[323]. The Hebrew ’ōlām here expresses perpetuity (comp. Jer. li. 39, Ps. cxliii. 51, Ezek. xxvi. 20), not (as some moderns, after Aben Ezra) long continuance. It is true, that in the Targum of Isa. xlii. 11 an exit from the ‘eternal house’ is spoken of; but no one doubts that the belief in the Resurrection was general in the fourth century A.D.
[324]. Mr. Tyler interprets it in a Stoic sense of absorption in the World-Soul.
[325]. Nowack denies this meaning of rūakh altogether, but this seems a Gewaltstreich.
[326]. The title only belongs to pre-critical writers like Dr. John Smith, who, in his Portrait of Old Age (1666), sought to show that Solomon was thoroughly acquainted with recent anatomical discoveries. In revising my sheets, I observe that even such a fairminded student as Dean Bradley speaks of ‘the long-drawn anatomical explanations of men who would replace with a dissector’s report a painter’s touch, a poet’s melody.’ But the Dean only refers to ver. 6; I understand his language, though I think him biassed by poetic associations.
[327]. Namely, that vv. 3-5 are cited from an authorised book of dirges (comp. 2 Chr. xxxv. 25). There seems, however, no assignable reason for separating these verses from the context. And how can the supposed mourners have sung the latter part of ver. 5?
[328]. This supposes the approach of death to be described under the imagery of a gathering storm.
[329]. Namely, that the evil days of the close of life are described by figures drawn from the ‘seven days of death,’ as the modern Syrians designate the closing days of their winter. In a native Arabic rhyme, February says to March, ‘O March, O my cousin, the old women mock at me: three (days) of thine and four of mine—and we will bring the old woman to singing (another tune).’ Wright, Ecclesiastes, p. 271; Delitzsch, Hoheslied und Kohelet, p. 447.
[330]. Shabbath, 151b, 152b (Wright, Ecclesiastes, p. 262). The anecdote is given in connection with an allegoric interpretation of our poem.
[331]. Dean Plumptre and Dr. Wright, however, make this the opening verse of the Epilogue. But between ver. 8 and that which follows there is no inner connection.
[332]. The object of the article is perhaps to suggest that Koheleth is not really a proper name. In vii. 27 we should correct ām’rāh qōheleth to āmar haqqōheleth. Probably these words are an interpolation from the margin. They are nowhere else used in support of Koheleth’s opinions. The author of the interpolation may have wished to indicate his disagreement with Koheleth’s low opinion of women.