It is evident, from what we have remarked in a former section, that we regard the proem (i.-ix.) in its present form as a composite work, though very possibly proceeding from one pen. The similarity of style, subject, and treatment, is strongly in favour of unity of authorship, while the internal evidence favours the view that it is com piled of various unconnected members, collected and arranged subsequently to the time of their composition. The date of this compilation it is impossible to fix. The evidence on this point is faint and untrustworthy, and has led different in vestigators to very opposite conclusions. Ewald places it in the 7th, Hitzig in the 9th century B.c., while Keil, as we have seen, ascribes it to the time of Solomon. The resemblance that may be traced in this portion of the work to the spirit and teach ing of the Book of Job, and the recurrence of some of the words and images found there is employed both by Hitzig and Ewald to aid its determining the date of this section (cf. Joh xv. 7, Prov. viii. 25 ; Job xxi. 17, Prov. xiii. 9 ; Job xxviii. IS, Prov. viii. 16; Job v. 17, Prov. iii. 11 ; see Pusey, Daniel, p. 323, note 7). But as there is no unanimity as to the date of the composition of Job, little help is to be expected from this source, nor can we be surprised at the diversity of opinion among those who have employed it ; Ewald main taining that the writer of Proverbs had read and made use of Job ; Hitzig, on the contrary, believ ing that the former is the earlier work, and that the author of Job borrowed from Proverbs. The adoption of such expedients proves most forcibly the complete want of any decisive testimony which will enable us to arrive at any trustworthy conclu sion as to the date of this section.
The similarity in style between i.-ix. and the appendix to the first collection of proverbs (xxii. appears to favour the view that this supplement is due to the redacteur' by whom the proem was prefixed to the book. Ewald enu merates several reasons for ascribing the two to the same writer (p. 42), but finally decides against the unity of authorship. The proverbs themselves, designated as words of the wise,' are evidently distinguished from those of Solomon, and are pro bably to be regarded as the adages of other sages, which the compiler of the work thought too valu able to be lost, and therefore appended to his larger collection. The short supplement (xxiv. 23-34) is accounted for by Umbreit on the suppo sition that the compiler had laid aside his work for a time, and took it up again on the discovery of fresh sayings worthy of preservation. He ren ders nnorth, 'for,' the wise,' and regards them as directed to the compiler's scholars. Ewald, Bertheau, Delitzsch, etc., defend the received trans lation.
It only remains for us to speak of the threefold supplement (xxx. xxxi:), with regard to the author ship and date of which again nothing can be de termined. It would be hardly profitable to discuss the marvellous fabric of fanciful history and biogra phy which has been evolved from the scantiest materials by Hitzig, Bunsen, and Bertheau. Those who desire it may refer to their works to see the grounds on which Massa' (A. V. the prophecy')
is identified with a district in Arabia (Gen. x. 30; xxv. 14 ; 1 Chron. i. 30) of which Lemuel was king, and Agur with a descendant of the Simeon ites, who in the reign of Hezekiah drove out the Arnalekites from Mount Seir (/ Chron. iv. 42) ; or, again, on which it is sought to prove that Agur and Lemuel were brothers, sons of the reigning queen of Massa. We would rather commend to our reader Eichhorn's sensible words, that • Agur should remain Agur, and belong to the wise men of the old world of whom history gives us no further information,' and with him deprecate spinning a long thread of tedious conjectures about a name which do not advance us an inch in our insight into the literature of the old world. or any profitable learning! As little to the pur pose is the fancy of DOderlein that the opening part of ch. xxx, is a dialogue : that Ithiel is a heathen ; Agur a much valued servant of Ithiel, to whom, as his master, his prayer (v. 7-9) is addressed. We can say no more than that Agur was an unknown Hebrew sage, the teacher of Ithiel and Ucal—names from which also many unprofit able speculations have been built—and that he lived subsequently to the reign of Hezekiah. [AGuR.] Lemuel—` to God," devoted to God,' after the analogy of Num. iii. 24 (Pusey)—may cer tainly be regarded as a figurative name descriptive of an ideal king, a monarch as he should he' (Ewald, Eichhorn ; cf. Pusey, Led. on Daniel, p. xiii. note 1, p. 323, note 5). [LExtum..] The alphabetical lay which concludes the whole belongs probably to the latest period of Hebrew poetry, and can hardly be placed higher than the 7th century. Its style and language sufficiently distinguish it from the words of Lemuel, with which it has been sometimes confounded.
The results of our inquiry may be thus summed up. The nucleus of the book is the larger collec tion of proverbs (x.-xxii. 16). These may be safely regarded as really what they profess to be, the proverbs of Solomon.' Whether they were ar ranged as we now have them and published by him, there is not sufficient evidence to determine. It is probable, however, that the collection was either contemporaneous with, or not long subse quent to him. The greater part of the hortatory introduction (i.-ix.) may also be, with great proba bility, ascribed to Solomon, though we incline to the belief that its present form is due to a later compiler, who collected the admonitions of the wise king, and prefixed them to his book of pro verbs. The same author also appears to have added the appendix (xxii. 17; xxiv. 22), containing proverbs of which Solomon was not the author, and after this had been closed the few supple mentary sayings (xxiv. 23-34). The time when this was done cannot be fixed, but there are cogent arguments in favour of a late date. The second collection, as its name declares, was formed by the scribes of Hezekiah, circa 725 D. C. The two last chapters contain compositions of the dates and authors of which nothing certain can now be known. They belong to the latest period of Hebrew literature.