Job and Solomon: Or, The Wisdom of the Old Testament
CHAPTER XIII.
THE CANONICITY OF ECCLESIASTES AND ECCLESIASTICUS.
I.
It is not surprising that these strange Meditations should have had great difficulty in penetrating into the Canon. There is sufficient evidence (see the works of Plumptre and Wright)[425] that the so-called Wisdom of Solomon is in part a deliberate contradiction of sentiments expressed in our book. The most striking instance of this antagonism is in Wisd. ii. 6-10 (cf. Eccles. ix. 7-9), where the words of Koheleth are actually put into the mouth of the ungodly libertines of Alexandria. The date of Wisdom is disputed, but cannot be earlier than the reign of Ptolemy VII. Physcon (B.C. 145-117). The attitude of the writer towards Koheleth may perhaps be compared with that of the Palestinian teachers who relegated the book among the apocrypha on this among other grounds, that it contained heretical statements, e.g. ‘Rejoice, O young man, in thy youth’ &c. (xi. 9). Nothing is more certain than that the Book of Koheleth was an Antilegomenon in Palestine in the first century before Christ. And yet it certainly had its friends and supporters both then and later. Simeon ben Shetach and his brother-in-law, King Alexander Jannæus (B.C. 105-79), were as familiar with Koheleth as the young men of Alexandria, and Simeon, according to the Talmudic story[426] (_Bereshith Rabba_, c. 91), quoted Eccles. vii. 12_a_ with a prefix (דכתיב ‘as it is written’) proper to a Biblical quotation. From another Talmudic narrative (_Baba bathra_, 4_a_) it would seem that Koheleth was cited in the time of Herod the Great as of equal authority with the Pentateuch, and from a third (_Shabbath_, 30_b_) that St. Paul’s teacher, Gamaliel, permitted quotations from our book equally with those from canonical Scriptures. Like the Song of Songs, however, it called forth a lively opposition from severe judges. The schools of Hillel and Shammai were divided on the merits of these books. At first the Shammaites, who were adverse to them, carried a majority of the votes of the Jewish doctors. But when, after the destruction of Jerusalem, Jewish learning reorganised itself at Jamnia (4-½ leagues south of Jaffa), the opposite view (viz. that the Song and Koheleth ‘defile the hands’—i.e. are holy Scriptures) was again brought forward in a synod held about A.D. 90, and finally sanctioned in a second synod held A.D. 118. The arguments urged on both sides were such as belong to an uncritical age. No attempt was made to penetrate into the spirit and object of Koheleth, but test passages were singled out. The heretically sounding words in xi. 9_a_ were at first held by some to be decisive against the claim of canonicity, but—we are told—when the ‘wise men’ took the close of the verse into consideration (‘but know that for all this God will bring thee into the judgment’), they exclaimed יפה אמר שלמה, ‘Solomon has spoken appropriately.’[427]
This first synod or sanhedrin of Jamnia has played an important part in recent arguments. According to Krochmal, Grätz, and Renan, one object of the Jewish doctors was to decide whether the Song and Koheleth ought to be admitted into the Canon. It seems, however, to have been satisfactorily shown[428] that their uncertainty was not as to whether these books ought to be admitted, but whether they had been rightly admitted. It is true that there was, even as late as A.D. 90, a chance for any struggling book (e.g. Sirach) to find its way into the Canon. But in the case of the Song and Koheleth a preliminary canonisation had taken place; it only remained to set at rest all lingering doubts in the minds of those who disputed the earlier decision. Another matter was also considered, according to Krochmal, at the synod of A.D. 90, viz. how to indicate that with the admission of Ecclesiastes the Canon of the Hagiographa was closed. I have already referred to this scholar’s view of the Epilogue (p. 232 &c.), and need only add that, if we may trust the statement of the Talmud, the canonicity of Koheleth was finally carried in deference to an argument which presupposes that xii. 13, 14 was already an integral part of Koheleth. The Talmudic passage is well known; it runs thus—
‘The wise men’ [i.e. the school of Shammai] ‘sought to “hide” the Book of Koheleth because of its contradictory sayings. And why did they not “hide” it? Because the beginning and the close of it consist of words of Tōra’ [i.e. are in harmony with revealed truth][429]. By the ‘beginning’ the Jewish doctors meant Koheleth’s assertion that ‘all a man’s toil which he toileth _under the sun_’ (i.e. all earthly, unspiritual toil) is unprofitable (i. 3), and by the ‘close’ the emphatic injunction and dogmatic declaration of the epilogist in xii. 13, 14. The Talmudic statement agrees, as is well known, with the note of St. Jerome on these verses. ‘Aiunt Hebræi quum inter cætera scripta Salomonis quæ antiquata sunt, nec in memoriâ duraverunt, et hic liber obliterandus videretur, eo quòd vanas Dei assereret creaturas, et totum putaret esse pro nihilo, et cibum, et potum, et delitias transeuntes præferret omnibus; ex hoc uno capitulo meruisse auctoritatem, ut in divinorum voluminum numero poneretur, quòd totam disputationem suam, et omnem catalogum hâc quasi ἀνακεφαλαιώσει coarctaverit, et dixerit finem sermonum auditu esse promtissimum, nec aliquid in se habere difficile: ut scilicet Deum timeamus, et ejus præcepta faciamus’ (_Opera_, ii. 787).
The canonicity of Ecclesiastes was rarely disputed in the ancient Church. The fifth œcumenical council at Constantinople pronounced decisively in its favour. On the Christian heretics in the fourth century who rejected it, see Ginsburg, _Coheleth_, p. 103.
Let me refer again, in conclusion, to the story in which that remarkable man—‘the restorer of the Law’—Simeon ben Shetach plays a chief part. It not only shows that Koheleth was a religious authority at the end of the second or beginning of the first century B.C., but implies that at this period the book was already comparatively old, and, one may fairly say, pre-Maccabæan. I presume too that the addition of the Epilogue (see pp. 234-5) with the all-important 13th and 14th verses had been made before Simeon’s time.
II.
It was remarked above that as late as A.D. 90 there was a chance for any struggling book to gain admission into the Canon. Now for at least 180 years the Wisdom of Ben Sira had been struggling for recognition as canonical. In spite of the fact that it did not claim the authorship of any ancient sage, and that, like Koheleth, it contained some questionable passages, it was certainly in high favour both in Alexandria and in Palestine. As Delitzsch points out, ‘the oldest Palestinian authorities (Simeon ben Shetach, the brother of Queen Salome, about B.C. 90, seems to be the earliest) quote it as canonical, and the censures of Babylonian teachers only refer to the Aramaic Targum, not to the original work. The latter was driven out of the field by the Aramaic version, which, though very much interpolated, was more accessible to the people.’[430] Simeon ben Shetach was counted among the Jewish ‘fathers,’ and a saying of his is given in _Pirke Aboth_, i. 10. It is remarkable that the very same passage of _Bereshith Rabba_ (c. 91) which contains this wise man’s quotations from Koheleth (see above) also contains one from Sirach introduced with the formula בספרא דבן סירא כתיב, ‘in the book of Ben Sira it is written.’ The quotation is, ‘Exalt her, and she shall set thee between princes’—apparently a genuine saying of Ben Sira (Sirach), though not found in our Ecclesiasticus. The first word (‘Exalt her’) comes, it is true, from Prov. iv. 8, but, as Dr. Wright remarks,[431] Ben Sira ‘was fond of tacking on new endings to old proverbs.’ At a much later period, a quotation from Ben Sira (Sir. vii. 10?) is made by Rab (about 165-247 A.D.) introduced with the formula משום שנאמר, ‘because it is said,’ _Erubin_, c. 65_a_. Strack indeed supposes that Rab meant to quote from canonical Scripture, but by a slip quoted from Ben Sira instead; but this is too bold a conjecture. Lastly, Rabba (about 270-330 A.D.) quotes a saying of our book (Sir. xiii. 15; xxvii. 9) as ‘repeated a third time in the Kethubhim (the Hagiographa)’—משולש בכתובים, _Baba Kamma_, c. 92_b_.
It is quite true that, according to the Talmudic passage referred to on p. 196, the Book of Ben Sira stands on the border-line between the canonical and the non-canonical literature: the words are, ‘The Books of Ben Sira, and all books which were written thenceforward, do not defile the hands.’ But taking this in connection with the vehement declaration of Rabbi Akiba that the man who reads Ben Sira and other ‘extraneous’ books has no portion in the world to come,[432] we may safely assume that the Book of Ben Sira had a position of exceptional authority with not a few Jewish readers. It is equally certain, as the above quotations show, that even down to the beginning of the fourth century A.D. sayings of Sirach were invested with the authority of Scripture. Whatever, then, may have been the theory (and no one pretends that the Synods of Jamnia placed Sirach on a level with Koheleth), the practice of some Jewish teachers was to treat Sirach as virtually canonical, which reminds us of the similar practice of some Christian Fathers. St. Augustine says (but he retracted it afterwards) of the two books of Wisdom, ‘qui quoniam in auctoritatem recipi meruerunt, inter propheticos numerandi sunt’ (_De doctr. Christianâ_, ii. 8), and both Origen and Cyprian quote Sirach as sacred scripture. Probably, as Fritzsche remarks, Sirach first became known to Christian teachers at Alexandria at the end of the second century.
Footnote 425:
Plumptre, _Ecclesiastes_, pp. 71-74; Wright, _Koheleth_, pp. 67-70. It is plainly impossible in the light of the history of dogma to place Wisdom before Ecclesiastes. Yet Hitzig has done this. Nachtigal took a sounder view in 1799 when he published a book on Wisdom regarded _als Gegenstück des Koheleth_. It forms vol. ii. of a singular work called _Die Versammlung der Weisen_, of which Koheleth forms vol. i.
Footnote 426:
See Schiffer, _Das Buch Kohelet nach der Auffassung der Weisen_, part i., pp. 100-102.
