AN INTRODUCT w‘ f / Nf .

TY)

ECCLESIASTES

W ITH NOTES AND APPEND ICES

A . H . M CNEILE, B .D .

Tyrwhitt Hebrevv Scholar and Crosse Scholar,

Fellow and Theological L ecturer at

Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge

CAMBRID GE

at the University Press

1 90 4

Zl onhon : C. J. CLAY AND SONS,

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS WAREHOUSE,

AVE MARIA LANE.

G lasgow: 50, WELLINGTON STREET.

1 81mm: F . A. BROCKHAUS .

{Reinmark : THE MACMILLAN COMPANY .

Bumbag arm (Hialtutta : MACMILLAN AND CO LTD .

[Al l Rights reserved ]

PREFACE .

HE literature on the book of Ecclesiastes is very large,as

may be seen by reference to Ginsburg’s commentary

,and

to Aug . Palm D ie Qohelet-Littem tufr (Mannheim) . But of late

years it has received comparatively little attention . Palm’s list

was compiled in 1 886, and since that time the following works

may be noticed : 1 . The commentaries of Cox (Ezepositor’s B ible) ,

1 890, Siegfried (in Nowack

’sHandkomm . z . A. T. ) 1 898,Wilde

boer (in Marti’s Kurz . Handkomm. z . A. 1 898 . 2 . Other

studies of the book from various points of view : Cheyne, Job

and Solomon, 1 887, Euringer, D er Masomhtezet cles Kohelet,1 890

,Leimdorfer

,Kohelet im Lichte cler Geschichte

,1 892

,

Dillon, Sceptics of the Old Testament

,1 895

,Tyler

,Ecclesiastes

(2nd edit . ) 1 899 . 3 . To these must be added articles in periodi

cals—mostly German—on particular points . These are referred

to where use is made of them.

The difficulty of the interpretation of the book has been an

unending fascination to all who have dwelt upon it . But very

few students have analysed it by the critical methods which

have opened up a new world of study in the Hexateuch, the

historical books and the prophets . The following pages have

been written with two chief aims : firstly,to disentangle the

strands which go to form the three-fold cord ”of the writing ;

and secondly, to estimate the position which Koheleth occupied

with regard to the religious and philosophical thought of his

PREFACE

day . On these two subjects,treated in 4

,5and 8, hang the

chief interest and value of the book which is called by his name .

But neither of these can be accurately studied unless the writing

be placed in its historical and literary perspective ; and an

attempt is made to do this in the rest of the Introduction .

Itwas thought unnecessary towrite a complete commentary

on the Hebrew text5but it is hOped‘

that in the Notes on select

passages, and in Appendix II .,all the principal points of interest

or difficulty have been discussed .

The purpose of the App’endices is to re-open the problem of

the Greek text. Even to those who may not accept the

conclusions reached, they may prove useful in supplying

textual matter for further study .

A . H . MoNEILE.

CAMBRIDGE .

Ascension Day, 1 904.

CONTENTS .

PREFACE

INTRODUCTION 1—55The Title

Canonicity

The circumstances of the writer

An outline of Koheleth’s thoughtsThe integrity of the book

The style and vocabularyThe relation of Koheleth to B . SiraBook of Wisdom

Greek language and thought

NOTES ON SELECT PAssACEs 56—94

A TRANSLATION 95—4 1 2

APPEND ICES

I . The Greek version

II . The Greek text

KOHELETH .

1 . INTRODUCTION .

THE title n‘

gpb (x 1 1 . 8 occurs seven times in thebOOk l

. In x ii . 8 it has the article,and probably also in vii . 27

(MID.

"

p mos) . If the emendation ntnpnms in the latter

passage is correct, the word is definitely shewn to be masculinein all the seven passages . The author

,therefore

,was a man

and,writing under the guise Of Solomon, adopted Koheleth

as a nom de p lume.

The meaning Of the word is somewhat uncertain . In formit is the feminine Of the Kal participle Of sap. But Of this rootno other certain instance Of the Kal occurs, though the Nipbaland the Hiphil are not uncommon

,the former be summoned

[i . e . come together] as an assembly—the latter = summon an

assembly,for relig ious or military purposes .

1

The versions do not afford much help . Qla’

r Exxxnmacr-m

’

s,

whence Hier . and Engl . ‘Ecclesiastes

,

’is an attempt to re

present the derivation Of the word from SDI? an assembly,

’

while Aq . Pesh . Tg . merely transliterate the Hebrew .

The following are the more probable Of the explanationswhich have been suggested1 . One who summons an assembly (Gesenius) . But

this would probably require the Hiphil nSnep .

2 . One who speaks in an assembly .

’

(Hier . concionator .

Luther P rediger . A .V. R V.

‘ Preacher . ’ Midr . Koh .

“ because

his words are Spoken in a 5mm” ) SO Driver, Intr . O.T. 466.

KOnig , Einl . 428 . Plumptre Debater .

’

1 i . 1 , 2 , 1 2, VII . 27 , x i i . 8 , 9 , 1 0 .

H t 51 1 l l .

THE TITLE

3 . A convener, or collector,Of sentences (Grotius,

Mendelssohn,illustrating this “

meaning by reference to

xii . 1 0,

Opinions also differ as to the force intended to be conveyedby the feminine form Of the word .

1 . The fact that it is nearly always . accompanied by a verbin the masculine renders improbable the View that the femininerefers to Wisdom (man) , who is represented in Prov . i . 20 f .

,

viii . 1—4,as addressing men in places Of assembly (Augustine,

Rashi,Ibn Ez ra : so Hitz ig

,Kuenen and others) . Moreover

the contents of the book as a whole are totally unlike theteaching which is usually put into the mouth Of Wisdom in

the rest Of the Wisdom literature .

2] The use of the masculine Of the verb isalso opposed toTyler’s suggestion that the name denotes she who is an

assembly —a personification of assemblies of men .

Two other,more probable, suggestions are

3 . That the feminine has an intensive force, as in Arabic,one who completely realises the idea of a (R .V. mg .

great orator . ’ W . Wright, Arabic Grammar, 233,rem . c .

C . H . H . Wright,Ecclesiastes . )

4. That the feminine indicates a title or designation of

Office,arising from its use to express abstract conceptions

(Ges . K. § 1 22, 4b) . This may be illustrated by the propernames mates and Ez ra 1 1 . 55

,57 . Aram . : “123 colleagues

Ez ra iv . 7 Arab : halifa,

‘

allama . Engl . :‘Excellency

,

’

Highness’ etc . This is adopted by the majority Of modern

writers (Driver, Delitz sch, Nowack, Cheyne and others)1.

The meaning,therefore

,Of the title Koheleth probably is

a (recognised and Official) Speaker in an assembly —theassembly, no doubt, being all men who give their hearts towisdom,

and who are metaphorically pictured as sitting at thefeet Of the wise man .

1 In the art.‘ Ecclesiastes in Encycl . B ibl . the startling suggestion is made

that 1157a is a corruption Of i . 2, and was interpolated in i . 1 2,

vii . 27, x ii . 8 , and adopted by the scribe Who prefix ed i . 1 and by the writer of

the epilogue. Thewriter of the article proposes, further, to read n‘anpn in

Prov. xxx . 1 .

Renan suggests that nSnp is a cryptogram, perhaps for note ,arrived at by

somemethod analogous to‘ Athbash

’

and ‘ Albam.

’

CANONICITY 3

2 . Canonicity.

FOr the three-fold division of the Jewish Bible—Torah,

Nebi’im,Kethubim—various explanations have been Offered . A

Rabbinic explanation,for instance

,given by Moses Maimonides

and David Kimchi,is that the three divisions represent three

grades Of inspiration ; the Torah wasgiven as5x as (mouth tomouth) , the N

ebi’im by the nsmn rm(Spirit Of prophecy) , andthe Ke

thubim by the mpnr m(Spirit of holiness) . And othersuggestions are noted by Wildeboer (A .T. Kanon pp . 14

But it is now recognised that the divisions were the result ofan historical process by which the books were accepted intothe Canon in three groups, i . e . (i) from the end Of the exile toEz ra

, (ii) from Ez ra to the time of the Maccabees, (iii) from the

Maccabees till shortly before the time of Christ .

The third divi sion consists Of (a) the Psalms, Proverbs andJOb—a group that was sometimes quoted by the initial letterswritten in the inverse order

, N’

DN (b) the five Megilloth or Rolls

,

i . e . Song of Song s, Ruth,Kinoth 1

(or Lamentations) , Kohelethand Esther ; (c) Daniel, Ez ra-Nehemiah

,and 1

,2 Chronicles ’ .

The only books among the Kethubim that were read in the

public services Of the Synagogue were the‘

five Rolls . ’ TheSong Of Songs was read on the 8th day of the Passover

,Ruth

on the 2nd day Of Pentecost, Kinoth on the 9th day Of Ab3

,

Koheleth on the 3rd day of the Feast of Booths,and Esther on

the Feast of Purim .

The date of the reception of Koheleth into the Canon t l sf far

from certain . The book is not alluded to in any canonicalwriting

—“Of the Old Testament . But there can be no doubt that

it was known,not only in its primary but in its completed

form"

,to Ben Sira5

(c . 1 80 and to the author Of VViSdom5

(c . 1 30 The use made Of it,however

,by the f ormer

writer proves only its existence—not its canonisation—prior tohis date . He was well acquainted

,as his work shews, with the

literature Of his country ; but it is impossible to insist thathis

1 Also called’Ekah from its Opening word.

2 For varieties Of order and grouping see Ryle, 0 .T. Canon, ch . x i i . and

Excursus C .

The traditional date Of the destruction Of the temple by the Chaldeans .

4 See §_

5.

5 See § 7 .

4 CANONICITY

quotations could have been made only from such writings as

were recognised as canonical . And the author of ‘Wisdom,

’so

far from treating Koheleth as a sacred writing,seems to aim at

confuting the advice contained in it with regard to the enjoyment of life .

There are Talmudic stories which,if true

,would prove that

Koheleth was quoted as authoritative scripture in the l st

century In Jer . B erakoth vii . 2 it is related :“ The king

[Jannaeusl

] said to him [ Simon ben Shetach the king’s brother

ih -law] Why didst thou mock me by saying that nine hundredsacrifices were required

,when half would have been sufficient?

’

Simon answered I mocked thee not ; thou hast paid thy Shareand I it 1 S written atom 58 : manna 533 ”3 (Koh .

VII . 1 2 a) .

In Baba Bathra 4a there is an account of Herod after hehad put to death the members of the Sanhedrin, and deprivedBaba

,ben Buta of his Sight . It relates that he visited the

latter incognito, and tried to extort from him some unguardedcomplaint against his own tyranny . But Baba b . Buta steadilyrefused to speak a word against the king . In his answers toHerod he quoted

,with the formula “

it is written,

”a passage

from the Torah (Ex . xxii . and one from the Nebi’im

(IS . 1 1 . and With the same formula he quoted,from the

Kethubim

,Prov . vi . 23 and the three parts of Koh . x . 20

2.

A third narrative from Shabbath 30 b is g iven at length byWright 3

,i n which Gamaliel (flor . 44 A .D . ) argues

,

on thesubject of the Messianic age with a disciple

“: That disciple

(wo‘pnmm) threetimes opposed the great teacher

’s argumentswith the words mm mmwan5: me (Koh . i . each timewith as it is written .

’

If these stories could be accepted as they stand, Simonb . Shetach would afford a fixed terminus acl qnem for the

canonicity of Koheleth . But Since it is impossible to determinewhat is history in the Talmud, and what legend, the onlycertain deduction is that the Talmudic compilers accepted as

genuine the tradition that K‘

oheleth had been quoted as

Scripture in the century before Christ .

1 Jannaeus reigned 1 05

,

2 SeeWright, Ecclesiastes pp . 1 9 f. 3pp . 23 f.

4 Bloch maintains that this is none other than S. Paul .

CANONICITY ‘ 5

Little,in fact

,can be gathered fromverbal quotations ‘ .

Nor can much help be Obtained from pre-Christian evidence

other than that Of direct quotation .

1 . In the Often quoted prologue to Ecclesiasticus, B . Sira’sgrandson clearly recognised a third division Of Hebrew writings

after the Law and the Prophets . But it is impossible to say

with certainty that he included Koheleth in this third division,or (if he did) to what extent he considered it as strictly

canonical .2 . The Septuagint

’ translation adds no evidence at all .

The prologue to Ecclesiasticus shews that some books in the

group of the Kethubim had been translated before 1 32 B .C .

But the translation Of a book proves nothing as to the dateof its canonisation . Indeed

,if the theory maintained below 2 is

correct—that the extant Greek version Of Koheleth is (so far as

the true text is attainable) from the pen Of Aquila—it is uncertain whether there was a ~ Greek version Of it before his

time .3 . Philo’s evidence is only 6 si lentio

,and is precarious . He

makes no reference to Ez ekiel,Daniel

,Song Of Songs

,Ruth,

Lamentations and Koheleth . If Ez ekiel were not in this list, it

might be argued with probability that Philo did not quotefrom the Kethubim because he did not recognise them as

canonical 3 . But seeing that Ez ekiel was canonical more than

a century and a half before his time,his lack of reference .

to it invalidates any argument drawn from his non-use Of theKethubim .

1 There are no verbal quotations from KOh . in the N. T.,though it is not

impossible that S . Paul shews reminiscences of its language.

Compare i . 2 etc . with Rom. viii . 20 ; x ii . 14with Rom . ii . 1 6, 2 Cor . v. 10;x i i . 3 , 5 with 2 Cor . v. 1 . See Taylor , Sayings of the Jewish Fathers

,Add.

notes pp . 1 59 f .

But no stress can be laid on the silence Of the N.T. Ez ra and Nehemiah /are not quoted, but they were probably coupled with Chronicles which is .

Obadiah and Nahum shew no influence on N.T. writers, because they were

short and dealt with special circumstances of the moment ; and Esther, SongOf Songs and Koheleth were scarcely of such a nature as to supply matter for

quotation . (In Eph . v . 27 S. Paul may have been thinking Of Song Of Songs

iv. 7 : 3M; Kathi) e’

l‘

r hnalov you, Kai p ianos Ot’

uc é‘ C ‘

rw c’

v col . )2 Appendix I .

3 The passage in the D e Vi ta contemp lativa 3,which clearly speaks Of the

three divisions of the Hebrew books, is of very doubtful genuineness .

6 CANONICITY

Although there-

are no quotations from Koheleth in the

New Testament,yet it is here that evidence is first forthcoming

which is probably trustworthy . The passages which suggestthat the tripartite division of the Hebrew books was recognised,afford

,it is true

,no clearer evidence as to the contents Of

the Canon than does the prologue to Ecclesiasticusl. But

a

'

stronger argument can be drawn from the phrases and

titles used in reference to the Old Testament,which convey

a strong feeling that the Canon was thought of as a completewhole ; e . g .

vi ypagbv)’

occurs inJohn x . 35,x ix . 36

,xx . 9

,2 Pet.

1 . 20 . In the first of these,reference is made to a passage in

the Psalms which,in the preceding words, is also spoken Of as

c’

v mg; wimp timfw and o‘

Aéyos m i) deaf) . The second passage is,perhaps, not to the point, since the following verse shews that

ypaqtn'

. may have the meaning Of‘a passage in writing ,

’of .

1 Pet . ii . 6. In the third,the word implies Old Testament

prophecies in general . And in the last,the writer distinctly

speaks o f a well-defined body of“

prophecieswhich stand inwriting (Eric a wpoctnrefa ypadn

'

is) for which he claims divineinspiration . And other phrases such as atypa¢ai Mat. xxii . 29

,

Acts Xviii . 24, padmi dyia i Rom . i . 2 2

,{spaypdppta

'ra 2 Tim . iii . 15

(cf . 16mi c a ypady?) Heéwvevo'

ros) , all convey the same impression,that Scripture meant

‘

to the Apostolic writers the same body

of Old Testament writing s that it means to us .

Two further references in the New Testament call for notice .

Daniel,the latest book in the Jewish Canon,

is expressly quotedby Jesus as an apparently authoritative writing (Mat. xxiv .

And His allusion to the death Of Zacharias (Mat. xxiii . 35,Luke x i . 51 ) is usually understood to imply that the book OfChronicles was the last in order in the complete canonical

collection . Wildeboer’s Objection to this is not conclusive .

He points out that very few persons, _

or even synagogues, wererich enough

'

to possess the whole collection,and that in any

case the books would be written on separate rolls . And hesays that even if Jesus

,as the later Jews, held Chronicles to

stand last in the order Of Old Testament books, Mat. xxiii . 35

affords no evidence as to which books were included at that

1 See especially Luke xx iv. 44; also Mat. x xu . 40, John vi . ~45,Acts vn . 42 ,

xiii . 40 , xxvi . 22, xxviii . 23 .

2 See Sanday and Headlam in loc .

CANONICITY 7

time in the third division of whichChronicles formed the close .

But the fact that among a number of separate rolls Chronicleswas universally reckoned as the last in order, surely goes to

shew that the number of the rolls had become a fixed quantity .

Wildeboer adds that it is much more probable that the Lordwas thinking of the historical books in a narrower sense whichexcluded Jeremiah . But how could the hearers Of Jesus beexpected to understand that he was thinking Of the

‘ historicalbooks ’ which were never reckoned as a distinct group, when

the martyrdom of Urijah (Jer . xxvi . which was chrono

logically later than that Of Zacharias, would be well known

to all “ ?

It seems highly probable, therefore, that all the Kethubim

had Obtained some sort Of recognition by the beginning of thel st century B .C .

,and that the three divisions Of the Hebrew

books were looked upon as one complete body of sacred writingsby the beginning of the Christian era . Indeed

,as Ryle points

out (pp . 1 74ff ) , it is scarcely conceivable that any'

new bookcould have been introduced into the canon during the centuryin which the nation was divided into the opposite factions Ofthe Pharisees and Sadducees

,or during the period in which the

great Rabbinic schools of Hillel and Shammai took their rise .

The Doctors whose glory it was ‘to make a fence round the

law’ were not likely to advocate the introduction Of fresh

writings within the limi ts of the Canon ; nor, if one were boldenough to advise such a step, would he have escaped vehementattacks fromrival teachers . ”If this conclusion be

‘

correct,and Koheleth had won its

acceptance as canonical by c . 1 0OB .C .

,it is unnecessary to

dwell On the evidence that is available at the close Of the 1 stcentury A .D .

2

4Esdras (c . 90 A . D . ) and Josephus (c . 1 00 A .D . )both shew conclusively that Koheleth had been accepted as

canonical before their date . The former (according to the

1 Wildeboer’s statement (p. 47) that“a number of reminiscences and

citations from apocryphal writings prove that the N.T. writers acknowledgedno canon Of the O .

'

I which corresponds with ours is tantamount to saying

that no N.T. writers were capable Of quoting anything but their B ible ! They

did not use extra-canonical works for the purpose of establ ishing doctrines ;

but there is no reason why they should not have used them for purposes of

illustration . (See Ryle pp . 153 f. )2 See Ryle (pp . 1 56 andWildeboer (pp . 37

8 THE CIRCUMSTANCES

most probable reading) reckons the sacred books as 24, whichis the number borne out by the Talmudic title the four-andtwenty holy writing s (Jer . Sanh . x . The latter reckonsthem as 22

,Ruth and Lamentations being combined with

Judges and Jeremiah respectively . This numbering is alsofound in Melito’S canon (Eus . H.E. iv . and in that of

Origen (Eus . H . E. vi .

The official Jewish pronouncement with regard to the Canonwas made at

,or about the time Of

,the Synod Of Jamnia (Jabue)

c . 1 00 A .D . Some discussion preceded the final agreement, of

which the clearest account for English readers is given in

Wright’s Ecclesiastes

,Excursus II . The discussion turned on

the question whether Koheleth did,or did not

,defile the

hands . ” This expression is explained in Shabbath 14a . Copiesof the Scriptures had been kept in the same place

.

as the heaveOfferings

,and some had been thereby injured . As a precaution

against thi s danger in future,the Scriptures were pronounced

unclean,

’i . e . unfit to be included among the Offering s to the

priests . The principal Talmudic passages whi ch ,refer to the

discussion are Yadaim iii .'

5,Eduyoth v . 3

,Megi llah 7 a

‘

. Thesynod was apparently convinced by R. Simon ben ‘

Az z ai,who

stated that he had received by tradition from the mouth of

the seventy-two elders in the day when they inducted R .

Eliez er b .

‘Azariah into the seat Of patriarch, that the SongOf Songs and Koheleth defile the hands . ” The books underdispute were Koheleth, Song Of Songs and Esther . And a

final decision was arrived at—not that these books were henceforth to be included among the canonical books

,but—that

those who had for many years received them as canonical had

been right in so doing .

3 . The circumstances 0f the writer .

A writer in the Spectators

has aptly styled the book OfKoheleth “ A Hebrew Journal intime. The fascination of itarises from the fact that it advances no theories ; it is not a

thesis or a study,it is not a sermon or a collection of moral

aphorisms . It is the outpouring of the mind ofarich Jew,who

1 See S. Schiffer, D as Buch Kohelet,nach der Aufiassung der Weisen des

Talmud and Midrasch, Theil I . pp . 1—1 0 .

2 Feb . 28, 1 903 .

OF THE WRITER 9

has seen much of the sad Side Of life, and who is intensely inearnest . But while he reveals his mind and character, he tellslittle Of his personal circumstances

’

. He states that he was

wealthy,and able to provide for himself every possible luxury

(ii . 4 He seems to have lived in or near Jerusalemf, for

he clearly implies that he was an eyewitness Of facts whichoccurred at the “ holy place

”

(viii . He must have been

an Old man at the time of writing ; not only because hislanguage seems to have lost the buoyancy of youth (for that

is a point on which different students Of his book might think,and have thought

,differently) , but because his feverish attempts

(i . 1 2—ii . 1 1 ) to find the summum bonum of life in pleasure,and in wisdom

,cannot have been abandoned in a few years

,

while they were now far enough in'

the past to be looked at as

by-gone memories . He had had experience not only Of youthbut also of manhood’s prime, mane/

3

(x i . And apparentlyhe had lived long enough to find himself alone in the world,without son or brother (iv . 8 : the following words seem to

shew that he is referring to himself) . Lastly,he had had

private sorrows and disappointments . Here and there one

of a thousand - he might find “a man

,

”but he had never

found a woman who was worthy of her name -which probablymeans (to translate his bitter generalisation into facts) that his

“ life had s been saddened by a woman,who had been “

morebitter than death

,

” whose heart had been “ snares and nets,

and her hands fetters ” (vii . 26This is all that can be gathered with any certainty . But it

is not unreasonable to suppose that his great wealth might placehim in some Official position in the country . Winckler 4 suggests

1 Plumptre, Eccles . pp . 35—52,draws an elaborate, but purely fanciful

,

biography, which is severely criticised by Bois, Origines de la P hi losophie

Jude’

o-Alexandrine pp . 83—1 08 .

