xxiii. 1 Ii. 12 I 1. 19 21 : xxi\ . II. 12: .and one ol se> en. xxviii. Ii 8. We have a longer strain, xxiii. 29 35, against drunkenness.
4. The short appendix, xxiv. 2:'. 34, comprising more "words of the wise," can hardly he distinguished in style or form from the preceding. It closes with a ■■ proverb-lay" of live verses on the e\ il- of -loth.
5. 'Idie second collection of "the proverbs ol Solo- mon" (ch. xxv-xxix), transcribed i"7T"n. S ypaij/avro, \q. perrjpav; Gr. Ven. uwr\vtyKav\ comp. I'usev. Daniel, p. 322 note) by the scribes of Hezekiah, closely resembles the former one. ["hei are. according to Pusey, -identical iii language." It ha-, however, some very decided points ol difference. the "para- bolic" proverb is much more frequenl th.au the "anti- thetical," the two members of the comparison being sometimes set side by Bide without any con in cting link (e. ";. xxv. 12. !."> i, which i- in other ea-e- gi\ en merely by \ -and." or •-. "so" txxvi. I. 2. 18 1'.': xxvii, 8, etc.). The parallelism is sometimes strict, Bomelimes lax and free. There is a want of the sententious brer-
PROVERBS
r03
PROVERBS
ity of the former collection, and the construction is looser and weaker. The proverbs are not always completed in a single verse (xxv, 6, 7; 9. 10; 21, 22; xxvi, 18. 19) : and more frequently than in tiie former section we have series of proverbs with an internal connection of subject (xxvi, 23-25; xxvii, 15, 1G, 23-27),* and others in which the same key-word recurs (xxv, 8-10; xxvi, 3-12; 13-1G). This is not found so often after xxvii, 5; but a close examination of the text suggests the idea that this may be due to a disturbance of the original order (eomp. xxvii, 7, 9; xxviii, 4, 7, 9; xxix, 8, 10, etc.). Ewald discovers a want of the figurative ex- pressions of the earlier collection, and a difference of language and phraseology, while Rosenmtiller remarks that the meaning of the proverbs is more obscure and enigmatical. The greater part of them are moral pre- cepts. "The earlier collection may be called 'a book for youth;' this 'a book for the people'" (Delitzsch) ; "the wisdom of Solomon in the days of Hezekiah" (Stier).
6. The three supplemental writings with which the book closes (ch. xxx, xxxi) are separated from the other portions and from one another no less by style and form than by authorship. Ewald somewhat arbi- trarily divides ch. xxx after ver. 14 (a division, how- ever, sanctioned by the Sept.), and thinks it not im- probable that ch. xxx and xxxi, 1-9 are from the same pen. He also regards the opening verses of ch. xxx as a dialogue, vers. 2-4 being the words of an ig- norant disciple of Agur, to which the teacher replies. The difference between the enigmatical sayings of Agur (which rind a counterpart in the collections of Orien- tal proverbs) and the simple admonitions of Lemuel's mother is very great if we assign them to one author. In ch. xxx we have, in Ewald's words, instead of moral aphorisms, a succession of elegant little pictures illus- trative of moral truths, evidencing a decay of creative power, the skill of the author being applied to a novel and striking presentation of an old truth. The ancient terse proverbial form is entirely lost sight of, and the style rises to a height and dignity warranting the use of the term X*^^ (comp. Isa. xiii, 1 ; Hab. i, 1, etc.) ap- plied to both. In " the words of king Lemuel"' we find much greater regularity. The parallelism is synony- mous, and is maintained throughout. The alphabetical ode in praise of a virtuous woman — <:a golden ABC for women" (Dbderlein) — has all its verses of about the same compass. The parallelism is very similar to that of the Psalms, especially those in which the same alpha- betical arrangement is found.
VI. Authorship ami Date. — On these points the most various opinions have been entertained, from that of the rabbins and the earlier school of commentators, with whom some modern writers (e. g. Keil) agree, who at- tribute the whole book to Solomon (even ch. xxx, xxxi are assigned to him by Rashi and his school), to those of Ilitzig and other representatives of the advanced critical school, who, however widely at variance with one another, agree in reducing to a minimum the wise king of Israel's share in the book which from the re- motest antiquity has borne his name. In the face of such wide discrepancies, where the same data lead care- ful investigators (e. g. Ewald and Hitzig) to exactly opposite conclusions, a satisfactory decision of the ques- tion of authorship and date is hardly to be hoped for. It may rather be doubted whether the evidence at pres- ent before us is such as to admit of an absolute deter- mination of the question at issue. Where so much indeliniteness exists, all we can do is to balance proba- bilities and to abstain from dogmatic decisions.
The evidence in favor of a composite origin of the book appears, we must confess, irresistible. No unprej- udiced person, we think, accustomed to the considera- tion of such questions, could read the book for the first time, even in English, without seeing in it the traces of several different authors, or at least editors. Irre-