It will not be worth while to enumerate the many and widely varying theories of recent critics as to the dates of the composition of the different parts of this book, and the time when it assumed its present form. One or two of the most character istic may be specified. Suffice it to say that Ewald would place the publication of x.-xxii. 16 about two centuries after Solomon, and i.-ix. in the first half of the 7th century. Not much later the second collection of proverbs, xxv.-xxix., was added, the sections xxii. 17-xxiv. being due to the same compiler. Hitzig, on the contrary, views i.-ix. as the earliest part of the book ; x.-xxii. 16, and xxviii. 17-xxix., being added about 750 B. c. Twenty-five years later Hezekiah's collection fol lowed ; the gaps being filled up and the volume completed by some unknown compiler at a later period. The theory of Delitzsch (Herzog., Eneyelop., Spriiche') is marked by more calm sense. Rightly regarding x.-xxii. 16 as the kernel of the book, and mainly composed by Solomon, he divides the whole into two portions—(I.), i.-xxiv. 22 put forth in the time of Jehoshaphat ; the introduction (i. -ix.) and appendix (xxii. 16-xxiv. 22) being written by the compiler, whom he regards as a highly gifted didactic poet, and an instrument of the spirit of revelation ;' and (2.), xxiv. 23-xxxi., published in the reign of Hezekiah ; the introductory and closing portions (xxiv. 23-34, and xxx. xxxi.) being set on either side of the collection of Solomon's pro verbs to serve as a kind of foil. Our space forbids our particularising the theories of Umbreit, Keil, Bertheau, etc.
Commentaries.—Perhaps the most comprehen sive commentary ever attempted on this book is that of the Jesuit De Salazar (2 vols. fol., Par.
1619-21), containing a literal, moral, and allego rical exposition of the text. Other Romanist com mentaries deserving mention are those of Jansenius (Louvain 1568), and Maldonatus (Par. From Lutheran divines we have the commen taries of Melanchthon, Geier (Lips. 1653)—long considered the ablest work existing on the subject— and C. B. Michaelis. From those of the Reformed Church, that of Munster (Bas. 1525), Lasater (Tigur. 1562), with copious illustrative parallels from profane as well as sacred sources ; Mercer (Genes 1573), showing diligence and learning ; and Schultens (Lugd. Bat. 1748), with a Latin version rather more obscure than the Hebrew, in inter preting which the author has given too much weight to supposed Arabic derivations. Of later com mentaries that of Umbreit (1826) is sound and sensible, and specially valuable for indicating the points of contact with the genuine wisdom of the last. The Latin notes of Maurer are clear and scholarlike. The translation and introductory dis sertations of Ewald (Poet. Ruch., t. ii.) need no commendation here. The student may also be referred to the works of Hitzig, Bertheau Ex. Ildbch.), Eichel in Mendelssohn's Bible (ex cellent), Lowenstein, Moses Stuart, as well as the introductions of Carpzov, Eichhorn, De •ette, Bertholdt, Keil, Bleek, and Rosenmuller's Scholia. The comments of Hodgson and Holden are useful aids, and that of the Rev. C. Bridges is character ised by sound common sense, a vein of fervid piety, and rich scriptural illustration, but is devoid of philological or exegetical power.—E. V.