siastes and his other writings. But what is there, besides the old Jewish tradition, in support of the theory that Ecclesiastes is the latest production of Solomon's pen? Would it be any easier to establish this than to prove that the book in its present form is of post-exilian origin? We think not. Rev. W. T. Bullock, M.A., readily adopts the above view, and finds sufficient confirmation from other authors, both ancient and modern. Says he:* "In our own language the style of Milton in his 'Ode on the Nativity,' written in his twenty-first year, differs widely from 'Samson Agonistes,' a product of his old age. In our own generation, there is a remarkable difference between the earlier prose style of Dean Milman and that of his 'History of Latin Christianity.'" Others, again, like Dr. Cowles,† dispose of Aramaisms and other linguistic peculiarities on the ground that Solomon had learned them from his intimacy with foreigners, "his wives and concubines, his political friends and his commercial acquaintances." They also adduce, as further explanation of these foreign terms, the supposition that the book was written especially for these foreigners; consequently, there could have been nothing more natural for Solomon than to use words and phrases which, though not pure Hebrew, yet were such as were perfectly familiar to those for whom the book was intended. This theory-for certainly it is nothing more-will not satisfy a critical mind. There is no evidence that the book was written for foreigners, for the outlandish women who flocked to the royal court at Jerusalem, or for the political allies of King Solomon. The sacred books of the Hebrews were not written for the heathen, but for the seed of Abraham. Dr. Tayler Lewis, though a stanch supporter of the Solomonic origin of Ecclesiastes, as may be seen in his appendix to the Introduction to Koheleth by Zöckler in Lange's "Commentary," is defending an almost hopeless cause. Read the following: "There may be allowed the idea of a later editor, or recensor, who may have added some of the short prose scholia by way of expla nation, even as they were added to the Pentateuch-some few parenthetical insertions of the name Koheleth where it was deemed necessary more clearly to announce the speaker, and "Bible Commentary," Introduction to Ecclesiastes. "Commentary" on Ecclesiastes, p. 220, ff. perhaps some modernizations of the language, or the adaptation of it to a later period."* But where is the proof that the Jews thus tampered with their sacred books? The average reader will prefer to accept a later authorship, than a revised version of the original Solomonic work by a later hand. Others claim that these verbal diffe ences "ought to have but little weight in argument;" so little, indeed, "that small mention need be made of them." Dr. Hyde † limits these words to about ten, although Delitzsch, who wrote as late as 1875, finds more than ten times ten words or forms in some way peculiar to the book under consideration. But what if the number could be reduced to ten? If it can be proved that we have here ten words of later origin than Solomon's time, would not that suffice to disprove the Solomonic origin? Would a student of English in a thousand years from now hesitate to declare that a book containing any two of the following words, "gerrymander, bulldoze, telephone, class-meeting, cablegram, telegram, loot, or dude, could not have been written as early as the sixteenth century?" A skillful anatomist can tell by the careful examination of a single bone the kind, and as well the approximate size, of the animal. So also in philology. The age of a book is determined by the words and expressions used. Even one word has sometimes sufficed to explode great literary forgeries. Let one instance be given: "Some years ago a set of poems was published at Bristol purporting to have been written in very early times by a poet named Rowley. Literary controversy ran high about them; many persons believed in their genuineness; some do, even now. But the imposture, which was not easy to detect at the time, has been completely unmasked by the aid of a little word of three letters. The writer uses its' as the possessive case of the pronoun 'it' of the neuter gender. Now, this possessive 'its' was never so used in the early periods of our language; nor, indeed, as late down as the time of Elizabeth. It never occurs in the English version of the Bible, made in its present authorized form in the reign of James I. It is said, also, to occur only three times in Shakespeare, and once in 'Paradise Lost.' + *Lange's "Commentary," Appendix to Introduction, p. 29. Besides these words, there is another point especially worthy of mention, though not urged as conclusive; that is, the very frequent use of the shortened form of the relative pronoun, (instead of.) This shorter form, it is true, is occasionally used in the earlier books of the Bible, and also in the Phenician remains; but in the later books, as well as in the later Psalms, this form is very common. In Ecclesiastes it is found no less than sixty-eight times. The Talmud and other rabbinical writings, as well as modern Hebrew, use the shorter form almost exclusively. Again, in no other book of the Bible are the meanings given to this word in its various combinations so various as in Ecclesiastes. There is also a difference in the use of the tenses, which students in their second year cannot fail to observe. The "vav conversive" is seldom used, and there is a noticeable preference given to the participial form of the verb. Again, the author of Ecclesiastes, in speaking of the Divine Being, never uses the word "Jehovah," but always (thirty-nine times) Elohim. This is certainly a remarkable fact, and is regarded as of some weight in determining the authorship of the book. It is said that in the post-biblical period, the Jews, being restrained