two collections lends Btrong confirmation to this view. In selecting or arranging a collection in Solomon's time. and under his inspection, the choice would naturally fall upon the most perfect, and as alterations might be freely made by their actual author, these would tend to bring them into a still more finished form. Accord- ingly, we find in the more ancient collection a certain laslefulness and polish which the others do not pi-.i-s In the former each \ . i se contains its own perfect Sense, ■\\u\ this usually comprised in a certain number of words.
PROVERBS
705
PROVERBS
varying from seven to nine, beyond which they very rarely extend. In the latter, while the sense is gener- ally contained in one verse, it not nnfrequently runs through two or more verses. Examples from these might easily be produced as concise and perfect in form as the others (e. g. xxv, 2, 3, 14); but very commonly the sense is brought out in a much more diffuse manner (e. g. xxv, 6, 7, 9, 10, 21, 22; xxvi, 18, 20; xxvii, 15, 16, 23-27). In the individual verses also we find occa- sionally a far greater number of words than are ever admitted into those of the older collection (e. g. xxv, 7, 20); and the parallelism, which never fails in the verses of the earlier, is often wanting in those of the later division (xxv, 8, 21, 22 ; xxvi, 10 ; xxvii, 1). This agrees with the idea which we think warranted by a comparison of xxv, 1 with 1 Kings iv, 32, 33, that the proverbs in this collection are probably much as they fell from Solomon's lips, and were first committed to writing by himself or others under him ; and that while the former collection received his own final corrections, the men of Ilezekiah simply copied from the text before them, but did not venture upon any alteration in the form.
The case is somewhat different with regard to the introductory chapters (i-ix), and there is more ground for the diversity of opinion as to their date and author- ship. It is certainly quite possible that the whole or considerable portion of this section may have been writ- ten by Solomon. The differences of style, of which Ewald makes much, are, as Bertheau has shown, some- what exaggerated by hirn, and are not perhaps greater than may be accounted for by the different nature of the compositions. The terse simplicity of a proverb would be out of place in a series of hortatory addresses such as those which characterize this section. Ewald dwells with emphasis on the internal evidence of a late date afforded by the state of society, and the tone of feeling as portrayed here. But we repeat our former remark, that we know too little of the internal history of Judrea at this time to allow us to speak with so much confidence on these points, and express our conviction that the conclusions drawn by Ewald are not warranted by the premises. The imagery all points to a large and profligate city, such as Jerusalem may well have become during the middle of Solomon's prosperous reign; and the vivid representation of the habits of the foreign prostitutes and lawless freebooters who roamed its streets is hardly more than could have been attained by one who, like Harun Alraschid, was fond of laying aside his kingly 'state and visiting his city in disguise.
It is evident, from what we have remarked in a for- mer section, that we regard the proem (ch. i-ix) in its present form as a composite work, though very possibly proceeding from one pen. The similarity of style, sub- ject, and treatment, is strongly in favor of unity of au- thorship, while the internal evidence favors the view that it is compiled of various unconnected members, collected and arranged subsequently to the time of their composition. The date of this compilation it is impos- sible to fix. The evidence on this point is faint and untrustworthy, and has led different investigators to very opposite conclusions. Ewald places it in the 7th, Hitzig in the 9th century B.C., while Keil, as Ave have seen, ascribes it to the time of Solomon. The resem- blance that may be traced in this portion of the work to the spirit and teaching of the book of Job, and the recurrence of some of the words and images found there, is employed both by Hitzig and Ewald to aid in deter- mining the date of this section (comp. Job xv, 7 with Prov. viii, 25; Job xxi, 17, Prov. xiii, 9; Job xxviii, 18, Prov. viii, 16; Job v, 17, Prov. iii, 11; see Pusey, Daniel, p. 323, note 7). But as there is no unanimity as to the date of the composition of Job, little help is to be expected from this source, nor can we be surprised at the diversity of opinion among those who have em- ployed it : Ewald maintaining that the writer of Proverbs had read and made use of Job; Hitzig. on the contrary, VIII.— Y y
believing that the former is the earlier work, and that the author of Job borrowed from Proverbs. The adop- tion of such expedients proves most forcibly the com- plete want of any decisive testimony which will enable us to arrive at any trustworthy conclusion as to the date of this section. In the midst of this uncertainty, the above solution is as probable as any other — namely, that it is due to Solomon's authorship out of materials existing at his time.