Page images
PDF
EPUB

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, attaching 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 analogous 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 geographical 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:

ואשד הנחלים אשר נָטָה לשבת ער וְנִשְׁעַן לגבול מואב:

And the stream of the brooks, which stretcheth to the dwelling of Ar, AND LEANETH to the border of Moab.

Here the bare preterite п corresponds exactly to

ay and y in Joshua 19. 13, 34, while, with equal

,ויצא ושב ופגע ועלה corresponds to ונשען,exactness and פגע and עבר in the immediate context of ונסב

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 geographical outlines recorded by the ancient historian or in the ethical discussions of Koheleth. 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.'

Hence

This identity of usage affords a valuable confirmation 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.

Review 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

Solomon's Prayer and Song.

271

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 explanation of the fact that vau conversive of the imperfect 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 (1 Kings 8. 24). The multitude of facts and illustrations 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 exclusive'; and even although the preterite with simple vau has the numerical preponderance over the preterite with vau conversive, yet the preponderance 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 twentyone 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 classification, not as twenty-one, 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 instances in 1. 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 instanceeight 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 preponderance 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 both uses of the conjunctive particle (the conversive and the simple) 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 Ecclesiastes is the frequency with which Koheleth uses the first personal pronoun ", and places it after the preterite to which it is the nominative. As already stated in page 222, Ecclesiastes contains nineteen instances of thus placed immediately after its verb. In the non-Solomonic Scriptures 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

« EelmineJätka »