authority is established by the two quotations 
 from them in the New Testament, ix. 9, xi. 12, 13. The twelfth, 
 thirteenth, and fourteenth chapters form a distinct prophecy, and 
 were written after the death of Josiah, (xii. 11); but whether before 
 or after the captivity, and by what prophet, is uncertain ; though I 
 incline to think that the author lived before the destruction of 
 Jerusalem by the Babylonians. They are twice quoted in the 
 New Testament, ch. xii. 10, xiii. 7.' 
 
 'Those,' says Smith? s Dictionary, 'who impugn the later date 
 of these chapters [9-14] rest their arguments on the change in 
 style and subject after the eighth chapter, but differ much in the 
 application of their criticism. Rosenmiiller, for instance, argues 
 that chapters ix. -xiv. are so alike in style, that they must have been 
 written by one author. He alleges in proof his fondness for 
 images taken from pastoral life (ix. 16, x. 2, 3, xi. 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 
 9, 11, 15, 17, xiii. 7, 8). From the allusion to the earthquake 
 (xiv. 5, comp. Am. i. 1), he thinks the author must have lived in 
 the reign of Uzziah. Davidson in like manner declares for one 
 author, but supposes him to have been the Zechariah mentioned in 
 Isaiah viii. 2, who lived in the reign of Ahaz. Eichhorn, on the 
 other hand, whilst also assigning the whole of chapters ix.-xiv. to 
 one writer, is of opinion that they are the work of a later prophet 
 who flourished in the time of Alexander. Others again, as Bertholdt, 
 Gesenius, Knobel, Maurer, Bunsen, and Ewald, think that chapters 
 ix.-xi. (to which Ewald adds xiii. 7-9) are a distinct prophecy 
 from chapters xii.-xiv., and separated from them by a considerable 
 interval of time. . . . They all assign the section xii.-xiv. to a 
 period immediately previous to the Babylonish Captivity, and hence 
 the author must have been contemporary with the prophet Jeremiah.' 
 
 ' Although,' says Dr. Pusey, in his Introduction to Zechariah, 
 ' the more popular theoiy has of late been that these chapters are 
 to be placed before the captivity, the one portion somewhere in 
 the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, or Hezekiah ; the other, as 
 marked in the chapters themselves, after the death of Josiah, there 
 have not been wanting critics of equal repute, who place them in 
 the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. Yet criticism which reels to 
 and fro in a period of near 500 years, from the earliest of the 
 prophets to a period a century after Malachi, and this on historical
 
 5 1 8 Alleged P re-exilian Dates. 
 
 and philological grounds, certainly has come to no definite basis, 
 either as to history or philology. . . . 
 
 Philological and historical criticism, bearing on events (as it is 
 assumed) of the day, which should, in its variations, oscillate 
 between the reign of John or of Charles I, or (to bring it nearer 
 to ourselves) the first half of the xiv* century or the latter part 
 of the xviii th , would not gain much attention. Indeed, it is 
 instructive, that after the philological argument has figured so much 
 in all questions about the date of books of Holy Scripture, it is 
 virtually admitted to be absolutely worthless, except negatively. 
 For, in regard to Zechariah, the argument is not used, except in 
 proof that the same writer cannot have written prose and poetry, 
 which would establish that Hosea did not write either his three first 
 chapters or his nine last ; or Ezekiel his inaugural vision, the 
 visions of the ninth and tenth chapters, and the simple exhorta- 
 tions to repentance in his eighteenth and thirty-third. Only I 
 know not on the same evidence, how, of modern writers, Scott 
 and Southey could be supposed to have written their prose and 
 their poetry. How easy it would be to prove that the author of 
 Thalaba did not write the life of Wesley or the history of the 
 peninsular war, nor Shakespeare Macbeth and any comedy which 
 criticism may yet leave to him ; still more that he cannot have 
 written the deep tragic scenes of Hamlet and that of the grave- 
 diggers. 
 
 Yet such negations have been practically considered as the 
 domain of the philological neo-criticism. Style is to be evidence 
 that the same prophet did not write certain prophecies ; but, this 
 being demonstrated, it is to yield no evidence, whether he wrote 
 when Hebrew was a dead language, or in the time of its richest 
 beauty.' 
 
 The two main arguments from the subject- 
 matter of chapters 9 to 14 for a pre-exilian date 
 are the manner in which the prophet speaks of 
 Israel and Judah, and what he says about idolatry. 
 It is alleged that his language on these topics 
 does not suit the days of Zechariah, but must be 
 referred to an earlier period in the history of the 
 Jews. Yet as in the case of Ecclesiastes, so here,
 
 Inconclusive Arguments. 519 
 
 no actual incongruity can be substantiated. Even 
 Archbishop Newcome, who adduces the mention 
 of Israel in 9. 1 and II. 14, acknowledges that the 
 inconclusiveness of this argument is proved by 
 the similar mention of Israel in Malachi 2. 11. 
 And one has but to compare attentively the 
 wording of Zechariah 9 to 14 on such points with 
 other portions of Holy Scripture, in order that 
 one may see the untenableness of the argument. 
 
 Points of Comparison. 
 
 All the tribes of Israel: 9. 1. The same phrase occurs in Ezekiel 
 48. 19, in the midst of Judah's Captivity, and long after the over- 
 throw of the kingdom of the ten tribes. This fact proves that the 
 phrase is thoroughly consistent with the later period in which 
 Zechariah prophesied. The tribes of Israel are mentioned like- 
 wise in Ezekiel 37. 19 ; 45. 8 ; 47. 13, 21, 22 ; 48. 29, 31. 
 
 Still further the genuineness of this portion of the Book of 
 Zechariah is powerfully corroborated by the manner in which the 
 twelve tribes are spoken of in that part of the Chaldee portion of 
 Ezra where the prophesying of Haggai and Zechariah is mentioned 
 (6. 14-22). It is recorded in Ezra 6. 17 that at the dedication of the 
 house of God twelve he-goats were presented as a sin-offering ' for 
 all Israel, according to the number of the tribes of Israel.' The 
 deep and delicate coincidence between the reference to 'all the 
 tribes of Israel ' in Zechariah 9. 1, and this historic statement 
 in Ezra 6. 17, viewed along with what is said in the immediate 
 context about the prophesying of Haggai and Zechariah, carries 
 a weight peculiarly its own, in favour of the genuineness of that 
 part of the Book of Zechariah in which it is found. 
 
 Israel, jftidah, and Jerusalem : 12. 1-2. With reference to the 
 mention of Israel, Judah, and Jerusalem in 12. 1-2, it is a note- 
 worthy circumstance that the same threefold combination is found in 
 2.2(1. 19); 8. 13-15, and also in Ezra I. 3; 7. 13-15; and Malachi 
 2. 11. So likewise the titular expression ^"l^'^y ffirV~*m XC'D 
 in Zechariah 12. 1, is identical with the opening words of the Book 
 of Malachi, except that Malachi has >&$ for py.
 
 520 References to Idolatry. 
 
 ' With respect to the titles, ix. 1, and xii. 1,' says Dr. E. Hender- 
 son, ' they are precisely such as might be expected to mark the 
 strictly prophetic matter to which they are prefixed. The exactly 
 parallel title, Malachi i. 1, naturally suggests the idea, that they 
 belong to a common period, especially as nothing analogous is 
 found in any of the earlier prophets. ' 
 
 Ephraim: 9. 10, 13; io. 7. T he mention of Ephraim in Ezekiel 
 37. 16, 19 shows that the similar mention of the same representative 
 tribe in Zechariah 9. 10, 13 and io. 7 cannot indicate a pre-exilian 
 date. 
 
 Assyria : io. 10, 11. The prophecy in chapter tenth, of strength 
 to the house of Judah, and deliverance to the house of Joseph, and 
 restoration from the land of Egypt and from Assyria, is in thorough 
 harmony with the similar predictions in chapters I and 2, and suits 
 exactly the circumstances of a prophet like Zechariah, who lived 
 and prophesied at the end of the Captivity. Even the manner in 
 which Assyria is mentioned, so far from seeming to favour a pre- 
 exilian date, points in the opposite direction. For, as the 
 Bampton Lecturer has well observed, ' it must be borne in 
 mind that in post-exilian times the king of Babylon was sometimes 
 styled " the king of Assyria " (Ezra vi. 22 ; 2 Kings xxiii. 29 ; 
 Judith i. 7, ii. 1 ; comp. Herod, i. 178, 188), inasmuch as his 
 authority extended over Assyria.' 
 
 The house of David: 12. 7, 8, 10, 12." But for the phrase house 
 of David having, by some deniers of the genuineness of Zechariah 
 9 to 14, been adduced as a mark of a pre-exilian date, there could 
 scarcely be any occasion for noticing here the circumstance that 
 this phrase no more implies that the sovereignty was still vested in 
 David's family, than the corresponding phrase house of Satil 
 implies that a member of Saul's family was the reigning monarch 
 at the time referred to in 2 Samuel 9. 1-3 ; 19. 18 (17). 
 
 Idolatry. Such references to idolatry as those found in io. 2 and 
 13. 2 are in no way inconsistent with the genuineness of Zechariah 
 9 to 14. In io. 2 the teraphim are spoken of as the past cause of 
 those calamities which culminated in the Exile. ' The passage 
 [13. 2] can hardly have been written by the author of the first eight 
 chapters,' says Canon Drake, in the Speaker's Commentary. Yet 
 the announcement that in that day the names of the idols shall be 
 cut off out of the land, and be no more remembered, is certainly not 
 less and perhaps even more suitable to a date posterior by fifty or 
 seventy years to the discontinuance of idolatry, when the practice
 
 Coincidences in Phraseology. 521 
 
 and the reminiscences of it had not quite faded away from the 
 minds of the oldest inhabitants, than to a time when idolatry was 
 rampant throughout the land. The names of the idols would 
 linger in the memory and be even mentioned privately in conver- 
 sation long after those names, in so far as idolatrous worship is 
 concerned, had ceased to be publicly uttered with the lips in the 
 manner spoken of in the sixteenth Psalm. Hence the style in 
 which idols are referred to in 13. 2 fits exactly the days of the 
 prophet Zechariah. Besides however the retrospective bearing 
 of this verse, it was of importance also prospectively, as warning 
 against a relapse into idolatrous practices. ' Idolatry certainly was 
 not [says Dr. Pusey] the prevailing national sin, after God had 
 taught the people through the captivity. It is commonly taken for 
 granted that there was none. But where is the proof? Malachi 
 would hardly have laid the stress on marrying the daughter of a 
 strange god (ii. 11), had there been no danger that the marriage 
 would lead to idolatry. Nehemiah (xiii. 26) speaks of the sin into 
 which Solomon was seduced by " outlandish women," as likely to 
 recur through the heathen marriages ; but idolatry was that sin. 
 ... In a battle in the Maccabee war, it is related "under the 
 coats of every one that was slain they found things consecrated to 
 the idols of the Jamnites, which is forbidden the Jews by their 
 law." 2 Mace. xii. 40.' 
 
 Phraseology. ' It is no doubt quite true,' says the Bampton 
 Lecturer, ' that certain phrases and peculiarities of expression 
 occur in the first eight chapters which are not found in the con- 
 cluding six chapters of the book ; such as the introductory formulas 
 "the word of Jahaveh came unto Zechariah," or "unto me," 
 (chapters i. 1, 7, iv. 8, vi. 9, vii. 1, 4, 8, viii. 1, 18), and "thus 
 saith [lX] Jahaveh of hosts " (chapters i. 4, 17, ii. 12, viii. 2, 4, 6, 
 7, 9, 14, 19, 20, 23). [Yet the synonymous phrase fi1&Q niiV DN3> 
 found in i. 3, 16 ; 3. 9, 10 ; 5. 4 ; 8. 6, 11, is found also in 13. 2, 7 ; 
 and niPI" 1 DW not only in I. 4 ; 2. 9, 10 twice, 14 ; 8. 17, but 
 also in 10. 12; II. 6 ; 12. 1, 4 ; 13. 8. So likewise the phrase 
 Tlta nin 1 " ION in ii. 4 may be compared with niiT 1 "DDK in 
 i. 16 ; 8. 3.] ... But it is sufficient to reply that prefatory 
 formulas with a precise mention of time and date were necessary 
 in introducing a special vision like that of Zechariah, and also 
 in the case of exhortations addressed to the people in reply to a 
 direct inquiry made as to certain points. . . . Introductory formulas 
 are made use of by Hosea in the first five chapters of his book, such 
 as " the word of Jahaveh," "saith Jahaveh," " then said Jahaveh,"
 
 522 Specimens of Verbal Coincidence. 
 
 " Hear ye the word of Jahaveh," " Hear ye this, O priests," etc., 
 which are completely wanting in the last nine chapters ; and yet no 
 doubt is entertained of the integrity of that book.' 
 
