_Records of the Past_, iv. 115-118; vi. 127-130.

Footnote 413:

‘Cairo, the Old in the New,’ _Contemp. Rev._, xliii. 852.

Footnote 414:

_Records of the Past_, vi. 127.

Footnote 415:

Geiger, _Urschrift_, pp. 60, 61; Nöldeke, _Die alttestamentliche

Literatur._, p. 175; Kuenen, _Hist.-krit. Onderzoek._, iii. 188.

_Theologisch. Tijdschrift_, 1883, p. 143.

Footnote 416:

See reference, p. 280.

CHAPTER XII.

TEXTUAL PROBLEMS OF KOHELETH.

I.

According to Delitzsch, the Song of Solomon is the most difficult book

in the Old Testament. If so, Ecclesiastes comes next in order. None of

the attempts to discover a logical plan having been successful, Gustav

Bickell’s new hypothesis (1884) deserves a respectful hearing, since it

endeavours to solve the enigma in a most original way, connecting it

with the problem of the text. This critic starts from the observation

that continuous passages of some extent are suddenly closed by an abrupt

transition, and that such passages are pretty equal in length. His

explanation of this is a purely mechanical one. The troubles of the

commentators have arisen principally from an accident which happened to

a standard MS., called by Bickell, ‘die Unfallshandschrift’ (the

Accident-manuscript). This MS. seems to have consisted of 21 or 22

leaves, with an average of 518 to 535 letters to a leaf. To speak more

precisely, it was composed of fasciculi of four double leaves each; the

book began on the sixth leaf of the first fasciculus, and ended on the

second, or more probably on the third leaf of the fourth. Through a

loosening of the two middle fasciculi, a dislocation took place, and an

almost entirely new order arose, though with one exception the leaves

which had been placed in pairs remained together. But the story of the

fortunes of Ecclesiastes has not yet been told. Three hands, besides the

original writer, have worked on this ill-fated book. One of these is

considered to have been a downright ‘enemy’ who tampered with the text

before the dislocation had taken place. From him proceed ‘the protests

against Koheleth’s principles on the obedience due to the king in viii.

1, 5_a_ as well as the offensive expressions in xi. 5, xii. 4, 5, by

which he sought to make the book ridiculous and contemptible.’

Subsequently to him, and after the leaves had been thrown into

confusion, another writer made ‘well-meaning additions,’ and so brought

the book into nearly its present form; among these additions was the

Epilogue. His aim was ‘to brighten Koheleth’s gloomy view of the world,

partly by emphasising the doctrine of a present retribution, but still

more by pointing to a future judgment in which inequalities should be

rectified.’ The third hand is that of the so-called pseudo-Solomonic

interpolator. He must have gone to work after the Epilogist, for the

latter simply knows Koheleth as a wise man skilled in proverbial

composition. Bickell also claims to make transpositions on a small

scale, and offers many emendations sometimes based on the Septuagint.

‘Habent sua fata libelli.’

I have said that Bickell’s explanation of the want of order in

Ecclesiastes is a purely mechanical one. It is not on that account to be

rejected. A German reviewer[417] has mentioned a case within his own

experience in which the double leaves of one of the fasciculi of an

Oriental MS. had been disarranged in the binding, a circumstance which

had led to various additions and alterations. It may indeed be urged as

an objection that the Septuagint text differs in no very material

respect from the Massoretic. But a work like Ecclesiastes had at first

in all probability but a very slight circulation, so that an accident to

a single MS. would naturally involve unusually serious consequences.

Still from the possibility to the actuality of the ‘accident’ is a long

step. Apart from other difficulties in the theory, the number and

arbitrariness of the transpositions, additions, and alterations are

reason enough to make one hesitate to accept it; and when we pass from

the very plausible arrangement of the contents (Bickell, pp. 53, 54) to

the translation of the text, it is often only possible to make them

tally by a violent and imaginative exegesis.

