The Epilogue, chapter xii. 9, follows. This has been pronounced by some to be an interpolation, the work of a later hand; but we could no more imagine a book of the Old Testament ending with such an aphorism as vanity of vanities, without doing violence to our critical instinct, than we could believe that the Gospel of St. Mark was ever intended to end with the words ‘They were afraid’ [ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ, Mark xvi. 8]. It is rather the bold, open statement of the truth, which has in a more or less covered manner formed the subject of the whole book. The aphorism, ‘Fear God and keep His commandments,’ contains the only possible solution of providential difficulties or remedy of human ills, and it is in vain to look for any other. The reasons for this mystery we must leave to God alone. He will bring into judgment――_i.e._ into adjustment or declared consistency with justice――every mystery, whether to our notions good or evil. With this assurance the book appropriately ends. GRAMMATICAL PECULIARITIES. The Book of Ecclesiastes being a didactic and argumentative treatise, and the only work of its kind in the Scriptures, its Hebrew is modified to meet the requirements of that which is a new philosophy, so that we may fully indorse Ewald’s expression, that ‘Koheleth uses the Hebrew language as a flexible instrument for the expression of novel ideas.’ This naturally implies a usage of words and phrases peculiar to this book, and accounts for the large number of unusual forms and once occurring words and the like which here meet us. It will be apparent to any who will diligently examine the text, that Koheleth confines himself very strictly indeed to the rules of his own grammar, and uses articles, prepositions, and tenses with an accuracy not inferior to Greek itself. For example, there is a real distinction to be discovered between the usage of masculine and feminine forms, where a substantive is of both genders. It is not a matter of indifference whether the full relative is used or the contracted form; on the contrary, it will be seen that the contracted relative gives an optative or subjunctive sense; or whether a verb governs directly or through the intervention of the particle את; a distinction which the LXX. were quite aware of, and which gave rise to their adverbial σὺν. What, for want of a better term, we have called distributive plurals――_i.e._ a singular noun and plural verb in agreement, or _vice versâ_――are exceedingly significant. They have a peculiar shade of meaning, according to circumstances and position in the sentence. It is too a matter of some consequence whether the nominative precedes or follows the verb; hence in the running translation this order is never reversed, even where our idiom requires it, but explanatory words are introduced. All these matters are, where necessary, pointed out in the notes――perhaps some may imagine pressed too far, and repeated _ad nauseam_; but the excuse must