Ecc 12:9-11 | KD | STEP | In an unexpected manner there now follows a postscript. Since the book closes with the epiphonema xii. 8 as having reached the intended goal, the supposition that what follows xii. 8 is from another hand is more natural than the contrary. Of the question of genuineness there cannot be here properly anything said, for only that which is not what it professes to be and ought to be, is spurious ; the postscript is certainly according to tradition an integral part of the Book of Koheleth (Bullock), but not as an original organic formal part of it, and still less does it expressly bear self-evidence of this. At the least, those who regard Solomon as the author of the book ought to contend against the recognition in xii. 9 ff. of an appendix by a later hand. Hahn, however, regards the same Solomon who speaks in ver. 8 as continuing to speak in ver. 9, for he interprets אָמַ֥ר, which, however, only means inquit, as perf., looking back to the completed book, and regards this retrospect as continued in ver. 9 ff., without being hindered by the interchange of the I and of the following historical he, which is contained in “saith Koheleth.” Dale even ventures the assertion, that the Book of Koheleth could have closed with the unsatisfying pure negative, ver. 8, as little as the Gospel of Mark with “and they were afraid” (Mc. 16:8). As if ver. 13 f. expressed postulates not already contained in the book itself ! The epilogue has certainly manifestly the object of recommending the author of the book, Koheleth-Solomon, and of sealing the contents of the book. If Solomon himself were the author, the epilogue would stand in the same relation to the book as Joh 21:24 f. to the fourth Gospel, of the Johannean origin of which a voice from the apostolic church there bears witness. It is a serious anachronism when modern interpreters of Scripture occupy the standpoint of the old, who take the name of the man after whom the book is entitled, without more ado, as the name of its author from first to last. To what childish puerilities a bigotry so uncritical descends is seen in the case of Christ. Fried. Bauer (1732). In this section, vers. 9-12, he says Solomon turns especially to his son Rehoboam, and delivers to him this Solennel-discourse or sermon as an instruction for his future life. He recommends it [the sermon] at once on account of the author, ver. 9, and of its contents, ver. 10, which accord, ver. 11, with his other writings, and from which altogether Rehoboam could find sufficient information, so that to write to him several books would be unnecessary. After this apostrophe to his son the preacher turns round to the entire auditorio, and addresses them in הַכֹּ֣ל נִשְׁמָ֑ע. But we are all permitted to hear what is the final aim and intention of this sermon : Fear thou God, and keep His commandments ; for such ought every man to be, etc. A rationalism not less fruitful in wonderful conceits appeared over against this dreamy irrationalism. Döderlein (1784) says of Koheleth : “As it appears, so the author feigned, that this was a lecture or treatise which Solomon delivered before his literary academy for this academy I am inclined to understand under the name ‘Koheleth.’” The epilogue appears to him as an appendage by another hand. Such is the opinion also of J. E. Ch. Schmidt (1794), Bertholdt (in his Einleit. 1812- ff.), Umbreit (1818, 20), and Knobel (1836), who maintain that this appendage is aimless, in form as in doctrine, out of harmony with the book, revealing by the “endless book-making” a more recent time, and thus is an addition by a later author. This negative critical result Grätz (1871) has sought, following Krochmal (in his More nebuche hazeman, 1851, 54), to raise to a positive result. Vers. 9-11 are to him as an apology of the Book of Koheleth, and vers. 12-14 as a clause defining the collection of the Hagiographa, which is completed by the reception into it of the Book of Koheleth; and this bipartite epilogue as an addition belonging to the period of the Synod of Jabneh, about a.d. 90 (vid. above, p. 189). If, nevertheless, we regard this epilogue as a postscript by the author of the book himself, we have not only Herzfeld on our side, who has given his verdict against all Knobel’s arguments, but also Hitzig, who (Hilgenfeld's Zeitsch. 1872, p. 566) has rejected Grätz’ Herod-hypothesis, as well as also his introduction of the epilogue into the history of the canon, or, as Geiger (Jüd. Zeitsch. 