164

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 "n"; though even there " means not sum, but fui or factus sum, and thus expresses, like the perfect tense in English, a past fact con

.הייתי כגבר אין איל: tinuing down to the present time

The preterite in Exodus 2. 22 is exactly similar:

גר הייתי בארץ נכריה: Advena FUI in terra aliena

Even Hengstenberg, who denies the Solomonic authorship of Ecclesiastes, observes in his exposition of Ecclesiastes 1. 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 n in Ecclesiastes 7. 19, лл in 1 Kings 10. 6, and лn in 1 Kings 11. 11, and in 2 Chronicles I. 11.

ECCLES. 7. 19.1, Wisdom strengtheneth the wise more

.אשר היו בעיר : than ten mighty men which ARE in the city

I KINGS 10. 6. And she said unto the king, The report 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

to Solomon in Jerusalem, constituted the very ground of her address. So likewise in the words

היתה זאת עם-לבבך in I Kings II. 11, and היתה זאת עמך

in 2 Chronicles 1. 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 n occurs in Song 8. 11, already quoted in page 61. In that passage 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,

כרם היה לשלמה בבעל המון נתן את הכרם לנטרים ...

Ecclesiastes 1. 12 may yet further be compared with Song 8. 10 and Proverbs 4. 3, where, as also in Proverbs 5. 14, the preterite 'n

ECCLES. I. 12. I Koheleth WAS king over Israel in Jerusalem.

PROV. 4. 3. For 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.

occurs:

אני קהלת הייתי מלך

כי בן הייתי לאבי

אני חומה ושדי כמגדלות אז הייתי בעיניו כמוצאת שלום :

In this passage the present enjoyment of the peace previously found is the mainspring of the happy words in which "n" occurs: not that either here, or in Ecclesiastes 1. 12, л"л may mean sum, I am; for in both passages it means fui, I was.

166 The Idiom of the Substantive Verb.

But it means I was, in such a way as not to exclude I am. Just as, although the date of Proverbs 4. 3, 4, is probably posterior to the death of Solomon's father and mother, "n" 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,'

.בן ... לאבי רך ויחיד לפני אמי: he was

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 juxtaposition in Song 8. 10; so that there is here, in the words ", what Delitzsch says there must have been in Ecclesiastes 1. 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, 'IN-ON 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 non 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 εἶναι and γίνεσθαι esse and ferito 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 ylveole in 1 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 being similarly comprehensive, it would be no answer to a comparison of Ecclesiastes 1. 12 with Song 8. 10 to say that " in the Song includes I became; for the same may be said of " 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 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 "n" 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 'n", but from the context, or from other collateral circumstances, that the scope of the verb 7, as either lying

!

168

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

-so like אז הייתי בעיניו כמוצאת שלום:,,Shulamith said

wise in Ecclesiastes I. 12 cannot be inconsistent with the supposition that at the time

אני קהלת הייתי מלך על-ישראל בירושלם: when the words

were written, he who wrote them was king over Israel in Jerusalem.

It thus appears that the preterite "" 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 with the position that the writer was king when he wrote the book, being abundantly proved by the use of the same verb 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

...