2 The reference to the corn trade (x i . as an illustration Of a busy and

energetic path of l ife, does not necessarily point to Alexandria as the place Of

writing. The mention Of the temple and the priesthood (iv. 1 7, v . 5, E V.

v .11 , 6) appears to be the work Of another writer

,who also lived at Jerusalem.

See 5.

x

i . s . the age of black hairs, as Opposed to fil l ?) the age of grey hairs .

‘

1 Altorienta lische Forschungen, 2nd series , pp . 143—1 59 . The expression in

i . 12 king over Israel in Jerusalem cannot indicate this Official position, for

the guise of Solomon is not dropped till 1 1 1 2 . See, however, note on i . 1 6

all that were before me over Jerusalem .

1 0 THE CIRCUMSTANCES

that he was either king or high-priest, for his writing was so

unorthodox that nothing but his high station could have en

abled him to disregard public opinion . It is very improbablethat he was in any sense a king , in view of the scathingcriticisms which he passes on the government . But if he wasa member of a high-priestly family, and perhaps himself a

relig ious Official , it is easier to account for the z ealous carewith which his work was annotated, and made more acceptablein religious circles

‘

. And it is just possible that the feminineform of the pseudonymKoheleth points in the same direction

z

.

But if Koheleth does not reveal much of his personalsurrounding s, he paints a lurid picture of the state of hiscountry . Wickedness usurped the place of judgment and

righteousness (iii . 16) and,in consequence, the powerful classes

who had the law in their hands crushed the common peoplewith an Oppression from which there was no escape (iv .

And this perversion of justice was due to the irresponsibleofficialism under which the country groaned ; an inferior Official

was under the thumb of a higher one, and he under a higherstill ; none of them could make any move in the cause of

justice,for the highest of themwas a creature of the tyrannous

king (v . The king raised slaves arid common people, at hiscaprice, to high positions, while the rich and noble might bedegraded (x . 5 he was despotic (viii . 2 a, and when hewas In an angry mood the only prudent course was to pacifyhim by yielding to his wishes (x . The reason

,for this

tyranny lay in the fact that the king was a child ”-far too

young for his responsible position—and his courtiers Spent theirdays in drunken revelry (x . Koheleth sadly contrasts theunhappy state of his countryw ith the prosperity that it mightenjoy under a good ruler (x . With a young and tyrannousking and corrupt Officials, espionage was rife ; a word spokensecretly in the bedchamber

,nay even a thought, would reach

the king’s ears through unknown channels (x .

In addition to this general description of the state of the

country,two passages must be noticed which appear to contain

allusions to contemporary history —(a) iv . 1 3—16, (6) ix. 1 3—1 53 .

‘

1 See § 5.

2

i

See § 1 .

3 viii . 1 0 has also been usually understood to refer to an historical event.

But this is improbable . See note in loc .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

1 2 THE CIRCUMSTANCES

Priest Onias under Ptolemy Euergetes, and in the poor and

wise youth Joseph the son of Tobias who usurped Onias’

position in the state . But the Same objection applies to thisexplanation as to the former

,that it treats of only one youth

instead of two. Moreover it is very doubtful if a High Priestcould have been called King at that early date ; Aristobulus I .was the first who is known to have assumed the title .

“Winckler,again, refers to events in Maccabean times . The

old and foolish king is Antiochus IV . Epiphanes and theexpression

“who no longer knows how to be admonished is

explained by his obstinate and wayward policy against Judaism .

At the time of h is death in his Parthian expedition his son

Antiochus V . was a minor and Lysias usurped the guardianship . But a youth Demetrius

,a son of Seleucus (the brother

and predecessor of Antiochus Epiphanes) , who was at Romeas a hostage, contrived to escape . He had frequently sought

perm1 SSIon from the senate to return home and claim his rights ;but though there was no further reason for retaining him as

a hostage when his uncle had taken the government, they hadrefused to release him . He landed at Tripolis, and soon afterwards Lysias and the boy Antiochus fell into his hands

(B .C . He thus “came out of prison to become king .

”

His rule,however

,lasted scarcely ten years

,when the second

youth,

” Alexander Balas,

“ rose up in his place, and was

courted by nearly everyone .

This 1 s Ingenious, and rightly takes account Of two youths .But firstly

,one detained as a hostage at Rome could hardly be

described as being in a‘

prison-house ’ secondly,there is nothing

to shew that Demetrius,the son of a former king

,had been

‘ born poor’

; thirdly, Koheleth is alluded to by’

B . Sira,which

makes it impossible to bring down his date below 152,as

W inckler’s theory requiresl.

(6) ix . 1 3—15.

_

A different rendering of the words is hereOffered to that which has usually been g iven . Commentatorshave generally treated the passage on the supposition that

'

the

poor wise man delivered the little city . But is it not a con

tradiction to say“ he delivered the city by his wisdom,

”and

1 Graetz , in the face of still more abundant evidence, places the book in thetime of Herod the Great, and finds in the career Of that king illustrations Of thisand other passages.

OF THE WRITER 1 3

then wisdom is better than strength,but the poor man

’sW ISdom is despised, and his words are not heard

”? Granted

that the latter statement is a generalising complaint, it is stilla deduction from the particular event . And if the poor man

really delivered the city by his wisdom,his wisdom was not

despised and his words were heard . It is better to render 13513 1and he would have delivered —

ah apodosis of a conditionalsentence with the protasis suppressed

l. The poor wise man was

in the city,and he suggested wise means of defence

,but he was

disregarded and his wisdom despised’. The passage thus refers,

not to the raising of a siege,but to the capture of a small town

because the few men in“ it would not listen to the advice of

a poor wise man . If this is so,it is useless to try to determine

the particular event, though the circumstances may have beenwell known toKoheleth’s readers .It is

,of course

,very probable that if a more detailed know

ledge were possible of the circumstances of his time,a large

number Of Koheleth’s statements and complaints would receiveillustration—such

,for instance

,as v . 7

,8,vi . 3

,x . 5—7 . But as

it is,they can be regarded only as side-lights on his troublous

life .

g4. An outline of Koheleth’

s thoughts.

If this Journal intime follows,in their true sequence

,the

successive phases of thought through which the writer travelled,he is shewn to be very similar to a large number of the thinkersof to-day . For

,whatever his early life may have been,

itwas Nature that first made him think . He was sobered and

saddened by the riddle of Nature without her key—the un

ceasing monotony of change which has no apparent aim or

result . With what Object does generation succeed generation,

and the sun rise and set—only to rise again,and the wind go

circling circling,

”and the

‘

rivers run into the sea which isnever full ? There is nothing satisfying for the eye to see or

the ear to hear ; there is nothing new under the sun ; thegenerations that come and go are

,each in turn, forgotten by

the generations which follow in the endless chain (i . 3

1 Cf. Ex . ix . 15, 1 Sam. x iii . 1 3 .

2 fl) ? occurs in v. 1 9 with somewhat the same force take notice Of,’have

regard to.

’See alsoNah. ii . 6, l

’flfl N"

D I".

14 AN OUTLINE OF

And this trouble of heart made him ponder over the two greatquestions life ? andWhat does life lead to .

‘

P Being a

man of mem ure he had ain'

pl’

e

x

ol

pp

p

’

Ortunities for any

investigations, and he used them to the full . He set himself bywisdom to gather as wide an experience as possible of men and

things . And he found that there were unalterable wrong s inthe world, crooked things which could not be made straightdefects which could not be supplied . The more he learnt

,the

more wrongs he discovered . In much wisdom was much grief,and increase of knowledge meant increase of sorrow (i . 1 2So he adopted a different course . He surrounded himself

with all the luxury and elegance Of which the times werecapable ; whatever his eyes desired he kept not from them ; hewithheld not his heart from any joy (ii . 1 And beforelong he was prepared with an answer to the first question— an

answer which sounds through his book at intervals like theclang of a knell An empty vapour, a Striving after wind

(ii . But it is important to observe what t 1 sW im .

It does not mean that the refinements and interests whichwealth afforded g ave him no pleasure ; he distinctly states

(ii . 1 0) that his heart rejoiced in all his labour . He describeshis attitude to these thing s very clearly in ii . 3

,9 . He gave

himself up to luxury and frivolity (o . and magnificence

(o . 9) not for the purpose of mere enjoyment but by way of a

careful experiment—J‘my heart still acting with its customary

wisdom l

also my wisdom stood firmly by me .

” The ex

perimentWas for the purpose of finding Something that could

prove a permanent satisfaction and profit for mankind “ throughout the number Of the days of his life . ” He does not for a

moment deny that,intrinsically

,wisdom excels folly as light

excels darkness (ii . but—and here he approaches theanswer to the second question— one event

,one chance or

mischance,happens to the wise man and the fool alike (ii . 15,

On these two answers he rings the Changes throughoutvapour ; Life ends, for every

living creature,in

B efore following his detailed complaints Of the wrong s oflife

,it is well to understand his attitude towards religion .

The Divine Name JHVH occurs nowhere in his pages, while

1 See note on v. 3 .

KOHELETH’S THOUGHTS 15

he uses the title Elohim twenty times,in sixteen of which the

word has the definite article] . In all these he speaks of whatGod does—of His government of the world

,never of what He

is,or Of man

’s attitude towards Him . The Deity ’ is to himNature

,"the sum-total of the irresistible and inscrutable forces

which govern the world . But at the same time he has not

quite lost his Semitic belief that God is more than Nature, forHis action shews evidence of design . He not only made everything excellent in its time

,but He has so arrang ed that no man

can understand or discover the true inwardness of His work

(iii . 1 1 , viii . 1 7, x i . He seems to work with the purpose of

Shewing men that they are mere beasts (iii . and of pre

venting them from gaining the slightest glimpse into the future

(iii . 22, vi . 1 2 b , v1 1 . Moreover God’s work— the course of

Nature—appears in the form of an endless cycle. Events and

phenomena are brought upon the stage of life,and banished

into the past, only to be recalled and banished again (i . 4—1 1 ,iii . And this

,for Koheleth

, paralyses all real effort ; forno amount of labour and travail can produce anything new

,

or of real profit—no one can add to,or subtract from,

theunswerving chain of facts (i . 15, iii . 1—9 , 14a, vii . 1 3) no one

can contend with Him that is mightier than he (vi .

And when Koheleth looks out upon the world he sees thatthis work of the D eity—this course of Nature —which cannotbe fathomed or altered

,involves a mass , of human misery . It

is not only that the r ighteous Often suffer,while the wicked

prosper (vii . 15, viii . The whole race of men suffers froman evil Sickness

,sorrow and trouble

,vain labour and disappoint

ment . His mournful Observations are not noted in any logicalorder ; he puts them down as they occur to him . And they are

mainly valuable from the picture which they g ive of the writerhimself . He has often been called a pessimist ; but that is amisnomer

,because he has an intense conviction that mankind

ought to be,and could be

,better

,if circumstances were more

favourable . His sadness would not be so deep if his estimation

of the potentialities of goodness in man were less high . Hesees “ through a mirror in a riddle

,

”and when he imagines

that that which is crooked ” (as seen in the blurred mirror)

1 i . 1 3, i ii 1 0, 1 1 , 1 3 , 14a, 1 5, v. bis, 1 9 , vi . 2 bis, VII . 1 3, 14,

viii . 1 5, 1 7, ix . 1 , 7 , x i . 5. On the other passages in which the title occurs see

16 AN OUTLINE OF

cannot be made straight, it is because the compensatingthought

“ then face to face ” was impossible for him . And he

gains no relief from the expectation of Messianic peace and

perfection, which animated the relig ious mind of the orthodoxJew . Generations had gone by since the prophets had foretoldit,and every day the conception of an ideal Israel became more

chimerical . There are left him only the shreds of the relig iousconvictions of his fathers

,with a species of

‘

natural relig ion’

which has fatalism and altruism among its ingredients .The section i . —ii . 1 1

,the contents of which have been noticed

above,forms a kind of exordium to the book

,in which Koheleth

writes under the guise of Solomon . Solomon had been famousfor three thing s—his study of nature

,his wisdom

,and his

wealthy magnificence . Each of these in turn Koheleth claimedfor himself, Shewing that he was better fitted than most men to

pronounce on the two questions—What is life ? andWhat doeslife lead to ? But in ii . 1 2 he

,expressly threw aside his

Solomomc Impersonation]

,and turned himself ” to behold the

wisdom and the folly displayed in the whole arena of human

life . He proceeds, throughout the rest of the book, to draw a

series of pictures illustrating the troubles of men,which may

be briefly summarised 2

ii . 1 3—1 7 . Although wisdom excels folly, fools and wisemen die alike

,

“

and why was I then more wise 9 In the

days to come all are alike‘

forgotten .

ii . 1 8—21 . He who gathers wealth by prudent labour mustleave it to another

,who has not laboured for it

,and who

may— for all he k nows—be a fool .ii . 22

,23 . A man

’s labour fills his nights as well as dayswith harassing care .

iii . 1—9 . All human action is tied by inexorable decree ; sothat there is no profit to a worker from his labour .iii . 1 0

,1 1 . God has given men

,by the very nature with

which they are endowed,a long ing to understand His work

,

and yet He has not g 1ven them the ability to do so.

1 According‘

to the most probable interpretation of the verse what is the

man [i . e. what can the man do] that cometh after the king ? That which he

[the king] hath already done. (See note in loc . )2 All the verses, or parts of verses, which are not cited in this chapter

appear to be due to other writers, and are'

discussed in the following chapter .

KOHELETH’S THOUGHTS 1 7

iii . 14a b,15. God’s work is eternal and unalterable

,and

appears as an unchanging cycle of phenomena .

iii . 16,18 21 . Wickedness and iniquity usurp the place of

justice and righteousness . God allows it to shew men thatthey are but beasts

,and will die as the beasts die . And

whether there will be the slightest difference between the

spirit of man and of beast who knoweth ?iv . 1—3 . The weak are Oppressed but their tears avail

nothing, [

for the oppressors have power on their side . This is

such a terrible evil that the dead,and still more the unborn,

are h appier than the living‘.

iv . 4,6. Successful work makes a man an object of j ealousy .

Peaceful poverty is better than troubled and profitless wealth .

iv . 7,8 . There is a man that works in mournful solitude

,

with no one to share his riches . “For whom then do I labour

,

and deprive my soul of good ?iv . 1 3—16. The emptiness of this world

’s strivings is shewnby a bitter glance at contemporary history .

v . 7,8 . Marvel not at oppression and injustice

,when the

government is what it is . What a Splendid advantage it wouldbe to the country to have a good king !

v . 9—16. Wealth cannot satisfy its possessor, for other

people eat it.

” The labourer can sleep, but the pampered

rich man cannot .“

Wealth is often kept by the owner to hisown hurt ; or it perishes and his son is left in poverty . Moreoverthe owner

,when he dies

,departs as destitute of his riches as a

nakednew-born infant,after a life spent in ,sorrow and trouble .

vi . 1,2 . A man has abundance of wealth

, possessions andhonour

,but he must leave it all to a stranger .

vi . 3—5. A man who has been blessed with a large family,

and

VI

a long life,and has nevertheless gained no pleasure and

dies unhonoured,is In worse case than an untimely birth .

vi . 6,8 . Nay, though he has lived a thousand years twice

told,yet he has seen no real good in life . Do not all go to one

place ? For what advantage has a wise man over a fool, or a

poor man who has got on in the world by knowing how to walk

prudently and successfully before his fellow-men ?

1 This is an outburst of pitywhich need not be pressed as a contradiction Of

such a passage as ix . 4-6, whereKoh . clings to life with the natural grip of one

who has no certainty with regard to a future state,

18 AN OUTLINE OF

-vi . 1 0~—1 2 . Everything that exists was named [i . e . its nature

and its place in the universe were fixed and determined] already ;itwas similarly known [i . s . determined] what man was to be ;and he cannot strive against a mightier than he . Since thereis a great deal Of talking and arguing that only serves tomultiply the emptiness of life, what advantage can man gain?For no one can tell him the two thing s that he wants to knowwhat is the summum bonum of this life

,and what will happen

to him after this life .

vii. 1 b—3 . The day of death is better than the day of

birth 1 it is better to take part in a funeral than in festivi ties,because it reminds men that that is what they all must cometo. Sorrow is better than laughter

,for a sad countenance is

fitting and gratifying to the miserable heart .vii . 1 3

,14. God’s work is unalterable

,even to make ‘

crooked '

things straight . In the day of prosperity enjoy thyself, and inthe day of adversity consider ; God has given both, in orderthat man may draw no conclusions as to what will happen inthe future .

vii . 15—1 8 a,

The righteous man Often perishes in‘his

righteousness,while the wicked man prolongs his days in

wickedness . Why, then,spoil your life by being over-righteous

or over-wise ? At the same time do not bring destruction upon

yourself by being over-wicked and foolish . Maintain the comfortable mean between the two

,for no righteous man on earth

is perfectly good .

vii . 21,22. And because you cannot always be perfectly

good,be judiciously deaf sometimes, lest you hear your Servant

curse you ; for you know that you have sometimes cursed

others .vii . 23—26a, 27, 28 . When I determined to be wise, I found

that wisdom was far from me,and unfathomably deep . In my

general search after knowledge arid the truth Of thing s, I foundone thing—the terrible snares of a wickedand designing woman .

All my calculations led only to the result that one man in a

thousand, and not one woman,

‘

was worthy of the name .viii . 2 a, 3 b , 4. Obey the king

,for he is a despot who does

whatever pleases him.

1 See § 5, p . 22, and note in loc.

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

20 AN OUTLINE OF’

x . 4. If a ruleris,angry

'

with you, do not leave y our placein a rage .

x . 5—7 . The caprice of the ruler often exalts fools and

slaves to places of, dignity, while the rich and noble are

degraded .

[x . 14. The fool talks a great deal . Man can have no

knowledge of thex . 16

,1 7 . The misery of a land whose king 1 s a child

,and

whose princes are drunken revellers,Spending their v ery

mornings in feasting . The happiness Of a land whose king isof noble birth and bearing, and whose princes feast at the righttime

,without drunkenness .x . 20 .

‘ The espionage which makes a secret word,or even

thought,dangerous .

Such is Koheleth’s survey of life . But it is impossible, in a

summary,to convey his suppressed passion,

the yearning forlight

,the pity and indignation, the bitter reaction of thought

after each fresh outlook,the vain struggles against the

cramping fetters by which man is tied to the present .It remains to notice the conclusion at which he arrives .

SinCe the work Of the Deity is inscrutable from beg inningto end, and no one has any idea of what the future contains

,or

whether after this life there is any future for man at all,and

since His work is absolutely unalterable,and since

,finally

,

His work involves or allows universal wrong and misery—man

can come to no conclusion about life ; he can aim at nothing,

guide himself by nothing . The only course Open to him is tomake the most of the present . To this Koheleth returnswhenever he finds that the troubles or mysteries of life are

beyond his power to solve : ii . 24, 25, iii . 1 2, 1 3, 22, v . 1 7—1 9,

viii . 15, ix . 7—1 0, x i . 1—1 0 (ex c . 9 b) , x ii . 1 b—7 . It is not a

solution of his difficulties ; it is far frombeing a philosophy, ora theory of life . It is a mere modus oioendi—a contrivance

allowed him by God whereby he shall not much remember the

1 This verse has been included, with much hesitation, among the words Of

Koheleth, on account of the characteristic expressions“ man knoweth

If the words are his,theymay have been placed here because the first clause

the fool multiplies words is similar in thought to the meshalim in t o. 1 2, 1 3 .

But the first clause is entirely unconnected with the two which follow and the

verse interrupts the series Of complaints against the government with which

Koheleth closes his review of the troubles of life.

KOHELETH’S THOUGHTS 21

days of his life, (v . In ix . 10,x i . 1 the thought of

industry predominates, and in the rest of the above passagesthe thought Of pleasure . But both are commended becauselife is a vapour which will soon vanish in the murky days Of

darkness . ”

5. The . integrity of the book.

A . The picture of his own mind Which Koheleth unco’

n

sciously d raws—his well-nigh dead faith in the God of his

fathers,and blind gropings after truth, combined with his pity

for suffering men,and despairing indignation at human wrongs

—has fascinated thinkers in all subsequent ages .But that which attracts also repels . Koheleth

’s words were

SO entirely at variance wi th orthodox Jewish thought,that

many were afraid of the book . They shrank from its boldexpression of facts all the more timidly because the facts wereonly too true to experience . And they held up in opposition toit the time-worn utterances of orthodox belief . An instance ofthis has survived in the Book of Wisdom

,in which the writer

clearly combats some of Koheleth’s sayings ; and as late as the

close of the l st century A .D .,doubts were entertained in rabbinic

circles as to the advisability of retaining the book in the Canon .

It seems probable that it would have been thrust out of sight

as altogether heretical,had it not been for the action Of an

unknown admirer,who

‘ edited ’ it,and commended it

,to the

public .

'

He emphasised the Solomonic authorship ; the statement in i . 1 2

,I,Koheleth

,was king over Israel in Jerusalem

,

”

enabled him to prefix i . 1 , The words Of Koheleth, the son ofD avid

,king in Jerusalem . He then summed

‘

up the burdenof the book in i . 2, x ii . speaking edi torially of Koheleth inthe third person, and using the strengthened expressionVanity

’

of vanities,” which occurs nowhere in the body of

the book . Finally,he added a postscript, x ii . 9

,1 0 (again

referring to the writer in the third person) , enlarging upon

the value andwisdom of Koheleth-Solomon’s proverbial maxims

and words of truth by which he taught the'

people .

