Page images
PDF
EPUB
[blocks in formation]

shortly before the Captivity. They have thought that some words must necessarily be assigned to the Persian or even to the Grecian epoch. Socalled Chaldaisms, in treating of the date of the Hebrew books, furnish a very dangerous criterion. Such Chaldaisms are often nothing more than certain dialectical peculiarities of the north of Palestine, or traces of the vocabulary of the common people.'

Surely these considerations are sufficient to show that in any case the alleged lateness of Ecclesiastes cannot be proved from such Chaldaisms and other linguistic features as are found in the book, and that those characteristics are not inconsistent with the position that the book of Ecclesiastes was written by that son of David who was king over Israel in Jerusalem.

Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee,

and thou be found a liar.

Positive Evidence of the Solomonic Authorship.

The Solomonic Scriptures.

Now if the negative position be made good that the alleged evidences of lateness of date are not sufficient to prove such lateness, one may, with the more confidence, advance to the positive position of showing that Ecclesiastes bears abundant internal evidence that it was written by Solomon. As the historic references, which are in thorough harmony with the life and reign of Solomon, have already been noticed, what remains is to compare the book of Ecclesiastes, in its verbal and linguistic features, with the Proverbs and the Song of Solomon, and with certain other portions of the Hebrew Scriptures which contain what Solomon said, or describe his life and the days in which he reigned. Besides the book of Proverbs (excepting the two last chapters), the Song of Songs and the book of Ecclesiastes, Psalms 72 and 127 are ascribed to Solomon as their author. The history of Solomon's life and reign also contains several speeches uttered by him, and thus capable of being pertinently compared in this matter with his writings, similarly as the speeches of the apostle

The Solomonic Scriptures.

41

Paul which are recorded in the Acts of the Apostles may be compared with the Pauline epistles. Besides certain brief statements such as those contained in 1 Kings 2. 20-45, 3. 23-27, there are Solomon's prayer for wisdom, 3. 6-9, his message to Hiram, king of Tyre, 5. 17-20 (3-6), his addresses to the assembled congregation at the dedication of the Temple, 8. 12-21, 56-61, and especially his prayer on that memorable occasion, 23-53. To these may be added, for purposes of comparison, the whole of the historic narrative of his life and reign, extending over 1 Kings 1-11; for without assuming that the historic record was written by Solomon himself, it must be evident that any striking similarity between the language of the History and the language of Ecclesiastes must be in favour of the Solomonic authorship of Ecclesiastes. Making due allowance for the lateness of the Chronicles, 1 Chronicles 22, 28, 29, and the first nine chapters of the second book, may to some extent be appealed to, seeing that the facts and quoted words and documents embodied in them and in 1 Kings date back to the days of Solomon, though the actual compilation of the Books of Chronicles is of later date.

Now to assume as a starting-point that Solomon. wrote the Proverbs and the Song which bears his name, and thereupon as a basis to institute a comparison between them and Ecclesiastes with the design of showing that their author wrote it also, might be viewed as a taking for granted of what would need to be proved, seeing that there

42

Evidence of the Solomonic Authorship.

are critics who deny even the Solomonic authorship of Proverbs and Canticles. The ground occupied in this treatise however is not liable to any such illogical objection, for it may, without begging the question, be at once admitted that whatever points in the direction of these three books having one and the same author, points in the direction of that author being Solomon. It is simply incredible that any other man could have written all the three books. To prove Proverbs, Canticles, and Ecclesiastes to have proceeded from the pen of one and the same author is to prove that that author was Solomon. This must be conceded by even the keenest opponents of the Solomonic authorship; for there is certainly nothing either in the books or connected with them to indicate that all the three may have been written by one person living several centuries after the death of Solomon. The whole circumstances of the case are directly contrary to any such view. One author these three books cannot possibly have had, unless that author was Solomon.

Comparison of Books.

Various points deserve special notice in comparing together different books or portions of books with the view of proving sameness or difference of authorship. Two books or parts of books may be so closely akin to each other in their scope and in the nature of their subject-matter,

Comparison of Books.

43

that patent differences of style and phraseology may point conclusively to difference of authorship. Thus, whereas the uniformity of style by which the first and second sections of Ezra (chapters 1-6 and 7-10) are characterised points to identity of authorship, difference of authorship between Ezra and Nehemiah is indicated not only by the independent manner in which Nehemiah begins, and by the insertion in each book of a large portion consisting of about seventy verses derived obviously from a common source (Ezra 2, Nehemiah 7. 6-73), but also by such differences of language and phraseology as can scarcely be explained on the theory of identity of authorship. Nehemiah,' it is observed in the Speaker's Commentary, 'has a manner quite peculiar to himself, and uses many words and phrases which are not found in Ezra.' So likewise, the difference between the language of the Pentateuch and the language of the book of Joshua is thus briefly described by Keil: 'The book of Joshua has not the archaisms which pervade all the five books of Moses equally; and, notwithstanding great agreement of language with the Pentateuch, resulting from the common subject, yet it has many expressions and forms, varying from and unknown to the Pentateuch.' This diversity points plainly to difference of authorship, there being nothing to account for it in the general scope of the books.

It is not in this way, however, that the linguistic differences between the books of Proverbs, Can

« EelmineJätka »