Footnote 427:
_Midrasch Koheleth_, § 1, 3; comp. _Pesikta of R. Kahana_, § 8 (Schiffer, pp. 6, 7).
Footnote 428:
By Delitzsch; see Wright’s _Koheleth_, p. 471, and comp. Strack, art. ‘Kanon des A. T.’ in _Herzog-Plitt_, vol. vii.
Footnote 429:
I quote the characteristic closing words, תחילתו דברי תורה וסופו דברי תורה (_Shabbath_, c. 30b).
Footnote 430:
_Gesch. der jüdischen Poesie_, p. 20.
Footnote 431:
_Koheleth_, p. 46.
Footnote 432:
See the passage from _Sanhedrin_ (Jer. Talm.), x. 28_a_, quoted at length in Wright’s _Koheleth_, pp. 467-468.
AIDS TO THE STUDENT
The literature upon Koheleth is unusually large. Some of the most important books and articles have been referred to already, and the student will naturally have at hand Dr. Wright’s list in _The Book of Koheleth_ (1883), Introd., pp. xiv.-xvii. It may suffice to add among the less known books, J. G. Herder, _Briefe das Studium der Theologie betreffend_, erster Theil (xi.), Werke, ed. Suphan, Bd. x.; Theodore Preston, _Ecclesiastes, Hebrew Text and a Latin Version, with original notes, and a translation of the Comm. of Mendelssohn_ (1845); E. Böhl, _Dissertationes de aramaismis libri Koheleth_ (Erlangen, 1860); Bernh. Schäfer, _Neue Untersuchungen über das Buch Koheleth_ (Freiburg in Breisgau, 1870); J. S. Bloch, _Ursprung and Entstehungszeit des Buches Kohelet_ (Bamberg, 1872); _Studien zur Gesch. der Sammlung der althebr. Literatur_ (Breslau, 1876); C. Taylor, _The Dirge of Coheleth in Eccl._ xii., _discussed and literally translated_ (1874); J. J. S. Perowne, articles on Ecclesiastes in _Expositor_, begun 1879; M. M. Kalisch, _Path and Goal_ (contains translation of our book and much illustrative matter), 1880; A. Kuenen, _Religion of Israel_ (1875), iii. 153 &c., also _Onderzoek_ (1873), vol. iii., and article in _Theologisch Tijdschrift_, 1883, p. 113, &c.; S. Schiffer, _Das Buch Kohelet nach der Auffassung der Weisen des Talmud und Midrasch und der jüd. Erklärer des Mittelalters_, Theil i. (Leipz. 1885); Engelhardt, ‘Ueber den Epilog des Koheleth’ in _Studien und Kritiken_, 1875; Klostermann, article on Wright’s _Koheleth_, in same periodical, 1885. See also Pusey’s Daniel the Prophet, ed. 2, pp. 327-8, and the introduction to Prof. Salmon’s commentary in Ellicott. [Prof A. Palm’s bibliographical monograph, _Die Qohelet-Literatur, ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Exegese des Alten Testaments_, 1886, appeared too late to be of use.]
APPENDIX IN WHICH VARIOUS POINTS IN THE BOOK ARE ILLUSTRATED OR MORE FULLY TREATED.
1. Pfleiderer on St. Paul (p. 3). 2. The word Kenotic; Phil. ii. 7 (p. 7). 3. Kleinert on Job vi. 25 (p. 21). 4. On Job xix. 25-27 (pp. 33-35). 5. Job’s repudiation of sins (p. 39). 6. On Job xxxviii. 31, 32 (p. 52). 7. Source of story of Job (pp. 60-63). 8. Corrected text of Deut. xxxii. 8, 9 (p. 81). 9. The style of Elihu (p. 92). 10. The Aramaisms and Arabisms of Job (p. 99). 11. Herder on Job (pp. 106-111). 12. Septuagint of Job (pp. 113, 114). 13. Harūn ar-Rashid and Solomon (p. 131). 14. On Prov. xxvii. 6 (p. 148). 15. Eternity of Korán (p. 192). 16. Text of Proverbs (p. 173). 17. Religious value of Proverbs (p. 176, 177). 18. Aids to the Student (p. 178). 19. Date of Jesus son of Sirach (p. 180). 20. On Sirach xxi. 27 (p. 189). 21. Sirach’s Hymn of Praise (p. 193). 22. Ancient versions of Sirach (p. 195). 23. Aids to the Student (p. 198). 24. On the Title Koheleth (p. 207). 25. On Eccles. iii. 11 (p. 210). 26. On Eccles. vii. 28 (p. 219). 27. On Eccles. xi. 9-xii. 7 (pp. 223-227). 28. On Eccles. xii, 9 &c. (p. 232). 29. Grätz on Koheleth’s opposition to asceticism (p. 244). 30. Herder on the alternate voices in Koheleth (p. 245).
1. _Page 3._—Pfleiderer, in the spirit of Lagarde, accounts for the Pauline view of the atonement by the ‘stereotyped legal Jewish’ doctrine of the atoning merit of the death of holy men (_Hibbert Lectures_, pp. 60-62). But was not this idea familiar and in some sense presumably real to Jesus? And why speak of a ‘stereotyped’ formula? Examples of a self-devotion designed to ‘merit’ good for the community, or even for an individual, abound in Judaism.
2. _Page 7, note 2._—The word Kenotic is conveniently descriptive of a theory, and does not bind one who uses it to any particular expositon of the difficult Greek of Phil. ii. 7. I need not decide, therefore, whether we should render ἐν μορφῃ Θεοῦ בדמות חאלהים with Delitzsch, or בדמות אלהים with Salkinson. To the names of eminent exegetes mentioned on page 7, add that of Godet.
3. _Page 21_ (on Job vi. 25).—Kleinert (_Theol. Studien u. Kritiken_, 1886, pp. 285-86) improves the parallelism by translating ‘Wie so gar nicht verletzend sind Worte der Rechtschaffenheit, aber wie so gar nichts rügt die Rechtsrüge von euch.’ He thinks that מה here, as occasionally elsewhere, and _mā_ often in Arabic, has the sense of ‘not’ (see Ewald, _Lehrbuch_, § 325_b_); comp. ix. 2, xvi. 6, xxxi. 1, and the characteristic בַּמָּה ‘how seldom,’ xxi. 19. Without entering into his doubtful justification of ‘verletzend,’ it is possible to render ‘How far from grievous are straightforward speeches, but how little is proved by the reproof from you!’
4. _Pages 33-35_ (Job xix. 25-27).—First, as to the sense of Goel (A.V. and R.V. ‘redeemer’). The sense seems determined by xvi, 18 (see above, p. 31). It is vengeance for his blood that Job demands, and hence in xix. 29 he warns his false friends to beware of the _sword_ of divine justice. The ‘friends’ have identified themselves with that unjust Deity against whom Job appeals to the ‘witness in heaven’ (xvi. 20)—the moral God of whom he has a dim but growing intuition. The whole plan of the book, as Kleinert remarks, calls for a definite legal meaning. But as no direct reference to Job’s blood occurs in xix. 25-27, ‘my vindicator’ will be a sufficiently exact rendering (as in Isa. xliv. 6). I cannot however follow Kleinert in his recognition of the hope of immortality in this passage.
Next as to the text. Bickell’s recension of it, when pointed in the ordinary manner, is as follows:—
וַאֲנִי יָדַעְתִּי גֹּאֲלִי חָי 25 יְאַחֲרוֹן עָל־עָפָר יָקוּם ׃ וְאַחַר עֵרִִי נִקְּפָּה זֹאת 26 וּמִשּׁדַּי אֶחֱזֶה אֵלֶּה ׃ אֲשֶׁר אֲנִי אֶחֱזֶה־לִּי 27 וְעֵינַי רָאוּ וִלאׁ־זָר כָּלוּ כִלְיֹתַי בְּחֵקִי ׃
Bickell does not attempt to make easy Hebrew; the passage _ought not_ in such a connection to be too easy. He renders ver. 26_a_, ‘Et postea, his præsentibus absolutis, veniet testis meus’ (God, his witness, as xvi. 19), comparing for the sense of נקפה Isa. xxix. 1. Certainly we seem to require in ver. 26 some further development of the idea suggested by the appearance of the Goel on the dust of Job’s burial-place, and such a development is not supplied by the received text. We must not look at any corrupt passage by itself, but take it with the context. Those who defend the text of ver. 26 as it stands have on their side the parallelism of עוֹרִי and בְּשָׂרִי (comp. ver. 20); but this parallelism is counterbalanced by the want of correspondence between נִקְּפוּ־זאׁת and אחֱזֶה אֱלוֹהַּ. Dr. C. Taylor suggests an aposiopesis, and gives the sense intended by the writer thus, ‘When they have penetrated my skin, and of my flesh have had their fill’ (comp. ver. 22_b_). Is it not more likely that וּמִבְּשָׂרִי came into the text _through a reminiscence_ of ver. 22_b_? ‘I shall see these things from Shaddai’ will be, on Bickell’s view, equivalent to ‘I shall see these things _attested_ by Shaddai.’ As yet, the sufferer exclaims, I can recognise this, viz. my innocence, for myself alone; mine eyes have seen it, but not another’s (Prov. xxvii 2). The connexion is in every way improved. Job first of all desired an inscribed testimony to his innocence, but now he aspires to something better.
Bickell’s is the most natural reconstruction of the passage as yet proposed; so far as ver. 26_b_ is concerned, it is supported in the main by the Septuagint. More violent corrections are offered by Dr. A. Neubauer, _Athenæum_, June 27, 1885—As a rendering of _the text as it stands_, I think R.V. is justified in giving ‘from my flesh’ (with marg., ‘_Or_, without’); ‘mine eyes shall see’ (= ‘will have seen’) certainly suggests that Job will be clothed with some body when he sees God (Dillmann’s reply is not adequate). ‘Without my flesh’ (so Amer. Revisers) is in itself justifiable (see especially xi. 15); in the use of the privative ז became more and more frequent in the later periods (comp. the Talmudic מֵאוֹר עֵינַיִם = ‘blind’).
