ECCLESIASTES
247
ECCLESIASTES
curs in Ecclesiastes, while Elohim is found thirty-seven
times; it is more remarkable still that the name Jah-
veh has been omitted in a quotation (v, 3; cf. Deut.,
xxiii, 22). Besides, nothing is found in the book that
could not be known through natural religion, without
the aid of revelation.
(2) The Aramaisms may perhaps be explained in still another way. We probably possess the Old Tes- tament, not in the original wording and orthography, but in a form which is slightly revised. We must un- questionably distinguish, it seems, between Biblical Hebrew as an unchanging literary language and the conversational Hebrew, which underwent constant changes. For there is no instance anywhere that a spoken language has been preserved for some nine hundred years so little changed in its grammar and vocabulary as the language of our extant canonical books. Let us, for an mstance, compare the English, French, or German of nine hundred years ago with those languages in their present form. Hence it seems exceedingly daring to infer from the written Hebrew the character of the spoken language, and from the style of the book to infer the date of its composition. In the case of a literary language, on the other hand, which is a dead language and as such essentially lui- changeable, it is reasonable to suppose that in the course of time its orthography, as well as single words and phrases, and, perhaps, here and there, some formal elements, have been subjected to change in order to be more intelligible to later readers. It is possible that Ecclesiastes was received into the canon in some such later edition. The Aramaisms, therefore, may also be explained in this manner; at any rate, the supposition that the time of the composition of a Biblical book may be deduced from its language is wholly question- able.
(3) This is a fact admitted by all those critics who ascribe Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, portions of Isaias and of the Pentateuch, etc., to a later period, without troubling themselves about the difference of style in these books.
(4) The eagerness to find Aramaisms in Ecclesiastes is also excessive. Expressions w-hich are commonly regarded as such are found now and then in many other books. Hirzel thinks that he has foimd ten Arama- isms in Genesis, eight in Exodvis, five in Leviticus, four in Numbers, nine in Deuteronomy, two in Josue, nine in Judges, five in Ruth, sixteen in Samuel, sixteen in the Psalms, and several in Proverbs. For this there may be a twofold explanation: Either the descend- ants of Abraham, a Chaldean, and of Jacob, who dwelt twenty years in the Land of Laban, and whose sons were almost all born there, have retained numerous Aramaisms in the newly acquired Hebrew tongue, or the peculiarities pointed out by Hitzig and others are no Aramaisms. It is indeed astonishing how accu- rately certain critics claim to know the linguistic peculiarities of each of the numerous authors and of every period of a language of which but little literature is left, to us. Zockler affirms that almost every verse of Qoheleth contains some Aramaisms (Komm., p. 115); Grotius found only four in the whole book; Hengstenberg admits ten ; the opinions on this point are so much at variance that one cannot help noticing how varying men's conception of an Aramaism is. Peculiar or strange expressions are at once called Aramaisms; but, according to Havernick, the Book of Proverbs, also, contains forty words and phrases which are often repeated and which are found in no other book; the Canticle of Canticles has still more peculiarities. On the contrary the Prophecies of .\ggeus, Zacharias, and Malachias are without any of those peculiarities which are supposed to indicate so late a period. There is much truth in Griesinger's words: "We have no history of the Hebrew lan- guage".
(5) Even prominent authorities adduce Aramaisms
which are shown to be Hebraic by clear proofs or man-
ifest analogies from other books. There are hardly
any unquestionable Aramaisms which can neither be
found in other books nor regarded as Hebraisms,
which perchance have survived only in Ecclesiastes
(for a detailed demonstration cf. the present writer's
Commentary, pp. 23-31). We repeat here Welte's
words: "Only the language remains as the principal
argument that it was written after Solomon ; but how
fallacious in such cases is the merely linguistic proof,
need not be mentioned after what has been said."
It is alleged that the conditions as described in Ecclesiastes do not agree with the time and person of Solomon. True, the author, who is supposed to be Solomon, speaks of the oppression of the weak by the stronger, or one official by another, of the denial of right in the courts of justice (iii, 16; iv, 1; v, 7 sqq.; viii, 9 sq.; x, 4 sqq.). Now many think that such things could not have happened in Solomon's realm. But it surely did not escape the wisdom of Solomon that oppression occurs at all times and with every people; the glaring colours, however, in which he describes them originate in the tragic tone of the whole book. Besides, Solomon himself was accused, after his death, of oppressing his people, and his son confirms the charge [I (111) K., xii, 4 and 14]; more- over, long before him, Samuel spoke of the despotism of the future kings[I Sam. (K.),\iii, 11 sq.]. Manymissin the book an indication of the past sins and the subse- quent repentance of the king, or, on the other hand, wonder that he discloses the mistakes of his life so openly. But if these readers considered vii, 27-29, they could not help sharing Solomon's disgust at women's intrigues and their consequences; if obedi- ence towards God is inculcated in various ways, and if this (xii, 13) is regarded as man's sole destination, the readers saw that the converted king feared the Lord; in chap, ii sensuality and luxury are condemned so vigorously that we may reganl this passage as a suffi- cient expression of repentance. The openness, how- ever, with which Solomon accuses himself only height- ens the impression. This impression has at all times been so strong, precisely because it is the experienced, rich, and wise Solomon who brands the sinful aspira- tions of man as "vanity of vanities". Again, what Qoheleth says of himself and his wisdom in xii, 9 sqq., cannot sound strange if it comes from Solomon, espe- cially since in this passage he makes the fear of the Lord the essence of wisdom. The passages iv, 13 ; viii, 10; Lx, 13; x, 4, are considered by some as referring to historical persons, which seems to me incorrect; at any rate, indications of so general a natine do not necessarily point to definite events and persons. Other commentators think they have discovered traces of Greek philosophy in the book ; Qoheleth ap- pears to be now a sceptic, now a stoic, now an epicu- rean; but these traces of Hellenism, if existing at all, are nothing more than remote resemblances too weak to .serve as arguments. Cheyne (Job and Solomon) sufficiently refuted Tyler and Plumptre. That iii, 12, is a linguistic Graecism, has not been proved, because the common meaning of 310 r\C']! is retained by many commentators; moreover, in II Sam. (,K.), xii. 18, nyi ntf y means "to be sorry"; the verb, therefore, has about the same force as if we translated 3lt3 nC'V by e5 irp6.TT£tv.
As all the other internal proofs against the author- ship of Solomon are not more convincing, we must listen to the voice of tradition, which has always attrib- uted Ecclesiastes to him. The Jews doubted not its composition by Solomon, but objected to the recep- tion, or rather retention, of the book in the canon; Hillcl's School decided definitely for its canonicity and inspiration. In the Christian Church Theodore of Mopsuestia and some others for a time obscured the tradition ; all other witnesses previous to the sixteenth century favour the Solornonic avithorship and the in-
