*

for example, in ch. 28: 3. Instead of a guarded and mournful tone in speaking of rulers, which he finds in what he regards as the later portions, I can find only frank and outspoken criticisms, the utterances of one who was raised above any fear of man. It is admitted that these portions deal with certain subjects not within the prescribed range of chs. 10-22 : 16; and this is accounted for by the more limited design of that earlier and select collection.

When it is considered, that these proverbial sayings are successive gleanings from a far greater number (three thousand are mentioned in 1 K. 4:32); that the Hebrew word mâshâl means a short instructive discourse, as well as a single sententious maxim; that, from the nature of the case, these discourses and maxims were the product of many years of observation and reflection; that a writer's style necessarily differs much, in the free flow of continuous discourse, from its abrupt and condensed form in sententious sayings, of which the alternate members and single terms are studiously chosen, and adjusted to each other, for verbal correspondence and effect; that a writer's manner varies at different periods of his life, and new terms and favorite forms of expression are adopted from time to time; it will not be thought strange, that successive selections from a much larger amount of material should exhibit some few diversities in general form, and in the use of certain words and phrases, and some repetitions and slight variations of the same sentiment.

Of others to whom portions of the book are attributed, only two, Agur and Lemuel (ch. 30: 1; ch. 31: 1) are mentioned by name; and of these nothing is historically known. Ewaldt regards the whole of chs. 30-31 : 9 as the production of a single poet, who calls himself Agur son of Jakeh; of whom we know nothing more, though we can not doubt that in his own time he was regarded as a very skillful poet. By others, however, something further has been attempted. Setting out with the assumption, that b2b (ch. 31; 1) is not good Hebrew for "King Lemuel" (or, "Lemuel, king"), the following theories have been proposed in regard to the nationality of Lemuel and Agur.§

1. Hitzig, holding that the word king, if in apposition with Lemuel, must in Hebrew have the article, claims that it is here construed with the following word (Massa) as a genitive, and hence this must be the proper name of the country or kingdom over which Lemuel reigned. This kingdom must have been foreign, since elements of decidedly foreign and un-Semitic origin (ch. 30; 15, 16) are found here, and at the same time Israelitish, the sentiments being unquestionably such. But was there a "kingdom of Massa," as Delitzsch pertinently asks. Massa occurs (Gen. 25 : 14) among Ishmael's descendants (heads of tribes), in connection with Duma, and the territory so named must therefore be sought in northern

* Chs. 28: 15; 29: 4, 12. 14.

† Sprüche Salomo's, p. 59.

Muehlau says justly of his manner: Memoratu digna nobis videtur orationis et elegantia et suavitas nec non eloquendi varietas (De Proverb. quae dicuntur Aguri et Lemuelis origine atque indole, p. 34).

? See the closing paragraphs (1, 2, 3) of the remarks on ch. 30: 1, p. 129.

|| Zeller's theolog Jahrbb., 1844, pp. 269–305; Die Sprüche Salomo's, introductory remarks and annotations on chs. 30-31: 9, pp. 310-315, and on ch. 31 : 1, p. 330.

Arabia, and in the neighborhood of Duma.* The next problem is, to people this originally Ishmaelitish territory with Israelites, and to found there an Israelitish kingdom for Lemuel to reign over. The solution is discovered in the migration of Israelites into that region in the days of Hezekiah (1 Chron. 4: 38-43), and in the conquest of Mount Seir by five hundred Simeonites, and their permanent occupation of the country (vv. 42, 43). Having thus obtained a kingdom for Lemuel, Hitzig next provides for Agur; and by a change of the punctuation and division of consonants in ch. 30: 1, finds him to have been the son of Lemuel's mother.+

Delitzscht adopts Hitzig's suggestion of a "kingdom of Massa," as the true solution of the grammatical difficulty in ch. 31: 1, and explanation of the foreign elements in this section. Accordingly he translates, "Lemuel, king of Massa;" but while accepting this the main point in Hitzig's theory, he rejects its details as untenable. That the territory of Massa should lie in the highland of Arabia, and yet this should bear the name of Mount Seir, he regards as a very doubtful supposition; and the use made of Is. 21: 11 he condemns as wholly unauthorized. He denies the assumed necessity of an Israelitish origin of chs. 30 and 31; referring to the similar cases of Job and Balaam. Job was not an Israelite, nor of a country peopled by Israelites; and yet his discourses were thought worthy to be transplanted to the soil of the sacred literature of the nation.§ The Old Testament was not so narrow-hearted (engherzig), that it did not recognize workings of the spirit and utterances of human piety, resembling the patriarchal, though outside of the sphere of Israel and of the Mosaic Thora. The last writer of the book, who affixed to these chapters the seal of truth, was of course an Israelite; but not so Lemuel and Agur. Lemuel was an Ishmaelitish king of Massa, or rather (with a more suitable punctuation) of Mesha, Gen. 10:30. The sayings of Agur, in his opinion, have an Arabic origin. They bear numerous proofs of an extra-Hebraic though Semitic source. Among these are the divine name Eloah, the spectral 'aluqa and her two daughters (reminding one of the Ghoul in the Arabian Nights, and belonging perhaps to an Indian legend that had wandered into Arabia),|| and certain Arabic words and forms. He admits, however, that the latter do not, in our want of acquaintance with the Arabic of that period, justify more than a conjecture as to the author's nationality. Hitzig's construction of ch. 30: 1 he declares to be quite as adventurous (ein ebenso abenteuerliches

* He thinks that Isaiah (ch. 21 : 11) may have said Massa, instead of Duma; and that a copyist substituted Duma, because the appellative massa (burden) preceded. The text, when it happens to stand in the way of some critics, is easily brushed aside. Hitzig said long ago, that one can no longer be accounted a Hebraist who does not take the text in hand. He has taken it in hand, and has certainly magnified his office.