5. _Page 39._ Job’s catalogue of the sins which he repudiates. The parallel suggested between Job and an Egyptian formulary may be illustrated by a passage in the life of the great Stoic Emperor. A learned Bishop, popular in his day, reminds us of ‘that golden Table of Ptolomy (_sic_) Arsacides, which the Emperour Marcus Aurelius found at Thebes, which for the worthiness thereof that worthy Emperour caused every night to be laid at his bed’s head, and at his death gave it as a singular treasure to his sonne Commodus. The Table was written in Greek characters, and contained in it these protestations: “I never exalted the proud rich man, neither hated the poor just man: I never denied justice to the poor for his poverty neither pardoned the wealthy for his riches.... I alwaies favoured the poor that was able to do little, and God, who was able to do much, alwaies favoured me.”’ (_The Practice of Quietnesse_, by George Webbe, D.D., 1699?)
6. _Page 52_ (On Job xxxviii. 31, 32, ix. 9).—(1) I admit that the identification of כִּימָה and the Pleiades is uncertain. Still it is plausible, especially when we compare Ar. _kumat_ ‘heap.’ And even if it should be shown that _kimtu_ was not the Babylonian name for the Pleiades, this would not be decisive against the identification proposed. The Babylonians did not give the name _kisiluv_ to Orion, yet Stern’s argument (_Jüdische Zeitschrift_, 1865, Heft 4: comp. Nöldeke, Schenkel’s _Bibel-Lexikon_, iv. 369, 370) in favour of equating _k’sîl_ and Orion remains valid. (2) As to מֵעֲדַנּוֹת ‘sweet influences’ is fortunate enough to exist by sufferance in the margin of R.V. It is sometimes defended by comparing 1 Sam. xv. 32. But the only possible renderings there are ‘in bonds’ or ‘trembling’ (see _Variorum Bible ad loc._). Dr. Driver has shown that ‘sweet influences’ is a legacy from Sebastian Münster (1535). (3) מִזָּרוֹת is probably not to be identified with מַזָּלוֹת (2 Kings xxiii. 5), in spite of the authority of the Sept. and the Targum (see Dillmann’s note). In this I agree with G. Hoffmann, whose adventurous interpretations of the astronomical names in Amos and Job do not however as yet seem to me acceptable. According to him, kîma = Sirius, _k’sîl_ = Orion, Mazzaroth = the Hyades and Aldebaran, ‘Ayish’ = the Pleiades (Stade’s _Zeitschrift_, 1883, Heft 1). Mazzaroth = Ass. _mazarati_; Mazzaloth (i.e. the zodiacal signs) seems to be the plural of _mazzāla_ = Ass. _manzaltu_ station.
7. _Pages 60-63._—That the story of Job is an embellished folk-tale is probable, though still unproved. The delightful humour which in the Prologue (see pp. 14, 110), as in the myths of Plato, stands side by side with the most impressive solemnity of itself points to this view. No one has expressed this better than Wellhausen, in a review of Dillmann’s _Hiob, Jahrbücher für deutsche Theologie_, xvi. 552 &c.: ‘Den launigen und doch mürrischen Ton, den der nonchalante Satan Gott gegenüber anschlägt, so ganz auf Du und Du, würde schwerlich der Dichter des Hiob gewagt haben; schwerlich auch würde es ihm gelungen sein, mit so merkwürdig einfachen Mitteln so wunderbar plastische Figuren zu entwerfen.’ He also points out the inconsistencies of the story, precisely such as we might expect in a folk-tale, and concludes (a little hastily) that the Prologue is _altogether_ a folk-story and had no didactic object. Eichhorn, too, in a review of Michaelis on Job (_Allgemeine Bibliothek_, i. 430 &c.), well points out that the illusion of the poem is much impaired by not admitting an element in the plot derived from tradition. Of course this view of _Job_ as based on a folk-tale is quite reconcileable with the view that the hero is a personification. The latter is much older than the last century; it explains the Jewish saying (p. 60) that ‘Job was a parable,’ and the fascination which the book possessed for the age preceding the final dispersion of the Jews.[433]
Footnote 433:
See Rosenthal, _Vier apokryphische Bücher ans der Zeit und Schule Akiba’s_ (1885), pp. 6-12.
8. _Page 81_ (further correction of text of Deut. xxxii. 8, 9).—The passage becomes more rhythmical if with Bickell we reproduce the Septuagint Hebrew text at the close of ver. 8 as בני אלהים and continue (ver. 9),
וחלק יהוה יעקב [or עמו] חבל נחלתו ישראל ׃
The correction of the last couplet is important as a supplement of the explanation of ver. 8 given in the text. To other nations God gave protective angels, but He reserved Israel for Himself. (See Bickell, _Zeitschrift f. kathol. Theologie_, 1885, pp. 718-19, and comp. his _Carmina V. T. metricè_, 1882, p. 192, where he adheres in both verses to the received text.)
9. _Page 92._—No student of the Hebrew of _Job_ will overlook the admirable ‘studies’ on the style of Elihu by J. G. Stickel (_Das Buch Hiob_, 1842, pp. 248-262) and Carl Budde (_Beiträge sur Kritik des Buches Hiob_, 1876, pp. 65-160). The former succeeded in obtaining the admission of such an eminent critical analyst as Kuenen, that style by itself would be scarcely sufficient to prove the later origin of the Elihu speeches. It also, no doubt, assisted Delitzsch to recognise in Elihu the same ‘Hebræoarabic’ impress as in the rest of the book. In spite of this effective ‘study,’ Dillmann’s brief treatment of the same subject in 1869 made it clear that the subject had not yet by any means been threshed out, and perhaps no more powerful argument against chaps. xxxii.-xxxvii. has been produced than that contained in a single closely-printed page (289) of his commentary. There was therefore a good chance for a _Privatdocent_ to win himself a name by a renewed attempt to state the linguistic facts more thoroughly and impartially than before. This indeed fairly expresses Budde’s object, which is not at all to offer a direct proof that the disputed chapters belong to the original poem, but merely to show that the opposite view cannot be demonstrated on stylistic grounds. His method is to collect, first of all, points of resemblance and then points of difference between ‘Elihu’ and the rest of the book. Last among the latter appear the Aramaisms and Arabisms. Budde rejects the view, adopted from Stickel (see p. 92) by Canon F. C. Cook, that the deeper colouring of Aramaic is only the poet’s way of indicating the Aramæan origin of Elihu. He denies that there is any such greater amount of Aramaism as can form a real distinction between ‘Elihu’ and the undisputed chapters. I will not inquire whether the subjectivity of a writer may impress itself on his statistics, and willingly grant that the Aramaic colouring in ‘Elihu’ may perhaps affect the reader more owing to the faults of style to which Budde himself alludes on p. 157, and which, to me, indicate an age or at least a writer of less taste and talent than the original author. The Aramaisms may be thrown into stronger relief by these infirmities, and so the colouring may seem deeper than it is. I am not however sure that there is an illusion in the matter. Among the counter-instances of Aramaism given by Budde from the speeches of Eliphaz, there are at least two which have no right to figure there, viz. מַנְלָם, xv. 29, and אֻיִ for אַיִן, xxii. 30, both which forms are probably corrupt readings. Until Dillmann has published his second edition I venture to retain the statement on p. 92. There is a stronger Aramaising element in Elihu, which, with other marks of a peculiar and _inferior_[434] style, warrants us in assigning the section to a later writer. This is, of course, not precluded by the numerous Hebraistic _points of contact_ with the main part of the book, which Carl Budde has so abundantly collected (_Beiträge_, pp. 92-123). No one can doubt that the original poem very early became an absorbing study in the circles of ‘wise men.’
As to the words and phrases (of pure Hebrew origin) in which Elihu _differs_ from the body of the work, I may remark that it is sometimes difficult to realise their full significance from Budde’s catalogue. Kleinert has thrown much light on some of them in a recent essay. He has, for instance,[435] shown the bearings of the fact that the disputed chapters persistently avoid the juristic sense of צָדַק (Kal), except in a quotation from speeches of Job (xxxiv. 5), Elihu himself only using the word of correctness in statement (xxxiii. 12), or of moral righteousness (xxxv. 7), and that הִרְשִׁיעַ has the sense of ‘acting wickedly’ only in a passage of Elihu (xxxiv. 12). The use of צֶרֶק, צַרִּיק, and צְרָקָה in xxxii, 1, xxxiii. 26, xxxv. 8, xxxvi. 3, is also dwelt upon in this connexion. It is true that Budde does not conceal these points; he tabulates them correctly, but does not indicate the point of view from which they can be understood. Kleinert supplies this omission. The body of the poem, he remarks, is juristic in spirit; the speeches of Elihu ethical and hortatory. This brings with it a different mode of regarding the problem of Job’s sufferings. ‘Die Reden Elihu’s haben zu dem gerichtlichen Aufriss der Buchanlage nur das alleräusserlichste Verhältniss. Sie verlassen die scharfgezogenen Grundlinien der rechtlichen Auseinandersetzung, um in eine ethisch-paränetische, rein chokmatisch-didaktische Erörterung der Frage überzulenken.’ Kleinert also notes one peculiar word of Elihu’s which I have not met with in Budde, but which, from Kleinert’s point of view, is important—כֹּפֶר, ‘a ransom’ (xxxiii. 24, xxxvi. 18). Why did not the juristic theologians of the Colloquies use it? Evidently the speeches of Elihu are later compositions.
Footnote 434:
‘Ist’s denkbar, dass ein solcher Dichter demjenigen Redner, dem et die Hauptrolle zugedacht, die Charakteristik jenes _inferioren_ Redetypus zugewiesen haben könnte?’ Kleinert.
Footnote 435:
Das spezifisch-hebräische im Buch Hiob, _Theol. Studien und Kritiken_, 1886, pp. 299-300.