22 THE INTEGRITY

B . Such a writingwould naturally create a great stir, and

be widely discussed,especially if the suggestion be correct that

the writer held a high position in the statel. Instead of its

being thrust out of sight as heretical, attempts were made to‘ improve

’ it . The period was that in which thought wasgoverned by ‘ wise One Of these appears to

'

have beenattracted by those parts of the book which wore a gnomic and

philosophical dress ; and, led by the ascription to Solomon,the

father of the wise,and by the reference to his proverbs in

xii . 9,1 0

,he sought to enrich the writing by the addition of

meshalim—more or less isolated apophthegms bearing on life and

nature—perhaps culled from various sources . Some of these seemto be suggested by Koheleth

’S words

,and correct or enlarge upon

his remarks,but many are thrown in at random with no kind of

relevance. In every case their frigid didactic style is in strongcontrast to the heat and sting of Koheleth’S complaints .They are as followsiv . 5.

“ The fool foldeth his hands and eateth his own flesh .

Koheleth complains in or . 4, 6 that successful work provokesj ealousy ; peaceful poverty is, therefore, better than troubledwealth . And the wiseman inserts

,as a corrective

,a mashal on

slothfulness .iv . 9—1 2 . On the advantages of company . This follows

upon KOheleth’s complaint of the solitariness of his life.

vi . 7 .

“ All the labour Of man is for his mouth,and yet the

appetite is not filled . Inserted,with no apparent reason, in

the middle of Koheleth’s remarks on the unprofitableness of a

long life because all men must die .

vi . 9 a .

“B etter is the sight Of the eyes than the roaming

of the appetite . S imilar in thought to the last ; possibly

placed here owing to in o . 8,but it has no connexion with

Koheleth’S thought .vii . 1 a .

“ A name [i . e . honour and renown] is better than

ointment 3 . ” A fragment of a mashal,quite irrelevant to the

context ; apparently inserted here only because the form

1 See § 3 , pp . 9 , 1 0 .

2 See article ‘Wisdom bySiegfried inHastings’B .D . , and WisdomLiterature

by Toy in Encycl . B ibl .

3 The verse should probably be read : mm 0 1 ” ammun D2) 11m“

l5m DVD (see note in

OF THE BOOK 23

was parallel to that of the three following aphorisms of

Koheleth . The play on the words as and nowmay be comparedwith nwonand run in the next insertion of the ‘ wise man .

’

vii; 4—6. The frivolous laughter and merriment of foolscontrasted

,in three me

shalim,with the conduct of the wise l .

Inserted as:

an enlargement upon the thought of co . 1 b—3 .

But the spirit'

of thesemeshalim is quite different to Koheleth’S

bitterness when he,states that sorrow is more fitting than

merriment to the miserable heart Of man .

vii . 7 . For Oppression maketh a W ISC man mad,and a gift

destroyeth the heart . ” The,

1 : has no connexion with whatprecedes, and shews that the mashal was taken from someother source .

vii . 8,9 . Two me

shalim On angry quarrelling and fretfulness .vii . 1 0 . Mashal on discontent .

vii . 1 1 , 1 2 . Two meshalim on wi sdom aud ' its value . Notice

that the thought of 1 1 b,1 2 b is Opposed toKoheleth

’s conclusion

that wisdom can bring no real advantage to its possessors (seeIi . 14—16

,vi .

vii . 1 9 . Mashal onwisdom . This,wi th 1 8 b (see below) ,

interrupts the connexion of o . 20 with co . 16—1 8 a .

viii . 1 . Mashal on wisdom,irrelevant to the context .

ix . l 7—x . 3 . Five meshalim on wisdom and folly

,evidently

suggested by Koheleth’s apologue of the poor man whosewi sdom was despised .

x . 8—1 1 . Four meshalim which teach that men must Suffer

the results of their own actions or negligence . There is not

the slightest traceable connexion with the preceding words ofKoheleth .

x . 1 2—15.

'

Four meshalim on fools and their talk . [11 . 14

may possibly be a remark of Koheleth . Seex . 1 8 . Mashal on s lothfulness arising out of Koheleth

’s

description of nobles feasting in the morning.

x . 1 9 . Mashal on the value Of moneycompared with thatof feasting .

Having inserted these scattered proverbs into the body of

the book, the wise man’added at the ‘

end a postscript of hisown (xii . 1 1 , describing the valu e of: the words . of the wise,

1 Szmfi l’ 1331 a gloss . See note on the fol lowing page.

24 THE INTEGRITY

which are thrown into the form of short pithy remarks, and are

like goads and nails ; they are grouped into collections,but

proceed ultimately from ‘

one shepherd,’i . e . Solomon . It is

better to learn from these,than to wade through

,the multitude

Of bookswhich are constantly being written .

C . These maxims of worldly wisdom,though thoroughly

in accord with the religious thought of the time,were not

,in

any strict sense, religious . They helped to bear out thesuperscription and the postscript which Koheleth

’s editor

,

or advertiser,

’had prefixed to his work ; and thus

,in sup

porting the claim to Solomonic authorship , they were of use in

preserving the book from oblivion . But far more was neededif it was to be safely used by the orthodox . Itmust be madeto give explicit statements which should fall into line with theaccepted tenets of relig ion . This was done by a pious JewOn

'

e Of the Hasidim whose spirit afterwards appeared in the

Maccabees . He moves in a calm untroubled path of relig iousconviction

,far removed from Koheleth’s stormy brooding s .

All the additions which he makes to the book centre roundtwo chief thoughts : (1 ) the paramount duty of fearing and

pleasing God, and (2) the certainty of God’s judgment on

those who do not fear and please Him . The portions whichappear to be due to him are seldom complete in themselves ;

d on toKohel’

eth’s remarks

,sometimes separating

intended to be joined . In every caset opposition toKoheleth

’s spirit, if not

ii . 26on the senjoy thto know

,

he (24and inserts theknowledge andis allowed thegive them to the

1 The addition flfi Jmust be a later gloss . It is meaningless in connex ion

’

with ofKoheleth or of theHasid . This , and

the similar addition in be the only instancesof glosses intros

ted in its triple form .

as just fallen back,for the first time

,

nothing better for man than to

it,and Koheleth himself Ought

a better opportunity of judging thanstrong ly Objects to this conclusion,

mark that God’s gift of wisdom and

is a reward of piety ; but the sinnerg up riches, only that he may

OF THE BOOK 25

iii . 14b . Koheleth is brooding over the eternal and unalterable work Oi God (14a) , as it shews itself in the cycle of

phenomena The Hasid feels no difficulty in it . B etween

the.

two halves of Koheleth’s complaint he inserts the stern

dictum and God hath'

wrought that men may fear before

Him.

”

iii . 1 7 . Koheleth complains that wickedness usurps the

place Of judgment and righteousness (1 6) and his conclusionis that God lets it be

,for the purpose of Shewing men that they

are beasts But the conviction of theHasid is very different .As in c . 14

,he anticipates Koheleth

’s conclusion

,catching up

his phrase 1

“I said in my heart,

”and declares that “

God willjudge the righteous and the wicked, for a time [i . e . of judgment] there is for every occupation and for every woriv . 1 7—v . 6 [E.V. v . 1 This is the only section of the

Hasid’s work which does not immediately correct Koheleth . It

inculcates sincerity in sacrificing,a reverent reticence in prayer,

and the strict performance Of vows,ending with the all

important command “ fear thou God .

”

vii . 1 8 b . Koheleth has complained that the righteous man

often perishes In his righteousness, while the wicked man livesa long life in his wickedness Do not

,then (he advises) ,

be over-righteous but,at the same time

,do not run to the

opposite extreme and ruin the chances of the present by beingfoolishly over-wicked Keep in the safe comfortable meanbetween the two (1 8 a) But here the Hasid sweeps away thisworldly compromise : for he that feareth God shall be quit

[i . e . shall do the right thing] from every point of view .

”

vii . 26b . Koheleth is troubled by the badness of women,

and their fatal fascination (26a) , and the Hasid inserts thereligious remark “ He that pleaseth God shall escape from her,but a sinner shall be captured by her .

vii . 29 . Koheleth’s sweeping stricture on men and women

(28) appears to the Hasid to condemn God’s own handiwork .

So he maintains (echoing Koheleth’s“ I have found ” ) that

man has deliberately departed from the original purity and

uprightness with which God endowed him .

viii . 2 b,3 ab

,5,6a . Koheleth advises submission to the

despotism Of the king (2 a, 3 b , But the Hasid,who knows

that the king’s service often clashes with God’s service

,is

1 Omitting a? (see note‘ in

26“

THE INTEGRITY

anxious to enter a proviso. But on account of [your] oathto God be not frightened

‘

; out of his (the king’s) presence shalt

thou go2

; persist not-

in an evil thing .

”And again “ Whoso

keepeth the [Divine] command, mm,

will countenance no evilthing . And he continues that a wise man will realise that

”

a

time and judgment are coming : for a time and judgment therevsu

'

ll be for every occupation .

This is the only passage inwhich an insertion of the Hasid

appears to have altered words of Koheleth . The words“ because the mmof man is great upon him

” may be con

nected equally,well with the foregoing or with the following

words . In the former case they belong to the Hasid,and

fish means‘ wickedness ’ in the latter they belong to Koheleth,

andmmmeans ‘ misery .

’But in either case Koheleth’S thought

in co . 7,8 has no connexion whatever with any of the preceding

verses,and yet is introduced by "3 . Perhaps the simplest

explanation would be that Koheleth originally began a new

complaint with the words the misery of man is great uponhim

,for he knoweth and that the Hasid

'

added thefirst 13 , adapting the phrase to suit his own statement about thetime and judgment .

viii . 1 1—1 3 . To Koheleth’s complaint that the wicked are

honoured after their death,and Courted during their life, the

Hasid adds that men are wicked becausetheir sentence is longin coming ; but however long and prosperous a sinner

’s lifemay be, yet he knows that it will be well with those who fearGod

,and not well with the wicked .

x i . 9 b,xii . 1 a . Koheleth falls back, for the last time, on

the position“ Live for

,the present, while old age and death

draw not nigh (x i—xii . And here the Hasid throws in hislast warning s : but know that for all these God will bringthee into judgment

3 but remembenthy Creator in the daysof thy youth .

This latter clause breaks the connexion of Koheleth’S thought .x i . 1 0 a

“And remove vex ationmthy flesh ” is evidently in

close connexion with “ before the evil days the

phrase“for youth and the prime

“

of life are vanity ” being a

parenthesis .1 Making no break between or . 2 and 3 .

2 ContrastKoheleth ’sadvice in x .

3 This judgment is not necessarily for condemnation . In his last fragment ,

theHasid foretel ls a judgment for good works as well as bad (x ii .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

28 THE INTEGRITY

-Moreover the theory of the unity of authorship affords noexplanation of the miscellaneous proverbs wedged into chaps .iv .

—x .,which breathe neither doubt nor faith . It is difficult to

conceive of any state of mind which could g ive vent,for

example, to the three successive paragraphs iv . 9—1 2,iv . 1 3—16

and iv . 1 7—v . 6. And,lastly

,it offers no solution of the dif

ficulties of the epilogue x ii . 9—14.

The ingenious theory whereby B ickell maintains the unitycf authorship

‘ stands by itself . It is accepted entire by DilloninScep tics of the Old Testament. He re-arranges

2 the book as

follows (the subdivisions of his analysis being omitted)

THE WORTH or EXISTENCE.

A . The nanitybf its sup posed unconditioned good .

1 . Proposition . i . 1—1 1 . 1 1 .

2. P roof .

(i) v . 9—vi . 7,iii . 9

,1 2

,1 3 . Possession and enjoyment made

possible thereby .

(ii) 1 1 1 . 1 0,1 1

,14—22

,iv .

‘

1—8. Knowledg e ; its limitednature and discouraging results .

(iii) ii . 1 2—16, iii . 1—8, viii . 6—14, 16—1 7 b, ix . 1—3,viii . 15.

Wisdom as a relig ious-moral sentiment.

(iv) 1 x . 1 1—1 8, vi . 8,1 1—1 2. Wisdom as prudence and

practical ability .

B . Recommendation of proportional good .

1 . Wisdom .

(i) vii . 1 - 6,vi . 9

,W 1 . 7—1 0

,1 3 1 2

,21

,22

,30

,iv . 9—16.

as Self-restraint .

(ii)‘

iv . 1 7—v . 6,as the Fear of God .

(iii) v . 7,8,x . 16—20

,x i . 1—3, 6, 4, 5, as Industry .

(iv) vii . 23—29,viii . 1—4

,x . 2—14a

,15

,as Discretion .

2 . P leasures of Life . x . 14b,ix . 3—1 0

,x i . 7—x ii . 8 .

1 He is obliged, however, to assign some words and expressions to redactor'

s ;

and he does not include the epilogue in his scheme .

2 The first writer who suggested dislocations in the book was van der Palm ,

Ecclesiastes phi lologies et cri tice i l lustratus,Leyden, 1 784. Haupt, Orienta l

Studies; pp . 242—278 , though his re arrangement of the book is not of such a

wholesale description as that of B ickel l , thinks that the original writing was

disarranged deliberately, and marred by numerous glosses .

OF THE BOOK 29

This result is arrived at by the supposition of an accidentto a Hebrew manuscript, whereby sheets were placed in a

wrong order,and some turned inside out. But the theory is .

also assisted by arbitrary transpositions of single verses and

half verses . Moreover the final result does not come up to

expectations, and some passages need force to fit them intq

the scheme ; e . g . viii . 1 2, 1 3 occur in a passage which B ickelltakes to shew the vanity of Wisdom as a religious-moral sentiment owing to “ the want of preference accorded to

\

the righteousin the fate of life and death ”

! Again,the accident to the

manuscript involves the splitting asunder of only a single verse

(x . and that exactly at the end of a clause . That is to say

that B ickell chooses to transpose 14b and 15,and says that the

present arrangement is due to an editor who re-arranged thebook

,and thought that city should be connected with “ land ”

which occurred in the first verse of the next sheet in the accidentmanuscript .But apart from all such inherent objections

,there is the

improbability of the existence of a Hebrew manuscript incodex form at the early date at which the accident must have

occurred . The codex form came into general use not earlierthan the 4th century A .D . and certainly did not exist beforethe Christian era

’

. The book of Koheleth was well known and

minutely discussed long before the Christian era ; and if it was

translated into Greek (at whatever date the translation was

made) according to. the new accidental ’ order,it is incon

ceivable that no notice should have been taken of the change .

Other writers,without having recourse to theories of dis

location, have allowed that interpolations have been made in a

few isolated passages . For example, Peake (Art .‘

Ecclesiastes ’

in Hastings’ B .D . ) sums up a section on the integrity of the book

by saying It seems on the whole most probable that at leastx ii . 1 a, 1 3, 14 are later interpolations (assuming that thyCreator ’ is correctly read in x ii . 1 a) , and possibly also iii . 1 7and x i . 9 Similarly A . B . Davidson (Art .

‘

Ecclesiastes ’ inEncycl . Bibl . ) holds

'

that xi . 9 b is probably an addition,and

x ii . l certainly ; but that there is less objection to iii . 1 7 ; alsothat viii . 1 0

,1 2

,are in some way corrupt .

”And he admits

1 See Birt, D as antike B achwesen, ch . 2 and p . 373 . B lau, Studien z am

althebrc’

iischen Buchwesen, Theil 1 , ch . 2 and p . 60 .

30 THE INTEGRITY

that in a book such as Ecclesiastes,

—the line of thought and

(particularly) the tone of which diverg e so greatly from the

other O.T. writings—it was to be expected that there would besome interpolations : qualifications which the reader or scribefelt constrained to add to the author’s somewhat strong statements . ”

This is the (right) principle which underlies the treatment of the book by Siegfried

’. Other writers have con

demned one or two verses and phrases ; but they have leftuntouched the mass of contradictions and abrupt transitionsof tone of which the book is full . Siegfried

,on the other hand

,

is unnecessarily ruthless in his dissection .

His scheme is as followsKoheleth himself

'

(Q1

) was a pessimistic philosopher, whosebook would have disappeared, had it not been ' rescued bySolomon’s name at the beginning .

The first interpolator (Q2

) was an Epicurean Sadducee herecommends the pleasures of eating and drinking as the re

compense for all men’s troubles ; life is sweet, and busy workaffords real enjoyment; the extravagancies of Pharisaic religionare to be avoided . Kraetz schmar (Th. LZ . Sept . thoughhe questions the rest of Siegfried’s analysis, accepts the distinction between Q

1and Q

2. But Siegfried himself helps to

throw doubt on the distinction . He assigns iii . 22, viii . 15

,

among other passages, to Q2

,but 1 1 . 24a

,iii . 1 2 to Q

1

,explaining

that Koheleth shews (ii . 3, 1 0, 1 7, 1 8, 20) that his meaning isthat there is no genuine pleasure to be had at all . But is itreasonable to say that the advice there is nothing better thanto enjoy lif e ” is from Q

’in two

‘

passages, and from Q2in two

others ? It has been shewn in the last chapter that this conclusion with regard to the enjoyment of life is an integral

portion of his complaints .The second interpolator (Q

3

) was a Hakam, or

‘ wise man,

’

who(puts a high value upon wisdom,

in opposition to Koheleth .

The interpolations l of a‘ wise man

’ have been noted above,

pp . 22,23 ; but that enumeration agrees with Siegfried’s only in

respect to iv . 5, vi . 9 a, vii . 1 1 , 1 2, 1 9, viii . 1,x . 1—3

,1 2—15.

Some of the passages which Siegfried assigns to him (ii . 1 3,14a

,vi . 8

,ix . 1 3—1 8) are altogether

;in the style of Koheleth

I

1 In Handkommentar z umAT.

OF THE BOOK 31

they introduce the personal element, the disappointment at the'lack of advantage and appreciation accorded to the wise ; theyform part of Koheleth

’s picture of the wrongs of the world .

The third interpolator (Q4

) is a Hasid—a pious Jew,who

was strongly opposed toKoheleth’s statementsabout the Divine

government of the world‘

. This 1 s accepted 1n substance above,

pp . 24—26.

Under the designation Q5 Siegfried includes several other

interpolators, who inculcate general moral maxims of proverbial

wi sdom . But in this multiplying of interpolators few will follow

him. If the Hakam could contrast wise men and fools in such

proverbs as ii . 14a, ix . 1 7,x . 2

,1 2

,why should vii . 5

,6a be

denied him ? If he could describe the action of the fool in

iv . 5, x . 3,why not in v1 1 . 9 ? There is nothing improbable in

supposing that all the isolated proverbs which do not form part

of Koheleth’s complaints are added by one hand

,though the

Hakam may, of course,have collected them from various

sources,as

,indeed

,his postscript implies that he did .

Siegfried adds that the whole writing i . 2—x ii . 7 was editedby a redactor, with a heading i . 1 , and a closing formula x ii . 8 ;

and that x ii . 9 , 1 0, x ii . 1 1 , 1 2 and x ii . 1 8,14 are three further

additions . He does not suggest ,the source of the two former

of these couplets ; but he makes the strange statement thatxii . 1 3

,14 betray a Pharisee who believes in a judgment

hereafter,which Q

4 the Hasid (iii . 1 7 x i . 9 b) knows not of .

”

It is difficult to see how the verses bear out this distinction .

Kraetz schmar,in reviewing Siegfried’s work

,says “

it is

questionable whether Siegfried will find many followers in hisextreme interpolation theory . It is a right idea overstrainedin the endeavour

.

to explain all the difficulties m the

But the unravelling is done with energy,and will incite to

further investigation from this point of view . The analysisgiven above, in this and the preceding chapter, is an attempt

at further investigation,incited by Siegfried

’s interesting com

mentary .

1 Lauer ('

Das Bach Koh. and die Interpolationshypothese Siegfmed’

s , Wittenberg , ,1 900) agrees with all Siegfried

’s passages except viii . 2

—4, x i . 5, whichhe thinks are from an independentwriting . B ickell assigns some passages toR1a z ealot hostile to the book.

32 THE STYLE

6. The style and vocabulary.

The book of Koheleth is unlike any-other Hebrew writing

in its style and subject-matter . It has, indeed, some affinitiesof thought with the book of Proverbs l (there are manyin the additions of the wise man and of the Hasid) ; and

some of the problems which troubled Koheleth, troubled the

Writers of Job and a few of the Psalms such as xxxvii .,xlix .

and lxxiii . But under the stress of keen disappointment, andindignation at the wrong s of the world, his style has a stingingsarcasm

,a tendency to epigram,

a moan in it,which is unique

in Hebrew literature . At the same time he is capable of real

poetic feeling, as the Opening2and the close of his writing shew,

i . 2—1 1 , x ii . 1 b—7 . This intense originality raised him far abovethe literary level of his day . The fact that two contemporarywriters

,totally unlike him in style and tone

,were anxious to

perpetuate his work, is a proof of the high regard in which itwas held . If it is compared with the almost contemporarywriting of B en Sira (which was highly thought of

,and may

be taken as representative of the literature of the last twocenturies the strong originality of Koheleth’s work standsout in high relief . Schechter 3 points out the artificial or Paitanictendency betrayed by Ben Sira’s quotations and adaptationsfrom canonical writing s . His success in producing a work‘the predominant character

’of which ‘

is classical,

’ be

ascribed to the author’s knowledge of the Bible, the languageand style of which he wasconstantly copying , whilst his mostadmired boldness

“

and freedom in employing B iblical phrases

is in most cases nothing more than a mere Paitanic artificiality

so common in post-B iblical Hebrew poetry . In fact B . S . shouldrather be described ,as the first of the Paitanim than as one

of the last of the canonical writers . Now although Kohelethcannot have been prior to B . Sira by much more than a

quarter of a century,he has not a trace of this Paitanic style ;

there is scarcely a single passage in his own portions of the

1 Compare vn . 26with the warnings againstworrien in Prov. vi . 26b , vii . 6—27ix . 9 with Prov. v. 1 8 ; x . 4with Prov. xvi . 14; x . 7 with Prov. xix . 1 0 b .

