Herzfeld on Ecclesiastes.

329

observed by Herzfeld, who, in 1838, swept away most of the rubbish which had hitherto been relied upon. . . . Six only of the words accumulated by his predecessors, as marks of modern Hebrew, passed muster with him. (1) The interjection "woe," iv. 10, x. 16, an onomapoeticum, which must have been very old in the language, since the word (of some shrill-voiced bird in Lev. xi. 14, and Deut. xiv. 13) is formed from it. Both it and is lived on in Talmudic. (2) Granting that w, for, is Phoenician and old, the conjunction, viii. 17, is to be modern. But t too

[321 discussed in page] בְּכֵן (3) בן של מתנבעל] is Phoenician

is to be modern, "because it only occurs besides in Esth. iv. 16;" and (4), vi. 6, "because it only occurs besides in Esth. vii. 4, and the coalition of two conjunctions points to a late time.” It is utterly unlikely that should be a compound of and ;

1. because they are incompatible conjunctions; 2. because (for) is a simple conjunction in Ch. Syr. Sam. And very probably in Hebrew is the same conjunction, only pointed wrong. (5) “y, occurring x. 20, and else only in Daniel

מע But "מחשבה or דַּעַת and Chronicles, instead of the old

Eccl. x. 20, is not "knowledge," but "the place of knowledge,' "'conscience." Neither ny, "knowledge," nor nawing, "device, purpose," would have expressed the idea [page 90]. (6) "ni, as a particle of comparison, whereas, earlier, the comparison had been expressed by the syntax only." It is clear from the cases in which occurs, that it is no mere particle of comparison. . . . No one word has been found to characterise an age later than Solomon's.

The author of Ecclesiastes uses no one word "purely Chaldee' (i.e. East-Aramaic). Now so far from this being evidence of a later origin, it rather fits in with the circumstances of Solomon. Solomon, both from his empire and his domestic life, had occasion to be familiar with West-Aramaic; and, in fact, there are words, and one form of West-Aramaic, but not one form or word peculiar to East-Aramaic, with which we have no account of his intercourse. But the Hebrews in the Captivity were in continual intercourse

330

East and West Aramaic.

with East-Aramaic, and had none with the West. In the Captivity then we should have expected exactly the reverse, that there should have been words peculiar to East-Aramaic, and none peculiar to the West. The Aramaic words then of Ecclesiastes (as far as they go) suit the time of Solomon, not that of the Captivity.'

Even Moses Stuart, notwithstanding his denial of the Solomonic authorship of Ecclesiastes, says, in his aforementioned book on the Old Testament Canon

'The appeal usually made to the language or diction of the book, in proof of a very late age, will hardly stand the test. Knobel, in his recent and much praised commentary on the book of Ecclesiastes, asserts and has endeavoured to show, that the book is deeply tinctured with Chaldaisms, and words of the later Hebrew. He even thinks that it savours strongly of the diction of the Rabbins and Talmudists. But the scores of his Chaldaisms have been reduced by a later writer, better acquainted with this idiom, (Herzfeld, a German Jew, in his notable work, Coheleth translated and explained, 1838), to some 8 or 10; and his later Hebrew words (some scores more), to some 11-15. The investigation of Herzfeld is so thorough, that appeal from it seems to be nearly out of the question.'

In similar terms, Hengstenberg, another denier of the Solomonic authorship, says in Kitto's Cyclopædia of Biblical Literature :—

'Many opponents of the Solomonic authorship certainly went much too far in their assertions. The Grecisms which Zirkle thought that he had found have now generally been given up. The Rabbinisms likewise could not stand the proof. The words, significations, and forms which seem to appertain to a later period of Hebrew literature, and the Chaldaisms, an abundance of which Knobel gathered, require, as Herzfeld has shown, to be much sifted. According to Herzfeld, there are in Koheleth not more than between eleven and fifteen 'young Hebrew' expressions and constructions, and between eight and ten Chaldaisms. Nevertheless, it is certain that the book does not belong to the productions of the first, but rather to the second period of the Hebrew language.