10. _Page 99._—The critic, no less than the prophet, is still with too many a favourite subject of ironical remark; ‘they say of him, Doth he not speak in riddles’?[436] The origin of Job, upon the linguistic as well as the theological side, may be a riddle, but the interest of the book is such that we cannot give up the riddle. We may not all agree upon the solution; the riddle may be one that admits of different answers. All that this proves is the injudiciousness of dogmatism, which specially needs emphasising with respect to the bearings of the linguistic data. To say, with Nöldeke,[437] ‘We have no ground for regarding the language of _Job_ as anything but a very pure Hebrew’ seems to me as extreme as to assert with G. H. Bernstein (the well-known Syriac scholar) that the amount of Aramaic colouring would of itself bring the book into the post-Exile period. Bernstein carried to a dangerous extreme a tendency already combated by Michaelis and Eichhorn;[438] but his research is thorough-going and systematic. Those who, like the present writer, have no access to it, may be referred to L. Bertholdt’s _Historisch-kritische Einleitung_[439] (Erlangen, 1812-1819), where it is carefully examined, and its arguments, as it would seem, reduced to something like their just proportions. Bertholdt does not scruple to admit that distinctively Aramaising constructions are wanting in _Job_, and that words with Aramaic affinities may have existed in Hebrew before the Exile. Still he decides that though part of the argument fails to pieces, yet for most there is a real foundation. This too, is substantially the judgment of Carl Budde. ‘Despite all deductions from Bernstein’s list it remains true that just the Book of Job is specially rich in words which principally belong to the Aramaic dialects.’[440] Dillmann, too, who takes pains to emphasise the comparative scarcity of Aramaisms in the strictest sense of the word, yet finds in the body of the work (excluding the Elihu portion) Aramaising and Arabising words enough to suggest that the author lived hard by Aramaic- and Arabic-speaking peoples.[441] By taking this view, Dillmann (whose philological caution and accuracy give weight to his opinion) separates himself from those who, like Eichhorn and more recently the Jewish scholar Kaempf,[442] confidently maintain that the peculiar words in _Job_ are genuine Hebrew ‘Sprachgut.’ To make this probable, we ought to be able to show that they have more affinities with northern than with southern Semitic (see p. 99), a task as yet unaccomplished. Dillmann, too, would certainly dissent from Canon Cook’s opinion that the Aramaisms of Job are only ‘such as characterise the antique and highly poetic style.’ According to him, they are equally unfavourable to a very early and to a very late date.
Various lists of Aramaising words have been given since Bernstein’s. I give here that of Dr. Lee in his _Book of the Patriarch Job_ (p. 50), which has the merit of having been constructed from his own reading of _Job_. It refers to the whole book:—
נהרה (iii. 4); מנהו (iv. 12); לאויל (v. 2); אדרש (ib. 8), occur in the Aramaic, not the Hebrew sense; תמלל (viii. 2); ישׂגה (ib. 7); מנהם (xi. 20); עמם (xii. 2); מלין (ib. 11); משׂגיא (ib. 23); מלתי ואחותי (xiii. 17); אחוך (xv. 17); וזה for ואשר (ib.); שׁלהבת (ib. 31); גלדי (xvi. 15); חמרמרה (ib. 16); קנצי (xviii. 2); יגעל ... עבר (xxi. 10); בחיין (xxiv. 22); בחבי (xxxi. 33); אחוה (xxxii. 10, 18); פרע (xxxiii. 24); אאלפך (ib. 33); כתר (xxxvi. 2); בחרת (ib. 21); גבר (xxxviii. 3); נחיר (xli. 12). I will not criticise this list, which no doubt contains some questionable items. We might, however, insert other words in exchange, e.g. טושׂ (ix. 26); רׂהד (xvi. 19); כפים (xxx. 6); and כפן (v. 22, xxx. 3); and perhaps רקב (xiii. 28), which Geiger plausibly compares with Syr. _rakbo_ ‘wineskin’ (so the tradition represented by the Septuagint, the Peshitto, and Barhebræus). Some supposed Arabisms may also in all probability be transferred to the list of Aramaisms; but the Arabisms which remain will abundantly justify what has been stated in the section on _Job_. I have not attempted to decide precisely where the poet heard both Arabic and Aramaic. Dillmann accepts the view mentioned on p. 75. But Gilead, too, was at all times inhabited by Arab tribes, both nomad and settled,[443] and the region itself was called Arabia.[444]
Footnote 436:
Ezek. xx. 49.
Footnote 437:
_Die alttestamentliche Literatur_, p. 192.
Footnote 438:
See Eichhorn’s notice of Michaelis in vol. i. of his _Allgemeine Bibliothek der biblischen Literatur_.
Footnote 439:
Pp. 2076, 2077. Bernstein’s title is, _Ueber das Alter, den Inhalt, den Zweck und die gegenwärtige Gestalt des Buches Hiob_ (in Keil and Tzschirner’s _Analekten_, 1813, pp. 1-137).
Footnote 440:
_Beiträge sur Kritik des Buches Hiob_ (1876), p. 140.
Footnote 441:
_Hiob_ (1869), Einleitung, pp. xxvii. xxix.
Footnote 442:
_Die Grabschrift Escamunazar’s_ (1874), p. 8.
Footnote 443:
Blau, _Zeitschr. der deutsch. morgenl. Ges._, xxv. 540.
Footnote 444:
Wetzstein in Delitzsch’s _Iob_, p. 528.
11. _Pages 106-111._—Herder (to whom I gladly refer the student) is perhaps the best representative of the modern literary point of view. Whatever he says on the Hebrew Scriptures is worth reading, even when his remarks need correction. No one felt the poetry of _Job_ more deeply than Herder; to the religious ideas of the poem his eyes were not equally open. Indeed, it must have been hard to discern and appreciate these adequately in the eighteenth century; the newly-discovered sacred books of the East, with their deep though obscure metaphysical conceptions, for a time almost overshadowed the far more sobre Hebrew Scriptures. Like Carlyle (who is to some extent his echo) Herder underrates the specifically Hebrew element in the book, which is of course not very visible on a hasty perusal. One point, however, that he sees very dearly, though he does not use the expression, is that _Job_ is a character-drama. He denies that the speeches are monotonous.
‘So eintönig für uns alle Reden klingen, so sind sie mit Licht und Schatten angelegt und der Faden, oder vielmehr die Verwirrung der Materie, nimmt zu von Rede zu Rede, bis Hiob sich selbst fasset und seine Behauptungen lindert. Wer diesen Faden nicht verfolgt und insonderheit nicht bemerkt, wie Hiob seinem Gegner immer den eigenen Pfeil aus der Hand windet; entweder das besser sagt, was jener sagte, oder die Gründe jenes eben für sich braucht—der hat das Lebendige, Wachsende, kurz die Seele des Buchs verfehlet’ (_Hiob als Composition betrachtet, Werke_, Suphan, ii. 318).
He has also clearly perceived the poet’s keen sympathy with mythology, and this, combined with the (supposed) few imitations of _Job_ in the Old Testament, confirmed him in the erroneous view that the original writer of _Job_ was an Edomitish Emeer. On the limited influence of _Job_ he has some vigorous sentences, the edge of which, however, is turned by more recent criticism. It is of the prophets he is chiefly thinking, when he finds so few traces of acquaintance with Job in the Scriptures, and of the pre-Exile prophets. ‘Wie drängen und drücken sich die Propheten! wie borgen sie von einander Bilder in einem ziemlich engen Kreise und führen sie nur, jeder nach seiner Art, aus! Diese alte ehrwürdige Pyramide steht im Ganzen unnachgeahmt da und ist vielleicht unnachahmbar.’ This passage occurs in the fifth conversation in his _Geist der Ebräischenn Poesie_ (_Werke_, ed. Suphan, xi. 310). The student of _Job_ will not neglect this and also the two preceding very attractive chapters. The description of Elihu is not the least interesting passage. Herder does his best to account for the presence of this unexpected fifth speaker, but really shows how unaccountable it is except on the theory of later addition. Prof. Briggs’s theory (p. 93) that the poor speeches of Elihu are intended ‘as a literary foil’ was suggested by Herder. ‘Bemerken Sie aber, dass er nur als Schatte dasteht, dies Gottes-Orakel zu erheben’ (_Werke_, xi. 284).
12. _Pages 113, 114._—The latest study on the original Septuagint text of the Book of Job is by Bickell in the _Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie_, 1886, pp. 557-564. As to the date of the Alexandrine version, Hody’s remark, _De Bibliorum Textibus_, p. 196, deserves attention, viz. that Philo already quotes from it,—Τίς γὰρ, ὡς ὁ Ἰώβ φησι, καθαρὸς ἀπὸ ῥύπου, καὶ ἂν μία ἡμέρα ἐοτίν ἡ ζωή (Sept. of Job xiv. 4 ὁ βίος); _De Mutatione Nominum_, § 6 (i. 585).
13. _Page 131._—The character of Harūn ar-Rashid, in fact, became almost as distorted by legend as that of Solomon. Neither of them were models of civil justice (Weil, _Geschichte der Chalifen_, ii. 127).
14. _Page 148_ (Prov. xxvii. 6).—Consult, however, the Septuagint, which seems to have read מ at the beginning of the second line (‘More faithful ... than’ &c.). See Cornill on Ezek. xxxv. 13.
15. _Page 162, note 1._—The Mo’tazilites (‘the Protestants of Islam’) denied the eternity of the Korán because it implied the existence of two eternal beings (Weil, _Gesch. der Chalifen_, ii. 262).