 The Apocalypse also is a book whose unity of authorship is 
 conspicuous from beginning to end ; and yet the divergence of 
 chapters 4 to 22 from the three first chapters is vastly greater than 
 any divergence which can be pointed out between the eight first 
 and the six last chapters of Zechariah. An attentive comparison of 
 the three sections must disclose various coincidences in words, and 
 style, and phraseology all pointing in the direction of one author, 
 and, in the absence of any testimony to the contrary, establishing 
 conclusively the integrity of the Book of Zechariah. 
 
 Sundry specimens of Verbal Coincidence. 
 
 
 
 l-Vlll. 
 
 IX, X, XI. 
 
 Xll, XI 11, XIV. 
 
 I 
 
 The word of 
 
 mrr nan 
 
 i. 1, 7; 
 
 
 
 
 Jehovah 
 
 
 4. 6,8; 6 9; 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 7- 1, 4, 8; 
 
 9- i; 
 
 
 
 
 
 8. 1, 18 
 
 II. 11 
 
 12. 1. 
 
 2 
 
 Ride 
 
 33-1 
 
 i. 8 
 
 9.9; io.5 
 
 12. 4. 
 
 3 
 
 To go forth 
 
 NV 
 
 2. 7 (3) ; 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 5- 3, 5, 6, 9 ; 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 6.1,5,6,7,8; 
 
 9. 14; 
 
 
 
 
 
 8. 10 
 
 10. 4 
 
 14. 2, 3, 8. 
 
 4 
 
 Round about 
 
 3"'3D 
 
 2.9(5) , 
 
 
 12. 2, 6; 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 14. 14. 
 
 5 
 
 Flee 
 
 DU 
 
 2.10(6) (KM) 
 
 
 I4.5(DDD:)- 
 
 6 
 
 Ho 
 
 *1fl 
 
 2.10,11(6,7) 
 
 ii. 17. 
 
 
 7 
 
 In that day 
 
 Kinn Din 
 
 2.15(11); 
 
 9.16; 
 
 12.3,4,6,8, 
 
 
 
 
 3-10; 6.10 
 
 II. 11 
 
 9, 11; 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 13- 1> 2, 4; 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 14. 4, 6, 8, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 9,13,20,21. 
 
 8 
 
 Awake 
 
 "ny 
 
 2.17(13); 4 .1 
 
 9. 13 
 
 13- 7. 
 
 9 
 
 A man (and) 
 
 injnB> i| K 
 
 3-10; 
 
 
 
 
 his neighbour 
 
 
 8. 10, 16, 17 
 
 ii. 6 
 
 14. 13. 
 
 10 
 
 Grace 
 
 in 
 
 4-7 
 
 
 12. 10. 
 
 ii 
 
 Captivity 
 
 H7U 
 
 6. 10 
 
 
 14. 2. 
 
 12 
 
 All the nations 
 
 Qi-un-^3 
 
 7- 14 
 
 
 12.9; 14.2, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 14, 16, 19. 
 
 *3 
 
 The city 
 
 nyn 
 
 8. 5 
 
 
 14. 2 thrice. 
 
 14 
 
 The house of 
 
 mirr rva 
 
 8. 13, 15, 19 
 
 10. 3, 6 
 
 12. 4. 
 
 
 Judah 
 
 
 
 
 
 15 
 
 Take hold 
 
 ipnnni 
 
 8. 23 
 
 
 14. 13.
 
 CJiaracteristic Style. 523 
 
 These coincidences (some possessing more and some less eviden- 
 tial value) are tabulated for what they are worth. Such expressions, 
 for instance, as tfinn DVH ar >d D^JH ?3 are so common throughout 
 the Scriptures that identity of authorship could scarcely be proved 
 from them. Hence they are adduced, simply to illustrate, in the 
 absence of anything like proof to the contrary, the consistency of 
 the ascription of the several parts of the Book of Zechariah to one 
 author. 
 
 There is no lack of such coincidences as are 
 highly valuable in proving the integrity of the 
 Book of Zechariah. Thus, for instance, the 
 following passages, in which inanimate objects 
 are addressed, resemble one another in the style 
 of personification by which they are characterised. 
 
 2. 11 (7) 
 17 (13) 
 
 4-7 
 
 9. 13 
 
 ii. 1 
 
 13-7 
 
 Ho Zion deliver thyself ! 
 
 Be silent all flesh before Jehovah ! 
 
 Who art thou ? O great mountain ! 
 
 When ... I have raised up thy sons (0) Zion against 
 
 thy sons ( 0) Javan, and set thee as the sword of a 
 
 mighty man. 
 Open ( 0) Lebanon, thy doors ! that fire may devour thy 
 
 cedars. 
 
 Howl (O) fir tree ! for the cedar is fallen, . . . : 
 Howl (O ye) oaks of Bashan ! for the forest of the 
 
 vintage is come down. 
 
 Awake ( 0) sword, against my shepherd ! 
 
 In respect of phraseology also, there are 
 numerous important coincidences. 
 
 Thus the phrase 3J^O1 12yO, 'from him that passeth over and 
 from him that returneth, ' is peculiar to Zechariah 7. 14 and 9. 8. 
 In only two other passages of the Hebrew Scriptures are the same 
 verbs conjoined, namely Exodus 32. 27, ITl^ 1"13y and Ezekiel 
 35- 7, atJ>1 "ay. A similar phrase (fcoh NV^) is found in 
 Zechariah 8. 10.
 
 524 Sundry important Coincidences. 
 
 There is likewise a close resemblance between the Lord's use of 
 the first person preterite Hiphil of ^y (VTOyn) in 3. 4, and his 
 use of the corresponding imperfect ("V3J?Jt) in 13. 2. 
 
 3. 4. See I have caused thine iniquity to pass away from thee. 
 13. 2. And also the prophets and the unclean spirit I will cause to pass 
 away from the land. 
 
 Only twice besides is the Hiphil of the verb "Qy found in the 
 first person of the preterite (Jer. 15. 14 ; Ezek. 20. 37, Wliyni)> 
 and twice in the first person of the imperfect (Exodus 33. 19 ; 
 Ezekiel 14. 15 
 
 In the Prophets from Isaiah to Malachi, the Hithpael of *pn 
 occurs only ten times, of which six are in the Book of Zechariah. 
 The four other passages are Isaiah 38. 3 ; Ezekiel i. 13 ; 19. 6 ; 
 28. 14. Those in Zechariah are 
 
 i. 10. These whom Jehovah hath sent to walk to and fro in the earth 
 
 : pso ^rmnfr 
 
 11. And they said, We have walked to and fro in the earth. 
 6. 7. And the bay [horses] went forth, and sought to go, piO "l/TID!"!? 
 
 to walk to and fro in the earth. 
 
 And he said, Go walk to and fro in the earth. And they walked 
 tO and fro in the earth. 
 
 10. 12. And I will strengthen them in Jehoyah ; ^3?nrP "lOtJOl an d ' n 
 
 his name they shall walk to and fro, saith Jehovah. 
 
 The rare noun "|in> beauty or splendour, occurs only once in 
 Isaiah (30. 30), once in Jeremiah (22. 18), and twice in the minor 
 prophets other than Zechariah (Hos. 14. 7 (6), Hab. 3. 3). Yet it 
 occurs twice in the Book of Zechariah, namely, once in the first 
 section (6. 13), and once in the second (10. 3). 
 
 The noun 13{J>, hire or reward, is so infrequent as to be found only 
 thrice in Isaiah (19. 10 ; 40. 10; 62. 11), once in Jeremiah (31. 16), 
 twice in Ezekiel (29. 18, 19), and six times in the Minor Prophets, 
 namely in Jonah 1 . 3 and Malachi 3. 5, and four times in the 
 Book of Zechariah, twice in chapter eighth, and twice in chapter 
 eleventh. Its use in these two chapters is not without value in 
 connection with the question of authorship. 
 
 8. 10. For before those days there was no hire for man, nor any hire for 
 beast. 
 
 11. 12. And I said unto them, If good in your eyes, give me my hire ; and 
 if not, forbear. And they weighed for my hire thirty of silver.
 
 Marks of a Common Authorship. 525 
 
 The following coincidences also are specially 
 valuable in vindicating the integrity of the Book 
 of Zechariah : 
 
 2. 9 (5). And I, saith Jehovah, will be to her a wall of FIRE 
 round about, and will be the glory in the midst of her. 
 
 12. 6. In that day I will set the governors of Judah like a 
 hearth of FIEE among wood, and like a torch of FIRE in a sheaf. 
 
 2. 13 (9). For behold I wave my hand upon them. 
 13. 7. And I will turn my hand upon the little ones 
 
 7. 13. As he called and they did not hear, so they shall call and 
 I will not hear, saith Jehovah of hosts. 
 
 13. 9. He (or They) shall call on my name, and I will answer . . . 
 
 The verbs Nil to come and W* to save are used 
 throughout the Book of Zechariah in a way which 
 points very clearly in the direction of identity of 
 authorship. 
 
 6. 15. And they that are far off shall come (ifcO 11 ). an< i build in 
 the temple of Jehovah. 
 
 8. 22. 1^21 And many peoples and strong nations shall come 
 to seek Jehovah of hosts in Jerusalem. 
 
 14. 21. 1X^1 And all they that sacrifice shall come and take of 
 them. 
 
 2. 14 (10). Sing and be glad, O daughter of Zion ! for behold I 
 come, and will dwell in the midst of thee, saith Jehovah. 
 
 9. 9. Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion ! Shout, O daughter 
 of Jerusalem ! Behold thy king cometh to thee ! He is just, and 
 having salvation (xtJ*13l). 
 
 14. 5. And Jehovah my God shall come. 
 
 8. 7. Thus saith Jehovah of hosts, Behold I save (jptj^o) my 
 people from the land of the rising and from the land of the setting 
 of the sun. 
 
 13. So I will save you (y^l&O ; and ye shall be a blessing.
 
 526 A Conceivable Rejoinder. 
 
 9. 16. QJWirTl And Jehovah their God shall save them in that 
 day, as the flock of his people. 
 
 10. 6. And I will strengthen the house of Judah ; and the house 
 of Joseph I will save (JTJ^&O- 
 
 12. 7. JK^ni And Jehovah will save the tents of Judah first. 
 
 In every one of these five passages the Lord is 
 the subject of the salvation, and the seed of Jacob, 
 under various designations, are the objects of it. 
 So likewise the coincidence between 2. 14 and 9. 9 
 extends beyond the single word N12 to the phrase 
 frxvo, daughter of Zion, and to the interjection 
 run, lo or behold. Indeed the general resemblance 
 between these two passages is so close in respect 
 of scope and style as to confirm conclusively the 
 sameness of the authorship. 
 
 Similarly close and extensive are the coincidences 
 between 2. 15 ; 8. 8 ; 13. 9 : 
 
 2. 15 (11). And many nations shall be joined unto Jehovah in 
 that day, and they shall be TO ME FOR A PEOPLE ; and I will 
 dwell in the midst of thee ; and thou shalt know that Jehovah of 
 hosts hath sent me unto thee. 
 
