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 Commentary 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 impossible, 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 [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.'

210

The Preterite with 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 twentynine cases the vau appears to be not conversive, but simply conjunctive; and to some extent they may, like the nineteen preceding cases, be classified. Eight of the twenty-nine preterites are in the third person singular, namely, 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 the first 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.

quent throughout Ecclesiastes than simple vau, the distinct instances of each being

(1.) The Preterites in the Third Person.

12.9. In Ecclesiastes 12. 9, two preterites ( and pn) without, and TWO ( and pm) WITH, the copulative vau are clearly frequentative, the particle iy 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:

וְאוּן וְהִקֵר תִּקֵּן And moreover, because the עוד למד

...

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 frequentative PRETERITES WITH VAU (*) as those in Numbers II. 8, 1 Samuel 16. 23, 2 Samuel 15. 2, 5, and 1 Kings 9. 25 (besides Joshua 6. 13, and 1 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 :

I SAM. 16. 23. * AND IT CAME TO PASS when the spirit of THAT David TOOK the harp, ♪♪* AND

TT:

וְלָקַח,God was upon Saul

*

PLAYED with his hand, * AND Saul WAS REFRESHED, and it was well with him; * AND the evil spirit DEPARTED from him.

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. AND IT CAME TO PASS when a man came near to do

PUT FORTH his hand AND TOOK him AND KISSED him.

corroborates what has already ,(וַיַּעַשׂ וַיֹּאמֶר וַיִּקְרָא וַיְהִי)

[NOTE.-In 2 Samuel 15. 2-6, the use of these six preterites with the prefix vau in regimen with vau conversive of the imperfect 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 conversive, but simply conjunctive. This is specially obvious from the use of in verse fifth synonymously with " in verse second.]

TT:

I KINGS 9. 25. * AND three times in a year Solomon OFFERED burnt-offerings and peace-offerings upon the altar which he had built to Jehovah; p and he burned incense . . . ober * AND HE FINISHED the house.

[NOTE.-According to the Masoretic punctuation, verse is pointed, not as the preterite

in this

p, but as the infinitive

even though it seems

to be strictly parallel to

by, and though the Hiphil infinitive absolute of this verb is found nowhere else in the Scriptures, p 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.

213

Ecclesiastes is based on an interpretation different from that which is indicated by the Masoretic points, it may be observed that even if be here viewed as the infinitive rather than as the preterite, the preterite by is conclusive of the point for which I Kings 9. 25 is quoted.

The preterite, though not frequentative, illustrates the preterites with simple vau in Ecclesiastes 9. 14, 15, about to be examined.]

In connection with this subject, Numbers 11. 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 mentioned 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

שטו העם ולקטו * וטחנו | GATHERED it, AND GROUND it ברחים או דכו במדכה ובשלו ,in mills, or beat it in a mortar

בפרור * ועשו אתו עגות * והיה טעמו כטעם לשד השמן :

AND BOILED it in a pan, AND MADE cakes of it, AND the taste of it WAS as the taste of fresh oil.

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, and pn, like the two preterites and 17 here, stand by themselves, without the prefix vau; while the other preterites, standing in regimen with them, have it.