† See No. 2 of the different constructions, on p. 129.-Mueblau, while accepting Hitzig's suggestion of a kingdom of Massa," refutes his arguments in regard to its location (as above, pp. 22-26).—Zöckler, who had not seen Muehlau's more full examination of the case, approves Hitzig's view against Delitzsch (Lange's Bibelwerk, on ch. 30 : 1).

Herzog's Realencyclop., art. Sprüche Salomo's, pp. 693-4, 711–12

? With singular inconsistency confounding Job, the chief character of the book, with its author. See the note on ch. 30: 15.

Hebräisch) as that which it would set aside. But he finds himself obliged by his theory, not merely to alter punctuation, and the division of the consonant text, but to re-write the text itself.*

Muehlau (as above, pp. 26-32) holds that the site of the Ishmaelitish city or land of Massa is determined by that of another Duma, situated at the eastern base of Mount Hauran; and that it was taken possession of by Israelites in the days of Saul (1 Chron. 5 : 10), or in a subsequent invasion (vv. 18-22). Among these are to be sought the inhabitants of Massa, over whom Lemuel reigned, and among whom Agur-was distinguished as one of the wise men of the East (1 K. 4: 30). They were not, therefore, pagans or proselytes from paganism, but Israelites by birth. He deals very freely with the text in ch. 30 : 1, changing the consonants and re-arranging the order of words.†

On the whole it seems pretty clear, that nothing of value has been gained by the violent conjectural emendation of the Hebrew text, and the assumption of a kingdom unknown to history, whose locality and population are so indefinite and uncertain. In the opinion of so competent a judge as Ewald, there is no grammatical necessity for this in ch. 31: 1.8 Still less is there occasion to found a kingdom and a permanent monarchy for Lemuel, who may very probably have been the sole representative of a locally quite restricted and merely temporary reign. Within the bounds of certain portions of Palestine, provincialisms, and among them Arabisms, have either arisen, or have been locally perpetuated. Such may have been (Prov. 30:5; poet. Deut. 32: 15, Pss. 50: 22, 139: 19); пp (Prov. 30 : 17 ; Gen. 49: 10); and more certainly, pbs (Prov. 30:31; comp. analogous cases in Ges. Thes. I. 92 ff.) This sufficiently accounts for all the admitted, as being fully proved, linguistic and historical peculiarities of these chapters, without assuming for them a foreign origin.

Of the writer of the beautiful portraiture of the model Hebrew matron¶ nothing certain can be known. It has not the distinctive peculiarities of the two short sections immediately preceding it. The alphabetic arrangement, and the scriptio plena (1) in vv. 17 and 25, are thought to indicate a late date. Not decisively, however, both being found in carly psalms, the former in Pss. 25 (imperfectly alphabetic), 34, 37, the latter in Ps. 84 : 6.

Many attempts have been made to account for the structure of the book and the peculiarities of its various contents, and to show how, at what times, and under what influences, its several portions originated, and were brought into their present relation. The following are the most worthy of notice.

* See No. 3 of the different constructions, on p. 129. Muehlau (as above, p. 16) thinks Hitzig's construction grammatically admissible (referring to Böttcher's Lehrb. 8 734); but properly objects to it as wanting in simplicity; and not justified by similar combinations, that of Is. 11 : 14, for example, as rendered by Hitzig himself. + See No. 3 of the different constructions, p. 129.

See No. 10 of answers to objections, and foot-note, p. 129.

? A similar case of apposition is found in the connection, Jehovah God.

§

|| Böttcher, Lehrb. 2 36. Muehlau shows (as above, p. 55), that 30: 30, and 1 30: 10, reckoned by Böttcher (2 36, d), and b 31: 8, reckoned by Delitzsch (as above, p. 712) as Arabisms, are not to be accounted such.

¶ See Explanatory Notes, introductory remarks to ch. 31 : 10-31.