2 For a metrical analysis of ch . i . see H . Grimme,

‘ Abriss der Biblisch

hebraischen Metrik,

’Z DMG. 1 897 , 689 f.

3 In his edition of the Geniz ah fragments, Introd . pp . 1 2- 38 .

AND VOCABULARY 33

book which can be called a quotation, ‘ or even adaptation,from

the B ible ‘ . The contrast,therefore

,between his nervous in

tensity and independence of thought,and the artificiality of

the “many books ” which were being composed around him

,

must have been very pronounced .

But it is not only in regard to quotations that Kohelethforms a contrast with B . Sira .

_

Schechter goes on to point outthat though B . Sira tried hard to imitate the Scriptures, hefailed in the end .

“In unguarded moments such phrases,

idioms, particles and peculiar constructions escaped him as to

furnish uswith a sufficiently strong number of criteria,betraying

the real character of the language of his time .

”'

Koheleth,who

is no imitator,and who writes the language of his time out of

the fulness of his heart,does not make the slightest pretensions

to classical Hebrew . The Hebrew language, which had been

pure enough for some time after the return from Babylon,

began to decay from the time of Nehemiah . The memoirs ofEz ra and Nehemiah

,and (in a less degree) the writing of

Malachi,shew signs of the change,

“ which is still more palpablein the Chronicles (end of the 4th cent . 'Esther

,and

three books named do not,however, exhibit

these peculiarities in equal proportions ; Ecclesiastes has themost striking Mishnic idioms ? ” For the Aramaic and Mishnic

peculiarities to be found in Koheleth, reference should be madeto the glossary in D elitz sch

’s commentary

,or to Wright’s

Ecclesiastes, pp . 488 ff . See also Siegfried

’s commentary,

pp . 1 3—23 .

The linguistic peculiarities of Koheleth are one of the safestcriterions for fixing a date after which the book must havebeen written . It must be later (probably much later) thanEsther

,whi ch is usually dated 0 . 300 And it will be seen

in the next chapter that a terminus ad quem is supplied by theuse made of the book by Ben Sira .

1 iii . 20 is a reference to Gen . iii . 1 9 ; and v. 14 is

possibly a reminiscence

of Job i . 21 .

2 Driver,Intr . O.T. pp . 473 f. See also pp. 444fi .

34 THE RELATION OF KOHELETH TO B . SIRA

7. The relation of Koheleth to B . Sira and the

B ook of Wisdom.

1 . To former commentators on Koheleth only the'

versionsof B . Sira’s work were available

,together with a few small

fragments of the orig inal preserved by Rabbini c wri ters . But

since the discovery of large portions of the Hebrew text,a

more trustworthy comparison between the two books has beenmade possible . There can be no room for doubt that B . Siraknew not only Koheleth’s original writing

,but also the later

additions made to it . According to his custom he does notquote verbatim but he adapts several phrases, altering themto suit his context . In many cases it is quite evident that it ishe who is borrowing from Koheleth, and not vice uersd. Thefollowing list of passages will shew theextent and nature of hisindebtedness ’

Koheleth .

mm1mmmrm» nwrSanma

xxxix

aw rmwpmnm‘asm"

iii . 20,21 warn in rm

warn5s aw53m

ms rmvw to mm 5s Dfi DD"new

a‘aru

‘p s in n

‘pwn

nnnnnmm

rwsS'

nnpSwn nw n

1 The references to B . Sira are numbered according to Swete’s edition of

the LXX .

2 Schechter’s probable conjecture for which , however, Peters retains.

3

4 QB [cal 6 9669 (”m-noel 7 6V 6mx6uevov, following B . Sira’s thought of the

avenging of the persecuted, cf . B . Sir. QE6 '

yc‘

tp mi

ptos élcdmc'

bv‘éxdcmjaec 0

'

s .

5 Cf. x ii .

6 Q5duo1566.e els 0dkaaaau=D1 5x 1317379 , cf. Koh . i . 7 .

B . Sira .

was won"nr 0 :

16 mm as: St: mm

mo» my: my

33 own 135: new:

pushy ] my: Tm:

mew span W» m

me » was Sat ram 5:

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

36 THE RELATION OF KOHELETH TO B . SIRA

Koheleth . B . Sira .

V111 . 1 2 us 117 1 ” DJ ”3 i , 1 3 fi g? ¢oBovuévc9 76Vmiptov 613

nm'psn new“; 3mmmwas 30 7 0 “ G’

W’

e"wW W

zma‘m an” was

515» 1: you won x xv1 1 . 26 6 dpv‘

ovwv fio’

epov sis3 A

av-rov e

’

uweo evra il.

was fin” ! X X X Vl l . 23 dvijp G arbo; rov éav‘

roii

o

Dil l-12

nx my“ 7 7351 11” AGOV WGLSGUO’

GL.

To the above instances may be appended one from (thefirst Alphabet or Acrostic of B . Sira (given in Cowley and

Neubauer, pp . xxviii . f .

,and Dukes’ Rabbinische B lumenlese

,

p . Many of the aphorisms in this collection are undoubtedlyspurious : but some have been shewn to be genuine by thediscovery of the Hebrew fragments, and this may therefore begenuine also.

manus By 1 73 1-15nSw 3

s »: ms 51: 1nn‘7 pm

ussen own na r: was am: at men rum

But besides the passages in which there is a more or less

close approximation in language, there are not a few m whichBen Sira has echoes of Koheleth

’s thoughts . Several of these

are noted by Wright (Ecol . pp . 41 but a few of his in

stances must be discarded,B . Sira’s meaning having been

made clearer by the Hebrew text . The following,however

,

deserve consideration

Koh . i . 4. B . S . x iv . 1 8 As leaves grow upon a‘

1

green tree,whereof one withereth and another

,springeth up

so of the generations of flesh and blood, one perisheth and

another ripeneth .

”

Koh . iii . 7 . B, S. xx . 6,7 There is one that is

silent because he cannot answer,and there is one that is silent

1 Perhaps from Prov. xxvi . 27 , the latter hal f of which appears to have

suggested B . S . xxvii . 27 . 05Koh . is identical with B . S.

2 Q5Tor dvfipwirov.

3 Dukes snwmm. See also earlier in the Alphabet

newcan as Snnvpnw (fl an) w: s‘n

"m,i . e. let him take to trading .

AND THE BOOK OF WISDOM 37

because he seeth [it is] time (np) . A wise man is silent untilthe time

,but a fool observeth not the time .

”

Koh . iv . 8 b . B . S . x iv . 4 He that depriveth (win)his soul '

,gathereth for another ; and in his good things

(manna) shall a stranger revel .”

Koh . v . 1 (E. V . v .

“ Therefore let thy words be few .

B . S . vii . 14“And repeat not (tr/ ”n 58 ) a word in a

prayer .”

Koh . v . 2,6 (E. V . v . 3

,7) on the emptiness of dreams, of .

B . S . xxxi . 1—7Koh . v . l l b v . 1 2 b) . The abundance of the rich

wi ll not suffer him to sleep .

”B . S . xxxiv . 1

“ Thewakefulness of the rich wasteth his flesh his care dissipatethslumber . ”

Koh . vii . 8 b .-B . S . v . 1 1 In patience of spirit

(rm 1m) return answer . ”

Koh . vii . 14. HS. xxxvi . 14,15 Over against the

evil is the good, and over against death is life ; so over againsta pious man is a sinner . And thus look at all the works of theMost High, two and two

,one over against the other . ” See also

xlii . 24.

Koh . viii . 4b . B . S . xxxiii . 1 0 b (Syr . only) . For who

shall say unto thee What doest thou ? ” But of . Job ix . 1 2 .

Koh . ix . 16. B . S . xiii . 22 c d “A poor man speaketh2

,

and they hoot at him 3 though he be wise that Speaketh, thereis no place for him .

”

Koh . xi . 1 0 . BS . x x x . 23 a b Rejoice thy soul,and

make thy heart joyful ; and put vexation far from thee .

”

2 . The use made of Koheleth by Ben Sira is important asa landmark for arriving at Koheleth’s date .

The allusions to it in Wisdom are also important, but for a

different reason . They afford an illustration of the light inwhich the book was regarded by the pious . As the Hasid

annotator sometimes catches up Koheleth’s language in order to

oppose him,so (even more strikingly) the writer of Wisdom

puts his thoughts, and his very wording, into the mouth of the

1 Cf. Koh. 1 1 . 1 0 .

2 So Syr . 151133 Heb . QE.

3 VJVJ Cf. Is . xxviii . 1 0 .

38 THE RELATION oE’

KOHELETH ,To B . SIRA

ungodly, and raises his protest against them . In Wisdom,

unlike Ben Sira, all the allusions are placed together in a con

tinuous passage 1—9) as follows :

Koheleth . Wisdom

u . 1 . For they [the ungodly i . 16] saidwithin themselves

,reasoning

not rightly,

1 1 . 23,v . 1 7 . Short and sorrowful is our life,

And there is no healing at a man’s

end,

viii . 8 . And none was ever known who

released from Hades .iii . 1 9

,ix . 1 1 . u. 2 . B ecause by mere chance (airf ooxe

Bio s) were we born,And hereafterwe shall be as thoughwe had never been ;

Because a smoke is the breath inour nostrils

,

And reason is a spark in2 the

beating of our hearts,3 . Which being quenched

,the body

shall be turned into ashes,

And the spirit shall be dispersed

,

as thin air .

i . 1 1,1 1 . 16

,ix . 5. u. 4. And our name shall be forgotten

in time,

And no one shall remember our

works ;And our life shall pass away likethe track of a cloud

,

1 1 . 1 1 etc . And shall be scattered as a mistChased by the beams of

'

the sunAnd by its heat overcome .

"

vi . 1 2. u. 5. For our life is the passmg of a

shadow,

vi ii . 8 . And there i s no retreating of our

end,

1 Plumptre, pp . 7 1—74, cites several other passages in Wisdom which are in

no sense quotations from Koheleth, or even allusions to his language, though

they are opposed to his spirit.2 i . e. either during , or kindled by.

AND THE BOOK OF WISDOM 39

Koheleth .

viii . 8 .

1 1 . 24etc .

iii . 22,v . 1 8

,9 b .

8 . Greek language and thought.

It has been urged as evidence for a late date of writingthat the book has a strong Greek colouring—that is

,1 st that

it contains Greek idioms and expressions, and 2nd that it issaturated with Greek philosophic thought . These two theoriesare quite distinct and must be treated separately .

1 . The presence of a large number of Graecisms inKoheleth’slanguage was first maintained by D . Z irkel

z

,and he is followed

more or less completely by Kleinert, Graetz , Tyler, Plumptre,Siegfried and Wildeboer 3 . But though Koheleth has a fewexpressions which might have resulted from the prevailingGreek atmosphere of his t1me

,there are none that demand this

explanation ; and several of the instances offered can be tracedto the Greek language only by violence .

i . 3 al . wnwn nnn. Plumptre confidently asserts this to bedue to Greek influence but Kleinert admits that it may be afavourite idiom of the author

,and need not be Greek . Koheleth

1 Kat xpnadmeda frfi k‘

r id et tbs Veé'

rm'

t auovdalws.

“ As in youth”

or“as

belongs to youth .

” But the text may be corrupt.

2 The subject, however, was broached a few years earlier by van der Palm.

3 See Literature at the end of the chapter .

Wisdom .

Because it is sealed, and none

turneth it back .

Come then, and let us enjoy the

good things that exist,

And let us use the created world,

as youth 1 [alone] can, eagerly ;With costly wine and ointmentslet us be filled

,

And let no flower of spring passus by .

Let us crown ourselves with rosebuds ere they be withered ;

Let none of us be without a sharein our wanton revelry

,

Everywhere let us leave tokens ofour mirth,

For this is our portion and this isour lot.

40 GREEK LANGUAGE

varies it with D'Dwn nnn i . 1 3, 1 1 . 3,iii . 1 and 1mm51) viii . 14, 16,

x i . 2 . It is interesting to note that the expression occurs m two

Sidonian inscriptions of the 3rd century B .C .

1

i . 1 3 . am,it

'

is said,must be explained by But

it is good Hebrew for explore .

’ Cf . Num . xiii . 2,16

,1 7

id . 1 hmy sm. Zirkel says that Nm corresponds to theHomeric use of the article as a demonstrative pronoun, and

renders the words ijv doXoMav wovnpo’

w! But this has commendeditself to no other writer .ii . 5. mm. This

,though corresponding to r apo

’

t8ew os,is not

derived from it. Both 2 are derived from the Persian pairidaez a .

om occurs’

also in S . of S . iv . 1 3,Neh . ii . 8

,both of which

books were entirely out of the range of Greek influence .

ii . 14,iii . 1 9

,ix . 2

,3 . mm. van der Palm connects it with

ovuctopd, and it is pointed out that Solon’s reminder to Croesus 3“ Man is altogether ovuqtopn

' ”is a thought parallel to that of

Koheleth . But mp7: in the sense of‘mischance

,

’catastrophe ,

’

is not necessarily Greek . The word,indeed

,is colour less in

Ruth ii . 3,but it certainly has a bad sense in 1 Sam . vi . 9

4.

ii . 15 ‘m’ TN. Zirkel renders é’u udhxov. But 18 cannot beequivalent to é

’

n . It means “in these circumstances

,

”as in

Jer . xxii . 15 15am is .

iii . 1 2 . ammwv. Kleinert,Tyler and Siegfried take this

to be a literal,and un-Hebrew

,rendering of 63 updr

‘

rew . It is

true that the ethical sense to lead a good life is vetoed by thefollowing 3m rim,

and is alien to the context . But though itmeans (as does a

”

) to fare well,

’to be in a prosperous

state,

’ it is not necessary to go to the Greek idiom for an ex

planation5. The verb new, as frequently in the book, has the force

of‘

prepare,’ ‘acquire

,

’ ‘arrange for and the expression

implies to pursue a course of action that will bring prosperity,’

as Luther has it sich gu'

tlich thun . Moreover the Opposite

1 Insor . of Tabnith, c . 290 Constantinople, no. 4 in G . A. Cooke’sNorth Semitic Inscrip tions

war) mmmm: W 1513 : 5sInsor . of Eshman- ‘ az ar, c. 275B . C. , Louvre, CIS I . 3, no. 5 in Cooke

wnwnmmmm mm5rn5 “

151 19735me 135iv 5sr apdaewos came into the Greek language through Xenophon.

3 Herod . 1 . 32 .

4 Cf . mpD t. x xiii . 1 1 .

5 Still less to read 3 110 mmwith Graetz , Bickell , Nowack, Cheyne.

AND THOUGHT 41

expression ny'

i newoccurs in 2 Sam . xii . 1 8 with the corre

sponding meaning‘ be in a bad way vex himself . ’

iv . 15.”32m1 5m. Zirkel’s reference to the Greek phrase

Bee—repos roi} Bao tAews is not only unnecessary, but is in conflictwith the straightforward meaning of the words

,which state

that a second youth rose up and took the place of the firstyouth who had succeeded the old and foolish king . The samequestionable interpretation leads Delitz sch (followed byWright)to seek an explanation in the construction Zrepog 763V nadmdv of

Mat. viii . 21 1 .v . an: ans . This, says Zirkel, is a rendering of tadp

yvpos. It might similarly be maintained that the book of

Proverbs contains Graecisms : nnnw ans (xxi . 1 7)nmn ans (xxix .

v . 1 7 . nsr 1 s 3m. Graetz and Pfleiderer strive to maintainthat this represents Raki v Ka

’

ya96V. So Plumptre, Siegfried and

W ildeboer . But it is inconceivable that a writer with thisGreek expression in mind should not have written nan am or

rather 3 1m FIB” . It is very doubtful if um: can thus couple theadj ectives with the meaning good which is also beautiful

,

”

though it is so taken in Q5, Syr . and Tg .

2 It seems necessary,

with Delitz sch,to depart from the Masoretic accentuation

,and

make na’ "

iemresumptive of 3 1 13 ”312?”fi lm “WN—J ‘

B ehold whatI have seen is good—what beautiful namely that one should

v . 1 9 . nnnm navnnin5s v3 . Zirkel suggests that mmhas

the force of remunerari,and has borrowed this meaning from

dueffieoea b which can mean both remunerari and respondere.

Various explanations of the passage are given in the notes .But a very simple one is available—“

God answereth with the

joy of his heart —i . e . God answers his wishes and desires bygiving him joy . Ps . lxv . 6 warn -menu illustrates the meaningof the verb ; but an exact parallel occurs in 1 K. xviii . 24

,

rm: mi nwas nm‘mn.

vi . 9 . 2253 Zirkel compares ipm) Ti}; gbvxfis in M . Aurel .iii . 15, a very late parallel ! But 15.

-i occurs wi th a similar

force ln Job xxxi . 7,Ez . xi . 21 .

1 B ickell and Siegfried omit 13W? ! as a gloss.

2 Hos. x ii . 9 sun “Wt: 11vi s quite difierent. Guilt which is sin =Gui1t

of such a kind as to deserve punishment.

42 GREEK LANGUAGE

vi . 1 2 . new. Zirkel and Graetz refer this to r oce’

iv xpévov

as its only explanation . See notes .vii . 14. nmnan. Kleinert says the connexion between this

and the Greek efinuepc’

a is evident ’ ; Siegfried holds it to bequestionable

,

’and Menz el condemns it as

‘ frivolous . ’ But

what other expression could possibly have been chosen as a

contrast to rimm» ?

vii . 1 8 . at: mx xx» . Zirkel thinks that this can only beexplained by the Greek uécr

'

qv Badlfew. But even if that werethe meaning (which is improbable) , the expression might bequite independent of Greek ; and it would

,in any case

,be a

very awkward way of rendering the Greek idiom . as» is usedin the sense , frequent in later Hebrew,

of‘ being quit Of

,

’or

‘discharging ,

’a duty . Cf . Mish . B ‘

rah. ii . 1, Shabb. i . 3 . If

the view taken above 5) on the composition of the book becorrect

,the clause

(oh m s

-v 1 : is the work of the God-fearing

Jew who introduces such passages as iii . 14b,1 7

,v . 6b .

He sweeps away Koheleth’s bitter worldly wisdom with an

earnest comment in the interests of true religion for hethat feareth

'

God shall be quit of them all,

”i . e . shall fully

accomplish his duty with regard to both sides of the question .

He thus anticipates his final word in xii . 1 3 f . Fear God for

this is mm 53 .

vii . 24. nmwma. Kleinert explains this as the essence of

the thing = 76n'

éo 'rw . But the meaning of the expression is

clearly shewn in i . 9,iii . 15

,vi . 9 , where 76n

’

éa iw is impossible .The words must have the same force in all the passages,

‘ thatwhich has come into existence

,

’i . e . that which is . ’

vii . 28 . ms . This word is usually distinguished from rm: asMensch from Mann . Its use here with the latter meaning i s

explained by Graetz as being due to the Greek dvdpwwos. But

in Gen . ii . 22, 23, 25, iii . 8, 1 2, 1 7, 20, 21 it is Opposed to‘ woman

’

as here ; and the Greek influence is entirely imag inary .

viii . 1 1 . nuns . Zirkel suggests that this is derived from

But e is accidental . e’

u' i'rayjua has also

been pr of the Hebrew word ! Delitz sch

derives it from paigam,Arm . patgam, which is

derived from the sian paiti-gama tidings,’ ‘news . ’

It occurs in Esth .

xii . 1 3 . by the Mishnic formula

ssage .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

44 GREEK THOUGHT

But when Hellenism met Judaism the effects were not all

on one side ; there was action and re-action . Greek thought,like the queen of Sheba

,not only brought g ifts, but gained

much by her presence among the Hebrews . The Stoic school,though it arose on Hellenic soil from public lectures at Athens,was not a purely Greek product . Zeno of Citium

,the first

founder of Stoicism,

'

was of Phoenician descent,and his

adherents and successors came from Hellenistic (as distinctfrom Hellenic) quarters—s uch as Syria

,Cilicia and Pontus,

Seleucia on the Tigris, Sidon, Carthage and other towns ’ .Stoicism

,therefore

,had its roots in the Oriental

,and especially

the Semitic,character . And a careful study of Koheleth’s

thought and language tends to shew,not that he wrote under

the influence of Stoicism or of any other branch of Greek

philosophy, but that as a thinking Jew he had the makings of a

Greek phi losopher . For Judaism and Stoicism could not haveinterpenetrated had there not been a common substratum of

thought to render their juncture possible . It is shewn in

E. Caird’s Evolution of Religion2 that each of the three

religions,Buddhism,

Stoicism and Judaism,was the result

of a development frOm the Objective to the Subjective .

Buddhism rose from the '

polytheistic worship of the powers

of Nature in the Vedic hymns,through the pantheism of the

Upanishads to the religion of Gautama . The Greeks firsthumanised their ancient pantheon—the gods who had personified the powers of Nature becoming gods who personifiedhuman aspirations and virtues ; and thence

,through the

thought of an abstract fate or law of necessity,they passed

to that of Reason, to that ideal of a spiritual principle whichis implied in monotheism. And simi larly

,but on a higher

plane, the Hebrew religion passed from primitive nature

worship, through the worship of an anthropomorphic Deity,to a purely Spiritual conception of God . And thus it is thataffinities can be found between these three religions owing tonatural development, more than to any direct influence of one

upon another 3 . But the Hebrew and the Greek relig ions,1 See article Stoics in Encycl . B ri t.

2 Vol . L , Lectures vii. , x xiii . , xiv.

3 Dillon, Scep tics of the 0 . T. , pp . 1 22—1 29, notes a relationship between

Koheleth and Buddhism,though he offers very small ground for his belief that

Koheleth was acquainted, and to some extent imbued, with the doctrines of

Gautama Buddha.

”

XENOPHANES 45

having advanced with an analogous development, began, in

their later phases, to converge . And thus Koheleth’s affinities

with Greek thought are close and significant . His bookexhibits

,more clearly than any other writing in the Old

Testament, that observant philosophical side of the Semitic

mind from which Stoicism sprang .

It is possible, indeed, to go behind Stoicism,and to compare

his thoughts with a phase of Greek philosophy with which it is

extremely improbable that he had ever come in contact —theteaching of X enOphanes

l

of Colophon, the reputed founder of

the Eleatic school . In the article ‘ Xenophanes in Encycl .

