in

From this list it is evident that 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 attached immediately to

, 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, 'n 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

would undoubtedly have been the ואמרה or ואמר

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 nлp, deduced from the incident, one may see how peculiarly appropriate the preterite 'n is, and how unwarrant

240

Arrangement of Words.

able it would therefore be to infer from the vau prefixed to лON 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 "') in Ecclesiastes 2. 15, 9. 16, is virtually identical with

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 nonSolomonic Scriptures, the nominative generally precedes the verb. The difference is one of mere verbal arrangement, like the difference between. I said and said I, or the difference between

-35 .16 in Exodus את־המן אכלו and אכלו את המן כי אתה לבדך ידעת in I Kings8. 39, and כי אתה ידעת לבדך in והרוח תשוב and וישב העפר ,30 .6 in 2 Chronicles

Ecclesiastes 12. 7. Similar diversity of arrangement is met with in 11. 9 and 12. 14, and in Proverbs 1. 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simple vau at the beginning of a clause merely because the initial word happened to be such a preterite as could not be superseded by the historic imperfect, is evident from the fact that Solomon does actually prefix 1 to the preterite of this very verb in Proverbs 9. 16, after having preterite without the prefix, in verse fourth, precisely as in Ecclesiastes the Preacher uses 'n both with and without the vau:

used the same

מי פתי יסר הנה חסר-לב אמרה לו: .4 .9 PROVERBS

T: JT

ואמרה לו : .16 מי פתי יסר הנה וחסר-לב

Absence of Historic Sequence.

241

is

In the seventh chapter of Job likewise, 'n used with the conjunctive vau in verse fourth, and without it in verse thirteenth. That the vau of Job's is not conversive but simple, is evident both from its relation to the preceding preterite л, and from the analogy of verse thirteenth :

JOB 7. 4. If I have lain down, I have

also said, When shall I arise. . ?

13. When I have said, My bed shall n comfort me: . . .

As with ', so with 'n' 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 is specially appropriate for the historic narrative, it ought to be adopted rather than in the moral treatise where historic sequence is immaterial, if not positively inappropriate; 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 Koheleth 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, 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,

.already quoted in page 23O ושבתי אני ואראה

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 appears as the dominant preterite, to which the other verbs are attached in the historic imperfect, exactly as is attached to 'n in Ecclesiastes 4. 1, 7:—

Daughters saw her and blessed her :

ראוה בנות ויאשרוה מלכות ופילגשים ויהללוה :

in וראיתי to ואראה That Koheleth does not prefer

Queens and concubines-and they praised her.

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

are alike ואראה and the historic imperfect ראיתי

common in simple historic narrations, Nis seldom or never used in the way in which 'n' is used in Ecclesiastes. On the other hand, the occurrence of 'n' 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 '' and the usage in the Hebrew of David and Solomon, as well as throughout the Hebrew Scriptures generally.

Co-ordinate Preterites.

PSALM 37. 25. But I have not seen the righteous forsaken.

35. I have seen the wicked terrible. PROVERBS 24. 32. I saw, (yea) I

received instruction.

243

ולא ראיתי צדיק נעזב

ראיתי רשע עריץ ראיתי לקחתי מוסר :

Co-ordinate or Synonymous Preterites.

As the synonymous preterites and 2 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 271 is no mark of lateness.

NUMBERS 23. 19.

ולא

ולא יקימנה : יעשה וְדִבֶּר

Hath he said; and will he not do?

And hath he spoken; and will he not confirm it?

ההוא אָמַר

ואמרתי אני בלבי ... ודברתי בלבי ...: .15 .2 ECCLESIASTES

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 1. 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 1. 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 :—