 8- 8. TISSiTl And I will bring them, and they shall dwell in 
 the midst of Jerusalem ; and they shall be TO ME FOR A PEOPLE ; 
 and I will be TO THEM FOR A GOD, in truth and in righteousness. 
 
 r 3- 9- TlSOni And I will bring the third part through the 
 fire, and will try them as silver is tried, and will prove them as 
 gold is proved : they shall call on my name ; and I will answer 
 them : I will say, This is MY PEOPLE ; and they shall say, Jehovah 
 is MY GOD. 
 
 It is conceivable that in depreciating the force of such coinci- 
 dences as these, a denier of the genuineness of chapters 9-14 might 
 point to similar coincidences between the Book of Zechariah and 
 other Hebrew Scriptures, and might assert that as these cannot 
 prove identity of authorship, so neither can the coincidences be- 
 tween the eight first and the six last chapters of Zechariah do so. 
 Yet it is worthy of particular attention that, in so far as this point
 
 References to other Scriptures. 527 
 
 is concerned, groups of verbal or phraseological coincidences be- 
 tween one book and several other books by different authors are 
 essentially different from a series of coincidences between two or 
 more parts of one book, which claim a common authorship. Thus, 
 for instance, if one coincidence were to be pointed out between 
 Zechariah and Isaiah, another between Zechariah and Jeremiah, 
 and a third between Zechariah and Ezekiel, such coincidences 
 could in no way detract from the cumulative force of three or more 
 coincidences between Zechariah I to 8, and 9 to 14. 
 
 Indeed one of the principal arguments adduced in proof of the 
 integrity of the Book of Zechariah is the extent to which other 
 Scriptures are quoted or referred to in the six last as well as in the 
 eight first chapters of Zechariah : thus 
 
 !ZECH. 3. 8. Behold I bring forth my servant the Branch. 
 6. 12. Behold the man whose name is Branch. 
 JER. 23. 5. I will raise to David a righteous Branch. 
 ( ZECH. 10. 3. Against the shepherds mine anger was kindled ; 
 1 and I punished the he-goats, 
 y EZEK. 34. 17. Behold I judge between cattle and cattle, 
 
 between the rams and the he-goats. 
 
 ( ZECH. 13. 9. I have said, This is my people ; and they shall say, 
 1 Jehovah is my God. 
 
 y HOSEA 2. 25 (23). And I will say to them that were not my 
 people, Thou art my people ; and they shall say, My God. 
 
 In like manner Zechariah 
 
 may be compared with 
 
 Sent by / 2. 13,15(9, 11); 
 
 
 Jehovah (4. 9; 6. 15 
 
 Is. 48. 16 ; Jer. 26. 12, 15. 
 
 Vine and fig tree 3. 10 
 
 I Ki. 5.5(4.25); Micah 4. 4. 
 
 Priest and king 6. 13 
 
 Psalm 1 10. 4. 
 
 The former prophets 7. 12 
 
 Jer. 7. 25 ; 25. 4 ; 35. 15. 
 
 Universal dominion 9. 10 
 
 Psalm 72. 8. 
 
 The latter rain IO. 1 
 
 Joel 2. 23. 
 
 The nail or pi n 4 
 
 Is. 22. 23, 25 ; Ezra 9. 8. 
 
 Mire of the streets 5 
 
 Micah 7. 10. 
 
 The word of Jehovah n. 11 
 
 Jeremiah 32. 8. 
 
 Unfaithful shepherds 16 
 
 Ezekiel 34. 3-4. 
 
 The heavens and the 
 
 
 earth 12. 1 
 
 Isaiah 51. 13. 
 
 The names of the idols 13. 2 
 
 Hosea 2. 19 (17). 
 
 The Third part 8-9 
 
 Ezekiel 5. 12. 
 
 Living waters 14. 8 
 
 Ezekiel 47. 1-12.
 
 528 The Former Prophets. 
 
 ' One of the most important arguments in favour of the unity of 
 authorship,' says the Bampton Lecturer, 'is that in both parts 
 there are numerous quotations from, or allusions to, earlier pro- 
 phets, and that the second portion contains several distinct refer- 
 ences to the later prophets. . . . The expression "the pride of 
 Jordan" (chap. xi. 3) is plainly taken from Jeremiah, who is fond of 
 using that phrase (Jer. xii. 5, xlix. 19, 1. 44). . . . Zech. xiv. 10 is 
 closely connected with Jer. xxxi. 38, 40, where not only the " tower 
 of Hananeel" and "the gate of the corner" are spoken of, but where 
 the same idea also pervades the passage. ... It will be observed 
 that the latter part of Zechariah has more references to the former 
 prophets than the earlier portion. It is in vain to assert with 
 Bleek and Davidson that Zechariah is the original, and that the 
 other prophets quoted from him. The evidence to the contrary 
 was so conclusive to de Wette's mind that, though in the earlier 
 editions of his Einleitung he had adopted views opposed to the 
 traditional theory, he felt himself compelled to change his mind 
 and to admit that the evidence for the post-exilian authorship was 
 overwhelming. As to the assertion that Zechariah may have been 
 the original, Perowne has well remarked [in SmitKs Dictionary], 
 " It must be confessed that it is more probable that one writer 
 should have allusions to many others than that many others should 
 borrow from one, and this probability approaches certainty in pro- 
 portion as we multiply the number of quotations or allusions." ' 
 
 While the whole of the cumulative evidence for 
 the integrity of the Book of Zechariah illustrates 
 the question of authorship in connection with the 
 Book of Ecclesiastes, that part of the evidence 
 which is immediately connected with the relation 
 of Zechariah n. 13 to Matthew 27. 9 falls more 
 directly within the scope of this dissertation. 
 
 As already indicated in page 5 14, the proving 
 that Jeremiah is the prophet quoted from in 
 Matthew 27. 9-10, strips of its only shred of 
 external evidence, the ascription of Zechariah 9-14 
 to one or more pre-exilian writers.
 
 The Crowns and the Fashioner. 529 
 
 Besides this negative result, the investigation of 
 Matthew 27. 9-10 discloses incidentally sundry 
 positive marks of the integrity of the Book of 
 Zechariah. For it shows such a relation between 
 chapters 6 and 1 1 in particular, and between the 
 eight first and the six last chapters in general, as 
 conclusively establishes the identity of authorship. 
 
 Note. In pages 466 to 470 of this dissertation, where the import 
 f "Wri in Zechariah II. 13 is discussed, the whole book is 
 viewed as the work of the prophet Zechariah. Hence one might 
 be accused of arguing in a circle, if a conclusion founded on this 
 view were subsequently adduced to prove that chapters 9 to 14 
 proceeded from the pen of the prophet who wrote chapters I to 8. 
 It must therefore be here particularly noted that, as the proof of 
 the meaning of lyVH m ll - 13 is completed with the thirteenth 
 line of page 465, pages 466 to 470 may be left out of account in so 
 far as they are intended to illustrate the reference of "i^lTI to a 
 silversmith, and may now be referred to, not in confirmation of 
 that reference, seeing it needs no such confirmation, but as mutatis 
 mutandis contributing to the mass of evidence for the Zecharian 
 authorship of chapters 9 to 14. Thus, for instance, gold and silver 
 are mentioned conjointly in 6. 11, and also in 13. 9, and 14. 14. 
 And if, independently of any reference to the eight first chapters, 
 *lVn in II. 13 is proved (by the facts stated in pages 455 to 465) 
 to denote, not a fashioner of day but a fashioner of silver, then 
 this fact fits exactly what is said in 6. 11, 14 about the making of 
 gold and silver crowns for a memorial in the temple of Jehovah 
 the very place where the prophet subsequently cast the silver to 
 the fashioner. 
 
 Chapters Sixth and Eleventh compared. 
 
 While the eleventh chapter records, in verses 4 
 to 14, not only certain divine commands given to 
 the prophet, but also the fact that he did what he 
 was commanded to do, namely, fed the flock, and 
 cast the silver to the fashioner, the three last verses 
 (15-17) contain simply a command and a relative 
 2 L
 
 530 Zechariah 6tk and nth compared. 
 
 address from the Lord to the prophet, without the 
 doing of the thing commanded being categorically 
 narrated. Although in verse 15 the prophet is 
 commanded to take to himself the instruments of 
 a foolish shepherd, it is left to be inferred, without 
 being actually stated, that he did so ; and the 
 section ends with the Lord's denunciation of such 
 a shepherd : ' The sword shall be upon his arm 
 and upon his right eye : his arm shall be clean 
 dried up ; and his right eye shall be utterly 
 darkened.' Now this is exactly the style of the 
 narrative in 6. 9-15. The prophet is there told to 
 take some of the returned captives, and to go into 
 the house of Josiah, and to take silver and gold, and 
 make crowns, and set them on the head of Joshua 
 the high priest, announcing to him at the same 
 time the message represented by these symbolical 
 actions. Yet as in chapter ij, so here in chapter 
 6, it is not directly declared that the prophet did 
 all this ; but the narrative ends with the relative 
 words of Jehovah, 'And the crowns shall be . . . 
 for a memorial in the temple of Jehovah ; and they 
 that are far off shall come and build in the temple 
 of Jehovah ; and ye shall know that Jehovah of 
 hosts hath sent me unto you. . . .' 
 
 How striking also is the resemblance between 
 what the prophet declares in 6. 15 with reference 
 to himself, and the similar declaration in II. 11 
 
 6. 15. And ye shall know that Jehovah of hosts hath sent me 
 unto you. 
 
 ii. 11. And so the poor of the flock who observed me, knew 
 that it was the word of Jehovah.
 
 I, Me, My. 531 
 
 The Individuality of the Prophet. 
 
 A clearly marked difference between the eight 
 first, and five of the six last chapters, is the circum- 
 stance that the individuality which prominently 
 characterises chapters I to 8 is altogether absent 
 from chapters 9, 10, 12, 13, 14 (except 14. 5, which, 
 like ii. 4, contains the phrase Jehovah my God). 
 Throughout the eight first chapters the prophet 
 frequently speaks of himself in the first person 
 using /, me, and my with a copiousness like that 
 with which they are used throughout the Book of 
 Ecclesiastes. From Win in I. 8 to ^N in 8. 18, 
 this is a distinguishing feature of all the eight 
 chapters. But (apart from 14. 5) there is no trace 
 of it in any of the six other chapters, except 
 chapter eleventh, which, in this matter, coincides, 
 not with the chapters in the midst of which it 
 stands, but with chapters I to 8. Yet from ^X, to 
 me, in 8. 18, to WS, my God, in n. 4, there is 
 nothing to indicate that the speaker in the eleventh 
 chapter is a different person from the speaker in 
 chapter eighth. On the contrary, in so far as 
 individuality is concerned, the one passage exactly 
 fits the other; so that an intelligent reader, unaware 
 of the dispute about the authorship of chapters 9 
 to 14, would at once naturally identify the speaker 
 in ii. 4 with the speaker in 8. 18 : 
 
 8. 18. And the word of Jehovah of hosts came unto me, saying 
 ii. 4. Thus saith Jehovah my God, . . . 
 
 The prophet follows up this announcement by 
 several other references to himself in the first
 
 532 The Individuality of the Prophet. 
 
 person singular, extending from the seventh to 
 the fifteenth verse : 
 
 II. 7. And I took to me (i^npN!) two staffs : the one (T)N"lp) I 
 called Beauty ; and the other (TlK~lp) I called Bands : (njnsi) 
 and I fed the flock. 
 
 Now his usage in this respect coincides exactly 
 with the usage throughout chapters I to 8. Thus, 
 for instance, ^$ and ^, found in I. 9, 14, and else- 
 where throughout the eight first chapters, appear 
 also in chapter 1 1 ^K in verses 13, 15, and *2 in the 
 eighth verse. So likewise in 1 1. 7, 13 respectively, 
 the preterites TiKip, I called, and Top 11 , 1 was priced, 
 may be compared with Win, I saw, in I. 8. And 
 if the imperfects with vau conversive be similarly 
 compared with one another, the fact that the /who 
 spoke and acted in the eleventh chapter is the 
 same / who spoke and acted in chapters I to 8 
 will be strikingly apparent. 
 