B rit. the position is“

summed up as follows : “ The wisdom of

Xenophanes, like the wisdom of the Hebrew Preacher, showeditself

,not in a theory of

“the universe,but in a sorrowful

recognition of the nothingness of thing s and the futility of

endeavour . His theismwas a declaration not so much of thegreatness of God as rather of the littleness of man . His

cosmology was an assertion not so much of the immutability

of the One as rather of the -mutability of the Many .

” Of thefew utterances of Xenophanes which survive, the followinginvite comparison with Koheleth :

“ From earth all things are,

and to earth all things return . This recalls not onlyKoh .

20,but also his manifold complaints as to the nothingness of

things,the empty vapour of human life

,the uselessness of

striving after wisdom,wealth

,or true happiness, for all things

go to one place .

” Again, Xenophanes has no expectation thatany man can arrive at certain knowledge of anything . No

man hath certainly known,nor shall certainly know

,aught of

that which I say about the gods and about all things : for bethat which he saith ever so perfect, yet doth he not knowThe gods did not reveal all things to mortals in the beginninglong is the search ere man findeth that which is better . ” Thisis a faithful mirror of Koheleth’s despair of arriving at wisdomwith all his searching (vii . 23 f . and viii . and of thescepticism of his reiterated questions Who : knoweth ? Whocan bring a man to see ? Who can tell a man ? (iii . 21 and

vi . With regard to God, Xenophanes appears to be‘

a

theologian rather than a philosopher, a monotheist rather than

1 flor . c . 520

2 By Dr H . Jackson.

46 GREEK THOUGHT

a pantheist—that is if the surviving fragments of his own

words are to be trusted,and not the statements made about

him by later writers . He maintains the unity of God byOpposing polytheism : but this need not imply the pantheisticunity of B eing afterwards taught by his successor Parmenides .And it is exactly on this somewhat colourless monotheism thatKoheleth takes his stand . He has lost the vitality of belief ina personal God, which

‘

inspired the earlier prophets . He neveruses the personal Name JHVH

,but always the descriptive

title ‘Elohim or

‘the Elohim ’ l—the

’

Deity who‘

manifestsHimself in the cosmic forces of Nature . At the same time henever commits himself to any definitely pantheistic statements,though some of his utterances shew that if he had come intoimmediate contact with any of the later Greek schools hewould probably have moved in that direction

f. Koheleth thus

occupies (what may be called) debateable ground betweenSemitic and Greek thought . And it is possible that if moreof Xenophanes

’ writing s were extant they might afford theclosest parallel to that of the Hebrew thinker . But as it is,a more fruitful comparison can be drawn wi th the teaching of

the Stoics, of whom a fairly extensive knowledge is available .At the outset it should be noticed that Koheleth does not

shew the slightest trace of any borrowing from the Stoicterminology ? It is true that for some expressions it wouldbe difficult to find Hebrew equivalents . But had he comeinto immediate contact wi th Stoicism

,he could not have

failed to shew some lingui stic traces of its influence . But thisdoes not affect the possibili ty of his Hebrew mind containing

g erms of Stoic ideas .In iii . 1 0 f . he says that though man cannot discover God’s

work from beginning to end,yet a5irnhas been pieced in his

heart ; he is endued with an innate longing to gaz e intoeterni ty ; he has in him something of the Infini te . Thi sthought, if carefully guarded, would not transgress the monotheism of the Jew . The writer of the 8th Psalm could rejoicethat man has been made to lack but little of Divinity

mn‘mn torn inwonm. And yet there is but a step from this to

1 See p . 1 5.

2 See below.

3 Cheyne mentions eluapuévn, 1rp6vota, (tat/rac ial , qui

ets, tantrums, aper ij, -to

which might be added 7 6 tr oxeluevov, 6X1) , dflwua , re inl euomxéu, xpdms, out/cuts,

hb’yos (ratio), al‘

r la, and others.

STOICISM 47

Stoic monism . God or Zeus is for the Stoic the world-soul, the

all-pervading principle, the fiery and ethereal Pneuma, which

is identical with the Universe so that man is a limb , a part, of

the Universal Being . The Infinite has been placed within

him . Thus the Jewish philosopher Koheleth who had“ eternity

in his heart ” foreshadowed the Jewish philosopher Spinoz a

who viewed thing s sub specie aeternitatis .

A direct corollary Of Pantheism is Determinism . Sinceeverything is derived from—since everything is—universal law

and reason,every event, action, or phenomenon, is an inevitable

result in the changeless causal connexion which governs theuniverse . There is no room for the free responsible action of

any individual . And Koheleth,though he beats against the

bars,feels that escape is impossible from the prison house of

Fate . His book is full of this complaint . In iii . 1—9 he shewsthat every action

,lying between the moment of a man

’s birthand the moment of his death, must occur at a fixed time—fix ednot by himself but by the Universal Cause of all things , whichis God ; man

,therefore

,can hope for no solid result dependent

on himself what profit can accrue to a worker from his

labours ? ” This Universal Cause is infinitely stronger thanman

,so that it is useless to contend with it (vi .

“ A

crooked thing cannot be set right,and a defect cannot be

numbered ” (i . 15, vii .“Everything which God doeth

shall be for ever ; to it nothing can be added,and from it

nothing can be subtracted ” (iii . And as wi th the smallestevents in life

,so with the iron necessity of death . No one can

restrain the wind,nor can anyone have power over the day of

death,and there is no discharge in the war ”

(viii . N0man knoweth his time ; as fish that are caught in an evi l net,and as birds that are caught in a snare—like them are thesons of men entrapped at an evil time when it falleth upon

them suddenly (ix .

But not only are men subject to an unalterable destiny .

The whole creation groaneth and travaileth together in thesame bondage . In the Stoic system this thought grew into an

elaborate cosmology, partly derived from the earlier teaching

of Heraclitus of Ephesus The infinite Pneuma exists in1 E. Pfieiderer

,D ie Phi losophie des Heraklit von Ephesus, tries to shew that

Koheleth b‘

orrows not only his teaching but many detail s of language from

Heraclitus . This is ridiculed by Bois, pp . 1 09—1 28 .

48 GREEK THOUGHT

varying degrees of tension by this variety of tension it bringsinto being—not outside but within itself—all the countlessindividual things which make up the universe . But thisdifierentiation will not be for ever . All things will again beresolved into the primary substance ; all things will ultimatelybe re-absorbed into God . Then, in due order

,the last cycle of

development will be reproduced in its minutest details, and so

on for ever . If Koheleth shewed any trace of this cycledoctrine in its Stoic form,

it would be an indisputable proofthat he had come under the immediate influence of the school .But though he shews no trace of the doctrine

,he has in germ

the underlying thought which contributed towards the forma

tion of it . He is burdened with “ the flux of all things it isthe cry of i . 4—1 1 —the unceasing changes in Nature which

produce nothing new ; in iii . 15 he says That which is, hath

already been : and that which is to be,already is ; and God

seeketh out that which is driven away,

’ —i . e . bring s again and

again on the scene of the present that which has been driveninto the past by the lapse of time in vi . 1 2 aman

’s life is saidto be spent

“ like a shadow,

as in Ps . cxliv . and,finally

,

the lament for the lost strength of youth in xii . 1—6 ends withan assertion (v. 7) which is not far removed from Stoicteaching . Some writers have thought that the latter half ofx i i . 7 and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it — is

an orthodox interpolation, and is Opposed to iii . 21 . But so far

from being an interpolation,the words are valuable as shewing

how near Hebrew thought could approach to the Stoic tenet ofthe re-absorption of all being s into the Infinite B eing . The

meaning may be made clearer by reference to Ps. civ . 29,30 .

The Psalmist has been speaking , not of men,but of birds

,

beasts and fish : and he says Thou takest away (qmn lit . Thou

gatherest to Thyself) their breath : they die, and to their dustthey return . Thou sendest forth Thy breath : they are created

,

and Thou renewest the face of the earth .

”And what is said

in the Psalm of birds,beasts and fish Koheleth here implies of

men ; and in iii . 21 he doubts if it is possible to assume thatthere will

,in this respect, be the slightest difierence between

men and beasts .

1 Note the difference of thought in viii . 1 3, where the Hasid assigns to the

wicked alone short-lived days like a shadow.

STOICISM 49

As long as the Stoic system confined itself to natural scienceit was possible for its supporters to maintain their theories .But confronted with the moral aspect of life, they were thrustbetween

’

the horns of a dilemma . Either moral evil is thedirect result of natural causes

,in which case it is unavoidable

,

and therefore not really evil—or it is the result of a free-willwhich makes man

’s soul in some sense independent of the lawof causation .

- Chrysippus, and at a later time Seneca,strove

hard to reconcile the two. The least unsuccessful of theiranswers to the problem was that Providence

,or Causation

,or

God,works towards the general development and advantage of

the Universe as a whole individual men or animals or thingsare cared for only in that they are parts of the whole, and

conditioned by it . SO’ that that which appears to men evil

that which society must condemn and punish—is only part ofthe

(

universal Providence, leading to a good result for the

Whole . Evil is not evil per se,but only in respect to in

dividuals .

And Koheleth,confronted

,as he shews all through the

book,with the same problem of evil

,is not satisfied with the

solution which had sufficed for many of his forefathers,and

which was offered by his orthodox annotator in ii . 26, iii . 1 7

Aviii . 1 2

,1 3

,x ii . 14 - the solution of Psalms i .

,xxxvii .

,lxxiii ‘. and

"'manyothers—that thewicked are bound to suffer for their wrongdoing

,and the righteous to be saved and rewarded for their

righteousness . He inclines to the Stoic solution . Exactly thesame end comes to wise men and fools (ii . 14b righteousand unrighteous (ix . 2

,3) there is no advantage in being swift

or strong, wise or clever or skilful (ix . 1 1,

nay thevery beasts are not distinguishable from man,

for all have onebreath and go to one place (iii . 1 8 All created things areinfinitesimal fractions of the Universe . If

,therefore

,judgment

and righteousness are dethroned from their place by wicked

ness (iii . if the righteous often suffer while the wicked

prosper (vii . 15, viii . it is only that men,as individuals,

may realise their true insignificance in the eternal order of

things .There is yet another point to which the lines of Hebrew and

Greek thought converge—the opposition of wisdom to folly .

The Stoics taught that the wise man is he who is governed by

M.

50 HEBREW AND

reason : the foolish man is irrational,i . e . mad . There can be

no mean between them .was dcbpwv nail/em u Those who have

rational common-sense and those who have it not,make up the whole of mankind . This division of the worldbetween the wise and the foolish obtains throughout the whole

of the Hebrew Hokmah Literature ‘Wisdom ’ sometimes

approached very closely to Piety : the fear of the Lord

is wisdom,and to depart from evil is understanding

”

(Job

xxviii . 28,of . Prov . i . 7

,Ps . cx i . . But the tendency

was towards the philosophical conception of Wisdom as the

personification of the Divine Providence which created theworld and which governs and preserves it . Thus from one

point of Vi ew the ‘ fool ’ was a sinner . But the nearer theidea . of

'

Wisdom approached that of the Greek Logos, the morewas folly regarded as the senseless rashness of the man whoacted contrary to reason and his own interests and destroyedhimself— i . e . madness . And it is this aspect that is prominentin Koheleth. Folly and madness (ni55m) are closely associatedin i . 1 7, ii . 1 2, vii . 25, ix . 3 ; and in vii . 1 7 to be over-W icked isto be foolish and to bring premature destruction upon oneself .Thus Koheleth contains many of the seed-thoughts ’ from

which Stoicism sprang . Some of them are found in earlierwr1tmgs

—Job Proverbs and a few of the Psalms ; butKoheleth]as one of the latest of the Old Testament writers

,has made the

furthest advance along the line of philosophical development .But the truth of the position maintained in this chapter,

that he had not come under the immediate influence of Stoicism,

has no stronger proof than the scep ticism which he displays .The Stoic was in the highest degree dogmatic : he left, as hefondly hoped, nothing unexplained . But Koheleth’s earnestness

,the real pain that he feels when he sees wickedness in the

place of righteousness, his keen desire for the welfare of hisfellow men

,all combine to make him dissatisfied with a philo

Sophical dogmatism. Man and beast are equally insignificantand go to the dust together ; but have either of them a future ?What of the ‘ hereafter ’ for which some were beginning to

hope ? He longs to discover God’s work from beginning to

end . But he cannot ; and he gives expression to doubts whichare really more religious than Stoic certainty . His despair ofknowledge has been compared above with the temper of Xeno

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

52 HEBREW AND

must be that of Cleanthes'

. The wise course is to act volantarily, not to be forced to act involuntarily

,according to the

dictates of Fate .The Epicurean would reply

—The obvious duty laid‘

upon

you by Nature is to seek happiness— i . e . pleasure . A certain

amount even of self-denial and pain may be advisable,if the

result of it is likely to be the prevention of greater suffering ortrouble . The summum bonum is a serene freedom from physical,and more especially from mental, ills—in a word «impaft

’

a.

The Scep tic’s answer would be—The impossibility of know

ledge makes it foolish to strive after it . By completely withholding his judgment (ddao ia—éi roxvj—dxa-raxmpt

’

a) man can

arrive at an absolute calmness, unruffied by passion or desire .The contrast b etween these answers andKoheleth’s state of

mind is evident . He flings himself against fate in despair .Every fresh wrong or injustice or inequality which he meets inthe world causes a new pang . He “ hates life ” (ii . and he“ hates all his labour ” that he has

.

wrought (v . and hemakes his heart despair of all his labour (v. And

each time that his heart is driven back wounded and sore,he

cries there is no good in life except present enjoyment !” It

is not the summum bonum that is quite unattainable ; he hadmade every possible attempt to reach it, and had failed (i . 1 2ii . It is simply a minimum ma lum

,fortunately allowed

to man by God whereby “ he shall not much remember thedays of his life . (See ii . 24f .

,iii . 1 2 f .

,22

,v . 15

,

ix . 7—1 0,xi . 9 a

,

To sum up . In the mind of Koheleth werthoughts which find striking parallels in the fragments of

Xenophanes, in the teaching of the earlier Stoics,and in that

of the Sceptics represented by Pyrrho. And this is but a

concrete example of the state of mind,which must have been

wide-spread in the Hebrew race during the last two centuriesbefore Christ . It shews—not that Koheleth came under theimmediate influence of any one Greek school

,but—that

_thenatural development of the two religions, Hebrew and Greek

,

1 dyov fit ,a’

(3 Z eii Kai mi

7’

Henpwuévn

87ro¢ 1ro9’

bufv elm fitar era‘

yuévos'

tbs git/opal 7’

doxvos ‘

13V at ,ui) Béhw

xaxbs ‘

yevbuevos or’

zdév iii-Tor é‘ t/xouat .

GREEK THOUGHT 53

proceeded (broadly speaking) on the same lines,and produced

certain affinities between them . Before Christ came,and

proved in His own Person that the Divine B eing was not onlyInfinite but also Personal, it was inevitable that all religiousthought which was unrestrained by orthodoxy and ancienttradition should tend towards Pantheism—and its necessarycorollary Fatalism . B efore Christ rose from the dead

,and

proved in His own Person the certainty of a ‘ hereafter,

’it was

inevitable that, the key to life’s problems not yet being found,

all knowledge should be only a‘

perhaps,’and human judgment

should be perforce withheld .

But while the problems were the same to the Greeks andto Koheleth

,his Semitic earnestness and his bitter disappoint

ments at the wrongs of'

the world prevented him'

from acquiescingin the complacent drapaft

'

a which the Greek schools accepted astheir final aim .

It is unfortunate that Tyler,who points out some of the

nities with Stoicism,has tried to go further, and to shew

was not only well acquainted with Stoicism,but

uainted with Epicureanism,and that he

set the teaching of the two schools over against each other todissuade his readers from following either 1

It is exceedingly difficult to find the slightest trace of

Epicureanism inthe book .

As in the case of Stoicism,Koheleth makes no use of the

scholastic terminologyg

.

But the passages on which Tyler,and the writers who

follow him,lay great stress are those in which present enjoy

ment is stated to be the only good thing for man . Siegfriedgoes so far as to assign all these passages to a Sadduceaninterpolator with Epicurean tendenciess. It has been shewnabove that Koheleth’s thought is totally distinct from that ofEpicurus . Tyler represents Koheleth as teaching that “ there

1 Jerome,Comm. on Ecol , says on ix . 7—9 that the author appears to

reproduce the ideas of some Greek philosophers, in order to refute them.

Bar Hebraeus ('l‘ 1 286) thinks that Solomon wished to defend in this book the

opinions of Empedocles the Pythagorean .

2e . g . Tb m ram or , npbhmh s, eldwhov, ouur rwua.

3 See 5, p . 30 .

54 GREEK LANGUAGE

is no special divine care manifested on man’s behalf . If he is

wise’l therefore ; he will derive the utmost possible enjoyment

from the world,during the continuance of his fleeting life .

”

But he misconstrues his meaning . The expression is verydifferent from Koheleth’s repeated complaint There is

'

no

thing good for a man except to eat and drink and enjoyhimself . ”

In iii . 1 9 21 Tyler sees the Epicurean denial of the Stoicbelief that man i s distinguished from the beasts by a rationalsoul ; and he thinks that v. 20 is not inconsistent with the

Epicurean theory that the soul is composed of fine ethereal

atoms,

"

which are scattered into the ether at the moment ofdeath . If it is not inconsistent with the

'

theory,it is only

because it has nothing to do with it. Koheleth’s meaning i sperfectly clear : The bodies of men and beasts both return to

dust ; and what will happen to the spirit of each, no man can

possibly say .

In v . 1 9 Tyler finds another trace of Epicurean doctrin

Since all the universe is composed of atoms, the Gods mstalso be of the same nature . They are composed of very fie

atoms ; they live in the empty spaces between theworlds ; thehave dwellings and nourishment ; and they enjoy the pleasureof conversation—in the Greek language, or something like it .They are

,in fact

,men in an ideally perfect state, immortal and

free from pain or want . They may, therefore, be conceived as

enjoying life in a manner analogous to that of men . In v . 1 9

the influence of his religion causes Koheleth to retain the

name n~n5sn as a singular noun,but otherwise the phrase is

strictly Epicurean . God has a joy answering to—antiphonalwith—the joy of man .

A startling theory is thus built upon a very narrow foundation . Two or three suggestions have been made for the

rendering of nnnrz : nnvn (see notes) . The simplest is thatof Ewald and Nowack noticed above

, p . 41 ;“God answers

with—by means of —the joy of his heart . This use of the

preposition finds an exact parallel in 1 K. xviii . . 24: newn~n5nnwas a t' the God who shall answer by fire

,

”i . e . by granting

the fire for which'

we pray .

1 The italics are mine .

AND THOUGHT 55

LITERATURE. The following are among the principalwritings which bear upon the question of Greek influence

,

either in language,or in philosophic thought .

a . Those who are more or less fully in favour of ItZirkel

,Untersuchungen

“

u'

ber den P rediger, W iirz burg 1 792.

Hitz ig, Comm. l st Ed . 1 847 . Kleinert

,D er P rediger Salomo,

B erlin 1 864,see St. Kr . 1 883

,761—782 . Graetz

, Comm. 1 871 .

Tyle1,Comm . l st Ed . 1 874

,2nd Ed . 1 899

, see Modern Review

1 882,225—251

,614—61 7 . Plumptre, Comm. 1 881 . Aug . Palm

,

Q . iiber die nacharistotel . Phi losophie, Mannheim 1 885. Kuenen

,Eint. A . T. 1 05. 9 . Cornill

,Eint. A . T. 45. 4.

E. Pfleiderer,D ie Phi losophie des Heraklit

’

von Eph.

,nebst

einem Anhang u'

ber heraklitische Einfliisse im alttestamentlichen

Koheleth und besonders im Buch der Weisheit,1 886

,see JprTh.

1 887,

1

1 77—1 80 . C . Siegfried,P rediger u . Hoheslied (in Hand

komm. z . A . T. ) 1 898,see Z wTh. 1 875

,284—29 1

,465—489 .

Wildeboer (in Marti’s Kurz . Handkomm. z . A . T. ) 1 898 .

b. Those who are opposed to it :Fr . Delitz sch, B ibl . Komm . Vol . 4

,1 875

, p. 31 9 . Renan,

l’Eccle

’

siaste,1 882

, p . 63 . Nowack,in Kurz gef . Eaeget. Hand

’buch z . A. T. (2nd Ed . of Hitz ig) , 1 883, pp . 1 94f . Cheyne,Job

and Solomon, 1 887, pp . 260—272 . Menz el,D er griechische

Einfluss auf P rediger u . Weisheit Sa lomos, Halle 1 889, pp. 8

38 . Bois,Origines de la Phi losophie Jude

'

o-Aleaeandrine,Paris

,

1 890, pp . 53—1 28 . Article ‘

Ecclesiastes ’ in Hastings’B .D . by

Peake ; do . in Encycl . B ibl . by A . B . Davidson . Volz,Th.LZ .

Feb . 3,1 900

,review of Tyler’s 2nd Ed .

56 NOTES [i . 4

2 . NOTES ON SELECT PASSAGES .

CHAP . I .

Ch . 1 . v . 4. {351115‘in perpetuity, continuously

,

’i . e . as con

trasted with the changing. generations of men. The expressiondoes not imply the eternity of the material world

,and is not

opposed to the writer’s feeling of the ‘

flux of all things,

’ which,

had he been under the immediate influence of the Stoics,might

have led him to their cycle doctrine . See p . 48 .

v . 7 . n~5n3nv . The relative w cannot mean ‘ whence,

’as

2 Vg . Luth . A . V.

,but whither —cf . Num . xiii . 27

,1 K. x ii . 2 ;

and owmeans‘ thither —cf . 1 S . ix . 6

,Jer . xxiii . 3 . Hier . and

Tg . explain the method of circulation—that the waters run

back from the sea by hidden channels (venae) to their sources .Ibn Ez ra prefers evaporation For both of . Lucret. v . 261—272 .

v. 8 . out» not‘ wearisome

,

’2 xom iBets

,but

‘ wearied,

’as in

Dt. x x v. 1 8,2 S . x vn . 2

,the only other passages in which the

word occurs . All creation shares with man the wearinesscaused by unceasing

,but aimless

,change .

