cannot be proved to belong exclusively to the Chaldee, and may have been common to other Semitic dialects. Bnt after making all doe allowances, there remain enough instances of late and rabbinical words and phrases to prove that the work belongs too. period posterior to Solomon. Certainly it is quite possible to press the grammatical and etymological argument too far, and to lay too much stress on details often most difficnlt to dissect, and frequently more questions of taste and delicate judgment than of stern and indubitable fact·; but· the present case does not rest on isolated examples, some of which may be found faulty and weak, bnt on a large induction of . particulars, the cumulative importance of which cannot be set aside. How is this argument attempted to be met ? The linguistic peculiarities cannot be wholly denied, but it is argued that the Aramaisms and foreign expressions are owing to Solomon's wide intercourse with external nations, and the bent of his mind, which inclined to comprehensiveness, and led him to prefer what was rare and removed from the intercourse of common life. Some suppose that this was done with the view of making the work more acceptable to non-Israelites. Others deem that the subject-matter neceR- sitated' the peculiar phraseology employed. Such allegations, however, will not account for grammatical peculiarities and verbal inflections, which are found rarely or never in earlier books, or for the absence of forms which are most comm.on elsewhere." Foreign words might be introduced here and there in a work of any age; but it is different with changes in syntax and inflection; these denote another epoch or stage in language, and cannot be adequately explained ·by any of the above arguments. The assertion that the writer desired to commend his treatise to external nations is entirely unsupported. by evidence, and is negatived by the fact that idolatry, the crying sin of other peoples, is never alluded to. Compare the bold dennn- ciations of the Book of Wisdom, and it will at once be seen how a true believer deals with those who are enemies to his religion and worship. There is another consideration which supports the view for which we contend. The whole-style of the work is indicative of a later development. Critics point to the very frequent employment of conjunctions to express the most diverse logical relations, which were not needed in the simpler lucubrations of early times. Then there is the pleonastic use of the personal pronoun after the verbal form; the mode of expressing the present by the participle, often in connection with a personal pronoun ; the almost entire absence of the imperfect with vav conversive; and many other peculiarities of a. similar nature, all of which indicate neo-Hebraism. 5. That no one but Solomon could have written a book of such consum- mate excellence is, of course, a mere assumption. We know so little of the literary history of those days, and our information concerning writers and educationists is so scanty, that it is impossible to say who could or who could not have composed such a work. Because we can fix the authorship definitely upon no other person, we are not compelled to subscribe to the traditional view. One of equal mental capacities and attainments with the xii 1N1'RODDC'l'ION 'l'O
writer of Job might, under inspiration, have produced Koheleth; and, like the other, have remained unknown. The apocryphal compositions of post- exilian days show a large amount of literary talents, and the age whioh gave them birth might have been fruitful in other authors. 6. The coincidences between Ecclesiastes, Proverbs, and Cantioles may be explained without resorting to the supposition that the three works are the production of one author, and that author Solomon. Not to discuss the genuineness of the Song of Songs, the Book of Proverbs is confessedly derived from many sources, and quotation from its pages would not serve to establish the Solomonic origin of the passage cited. All that can be decided from the parallelism with the other books attributed to Solomon is that the author had evidently read those works, as he certainly had perused Job, and perhaps Jeremiah, and, consciously or unconsciously, borrowed sentiments and expressions from them. And, on the other hand, there are confessedly such marked variations of style between those writings and Ecclesiastes, that it is difficult to allow that they came from the same pen, though wielded, as is said, at different ages of life. From these premisses it must be concluded that the Solomonic authorship cannot be maintained, and that the book belongs to e. much later epoch than that of Solomon. Surrendering the traditional opinion, we are, however, at once cast upon an ocean of surmises, which are wholly derived from internal evidence as this strikes different readers. In assigning the date of the book, critics are hopelessly divided, some giving B.C. 975, others B.c. 40, and between these dates others have, on various grounds, taken their respective stand. But eliminating theories which the work itself contravenes, we find that most reliable authorities are divided between the times of Ezra and Nehemiah, the Persian, and the Greek epochs. The theory of its composition in the time of Herod the Great, enunciated by Gratz, needs no refutation, and is only noticeable as showing, by the legend on which it is based, that at that day Koheleth was generally regarded as an integral portion of Holy Scripture. The first period mentioned would take ns to the time of the Prophet Malachi, B.O. 450-100. But that seer writes much purer Hebrew than Koheleth, and the two could hardly have been contemporaneous. .At any rate, we cannot be wrong in taking the genera,. tion after Malachi as the terminus a quo of our inquiry. The terminus ad quem seems to be defined by the use made of Ecclesiastes by the author of the Book of Wisdom. That the latter is the later of the two is evident from its Hellenistic form and environment, of which Koheleth shows no trace, and from its exhibitiDg a development of the doctrines of wisdom and eschatology far beyond what is found in our book. Koheleth complains that increase of wisdom brings increase of trouble ( eh. i. 18) ; the later pseudo-Solomon asserts that to live with Wisdom hath no bitterness, but is stable joy and gladness (Wied. viii. 16). On the one hand, we read that there is no remembrance of the wise man more than of the fool for ever (eh. ii. 16); on the other hand, it is maintained that wisdom makes the ECCLESIASTES; OR, THE PREACHER. xiii