The argument from Aramaic words is much more formidable, and would be conclusive if our knowledge of the successive stages of the Hebrew language were less fragmentary and uncertain than is really the case. It is quite true that such words as מדינה ,רעיון ,רעות ,כבר ,זמן ,פתגם, have an Aramaic colouring; but we must set against this the fact that, as Ewald remarks, we have in Ecclesiastes a new philosophical terminology, which has modified the Hebrew of the book. And again, it will be seen by referring to the places where these peculiar words occur, that they are introduced either for the purposes of expressing new ideas or terms not found in the language elsewhere. Sometimes the more usual word would be out of harmony with the context, _e.g._ the word זמון replaces the more ordinary מיעד, because not only is the latter used to signify a _feast_, but the root-meaning of the former is just what is required by the argument. Again, כבר, as will be seen stated at length in the notes, is used in the purely technical sense, of ‘this present,’ and not in the ordinary meaning of ‘already.’ The unusual ♦אלו, chapter vi. 6, also is apparently introduced for the sake of the alliteration with הלא in the next clause, and the once occurring עֲדֶן chapter iv. 3, for the sake of the equivoke to which its use gives rise. All these Aramaic words are noticed as they occur in the body of the Commentary, and we think that the conclusion which results from what there appears is to weaken very considerably any argument as to date which can be drawn from them one way or the other. ♦ “הלא” replaced with “אלו” Again, the object of the book is so peculiar, and so different from all the rest of Scripture, and especially from those which, supposing Solomon was the author, would stand related to it in point of time, that we may well expect some difference of language and colouring. Again, also, there is another reason. The books immediately subsequent to Solomon’s era are all prophetic. Now it seems natural that prophets should use an antique style, which would be tinged with that of the earlier religious books, while if, on the other hand, as the LXX. seem to imply by their translation of the word Koheleth, and appears also from the alliterations in the book itself, it were an address orally delivered, it would no doubt contain colloquialisms. There are strong indications that it does so. Now these colloquialisms would certainly have an Aramaic cast about them. Thus the difference of diction between the Hebrew of Koheleth and a contemporary prophet would be exaggerated, and any estimate of date due to this difference proportionately uncertain.