Among the transpositions (to which I have no theoretic objection[418])

are the following:

v. 9-16 placed after ii. 11,

viii. 9-14 “ ” iii. 8,

vi. 8-12 “ ” x. 1,

iv. 9-16 “ ” vii. 20,

x. 16-xi. 6 “ ” v. 8,

xi. 6 “ ” xi. 3.

Bickell’s theory that the passages which assert or suggest Solomonic

authorship in i. 1, 12, 16, ii. 7, 8, 9, [12], are due to an

interpolator,[419] is plausible; it throws a new light on the statement

of the Epilogue (xii. 9) that ‘Koheleth was a wise man,’ and a motive

for the interpolation can be readily imagined—the desire to obtain

ecclesiastical sanction for the book. It is, however, incapable of

proof.

II.

There are in fact few books on Ecclesiastes so stimulating as Bickell’s,

though it needs to be read with discrimination[420] (comp. p. 241).

Putting aside the author’s peculiar theory, it must be owned that he has

enabled us to realise the inherent difficulties of the text as it

stands, and contributed some very happy corrections. All critics will

admit the need of such emendations. The text of Koheleth is even more

faulty than that of Job, Psalms, or Proverbs. We cannot wonder at this.

Meditations often so fragmentary on such a difficult subject were

foredoomed to suffer greatly at the hands of copyists. A minute study of

the various readings and of the corrections which have been proposed

would lead us too far, interesting as it would be (compare Renan’s

remarks, _L’Ecclésiaste_, p. 53). Cappellus (Louis Cappel) has done most

for the text among the earlier critics (see his _Critica Sacra_, Par.

1650); Grätz has also made useful suggestions based upon the versions.

Renan, and (as we have seen) Bickell, have corrected the text on a

larger scale; occasional emendations of great value are due to Hitzig,

Delitzsch, Klostermann, and Krochmal. The notes in the expected new

edition of Eyre and Spottiswoode’s _Variorum Bible_ will indicate the

most important various readings and corrections; to these I would refer

the reader. The corrections of Bickell are those least known to most

students. In considering them, we must distinguish between those which

arise out of his peculiar critical theory and those which are simply the

outcome of his singular and brilliant insight. Of the latter, I will

here only mention two. One occurs in iii. 11, where for אֶת־הָעֹלָם (or

אֶת־הָעוֹלָם the Oriental or Babylonian reading), he gives (see below,

p. 299) לְבַקֵּשׁ אֶת־כָּל־הֶעָלֻם, remarking that כָּל־ survived in the

text translated in the Septuagint. The fact is, however, that though

Cod. Vat. does read σύμπαντα τὸν αἰῶνα, Cod. Alex., Cod. Sin., and the

Complutensian ed. all read σὺν τὸν αἰῶνα, and as the verse begins Τὰ

σύμπαντα (v. l. Σύμπαντα) it is probable enough that σύμπαντα was

written the second time in Cod. Vat. by mistake. At any rate, copyists

both of the Greek and of the Hebrew were sometimes inclined to insert or

omit ‘all’ at haphazard; thus, in iv. 2, Cod. Vat. inserts ‘all,’ which

is omitted in Cod. Alex. and Cod. Sin.

Another, adopted above at p. 220, is in viii. 10. Read וְּבָמקוֹם

קָדוֹשׁ ויהַלְּכוּ (or נִקְבָּדִים) כְּבֵדִים. ובאו is a fragment of the

correct reading ובמקום which stood side by side with the alternative

reading וממקום.

On the question of interpolations, enough has been said already.

Probably Cornill’s book on Ezekiel will dispose many critics to look

more favourably on attempts to purify Biblical texts from glosses and

other interpolations. Grätz’s conclusion certainly cannot be maintained,

‘Sämmtliche Sentenzen gehören streng zu ihrer nachbarlichen

Gedankengruppe, führen den Gedanken weiter oder spitzen ihn zu.’

