294

Arguing in a Circle.

use in two places is peculiar to himself, occurring nowhere else in the Hebrew Scriptures. In the first, its Phoenician form is used by the Phoenician mariners; in the second it is an instance of the spoken language in the mouth of the Prophet, a native of North Palestine, and in answer to Phoenicians. In the third instance, (where it is the simple relative) its use is evidently for condensation. Its use in any case would agree with the exact circumstances of Jonah, as a native of North Palestine, conversing with Phoenician mariners. The only plea of argument has been gained by arguing in a circle, assuming without any even plausible ground that the Song of Solomon or Psalms of David were late, because they had this form, and then using it as a test of another book being late; ignoring alike the earlier books which have it and the later books which have it not, and its exceptional use (except in the Canticles and Ecclesiastes), in the books which have it.'

This testimony from the pen of Dr. Pusey is enhanced by the circumstance that his references to Ecclesiastes and the Song of Solomon are purely incidental, and that accordingly, while he states the fact of the peculiar frequency of for in these two books, the scope of his subject does not lead him even to allude to this common feature of Ecclesiastes and Canticles as an evidence of identity of authorship. But indeed the simple facts of the case are in themselves the best of all arguments in support of the position that Ecclesiastes and the Song of Solomon had one and the same author. In these facts similarity and dissimilarity are so blended together as to bear their united testimony to the Solomonic authorship of Ecclesiastes. The Book of Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs are so extremely unlike one another in scope and style and subject-matter, that any theory of the one having been written in imitation of the other would be even more preposterous than

Similarity and Dissimilarity.

295

such a theory with reference to Ecclesiastes and Solomon's Proverbs would be. Notwithstanding the wide dissimilarity already mentioned in page 50 as subsisting between Proverbs and Ecclesiastes, it is not too much to assert that the Book of Ecclesiastes is more like, in its general scope, to the Book of Proverbs than to any other book in the Hebrew Scriptures. Whereas, except in those unobtrusive features which point in the direction of a common authorship, there are no two books in the Old Testament more unlike one another than Canticles and Ecclesiastes. Hence, if there were in the Book of Ecclesiastes such designed imitation of Solomon's writings as is sometimes alleged, it would be imitation of his Proverbs rather than imitation of his Song. Yet the characteristic abbreviation of no fewer than sixtyeight times in so comparatively small a treatise as Ecclesiastes, introduces such a divergence from the style of Solomon's Proverbs, in which is invariably unabbreviated, as an imitator would most likely have avoided. And even if the theory (however untenable) were put forward, that the writer may have been imitating Solomon's Song, that again would be refuted by the fact that, while the abbreviated form does indeed occur sixtyeight times, the unabbreviated occurs upwards of eighty times in Ecclesiastes; though it is not found even once in the Song, except in the title.

The similarity and dissimilarity which thus meet and are interwoven with each other in the diversified uses of the Relative Pronoun in the

296

The Consistency of Truth.

three books ascribed to Solomon as their author, exemplify a consistency so simple and artless as to be untrammelled by anything like a straining after that appearance of consistency which an imitator would be at pains to exhibit. Hence it may be said with reference to the Preacher's use of abbreviated and unabbreviated, that it lies altogether beyond the range of cunningly devised imitation, and is explicable only on the ground of that simple honest truthfulness which has no need of stratagem for the vindication of its consistency.

Thatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience

and comfort of the Scriptures

might have hope.

Conclusion.

The non-Solomonic Proverbs.

WHILE there is nothing in the different sections of Proverbs 1-29 to indicate difference of authorship, or to give countenance to the suggestion that some portions of these twenty-nine chapters may not have proceeded from the pen of Solomon, and while, on the contrary, the truth of the titles with which chapters 1, 10, and 25 begin is abundantly attested, there is no reason to suppose that Solomon wrote either of the two last chapters in the Book of Proverbs. On the contrary, each of these chapters claims, in its opening words, a different authorship; and this claim is amply corroborated by the style and language of the chapters, and by their wide divergence from Solomon's acknowledged writings.

In so far as the general scope of the Proverbs is concerned, the difference between these two chapters and the Proverbs of Solomon is perhaps not greater than the difference between Solomon's Proverbs and the Book of Ecclesiastes. Indeed the fact that Proverbs 30, 31 resemble the s nob to the extent of what is implied by the Hebrew noun be, is sufficient to show that these two chapters have been appended to Solomon's

298

The Book of Proverbs.

Proverbs, similarly as the men of Hezekiah appended to the previously existing volume those proverbs of Solomon which they copied out. That there might, however, be no mistake as to the authorship of chapters 30 and 31, and no risk of confounding them with Solomon's words, each chapter begins with a designation of its own author.

Over and above a general proverbial similarity, there are undoubtedly some such striking coincidences between Proverbs 30 and 31 and the Proverbs of Solomon as might, if there were identity of authorship, be adduced in illustration of it. Thus the root aan, which is peculiarly prominent in the Solomonic Proverbs, is found also in Proverbs 30. 3, 24, and 31. 26, as mentioned in page 72. The root P, on the other hand, while it abounds in most of the books of the Old Testament, is found only once in the Book of Ecclesiastes (8. 10), and twice in Solomon's Proverbs (9. 10, 20. 25). Now it may be observed that (besides л, wisdom) not only the

is ודעת קדשים but the very phrase קדשים plural

common to the words of Solomon in Proverbs 9. 10, and the words of Agur in Proverbs 30. 3 :— 9. 10. The fear of Jehovah is the beginning of WISDOM; AND THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE HOLY is understanding. 30. 3. I neither learned WISDOM, NOR know THE KNOWLEDGE

OF THE HOLY.

There is likewise an obvious resemblance between what is said by Solomon in 19. 10 about a servant having rule over princes, and what is