1872, p. 123) has expressed himself, has dealt with it according to its merit. Also in Bloch’s monograph on the Book of Koheleth (1872) there are many striking arguments against placing the authorship of the book in the Herod-Mishn. period, although the view of this critic, that the book contains notes of Solomon's with interpolations, and an epilogue by the collector, who sought to soften the impression of the gloomy pessimism of these notes, is neither cold nor hot. We have already (p. 206) shown that the epilogue is written quite in the same style as the book itself; its language is like that of the chronicler ; it approaches the idiom of the Mishna, but, with reference to it, is yet somewhat older. That the first part of the epilogue, vers. 9-11, serves an important end, is also proved (p. 206), — it establishes the book as a production of the Chokma, which had Solomon as its pattern; and the second part, vers. 12-14, bears on it the stamp of this Chokma, for it places all the teaching of the book under the double watchword : “Fear God,” and “There is a judgment” ( , ; cf. Eccl. 5:6, 11:9). In the book, Koheleth-Solomon speaks, whose mask the author puts on ; here, he speaks, letting the mask fall off, of Koheleth. That in his time (the Persian) too much was done in the way of making books, we may well believe. In addition to authors by profession, there have always been amateurs ; the habit of much writing is old, although in the course of time it has always assumed greater dimensions. A complaint in reference to this sounds strange, at least from the mouth of an author who has contented himself with leaving to posterity a work so small, though important. We nowhere encounter any necessity for regarding the author of the book and of the epilogue as different persons. The spirit and tone of the book and of the epilogue are one. The epilogue seals only the distinction between the pessimism of the book and the modern pessimism, which is without God and without a future. In connection with , where Koheleth has spoken his last word, the author, who has introduced him as speaking thereto, continues: “And, moreover, because Koheleth was wise he taught the people knowledge; he applied and searched out and formed may proverbs.” The postscript begins with “and” because it is connected with the concluding words of the book - only externally, however; nothing is more unwarrantable than to make the beginning of the postscript on account of the vav . The lxx translate καὶ περισσὸν (Venet. περιττὸν) ὃτι; as Hitz.: “it remains (to be said) that Koheleth was a wise man,” etc.; and Dale may be right, that ויתר is in this sense as subj., pointed with Zakeph gadhol (cf. ; , and the obj. thus pointed, ). But that Koheleth was “a wise man” is nothing remaining to be said, for as such he certainly speaks in the whole book from beginning to end; the עוד, unconnected, following, shows that this his property is presupposed as needing no further testimony. But untenable also is the translation: So much the greater Koheleth was as a wise man so much the more, etc. (Heinem., Südfeld); עוד does not signify eo magis ; the Heb. language has a different way of expressing such an intensification: כל הגדול מחברו יצרו גדול ממנו, i.e. , the higher the position is which one assumes, so much the greater are the temptations to which he is exposed. Rightly, Luther: “This same preacher was not only wise, but,” etc. ויתר signifies, , “and an advance (benefit, gain);” here שׁ ויתר, “and something going beyond this, that,” etc. - thought of as accus.-adv.: “going beyond this, that = moreover, because” (Gesen., Knobel, Vaih., Ginsb., Grätz); vid . Thus 'od is in order, which introduces that which goes beyond the property and position of a “wise man” as such. That which goes beyond does not consist in this, that he taught the people knowledge, for that is just the meaning of the name Koheleth ; the statement which 'od introduces is contained in the concluding member of the compound sentence; the after-word begins with this, that it designates the Koheleth who appears in the more esoteric book before us as חכם, as the very same person who also composed the comprehensive people’s book, the Mishle . He has taught the people knowledge; for he has placed, i.e. , formed “ stellen ,” to place, as “ Schriftsteller ” = author; modern Heb. מחבּר; Arab. muṣannif), many proverbs, as the fruit of nature reflection and diligent research. The obj. meshalim harbēh belongs only to tiqqēn, which ἀσυνδέτως (according to the style of the epilogue and of the book, as is shown above) follows the two preparative mental efforts, whose resultat it was. Rightly, as to the syntax, Zöckler, and, as to the matter, Hitzig: “Apparently the author has here not 1Ki 5:12, but the canonical Book of Proverbs in his eye.” The language is peculiar. Not only is תּקּן exclusively peculiar to the Book of Koheleth, but also אזן, perpendere (cf. Assyr. uzunu, reflection), to consider, and the Pih . חקּר. Regarding the position of harbeh,