 Chapters I to 8 
 And I said, I. 9 ; 2. 2, 4, 6 (i. 19, 21 ; 2. 2) ; 3. 5 ; 4. 5, 13 ; 
 
 5- 2, 6, 10. 
 
 And I answered and said, 4. 4, 11, 12 ; 6. 4. 
 And I lifted up mine eyes and saw, 2. 1, 5 ( 1. 18 ; 2. 1). 
 And I returned and lifted up mine eyes and saw, 5. 1 ; 6. 1. 
 
 Chapter 1 1 
 
 And I took 
 And I fed 
 And I cut off 
 
 7, 10, 13. And I said 
 
 7. And I cast 
 
 8. 
 
 9, 12. 
 13. 
 
 It thus appears that 1NJ, And I said, already 
 noticed in page 235, is common to both parts, being 
 found twice in chapter 1 1, and 14 times in chapters 
 i to 6, or (counting the '"ip of 4. 2) 15 times.
 
 The Verb to Take. 533 
 
 In like manner one conclusive mark of same- 
 ness in respect of individuality and authorship, 
 is the use of the verb np^>, to take. The Book 
 of Zechariah contains seven instances of this 
 common verb. Yet all of them, except one (IHpT) 
 in 14. 21), are found in the two narratives (6. 9-15; 
 ii. 4-17) characterised, as noticed in page 467, by 
 the circumstance that they record what the prophet 
 did as well as what he said. Thrice in chapter 1 1 
 the writer mentions that he took something : 
 
 7. And I took to me two staffs. 
 10. And I took my staff Beauty. 
 13. And I took the thirty pieces of silver. 
 
 In each narrative the Lord told the prophet to 
 take something the simple imperative np being 
 used in n. 15, while the infinitive absolute mp$> is 
 used imperatively in 6. 10, and the preterite with 
 vau conversive nnpT) in 6. 11 : 
 
 6. 9-11. And the word of Jehovah came unto me, saying, Take 
 of them of the captivity, . . .: and take silver and gold ; and make 
 crowns ; and set them on the head of Joshua the high priest, son 
 of Josedech. 
 
 ii. 15. And Jehovah said unto me, Take yet to thee the 
 instruments of a foolish shepherd. 
 
 This coincidence between chapters 6 and n 
 (there being nothing to indicate a change of 
 speaker) is one of the strongest, as it is certainly 
 one of the simplest and clearest, evidences of a 
 common authorship. 
 
 The recurrence of the first person singular in 
 the eleventh chapter, as used by the prophet with
 
 534 No change of speaker. 
 
 reference to himself, is more valuable evidentially 
 than if it had been in the beginning of the ninth 
 chapter. For it is conceivable that had there 
 really been such an adding to Zechariah's pro- 
 phecies as is alleged, an individuality similar to 
 that by which they are characterised might, if 
 found somewhere in the fragments proposed 
 to be added, have been seized on as a connecting 
 link for joining the old to the new, so that the 
 one might thereby cohere with the other. But 
 when two chapters, the ninth and the tenth, 
 intervene, in which the writer nowhere alludes to 
 himself, and when, in the fourth verse of the 
 eleventh chapter, he all at once introduces the 
 phrase ' Thus saith Jehovah my God,' and follows 
 up this simple reference to himself with several 
 verbs in the first person singular, the conclusion 
 seems inevitable that the sarne prophet is speaking 
 in the eleventh chapter who spoke in chapters 
 
 I to 8 there being not so much as even the 
 remotest hint that the / and the me of chapter 
 eleventh denote a different person from the author 
 of the eight first chapters. 
 
 Such an unexplained introduction into chapter 
 
 II of a different individual speaking in the first 
 person, as that which a denial of the Zecharian 
 authorship of chapters 9 to 14 involves, is directly 
 at variance with the usage everywhere else 
 throughout the Hebrew Scriptures. The record 
 of an individual speaking in the first person, as 
 the prophet speaks in Zechariah n, is usually 
 preceded by an intimation of who the speaker is.
 
 The Naming of Zechariah. 535 
 
 And the very fact that there is no such preceding 
 intimation of who the / and the me in chapter 1 1 
 was, except the fourfold intimation in i. 1, 7 ; 
 7. 1, 8 (' the word of Jehovah came unto Zechariah'), 
 is of itself, in the absence of any evidence to the 
 contrary, amply sufficient to identify the speaker 
 in the eleventh chapter with the prophet who 
 is named in the beginning of the book. The 
 case of anonymous Psalms like the HQth is 
 scarcely parallel, seeing that there, the psalmist, 
 in using the first person singular, speaks rather as 
 the representative of devout worshippers in general, 
 than historically of himself in particular. 
 
 If the individuality of the speaker in Zechariah 
 ii. 4-15 so exactly fits the individuality which 
 pervades chapters I to 8, as to make it apparent 
 that the same person who is speaking in the 
 eight chapters speaks also in the twelve verses, then 
 the establishment of this identity must completely 
 disprove the alleged pre-exilian date or dates of 
 chapters 9 to 14. To find the prophet Zechariah 
 speaking in the eleventh chapter is to find that 
 he wrote the whole book which bears his name. 
 
 The alleged pre-exilian authorship of Zechariah 
 9 to 14 is different from the alleged post-exilian 
 authorship of Ecclesiastes, in this respect, that it 
 is not the case of one author personating another, 
 and trying so to write in imitation of him, that 
 the writing may be accepted as his. But it 
 is the case of anonymous fragmentary compo- 
 sitions, written before the birth of an author, 
 being somehow appended to his prophecy as if 
 they belonged to it. Now surely any haphazard
 
 536 Sufficiency of the proof. 
 
 coincidences between appendages of this kind, 
 and the genuine prophecy to which they had been 
 appended, would come far short of the array of 
 coincidences found to characterise the Book of 
 Zechariah in its different sections. Even if these 
 coincidences would not have been sufficient to 
 prove the Zecharian authorship of chapters 9, 10, 
 1 1, and 12, 13, 14, had these two groups of chapters 
 come down from a remote antiquity as detached 
 anonymous documents, yet they, are more than 
 enough, in the actual circumstances of the case, 
 to refute the assertion that chapters 9 to 14 
 cannot have been written by the author of chapters 
 I to 8, and thus to vindicate conclusively the 
 genuineness of the whole Book of Zechariah. 
 
 Conclusion. 
 
 Between the theme of this dissertation and the 
 theme of the treatise on the authorship of Ecclesi- 
 astes, there is this difference, that whereas the 
 denial of the Solomonic authorship of Ecclesiastes 
 implies such personation on the part of the author, 
 whoever he was, as is believed by many upholders 
 of the Solomonic authorship to compromise the 
 veracity, and consequently the moral character 
 and trustworthiness of the book, the question as 
 to whether it was from Jeremiah or from Zechariah 
 that the evangelist quoted in Matthew 27. 9-10, is 
 one, not of veracity, but of simple accuracy. The 
 utmost which is maintained by critics and commen- 
 tators who affirm that Matthew was quoting, not 
 from Jeremiah, but from Zechariah, is that the
 
 Importance of one word. 537 
 
 name of Jeremiah was somehow written unde- 
 signedly, through mistake or inadvertence, without 
 obliquity of purpose on the part of the writer. 
 Yet even this view of the case is adverse to the 
 thorough trustworthiness of the document. Hence 
 a full and careful scrutiny is warranted by the 
 magnitude of the interests at stake. The question is 
 indeed a question as to one word, and that word the 
 name of a man, Jeremiah. But on the accuracy or 
 inaccuracy of that one word, a great deal depends. 
 The assumption that the word is inaccurate has 
 been extensively employed as a stepping stone 
 or lever by means of which the impugners of the 
 accuracy of the gospel history have arrived, with 
 rapid strides, at inferences of grave moment in 
 reference to the trustworthiness or untrustworthi- 
 ness of the Scriptures in general. The subject 
 therefore deserves to be dealt with, not cursorily, 
 as if a very few sentences were sufficient for dis- 
 posing of it, but carefully and copiously, in the way 
 which Mr. Burgon proposed to himself in pro- 
 jecting his treatise on Mark 16. 9-20 : ' examining 
 the statements one by one : contesting the ground 
 inch by inch : . . . insisting on bringing the whole 
 matter to the test of severe inquiry, and making 
 every detail the subject of strict judicial investi- 
 gation.' 'I insist,' he further writes, 'that one 
 only result can attend the exact analysis of this 
 portion of the Gospel into its elements; namely, a 
 profound conviction that S. Mark is most certainly 
 its Author.' Is it too much to assert that the 
 result of a similarly searching investigation with 
 reference to the quotation in Matthew 27. 9-10
 
 538 Integrity of the Book of Zechariah. 
 
 must be the proving of the thorough accuracy of the 
 Gospel record in that much disputed passage ? 
 
 Although, as just observed, the point at issue 
 is the accuracy or inaccuracy of one word, yet a 
 careful scrutiny, involving frequent reference to 
 sundry passages throughout the Book of Zechariah, 
 as well as to many other portions of Holy Scrip- 
 ture, must be fraught with advantages reaching 
 far beyond the single point as to whether the word 
 'lepefjiiov in Matthew 27. 9 is correct or incorrect. 
 
 Not the least important topic involved in the 
 discussion is the integrity of the Book of Zechariah. 
 As the denial of that integrity originated in the 
 supposition that the quotation in Matthew 27. 9-10 
 was taken from Zechariah n. 13, so the proving 
 of the incorrectness of the supposition, by means 
 of an examination of the passage and of the book 
 containing it, is intimately associated with the 
 proving of the Zecharian authorship of chapters 
 9 to 14. Now although the prophet Zechariah is 
 nowhere named in the New Testament as the 
 author of any quotation from these six chapters, 
 and their Zecharian authorship therefore is not 
 declared in the way in which the New Testament 
 declares the Isaian authorship of Isaiah 40 to 66, 
 and the Davidic authorship of the iioth Psalm, 
 yet the establishment of the relative position of 
 these six chapters, as constituting, with the eight 
 which precede them, the work of one author, is of 
 vital importance in connection with the trust- 
 worthiness of Holy Scripture in matters of 
 authorship. The place which the six chapters 
 occupy in the sacred canon claims to them the
 
 Alleged triumph of modern criticism. 539 
 
 prophet Zechariah for their author, as unequivo- 
 cally as Isaiah is claimed for the twenty-seven 
 last chapters of the book which bears his name. 
 And while indeed, if these claims were demon- 
 strated to be false, it would be the duty of the 
 friends of truth to relinquish them ; yet if, on 
 the other hand, the modern criticism which 
 assigns Isaiah 40-66 to a post-exilian author, and 
 Zechariah 9- 14 to one or more pre-exilian authors 
 is incorrect and fallacious, its inconclusiveness 
 deserves to be pointed out, and the trustworthiness 
 of the sacred text to be vindicated. 
 
 Although, in respect of size, the disputed por- 
 tion of Zechariah is scarcely one-fifth of the 
 dimensions of the disputed portion of Isaiah, yet 
 so prominent is the position which the question 
 of the authorship of Zechariah 9 to 14 occupies, 
 that Bunsen spoke of the ascription of these six 
 chapters to two pre-exilian authors as one of the 
 triumphs of modern criticism. Hence if the 
 prophet Zechariah did write, not only the eight 
 first, but also the six last chapters of the book 
 which bears his name ; and if accordingly the 
 ascription of these six chapters to pre-exilian 
 authors is not a triumph, but a mistake, it is surely 
 desirable, in the interests of sacred truth, that the 
 character of the modern criticism in question 
 should be exposed, and the integrity of the Book 
 of Zechariah conclusively established. 
 
