partR, and disposes one to allow more weight, to the undecisive arguments mentioned above. The parrenetical form adopted in the introduction, so different from the proverb proper, points to the influence of the prophetic element, hardly arrived at public utterances and documentary testimony in Solomon's time, but afterwards the great power in the state and the common support of the religious life. Many passages breathe the spirit of Deutero- nomy, which in the minds of some critics would at once be a proof of very late origin, but of course have no such look for those who hold the Mosaic authorship of the Penta.tench. Others are remarkably similar to parts of the Book of Job, and are evidently more or less borrowed from that source; but as the date of that writing is still undecided, nothing ca11 be deduced from this fact. Taking all that has been said into consideration, and care- fully weighing the opinions which have been put forth on the question, we regard this section as the composition of one author, and that not Solomon, except in so far as it breathes his spirit and possibly embodies many of his sayings. It is no argument against this last suggestion, that Solomon would not be found discoursing against unchastity of which his own later life was a flagrant example. There is no reason why this wisest of men should not have uttered such warnings in the earlier and purer 'part of his career. It was probably arranged in its present shape by the editor of the first great collection of Solomonic proverbs, and placed by him as an intro- duction to this work. The eloquence of the piece is of the very highest order, and exhibits the inspiration of a true prophet, but the writer mllilt remain unknown. It is only natural to consider that such magnificent passages as those contained in eh. vii. and ix. were composed by a man of no mean attainments, and one can think of no one able to write them but Solomon himself, especially inspired by God with wisdom beyond all men; but this impression does not vanquish opposing criticism, and we can only concede that the section is worthy of Solomon, and probably contains some of his lore, garnered and lovingly reproduced by a kindred spirit. The last two chapters (xxx. and xxxi.) present some difficult questions. which have always exercised the ingenuity of critics, and which cannot even now be determined with any certainty. Ch. :xx:x. opens (accord- ing to the Authorized Version) thus : "The words of .A.gur the son of Jakeh, even the prophecy: the man spake unto Ithiel, even unto Ithiel and U cal." Nothing whatever is known about any of the persons here supposed to be mentioned. The name Ithiel, indeed, occurs once in Nehemiah (xi. 7); but the Benje.mite thus called can have nothing to do with the person in our verse. It is conjectured that .A.gur was some well-J..-:nown sage, Hebrew or foreign, whose sayings were thought by some late editor to be worthy of a place beside the proverbs of Solomon. Jewish interpre- ters have explained the names symbolically of Solomon himself. .A.gur may mean " Gatherer," "Convener," from agar, "tol collect," and is applied to the wise king, either as "master of assemblies" (Eccles. xii. 11), or col- lector of wisdom and ma:i.:ime, elsewhere called koheleth (Eccles. i. 1), though xxii INTRODUCTION TO
this interpretation of tho latter word is very qnestionablc. Jal~eh ie rendered "Obedient" or "Pions," so "the Gatherer, son of the Obedient," would designate Solomon, son of David. St. Jerome countenances the allegorical interpretation by rendering," Verba Congregantis filii Vomentis." But one sees no reason why the king, whose name has been freely used in the previous sections, should now be introduced under an allegorical appel- lation. Certainly, mnch that is contained in the chapter may be regarded as symbolical, but that is scarcely sufficient reason for me.king the teacher also symbolical. Why, again, should this section be separated from the rest of Solomon's words, and not incorporated with the great body of his collection? What object could there be in introducing another batch of the king's proverbs after the "words of the wise"? If this piece had been in existence in early times, Hezekiah would surely not have omitted placing it in its proper position in his own repertory. The contents, however, Iea,.e no doubt on the subject. Solomon never could have uttered what follows:- .. Surely I am more brutish than any man, And have not the understonding of a man; And I have not learned wisdom" (eh. xxx. 2, 3). Nor could he be blindly groping in darkness after the Creator (eh. xxx. 4); nor pray that he might have neither poverty nor riches (cb. xxx. 8). The notion, therefore, that Solomon himself is here intended must be sur- rendered as wholly unfounded. Some have attempted to find Agur's nationality in the word translated "the prophecy" (hamassa). Massa, "burden," is the word generally used to denote a prophet's message, either from its being borne by him to the appointed place, or expressive of its grievonB nature and awful importance. The term does not seem altogether appropriate to the utterances that follow, and Hitzig has started a theory which makes the word denote the country from which Agur came. The old Venetian Version had given : A6yot 'Ayo-6pov vUw!. 'laKlw!. Tov Mau&o'v, "the words of Agur son of Jakeh the Masaite." Now, there was a son of Ishmael named Massa (Gen. xxv. 14; 1 Chron. i. 30), who may have given his name to a tribe and a district, as did hie brothers Duma and Terna (lea. xri 11, 14). It is mentioned in 1 Chron. iv. 38, etc., that certain Simeonites in the days of Hezekiah made a raid into the country of Edom, and established themselves in Mount Seir, driving out the Amalekites whom they found settled there. Starting from this locality and moving -northwards towards Damascus, according to Hitzig, they set up the king- dom of Massa, and hence issned this piece of poetry not long after the first establishment. This, in his view, would account for the peculiarities of dialect found in the composition. Others have found a Massa in the town Mismije, on the north of the Hanran ; others place it on the north of the Persian Gulf. In fact, nothing is known with certainty about the country; its very existence is problematical. The most Jikely supposition is that Agur was an Edomite, a worshipper of Jehovah, and well acquainted with THE PROVERBS. niii