33 75No man can utter it —the weariness .v. 1 0 . i bwe “

D“

! e »,see App . II . p . 1 38 . news . Elliptical for

V511 Cf . x 1 1 . 1,Ex . xxii . 8 .

s inW‘mm. nr is not governed by nm . The expression

approaches the Mishnic 1 7 1 in a predicative sentence . Cf .

Kelim v . 1 0,B

ekoroth vii . 5. It occurs i . 1 7, ii . 23,iv . 8, v . 1 8,

vi . 2 .

‘

already .

’ NH and Aram. In EH only Koh . 1 1 . 1 2,16

iii. 15, iv . 2, vi . 1 0, ix . 6, 7 . In Syr . and Tg . sometimes p

‘

erhaps .

nvn.Sing . after the collective D’D‘mt, as in ii . 7 a . Cf . Ges .

K. 145u .

v. 14. rmmm. The expression occurs seven times inKoh .

The derivation of mmfrom pm‘ break ’ may be discarded at

once, though it was the favourite derivation in early times .

Tg . nwnn. ,Rashi use) . Vg . Afllictio. A . V. Vexation .

Derived from nrw feed,’it may have one of two meanings

1 . Lit .‘ feeding on wind ’ ; so Aq . 2 O. In his Comm . on

Koh .Jerome says ROOTH Aquila et Theodotion vounv, Sym

machus fiéoxnow, transtulerunt.”

i . 1 8] ON SELECT PASSAGES 57

2 . From the sense of‘ feed on

’comes that of ‘

delight in

and so‘ be eager for

,

’ ‘ strive after —which is probably Koh .

’smeaning . Cf . PrOv . x v . 14 ram,

and especially Hos. x ii . 2

nn mmHD1 ‘ 1P a‘ h . The cognate nun “

occurs with the samemeanlng : i . 1 7

,iv . 16 mi ii . 22

v . 15. Perhaps, as Renan suggests, an aphorism well known

at the time .

Dan . iv . 33 and frequently in Syr . Tg . In BH only1 3

,x 1 1 . 9 (both Piel) . Siegfried may be right in emending to

121371” parallel W ith 11 1313 715, as Q5 in txooundijva t with oiptaundijva t.

v . 16.vnamm ’n5' lJn. Coordination to express

‘ I greatlymultiplied

’

; as in iv . 1,7 . Cf . Ges . K. 1 20

,d and e.

D52 5? Koheleth finds it difficult to wear consistentlyhis Solomonic disguise—which, indeed, he deliberately throwsoff in ii . 1 2 . The expressions (here and in ii . 7

,9)

“al l that

were before me over J -“in J .

—are unsuitable as referring

to David and Saul,and make it probable that he himself really

held some high official position in the city . See pp . 9,1 0 .

v . 1 7 . mm Waw consecutive . iv . 1,7 are the only other

instances in the book . In NH it is unknown .

nv'

n . According to the Masoretes it is an infinitive mt‘ l5'l,to know wisdom

,and to know madness and folly .

”But the

balance of the verse is better maintained if (with QBPesh . Tg . ) it

is treated as a substantive, and pointed Koheleth determined to ,

know ‘ wisdom ’and

‘ knowledge ’ on the one hand,and thei r opposites

‘madness ’ and

‘ folly ’ on the other .n

'

i55m,ii . 1 2

,vii . 25. The sing . n55in nowhere occurs . In

this passage 45 renders by a. plur . , but in the other two by a .

sing . In all three,however, the word should probably be

pointed ni551n, as in x . 1 3 . In each case the form in na may

have been due to n15JD which stands in close connex ion withit. See on x . 1 3 .

11 1532) for m5m, here only . Hier . stu ltitiam. But Q1; Pesh.

Tg . Venet . all render understanding .

’ Cf . nnn’

vn x ii . 1 1 .

nvn u nnns i . On the clause see App . II . p . 156.

v. 1 8 . crown. For the construction. of . Prov . x i l . 1 7,xviii . 22 .

1 Gesenius compares Cicero, P is. 20, his ego rebus pascor, his delector, his

perfruor .

”

58 NOTES [ii . 3

CHAP . 1 1 .

Ch . 1 1 . v . 3 . Hitz ig endeavours to explain thi s,in

connexion with the following am,as a metaphor from a beast

of burden drawing a,cart . But mm is evidently used in the

NH meaning ‘ refresh .

’ Delitz sch refers to Hagigah 14a :

mp : par/mmas ”533—4 “ the Haggadists refresh theheart of men like water . ”

mom: in: ”2151 . A circumstantial clause,forming a paren

thesis,so that rnx51 is a second infinitive dependent on man.

an: (in EH‘

drive is here used,like 1 2m, with a force peculiar

to NH . In the Mishna it has two shades of meaning—1 . act’

or‘ behave

,

’cf . Abod . Z ar . iii . 4: 2 .

‘ be accustomed,’cf . P e

sah.

iv . 1 . These meanings pass into each other ; so that the'

expression here may be rendered‘

my heart behaving as usual

with wisdom .

’

v . 5. D’o‘mb . See 8

, p . 40 . Cant . iv . 1 3, (Neh . 1 1 . 8 only

(both in sing ) . In the Mishna the plur . is mD‘

h D .

v . 6. nun In Neh . ii . 14 the ‘ king’s pool’is mentioned

,

which appears as Solomon’s pool

’in Jos . B . J. v . 4. 2 .

one masc . after man ,as Gen . xxxii . 16

,Job i . 14d l . Cf .

Ges . K. 145u .

An accusative qualifying,or particularising, an in

trans . verb . Cf . Is . v . 6,Prov

'

. xxiv . 31 .

v . 7 .”A” . See Baer Qu . Vol . p . 61 .

v . 8 . mumme . For this collocation of numbers to expressa large or indefinite quantity of . Jud . v . 30 mnnm um (and

Moore’s note) .

Of the numerous explanations of the de af My. me thefollowing may be noticed

’

(1 )‘

Cup-bearers .’ QB e oivoxo

’

ov Ka l. oivo‘

xo’

as. Hier . Comm .

Ministros vini et ministras, apparently reading the words as

” flo

w,and connecting them with ,JNW2) Hier .

transliterates SADDA and SADDOTH .

(2) Cups .’Aq . KvMv Kai

“

KvMKta . 2 (Hier . ) Mensarum

species et appositiones . Hier . Scyphos et u/rceos in ministerio advina fundenda . Tg . pipes which pour tepid water and pipeswhich pour hot water ( l) .

1 For others see Delitz sch’s commentary in loc .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

60 NOTES [ii . 1 2

QB (in 7 59 dvfipwn'

os 3; éneheno'

e'ra t On ion ) Ti}; BovAi/

‘

s ; 7a 30 a

e’

u'

oino'

ev atm’

v. [Boi here and in 2 is a rendering of the Aram .

2573,cf . Dan . iv .

e’

heiiore'rat 67 50 1 1 ) To?) Bao tltews, 0 5V 7 31 50 a e’

n'

oino av abnjv,

Hier . possit ire post regem atque factorem suum .

after the king in judgment,still more with his

Maker .B

’resh. Rab.

their i n: wes ns

Tg . is a loose paraphrase, but apparently followed the MT .

Two points require notice : (1 ) that 1mm is variously read1 711212 (or 1 71239) O,

Pesh . Hier .

,Q5; (2) that is

omitted in all except Tg . and B’resh. Rabb. It seems therefore

that the reading 1 7122! explains the others ; and the passage willrun What is man [i . e . what can man do] that cometh afterthe king ? That which he [the king] hath done

”

[or with'

an: hath already doneD elitz sch

’s rendering “

him whom they made so long ago

involves an awkwardness in the use of net ; and as a descriptionof Solomon the phrase is somewhat pointless ; moreover . it

necessitates the retention of the doubtful was .

For the redundant 1mm nws ns cf . Z ech . xii . 1 0 ; but see

Ges . K. 1 38 e,footnote 1 .

v . 15.71317733 So Baer ; but -fl

'

JPl? in the Mantua edition.

Cf . v . 7,iii . 1 9 .

ns DJ . Cf . Gen . xxiv . 27 . Ges . K. 1 35e.

rs . Cf . Jer . xxii . 15.

v . 1 6. 13’a D’D ’n flaw s . Koh . takes his stand at a pointin the future

,and looks back into the past .

wane/3 . Cf . was 5m viii . 1 7, wnnvnv . 4.

ma n. Accus . temporis . Ges . K. 1 1 8 i .

Winckler’s emendation “

js i is quite unnecessary . Koh .

uses the style of the taunting Kinah . Cf . Is . x iv . 4,Ez . x x v1 . 1 7 .

v . 20 .WNZ” . See Baer . In BH elsewhere only in Niphal .

Pael occurs in Aram . and Hithp . in NH .

v . 22 . run. The participle occurs in BH Neh . vi . 6only.

See Baer . Cf . Um? iii . 1 8 .

v . 24. 53s 9w. Evidently to be emended 53 10 2273 ; it aroseeither from the dropping of the 73 after msn, or under theinfluence of iii . 1 3 .

ns'

imnnw The best Mss of 45, and Pesh .

, point to a

iii . 1 1 ] ON SELECT PASSAGES 61

reading nsrwi nnrrw: (see App . II . p . If this was the

original reading, the similarity of the first two syllables wi th

may have caused one of them to be dropped, forming nnw: and

then ns-uni would arise to assimilate the constructions ; or

,as

before,the corruption may have been due to iii . 1 3 .

v . 25. mm In NH and Aram . ram,means ‘ feel pain

’

;

Tg . here sewn. Hence it may denote any kind of feeling ; hereit is one of enjoyment . On QB see App . II . p . 153 .

um: rm‘apart from—without—me

’ is meaningless, and

the rendering ‘more than I ’ is impossible . There is strong

evidence (Q5, Pesh .

,S . H . Hier . C.

,Copt . ) for the emendation

137373"

n‘apart from Him

,i . e . God . The expression is unique

in EH, corresponding to Aram . 173 en

v . 26. nn nip-n5zin nr DJ must be a gloss . It is meaning

less in connexion with the words either of Koheleth or theHasid . This

,and the similar addition in vn . 6

,appear to be

'

theonly instances of glosses introduced after the book had beencompleted in its triple form .

CHAP . III .

Ch . iii . vv . 2—8 . It has been suggested that the 14coupletswere not originally in their present haphaz ard order . Thesimplest re-arrangement would be to transpose 2 b and 3 a

,and

to make 5a precede 4a . The couplets then fall into groupsa pair of contrasts whose subject is human life and death (birthand death

,killing and healing) are followed by four sets of

three : (1 ) the treatment of landed property, (2) emotions of

joy and sorrow, (3) the preservation and loss of property in

general, (4) emotions of friendship and enmity . But such

artificial arrangements are alien to the temper of Koheleth .

v . 5. nuns 1 ~5vn5implies the marring of good soil .nnns nun. Cf . Is . v . 2 .

The three hostile actions in 2 b,3 b

,5a are found in 2 Kin .

iii . 1 9,25.

v . 1 1 . mm. In classical Heb .

‘ beautiful ’ ; but in NH ithas the more general force which belongs to KaAc

‘

is—good

,

proper, fitting . Cf . v . 1 7 .

D5rn ns . This passage is discussed by Hitz ig (Th. St. Kr .

1 839, p . Umbreit (do . 1 846

, p . and W . Grimm (Z wTh.

62 NOTES [iii . 1 1

1 880, p . The various methods of treating the words are

of three kinds

(1 ) Emendations . Hitz ig invents a word D59 , to correspondto the Arab .

’i lam

‘ knowledge.

’B ickell proposes D51)“ that

which is hidden .

’ Cheyne, 122W the task .

’

(2) The second class of explanations follow QR rot a idiva,

g iving the late meaning ‘ world ’ which it bears in Pesh .

Tg . Mishu .

Gesenius and others understand it of‘ worldliness ’ (cf .

1 John ii . 16) or of worldly duties considered as good things

(Luther) : but these are impossible . A favourite explanationhasbeen that God has placed the world in man

’s heart,so that

his heart is “a Microcosm in which the great world ismirrored .

”

So Ewald, and formerly Cheyne . The latter (Job and Solomon,p . 21 0) quotes Bacon

’s Advancement of Learning God has

framed the mind like a glass,capable of the image of the

universe, and desirous to receive it as the eye to receive light .”

But not only does a5r‘

occur nowhere else in EH with theNH sense of ‘ world

,

’ while it is found in six other passages inKoh . with a temporal force—but it is, in this passage, in evidentcontrast with the word nxr time,

’ which occurs 30 times in the

precedingverses of the chapter .(3)

‘Eternity .

’Z Ockler understands it of man

’s inbornintuition of God’s eternal B eing and government . Cf . Rom .

i . 1 9 .

Delitz sch gives desiderium aeternitatis ;'man knows that

everything has its appointed nv, but there is planted withinhim an impulse towards that which is beyond time .But the best explanation is that of Grimm,

who -is followedby Nowack and Wildeboer . He suggests notio aeternitatis .

The popular conception of‘ eternity ’ is that of unlimited time

innumerable nmr stretching into the past and'

future f . Man

can see that God has made everything excellent in its own

proper ,

time—he can understand,that is

,individual mm: in

which God’s working is revealed ‘ to him ; but God has also

placed in his heart (i . e . mind) a conception of the sum-total ofthe mnv;

“but in such a way that

”

(fires ’53 73) he cannot

1 See Dalman,The Words of Jesus, Engl . transl . pp . 1 62—1 66.

2 Cf. Cicero, D ejuvent. i . 26,“ Tempus est pars aeternitatis .

”

iii . 1 8] ON SELECT PASSAGES 63

discover —understand the true inwardness of the workwhich God doeth from beg inning to end .

”

FUD . Late Heb . for w,V1 1 . 2, x ii . 1 3 ; Joel ii . 20 ; 2 Chr .

x x . 16 only .

v . 1 2 . amnae/1:51 . Some have thought that this is a Graecism,

representing at 1 rpd‘

r‘retv. But see 8

, p . 40 .

v . 15. nrns '

lwm. Cf . Ges . K. 1 14h,i .

cm: ns wpm. God seeks out, and brings again on to the

scene of the present, that which has been driven into the pastby the lapse of time .

But in early times was universally considered as mascu

line—QB Aq . TOV Biwxo'

uevov, 2 fin-Ep 7 63V e’

sbt oue'

vwv,and even

B . Sira v . 3 new span53 . So Pesh . Tg . And Lucifer

Calar . has et deus reguiret eum qui persecutionem patitur .

v . 16. perm and p-nm.

'

QB reads them as and P33 0 ;

so Lucifer,vidi sub sole locum judicii, i llic impius, et locum

justi, i llic impius’

. The following verse was evidently the

cause .v

'

. 1 7 ne . (1 ) This has been explained as referring to a

future time ; Hier . in tempore judicii, in futu/rum judicium.

Tg . sawsm turn.

(2) Some writers understand me to mean ‘ with God ’

;

but onlyone, equally doubtful, expression is adduced to supportit—Gen . xlix . 24. 5sww~ ins nrwown.

(3) Del . Now. Wildeb . and others read Di”‘ he hath

appointed,’of . Ex . x x i . 1 3 . This makes good sense ; but a

strong objection to it is the distance at which the word stands

from its object mv. Koheleth,though his style is not classical

,

is never awkward or unrhythmical . A verb,especially a mono

syllable,in such a position is as unlikely in Hebrew as it would

be inEnglish .

(4) G Bomits it (see App . II . p . 141 ) and it is not impossible

that or) was a mere corruption, arising from the accidentaldoubling either of the last syllable of the foregoing new: or thefirst of the following mans .

v. 1 8 . mm 51) with an ellipse of‘ it is ’ or

‘ it happens,’

referring to the state of things described in v . 16. Siegfr .

unnecessarily inserts Dir) , having omitted it at the end of v . 1 7

mm 59 occurs vii . 14, viii . 2 only . Classical Heb . i n By or

rm1 Reading eboeflijs as daefins.

64 NoTEs [iii . 1 8

m 5Inf . Kal, m ,

of .

"

1 15Is . x lv . 1,is"; Jer . v . 26.

The root meaning is ‘

purify’

; Venet . Kafia tpe'

t‘

v 01137 0 159,cf . Ass .

bararu‘ be shining .

’ QB Staxpwei,Hier . C . separ

'

at,adopt the

secondary meaning‘choose

,

’ ‘ select,

’ found in 1 Chr . vii . 40,

ix . 22,x vi . 41

,Neh . v . 1 8 only (always BDB (with

R .V. )“ that God may prove them,

”as Vg . ui probaret eos, and

Tg . that there may come upon them plagues and evil diseasesto try them and prove them .

But this is without parallel in BH; and (if the gist of the

passage has been rightly explained in 4, pp . 15

,1 7) it is

not Koheleth’s meaning at all .

InNH the word frequently denotes make clear,bring to

light,

’of . Shabb. 74a

,l 38 a ; the adj. m : Sanh. 7 b ; and the

Rabbinic M 1 : 51: p erspicue. And this g ives the required sensehere . The rendering of A .V. is perfectly adequate

,

“ that Godmight manifest them

,

”i . e . shew them in their true light—as

beasts .

nus-151 . Tg .

vmn5: that He [God] might see whether theywould turn in repentance .

”But all the other versions express

‘to shew

,

’i . e .

fi lms" (2 mswn51) , which should probably .be

read .

9 712,of .

“in? ii . 22 . Baer accentuates as follows :“that they are beasts—they

’

for their part,”the

last two words being ironical ; even men Who vaunt theirsuperiority over the beasts ! ” (Ewald hochstselbst. ) If thetext is to stand this is the best explanation of it . ’

Delitz sch : “ they in and of themselves,

”—viewed as meremen—reads too much into the words .

But it is probable that the text is corrupt . In Q1; the

following verse beg ins with m i 7 6 atro'

is oil [ 059 S, om . AC,

dra]which suggests that M513: is the true reading at

the end of v . 1 8,the corruption nnn having been due to the

same syllables in the preceding word . Dn‘? DJ

“ even to themselves ” will mean even in their own estimation .

”

v . 1 9 .in It is not improbable that oil in G B may be an

intentional corruption of 37 1. for the sake of orthodoxy . Somealterations in QB are undoubtedly of this nature

,cf . x i . 9 . But

since the unorthodox conclusion O’

vvdlff flfka E‘

u atro'

ls is left untampered with, it is possible that the error was accidental .

”

31 mp7: "3 . It is clear that mp7: must have the same

iv. 1 ] ON SELECT PASSAGES 65

meaning throughout the verse ; and the words,therefore,

cannot be rendered for a chance are the sons of men and a

chance are the beasts,and one chance is unto them .

” mm: isin each case the ‘

mischance,

’ the ‘catastrophe

’of death . All

the versions treat the first and second mp7: as in the constructstate . A proverbial sentence is thus formed, after the mannerof Prov . x xv . 20, 25, xxvi . 9 , 14, 21 etc . ,which must be rendered“as the mischance of the sons of men

,so is the mischance of

the beasts . ” According to Baer this may be spelt ” 1 1373, of . ii . 15.

mm . The word is unique inKoh . It occurs only in Prov;

x iv . 23,x x i . 5

,in both of which it assumes this hiphilic form in

Opposition to another hiphilic form Koh . elsewhere uses

111 11 ” and fins and since in this passage Q5, 2 and 0 all renderthe clause as an interrogation

,wnm should be emended to

“

1 11 1” no (cf . vi . 8,

“ what superiority hath the man over thebeast ? None ! ”

v . 21 . That the n in these words should bethe article is rendered impossible both by the sense of

the passage, and by the presence of the pronoun s in Followingthe versions the words must be pointed interrogatively, WW “

and ”51m “who knoweth with regard to the spirit of the sons

of men (casus pend . as in v . 1 3) whether it goeth upwards, and

the Spirit of the beast whether it goeth downwards to theearth ? ”

On the connexion of thought between this and x ii . 7 see‘

8, p . 48.

CHAP . IV .

Ch . iv . v . 1 .D’PTQW Cf . Am. iii . 9

,Job xxxv . 9 . The

pointing here is evidently intentional,to distinguish the

abstract subst . ‘oppressions

’ from the pass . particp . in v . 2 .

n: unipvv rm. It is possible to supply (is from the preceding clause and from the hand of their Oppressors (therewas no) power (of deliverance) But this is awkward .

_

A .V.,

RV.

“and on the side of their Oppressors was power,

” making"11 13 equivalent to "

1 ” 5D but there is no other instance to supportthis . The same sense

,however

,can be reached in another way :

and from the hand of their oppressors (went forth) power .”

Gins,Del .

,Now .

,Siegfr . give n: the meaning ‘

violence ’ (Vg .

M. 5

66 NOTES [iv . 1

which it nowhere else -bears . Koh . simply meansthat as the Oppressed had no helper, for the Oppressors mightwas right . Pesh. omits the wow of "

11 13 1 .

v. 2 . mm. See Ges .

,

K. 1 1 3 gg . Emendations nnwnnae/m (Euringer) , are unnecessary .

nrm: 1 17 . Cf . m (v . 3) = 1nw . Mishu . 131 2 .

v . 3 .

”1 1 rm

“

tr/s ns . The verb is mentally supplied fromthe foregoing nnw.

v . 4. mm . Skill,

ability ?as in 1 1 . 21 . In v . 1 0 it rather

means the Success or profit which ability earns . Cf . verb Kalx i . 6, Hiph . x . 1 0 .

s in. The nearest English equivalent for this predicativeconstruction is : I saw all the labour and al l the skilful workthat itmeant the jealousy etc . ” —it was both incited byit and

resulted in it .

mm: was nsnp . This might mean ‘ the jealousy felt by a

man because of his neighbour ’ (i .e . because of his neighbour’s

successes) . But since sip is usually followed by 3 or ns withthe object of j ealousy, it is better to take w~s as an objectiveacc . the j ealousy felt for a man by [proceeding from theheart of] his neighbour .

v. 6. nm ’

acc . of the thing measured,of . map E13 N51: 1 Kin .

xvii . 1 2.

v . 1 0 . i5a . Strictly speaking, they do not both fall . The

plur . denotes an‘

indefinite singular . Ges . K. 1 240 1

i5~s i = t5is ,Alas for him ! of . x . 1 6. For the pleonastic

dat. ethic . see Ges . K. 1 1 9 8 .

v . 1 2. mm 15pm. The noun is in apposition to, and furtherdefines

,the pron . suffix

,of . Ex . xxxv . 5

,Ges. K. 1 31 m.