‏ Ecclesiastes 12:9-11

(C.) THE EPILOGUE. XII. 9-14.

In an unexpected manner there now follows a postscript. Since the book closes with the epiphonema xii. 8 as having reached the intended goal, the supposition that what follows xii. 8 is from another hand is more natural than the contrary. Of the question of genuineness there cannot be here properly anything said, for only that which is not what it professes to be and ought to be, is spurious ; the postscript is certainly according to tradition an integral part of the Book of Koheleth (Bullock), but not as an original organic formal part of it, and still less does it expressly bear self-evidence of this. At the least, those who regard Solomon as the author of the book ought to contend against the recognition in xii. 9 ff. of an appendix by a later hand. Hahn, however, regards the same Solomon who speaks in ver. 8 as continuing to speak in ver. 9, for he interprets אָמַ֥ר, which, however, only means inquit, as perf., looking back to the completed book, and regards this retrospect as continued in ver. 9 ff., without being hindered by the interchange of the I and of the following historical he, which is contained in “saith Koheleth.” Dale even ventures the assertion, that the Book of Koheleth could have closed with the unsatisfying pure negative, ver. 8, as little as the Gospel of Mark with “and they were afraid” (Mc. 16:8). As if ver. 13 f. expressed postulates not already contained in the book itself ! The epilogue has certainly manifestly the object of recommending the author of the book, Koheleth-Solomon, and of sealing the contents of the book. If Solomon himself were the author, the epilogue would stand in the same relation to the book as Joh 21:24 f. to the fourth Gospel, of the Johannean origin of which a voice from the apostolic church there bears witness. ^{▼▼Hoelemann, in Abth. II. of his Bibel-Studien (1860), draws a parallel between these two epilogues; he regards them as original formal parts of the Solomonic Koheleth and of the Johannean Gospel, and seeks to prove that they stand in more than external and accidental relation to the two works respectively.}

It is a serious anachronism when modern interpreters of Scripture occupy the standpoint of the old, who take the name of the man after whom the book is entitled, without more ado, as the name of its author from first to last. ^{▼▼Thus John Miller, in his Commentary on the Proverbs (New York, 1872), regards Solomon as the author of the entire Book of Proverbs and also of Ecclesiastes. His interpretation of Scripture proceeds on the fundamental principle, in itself commendable, that the Scripture never expresses trivialities (“each text must be a brilliant”) ; but it is not to be forgotten that the 0. T., in relation to the high school of the New, is in reality a trivium, and that the depth of the words of Scripture is not everywhere the same, but varies according to the author and the times.} To what childish puerilities a bigotry so uncritical descends is seen in the case of Christ. Fried. Bauer (1732). In this section, vers. 9-12, he says Solomon turns especially to his son Rehoboam, and delivers to him this Solennel-discourse or sermon as an instruction for his future life. He recommends it [the sermon] at once on account of the author, ver. 9, and of its contents, ver. 10, which accord, ver. 11, with his other writings, and from which altogether Rehoboam could find sufficient information, so that to write to him several books would be unnecessary. After this apostrophe to his son the preacher turns round to the entire auditorio, and addresses them in הַכֹּ֣ל נִשְׁמָ֑ע. But we are all permitted to hear what is the final aim and intention of this sermon : Fear thou God, and keep His commandments ; for such ought every man to be, etc.