by a religious dread, scarcely ever used the word Jehovah. The use of Elohim does not necessarily point out a later age, but it certainly points out a difference of style, for in the Proverbs Solomon uses almost exclusively the word Jehovah; but why Solomon should use Jehovah so often in Proverbs, and abstain most carefully from its use in Koheleth, is not clear. II. Objections based on other than linguistic grounds, that is, on the subject-matter, or the contents of the book. Although objections to the Solomonic origin of Ecclesiastes were first based on purely philological grounds, yet in the course of time others of an entirely different nature were added to them. It could not be otherwise. The study of literature and history has been reduced and developed into an exact science. The literature of a people bears the impress of the age in which it was written. Not only do we find philological differences, but also difference in style, matter, and treatment. The influence may be political, religious, or philosophical. Says a modern writer: "The political influences which act in the development and modification of literature are many and potent; and these, unlike the influence of race, differ more or less in every age. Their effect may, as a rule, be traced with the greatest facility; and the writers on whom they have produced no marked impressions are few indeed. Perhaps the most powerful influence of all is that exerted by the form of government, which results in material prosperity or social degradation. Unjust rule in France has produced greater popular misery than in any other country in Europe. As a consequence we find their literature studded over with the traces of this external suffering, and with the marks of a spirit of fiery impatience and revolt." * In a critical examination of Ecclesiastes it becomes evident that many things discussed in the book do not well suit the Solomonic era, and that many others could have scarcely come from the pen of the royal writer himself. A king would be the last to write such a book as we have before us. The first objection under this head to which I wish to call attention is, the constant reference to tyranny and oppressive government. It runs like a stream from one end of the book to the other. Governors and rulers of all grades ruthlessly trample under foot the dearest and most sacred rights. So great were these oppressions that, according to our author, death itself would be a release. It would not be an easy task to prove that such passages as are found here could have been written during one of the most peaceful and prosperous reigns of any of the Jewish kings. Whatever faults King Solomon may have had, the sacred chroniclers do not bring his tyranny, or that of his officers, into any such prominence as would warrant the bitter wailing of the author of Ecclesiastes. Take the following examples: "I saw under the sun the place of judgment, that wickedness was there; and the place of righteousness, that iniquity was there:" (iii, 16.) "So I returned, and considered all the oppressions that are done under the sun: and behold the tears of such as were oppressed, and they had no comforter; and on the side of their oppressors there was power; but they had no comforter:" (iv, 1.) The repetition of the last clause makes it very emphatic in Hebrew. So glaring was the injustice, and so violent the oppression, practiced in *Van Laun, "History of French Literature," vol. i, p. 10. the land during the time of the author, that he concludes that death is preferable to life. "Wherefore," continues he, "I praised the dead which are already dead, more than the living which are yet alive. Yea, better is he than both they, which hath not yet been, who hath not seen the evil work that is done under the sun," (iv, 2, 3.) It would be easy to multiply passages which seem very difficult to reconcile with the history of the reign of Solomon. They seem to be anachronistic, utterly inexplicable. "Folly is set in great dignity, and the rich sit in low places." "I have seen servants upon horses, and princes walking as servants upon the earth: " (x, 6, 7.) "Woe to thee, O land, when thy king is a child, and thy princes eat in the morning :" (x, 16.) On the other hand, when we compare the sentiments expressed in these verses to later times, when the poor Jews were oppressed by foreign officials, and when extortion and plunder was the order of the day, how like real history is our book! (Compare Esther iii, 1; Neh. ix, 36, 37.) The remarkable passage near the close of the book (x, 20) seems also to point most clearly to other times. than those of Solomon. The author says: "Curse not the king, no, not in thy thought; and curse not the rich in thy bed-chamber: for a bird of the air shall carry the voice, and that which hath wings shall tell the matter." The reference here is, beyond doubt, to the well-established system of espionage, which in ancient times stretched itself like a network over the empires of despotic kings. Espionage is always the index of a mean, corrupt, tyrannical, and pusillanimous despot, but never of a noble man. What is there in the history of Solomon corresponding of the sentiment expressed in this verse? Our latest Methodist commentator, Dr. Hyde, finds but little difficulty in reconciling the linguistic peculiarities of Ecclesiastes with the idea that it was written by Solomon; yet he fairly stumbles when he comes to the exposition of this passage. Listen to him: "As the general subject of discreet behavior in the trying times produced by bad rulers occupies so large a proportion of this brief book, we may, on dismissing it, again say that its moral weight as against the Solomonic authorship is very serious. The books of the Scripture, though written for all time, get their special form and matter from and for some particular time. So much of exhortation to patient |