The suffix in refers to the unexpressed subj . of mmif (someone) overpower the solitary man

, (yet) two can

,withstand him (i . e . the aggressor) .

1 1 1 : mm». Cf . Dan . x . 1 3 .

v. 1 3 . 33 0 13, poor” ix . 15

,16only . Dt. viii . 9 . See

BDB S .v .

v. 14. Having described the youth as‘

poor and wise,

’

Koheleth cites two facts,each introduced by in, to justify the

two adjectives . He was wise—for he managed to escape from

prison to be king ; he was poor—for even in his kingdom (i . e . in

the kingdom that he afterwards gained) he was born poor .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

68 NOTES [iv . 1 7

CHAP . IV . 1 7,V .

Ch . iv . 1 7 . var/53 11 17 1 and to draw near to hear i s betterFor the absol . inf . cf . awn Jer . x . 5

, 5em Job x xv . 2 ;

and for the ellipse of nun cf . ix . 1 7 . Aq . Pesh . Vg . Tg . take

amwith an imperatival force, a new sentence beginning with

11 11 13 .

D3 1 D’5’D3nmm. The only grammatical rendering of thesewords is than that fools should g ive a sacrifice .

”

Pesh . transposes the substantives :“ than the gift of the

sacrifice of fools ” and Siegfr . would make this emendation .

The versions are divided between (Q5mrep 86nd . Pesh .

{ 51 : 0 3am (3 ) and O 86nd , Hier . donum) . The

latter is impossible, as the writer cannot have said that“ sacrifice is the gift of fools ” ; but Q5, which also has 9vcn

'

a

o ov,represents areading 1D) ? an nnnn ”5"

P!”

and draw nearto hear ; better than the gift of fools is thy sacrifice,

”i . e . if

thou draw near to hear,thy sacrifice is better than

’

the g ift offools . This was perhaps the original reading .

i n niw'

v5mm mm evidently cannot be rendered on the

analogy of v . 1 3 .

“ They are ignorant, so that they do evil ”

(Del . ) is impossible . Now .

,Wright follow Renan in adding

Ds ”3 before mwv5. But the simplest“ emendation is mwv5n

(Siegfr . ) the 73 would easily drop out after uvw‘

.

Ch . v . 5.

“

to cause thy flesh to incur the penalty ofsin

,Dt. xxiv . 4

,Is . xxix . 21 . Tg .

“to cause the judgment of

Gehenna upon thy flesh .

” Physical punishment was the usualconceptionof Divine retribution .

“

1s5nn, i . e . the priest . The use .of the word‘

may have beensuggested by Mal . ii . 7

,but the coincidence cannot be taken as

indicating the date of Koh . Compare the use of dyyehos for‘ bishop

’in the N . T . Apoc .

But Q5 7rpo npoawn-ou 7 0 v (9 60 1) and Pesh 4 0 334 point

to an early reading D‘vn‘psn 1355. This would still mean ‘

in the

presence of the priest,’as God’s representative, just as in

Ex . x x i . 6,xxii . 7

,8,27 judges or rulers are called Elohim .

The alteration to i s5b n may have been made from fear of

irreverence .

1 QB“ Pesh . boldly cut the knot by rendering paas xakév

v . 8] ON SELECT PASSAGES 69

mm,x . 5. Frequent in the priestly laws in Leviticus and

Numbers,for an unintentional misdemeanour for the expiation

of which special offerings were commanded . In the present

case a man who has failed to pay a vow might be tempted to

offer the excuse s~n nnv 9: because the offering enjoined forsuch a case was smaller than that which he had vowed .

v . 6. st ” n~n5sn ns ”3 is meaningless in its present position,

and ”3 Should follow a negative . It is evidently the conclusion

of v. 5.

The intervening proverb seems to be corrupt . R .V. rendersfor thus it cometh to pass through the cf .the construction m 1 1 1 . 1 8 . It is also possible to render for

in the multitude of dreams there are also vanities and manywords ” (Ewald ; so apparently 2, reading n~53nwithout waw) .

But the proverb appears to be a doublet of that in v . 2 ; and itseems probable that a slightly varying form of v 2 was writtenin the margin

,and found itsway into the text . In v . 2 m5nn is

a result and not a cause ; and the emendation suggests itselfhere : nznn own-1D] n~5nm n1m5n [mp] 3 1 3

v . 7 . new. Each official ‘is watching

,

’i . e . is jealously on

the look out for any

"

action of a subordinate that may hurt hisinterests .

Dina: may be either a plural majestatis, referrmg to theking

,or it may simply describe the numerous grades of officials

rising one above another .Siegfried assigns the passage to the Hasid . Emending fine:

to he explains it as follows : each official is on his guardagainst the other — each is afraid of opposmg a higher one inthe interests of the poor ; but this state of things will not last,for the Highest,

’i . e . God

,is over all . But as explained above

,

the’

passage is entirely consonant with Koheleth’s spirit ; and

the words which follow,whatever their exact meaning may be,

shew that it is the action of the king that fills his thoughts .v . 8 . Two points in this verse stand out clearly— that ms

and MWmust be translated differently,and cannot refer to the

same thing—and that “1a agrees with me ,

not with 1573 .

1

.

Thelatter is in accordance with the Mas

“

. punctuation 1579

(see1 Siegfr.

’

reconstructs the words : 71 1 12) 11 3 1 71 131 1 3 1 3 1 11 113511 0 153 11 3 1 3 13 .

Pesh . adds fi ng gflvn of error after many words.

’

2 Other editions, however, J 1513

70 NOTES [v . 8

Two orthree rendering s that have been suggestedmay thusbe put out of account at once

,such as : “

a king made for (i . e .

set over) a land”

(Ewald)“a king who is served by the land

(i . e . his subjects) (Gesen .,Knob .

,al . ) a king who is subject

to (i . e . depends for his sustenance upon) the land”

(Tg .,Rashi

,

IbnEz r . )“a king given to the arable land ”—“

agro addictus”

(Del . ,Siegfr . thinks the passage corrupt, and does not attempt a

translation . It is possible that a word agreeing with “

1513 hasdropped out ; but as it stands it may be rendered :

“

but an

advantag e to a country.

in all respects is—a king for [i . e .

interested in,devoted to] cultivated land .

” Koheleth wistfully

pictures the good government of a .king who (like Uz z iah2 Chr . xxvi . 1 0) loves husbandry .

For 53 3 of . Gen . XXIV . 1 . QB e’

n' i i ron/Ti over all is a

refers to the grades of officials in v. 7, and adopts the

Keri s in.

The Niphal of"up occurs only in Dt. xx i . 4, Ez ek . xxxvi . 9,

34,in each case with the meaning ‘

tilled .

’And this rendering

is borne out by GE6) 2 Pesh .

,and is adopted by Nowack .

v. 9 . ans ”D . Not a question who has joy ln wealthwhich bringeth in no increase which contradictsthe thought of the preceding verse . Render “ he who lovethwealth (shall have) no profit (from it) It is not necessary

(with Zeck1 . , Siegfr . ) to supply me » before nsun.

21 ans is not found elsewhere ; but it is analogous with 3 ranand : pen. On the reading nsun 15 see App . II . pp . 143,159 .

v. 1 2 . either kept by its owner’

(Ew .,Now .

,Del . and

Hier .C. a domine) or‘ kept for its owner,

’i .e .

,as Koh. would

say, by‘ time and chance . ’

v. 14.

"

15W“ that he can take with him. For the form

of . x . 20 .

But Q52 Pesh . Hier .C. Tg . read 151W,referring to nmsn

and nothing Shall he carry away by his labour, which can go

with ‘him —which is Simpler .v . . 15. a

‘5D . Parchon and Kimchi in their lexicons

(s .v . nnn) support the division into two words ; of . Aram.

But it is probable that 5: is only a combination of 3 and 5

used as prepositions . (See Lambert, Rev. d’Etudes Juives, xxxi .

v . 1 9] ON SELECT PASSAGES 71’

47- 51 . Rahlfs raw . 1 896,

without 3 occurs ina causative sense Ez r . iv . 16

,vi . 1 3, and in a locative sense

Dan . ii . 31 , iii . 8, while si p occurs nowhere alone ; thusarises by metathesis for And the case of 11 79 1253 issimilar . 11 73175 occurs frequently (esp . in and a 5D1 K. vii . 20, but never a alone .The word should therefore

‘

be pointed 11 1933273 , the 3 havingits counterpart in 15” 33 . GE Pesh . Hier . read a 5”3 .

v. 16. 53s ” . It is possible that this is a figurative expression,

like sit or walk in darkness . ’ Del . takes it literally : the richman is miserly

,and

“ does not allow himself table comfortsin a well lighted rOom ”

! Midr . Koh . reads So several codd .

of Kenn . and De Rossi adopted by Kraetz schmar . Houbigant

Bottch.5511 1 .

But it is Simpler to follow GB « at e’

u we’

vdet,and read

In the latter half of the verse,the M .T.

on”, and ”to”. areuntranslateable . It is true that or: is used intransitively in

v n. 9 ; but in the present passage a substantive '

is clearlyrequired ; all the versions read DP? )

‘and vexation ’

and for

r5m they read ”5m; M.T. evidently arose from the accidentaldoubling of the following waw.

These emendations give a series of substantives, all governedby the preposition in urns : moreover all his days (are spent)in darkness and mourning

,and great vexation

,and sickness

and wrath .

”

v. 1 7 . no” 1 14/N am. See 8, p . 41 .

v . 1 9 . 135nnnw: mm . This participle may be derivedfrom (1 ) my

‘to be occupied,

’

(2) ml)‘

to answer . ’

(1 ) Q5 31 1 O9669 aiJ‘rOV e’

v etcfipomivy Kapdt‘

a g ail'roi} . Hier .C . quia D eus occupat in laetitia cor eius . This explanationis adopted by Siegfr .

, W ildeb .,al . z

“ because God keeps himengrossed in the joy of his heart . I t makes good sense

,but

there are two objections to it —1 st,either the object to mm:

must be supplied, or (with Hier . ) na : must be read ; 2nd, thismeaning of ml? is confined to i . 1 3, iii . 1 0, in both of which it isKal . inf . followed by the cognate word pm.

(2) Ibn Ez r .,Kimchi

,

“

God causes (all thing s) to respondwith the joy of his heart . Hitz . compares Hos . ii . 23 f . But

even if that could be used to illustrate the Hiphil, the omission

72 NOTES [v . 1 9

of the object is very awkward . Del . al . assume that the Hiphilhas the same meaning as the Kal God answers to—assents

,

corresponds to— the joy of his heart. But this use of :1 iswithout parallel . On Tyler’s use of this explanation,

see8, p . 54.

Ewald and Nowack have g iven the simplest solution : God

answers with,by means of

,the joy of his heart

,

”i . e . He grants

the joy which man desires . Ps . lx v . 6 is scarcely a complete

parallel, because the verb is followed not by 3 but by a secondacc . But no commentator that the present writer has seenrefers to 1 K. xviii . 24“ the God that answers with

,by means

of,fire .

” Lastly,it is possible that the true reading should be

nJv n”n5s , the D which causes the difficulty having been due todittography .

CHAP . VI .

Ch . vi . ’0 . 3 nsn"

D51 ” . Cf . 1 Sam . ii . 5 true m5” .” J ”: lit. and it is many that the days of his years are .

This looks like a gloss, but it may have been added by Koh . to

the preceding clause for the sakeof emphasis .

Tg . tries to avoid the tautology and he is in power and

authority (snnnw) during the days of the years which he hath .

'

v . 5. nm. Del . refers to the Mishnic sense of nu‘ better

than .

’ And this seems to underlie 2 Stadmpé‘

ts, Tg . N51

s o“; an,

and Vg . distantiam boni et mali ; all of which take

nmas governed by But nnnmust have the meaning whichit bears in iv . 6

,ix . 1 7 ; and the verb m: is used in the same

connexion in Job iii . 1 1—1 3 .

v . 6. 15s“ if frequent in Mishna . EH Est. v n. 4only .

v . 8 . B ernstein ’and Ginsburg supply 73 before

“ what

(advantage) hath the poor man over him who

over a leader or magnate in society . But the passage yields

good sense without so harsh an ellipse ;”

1 1 1m” must be a

description of the‘

poor man . Del .,Now .

, Siegfr .

,al .

,explain it

who understands the right rule of life—how to maintain his

proper social position,keeping his desires under control .

”But

the explanationadopted above,4, p . 1 7

,is simpler : [what

1Quaestiones nonnul lae Koheletanae, Breslau, 1 854.

vii . 1 ] ON SELECT PASSAGES 78

advantage has] a poor man who has got on in the world byknowing how to walk prudently and successfully before hisfellow men ?

”In ix . 1 3—16 an instance is given of a poor wise

man who gained no profit from his prudent wisdom .

v . 1 0 . nowmp3 . Its place in the order of the world wasfix ed like the stars

,Ps . cxlvii . 4, Is . x 1 . 26

”31 mm. armis not 31 1

,but (as most modern commentators)

“

and it was known [predetermined] what man was”or

3) a I (I y

was to be . G Ka l. 0 « W W avepwvros.

qvpnnw. Keri omits the article,of . x . 3

,20 . The alteration

here may have arisen to prevent the word being pronounced asa Hiphil (Euringer) . The Hiphil , though not found in EH

,is

common in Talmudic writings, and the Aphel in Targ . Theadj. t rim is a d

’

r . My. in EH . Cf . ispm iv . 1 2 .

v . 1 2 . tar/1m“ seeing that he spends them an extension of

the construction of a circumstantial clause . newin this senseis not found elsewhere in

’

M.T. But in Prov . xiii . 23,Q5 seems

to point to a reading which contained it or a similar word .

It is possible, however, to make 53 : complete the thought ofthe verb seeing that he makes them like a shadow i . e . hedies so soon that his days are made as evanescent as a shadow .

The expression need not be considered a Graecism .

OHAP . VII .

Oh . vii . 1 l a has no kind of relevancy to thecontext . The Mashal editor appears to have inserted it becauseit was cast in the same form as the following aphorisms ofKoheleth . If it is an independent proverb, v . 1 b is incompleteas it stands . B ickell emends “man man nzmowpvmm aw 3m,

extracting up” and the last two words from x . 1,which

,in his

arrangement of the book,stands immediately

[

before vi . 8 .

In 1 b he goes so far as to create half a distich : mma5:momin-mms , thus supplying a subj ect for the suffix in 115m.

Some change in the text seems necessary ; and the simplestwhich suggests itself is : mm: mm or an: nag/73 aw3m

115m is followed by as“ s.H . Aq . Hier . The suffix isdifficult

,and is omitted in QEBS Pesh . Delitz sch compares iv . 1 2

,

v . 1 7 ; but in both these passages the suffix (in 19 pm and m:

74 NOTES [vi 1

and in refers quite naturally to the subjects treated of in

the context,while here the suffix can be referred to nothing .

Either or perhaps (with B ickell) ” 3525, should be read .

2 mm: may be used of birthday festivities, thusconnecting v . 2 closely with v . 1 b .

o . 5 mowmm for mm ,the change of construction

expressing that the two actions of hearing are performed bydifferent people .

For the paronomasia r e n own cf . the Latin

proverb ifpsa hollem olla legit'

(Catull . 94.

‘ Nettles ’ and

kettle have been suggested .

2 (ap . per cocem em’

m imperitorum vincu lis quispiam

colligatwr, seems to confuse DW I: with D’S’DD and W : with mos .

mD31 , probably a gloss . See 5, p . 24

,footnote .

7 Ingenuity has been taxed to the utmost to find a

connexion of thought suggested by ”3 . For some of the suggestions which have been made see Delit

’

z sch in Ice. But theclause is evidently the second half of a Mashal taken fromsome unknown source . The lost half may have resembledProv . x vi . 8

”

31 pram. The judge instead of being ‘a wise man

’ isrendered ‘

mad’in his responsible position by the extortion

’

which forces a man ' to bribe him in order that he may win hiscase . Ewald

’s emendation "mmfor pm} is unnecessary .

asrm. Cf . Prov . xiii . 21 , Is . 1 . 4 (Gres . K. 1 1 7

mm .

'

For the versions see App . II . p . 161 . Midr . Koh . reads

mum: “ rebellion .

” Hier . . compares the thought of D t. x vi . 1 9 .

v . 8 TN . Elsewhere always with was (“meJer . x v . 15)

ex o. Ez . xv1 1 . 8 warm“me.

o . 1 0 Mashal on discontent, the Spirit of the old man

difi‘icfi lis queru lus laudator temporis act/i

so puero.

v . 1 1 There is no reason for departing from thesimple meaning of the words Wisdom is good with an

inheritance . ” This need not at all imply that it is not goodwithout an inheritance .Wright compares

I I I

panama; 60 mg mic-Lav Ka l. vofiv éxel.‘

xpij'

rac‘

yap 057 0 9 sis of

86? Tau‘

ry Kako'

is. (Menander)

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

76 NOTES [vii . 26

o . 26 amp . With reference to this passage and

Prov . xviii . 22 it was common in Palestine when someone wasmarried to ask N2” : 1 1: mm happy or unhappy ? Jeb . 63 b .

”

(Delitz sch )"13 wn ”

IV/N the woman who i s nets,

of . nSan Ps . cix . 4.

'v. 28"

1 111 again and again,

”Gen . xlvi . 29

,Ruth

v . 29 n133wn“contrivances

,2 Chr . xxvi . 15 only .

The Hamid speaks of civiliz ation with the evils that are apt to

follow 1n its train .

CHAP . VIII .

Oh . viii . 1 .

"

12m. Here only in EH . A loan word fromAram . mm ,

cf . fins , only in Gen . xl . ; xli .111 . All the versions read the adj. II) , which should probably

be adopted . The subst . nowhere has the bad sense here implied,but with the adj. it is not uncommon . Dt. xxvi ii . 50, Is. lvi . 1 1

Dan . viii . 23 .

Render he that is beld (impudent, coarse) of countenance .sew/ 1 Kethib . a Keri . For 1 32) of . 2 K. x xv . 29

,

Lam . iv . 1 .

The N is supported by Q5 Pesh . Hier . (all of which read“RWY ‘ is hated and by Taanith 7 b . every man who has"5 my one may hate, as the Scripture saith 82W”. ” 35 WW—a

note being added that “PW” i s not to be read . If 71! i s adopted,it is natural to read mW” ; but the pointing NAW’ can be illustrated by “3173 vii . 26.

In 7, p . 35

,BS . xiii . 25

,x ii . 1 8 are referred to.

2—6. Koheleth’s complaints on the tyranny of the king,interspersed with comments of the Hasid . See 4

, pp .

“

1 8 f .,

and § 5, pp . 25f .v . 2 . us should probably be omitted . See App . II . p . 155.

Del .,Siegfr . al . supply 1 11

“

l in accordance with ii . 1 , iii . 1 7 f .

But in all the nine passages in which‘ I said ’

occurs, Koh .

states the conclusions which he drew from his ponderings on

the problems of life : they form no parallel to the present

passage .

In the explanation of 17 0 . 2 6 given in 5 the following

points should be noticed . 5n3n5s: i s (with taken with e . 2 .

mm is a Divine command,as nearly always ; see BDB s .v .

1 Jer. Sanh . 21 ,8 , WDWNo -”

D ”5 ”JR.

viii . 1 1 ] ON SELECT PASSAGES 77

m1 35‘W ill not countenance,

’ cf . Ps . ci . 4 111 1: N5in. The

second 111 1 , with a different force, finds a parallel in ix .

'

1 2 .

mm 6b) means‘ trouble ’ if it is from the pen of Koheleth

,

and wickedness if from that of the Hasid .

For other explanations of the passag e see Delitz sch in loc.,

and Kraetz schmar Th.LZ . Sept . 15, 1 900 .

v. 9 . 11 11 31 . The inf . absol . is a continuation of a precedingfinite verb

,cf . ix . 1 1

,Gen . x li . 43 (Ges . K. 1 1 3 z ) .

e . 1 0 . As it stands the MT . must refer to two sets of people,the description of the second beginning atmppm And then Isaw wicked men buried and

.

they came . And from the holy

place they who have done rightlylmust depart and be forgotten

in the city .

”

But 1sni is impossibly abrupt2 there is no other instance of

the Piel being used in the sense of the Kal,

‘ depart’

; thereading mam/ 1 1 is very doubtful ; and 1: seems as though itshould have some connexion withTwo very slight emendationsmake the passage much clearer

omit 1 before l:l1p (it would easily arise by the doubling of the

preceding and read mane/1 1 . Perhaps also read TheMS . authority for these readings is given inApp . II . pp . 147

,155.

The passage thenrefers Solely to the wicked, whom Kohelethwatched when they received honourable burial in Jerusalem

,

and thought of the insolent success of their past lifeAnd then [in the face of this glaring wrong] I saw W icked

men buried,and they came from a holy place [where they

ought never to ‘ have been tolerated] ; and they used to go

about,and be praised in the

~

city because they had so done [i . e .

because they had ruled over others to their hurt] .

Then,BII Est. iv . 16 only

,where it has rather

a temporal force .WWP 0 1 137373 lit . From the place of a holy one . Cf . Mat.

xxiv . 15c’

v 76mg HMk 371-0 1 ) mi 363.135m For the meaning of the Piel of . iv . 15

,x i . 9

,Job

xxiv . 1 0 al .

For 11 ZW of . iv . 2,viii . 15. The Hithp . may have a reflexive

force,likem1 we: Ps . xlix .

'

1 9 .

v . 1 1 . lama. On the derivation see 8, p . 42 . It is here

1 2 lbs dixala Wpdfavres.2 R V. is obliged to supply

‘ to the grave.