A rationalism not less fruitful in wonderful conceits appeared over against this dreamy irrationalism. Döderlein (1784) says of Koheleth : “As it appears, so the author feigned, that this was a lecture or treatise which Solomon delivered before his literary academy for this academy I am inclined to understand under the name ‘Koheleth.’” The epilogue appears to him as an appendage by another hand. Such is the opinion also of J. E. Ch. Schmidt (1794), Bertholdt (in his Einleit. 1812- ff.), Umbreit (1818, 20), and Knobel (1836), who maintain that this appendage is aimless, in form as in doctrine, out of harmony with the book, revealing by the “endless book-making” a more recent time, and thus is an addition by a later author. This negative critical result Grätz (1871) has sought, following Krochmal (in his More nebuche hazeman, 1851, 54), to raise to a positive result. Vers. 9-11 are to him as an apology of the Book of Koheleth, and vers. 12-14 as a clause defining the collection of the Hagiographa, which is completed by the reception into it of the Book of Koheleth; and this bipartite epilogue as an addition belonging to the period of the Synod of Jabneh, about a.d. 90 (vid. above, p. 189). If, nevertheless, we regard this epilogue as a postscript by the author of the book himself, we have not only Herzfeld on our side, who has given his verdict against all Knobel’s arguments, but also Hitzig, who (Hilgenfeld's Zeitsch. 1872, p. 566) has rejected Grätz’ Herod-hypothesis, as well as also his introduction of the epilogue into the history of the canon, or, as Geiger (Jüd. Zeitsch. 1872, p. 123) has expressed himself, has dealt with it according to its merit. Also in Bloch’s monograph on the Book of Koheleth (1872) there are many striking arguments against placing the authorship of the book in the Herod-Mishn. period, although the view of this critic, that the book contains notes of Solomon's with interpolations, and an epilogue by the collector, who sought to soften the impression of the gloomy pessimism of these notes, is neither cold nor hot.

We have already (p. 206) shown that the epilogue is written quite in the same style as the book itself; its language is like that of the chronicler ; it approaches the idiom of the Mishna, but, with reference to it, is yet somewhat older. That the first part of the epilogue, vers. 9-11, serves an important end, is also proved (p. 206), — it establishes the book as a production of the Chokma, which had Solomon as its pattern; and the second part, vers. 12-14, bears on it the stamp of this Chokma, for it places all the teaching of the book under the double watchword : “Fear God,” and “There is a judgment” (Job 28:28, 19: 29 ; cf. Eccl. 5:6, 11:9). In the book, Koheleth-Solomon speaks, whose mask the author puts on ; here, he speaks, letting the mask fall off, of Koheleth. That in his time (the Persian) too much was done in the way of making books, we may well believe. In addition to authors by profession, there have always been amateurs ; the habit of much writing is old, although in the course of time it has always assumed greater dimensions. A complaint in reference to this sounds strange, at least from the mouth of an author who has contented himself with leaving to posterity a work so small, though important. We nowhere encounter any necessity for regarding the author of the book and of the epilogue as different persons. The spirit and tone of the book and of the epilogue are one. The epilogue seals only the distinction between the pessimism of the book and the modern pessimism, which is without God and without a future.