 The credibility of the Scriptures is in no way 
 imperilled by the well-known fact (exemplified, 
 for instance, in the composition of the Book of 
 Jeremiah) that, in the arrangement of their con-
 
 54-O Conclusion. 
 
 tents, chronological order is not invariably adhered 
 to. This fact being abundantly apparent on the 
 face of the records themselves, is thoroughly con- 
 sistent with their trustworthiness : whereas the 
 conclusions of what is sometimes called the 
 higher criticism are directly contradictory of 
 those records. Consequently, to admit, out of 
 deference to such criticism, and in the absence 
 of adequate proof, that Ecclesiastes may not have 
 been written by Solomon, or that Isaiah 40 to 66 
 and Zechariah 9 to 14 may not be genuine, is to 
 admit a principle which lowers to the position of 
 mere conjectural uncertainties and random state- 
 ments (many or most of them possibly inaccurate) 
 those explicit notes of authorship which are so pro- 
 fusely scattered throughout the books of the sacred 
 canon. Hence, as already observed, such an ad- 
 mission is directly antagonistic to the general 
 trustworthiness of the Scriptures. 
 
 If, on the other hand however, the criticism in 
 question is untrustworthy, and is proved to be so, 
 and if accordingly the testimony of the books of 
 Holy Scripture to their own authorship is thus 
 conclusively vindicated from the unsettling results 
 of the criticism, then indeed the claim of the 
 Written Word to be implicitly believed and loyally 
 obeyed must be thereby confirmed, and a bright 
 illustration given to that saying of the Lord Jesus, 
 which is as brief as it is memorable 
 
 THE SCRIPTURE CANNOT BE BROKEN.
 
 Jnbex. 
 
 PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE Page 
 
 The Solomonic Scriptures, . 544 
 The other Scriptures, . . 549 
 
 English Words, 
 Greek Words, 
 Hebrew Words, 
 
 553 
 S5S 
 
 EXPLANA TOR Y NO TES. 
 
 1. Throughout the Index a dot above a figure indicates that the 
 reference extends to the next verse or page. 
 
 2. In the specification of pages, a comma between two numbers 
 implies that, in both pages, the same particular is discussed or 
 mentioned ; whereas a period implies that the point discussed in 
 the one page is different from the point discussed in the other. 
 
 3. The Index of PASSAGES consists chiefly of passages quoted 
 and specially discussed. When several passages are tabulated in 
 illustration of some particular word common to them all, the word 
 rather than the passages containing it may be turned up in the 
 Index. It could, for example, have served no useful purpose, but 
 would rather have made the index inconveniently bulky, to have 
 mentioned in it the passages containing the sixty-two instances of 
 "IV" 1 As these passages are severally specified in pages 455-61, 
 those only are indexed which are specially commented on ; whereas 
 the other passages can easily be ascertained by referring to "^ in 
 the Index of Hebrew words. So with >Q 31 ^ in pages 79, 80, 
 m in page 95, Q1X in page 143, cast in pages 451-2, and sundry 
 other words. 
 
 4. The Index of Passages in the Solomonic Scriptures refers 
 exclusively to the Treatise on the Authorship of Ecclesiastes. As 
 the last indexed reference to that Treatise refers to page 399, the 
 references to the Dissertation on ' that which was spoken through 
 Jeremiah the Prophet, ' are easily distinguishable by the circum- 
 stance that in the specification of pages the figures 4 and 5 hundred 
 refer invariably to the dissertation.
 
 544 
 
 Index. 
 
 $. 
 
 of Scripture. 
 
 Throughout the Index of Old Testament passages, the Versifica- 
 tion in the printed editions of the Hebrew Bible has been adhered 
 to. Where that differs from the versification in the English Bible, 
 the difference is indicated by asterisks or small figures inserted 
 above the chapter figures. An asterisk to the right of a chapter 
 figure implies that, in the chapter so marked, the number of each 
 corresponding verse in the English Bible is one more than the 
 number specified in the Index. An asterisk to the left implies 
 one less. Two asterisks imply a difference of two. In I Kings 5 
 and Zechariah 2, the small figures 14 and 4, to the left of the 5 
 and the 2, imply differences of 14 and 4 verses respectively. There 
 are also corresponding differences in the versification at the end of 
 the chapters immediately preceding those thus marked ; except 
 throughout the Psalter, where the frequent differences of versifica- 
 tion result solely from the Titles of the titled Psalms being included 
 in the versification of the Hebrew, but not in the versification of 
 the English Bible. 
 
 A. THE SOLOMONIC SCRIPTURES. 
 
 (Ecclesiastes ; Proverbs 1-29 ; Canticles ; PsaIma-72, 127; i Chronicles 22, 28, 29 ; 
 
 2 Chronicles 1-9; i Kings i-n.) 
 
 ECCLESIASTES 
 
 Eccles. 
 
 Page 
 
 1. 
 
 Page 
 
 (2.) 9. 15 
 
 248 
 
 1 
 
 7, 334, 360 
 
 10 
 
 107 
 
 3 
 
 132, 136 
 
 12, 18 
 
 135, 139, 143 
 
 4 
 
 196-9 
 
 13 
 
 242, 281 
 
 4-7 
 
 158 
 
 14 
 
 64. 275 
 
 7 
 
 291 
 
 18-20 
 
 291 
 
 8 
 
 133. 60, 64 
 
 19 
 
 160. 185 
 
 19 
 
 ( 306. 85. 160-8. 
 
 24 
 
 201-3 
 
 MfA 
 
 | 227. 275. 361 
 
 26 
 
 136, 143. 74 
 
 13, 17 
 
 224-30, 281 
 
 3. 
 
 
 16 
 
 85. 243 
 
 13 
 
 136. 201-3 
 
 16 
 
 181, 188, 229, 271 
 
 16 
 
 V * 
 
 22 
 
 17 
 
 74, 1 08. 281 
 
 16 
 
 35 
 
 18 
 
 184 
 
 18 
 
 128. 291 
 
 .2. 
 
 244-52 
 
 21 
 
 160 
 
 1, 15 
 
 235-41 
 
 2i 
 
 232, 242 
 
 4 
 
 6 1. 246, 283 
 
 4. 
 
 
 8 
 
 85. 124 
 
 1-7 
 
 i8i, 230-3, 242,271
 
 Index of Passages in Ecclesiastes. 545 
 
 Eccles. 
 
 Page 
 
 Eccles. 
 
 Page 
 
 (4.) 4 
 
 281. 138 
 
 (8.) 7, 14 
 
 288 
 
 5 
 
 60 
 
 9 
 
 136, 139, 142 
 
 7-12 
 
 19 
 
 10 
 
 321. 200. 186 
 
 8 
 
 64 
 
 11 
 
 107 
 
 10 
 
 329. 291 
 
 14-17 
 
 233 
 
 14 
 
 326 
 
 15 
 
 20, 6 1 
 
 16 
 
 337 
 
 16 
 
 1 88. 74. 64 
 
 17 
 
 150- "5 
 
 
 
 5*. 
 
 321. n4. 61. 129 
 
 9. 
 1 
 3 
 
 99 
 107 
 
 2 
 
 in 
 
 7 
 
 20 
 
 3-4 
 
 62. 288 
 
 10 
 
 60 
 
 5 
 6 
 10 
 
 114. 116-8. 152. 203 
 308. 150 
 308 
 fis 
 
 11 
 12 
 12, 14 
 
 97. 92 
 
 201. 291 
 155 
 
 12 
 18 
 19 
 
 DO 
 199 
 
 134,145.225.83.218 
 107 
 
 14 
 
 15 
 16 
 17 
 
 214-8 
 135. 321. 276 
 239. 80. 321 
 
 75 
 
 6. 
 
 2 
 
 225. 82-7 
 
 10. 
 
 
 2 
 
 7 
 
 134, H5 
 
 n6 
 
 3 
 
 75 
 1 06. 20 1 
 
 11 
 
 ijw 
 
 308 
 
 7, 8, 10 
 
 60 
 
 12 
 
 160. 185. 143 
 
 11 
 12 
 
 IO3 
 
 97. 60. 70 
 
 7. 
 
 
 12 
 
 no 
 
 l 
 
 60. 151. 26 
 
 14 
 
 288 
 
 2 
 
 xvii, 1 9, 80 
 
 16 
 
 329- 337 
 
 4 
 
 75- 70 
 
 16 
 
 21. 291 
 
 5 
 
 151- 134 
 
 18 
 
 60. 68 
 
 7 
 
 185. 22 
 
 20 
 
 17. 89-91, 329. io4 
 
 10 
 
 114. 291 
 
 
 
 12 
 
 60 
 
 11. 
 
 
 16, 17 
 
 !5 2 
 
 3 
 
 291 
 
 19 
 
 164 
 
 7 
 
 68 
 
 20 
 
 61, 146 
 
 8 
 
 136, 145. 308. 185 
 
 22 
 
 109. 276 
 
 9 
 
 128. 321. 305, 309 
 
 25 
 
 74 
 
 10 
 
 128 
 
 26 
 
 62. 155. 320 
 
 12 
 
 
 28 
 29 
 
 32, I37-4I- M7-9 
 276 
 
 1-6* 
 3 
 
 204-7 
 292 
 
 8. 
 
 
 4 
 
 66 
 
 1 
 
 160. 28. 136, 143 
 
 4-7 
 
 1 86 
 
 2, 4 
 
 63 
 
 5 
 
 136. 199 
 
 3 
 
 321. 289 
 
 6 
 
 123 
 
 5 
 
 60. 109. 75 
 
 1 
 
 240 
 
 2 M
 
 546 Index of Solomonic Passages. 
 
 Eccles. Page 
 
 Proverbs 
 
 Page 
 
 (12.) 9-14 305-10 
 
 8. 
 
 
 q ( 85. 336. 211-3. 
 
 11 
 
 79 
 
 i 33- 307 
 
 12 
 
 275 
 
 9 153-5, 309, 361 
 
 34 
 
 142 
 
 10 7 
 
 35 
 
 60 
 
 11 75. 122 
 
 
 
 12 100-2. 30? 
 
 9. 
 
 
 13 150, 309 
 
 1-3 
 
 246 
 
 14 
 
 300. 
 
 4, 16 
 
 105. 240 
 
 
 
 10 
 
 298, 300 
 
 THE PROVERBS OF SOLOMON 
 
 11 
 
 12-14 
 
 185 
 218 
 
 1. 
 
 Page 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 360 
 
 10. 
 
 
 2 
 
 74 
 
 12 
 
 99 
 
 6 
 
 56. 75. 309 
 
 19 
 
 in 
 
 9 
 
 97 
 
 
 
 15 
 
 
 11. 7 
 
 140, 144 
 
 17 
 
 104 
 
 
 
 
 
 12. 
 
 
 2. 
 
 
 l 
 
 158 
 
 4 
 5, 17 
 6 
 
 75 
 74 
 
 14, 25 
 23 
 
 144 
 140, 143. 70 
 
 3. 
 
 4 
 
 
 13. 
 
 1,8 
 
 '5' 
 
 7 
 13 
 
 142 
 
 5 
 15 
 
 1 86 
 97 
 
 24 
 
 207 
 
 14. 
 
 
 27 
 
 60 
 
 1 
 
 60 
 
 28 
 34 
 
 114. 117 
 
 97 
 
 2 
 6 
 
 158 
 75 
 
 4. 
 
 
 7 
 
 144 
 
 3-4 
 
 125, 1 65, 227 
 
 10 
 
 109 
 
 9 
 26 
 
 97 
 "5 
 
 15. 
 
 
 27 
 
 150 
 
 11 
 
 1 T 
 
 107. 137 
 
 
 
 it 
 
 OQ 
 
 5. 
 
 62 
 
 20 
 
 JS 
 
 144 
 
 6. 
 
 4 
 
 64 
 
 25 
 32 
 
 '85 
 
 158 
 
 10 
 12 
 
 60, 68 
 144 twice 
 
 16. 
 
