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 (1. 17, 4. 1, 7), the imperfect with vau simply conjunctive is found fourteen times, in 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. 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 (pi) serves the purpose of a nominative to the verb which follows; and it is a noteworthy circumstance that the imperfect with the simple prefix (7") is used in precisely the same way in Proverbs 19. 5, 9: increaseth sorrow. AND HE THAT INCREASETH knowledge ויוסיף דעת יוסיף מכאוב : Co-ordinate Imperfects. 185 In Ecclesiastes 2. 19, 7. 7, 11. 8, the imperfects with vau prefixed appear to denote facts co-ordinate with facts denoted by preceding imperfects. 2. 19. And who knoweth whether he shall be wise or a fool? yet he shall rule over all my labour. . . 7. 7. Surely oppression maketh a wise man mad; 728" and a gift destroyeth the heart. 11. 8. If man live many years, let him rejoice in them all, and remember the days of darkness; for they shall be many. In Ecclesiastes 6. 12 also " 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? Dwy"! and 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 1. 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. Specimen passages. ויוסיפו | .11 ,9 .PRO For by me thy days shall be ירבו ... ויוסיפו multiplied; and years of life shall be added to thee. Jehovah rooteth out the house of יסח יהוה ויצב 15. 25. the proud; but he establisheth the border of the widow. ישמח לבי גם אני: ותעלזנה כליותי 15-16 .23 נגל | .25 Thy father and thy mother shall ישמח ... וְתגל rejoice; and she that bare thee shall be glad. We will be glad and rejoice in נגילה ונשמחה בך SONG I. 4. thee. 186 Chronological sequence. In Ecclesiastes 8. 10 the simple conjunctive רשעים ... יהלכו וישתכחו prefix ; in the expression connects two imperfects which are not co-ordinate or contemporaneous; but the second is chronologically 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. SONG 3. 2. 4. 16. : ורשע יבאיש ויחפיר אקומה נא ואסובבה בעיר יבא . . . וְיֹּאכל ... 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 : 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 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 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 188 The Masoretic Points and Accents. sufficient reason for the having been pointed one way rather than the other. Why, for instance, should, when prefixed to NN in Judges 2. 1, be pointed as rather than after the imperfect bys), and as rather than three preterite Tp in Isaiah 42. 6? ..... ואביא) אעלה זוז times after the אני יהוה קראתיך בצדק ואחזק בידך ואצרך ואתנך לברית עם לאור גוים : As in 42. 6, so in 43. 4 and Ecclesiastes 1. 17, the sequence by which the imperfect of in is joined to the preceding preterite () appears to be the sequence usually indicated by vau conversive; and as, in Ecclesiastes, л of 1. 17 corresponds to the preterite in 8. 16, so likewise, in Isaiah, of 43. 4 evidently corresponds to 'лn 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 : נתתי כפרך מצרים ... ואני אהבתיך ואתן אדם תחתיך ...: ולבי ראה הרבה חכמה ודעת: ואתנה לבי לדעת חכמה ...: Why also in Proverbs 25 should vau prefixed to in verse 4 be conversive, while the vau prefixed to in verse 5 is simply conjunctive? Both verbs occupy exactly the same relation to the preceding infinitive absolute 1, 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 |