16. _Page 173._—Text of Proverbs. Among the minor additions in Sept., note the μὴ in Prov. v. 16 (so Vatican and, originally, Sinaitic MS.), if we may follow Lagarde and Field. The Alexandrine MS., however, and the Complutensian edition, omit μὴ, which is also wanting in Aquila. Comp. Field’s _Hexapla ad loc._
17. _Pages 176, 177_ (Religious Value of Proverbs).—To appreciate the religious spirit of this fine book, we require some imaginative sympathy with past ages. The ‘staid, quiet, “douce,” orderly burgher of the Book of Proverbs, who is regular in his attendance at the Temple, diligent in his business, prosperous in his affairs, of repute among the elders, with daughters doing virtuously, and a wife that has his house decked with coverings of tapestry, while her own clothing is silk and purple’ (Mr. Binney’s words in _Is it possible to make the best of both worlds?_), is not the noblest type of man, and therefore not the model Christian even of our own day.
18. _Page 178 (Aids to the Student)._—Add, _Les sentences et proverbes du Talmud et du Midrasch_. Par Moïse Schuhl. Par. 1878.
19. _Page 180._—On the date of Jesus son of Sirach, comp. Hody, _De Bibliorum Textibus Originalibus_ (Oxon., 1705), pp. 192-194.
20. _Page 189, note 1_ (Sirach xxi. 27).—Fritzsche weakens the proverb by taking ‘Satan’ as equivalent to ‘accuser’ (Ps. cix. 6, Zech. iii. 1). The wise man says that it is no use for the ungodly man to disclaim responsibility for his sin. ‘The Satan’ either means the depraved will (comp. Dukes, _Rabbin. Blumenlese_, p. 108) or the great evil spirit. In the latter case the wise man says that for all practical purposes the tempter called Satan may be identified with the inborn tempter of the heart. Comp. Ps. xxxvi. 2, ‘The ungodly man hath an oracle of transgression within his heart.’
21. _Page 193_ (The Hymn of Praise).—Frankel suspected xliv. 16 to be an interpolation, on the ground that the view of Enoch as an example of μετάνοια is Philonian (_Palästinische Exegese_, p. 44). Against this see Fritzsche, who explains the passage as a characteristically uncritical inference from Gen. v. 22. Enoch was a pattern of μετάνοια because he walked with God after begetting Methuselah.
22. _Page 195_ (Ancient Versions of Sirach).—The Peshitto version deviates, one may venture to assume, in many points from the original Sirach. Geiger has pointed out some remarkable instances of this (_Zeitschr. der deutschen morgenl. Ges._ xii. 536 &c.), and if the Greek version is to be regarded as absolutely authoritative, the number of deviations must be extremely great. Fritzsche goes so far as to say that in the latter part of the Syriac Sirach (from about chap. xxx.) the original is only hazily traceable (‘durchschimmert’). He describes this version as really no version, but ‘eine ziemlich leichtfertig hingeschriebene Paraphrase’ (‘a rather careless paraphrase’). This, as fairer judges of the Syriac are agreed, is not an accurate statement of the case. It can be readily disproved by referring to some of the passages in which the Greek translator has manifestly misrendered the original (e.g. xxiv. 27; see above, p. 196). Dr. Edersheim, who is working upon both versions, agrees with Bickell that the Syriac often enables us to restore the Hebrew, where the Greek text is wrong. This is not placing the Syriac in a superior position to the Greek, but giving it the subsidiary importance which it deserves. Doubtless, the Hebrew text which the Syriac translator employed was in many places corrupt. The best edition of the Peshitto, I may add, is in Lagarde’s _Libri Vet. Test. Apocryphi Syriaci_ (1861). It is from Walton’s Polyglot, but ‘codicum nitriensium ope et coniecturis meis hic illic emendatiorem’ [one sixth-century MS. of Ecclesiasticus is used].
The Old Latin has many peculiarities; its inaccuracies are no proof of arbitrariness; the translator means to be faithful to his _Greek_ original. Many verses are transposed; others misplaced. For instances of the former, Fritzsche refers to iii. 27, iv. 31, 32, vi. 9, 10, ix. 14, 16, xii. 5, 7; for the latter, to xvi. 24, 25, xix. 5, 6, xlix. 17. Sometimes a double text is translated, e.g. xix. 3, xx. 24. It is to be used with great caution, but its age makes it valuable for determining the Greek text. For the text of Ecclesiasticus in the Codex Amiatinus, see Lagarde’s _Mittheilungen_.
23. _Page 198 (Aids to the Student)._—To the works mentioned add Bruch, _Weisheitslehre_ (1851), p. 283 &c., and especially Jehuda ben Seeb’s little known work _The Wisdom of Joshua ben Sira rendered into Hebrew and German, and paraphrased in Syriac with the Biur_, Breslau, 1798 (translated title), and Geiger, ‘Warum gehört das Buch Sirach zu den Apocryphen?’ in _Zeitschr. d deutschen morgenl. Gesellschaft_, xii. 536 &c.
24. _Page 207, note 2._—The name is undoubtedly an enigma, and M. Renan thinks that ordinary philological methods are inadequate to its solution. Even Aquila leaves it untranslated (κωλέθ). Without stopping here to criticise M. Renan’s theory that QHLTH were the initials of words (comp. Rambam, Rashi) in some way descriptive of Solomon,[445] let me frankly admit that none of the older explanations is absolutely certain, because neither _Qōhēl_ nor _Qohéleth_ occurs elsewhere in the Old Testament literature. Two views however are specially prevalent, and I will first mention that which seems to me (with Gesenius, Delitzsch, Nowack &c.) to deserve the preference. In one respect indeed it harmonises with the rival explanation, viz. in supposing Qal to have adopted the signification of Hifil (the Hifil of Q H L _is_ found in the Old Testament), so that _Qōhēl_ will mean ‘one who calls together an assembly.’ The adoption thus supposed is found especially in proper names (e.g. רחביה). But how to explain the feminine form _Qohéleth_? By a tendency of later Hebrew to use fem. participles with a masc. sense.[446] In Talmudic Hebrew, e.g., we find לְקוּחוֹת, ‘buyers,’ נְקוּרוֹת, ‘stone-masons,’ לְעוּזוֹת, ‘foreigners’ (passive participles in this stage of the language tend to adopt an active sense). But even earlier we find the same tendency among _proper names_. Take for instance Sophereth (_hassofereth_ in Ezra ii. 55; _sofereth_ in Neh. vii. 57), Pokereth (Ezra ii. 57). Why should not the name Qoheleth have been given to the great Teacher of the book before us, just as the name Sophereth was given apparently to a scribe? Delitzsch[447] reminds us that in Arabic the fem. termination serves sometimes to intensify the meaning, or, as Ewald puts it, ‘ut abstracto is innuatur in quo tota hæc virtus vel alia proprietas consummatissima sit, ut ejus exemplum haberi queat.’[448] Thus Qoheleth might mean ‘the ideal teacher,’ and this no doubt would be a title which would well describe the later view of Solomon. It is simpler, however, to take the fem. termination as expressing action or office; thus in Arabic _khalifa_ means 1, succession or the dignity of the successor, 2, the successor or representative himself, the ‘caliph,’ and in Hebrew and Assyrian _pekhāh_, _pakhatu_ ‘viceroy.’ Comp. ἡ ἐξουσία, ‘die Obrigkeit.’
The alternative is, with Ewald, Hitzig, Ginsburg, Kuenen, Kleinert, to explain Qoheleth as in apposition to חָכְמָה, Wisdom being represented in Prov. i. 20, 21, viii. 1-4, as addressing men in the places of concourse (Klostermann eccentrically explains ἡ συλλογίζουσα or συλλογιστική). Solomon, according to this view, is regarded by the author as the impersonation of Wisdom (as Protagoras was called Σοφία). It is most unlikely, however, that Solomon should have been thus regarded, considering the strange discipline which the author describes Qoheleth as having passed through, and how different is the language of Wisdom when, as in Prov. i.-ix., she is represented as addressing an assembly! A reference to vii. 27, where Qoheleth seems to be spoken of in the fem., is invalid, as we should undoubtedly correct _haqqohéleth_ in accordance with xii. 8[449] (comp. _hassofereth_, Ezra ii. 55).
The Sept. rendering ἐκκλησιαστής, whence the ‘concionator’ of Vulg., is therefore to be preferred to the singular Greek rend. ἡ ἐκκλησιάστρια of Græcus Venetus.
Footnote 445:
On this, see Wright, _Ecclesiastes_ &c. p. 127.
Footnote 446:
Strack, _Lehrbuch der neuhebr. Sprache_, p. 54.
Footnote 447:
_Hoheslied und Koheleth_, pp. 212-3.
Footnote 448:
_Grammatica arabica_, § 284 (i. 167). Comp. Wright, _Arabic Grammar_, i. 157 (§ 233).
Footnote 449:
The mistake was caused by the rarity of קהלת with the article.
25. _Page 210._—Eccles. iii. 11. Might we render, ‘Also he hath put (the knowledge of) that which is secret into their mind, except that,’ &c., i.e. ‘though God has enabled man to find out many secrets, yet human science is of very limited extent’? This implies Bickell’s pointing עָלֻם.
26. _Page 219._—Eccles. vii. 28. The misogyny of the writer was doubtless produced by some sad personal experience. Its evil effect upon himself was mitigated by his discovery of another Jonathan with a love passing the love of women.’ This reminds us of the author of the celebrated mediæval ‘Romance of the Rose.’[450] ‘What is Love?’ asks the lover, and Reason answers, ‘It is a mere sickness of the thought, a sport of the fancy. If thou scape at last from Love’s snares, I hold it but a grace. Many a one has lost body and soul in his service’ (comp. Eccles, vii. 26). And then he continues, ‘There is a kind of love which lawful is and good, as noble as it is rare,—the friendship of men.’ To quote Chaucer’s translation,
And certeyn he is wel bigone Among a thousand that findeth oon. For ther may be no richesse Ageyns frendshippe of worthynesse.
