o.lity, and carnal enjoyments; but there is no hint in the history that these things were only parts of e. great experiment, steps on the path that might lead to the knowledge of happiness. Rather they are represented in the annals as the outcome of wealth, luxury, plea!Jllre-seeking, selfishness. It is impossible, too, that, in recounting his performances, Solomon should have omitted all mention of that which was the chief glory of his reign-the erection of the temple at Jerusalem. Yet his connection with it is not noticed by the remotest allusion, though there is possibly some mention of the worship there (eh. v. 1, 2): "Keep thy foot when thou goest to the house of God." Further, if, as we have seen, the references to Solomon himself are often inconsistent with what we ki;iow of his history, the state of society presented by intimations scattered here and there is certainly not that which obtained in his reign. We read of violent oppression and wrong, when tears of agony were wrung from the persecuted, whose misery was so great that they preferred death to life under such intolerable circumstances ( eh. iv. :L-3); whereas, in these palmy days of the kingdom, all was peace and plenty: "Judah and Israel were many, as the sand which is by the sea in multitude, eating and drinking, and making merry" (1 Kings iv. 20). Two more antagonistic scenes could scarcely have been depicted, and we cannot suppose them to refer to the same period. It is true that after Solomon's death the people complained that his yoke had been grievous (1 Kings xii. 4) ; it is also true that he dealt sternly with the strangers and the remnant of the idolatrous nations left in the land (2 Chron. ii. 17, 18; viii. 7, 8) ; but the former allegation was doubtless exaggerated, and refened chiefly to the taxes and imposts laid upon the people in order to supply the means for carrying out magnificent designs ; there was no complaint of oppression or injustice; it was relief from excessive taxation, and perhaps from enforced labour, that was demanded. The typical character of Solomon's reign would not have afforded a theme of prophetical representation of Messiah's kingdom, had it been the scene of violence, turbulence, and unhappiness which stal).ds before our minds in Koheleth's page. With regard to the possible sufferings of the aboriginals, from whom was exacted bond-service (1 Kings ix. 21), we have no record that they were treated with undue severity; and it is certain that, in any case, Koheleth would not be thinking of them in recounting the misery which he had witnessed. No Hebrew, indeed, would take them into consideration at all. Hewers of wood and drawers of water they became in the nature of things, and of them nothing more was to be said. Another aspect of affairs, incongruous with Solomon's time, is seen in an allusion to the system of espionage practised under despotic govern- ments (eh. x. 20), where the writer warns his readers to beware how they utter a word, or even cherish a thought, in disparagement of the ruling power; walls have ears ; a bird shall cany the word ; and punishment is sure to follow. Can we believe that Solomon used such a system? And is X lN'l'HODUC'l'ION TO
it credible that, if he did encourage this odious practice, he would exple.in and dilate upon it in a popular work P Once more, it must have been at a muoh later period that the admonition against unsanctified and diffuse stndy was needed ( eh. xii. 12). The national literature in Solomon's time must have been of the scantiest nature; the warning could have been applicable only when the theories and speculations of Greece and Alexandria had found their way into Palestine (Ginsburg). Further, it must be noticed that, th_ough God is spoken of continually, il is always by the name of Elohim, never by his covenant, appella.tion, Jehovah. Is it conceivable that the historical Solomon, who had experi- enced such remarkable mercies and special• endowments at the hands of Jehovah, should ignore this Divine relation, and speak of God merely as the Maker of the world, the Governor of the universe? In Proverbs the name Jehovah occurs nearly a hundred times, Elohim hardly at all ; it is p:re- posterons to account for this difference by asserting that Solomon wrote one work while in a state of grace, and hence need the covenant name, and the other after he had fallen, and felt himself unworthy of God's favour .• As we said before, there is no trace of repentance in his life ; and the picture of "the aged, penitent king, stung with poignant anguish of mind for his sins, and unable to utter the adorable name," if trne to nature (Wordsworth), is not true to history. Rather, one would have expected one who had been betrayed into idolatry to be careful to use the name of the true God in contradistinction to that which was common to the false and the true. Other discrepancies might be pointed out, such, for instance, as the absence of all allnsion to idolatry, which the king, if repentant, could not have refrained from mentioning; but enough has been said to show there are many statements which are unsuitable to the character, epoch,. and circumstances of the historical Solomon. 4. The allegation· that the language of the book is wholly compatible with the time of Solomon would require too great space to be examined in detail We should have to enter into technicalities which could be appre- ciated by none but Hebrew scholars, and only by those few who were fully acquainted, not merely with the writings of the Old Testament, but also with the language of Targnms, etc., the rabbinic literature which came into existence by slow degrees after the Babylonish captivity. • Suffice. it to say generally that the language and style of the book have marked peculiarities, and that many words and many forms of expression either occur nowhere else in the Bible, or are found solely in the very latest books of the sacred canon. Delitzsch and Knobel and Wright have given lists of these hapaz legomena and words and forms which belong to the later period of Hebrew. The catalogue, which extends to nearly a hundred items, has been closely examined by various scholars, and careful criticism has eliminated a very large number of the incriminated expressions. Many of these are abstract words, formed from roots naturally enough, though not occurring elsewhere; many have derivatives in the earlier books; many EOOLEBIABTEB; OR, THE PREACHER. :Ii