Ecc 12:9 In connection with Ecc 12:8, where Koheleth has spoken his last word, the author, who has introduced him as speaking thereto, continues: “And, moreover, because Koheleth was wise he taught the people knowledge; he applied and searched out and formed may proverbs.” The postscript begins with “and” because it is connected with the concluding words of the book - only externally, however; nothing is more unwarrantable than to make Ecc 12:8 the beginning of the postscript on account of the vav. The lxx translate καὶ περισσὸν (Venet. περιττὸν) ὃτι; as Hitz.: “it remains (to be said) that Koheleth was a wise man,” etc.; and Dale may be right, that ויתר is in this sense as subj., pointed with Zakeph gadhol (cf. Gen 16:16; Gen 20:4, and the obj. thus pointed, Exo 23:3). But that Koheleth was “a wise man” is nothing remaining to be said, for as such he certainly speaks in the whole book from beginning to end; the עוד, unconnected, following, shows that this his property is presupposed as needing no further testimony. But untenable also is the translation: So much the greater Koheleth was as a wise man so much the more, etc. (Heinem., Südfeld); עוד does not signify eo magis; the Heb. language has a different way of expressing such an intensification: כל הגדול מחברו יצרו גדול ממנו, i.e., the higher the position is which one assumes, so much the greater are the temptations to which he is exposed. Rightly, Luther: “This same preacher was not only wise, but,” etc. ויתר signifies, Ecc 7:11, “and an advance (benefit, gain);” here שׁ ויתר, “and something going beyond this, that,” etc. - thought of as accus.-adv.: “going beyond this, that = moreover, because” (Gesen., Knobel, Vaih., Ginsb., Grätz); vid. Thus 'od is in order, which introduces that which goes beyond the property and position of a “wise man” as such. That which goes beyond does not consist in this, that he taught the people knowledge, for that is just the meaning of the name Koheleth; the statement which 'od introduces is contained in the concluding member of the compound sentence; the after-word begins with this, that it designates the Koheleth who appears in the more esoteric book before us as חכם, as the very same person who also composed the comprehensive people’s book, the Mishle. He has taught the people knowledge; for he has placed, i.e., formed “stellen,” to place, as “Schriftsteller” = author; modern Heb. מחבּר; Arab. muṣannif), ^{▼▼Cogn. in the meaning “verfassen” = to compose, is יסד; vid., Zunz' Aufs.: “To compose and to translate,” expressed in Heb. in Deut. Morg. Zeitsch. xxv. p. 435ff.} many proverbs, as the fruit of nature reflection and diligent research. The obj. meshalim harbēh belongs only to tiqqēn, which ἀσυνδέτως (according to the style of the epilogue and of the book, as is shown above) follows the two preparative mental efforts, whose resultat it was. Rightly, as to the syntax, Zöckler, and, as to the matter, Hitzig: “Apparently the author has here not 1Ki 5:12, but the canonical Book of Proverbs in his eye.” The language is peculiar. Not only is תּקּן exclusively peculiar to the Book of Koheleth, but also אזן, perpendere (cf. Assyr. uzunu, reflection), to consider, and the Pih. חקּר. Regarding the position of harbeh, ^{▼▼Harbeh běchěh, Ezr 10:1, which signifies “making much weeping,” makes not exception in favour of the scribe. Cf. hatsne'a lecheth, Mic 6:8; haphlē vaphělě, Isa 29:14.} Ecc 12:10

It is further said of Koheleth, that he put forth efforts not only to find words of a pleasant form, but, above all, of exact truth: “Koheleth strove to find words of pleasantness, and, written in sincerity, words of truth.” The unconnected beginning biqqesh Koheleth is like dibbarti ani, Ecc 1:16, etc., in the book itself. Three objects follow limtso. But Hitz. reads the inf. absol. וכתוב instead of וכתוּב, and translates: to find pleasing words, and correctly to write words of truth. Such a continuance of the inf. const. by the inf. absol. is possible; 1Sa 25:26, 1Sa 25:31. But why should וכתוב not be the continuance of the finite (Aq., Syr.), as e.g., at Ecc 8:9, and that in the nearest adverbial sense: et scribendo quidem sincere verba veritatis, i.e., he strove, according to his best knowledge and conscience, to write true words, at the same time also to find out pleasing words; thus sought to connect truth as to the matter with beauty as to the manner? Vechathuv needs no modification in its form. But it is not to be translated: and that which was right was written by him; for the ellipsis is inadmissible, and כתוב מן is not correct Heb. Rightly the lxx, καὶ γεγραμμένον εὐθύτητος. כּתוּב signifies “written,” and may also, as the name of the Hagiographa כּתוּבים shows, signify “a writing;” kakathuvah, 2Ch 30:5, is = “in accordance with the writing;” and belo kǎkathuv, 2Ch 30:18, “contrary to the writing;” in the post-bibl. the phrase אמר הכּתוּב = ἡ γραφὴ λέγει, is used. The objection made by Ginsburg, that kathuv never means, as kethav does, “a writing,” is thus nugatory. However, we do not at all here need this subst. meaning, וכתוב is neut. particip., and ישׁר certainly not the genit., as the lxx renders (reading וּכתוּב), but also not the nom. of the subj. (Hoelem.), but, since ישׁר is the designation of a mode of thought and of a relation, the accus. of manner, like veyashar, Psa 119:18; emeth, Psa 132:11; emunah, Psa 119:75. Regarding the common use of such an accus. of the nearer definition in the passive part., vid., Ewald, §284 c. The asyndeton vechathuv yosher divre emeth is like that at Ecc 10:1, mehhochmah michvod. That which follows limtso we interpret as its threefold object. Thus it is said that Koheleth directed his effort towards an attractive form (cf. avne-hephets, Isa 54:12); but, before all, towards the truth, both subjectively (ישׁר) and objectively (אמת), of that which was formulated and expressed in writing. Ecc 12:11