 9, 27 
 
 144 
 
 7. 
 
 
 10 
 
 63 
 
 8 
 13 
 
 66 
 
 214 
 
 23 
 24 
 
 %
 
 Index of Solomonic Passages. 547 
 
 Proverbs 
 
 Page 
 
 Proverbs 
 
 Page 
 
 17. 
 
 
 25. 
 
 
 9, 19 
 
 158 
 
 1 
 
 53. 36o 
 
 24 
 
 64 
 
 2 
 
 131. 153 
 
 18 
 
 
 4 
 
 1 88 
 
 AVI 
 
 4 
 
 no 
 
 17 
 
 150. 208 
 
 6 
 
 70 
 
 26. 
 
 
 7 
 
 60 
 
 4, 22 
 
 2 7 6 
 
 8 
 
 276 
 
 19 
 
 218 
 
 12, 16 
 
 22 
 
 144 
 147-9 
 
 27. 
 
 5 
 
 99 
 
 19. 
 
 
 7 
 
 6S 
 
 2 
 
 "5 
 
 17 
 
 60 
 
 5, 9 
 
 184 
 
 19 
 
 142. 144 
 
 6, 21 
 
 144 
 
 20 
 
 64 
 
 10, 16 
 
 60 
 
 25 
 
 214 
 
 20. 
 
 
 28. 
 
 
 5 
 
 144 
 
 14 
 
 142 
 
 6 
 
 147- I5S 
 
 20 
 
 155 
 
 12 
 
 60 
 
 22 
 
 321 
 
 22 
 
 25 
 28 
 
 114 
 62 
 208 
 
 29. 
 
 2, 16 
 9 
 
 308 
 198. 
 
 21. 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 4 
 
 290 
 299 
 
 THE SONG OF SOLOMON 
 
 20, 29 
 
 144 
 
 1. 
 
 Page 
 
 22. 
 
 
 1 
 
 287 
 
 l 
 
 60 
 
 3 
 
 *5i 
 
 3 
 
 214 
 
 4 
 
 185 
 
 17 
 
 56. 75 
 
 6, 12 
 
 291 
 
 1 
 
 56, 359 
 
 2. 
 
 
 26 
 
 153, 309, 362 
 
 3 
 
 182. 218. 68 
 
 26 
 
 152 
 
 4 
 
 99 
 
 23. 
 
 
 7 
 
 98. 289, 291 
 
 15 
 16,25 
 
 107. 276 
 185 
 
 10 
 17 
 
 182, 248 
 289, 291. 206 
 
 S 2 
 
 60 
 
 3. 
 
 
 24. 
 13 
 
 68 
 
 2 
 4 
 
 1 86. 66 
 289, 291 
 
 21 
 
 22 
 
 150. 63 
 159 
 
 7 
 11 
 
 287 
 1 06 
 
 29 
 
 114 
 
 4. 
 
 
 30 
 
 144. 105 
 
 2 
 
 291 
 
 32 
 
 274. 242 
 
 6 
 
 289, 291. 206 
 
 33 
 
 60, 68 
 
 16 
 
 186
 
 548 Index of Solomonic Passages. 
 
 Song 
 
 Page 
 
 i Kings 
 
 Page 
 
 5. 
 
 
 (2.) 44 
 
 109 
 
 1-7 
 
 246 
 
 45 
 
 307 
 
 5 
 
 274 
 
 3. 
 
 
 6. 
 
 
 6-14 
 
 399 
 
 
 291 
 
 7 
 
 337 
 
 9 
 
 182, 242. 299 
 
 11 
 
 218 
 
 *7. 9 
 
 238 
 
 12 
 13 
 
 84 
 
 8. 
 
 
 28 
 
 22 
 
 4 
 
 289, 291 
 
 4. 
 
 
 4,7 
 
 91, 98 
 
 1, 32, 34 
 
 85 
 
 6 
 
 99 
 
 20 
 
 20, 6l, 84 
 
 8 
 
 292 
 
 UK 
 
 
 10 
 11 
 
 PSALM 
 
 165-8 
 61, 165. 
 
 9, 25 
 12 
 18 
 
 225 
 85, 360 
 
 72. 14-17 
 
 186. 
 
 26 
 
 74 
 
 THE SOLOMONIC HISTORIES 
 
 6. 32, 35 
 
 214 
 
 i CHRON. 
 
 Page 
 
 7. 41, 42 
 
 123 
 
 22,28,29. 
 
 4if 399 
 
 45 
 
 28 
 
 22. 3 
 
 122. 156. 309. 
 
 8. 
 
 II4-6 
 
 29. 
 
 
 i 
 
 119, 336 
 
 1-3 
 
 29 
 
 2 CHRON. 
 i 
 
 124 
 
 395 
 
 24 
 27, 0, 43 
 31 
 33, 35 
 
 271 
 6l 
 
 134 
 201 
 
 10-12 
 11 
 
 li 
 
 89 
 1 64 
 82-7 
 
 39 
 46 
 47 
 
 io7. 137, 147 
 6r, 146. 208 
 244 
 
 3. 9 
 
 122. 156 
 
 9. 
 
 il 
 
 225-7 
 
 4. 12, 13 
 
 123 
 
 25 
 
 211-3 
 
 6. 
 
 
 10. 
 
 
 22 
 
 '34 
 
 6 
 
 1 64 
 
 30 
 36 
 
 io7 
 146 
 
 16 
 15, 22 
 
 225. 3O8 
 
 35 
 
 7. 12, 16 
 
 218 
 
 22 
 
 85.27 
 
 9. 29 
 
 395, 398. 
 
 27 
 
 225 
 
 i KINGS 
 
 
 11. 
 
 
 2. 
 
 
 11 
 
 1 64 
 
 2 
 
 197 
 
 18 
 
 225 
 
 19 
 
 127 
 
 41 
 
 307, 362-4, 394.
 
 Index of Passages. 
 
 549 
 
 B. THE OTHER SCRIPTURES. 
 
 (Other than i Kings i-n ; Psalms 72, 127 ; Proverbs 1-29 ; Ecclesiastes ; 
 Canticles ; i Chronicles 22, 28, 29 ; 2 Chronicles 1-9.) 
 
 GENESIS 
 
 Page 
 
 NUMBERS 
 
 Page 
 
 1. i 
 
 228 
 
 10. 17-25 
 
 219 
 
 2, 7, 8, 19 
 
 456 
 
 11. 8 
 
 213 
 
 7,23,24,25 
 
 140 
 
 21. 15 
 
 269 
 
 10 
 
 264 
 
 23. 19 
 
 243 
 
 3. 6, 8, 16, 19 
 
 146 
 
 34. 1-12 
 
 268 
 
 22 
 
 204 
 
 DEUTERONOMY 
 
 
 14. 23 
 15. 6 
 21- 15 
 
 273 
 219 
 
 452 
 
 1. 1 
 5 
 2. 25 
 
 7, 340 
 8, 340 
 206 
 
 25 
 
 219 
 
 51 
 
 g 
 
 23. 15 
 25. 34 
 28. 6 
 
 464, 494 
 202 
 219 
 
 . A 
 6. 4 
 7. 
 8. 2, 5 
 
 139 
 
 345-7 
 1 08 
 
 31. 47 
 *32. 11 
 34. 5 
 37. 3 
 28 
 43. 29 
 
 30 
 172. 161, 163 
 219 
 219 
 
 49* 
 
 IOO 
 
 9. 4 
 16. 22 
 17. 14-20 
 25. 10 
 26. 3, 5 
 27. 11 
 
 112 
 
 353 
 347-52 
 487 
 117 
 8 
 
 49. 23 
 
 217 
 
 29*. l 
 
 8 
 
 EXODUS 
 
 
 3 
 
 108 
 
 2. 22 
 
 164 
 
 30 12-14 
 
 489 
 
 4. 22 
 
 IOO 
 
 31. 9, 22, 24 
 
 7 
 
 12. 46 
 
 491 
 
 31 to 34. 
 
 8, 344 
 
 15. 12 
 25 
 16. 15 
 
 173 
 
 453 
 3i 
 
 JOSHUA 
 1. 15 
 5. 5 
 
 204 
 356-8 
 
 35 
 17. 6 
 18. 26 
 19. 5 
 21. 32 
 30. H-16 
 36. l & 37. l 
 
 194. 240 
 198, 202 
 19!, 194 
 123 
 
 433-9, 493 
 440 
 234 
 
 6. 8, 13-15 
 14. 15 
 15 to 19 
 
 15. 21 
 16. 2-7 
 8 
 17. 10 
 
 193 
 
 '39 
 254-70 
 265 
 
 259 
 260-5 
 268 
 
 38 
 
 216 
 
 18 
 
 264. 
 
 38. 28 
 
 216 
 
 18. 9, 13 
 
 *-v*f 
 
 259 
 
 LEVITICUS 
 
 
 li 
 
 258 
 
 1. 2 
 
 139 
 
 20 
 
 264 
 
 5. 4 
 
 39 
 
 19. 10, 47 
 
 268 
 
 13. 2, 29, 38 
 
 138 
 
 22. 8 
 
 30, 82. 308 
 
 14. 5,50 
 
 463 
 
 23. 14 
 
 198. 108 
 
 27. 3-7, 16 
 
 439 
 
 24. 14 
 
 150
 
 550 
 
 Index of Passages. 
 
 JUDGES 
 
 Page 
 
 2 Kings 
 
 Page 
 
 2. l 
 
 1 88 
 
 5- 16 
 
 178 
 
 6 to 8 
 
 350 
 
 6- 6 
 
 453 
 
 7. 17 
 
 198 
 
 12- 11-16 
 
 464 
 
 8- 22 
 
 347-52 
 
 20. 12 
 
 xvi 
 
 9. 2 
 
 350 
 
 21. 7-10 
 
 347 
 
 11. 25 
 
 78 
 
 22- 4-7 
 
 464 
 
 15. 14 
 
 320 
 
 
 
 16. 7, 11 
 
 
 ISAIAH 
 
 
 18 
 
 219 
 
 1. 2 
 
 181 
 
 21, 25 
 
 321 
 
 2- 20 
 
 139- 452 
 
 17. 4 
 
 449 
 
 5- 2 
 
 178 
 
 10 
 
 440 
 
 7. 3 
 
 306 
 
 i SAMUEL 
 2. 13 
 
 198 
 
 14 
 
 8. i 
 
 12 
 
 489 
 306 
 
 19 
 7. 15-17 
 8. 7 
 9. 8 
 12. 2 
 12-17 
 24 
 
 203 
 
 I9I-4, 211 
 
 347-9 
 440 
 181, 244 
 348 
 
 18 
 19- 19 
 30.14 
 39. 1 
 42- 6 ; 43- 4 
 44. 9-12 
 
 500 
 
 353 
 45? 
 xvi 
 1 88 
 466 
 
 13. 17 
 16. 23 
 17. 34 
 
 203 
 
 211 
 216 
 
 45- 9 
 49. 4 
 54. 16 
 56. 7 
 
 455, 458 
 238 
 459, 465 
 490, 505 
 
 2 SAMUEL 
 
 
 60. 5 
 
 204 
 
 3. 21 
 
 215 
 
 62.^1 
 
 505 
 
 9- 1-3 
 
 520 
 
 64*. 7 
 
 458 
 
 12- 3 
 
 203 
 
 
 
 16 
 
 217 
 
 JEREMIAH 
 
 
 22 
 
 I?9 
 
 1. 6 
 
 112 
 
 24 
 
 336 
 
 2. 33 
 
 98 
 
 13. 18 
 
 217 
 
 5. 1 
 
 148 
 
 15- 2-6 
 
 211 
 
 7. 11 
 
 490, 505 
 
 30 
 
 219 
 
 12. 5 
 
 528 
 
 16. 13 
 
 217 
 
 18. l-ll 
 
 455, 5oi 
 
 17. 28 
 
 456, 459 
 
 19. l-ll 
 
 459, 486, 50! 
 
