Page:04.BCOT.KD.PoeticalBooks.vol.4.Writings.djvu/2351

such, “I have been,” Jos 1:5; Jdg 12:2; Psa 37:25. Whether this word, in the former sense, corresponds to the Greek perfect, and in the latter to the Greek aorist, is determined only by the situation and connection. Thus in Exo 2:22 it signifies, “I have become a stranger” (γέγονα = εἰμί); while, on the other hand, in Deu 23:8, “thou hast been a stranger” (ἐγένου, fuisti). That where the future is spoken of, הייתי can, by virtue of the consecutio temporum, also acquire the meaning of “I shall become, I shall be,” e.g., 1Ki 1:21, cf. 1Ch 19:12, is of no importance to us here. In the more modern language the more delicate syntax, as well as that idea of “becoming,” primarily inherent in the verb היה, is disappearing, and הייתי signifies either the past purely, “I have been,” Neh 13:6, or, though not so frequently, the past along with the present, “I was,” e.g., Neh 1:11. Accordingly, Solomon while still living would be able to say מלך הייתי only in the sense of “I have become (and still am) king;” but that does not accord with the following retrospective perfects.^[1]
This also does not harmonize with the more modern linguistic usage which is followed by Koheleth, e.g., Ecc 1:9, מה־שׁ, id quod fuit; Ecc 1:10, היה כבד, pridem fuit. In conformity with this, the lxx translates הייתי by ἐγενόμην, and the Graec. Venet. by ὑπῆρξα. But “I have been king,” Solomon, yet living, cannot say, only Salomo redivivus here introduced, as the preacher can use such an expression.
The epilogue, Ecc 12:9., also furnishes an argument in favour of the late composition of this book, on the supposition that it is an appendix, not by another hand, but by the author himself. But that it is from the author's own hand, and does not, as Grätz supposes, belong to the period in which the school of Hillel had established the canonicity of the book, follows from this, that it is composed in a style of Hebrew approaching that used in the Mishna, yet of an earlier date than the Mishna; for in the Talmuds it is, clause by clause, a subject of uncertain interpretation, - the language used is plainly, for the Talmudic authorities, one that is antiquated, the expressions of which, because not immediately and unambiguously clear, need, in order to their explanation, to be translated into the language then in use. The author of the book makes it thus manifest that here in the epilogue, as in the book itself, Solomon is intentionally called Koheleth; and that the manner of expression, as well as of the formation of the sentences in this

1. If ואתּן followed, then הייתי (as Reusch and Hengstenberg interpret) might be a circumstantial perfect; vid., under Gen 1:2.