From the words of Koheleth the author comes to the words of the wise man in general; so that what he says of the latter finds its application to himself and his book: “Words of the wise are as like goads, and like fastened nails which are put together in collections - they are given by one shepherd.” The lxx, Aq., and Theod. translate darvonoth by βούκεντρα, the Venet. by βουπλῆγες; and that is also correct. The word is one of three found in the Jerus. Gemara, Sanhedrin x. 1, to designate a rod for driving (oxen) - דרבן (from דרב, to sharpen, to point), מלמד (from למד, to adjust, teach, exercise), and מרדּע (from רדע, to hold back, repellere); we read ka-dārevonoth; Gesen., Ewald, Hitz., and others are in error in reading dorvonoth; for the so-called light Metheg, which under certain circumstances can be changed into an accent, and the Kametz chatuph exclude one another. ^{▼▼The Kametz is the Kametz gadhol (opp. Kametz chatuph), and may for this reason have the accent Munach instead of Metheg. Vid., Michlol 153 b, 182 b. The case is the same as at Gen 39:3, where mimmachoraath is to be read. Cf. Baer’s Metheg-Setz. §27 and §18.}

If דרבן is the goad, the point of comparison is that which is to be excited intellectually and morally. Incorrectly, Gesen., Hitz., and others: like goads, because easily and deeply impressing themselves on the heart as well as on the memory. For goads, aculei, the Hebrews use the word קוצים; darevonoth also are goads, but designed for driving on, thus stimuli (Jerome); and is there a more natural commendation for the proverbs of the wise men than that they incite to self-reflection, and urge to all kinds of noble effort? Divre and darevonoth have the same three commencing consonants, and, both for the ear and the eye, form a paronomasia. In the following comparison, it is a question whether ba'ale asuppoth (plur. of ba'al asuppoth, or of the double plur. ba'al asuppah, like e.g., sare missim, Exo 1:11, of sar mas) is meant of persons, like ba'al hallashon, Ecc 10:11, cf. ba'al kenaphayim, Ecc 10:20, or of things, as ba'al piphiyoth, Isa 41:15; and thus, whether it is a designation parallel to חכמים or to דברי. The Talm. Jer. Sanhedrin x. 1, wavers, for there it is referred first to the members of the assemblies (viz., of the Sanedrium), and then is explained by “words which are spoken in the assembly.” If we understand it of persons, as it was actually used in the Talm., then by asuppoth we must understand the societies of wise men, and by ba'ale asuppoth, of the academicians (Venet.: δεσπόται ξυναγμάτων; Luther: “masters of assemblies”) belonging to such academies. But an appropriate meaning of this second comparison is not to be reached in this way. For if we translate: and as nails driven in are the members of the society, it is not easy to see what this wonderful comparison means; and what is then further said: they are given from one shepherd, reminds us indeed of Eph 4:11, but, as said of this perfectly unknown great one, is for us incomprehensible. Or if we translate, after Isa 28:1 : and (the words of the wise are) like the fastened nails of the members of the society, it is as tautological as if I should say: words of wise men are like fastened nails of wise men bound together in a society (as a confederacy, union). Quite impossible are the translations: like nails driven in by the masters of assemblies (thus e.g., Lightfoot, and recently Bullock), for the accus. with the pass. particip. may express some nearer definition, but not (as of the genit.) the effective cause; and: like a nail driven in are the (words) of the masters of assemblies (Tyler: “those of editors of collections”), for ellipt. genit., dependent on a governing word carrying forward its influence, are indeed possible, e.g., Isa 61:7, but that a governing word itself, as ba'ale, may be the governed genit. of one omitted, as here divre, is without example. ^{▼▼Regarding this omission of the muḍâf the governing noun, where this is naturally supplied before a genitive from the preceding, cf. Samachschari’s Mufaṣṣal, p. 43, l. 8-13.}

