Views of Grotius.

29

The other word specified by Grotius, namely, ror, ditch, 10. 8 (akin to rp, Gen. 41. 47, Lev. 2. 2, 5. 12, 6. 8, Num. 5. 26), and also such Hebrew words as, season, 3. 1, and b, to cease, 12. 3, adduced by some critics to prove lateness of date, are common to other Semitic languages besides Chaldee.

Now the fact that the words in question do not occur elsewhere in the Hebrew Scriptures than in Ecclesiastes, or that the other books in which they do occur are unquestionably late, is surely inadequate to prove that they were not current Hebrew words even in the days of Moses or Abraham. The assumption is quite arbitrary, without any evidence or probability in its favour. There are, for instance, some words which occur only in the earliest and in the latest Hebrew Scriptures, and which, but for the obstinate fact of their occurrence thus early, would be included among the words dogmatically asserted to be late. Such is the verb

4. 13, 12. 12, found also in Ezekiel 3, 33, Daniel 12. 3, 2 Chronicles 19. 10, but occurring likewise as early as Exodus 18. 20, besides Psalm 19. 12, and 2 Kings 6. 10. Even ap is sometimes, as in the Grammar of Gesenius, asserted to be characteristic of the later Hebrew; and if it were found only in Esther, Ezra, and Chronicles, the assertion might not be easily disproved. Yet, not to speak of the fact that p occurs once in the Proverbs of Solomon, 19. 20, and twice in Job 2. 10, its occurrence in two different parts of the book of Exodus (26. 5 and 36. 12) shows that it is early as well as late.

30

Hebrew and Chaldee.

Take likewise the noun

common to Hebrew

and Chaldee. It occurs eight times in the Chaldee of Daniel (2. 10, 15, 4. 14, 22, 23, 29, 5. 21, 29), twice in the Chaldee of Ezra (4. 20, 7. 24), and thrice in Ecclesiastes (7. 19, 8. 8, 10. 5); while its root verb occurs only in Psalm 119. 133, Esther 9. 1, Nehemiah 5. 15, and four times in Ecclesiastes (2. 19, 5. 18, 6. 2, 8. 9). Can there be any doubt that if (which is by no means inconceivable) a critic of the modern school were somehow unaware of the fact that occurs also in Genesis 42. 6, he would declare this word to be an incontestable evidence of the alleged lateness of Ecclesiastes? And may it not be so that the few words common to Hebrew and to Chaldee, and found in Ecclesiastes, but not in any of the admittedly early parts of the Scriptures, are as ancient as the days of Joseph, but are not found in Genesis, for the simple reason that, in the composing of that book, there was no occasion for using them? Even Gesenius, in his Lexicon, speaks of DD as a word belonging to the later Hebrew. Yet it occurs not only in 2 Chron. 1. 11, 12, and Ecc. 5. 18, 6. 2, but likewise in Joshua 22. 8!

Further, so far is an Aramaic tinge from proving lateness, that, even in the earliest stages of the Hebrew tongue, Aramaisms are met with. Bethuel the father-in-law of Isaac, and his son Laban the father-in-law of Jacob, are both mentioned in Genesis as Syrians (25. 20, 28. 5, 31. 20, 24). Yegar Sahadutha, & in Genesis 31. 47, the name given by Laban the Syrian to

IT

Views of Delitzsch.

31

the heap of stones which Jacob called, is purely Aramaic; and so is Man hu, p, Tí EOTI TOÛTO; Quid est hoc? What is this? the

question uttered by the Israelites when they found in the wilderness the food to which they afterwards, on account of this question, gave the name (Exodus 16. 15, 31). The book of Job, which is certainly older than the days of Solomon, contains Aramaisms which, as pointed out in the Speaker's Commentary, are evidences rather of antiquity than of lateness; and Dr. Pusey, in his lectures on Daniel the Prophet, says, with reference to the Aramaic element in the book of Ruth, The language has this remarkable characteristic, that the forms which look like Chaldaisms occur in conversation, and so represent the language of peasant life, the narrative Hebrew being good.'

Views of Delitzsch.

Delitzsch, in his introduction to the book of Ecclesiastes, gives a very formidable-looking list of above ninety words or phrases headed thus:

'List of the Hapaxlegomena, and of the Words and Forms in the Book of Koheleth belonging to a more recent Period of the Language.'

At the end of the list he says, 'This survey of the forms peculiar to the Book of Koheleth, and found only in the most recent books of the Old Testament, partly only in the Chaldee portions of these, and in general use in the Aramaic, places it beyond all doubt that in this book we have a

32

Linguistic Features.

product of the post-exilian period, and, at the earliest, of the time of Ezra-Nehemiah.'

Now if the list actually bore out the heading prefixed to it, Delitzsch might be held to have proved his point. A cursory glance at the list, however, seems sufficient to shake one's confidence in it; and if it be faithfully scrutinised, it shrinks down to almost nothing. As the words are

already

arranged in alphabetical order, referred to in pages 27, 28, stands first; and all that is said about it and about the two words next to it occupies three lines, thus

'Aviyonah, xii. 5; cf. Ma'seroth iv. 6, Berachoth 36 a.

Adam, opp. ishah, only at vii. 28.

Izzen, Piel, only xii. 9; not Talm.'

As at the beginning, so throughout the long list, there are frequent references to the Targums, the Talmud, and sundry rabbinical works. Yet the occurrence of Hebrew words in such uncanonical and late writings cannot prove the words to be late, for earlier as well as later words and phrases are thus freely used. Thus by, which occurs as early as Exodus 9. 31, but nowhere else in the Scriptures, appears also in the Mishna.

With reference to DT, as opposed to n in Ecclesiastes 7. 28, so far is this usage from being late, that it is found at the very beginning of the Bible, in Genesis 2. 22, the first passage where woman is mentioned; for though in the twentythird verse, where s vir, man, is first mentioned in contradistinction to DTN homo, is opposed to

, yet the antiquity of the usage in Ecclesiastes

Alleged Marks of Lateness.

33

7. 28 is proved by Genesis 2. 22, 25, 3. 12, where is used not as the proper noun Adam, but

מן האדם לאשה : as the common noun for mann

AT:

ITT IT

Why the Piel form, connected as it is in Ecclesiastes 12. 9 with other two Piel words p and p, should be an evidence of lateness, Delitzsch does not state. The verbs and both of frequent occurrence, especially in the earlier Scriptures-coincide in this respect that each is always Hiphil, except once Piel- in this passage, and in Isaiah 5. 30, which is not late Hebrew.

Concerning many of the words and phrases specified by Delitzsch, it may be observed that, although they are either åπağ λeyóμeva or peculiar to Ecclesiastes, they contain nothing to indicate lateness. It is possible that though a root be ancient, a peculiar form derived from it may bear incontrovertible evidence of lateness. Thus the lateness of many rabbinical words is indicated, not by their roots, which are as old as the Pentateuch, but by their etymological formation. On the other hand such a word as Midrash, it occurs only in 2 Chronicles 13. 22, 24. 27, may have been in use as early as the etymologically similar word Midrac, 7, in Deuteronomy 2. 5, the verbal root being found repeatedly in every book of the Pentateuch. Many other ancient verbal nouns precisely similar in etymological form, and some of them of frequent occurrence, might likewise be mentioned, such for instance as Midbar, Mispar, Mikdash, Mishpat. Now if the lateness

C

, though