The allusion to Eccles. vii. 29 is obvious. Thus the same varieties of character recur in all ages. This point of view is very different from that of the Agadic writers who borrow from Eccles. vii. 26 a weapon against ‘heresy’ (_mīnūth_), a term which includes the Jewish Christian faith. All are agreed that the ‘bitter woman’ is heresy, and one of them declares that the closing words of the verse refer to ‘the men of Capernaum’ (see Matt. ix. 8). Delitzsch, _Ein Tag in Kapernaum_, 1886, p. 48; comp. Wünsche, _Midraseh Koheleth_, p. 110.
Footnote 450:
Comp. _British Quarterly Review_, Oct. 1871.
27. _Pages 223-227._—Eccles. xi. 9-xii. 7. The key to the whole passage is xi. 8. ‘For, if a man lives many years, let him rejoice in them all, and let him remember the days of darkness, that they shall be many.’ I cannot accept the ingenious conjecture of Dr. C. Taylor, which might (see Chap. X.) have been supported by a reference to Egypt, that xii. 3-5 are cited from an authorised book of dirges. Not only these verses but xii. 1_b_-6 form a poem on the evils of old age, the whole effect of which is lost without some prefix, such as ‘Rejoice in thy youth.’ Döderlein supplies this prefix in xii. 6; but this is not enough. If we hesitate, with Luzzatto, Geiger, and Nöldeke to cancel xii. 1_a_ as a later addition for purposes of edification, we must, with Gritz and Bickell, read either אֶת־בּוֹרְךָ or אֶת־בְּאִֹרְךָ. These two readings seem to have existed side by side, and to an ingenious moralist this fact apparently suggested a new and edifying reading אֶת־בּוֹרְאֶּךָ. Hence Akabia ben Mahalallel,[451] one of the earliest of the Jewish ‘fathers,’ and probably a contemporary of Gamaliel I., advises considering these three points as a safeguard against sin, ‘Whence thou comest, whither thou goest, and before whom thou wilt have to give an account.’ ‘Whence thou comest,’ implying בְּאֵרְךָ ‘thy fountain;’ ‘whither thou goest,’ בּוֹרְךָ, ‘thy pit, or grave;’ ‘before whom thou wilt stand,’ בּוֹאֶךָ, ‘thy creator.’
Footnote 451:
_Aboth_, iii, 1 (ed. Strack); comp, Schiffer, _Das Buch Kohelet nach der Auffassung der Weisen_, part i., p. 49.
28. _Page 232._—Döderlein (in a popular work on Ecclesiastes, p. 119) describes xii. 9 &c. as the epilogue, ‘perhaps, of a larger collection of writings and of the earlier Hebrew canon.’ Herder, too, thinks that the close of the book suggests a collection of sayings of several wise men (_Werke_, ed. Suphan, x, 134).
29. _Page 244._—According to Grätz, Koheleth is not to be taken in earnest when he writes as if in a sombre and pessimistic mood. Such passages Grätz tries to explain away. Koheleth, he thinks, is the enemy of those who cultivate such a mood, and who, like the school of Shammai, combine with it an extravagant and unnatural asceticism (comp. vii. 16, 17). The present, Koheleth knows, is far from ideal, but he would fain reconcile young men to inevitable evils by pointing them to the relative goods still open to them. This attitude of the author enables Grätz to account for Koheleth’s denial of the doctrine of Immortality. This doctrine, he remarks, was not of native Jewish origin, but imported from Alexandria, and was the source of the ascetic gloom opposed by Koheleth. Koheleth’s denial of the Immortality of the Soul does not, according to Grätz, involve the denial of the Resurrection of the Body, the Resurrection being regarded in early Judaism as a new creative act.[452] It is not clear to me, however, that Koheleth accepts the Resurrection doctrine, even if he does not expressly controvert it.
Footnote 452:
_Kohelet_, p. 29. Certainly this is not the view of Talmudic Judaism, at least not in the sense described by Dr. Grätz. See Weber, _Altsynagogale Theologie_, p. 323.
30. _Page 245, note 3._—Herder says with insight, though with some exaggeration, that most of Koheleth consists of isolated observations on the course of the world and the experience of the writer. No artistic connection need be sought for. But if we must seek for one (_so that Herder is not convinced of the soundness of the theory_), it is strange that no one has observed the twofold voice in the book, ‘da ein Grübler Wahrheit sucht, und in dem Ton seines Ichs meistens damit, “dass alles eitel sey,” endet; eine andre Stimme aber, im Ton des Du, ihn oft unterbricht, ihm das Verwegne seiner Untersuchungen vorhält und meistens damit endet, “was zuletzt das Resultat des ganzen Lebens bleibe?” Es ist nicht völlig Frag’ und Antwort, Zweifel und Auflösung, aber doch aus Einem und demselben Munde etwas, das beyden gleicht, und sich durch Abbrüche und Fortsetzungen unterscheidet.’ _Brief das Studium der Theologie betreftend_, erster Theil (_Werke_, Suphan, x. 135-136).
INDEX.
Aaron, celebrated by Sirach, 193
Achamoth, Gnostic myth of, 161 _n._
Adam, occurrence of the word in ‘Proverbs,’ 119
Addison, 145
Age, ascribed to Job, 71; description of, 229 _sq._
Agur, 154, 170 _sq._
Ahriman, 80
Akabia ben Mahalallel, 300
Akiba, Rabbi, 283
Alexandria, importance of, to Jews, 181
Allegorical view of ‘Job,’ 65; of Koheleth’s portrait of old age, 229 _sq._
Alphabet of Ben Sira, 195 _sq._
Amenemhat I., 156
Amos, parallels to ‘Job’ in, 87
Amos iv. 13, v. 8, perhaps interpolations, 52, _n._
Angels, doctrine of, 44 _sq._ _See also_ Spirits
Apap, the serpent, 76
Apocrypha, value of the, 179
Aquila, versions of, 277
Arabian theory of angels, 44 _n._
Arabic Literature, euphuism in, 206
Arabic Poets, subjectivity, 64; parallels to ‘Job’ in, 100
Arabic Proverbs compared with Hebrew, 134; one quoted, 64
Arabisms, in ‘Job,’ 99, 291 _sq._; in Proverbs, 172
Aramaisms, in ‘Job,’ 15 _n._, 92, 97, 99, 291 _sq._, 294; in ‘Proverbs,’ 154, 168, 172; in Koheleth, 257
Aristeas, the fragment of, 96
Aristotle, definition of Virtue, 28
Arnold, Matthew, 122
Artaxerxes II. and III., 258
Ashmedai, 80
Assyrian, Discoveries, 5 _sq._; Policy of uprooting nations, 73; Theory of Angels, 44 _n._
Atomism, doctrine of, 263
Atonement, doctrine of the, 3, 287, 45
Augustine, Saint, quoted, 147, 284
Aurelius, Marcus, mentioned, 289; quoted, 234; compared with Koheleth, 245, 266 _sq._
Babylonian, animal fables, 126; physical theology, 52
Bacon, Lord, the _New Atlantis_, 132; _Adv. of Learning_, 210
Bagoses, 258
Bede, the Ven., on ‘Job,’ 90
Bedouin prayer, 52
Behemoth, 56
Ben Abuyah, 150
Bereshith Rabba, quoted, 188
Bernstein, on ‘Job,’ 293
Bertholdt, on ‘Job,’ 293
Bible, Milton’s view of the, 253
Biblical criticism, 1 _sq._
Bickell, as a critic, 241; on Job (xix. 25-27), 35, 288; on Prov. (xxii. 19-21), 138; on Sirach, 195; on Koheleth (iv. 13-16), 213, (iii. 11) 276, (viii. 10) 220, 276; list of poetical passages in Koheleth, 206; on the text of Koheleth, 273; and _passim_
Bildad, his home, 15; the advocate of tradition, 17, 23
Binney, Mr., 296
Birthday, Job’s curse of his, 16
Blake, William, quoted, 54; his illustrations to ‘Job,’ 19, 45 _n._, 50, 56, 59, 65, 106 _sq._
Book of the Dead, parallels with ‘Job,’ 39, 76
Böttcher, on ‘Job,’ 68
Bradley, Dean, 215, 229 _n._, 248
Breton legend of St. Ives, 140
Briggs, Prof., on Elihu’s speeches, 93, 296
Budde, on Aramaisms in ‘Job,’ 291 _sqq._
Buddha, 218
Buddhist sayings, 128
Budge, Mr., on Tiamat, 78
Bullinger, on Sirach, 197
Bunsen, quoted, 108 _n._
Bunyan, 109
Camerarius, edition of Sirach, 197
Canon, the, final settlement, 233, 281
Carlyle, quoted, 112, 144 _n._, 246
Ceremonial system, value of, 119 _sq._; approved by Sirach, 190
Chabas, M., quoted, 57
Chaldæans, 73; their philosophy known to Job, 51
Chateaubriand, quoted, 65
Chinese proverbs, 129
Christ, never used directly anti-sacrificial language, 3 _sq._; Kenotic view of His person, 7; whether Job a type of, 102 _sq._; foregleams of, in Prov. viii., 176
Christian doctrine in Koheleth, 248 _sq._
Church of England, attitude to Biblical criticism, 1 _sq._
Cicero, dialogues, 207
Clement, of Rome, 176
Coleridge, quoted, 108
Constantinople, Councils at, 107, 282
Cosmos, conception of the world as, 52, 161
Cox, Dr., quoted, 46
Daniel, plural authorship of the Book of, 8
Dante, allusions to, 28, 51, 66, 76, 159, 194, 230; quotations from, 45, 54, 130; comparison of the _Divina Commedia_ to ‘Job,’ 111
Davenant, quoted, 252
David, idealisation of, 131 _sqq._
Davidson, on Job (xix. 25-27), 34
Dawn, personified, 77
De Jong, on Koheleth, 240
Delitzsch, on the Praise of Wisdom, 163; on the date of Proverbs, 170; on the period of Koheleth, 258; his Hebrew New Testament, 288; and _passim_
Derenbourg, quoted, 100
De Sanctis, quoted, viii.