Different Classes of Literature.

331

This alone would not quite disprove the authorship of Solomon, if we could produce any weighty argument in its favour. We could suppose that Solomon, in a philosophical work, found the pure Hebrew language to be insufficient; and had, therefore, recourse to the Chaldaizing popular dialect, by which, at a later period, the book-language was entirely displaced. This supposition could not be rejected à priori, since almost every one of the Hebrew authors before the exile did the same, although in a less degree. There exist, however, no weighty positive reasons for supposing Solomon to be the author; and the striking difference between the language of Koheleth and the language of the Proverbs renders that explanation quite inadmissible. This difference would prove little if the two books belonged to two entirely different classes of literature; that is, if Koheleth bore the same relation to the Proverbs as the Song of Solomon does: but since Koheleth and the Proverbs belong essentially to the same class, the argument taken from the difference of style must be admitted to be perfectly conclusive.'

Would it be surprising if, when so vast a preponderance of the particulars said to prove the alleged lateness of Ecclesiastes have been rejected as irrelevant even by deniers of the Solomonic authorship, the few that remain should be found similarly incapable of proving, or even helping to prove, that Ecclesiastes was not written by Solomon? Surely the multitude and variety of the coincidences specified throughout this treatise between the Book of Ecclesiastes and the other Solomonic Scriptures constitute 'weighty positive reasons for supposing Solomon to be the author' of the book. And although, in so far as different classes of literature' are concerned, the literary difference between Ecclesiastes and Solomon's Proverbs is not so great in extent and character as the difference between the Proverbs and the

332

Alleged marks of Lateness..

Song of Solomon, yet it is sufficiently great to account for the fact of two books from the pen of one and the same author differing from each other as the Book of Ecclesiastes differs from the Proverbs of Solomon, and to show accordingly that 'the argument taken from the difference of style' is by no means 'conclusive.'

Any remaining alleged marks of lateness are so few and so inconclusive that their 'combined force,' be it what it may, may, without any attempt at the 'explaining away' process, be left to assert itself for what it is worth when confronted with the many and diversified proofs of the Solomonic authorship. And (with the substitution of prove for reprove in the English version of Job 6. 25) those who, without undervaluing the worth of sound criticism, do yet accept as true the testimony of Ecclesiastes to its own authorship, may confidently reply to those who impugn that testimony, 'How forcible are right words! but what doth your arguing prove?'

The Testimony of the Scriptures to their own
Authorship.

Although, as was noticed at the beginning of this treatise, the Scriptures are silent as to the authorship of some of their constituent parts, yet their testimony is very specific with reference to the authorship of other parts, comprising the greater portion of the sacred canon. The circum

The Fact of Authorship.

333

stances in which and the persons by whom the books thus authenticated were written, are mentioned with a precision clearly incompatible with the suggestion that the trustworthiness of the documents is not affected by the denial of the authorship thus ascribed to them.

The fact of authorship is intimated in various ways. Sometimes it is simply mentioned that a certain person said or spoke what is recorded. In other instances, where some one is named as the author, the record is called his writing or his words, or the word of Jehovah is said to have come to him, or God is said to have spoken to, or by, or through him. Sometimes also the circumstances in which the message was given and the relative record was prepared are described with interesting minuteness, as for example in the thirty-sixth chapter of Jeremiah :—

Verse 4. And Jeremiah called Baruch the son of Neriah; and Baruch wrote upon a roll of a book, from the mouth of Jeremiah, all the words of Jehovah, which he had spoken unto him.

17-18. And they asked Baruch, saying, Tell us now, How didst thou write all these words from his mouth? And Baruch said to them, He pronounced unto me all these words with his mouth; and I wrote with ink in the book.

This important topic may be further illustrated by four lists, the first of which contains sundry passages analogous to the title of Ecclesiastes,— the construct words of, being prefixed to the name of the person to whom the authorship of the words is ascribed.