The three supplemental writings with which the book closes (xxx. xxxi.) are separated from the other portions and from one another no less by style and form than by authorship. Ewald some what arbitrarily divides ch. xxx. after ver, 14 (a division, however, sanctioned by the LXX.), and thinks it not improbable that xxx. and xxxi. 1-9 are from the same pen. He also regards the opening verses of xxx. as a dialogue, vers. 24 being the words of an ignorant disciple of Agur, to which the teacher replies. The difference between the enigmatical sayings of Agur (which find a counter part in the collections of Oriental proverbs) and the simple admonitions of Lemuel's mother is too great to allow us to assign them to one author. In ch. xxx. we have, in Ewald's words, instead ' of moral aphorisms, a succession of elegant little pictures illustrative of moral truths, evidencing a decay of creative power, the skill of the author being applied to a novel and striking presentation of an old truth. The ancient terse proverbial form is entirely lost sight of, and the style rises to a height and dignity warranting the use of the term NTJn (cf. Is. xiii. t ; Hab. i. 1, etc.) applied to both.
In the words of king Lemuel,' we find much greater regularity. The parallelism is synonymous, and is maintained throughout.
The alphabetical ode in praise of a virtuous golden A B C for women' (Doderlein)— has all its verses of about the same compass. The parallelism is very similar to that of the Psalms, especially those in which the same alphabetical arrangement is found.
6. Aulhorship and dale.—On these points the most various opinions have been entertained, from that of the Rabbins and the earlier school of com mentators, with whom some modern writers (ex. gr., Keil) agree, who attribute the whole book to Solomon (even ch. xxx. xxxi. are assigned to him by Rashi and his school), to those of Hitzig and other representatives of the advanced critical school, who, however widely at variance with one another, agree in reducing to a minimum the wise king of Israel's share in the book which from the remotest antiquity has borne his name. In the face of such wide discrepancies, where the same data lead careful investigators (ex. gr., Ewald and Hitzig) to exactly opposite conclusions, a satis factory decision of the question of authorship and date is hardly to be hoped for. It may rather be doubted whether the evidence at present before us is such as to admit of a determination of the question at issue. Where so much indefiniteness exists, all we can do is to balance probabilities and to abstain from dogmatic decisions.
The evidence in favour of a composite origin of the book appears, we must confess, irresistible. No unprejudiced person, we think, accustomed to the consideration of such questions, could read the book for the first time, even in English, without seeing in it the traces of several different authors. Irrespective of the two concluding chapters, the express reference to other sages in xxii.
17 ; xxiv. 23 ; cf. i. 6) indicates a diversity of authorship, while the difference of style between various divisions of the work strengthens the hypo thesis. Indeed, a careful observer will find at the very outset an indication of the composite character of the book in the introductory verses which pro fess to give the contents and character (i. 1-7). These prepare us to find in it, not merely 'proverbs' and eloquent speeches' (margin : A. V. interpre tation'), but also such words of the wise' as those we have just referred to, and dark sayings' like those of Agur.
Are we then to discard the title, the Proverbs of Solomon,' and to consider that the designation has been given to the book erroneously ? Tc us this appears rash in the extreme. We know from historical sources that Solomon was the author of a very large number of proverbs ; and nothing but that restlessness of speculation which discards old beliefs simply, as it would seem, because they are old, and seeks to unsettle all that has been hitherto held certain, can discover any sufficient reason for questioning that Solomon was the composer of the greater part of those con tained in our present book, especially in the sections x.-xxii. 16 ; xxv.-xxix. However much these collections may have been modified in suc cessive redactions, though too much has probably been conceded to this hypothesis, of which there is no definite trace, and by which a work may be made to assume any form that may suit the theory to be supported, we have no sufficient reason for doubting that Solomon was the originator of the peculiar style of poetry in which they are com posed, and that even if they are not all to he re ferred to him, the mass are his, and that they are all pervaded with his spirit, and may be assigned to his epoch. Eichhorn finds in them no trace of language or thought subsequent to the time of Solomon. Even Ewald, who insists most on the collection as we have it having suffered from ab breviations, transpositions, and unauthorised addi tions, remarks that the proverbs all breathe the happy peace and growing civilisation of Solomon's age, nor is there any epoch either earlier or later to which we could preferably assign them.