Determinism, in Koheleth, 265 _sqq._
Deuteronomy, in the reign of Josiah, 6; points of contact with Job, 86; influence on the Praise of Wisdom, 168 _sq._; (xxxii. 8) explained, 81 _n._, 291
De Vere, Aubrey, quoted, 105
Dillmann, on style of Job, 294
_Dīn Ibrahim_, morality of the, 98
Dragon Myth, 16, 24, 76
Dramatic character of ‘Job,’ 107
Drunkenness, 140, 156
Ebers, Prof., 40, 269
=Ecclesiastes, the Book of=— (_a_) Canonicity, 279 _sqq._; title, 207 _n._, 298; date and place of composition, 255 _sqq._, 271, 278; break in its composition, 204; language, 256; style, 203, 207, 246; how far autobiographical, 209; comparison with Job, 203; with Sirach, 279; its standpoint, 200 _sqq._; its pessimism, 215, 251 _sq._, 301; its relation to Epicureanism, 215, 222, 252, 262 _sq._; to Stoicism, 264 (_b_) _Passages explained or emended_: (iii. 11, 12), 210, 260, 276, 299; (iii. 17-21), 211; (iv. 13-16), 213; (v. 17), 260; (v. 19), 261; (vi. 9), 261; (vii. 1), 215; (vii. 18), 261; (vii. 27), 219; (viii. 10), 220, 276; (viii. 12), 220; (x. 20), 222; (xi. 9-xii. 7), 300; (xii. 1-7), 226; (xii. 8-14), 229 _sqq._, 261, 301 Transpositions, 273 _sq._; Interpolations, 275, and 211, 213, 224 _sq._, 226, 229 _sq._
Ecclesiasticus, _see_ Sirach
Edwards, Sutherland, on Mephistopheles, 110
Egypt, theory that ‘Job’ was composed in, 75
Egyptian, animal fables, 126 _n._; discoveries, 5; incantations, 16; proverbs, 129; influence on Koheleth, 269 _sq._
Egyptian-Jewish literature, 181
Elephantiasis, Job’s disease, 22
Elephants, 57
Elihu, genealogy, 42 _n._; speeches of, 68, 90 _sqq._; their date, 42, 92; their style, 47, 92, 291
Eliphaz, his home, 15; the ‘depositary of a revelation,’ 17
Elohim, the sons of the, 14, 79, 81, 82, 151
Emerson, quoted, 160
Enoch, 297; Book of, 268
Epictetus, 234 _n._
Epicureanism, in Koheleth, 240 _sq._, 252, 262 _sq._
Epicurus, 222
Ethics, practical, relation to Hebrew Wisdom, 118 _sq._; of the Proverbs, 135 _sq._
Euergetes II. Physkon, 180
Ewald, his division of the Book of Proverbs, 134; of the Praise of Wisdom, 162; on the date of Proverbs, 190; on Koheleth, 236 _sqq._; and _passim_
Ezekiel (xiv. 14), 60
Ezra, why not mentioned in Sirach, 193 _sq._
Family life, in Proverbs, 136
Farmers, Israelitish goodwill to, 136, 214
Faust, the Hebrew, 150
Fees, whether paid to the ‘Wise Men,’ 124 _n._
Fénelon, 67
Friends, Job’s, Emeers, 15; representatives of orthodoxy, 17; their narrowness, 30
Froude, J. A., quoted on Job xxvii., 95 _n._
Gamaliel, 280
Geiger, on Koheleth, 238 _sq._
Genesis, no protest against Idolatry in, 71; opening chapters of, 6; (xiv. 19-22), 160
Gilchrist, Life of Blake, 107
Ginsburg, Dr., on ‘proportionate retribution’ in Job, 69; on Koheleth, 236; on Eccles. (iii. 12), 210 _n._; and _passim_
Gnostic myth of Achamoth, 161
God, name of, in Koheleth, 201, 217
Godet, 288
Grätz, on Koheleth, 244, 301
Grave, Job’s, 60
Greek influence on Koheleth, 202, 241, 260 _sqq._
Green, Prof., of Princeton, on Job, (xix. 25-27), 33, 34 _n._; (xxvii.-xxviii.), 94
Gregory the Great, on ‘Job,’ 90
Hai Gaon, Rabbi, on ‘Job,’ 61
Harischandra compared to Job, 63
Harnack, quoted, 263
Harūn ar-Rashid, 131, 296
Hegesias Peisithanatos, 268
Heine, on ‘Job,’ 104
Hellenic movement in Palestine, 181
Hengstenberg, on ‘Job,’ 61; on Koheleth, 249 _n._
Herder, on ‘Job,’ 295; on Koheleth, 301
Hezekiah, the Song of, 88; his supposed authorship of Proverbs xxv.-xxix., 142 _sq._; his views on medical science, 191
Hillel, Rabbi, a copious fabulist, 128; the School of, on Koheleth, 280
Hitopadesa, quoted, 153
Hitzig, as a critic, 241 _n._; on the arrangement of the Praise of Wisdom, 163; and _passim_
Hooker, 161, 162, 216 _sq._
Hosea, parallels to ‘Job’ in, 87
Humboldt, A. von, 46
Humour, touches of, in ‘Job,’ 13, 14, 49, 109, 290; in Proverbs, 148 _n._; in Koheleth, 200, 216
Husbandmen, Israelite goodwill to, 136, 214
Ibn Ezra, opinion that ‘Job’ was a translation, 96
Ibycus, the cranes of, 222
Idealism, of the Prophets, 119
Immortality, the hope of, in Proverbs, 122 _sq._; attitude of Koheleth to, 216, 251, 301
Inconsistencies in the Canonical Scriptures, 204
Indian, animal fables, 126 _n._; proverbs, 129
Inspiration, view of, broadened by literary criticism, 7
Irving, Edward, 162
Isaiah, mythological allusions in, 78; parallels to ‘Job’ in, 84, 87; xxviii., 14, 120 _n._
Israel, Job a type of, 58; the word not in Proverbs, 119; Koheleth indifferent to its religious primacy, 199
Israelites, low religious position before the Exile, 6; their sympathy with husbandmen, 136, 214
Italian moralists, their use of ‘Job,’ viii.
Ives, Saint, Breton legend of, 140
Jamnia, Synod of, 233, 280
Jehovah, the name, 71, 72 _n._; consistency of the speeches of, in ‘Job,’ 48, 94
Jeremiah, parallels to ‘Job’ in, 86
Jerome, Saint, on metrical character of ‘Job,’ 12 _n._; on Epicureanism in Koheleth, 262, 281
Jewish nation, like Job, a byword, 32
=Job, the Book of=— (_a_) Proposed title for, 12; divisions of, 12 _sq._; perhaps a translation, 96 _sq._; probable stages of the growth of, 66 _sqq._; date of, 67 _sqq._, 88, 157; place of composition, 75; effect of removing the interpolations in, 70; Aramaic colouring of, 15 _n._, 92; whether historical, 60 _sq._, 183, 290; whether autobiographical, 63; whether a drama, 107; polemical aim of, 65; religious teaching of, 102 _sqq._; feeling for nature in, 51; humour in, 13 _sq._, 49, 109, 290; influence of, on other writers, viii. 83 _sq._ (_b_) =Author=, the greatest master of Hebrew Wisdom, 11; circumstances of his age reflected in xvii. 6-9, 32; a traveller, 75, 97; looks beyond Israel, 65; place of writing, 75 (_c_) =Hero=, his name, 62; title given him by the Syrians, 65; his nationality, 13, 59, 117, 170; whether historical, 60 _sqq._, 103; great age ascribed to him, 71; his grave, 60; dual aspect of, 32; a type, 17, 21, 22, 28, 31, 32, 58, 65 (_d_) =Text.= (i.) _Passages explained or emended_: (vi. 25), 288; (xi. 6), 26; (xiii. 15), 28; (xv. 7), 167; (xvi. 2), 31; (xix. 25-27), 33 _sqq._, 288 _sq._; (xxxiii. 13), 44; (xxxviii. 41), 52 _n._; (xxxix. 10), 53 _n._ (ii.), _Passages misplaced_, list of, 114; also 38, 39 _n._, 40 _n._, 41, 50, 68, 94, 115 (iii.) _Passages interpolated_, 55 _sq._, 68 _sq._, 94, &c.