It is also inconsistent to understand ba'ale asuppoth after the analogy of ba'ale masoreth (the Masoretes) and the like. It will not be meant of the persons of the wise, but of the proverbs of the wise. So far we agree with Lang and Hoelem. Lang (1874) thinks to come to a right understanding of the “much abused” expression by translating, “lords of troops,” - a designation of proverbs which, being by many acknowledged and kept in remembrance, possess a kind of lordship over men’s minds; but that is already inadmissible, because asuppoth designates not any multitude of men, but associations with a definite end and aim. Hoelem. is content with this idea; for he connects together “planted as leaders of assemblies,” and finds therein the thought, that the words of the wise serve as seeds and as guiding lights for the expositions in the congregation; but ba'ale denotes masters, not in the sense of leaders, but of possessors; and as ba'ale berith, Gen 14:13, signifies “the confederated,” ba'ale shevu'ah, Neh 6:18, “the sworn,” and the frequently occurring ba'ale ha'ir, “the citizens;” so ba'ale asuppoth means, the possessors of assemblies and of the assembled themselves, or the possessors of collections and of the things collected. Thus ba'ale asuppoth will be a designation of the “words of the wise” (as in shalishim, choice men = choice proverbs, Pro 22:20, in a certain measure personified), also of those which form or constitute collections, and which stand together in order and rank (Hitz., Ewald, Elst., Zöckl., and others). Of such it may properly be said, that they are like nails driven in, for they are secured against separations, - they are, so to speak, made nail-feast, they stand on one common ground; and their being fixed in such connection not only is a help to the memory, but also to the understanding of them. The Book of Koheleth itself is such an asuppah; for it contains a multitude of separate proverbs, which are thoughtfully ranged together, and are introduced into the severe, critical sermon on the nothingness of all earthly things as oases affording rest and refreshment; as similarly, in the later Talmudic literature, Haggadic parts follow long stretches of hair-splitting dialectics, and afford to the reader an agreeable repose.

And when he says of the “proverbs of the wise,” individually and as formed into collections: אחד נתּנוּ מרעה, i.e., they are the gift of one shepherd, he gives it to be understood that his “words of Koheleth,” if not immediately written by Solomon himself, have yet one fountain with the Solomonic Book of Proverbs, - God, the one God, who guides and cares as a shepherd for all who fear Him, and suffers them to want nothing which is necessary to their spiritual support and advancement (Psa 23:1; Psa 28:9). “Mēro'eh ehad,” says Grätz, “is yet obscure, since it seldom, and that only poetically, designates the Shepherd of Israel. It cannot certainly refer to Moses.” Not to Moses, it is true (Targ.), nor to Solomon, as the father, the pattern, and, as it were, the patron of “the wise,” but to God, who is here named the ἀρχιποίμην as spiritual preserver (provider), not without reference to the figure of a shepherd from the goad, and the figure of household economy from the nails; for רעה, in the language of the Chokma (Pro 5:21), is in meaning cogn. to the N.T. conception of edification. ^{▼▼Vid., my Heb. Römerbrief, p. 97.}

Regarding masmeroth (iron nails), the word is not used of tent spikes (Spohn, Ginsb.), - it is masc., the sing. is משׂמר (מסמר), Arab. mismâr. נטוּעים is = תּקוּעים (cf. Dan 11:45 with Gen 31:25), post-bibl. (vid., Jer. Sanhedrin) קבוּעים (Jerome, in altum defixi). Min with the pass., as at Job 21:1; Job 28:4; Psa 37:23 (Ewald, §295 b), is not synonymous with the Greek ὑπό. The lxx well: “given by those of the counsel from one shepherd.” Hitzig reads מרעה, and accordingly translates: “which are given united as a pasture,” but in mēro'eh ehad there lies a significant apologetic hint in favour of the collection of proverbs by the younger Solomon (Koheleth) in relation to that of the old. This is the point of the verse, and it is broken off by Hitzig’s conjecture. ^{▼▼J. F. Reimmann, in the preface to his Introduction to the Historia Litterarum antediluviana, translates, Ecc 12:11 : “The words of the wise are like hewn-out marble, and the beautiful collectanea like set diamonds, which are presented by a good friend.” A Disputatio philologica by Abr. Wolf, Königsberg 1723, contends against this παρερμεενεία.}