I have still to speak of the Septuagint version. Its importance for

textual criticism is great; indeed, we may say with Klostermann that the

Massoretic text and this translation are virtually two copies of one and

the same archetype. It is distinguished from the Septuagint versions of

the Books of Job, Proverbs, and even Psalms by its fidelity. Those

versions approximate more or less closely to the elegant manner of

Symmachus, but the Greek style of the Septuagint Koheleth is most

peculiar, admitting such words as ἀντίῤῥησις, ἔγκοπος, ἐκκλησιαστής,

ἐντρύφημα, ἐπικοσμειν, παραφορά, περιουσιασμός, περιφέρεια, περισπασμός,

προαίρεσις (in special sense, ii. 17) ἐξουσιάζειν (not less than eleven

times), and such abnormal phrases as ὑπὸ τὸν ἥλιον (i. 3 and often), and

especially σὺν, as an equivalent of את when distinctive of the

accusative (ii. 17, iii. 10, iv. 3, vii. 15, and nine other passages;

elsewhere σύμπαντα or the like). The last-named peculiarity reminds us

strongly of Aquila[421] (comp. [God created] σὺν τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ σὺν τὴν

γην, Aquila’s rendering of Gen. i. 1); but it must be also mentioned

that in more than half the passages in which את of the accusative occurs

in the original, this characteristic rendering of Aquila is not found.

This fact militates against the theory of Grätz,[422] that the

Septuagint version of Ecclesiastes is really the second improved edition

of Aquila, and against that of Salzberger,[423] who argues that the

fragments given as from Aquila in Origen’s Hexapla are not really

Aquila’s at all, the one and only true edition of Aquila’s Ecclesiastes

being that now extant in the Septuagint (comp. the case of Theodotion’s

Daniel). It seems clear that the Septuagint version, as it stands, is a

composite one, but it is possible, as Montfaucon long ago pointed

out,[424] that an early version once existed, independent of Aquila. The

question of the origin of this version is of some critical importance,

for if the work of Aquila, the Septuagint Ecclesiastes cannot be earlier

than 130 A.D. Supposing this to be the first Greek version of the book,

we obtain an argument in favour of the Herodian date of Ecclesiastes

advocated by Grätz. Upon the whole, however, there seems no sufficient

reason for doubting that there was a Septuagint version of the book

distinct from Aquila’s, as indeed Origen’s Hexapla and St. Jerome in the

preface to his commentary attest, and that this version in its original

form goes back, like the versions of Job and Proverbs, to one of the

last centuries before Christ.

On the Peshitto version of Koheleth and Ruth there is a monograph by G.

Janichs, _Animadversiones criticæ_ &c. (Breslau, 1871), with which

compare Nöldeke’s review, _Lit. Centralblatt_, 1871, No. 49. For the

text of the _Græcus Venetus_, see Gebhardt’s edition (Leipz. 1874).

Ginsburg’s well-known work (1861) contains sections on the versions.

Footnote 417:

In the _Theologisches Literaturblatt_, Sept. 19, 1884.

Footnote 418:

Van der Palm first conjectured that passages had been misplaced, and

Grätz has adopted the idea (_Kohélet_, pp. 40-43).

Footnote 419:

Comp. Rashbam’s interpolation theory (Ginsburg, _Coheleth_, p. 42).

Footnote 420:

See Budde’s review of Bickell’s work in the _Theologische

Literaturzeitung_, Feb. 7, 1885.

Footnote 421:

On Aquila and his theory of interpretation, comp. Renan,

_L’Ecclésiaste_, p. 54; and on his artificial vocabulary, Field’s

remarks, _Hexapla_, Prolegomena, p. xxii.

Footnote 422:

_Kohélet_, Anhang. Before Grätz, Frankel was already inclined to think

that the Septuagint version might be really Aquila’s (_Vorstudien_, p.

238, note _w_). So more positively Freudenthal. Renan inclines to

agree with Grätz.

Footnote 423:

Grätz’s _Monatsschrift_, 1873, pp. 168-174.

Footnote 424:

_Hexapla_ (1713), i., Præliminaria, p. 42. Montfaucon indicates vii.

23_a_ as manifestly made up of a genuine version, and one interpolated

from Aquila. Comp. Clericus’ note on Eccles iv. 1.

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.