Joel ii. 17 explained, 32
Joseph, the tax farmer, 182, 191, 213
Josephus, quoted, 190
Joshua ben Hananyah, Rabbi, 230
Kalisch, Dr., on Eccles. iii. 12, 210 _n._; his _Path and Goal_, 265
Kant, on Job’s friends, 37
Kenotic view of Christ’s person, 7, 287
_Khîda_, a riddle, 125
Kings, First Book of, (iv. 32) 132, (xix. 12) 19
Kleinert, on Job (vi. 25), 288; on the style of Elihu, 293
Klostermann, translation of Eccles. vii., 21, 219
Koheleth, the name, 207, 231; his personality partly fused with Solomon, 208; his originality, 205, 268 _sq._ _See also_ Ecclesiastes
Koheleth, the Book of, _see_ Ecclesiastes
Koran, quoted, &c., 31, 62 _n._, 63, 79 _n._
Krochmal, N., on Epilogue to Koheleth, 232 _sq._
K’sil, = Orion, 77
Kuenen, on the Levitical Law, 3
Lagarde, on the use of ‘Eloah,’ 72 _n._
Lamentations, parallels to ‘Job’ in, 86
Landed property, accumulation of, 146
Law, the Levitical, authorship of, 3 _sqq._; not enforced in pre-Exile period, 6; identification of, with personified wisdom, 162, 192; Koheleth’s attitude to, 218
Lee, Prof. S., on ‘Job,’ 97, 294
Lemuel, 154, 170 _sq._
Letteris, Max, 150
Leviathan, 56
Love for one’s enemies, 147
Lowth, Bp., 16, 61, 107, 186, 237
Lucretius, quoted, 201, 205; compared with Koheleth, 263
Luther, on Job, 61; on Sirach, 197; on Koheleth, 205
Luzzatto, on the ‘God of Job,’ 104; on Koheleth, 238 _sq._
Mal’ak Yahvè, 80
Mal’akim, 79, 80, 82
Marduk, the god, 77
Mariolatry, 162 _n._
Marvell, Andrew, quoted, 144
_Māshāl_, 125 _sq._, 132, 163
Maspero, quoted, 76
Massa, in the Hauran, Israelite colony at, 171
Medical Science, attitudes of Sirach and Hezekiah to, 190 _sq._
Meir, Rabbi, the writer of animal fables, 128
Mendelssohn, on Koheleth, 236
Mephistopheles, 110 _n._
Merodach, the god, 77
Merx, view of Job, 62, 113
Messianic hope, 119, 188
Midrash, proverbs in, 128
Milton, allusions to, 53, 62, 107, 108, 112, 162, 253; quotations from, 19, 41, 107, 160, 162
Mishnic peculiarities in Koheleth, 256
_M’lîça_, a dark saying, 125
Mohammed, delight of, in Job, 63; religion of, 98
Mommsen, quoted, 181
Monarchy, view of, in Proverbs, 145; in Koheleth, 222
Monogamy, in Proverbs, 136
Monotheism, of Job, 74; in Proverbs, 130
Morality, of the Proverbs, 135 _sq._, 177
Moses, authorship of the Law, 3; nature of his work, 6
Mo’tazilites, 98, 162 _n._, 296
Mozley, quoted, 103
Mussaph prayer, 193
Mythology, in ‘Job,’ 76
Narrative poetry, alien to Hebrew genius, 13
Nature, feeling for, in ‘Job,’ 51; in Sirach, 193
Nebuchadnezzar, 73
Neferhotep, stanzas in honour of, 269
Neubauer, Dr. A., 289
New Testament, attitude to Proverbs, 177
Nowack, on Eccles. (iii. 12), 210 _n._
Numerical Proverbs, 153
Old Testament, general remarks on the criticism of, 1 _sqq._; need to distinguish between the parts of, 7; critical problems of, not prominent in Christ’s time, 7
Omar Khayyam, 200, 245, 246, 253, 263
Onias, the High Priest, 213
Onkelus, Targum of, 264
Oort, Dr., on proverbs, 127
Orion, 77
Palmer, Major, 52
Parables, in the Old Testament, 126
Paradise, tradition of, 123
Patriarchal Age, whether delineated in Job, 13, 71 _sqq._
Paul, Saint, doctrine of the Atonement, 3, 287
Pentateuch, the literary analysis of it, 5 _sq._
Peshitto translation of Proverbs, 174
Philo, 151, 161 _n._, 264
Pisa, Job frescoes at, 106
Pleiades, 52, 290
Plumptre, Dean, 122, 158, 207 _n._, 212, 245, 263, 265; and _passim_
Prior, the poet, on Koheleth, 237
Prophetical books, plural authorship in, 8
Prophets, their antisacrificial language, 4; their horizon that of their own times, 8; their relations to the ‘Wise Men,’ 119 _sqq._, 182 _sq._
Proverbs, different names for, 125; no collection of popular, 125; some originally current as riddles, 127
=Proverbs, the Book of=— (_a_) The division of, 134; repetitions in, 133, 143; no subject arrangement, 134; the tone of the different parts of, 135, 146, 167, 177; their dates, 130, 133, 145, 149, 152, 165 _sqq._; their authorship, 130 _sqq._, 142, 135, 165 _sq._; their form and style, 133, 139, 143. 149, 154, 168; interpolations in, 173 _sqq._; transpositions in, 174 (_b_) _Passages explained or emended_: (v. 16), 296; (viii. 22), 160; (xiv. 32), 122; (xviii. 24), 137; (xix. 1), 135 _n._; (xix. 7), 134; (xxii. 19-21), 138; (xxiii. 18), 123; (xxvii. 6), 148, 296; (xxx. 1-5), 149 _sq._, 170; (xxx. 15-16), 153; (xxx. 31), 175; (xxii. 1), 170
Psalms, relations of, to ‘Job,’ 84, 88; Psalm viii. 5 parodied in ‘Job’ (vii. 17, 18), 22
Ptahhotep, Proverbs of, 121
Ptolemy Arsacides, Golden Table, 289
Puscy, Dr. quoted, 1
Q’dōshīm, 80, 149 _n._
Quinet quoted, 105
Ra, the sun god, 76
Rahab, the helpers of, 24, 76
Raven (in Job xxxviii. 41), 52 _n._
Realism of the ‘Wise Men,’ 119
Renan, on the style of Elihu, 47; on Koheleth, 206, 234, 242 _sq._, 246, 298; and _passim_
Resh Lakish, Rabbi, quoted, 60
Resurrection, hope of, 34, 75, 188 _sq._, 251, 301
Retribution, proportionate, 23, 35, 58, 73, 98, 121, 140, 167, 189, 190 _n._, 200, 219, 251
Riddles, proverbs originally current as, 127
Rig Veda, quoted, 78, 152
Romans, vii. 20 adopted from Proverbs (xxiv. 17, 18), 147
Romaunt of the Rose, quoted, 300
Rossetti, Miss C., 242
Sacrificial system, importance of, in post-Exile period, 4; relations of Job to, 71. _See also_ Law
Salmon, Prof., on Eccles. (ix. 7-9), 262
Samaritans, 194
Sammael, 80
Sandys’, George, translation of ‘Job,’ 106
Satan, the, 14, 79, 80, 109, 188 _sq._, 297
Schiller, 12
Schultens, Albert, quoted, 61, 97, 99
Sea Life, familiar, 140; cf. 133
Seneca, quoted, 57, 265
Septuagint version, of ‘Job,’ 113, 114, 296; of Proverbs, 173; of Koheleth, 277
Seven Wise Men, of Greece, 119, 124
Shammaites, on Koheleth, 280 _sq._
Shedim, 80
Shelley, delight in Job, 112, 253; dislike of Koheleth, 253
Sibyl, the oldest Jewish, 264
Simeon ben Shetach, 282 _sq._
Simon II., 180, 181 _sq._
Sirach, parentage, 180; early life, 182; a true ‘scribe,’ 185; unacquainted with Greek philosophy, 190; interested in nature and history, 193
=Sirach, the Book of=— (_a_) Canonicity, 279 _sq._, 282 _sq._; the name Ecclesiasticus, 197; written in Hebrew, 194, 196; ancient versions of, 297; its date, 180 _sqq._; subject arrangement, 183; style, 185; whether autobiographical, 186; parallelisms in, to Proverbs, 184; no philosophical thought in, 182; imperfect moral teaching in, 187; conception of the divine nature, 188 (_b_) _Passages emended or explained_; (xi. 16), 188; (xxi. 27), 189 _n._; (xxiv. 27), 196; (xxv. 15), 196; (xlvi. 18), 196; (xlviii. 11), 189, 193; (l. 1), 193; (l. 26), 193
Soferim, 238. _See also_ ‘Wise Men’
Solar Myths, 16, 22, 24, 76, 77
Solomon, secular turn of, 72; reputed authorship of Proverbs, 130 _sqq._, 165, 170; Koheleth’s representative of humanity, 202, 207; reputed authorship of Koheleth, 255, 275
Sophia, Gnostic myth of, 161 _n._
Sophocles, 107, 220
Spanheim, quoted, 97
Spenser, the poet, 12
Spinoza, on Job, 61
Spirits, classes of, 44 _sq._
Stanley, Dean, on Koheleth, 245, 255
Star worship, 71, 82
Steersmanship, the term, 133
Stickel, quoted, 102
Stoicism, in Koheleth, 240 _sq._, 264
Swift, 15
Swinburne, quoted, 212
Syrian title for Job, 65
Talmud, on Job, 64; proverbs in the, 128; Sirach cited in, 196; comparison of Koheleth with, 205; on Koheleth, 281
Tasso, 109 _n._
Taylor, C., on Job (xix. 26), 289
Taylor, Jeremy, 253
Temple, Bishop, 225
Tennyson, quoted, 212
Theism, argument for, early based on tradition, 23; of the Praise of Wisdom, 167
Theodore of Mopsuestia, 107
Thirlwall, Bishop, quoted, 2
Thomas à Kempis, 231, 249
Thomson, the poet, quoted, 21
Thoreau, quoted, 106, 252
Tiamat, 77
Trades, disparaged in Sirach, 186
Turgenieff, 243
Turner, Studies Biblical and Oriental, quoted, 46
Tyler, on Koheleth, 240, 263 _sq._
Unicorn, in Job (xxxix. 10), 53 _n._
Utilitarianism of the Wise Men, 121, 137
Uz, locality of, 13 _n._
Vaihinger, on Koheleth, 236 _sq._
Varuna, Vedic hymn to, 154
Vatke, on date of Proverbs, 1
Vedic hymns, 77, 154. _See also_ Rig Veda
Virtue, Koheleth’s ‘theory of,’ 218
Webbe, George, quoted, 113
Wellhausen, on Levitical Law, 3 _sqq._; on Job, 290
Wisdom, the Hebrew, nature of, 117 _sq._; personification of, 162, 192
Wise Men, the, 118, 123, 148, 182 _sqq._
Women, in Proverbs, 135, 154; in Sirach, 187; in Koheleth, 219, 299
Woolner, quoted, 229
Wordsworth, 162
Wright, Bateson, on Job, 113
Zeno, 265 _sq._
Zirkel, on Græcisms in Job, 260 _sq._
Zophar, home of, 15; the ‘man of common sense,’ 17
_Zwischenschriften_, 180
● Transcriber’s Notes: ○ Inconsistent spelling and hyphenation were made consistent only when a predominant form was found in this book. ○ Text that was in italics is enclosed by underscores (_italics_). Text that was in bold face is enclosed by equals signs (=bold=). ○ Footnotes have been moved to follow the chapters in which they are referenced.