 *19- 17-19 
 
 217 
 
 22. 15 
 
 202 
 
 22- 
 
 189 
 
 23. 5 
 
 527 
 
 23- 20 
 
 216 
 
 24. 7 
 
 108 
 
 i KINGS 
 
 
 31. 2 
 
 96 
 
 19. 19 
 20- 36 
 
 453 
 198 
 
 15 
 32. 
 
 492 
 481-7 
 
 21. 2 
 
 7 
 
 78 
 274 
 
 6-8 
 8 
 8-13 
 
 504 
 506 
 235-8 
 
 2 KINGS 
 2- 21 ; 4.. 41 
 
 453 
 
 9 
 14 
 
 440, 464 
 486, 512
 
 Index of Passages. 
 
 Jeremiah 
 
 Page 
 
 Zechariah 
 
 Page 
 
 (32.) 15, 43 
 
 504 
 
 ( 4 2.) 15 
 
 526 
 
 25,43 
 
 5 12 
 
 17 
 
 523 
 
 25, 44 
 
 482-5, 492, 503 
 
 3. 4 
 
 524 
 
 36. 4, 17 
 
 333 
 
 8 
 
 500. 527 
 
 51. 64 
 
 344, 392 
 
 4. 7. 
 
 523- 96 
 
 EZEKIEL 
 1. 1-4 
 7. 19 
 16. 10-13 
 34. 17 
 37. 16, 19 
 48- 19,29,31 
 
 306 
 453 
 468 
 
 527 
 
 520 
 
 519 
 
 ll 
 
 5. 1, 10-6- 1 
 6. 7, 13 
 9-11 
 11-15 
 12 
 14 
 15 
 
 231 
 231 
 524 
 533 
 467-70, 529 
 
 527 
 530 
 525 
 
 HOSEA 
 
 
 7. 1, 4, 8 
 
 339- 37 
 
 **2. 9 
 
 78 
 
 1, 8 
 
 535 
 
 25 
 
 527 
 
 13 
 
 525 
 
 11. 1 
 
 491 
 
 14 
 
 523 
 
 4 
 *12. ll, 14 
 
 98 
 346 
 
 8. 7, 13, 22 
 
 8 
 
 525 
 526 
 
 JONAH 
 
 
 10 
 
 524 
 
 1. i 
 
 287 
 
 18 
 
 53? 
 
 *2. 4 
 
 xv-xvi 
 
 9. l 
 
 5i9 
 
 5 
 
 238 
 
 3 
 
 462 
 
 3. 6 
 
 437 
 
 8 
 
 523 
 
 MlCAH 
 
 2. 8 
 
 7. 9 
 
 437 
 204 
 
 9 
 10 
 13 
 16 
 
 505. 425. 444 
 520 
 520. 523 
 526 
 
 HABAKKUK 
 
 
 10. 1 
 
 
 2. 4 
 
 491 
 
 2 
 
 526 
 
 18 
 
 466 
 
 3 
 
 527- 524 
 
 ZEPHANIAH 
 
 
 5 
 
 462, 527 
 
 3. 12 
 
 445 
 
 6 
 
 526 
 
 
 
 10 
 
 520 
 
 HAGGAI 
 
 
 12 
 
 5 2 4 
 
 1. 13 
 
 116 
 
 11. i 
 
 523 
 
 ZECHARIAH 
 
 
 3 
 
 528 
 
 1. 1 7 
 
 339- 535 
 
 4 
 
 53! 
 
 8 
 
 531 
 
 7-12 
 
 443, 512 
 
 16 
 
 5 2 4 
 
 7-15 
 
 532-5 
 
 4 2- 2 
 
 
 10-13 
 
 448 
 
 3 
 
 465 
 
 11 
 
 445, 506, 530 
 
 9 
 
 525 
 
 12 
 
 432. 524 
 
 11 
 
 523 
 
 13 
 
 420-540 
 
 12 
 
 447 
 
 15 
 
 533 
 
 13 
 
 525- 527 
 
 15-17 
 
 529 
 
 14 
 
 5 25 
 
 12. i 
 
 5i9
 
 55 2 
 
 Index of Passages. 
 
 Zechariah 
 
 (12.) 6 
 
 Page 
 525 
 
 AMENTATIONS 
 
 4. 2 
 
 Page 
 460, 486 
 
 7 
 7, 10, 12 
 
 526 
 520 
 
 EZRA 
 
 61 7 
 
 
 10 
 
 13. 2 
 
 96. 477- 47 
 526, 527. 524 
 
 . w 
 9. 11 
 
 345-7 
 
 7 
 
 523. 477- 5 2 5 
 
 NEHEMIAH 
 
 
 9 
 
 466. 525-9 
 
 2. 10 
 
 139 
 
 14. 5 
 
 522. 525- 53i 
 
 15 
 
 231 
 
 21 
 
 525- 463 
 
 5. 15 
 
 441 
 
 MALACHI 
 
 
 13. 9-22 
 
 238 
 
 1. 1 
 
 51$ 
 
 26 
 
 521 
 
 8 
 
 44! 
 
 2 CHRONICLES 
 
 
 2. 7 
 
 116 
 
 24. 10-12 
 
 453, 464 
 
 11 
 
 5 21 
 
 29. 30 
 
 334 
 
 THE PSALMS 
 
 
 35. 4 
 
 364- 
 
 1. 1 
 2, 9, 10 
 2. 9 
 
 *1 Q 
 
 45$ 
 189 
 
 MATTHEW 
 1. 22 
 2. 15 
 
 489 
 
 491 
 
 lo- 
 
 29. 2 
 *32. 2 
 *34. 10 
 *36. 4 
 37. 25, 35 
 *38. 9 
 *39. 2 
 *45. 3 
 **51. 8 
 66. 14 
 *68. 10, 22 
 78. 20 
 *84. 12 
 *88. 5 
 
 126 
 
 141 
 
 no 
 
 242 
 244 
 238 
 96 
 75 
 244 
 126 
 173, 176 
 96 
 i63 
 
 17 
 10. 40-42 
 13. 35 
 16. 14 
 21. 5 
 13 
 26. 26 
 31 
 27. 6 
 7 
 9 
 9 
 10 
 37 
 
 492 
 
 447 
 
 380 
 
 505 
 
 5 o5 
 
 489, 55 
 354 
 505. 477 
 484 
 428 
 496-502 
 vi, 381,419-540 
 506 
 354 
 
 95. 
 
 376 
 
 MARK 
 
 
 109.8 
 
 129 
 
 1. 2 
 
 367-72 
 
 110. 
 
 125-8. 396 
 
 10. 5 
 
 342, 353 
 
 119. 
 
 i. 535- 439 
 
 12. 35-37 
 
 391 
 
 123. 2 
 
 447 
 
 43 
 
 448, 451 
 
 135.4 
 
 123 
 
 13. 14 
 
 366-7 
 
 139. 23 
 
 108 
 
 14. 27 
 
 477 
 
 PROVERBS 
 
 
 16. 9-20 
 
 317. 3 22 
 
 30, 31. 
 
 297-304 
 
 LUKE 
 
 
 JOB 
 7. 4, 13 
 
 241 
 
 3. 4 
 12. 32-34 
 
 334, 362 
 448 
 
 11. 2 
 
 in 
 
 20. 42-44 
 
 39 1 
 
 31.40 
 
 334 
 
 22. 19 
 
 354
 
 Index of Passages and Words. 553 
 
 JOHN 
 1. 29, 42 (41) 
 
 Page 
 i69, 189 
 
 ROMANS 
 1. 17 
 
 Page 
 491 
 
 48 (47) 
 
 499 
 
 10. 5-8 
 
 488 
 
 2. 14-16 
 
 463 
 
 16 
 
 14, 366. 476 
 
 4. 9 
 
 488 
 
 16. 22 
 
 335 
 
 7. 19, 22 
 
 353-8 
 
 i CORINTHIANS 
 
 
 12. 22 
 
 169, 177, 189 
 
 15. 58 
 
 167 
 
 13. 4-6 
 
 169, 178, 189, 
 
 GALATIANS 
 
 
 15. 25 
 
 380 [226 
 
 4. 2i 
 
 487, 492 
 
 19. 36 
 
 491 
 
 6. 11 
 
 335, 342 
 
 37 
 
 505. 477. 47 
 
 i TIMOTHY 
 
 
 20. 36 
 
 397 
 
 5. 18 
 
 476 
 
 
 
 TITUS 
 
 
 ACTS * 
 
 
 2. 14 
 
 123 
 
 1. 18 
 
 428. 488 
 
 HEBREWS 
 
 iii, i 
 
 20 
 
 476 
 
 2. 13 
 
 500 
 
 2. 25-35 
 
 39 
 
 12. 5 
 
 101 
 
 27, 31 
 
 497 
 
 i PETER 
 
 
 7. 5 
 
 476 
 
 2. 9 
 
 123 
 
 8- 26 
 
 488 
 
 REVELATION 
 
 
 13. 35-7 
 
 389 
 
 1. 7 
 
 170. 47. 
 
 ENGLISH WORDS. 
 
 Page 
 
 
 Page 
 
 Angel, . . 116-8 
 
 Elijah, 
 
 36$, 377 
 
 Assyria, . 
 
 520 
 
 Embrace, . 
 
 68 
 
 Better, 
 Book, 
 
 78-80 
 307, 362 
 
 Ephraim, . 
 Eyes, 
 
 520 
 63 
 
 Bowl, 
 Burden, 
 
 123 
 
 300-2 
 
 Fashion, Fashioner, 454-61, 469 
 Favour, . . . 93-7 
 
 Cast, 
 
 449-54 
 
 Fear, 
 
 150 
 
 Chance, 
 Children of Israel, 
 Clay, 
 
 91 
 
 499 
 460 
 
 Field, Fields, 
 Find, 
 Fire, 
 
 431, 436, 481-5 
 147-9 
 5 2 5 
 
 Come, 
 
 526 
 
 Fool, 
 
 69 
 
 Craftsmen, 
 
 465 
 
 Foot, 
 
 150 
 
 Crown, 
 
 468 
 
 Fuller, . 
 
 486 
 
 Cup, 
 
 459 
 
 
 
 Daniel, . . . 366 
 
 Give, 
 
 74- 83-7 
 
 David, . . 365, 375-7 
 
 Glory, 
 
 83-7 
 
 Delight, . . . 67 
 
 God, 
 
 129-32
 
 554 Index of English Words. 
 
 Page 
 
 
 Page 
 
 Good, . . .76. 148 
 
 Observe, . 
 
 445-7 
 
 Grace, . . 93-7, 522 
 
 Ointment, 
 
 \ 151 
 
 
 Orchard, . 
 
 67 
 
 Hear rebuke, . . 151 
 
 
 
 Heart, . .70. 75. 106-9 
 
 Peculiar treasure, 
 
 123-5 
 
 Hire, . . . 432. 524 
 
 People, 
 
 . 336. 526 
 
 Holy One of Israel, . 46 
 
 Poor of the flock, 
 
 442-5 
 
 Hosea, . . . 365 
 
 Pot, . 
 
 459 
 
 House, . ... 115 
 
 Potter, 
 
 455-74. 485-7 
 
 House of David, . 520 
 
 Pre-eminence, . 
 
 67 
 
 House of Judah, . 522 
 
 Province, . 
 
 34 
 
 I, . .7, 222, 273-84 
 
 Riches, 
 
 80-7 
 
 In the day when, . 29! 
 
 Rock of salvation, 
 
 377 
 
 Isaiah, . . . 365, 374 
 
 
 
 Israel, . . . 13!. 518 
 
 Save, 
 
 525 
 
 
 Say not, . 
 
 vii, 111-4 
 
 Jedidiah (jTTT), 336 
 
 Search, 
 
 152-4 
 
 Jehovah, . . . 129-32 
 
 Seek wisdom, 
 
 75 
 
 Jeremiah, 365,420-30,501-7,537 
 Jerusalem, . . 519 
 
 Servant, . 
 Silver, 
 
 439, 470 
 464-70, 481-5 
 
 Joel, . . . 365 
 
 Slothfulness, 
 
 67 
 
 Joy of his heart, . 106 
 Judah, . . . 518 
 
 Solomon, . 
 Son of David, . 
 