Ewald* finds in it the following four sections: (1) the oldest collection, chs. 10–22 : 16; (2) the later collection, chs. 25-29; (3) the still later addition of chs. 1-9, and ch. 22: 17— ch. 24; (1) later and final additious, chs. 30-31 : 9, and ch. 31: 10-31. The first and oldest of these, in chs. 10-22: 16, was the original ground work of the book. It was a collection, made about two centuries after Solomon's reign, of the proverbial wisdom of Solomon and of others before and after him, of the period commencing in the tenth century and continuing into the ninth. The stream here flows clear and limpid, near to its source, and in its original vigor and freshness. In the second collection, of a later period, in the ninth century and extending into the beginning of the eighth, it begins to be disturbed by new influxes, though not with strongly marked change. Later still, at a period of deeper and wider developement in the first half of the seventh century, a gifted didactic poet reproduced the oldest collection (chs. 10-22: 16), prefixing his own introduction in praise of wisdom (chs. 1-9). In this he shows himself independent and original, though reflecting the finest thoughts and images of the book now reproduced by him. In prefixing the general title, "Proverbs of Solomon, son of David, king of Israel," he clearly intended what followed from his own hand to be merely an introduction to the earlier work, with its distinctive title, "Proverbs of Solomon" (ch. 10 : 1).

To the oldest collection, thus enriched with the introduction by this gifted poet, a mere compiler, towards the middle of the seventh century, appended the portions embraced in ch. 22: 17-ch. 29. But in the mean time new books of proverbs had appeared under the title, Sayings of the Wise. From two of these he selected the portions contained in chs, 22 : 17– 24 : 22, and ch. 24 : 23-34, and attached them, abridged indeed in various ways, to the earlier collections; but not as Solomon's, as is shown by the heading in ch. 24:23. This collector's work proceeded no further, and chs. 30 and 31 were afterwards added.

This view is characterized by the genius, learning, and exhaustive research of its distinguished author. On very many points his more detailed statements in support of his theory are exceedingly instructive. But it is obvious how much it assumes hypothetically, and against historical probability, while it signally fails to account for the statements of the book itself in respect to its authorship.

According to Hitzig's theory,† the first part, ch. 1 : 6-ch. 9, is the oldest portion of the book, composed as early as the ninth century, and holding the first place in its construction. Next came, probably after the year 750, the second part, chs. 10-22 : 16, and ch. 28 : 17—-ch. 29. But in the last quarter of that century the anthology, ch. 25-27, was formed; and this, falling into the hands of a possessor of the previous collection, early after the exile, inspired him to compose ch. 22: 17-ch. 24. Placing his own work first, he inserted both in the previous collection before the last sheet, which may be assumed to have begun with ch. 28: 17.

* Die Sprüche Salomo's, pp. 4-63.

† Zeller's Jahrbb. (as above); Die Sprüche Salomo's, pp. xvii. foll.

‡ Rejecting as interpolated what Ewald regards as proofs of a later date.

But he was aware that he had thus severed sixteen verses from a new section, the twentysecond chapter, and supplied them by ch. 28: 1-16 on his last blank-leaf. As to the "Words of Agur, and to Lemuel," they might very early have come next to chs, 25-17 as a natural continuation; but not in all copies, and not in those of the author of chs. 22:17 and foll. Being of foreign origin, they the more easily remained longer a separate composition; and though written perhaps in the eighth or beginning of the seventh century, they were first annexed after the section ch. 22: 17-ch. 24, and not by the author of that section. The last portion, ch. 31: 10-31, is to be regarded, on linguistic and orthographic grounds, as the latest of all. As an appropriate place, it could be appended to the instructions given to Lemuel by his mother. But more probably, in view of the relation of v. 20 to v. 9, and of v. 26 to v. 9 and the whole connection in vv. 2 and foll., and of the matron's purple attire (v. 22), the section 31: 1-9 was itself the occasion of the concluding poem. According to this view, the several portions of the book originated, substantially, in the order in which they now stand.

Bertheau* remarks the uncertainty of the criteria for determining the relative age of these several collections, when they lead to opinions so diverse as those of Ewald and Hitzig. He holds in opposition to Ewald, after a careful examination of his arguments, that there is nothing in the contents of the first and second collections (chs. 1-9, and chs. 1022:16) which requires us to assume for them different dates. As to the third collection (ch. 22: 17-ch. 24), which Ewald regards as synchronous with the first, we can infer nothing more, from examination of all that bears on the case, than the probable conjecture, that the earlier writings referred to in ch. 22: 20 were those contained in the first two collections. After a minute and careful consideration of all Ewald's grounds for the relatively later date of the fourth collection (chs. 25-29), he comes to the just conclusion, that nothing appears in the historical background indicating a later date than that of the second collection; that, moreover, in the first and third we find references to the same historical relations as in the second. These conclusions are highly significant; as, if well founded, they effectually set aside the most formidable objections to Solomon's authorship of all that is ascribed to him in the contents of the book.

He holds that the statement in ch. 25: 1 is the only clue to the age of these proverbial sayings. From this we learn, that those of the fourth collection were in the time of Ilezekiah regarded as Solomon's. But many of the second are found also in the fourth; showing that they too were not only extant in the age of Hezekiah, but were also regarded as Solomon's. As nothing in the form or contents of these indicates that they are older than the rest, we are at liberty to conclude, that all of the second collection were then extant under the name of Solomon's proverbs. Since many, at least, of the second collection, and all of the fourth, were held to be his so early as the age of Hezekiah, when clear and positive

* Die Sprüche Salomo's, pp. xxi. and foll.