304 Difference of Authorship. are proverbial. In fact the thirtieth chapter of the Book of Proverbs constitutes a literature sui generis-analogous indeed to the Proverbs of Solomon, and therefore annexed to them, yet forming a composition as distinct and unique as the Book of Ecclesiastes or the Song of Songs. It is likewise worthy of notice that, in the last chapter of the Book of Proverbs, the Aramaic form 2, for son, occurs thrice in the second verse, but nowhere else in the Hebrew Scriptures, except in the last verse of the second Psalm. The alphabetic structure of the bright picture with which the Book of Proverbs ends (31.10-31) is not in itself an evidence of a date later than the days of Solomon; for some of David's Psalms, such as Psalms 25 and 34, are composed on the same artistic plan. Yet there is no instance of this peculiar kind of symmetry anywhere in the Solomonic Scriptures. In short, while the dissimilarity between the Book of Ecclesiastes and the Proverbs of Solomon is fully accounted for by difference in scope and subject-matter, and while the deep and minute and extensive resemblances between the one book and the other point conclusively to identity of authorship, it may be observed that, notwithstanding sundry resemblances, the dissimilarity between the Proverbs of Solomon and the two last chapters of the Book of Proverbs can be accounted for only on the ground of such difference of authorship as the several titular verses respectively intimate. The Epilogue. The Epilogue to Ecclesiastes. 305 It is affirmed by some critics who deny the Solomonic authorship of Ecclesiastes, that the Epilogue, consisting of the last six or seven verses, must be the composition of a later writer than the unknown personator to whom the authorship of the Book without the Epilogue is ascribed. Among the advocates of this view may be mentioned the German authors Döderlein, 1784; Schmidt, 1794; Umbreit, 1818, and Knobel, 1836. It is maintained by such critics that the Epilogue is superfluous and aimless, and that the manner in which the writer speaks in the third person, and refers to a future judgment, is not in keeping with the style and subject-matter of the treatise. 'The notion of God holding a future set judgment' [it is said] is inconsistent with the Preacher's view (iii. 17, v. 8, xi. 9) of retribution being restricted to the natural consequences of man's actions.' Yet there is no such restriction, either in the passages specified or anywhere else in the Book of Ecclesiastes. On the contrary, the declaration with which the Epilogue ends is in thorough harmony with what is taught throughout the treatise -there being nothing to limit to the present life the judgment mentioned by Koheleth. In 3. 16-17 the wickedness prevailing in the place of judgment which the Preacher saw under the (מקום המשפט) sun is mentioned in contrast with the fact that God shall judge the righteous and the wicked; and the words of 12. 14 are mutatis mutandis identical with the corresponding words of 11. 9 :— U 306 The Prologue of the Apocalypse. 3. 16-17. I saw under the sun the place of judgment, that wickedness was there, and the place of righteousness, that wickedness was there. I said in my heart, God shall judge the righteous and the wicked. 11. 9. God shall bring thee into judgment. 12. 14. God shall bring every work into judgment. יביאך האלהים במשפט: את-כל-מעשה האלהים יבא במשפט In like manner the use of the third person rather than the first, so far from being at variance with the Preacher's usage, is in exact conformity with it-the name лp being connected with a verb in the first person only once (1. 12), whereas it is connected twice (1. 2; 7. 27) with a verb in the third person, precisely as in 12. 8, 9, 10. In this respect the Prologue of the Apocalypse resembles the Epilogue of Ecclesiastes. As in Ecclesiastes so in the Revelation, the writer generally speaks in the first person. He thus uses ἐγενόμην in I. 9, 10 ; 4. 2 ;—ἤκουσα in I. 10 ; 4. 1, and above twenty times besides ;-and eldov (corresponding to 'n' of Ecclesiastes) in 1. 12, 17; 4. 1, 4, and above forty times besides. In the same way the name 'Iwávvns is used thrice (1. 9; 21. 2; 22. 8) in the first person, and is immediately preceded, in each instance, by èyà, exactly like nap in Ecclesiastes I. 12. In the Prologue, however, 'Iwávvns is used twice in the third person, like nonp in Ecclesiastes 1. 2; 7. 27; 12. 8, 9, 10. Yet who would think of questioning the genuineness of the Prologue to the Apocalypse on that account? In the Prophets likewise, the first and the third person are sometimes used interchangeably, as for instance in Isaiah 7. 3 and 8. 1; Ezekiel The First and the Third Person. 307 I. 1-4; Zechariah 7. 1, 4, 8. And it is worthy of special notice that 1 Kings 2. 45 contains an instance of Solomon speaking of himself in the third person, similarly as the Preacher speaks in the Book of Ecclesiastes. I KINGS 2. 44-45. And the king said unto Shimei, Thou knowest all the evil which thy heart knoweth that thou didst to David my father; and Jehovah shall return thy wickedness upon thine own head; AND KING SOLOMON shall be BLESSED; and the throne of David shall be established before Jehovah for ever. Even Ginsburg, who denies the Solomonic authorship of Ecclesiastes, says— 'As to the assertion that verses 9-14 are not genuine, and have been added by a later hand, it is most arbitrary, and to be repudiated. Nothing can be more weak than the arguments brought to support this allegation.' The Epilogue contains nothing akin to those features in Proverbs 30, 31 which have already been mentioned as corroborating the ascription of these two chapters to other authors than Solomon. On the contrary, the Epilogue is identical in style. and diction with the rest of the book. It contains indeed one åπağ λeyóμevov, namely an, in verse 12. This however is in strict accordance with the fact that amağ leyóμeva are not uncommon throughout Ecclesiastes and Canticles. Though even the familiar noun DD also is found nowhere in Proverbs, Canticles, and Ecclesiastes, except in the same sentence with an, yet it occurs in the .41 .in I Kings II על-ספר דברי שלמה important phrase ,9 verses ספרים הרבה and משלים הרבה the expressions It may be likewise observed in connection with 12, that 27, the infinite absolute Hiphil of na7, 308 Phraseology of the Epilogue. though it occurs upwards of fifty times in the Hebrew Scriptures, is appended immediately to a plural noun in D only eight times-that seven of the eight are in the Solomonic Scriptures-that of these seven, two are in the history of Solomon's reign, and five in Ecclesiastes, and that two of the five are in the Epilogue, and the three others in the earlier parts of the book, the solitary nonSolomonic passage being Isaiah 30. 33 (27 DYY)); along with which Joshua 22. 8 may be mentioned as containing an appended to a plural noun in ni I KINGS IO. 10. Very many spices. ECCLESIASTES שלמות הרבה מאד,very many garments= ובשמים הרבה מאד עצי אלמגים הרבה מאד .Very many almug trees .11 This minute coincidence is valuable in connection with the Solomonic authorship of the whole Book of Ecclesiastes. And it may be noticed also in passing, that the infinitive construct Kal of 7 with the preposition 2 is peculiar to Proverbs 29. 2, 16, and Ecclesiastes 5. 10 (11), and that this infinitive occurs only once elsewhere, namely in : (למען רבות מופתי) .Exodus II צדיקים .2 .29 PROVERBS ECCLESIASTES 5. 10. The following coincidences, most of which have been discussed already, may be tabulated here, as affording superabundant evidence that the Epilogue must have been written by the author of Ecclesiastes : |