 37* 
 360 
 
 
 Son of man, 
 
 "3 
 
 King, . . 62. 348-51 
 
 Street, 
 
 66 
 
 Know, . . 74. 108. 159 
 
 Sweety 
 
 68 
 
 Knowledge, . 89-91, 329 
 Knowledge of the holy, 298 
 
 Take, 
 Temple, . 
 
 533 
 310 
 
 Lacking, . . . io5 
 Lips of a fool, . . 70 
 Love, . . . 97-9 
 
 Teraphim, 
 Treasury, . 
 Truth, 
 
 520 
 472 
 153 
 
 Man, . . 32, 132-47 
 
 Under the sun, . 
 
 65, 113 
 
 Master, . . . 102-5 
 Methushael, . . 286, 292 
 
 Way, t 4 
 Wealth, . 
 
 144- 377 
 80-7 
 
 Mire, . . . 462 
 
 Who knoweth ? 
 
 159 
 
 Mishael, . . . 286, 292 
 Moses . 353-6, 365, 373 
 
 Why? 
 Wisdom, Wise, 
 
 . 152, 203 
 70-6. 122 
 
 Mouth, . . . no 
 Multitude of words, . in 
 
 Woman, . 32 
 Word, 
 
 , 137-9- 147-9 
 Il6 
 
 My son, . . .51, 100-2 
 
 Word of Jehovah, 
 
 339- 522 
 
 Naboth, Nebaioth, . 121 
 Nails, . . . I22 
 Name, . . . 148. 151 
 
 Words of, 
 Words of the wise 
 Write, 7, 153, 
 
 333-5 
 , vii, 75, 309 
 
 309- 333, 34i 
 
 Not, . . . I5 2 
 
 Youth, . 
 
 128.
 
 Index of Greek Words. 
 
 555 
 
 GREEK WORDS, 
 
 
 Page 
 
 
 Page 
 
 'AKe\Safj.cL, 
 
 . 428 
 
 'ludwys, ] . 
 
 3 6 
 
 d,i>a\T)<p6ijvai, avdXrjij. 
 
 'is, . 322 
 
 
 
 
 
 Ko.1 i-Xapov, xviii, 
 
 471, 484 
 
 pa\\eu>, 
 
 451 
 
 ' /T V'V \ 
 
 KOLTWp'YTItfCLVTO li_*A.^V.). 
 
 47 
 
 ytypa.TTTO.1, 
 
 379, 49 
 
 Kepct^te, 428, 455, 47!, 
 
 486,511 
 
 ytveffdai, . 
 
 . . 167 
 
 A6 7 os, . 
 
 47 
 
 Aa/3id, or Aai/t'5, 
 dovXos, 
 
 376 
 439, 470 
 
 Mwi;<7^s, . . 
 
 355 
 
 tyw and eldov, . 
 
 306 
 
 
 , 47 
 
 
 379 
 
 
 . . 167 
 
 
 ** 
 
 1-\a.(3ov, . . 
 iv 'HXtft 
 
 xviii, 471 
 377 
 
 irepiovffiov and irepnroirjffiv, 123 
 
 i;eK4vTT)ffa.i>, 
 
 47 
 
 TTivreveiv, . 
 
 
 
 . 318 
 
 
 
 
 
 TpidKOvra apyupia, 
 
 
 'Hcraias, 
 
 37i 
 
 432, 471, 485, 
 
 492-513 
 
 'lepefjdov, .vi, 422-30, 
 
 501-11,538 
 
 "X.<j3vevTT]pi.ov (LXX.), . 
 
 473- 
 
 "Epeware TOW ypa<pcis, STI u/xets So/ceZre fv O.VTCUS IWTW aluviov 
 al (Keivai elaiv al fJ.a.pTVpovtra.i trepl ^JJLOV.
 
 Index of Hebrew Words. 
 
 Page 
 
 Page 
 
 
 27 .... n^ a 
 
 121 . 
 
 nvaj : ro33 
 
 35 DJna 
 
 92 . 
 
 
 
 248 ... 
 
 
 29 .... bp 
 
 30, 80-7 . 
 
 D'D33 
 
 46 ... $>JOB amp 
 
 74- 83-7 . 
 
 . |DJ 
 
 119-22, 335 . . r6np 
 
 
 
 
 66. 522 . 
 
 3'3D : 33D 
 
 241-3, 306. 53! -.TV&O : n&n 
 
 "3-5 
 
 n^jD 
 
 in . . . nnan an 
 
 37, 39 
 
 P)1D 
 
 I "\O ^1 
 
 27 . 
 
 
 133 y-| 
 
 307, 362-4 
 
 lea 
 
 285-96, 329 . . . 
 
 439, 470 . 
 
 NW 
 
 n3y 
 
 431. 482 . , nnt? : mp 
 
 259, 267. 523 . 
 
 i3y 
 
 66 prig; 
 
 62-4 
 
 Qi^y 
 
 xviii, 128 . . . n < nnjj> 
 
 128 . 
 
 ni3T^y 
 
 432. 524 -DB> 
 
 258 . . . 
 
 . n??y 
 
 3, 35, 326 pt3^!i> : D^B* : dps? 
 
 336 . 
 
 . ny 
 
 449-54 . *^e> 
 
 442-5, 448, 506, 
 
 5" jsvn w 
 
 ? 
 
 f y\ 
 
 
 43 2 -4 2 ,47 I ,492-5 I 3 S]D3 D^PB' 
 
 
 1 jy 
 
 151 . . . JOB' & DB> 
 
 67 . 
 
 ni^vy : r6vy 
 
 JOB. . ia^nno^:n^ 
 
 80-7 . . 
 
 iB/y 
 
 445-7 1DB 
 
 gi. 267 . 
 
 . . wa 
 
 
 no . 
 
 na 
 
 65, "3 Ewn nnn 
 
 35 
 
 nina 
 
 67 . jijyn 
 
 35, 67 . * 
 
 oma 
 
 npyro
 
 Index of Hebrew Words. 557 
 
 Page 
 
 
 Page 
 
 
 83-7 . . 
 
 niaa 
 
 173-273 
 
 1 
 
 251 . . -. 
 
 a 
 
 265 . 
 
 . vn 
 
 290 . 
 
 pan 11 "iB>-$>a 
 
 xviii, 328 
 
 |T- :fl- :I1V- 
 
 486, 509-12 
 
 Knn ^a 
 
 
 
 JO2, 4.6"* 
 
 -- 
 
 20 . 
 
 
 O , T-VO 
 
 69, 156 . 
 
 ^oa 
 
 35 
 
 pnai 
 
 nf 
 
 ..-..,- 
 
 20 . 
 
 >,,, 
 
 153, 309, 359-64 
 
 ana 
 
 
 
 
 
 68 ... 
 
 pan 
 
 75. io5. 106-9 
 375,382 . 
 
 '. "NA 
 
 70-6, 156, 298. 122 
 460 . 
 
 noan : nan 
 ion 
 
 307 . 
 
 jn? 
 
 93-7- 326. 522 . 
 
 jn 
 
 152. 203 . . 
 
 533 
 
 np^> 
 
 io5 . 
 35, I0 5 
 
 ion 
 pnon 
 
 34 
 
 runo 
 
 152-4 
 
 465 . 
 
 npn 
 
 89-91, 329 
 
 yno 
 
 
 
 67 ... 
 
 nrno 
 
 
 
 
 jny 1 'D 
 
 76. 148 . 
 
 aiQ 
 
 364 . 
 
 
 78-80 
 
 pain 
 
 116-8 
 
 ptfe 
 
 460, 462 . 
 
 B*B 
 
 62. 348-51 
 
 ita 
 
 
 
 
 
 46 . 
 
 "TlT^ ~1*^V^ 
 
 31 . 
 
 Kin p 
 
 T- W ... 
 
 i% 
 
 1 1 !S 
 
 321 
 
 pDO 
 
 35 . 
 
 nyj" 1 
 
 5 2 3 
 
 atJ'iDi "iayo 
 
 30 ... 
 
 Kninnty ij 11 
 
 129 . . 
 
 . n^yo 
 
 74, io8. 159. 377 
 
 . yr 
 
 147-9 
 
 KXO 
 
 129-32 . . 
 
 mn 11 
 
 155 C 
 
 inwo : mwo 
 
 329 . 
 
 inv 
 
 36 . . . 
 36 ... 
 
 mpD 
 
 xviii, 127 . . 
 258, 267 . 
 
 N^ 
 
 300-2 
 
 KE'O 
 
 427, 434, 454-74 
 
 "IXV : IV 
 
 122, 309 . 
 
 nnot^o 
 
 436-8, 497 
 
 ip 1 ' 
 
 68 ... 
 
 pino 
 
 150. 309 . 
 377- 525 . 
 
 .' ' y^ 
 
 301 . 
 
 ex; 
 
 35 
 
 jnn*
 
 of 
 
 Page 
 
 
 Page 
 
 
 49* . . ' 
 
 >jnt8 ya 
 
 27, 32 
 
 rwax 
 
 102-5 
 
 ^jJ3 
 
 32, 132-47 
 
 onx 
 
 75 
 
 {J>p2 
 
 436-8, 471, 473 
 
 nnx 
 
 304 .... 
 
 
 QT Q7.Q 
 
 
 
 
 yi. y/ y . 
 
 nanx 
 
 308 . 
 
 rnana 
 
 472 . 
 
 
 258-64 . 
 
 i>ua : i3J 
 
 32 ... 
 
 JTK 
 
 322 . 
 
 TII 
 
 
 
 
 ijj 
 
 32, 132-47 
 
 M>Sv 
 
 29 .... 
 
 258 . 
 
 PDH 
 
 152 . 
 
 !>K 
 
 123 . 
 
 anrn tin 
 
 129-32 
 
 DNniK 
 
 
 
 3 2 9 
 
 ^ >w 
 
 I5 1 
 
 nnyj 
 
 
 f 
 
 no . 
 
 nan 
 
 vii, 111-4 
 
 noxn ta 
 
 333-5- 362-4 . 
 
 nan' 
 
 X 55 - my 
 
 ox : D^IOK 
 
 339- 522 . 
 
 mrp nan 
 
 111-4.238-41.243 
 
 Tinos : nox 
 
 vii > 56, 75, 39 D 11 ! 
 
 MH nan 
 
 153 . * . 
 
 TlDN 
 
 no .... 
 
 'a nan 
 
 7, 221-3, 273-84 
 
 ^JN 
 
 92 . ' . 
 
 ?i^n 
 
 . 
 
 *]io ^ajt? 
 
 90, 329 
 
 njn 
 
 326 
 
 DniDK 
 
 298 . . . D*. 
 
 2qp ^ M ._ 
 
 32, 137-9, 147-9 
 
 .' * HK'X 
 
 *44- 377 
 
 . TH 
 
 285-96 . 
 
 nw 
 
 276 . . non : 
 
 nn : Nin 
 
 321 . 
 
 f,na 
 
 524 .. 
 
 
 S25 
 
 
 
 
 3^" > 
 
 Nia 
 
 323, 325 
 
 mn 
 
 321 
 
 nnma 
 
 260-8 
 
 nsn 
 
 29 ... 
 
 ^D3 
 
 xvi, 1 60-8 . . 
 
 Ti^n 
 
 291 . ... 
 
 & nva 
 
 261-3- 524 
 
 37 . . . . 
 524 .... 
 
 ?3Vl 
 
 nann 
 
 321, 329 
 
 360 . 
 51, 100-2 
 
 '-pa 
 ons-p 
 nn-p
 
 run rman DIJT ran*
 
 T. AND A. CONSTABLE, PRINTERS TO HER MAJESTY.