’

78 NOTES [viii 1 1

treated as feminine,since .1w must be a participle ; and it i s a

construct depending on new,as the latter i s on .1 111 11 .

nmnobj. acc .

“ the domg of evil . ”

v . 1 2. were“ forasmuch as

,as in in) . 1 0

,1 1 (BDB s .v . 8 c) .

The clause is resumptive of 1 1 a,and practically repeats its

thought .an 1 : surely also. Some render 1 e ‘

although,’and take

DJ 1 : in an adversative sense ‘ yet—nevertheless . ’ But boththese meaning s are very doubtful

.

11 8 ? Should perhaps be read (see BDB Theomi ssion of mmor 13 1 131151 is harsh ; mmvi . 3 is not parallel,but nnx once ’ is not infrequent . Cf . 2 K.

'

vi . 1 0,Job x 1 . 5al .

The word completely puz z led the early translators, whichis strange if mmwere i the original reading . It should perhapsbe omitted

,or read See App . II. p . 148 .

151 1 1m l . 2 Hier . supply ms (of . 1 s . xlviii . 9,Prov . x ix .

So Siegfr . But the introduction of an unconnected participle,whose subject is God

,is very abrupt . It is much simpler

‘

to

supply 0 1 13 1 (of . v. 1 3,vii . 15)

“and prolongeth unto

'

himself

[days]e . 1 3 . need not be taken as a predicate with the

following words (Hitz ig, Siegfried thinks that the wordsmean that the wicked shall not prolong his days as a shadowlengthens in the evening ! But52 , when used to describe man

’slife,always denotes transitoriness, vi . 1 2, Job ter, Pss . tefr . Theexpression is cast into a negative f orm to make it parallel to

S53 1 19 ; but it is equivalent to“ he shall shorten his days

like a shadow .

” Cf . 533 new: as explained above,vi . 1 2 .

1 7. 16. mam a: 1: is a parenthesis . Cf . xi . 1 0 .

o . 1 7 . we: Se : Talm . 1‘mn. Of . Jon . i . 7, 1 2 with 8 .

OHAP. IX.

Ch . ix . 1 . 1 135. An unique form, perhaps cognate to

Possibly it should be read 1 135, inf . Kal of that verb(cf . iii . Some would read 1 1115, of . i . 1 3

,ii . 3, vii . 25. But

QB reads mm see App . II . p . 148 .

mm runs: 131 . For the meaning see 4, p . 1 9 .

v . 2 . 5311 . There is strong evidence for reading and

including it inthe preceding verse all that is before them is

ix . 1 1 ] ON SELEOT PASSAGES 79

vanity . See App . I I . p . 149 . If this is done, 1 14/N3 means‘

inasmuch as.

’

o . 2 . 113 21 311 evidently implies false or wrongful swearing,cf . Zech . v . 3 .

v . 3 . n1551n. See on i . 17, X1 1 1 nN1 . Either ‘

after him,

’i .e .

1

when he i s dead,of. ii . 12

,1 8

,

iii . 22, vi . 1 2, vii . 14,or

‘afterwards

,

’ Hier . post haec . Theformer is the simpler -explanation . Siegfried is led by 2 7 d

Tehev‘

rafa a l’

J‘ro

'

iv sis Vexpmis to read 1n11 nx1 . QB reads 13 .-11 1mm.

3 1 11 13 11 5x . Cf . the exclamation .1 1 1111151 n1 1n5Is . viii . 20 .

O . 4. were 1 13 . AS the text stands the Masoretes appear

to have intended the first clause to end with 1 11 3 1 . WhO ' is'

he

that chooseth—or is chosen ? ” But both the punctuation and

the consonants of theKethib are impossible . The Z akephKatonmust be placed (with Del . ) on 3 1 1 1 11

,and

‘

the Keri 1 3 11 1 must beread : “ Whosoever is joined unto all the living

,there is hope

(for See 4, p .

1 11 3535 as regards a live dog . The 5either introducesthe subst .

,making it equivalent to a azom. pend ,

or it may

perhaps be an emphasiz ing particle corresponding to the Arab .

la,Ass . law

‘ surely,

’cf . 1 Chr. vi i

,1,2 Chr . vii . 21 . (See

Ges . K. 143 e . Budde on Is . viii . 1 , Z ATW ix .

v . 7 .

”

1 1 1 3 3 13 . For already God hath consented to thyworks

,

”i . e . God determined in the past that man should be

allowed to have industry and pleasure to fall back upon as

a means of forgetting the sadness and shortness of his life .The thought is parallel to that in v . 1 9 . See 4

, p . 20 . For

11 3 1 cf . Ps. x 1 . 14.

o . 9 .1 13 1 53 . There is good evidence for the omission

of these words in the early text (App . II . p . and they havethe appearance of being an accidental repetition from the prec .clause .

o . 1 0 . 51142223 here only in the book . But that is not enoughto shew that the writer of the passage must be other than thewriter of such passages as iii . 20, vi . 6 In Ps. x x x .

the same writer who Speaks of Sheol in v . 4 describes,in v. 1 0

,

those who arein Sheol as the dust ” which cannot praise God .

my. 1 1 , 1 2 . A poetical exposition of the thought of iii . 1—9 .

1 7. 1 1 . m'

m1 . See on viii . 9 .

11151 . 1 K. v . 1 8 only . Here (as there) it impliesas is shewn by the following verse .

80 NOTES [ix . 14

v. 14. 3 3 D1 ~ surrounded,2K. vi . 15

,notnecessarily

‘

walked

round,

’JOS. vi . 4

3 1 1 12 13 must mean‘Siege-works,

’and is so understood in all

the versions ; but the word nowhere else occurs with thismeaning (contrast vi i . 13 1 1 1 1113 must evidently be read .

The 1 was probably due to the proximity of 3 1 18 13 in v . 12 .

3 11 13 13 occurs in two MSS . of de Rossi .v . 15. 13 1313 . See iv. 1 3 .

13513 1 . This is usually rendered and he delivered ’but this

is contradicted by v . 16b : if the poor man was not heard, hiswise counsel could not deliver the city . Render and he wouldhave delivered —an apodosis with the protasis suppressed, of .

Ex . ix . 15,1 Sam . xiii . 1 3 . On the whole passage see 3

,

pp . 1 2 f .

v . 1 7 . 11 11 1 is the restful quiet which pervades the conversation of the wise ; 11v is the noisy undisciplined talk of fools

,

among whom the chiefest of them must talk louder than any,

in order to be heard .

3 11113221 . B ickell unnecessarily omits,and reads 11 p1111

”3 One who takes the place of chief among fools—an

arch-fool . It is not a Graecism of . 2 Sam . xxiii . 3 .

CHAP . X .

Oh . x . v. 1 . 11 113 1 3 13 1 must amp 3 3 13 1 (Nowack) . Siegfr.

says it is against the analogy of 11 1 13 153 11 ,”

13 1 144313 ,”

13 153 ; but itis not deadly ’ flies but dead ’ flies that contaminate Ointment .On 45avianHavaroficm t see App . II . p . W inckler’s emendation1 13 1 11 3 1 11 13 13 13 13 1 creates greater difficulties than it solves . But

the plur . war should probably be read ; the om1 SS1on of thefinal 1 may have been due to the insertion of the gloss 11113 1 .

The latter word is omitted in GB 2 Pesh . Hier . Tg .

1 13 3 13 . It is natural to emend 1 13 3131 , which occurs in someeditions The clause

,as it stands

, g ives a thought

parallel to that of v . a ; but QB suggests an early reading3 1 11 153 13 1 133 13 11 133 11 131113 1 3 1 ,

“more valuable is a little wisdom

than the great glory of folly,which is converse to the thought

of v . a . See App . II . pp . 150 f . Siegfr . emends 1 91

131113 11 153 0 .

v. 2 . Compare the Mashal 1 1 . 14.

x . 9] ON SELECT PASSAGES 81

11 1 13 15. Not‘at his right hand

,

’an anatomical statement to

which the most unscientific of writers would not commit himself ; but

“is (directed) towards his right hand (Del . ,

Del . notes that 511 13 10 11 in late Heb . denotes to turn to thewrong side —take a wrong course . Siegfr . understands it tomean that wisdom and folly will not combine ; they go in

opposite directions .v. 3 . won us. His understanding is looking, cf . ix . 8 .

1 1311 1“And he saith concerning everyone He is a fool,

Hitz . Siegfr . after 2 Hier . This gives force to 1 1 1 3 131 .

Wh ile he is actually travelling on the wrong course leftwards,’

he is in such a state of infatuated folly that he says abouteveryonebut himself that he is a fool . The explanation

“ hedeclareth (by his actions and behaviour) to everyone that he

(himself) is a fool ” (Del . , Now . ) gives an unusual meaning to

1 1311 , and renders 1 1 1 3 DJ pointless . On QB,which reads SQQ-for

see App . 1 1 . pp . 151,165.

v. 4.

”

1 1 1 13 1513 i . e . do not throw up your post in a rage .

Contrast the injunction of the°

Haslcl,

. viii . 3 (note in

1813 1 13“ healing

,

”and so soothing

, pacifying Prov . x ii . 1 8 .

2 curiously Gwcl>pomiw1 ; ap . Hier . pndflcitlam.

v . 5. mar) : of the nature of an error .

” Del .,Now . describe

the preposition as‘

3 veritatls’: but see Ges . K. 1 1 9 d

,Rem .

For me of . v . 5. The .1 3 1 13 spirit is shewn by Koheleth in

implying that the glaring 1njustice of the ruler i s an un

intentionalmy. A is

"; verb with the form of a no. Ges . K. 75gg .

v . 6.19 3" 13 1 13 11 133 , If this is not to be read

"D3 the adjective

must be considered as loosely added in apposition In thehigh positions [among men] -many of them .

” The passage isnot included among analogous instances in Ges . K. l 26v,

z .

Luz z atto reads in;“ folly hath set many in high places but

the parallelism of v . b forbids this ; and it is not folly but the11 1 1 131 of the ruler that is responsible .

v . 8 . 11 13 1 1 a pit.

”An Aram. loan word

,in EH here only

'

It,

occurs in Pesh . Tg . of Prov . xxvi . 27 (Heb . TheMashal was apparently well known in different forms, sinceit occurs in Prov . loc. cit

,and in ES . xxvii . 26.

v; 9 . 3 211 1 . Usually ‘ be grieved,’Gen . x lv . 5

,» 1 Sam . xx . 3 ;

only here used of physical pain .

M.

82 :NOTES 1 . [x . , 9

13 3 1 endangers‘

himself . A NH word . Del . cites Borach .

i . 3, and adds that in Tg . and Talm . the Ithpael 13 11 3 11 has the

samemeaningv. 1 0 .

“ If the ax e be blunt, and he hath not sharpened theedge, then he must

"

strengthen his force,”i .e. put

"

more forceinto his strokes .

amp, Piel in the sense of Kal . The latter occurs of teeth in

N13 is'

the man already mentioned as endangering himself

by cutting log s .N5. See

'App ; II . p . 151 .

3 1 1 3 edge,” '

c Ez . x'

x i .

5553 make smooth,

”i . e . not notched or rough ; Cf . 551) 11 3 111 1

Ez . i . Dan . x . 6,d. e .

'

smooth (and so shining) bronz e ;

3 151 1 1 , of . 51 11 1 1 3 1 Job -xxi .’

7,the frequent-51 11 and

m‘m 1 13 1 1 Chr . vi-i . 5, 7, 1 1 ,For other interpretations see Del . in loc”

1 1 111 11 1 1“And wisdom is advantageous for giving success .

But"the Hiphil occurs nowhere else

,and the construction is

awkward . W inckler’s transposition W’WDU 3 ”

”11 1 1 wouldmake

it easier . But 45,Pesh . Hier . suggest ; the Kal participle,

“ '

an advantage to the successful man is wisdom —which isattractive . “ The same construct 111 11 1 occurs in i ii . 9 advan

tage of ( for) 11 122111 11v . 1 1 . 31 15N53

“ without enchantment, i . e . b ecause thereis no enchantment ready .

11 11 1, i . e .

,if the charmer oome

'

too late .

111153 11 “ destroys him . The suffix refers to the’

fool himself,

v . 1 3 . mssn‘

Here only in this form,though it should

probably be read for 11 155111 in i . 1 7, ii . 1 2, ix . 3 . I t isthe only instance in which the abstract termination 11 1 is

affixed to the form of the Kal participle . See Barth NB

v. 14. If .v . b is a misplaced fragment of Koheleth’s writing

(see .4, p . the Second half of the Masha l beginning v . a

may have been lost ; and thisMasha lmakes clearer the meaningof v . 15a .

v. 15. The Mashal appears to mean -The . fool " worries

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

NOTES

CHAP . XI .

Ch . xi . vv. 1—6. Koheleth advises prudent industry « (cf . ix . 1 0)combined with pleasures (7—1 0) as the last resort before Old

age and death come on (x ii . 1

v .

~ 1 . Several explanations have been offered,of which the

favourite is that the verse inculcates a liberal charity Giveyour bread to any who chance to need it

,and you will at some

distant time receive a reward .

’

Palm’s reference to the Greek ar et’

pew i58wp undertake a

fruitless task,is of course negatived by v . b . And other equally

impossible explanations are mentioned by D el . in loc.

There can be little doubt that the words refer to tradingto those “

who do business in great waters . ” 3 115may denoteliterally the corn trade

,or it may be a figurative expression for

any goods sent out on the sea with hopes of subsequent p rofit .A parallel proverb is ascribed to BS . See 7, p . 36.

In the course of many days ” is suitable,because trading

voyages Were often long and dangerous .It is unsafe to assume ( as Kleinert, St. Kr . 779 ff . ) that this

proves Alexandria to have been the place of writing . viii . 1 0makes Jerusalem much more probable .

v . 2 . More advice to business men . Do not embarkyour capital in one enterprise, but in seven, yea in eight .

’

The explanation which refers this to the giving of charity isforbidden by v . b .

On the collocation of numerals to express an indefinite totalsee Ges . K. 1 358 .

vv. 2—6. Koheleth reverts to the thought ofl

man’

s helplessness in the face of Necessity. Nature works by invincible andinscrutable laws ; so that in all his industry man

'

can only dohis little best (v . 6) and hope for a successful result .

v . 3 . 513 1 3 111 . Two explanations are possible . 1 . By an

unchangeable law of Nature a tree that has fallen by a tempestmust lie in the direction in which it is impelled . The only

objection to this is that,as an illustration of man’s helplessness,

it seems rather weak . Man cannot prevent the rain fromfalling or undo its effects

,but when a tree has fallen man can

alter its direction. The proverb is not concerned with the

x ii . 1 i ] ON SELEOT PASSAGES 85

falling, but with the subsequent direction of the rp—and this

is so whether N1 1” or N13 is read . 2. It is not impossible thatthe words refer to a process of divination . If a stick is tossedup in the air, that a man may guide his action by the directionin which it comes to rest

,he has no control over the result .

Rhabdomancy is referred to in Hos. iv . 12,but it is not

known what form it took ; and belomancy in Ez . x x i . 26

(Engl . where the king of Babylon shook (perhaps shuffled)arrows . See art. Divination ’

in Encycl . B lbl .

N1 .1 1 . According to Ges. K. 23 11,an early scribal error for

1 3 1 (vol . 75 It is quite as likely to have been a scribalerror for N1 .1 , which B ick . and Siegfr .

.

adoptv . 4. It is useless to wait until outward conditions are

perfect before you pursue your industry ; because they are

seldom perfect, and you cannot control them.

v. 5. 3 1 13 3113“As in the case of bones

,

—resumptive of theclause 1 1 1 3 113 and both are answered by .1 3 3 .

v . 6. 3 1 115. Not in the evening,

”but until the evening

,

of . Job iv . 20 .

.1 1 1N, with this meaning 11 . 3 only .

v. 8 . N3 3 53 . Cf . ix . 1 as emended .

v. 1 0 . 11 11 113 3“manhood’s prime,

”i . e . the age of black

hairs (1 111 3 ) as distinct‘

from .1 3 13 the age of hoary hairs . So

Mishn . Midr .,see Del . The derivation from 1 113 dawn would

imply a period of life even earlier than 11 1151 11 , which .would beinappropriate .If t he right view is taken in § 5, p . 26

,that x 1 1 . 1 a is an

insertion by the Hasid, the clause ”51 3 13 is a parenthesis (cf . viii . 16b) , and the continuation of v. 1 0 a is x ii . 1 b .

CHAP . XII.

Ch x 1 1 . v. 1 a . .

'

1N1 13 . Graetz,followed by B ickell, reads

1 1 13 thy fountain,

understanding it of the wife of youth ;and Cheyne inclines to it. But this

,as Davidson ’ truly says,

strikes a lower note than is heard anywhere in the book .

”

If the text is retained,but the words are assigned to

Koheleth,they imply, as Cheyne points out, that an old man

1 Art. Ecclesiastes ’ in Encycl . B ibl .

86 NOTES [xing 1 aK

is unable to remember his Creator . But if the words are bythe Hamid

,all difficulty is removed .

vv. 1 b—6. On these verses there have been quot homines

lot sententiae ; but the interpretations are mainly five

(1 ) The verses are held to describe the failing of an old

man’s physical powers (early Jewish wrl ters

, and manymoderns) .

(2)'They contain a picture of a storm

,representing the

approach of death (Umbreit, Ginsburg , Plumptre) .

(3) They represent the approach of death under the figureof the fall of night (Michaelis, Nachtigal ; discussed by Taylor) .

(4) They are a literal picture of the gloom and sadness ina household when the master has just died

They are to be explained by the seven days of death,

i . e . days of cold and wintryweather, immediately preceding thePalestinian springtime, which are p eculiarly dangerous for the

aged and weakly , (C . H . H . Wright, aftenWetz stein) .

It is unnecessary to discuss these views in detail . All thatis worth knowing about them may be learnt from Taylor,Delitz sch andWright .The explanation that is here offered differs from others

,in

that it “

does not assume one line of thought to be sustainedthroughout the verses . The verses divide themselves into distinct paragraphs

2

,indicating changes of thought andmetaphor .

(i) v. 1 h, introduced by N51 3 N 1 11, is (as stated above)merely a continuation of xi . 9 a

, 10 .

(ii) In v . 2,introduced by N51 3 N 1 11, the coronach on de

parted youth begins, with a description of the gloom and

frequent sorrows with which old age is overcast .

(iii) In vv . 3,4 the construction changes with ”

3 3 1 13 ,

and seven details are poetically enumerated, figurative of the

physical failure of the old man’s body .

(iv) In v. 5a 3 13 marks another

,but slighter change

,intro

ducing four further details, describing physical incapacity. of

other kinds;

(v) v. 5b contains the author’s remark,explaining , without

metaphor, that the foregomg descriptions refer to old age .

1 The D irge of Coheleth, London, 1 874. He further suggests that the

passage was taken from a recognised collection of dirges.

2 They are not called stanz as, because they vary sogreatlym length .

3 Possibly, however, 17 3 1 13 1 is the true reading (App . _1 1 . p .

xii . 3] ON SELECT PASSAGES 87

(vi) vv. . 6, 7 contain '

ah entl rely fresh thought, introduced

by s‘:

"

MN.

"m the author passes from signs of decay to themoment of death

,describing it first under figures (v . and

then literally (v. 7)v . 2 . Ag eneral description of gloom . The clouds returning

after the rain represent the recurrent sorrows of an old man,

as he feels his powers forsaking him, and from time to timemourns the death of relatives and friends .

vv. 3, 4. Those who are Opposed -to the viewthat these

verses describe the failing powers of the old man’s body are

i

apt

to argue as though Koheleth could not possibly have c allowed

himself a mixture of metaphors . But the boldest u se )of metaphors is found m the sublim

'est . Hebrew. poetry ; e . g . Ils x'

xviii .

14—2 0, x x x . 273 3 . Ag ain

,this treatment of the verses has been,

by .more than one writer,severely styled as the anatomical ”

interpretation . And no doubt some of the writers who havefollowed this method have deserved the criticism

,both for the

absurd and unworthy explanations which they offer,and also

because they have run the theory to death in attempting toapply it throughout the whole of the vv . 2—6. But the enume

ration of parts of the body in order figuratively“

to describevarious weaknesses or excellencies is extremely common in theOld Testament . Oriental notions of poetical fitness oftendifferwidely from our own . In the Song of Songs this feature

reaches a point far exceeding what is here claimed for Koheleth . See also the narrative in Shabb. 152 a, quoted by Del .

(Engl . trans . p . 407 ~footnote) .

v . 3 . 11m“ quake .

” Est. v . 9,Pilp . Hab . ii . 7 . The keepers

of the house a1 e the hands and arms .mwnn

“

make themselves crooked, or twisted, i . 15 vn . 1 3 .

The men of might ” are the legs and knees, bowed and bentin weakness . Contrast Song of Songs, v . 1 5

Aram . Bron. As . bata la ,

‘cease .

mat-non The grinding maids, i e .

” the, teeth .

1mm. Piel hereKonly ;

'

intrans . be (or become) few,of .

"DDU

Jer.

-li . 56 (Ges K k) . The rendering‘ ‘ when they have

wrought a little” would require the Hiphil, and a second verb .

when of the eyes, Ps . lxix . 24,Lam. v . 1 7 . No explanation

which refers mmmliterally to ladies looking out of windowshas satisfactorily accounted for this verb . It cannot mean .

‘

be

88 NOTES [x ii 3

in darkness,

’or

‘ be gloomy,or sad

’

; it must have the same

force as in v. 2 .

It -is unnecessary to press the metaphor of mm , either as

windows latticed by lashes, or as sluices from which tearsflow.

v . 4. mn‘rr. The connexion in which this stands with mnnnthe mill ’ —the place of grinding , i . e . themouth) shews that its

meaning is the “ lips,”cf . Ps . cxli . 3 mew51 . Del . understands it

of the‘ jaws

,

’comparing Job xli . 6N D ”1151 , of the jaws of the

leviathan ; but in that case pm loses its force . The lips arethe doors on the street . ”

5em Ges . K. § 45c.

Dipfi’

(Ges . K. 72 t) . The jussive,as in the case of in“ (v.

seems to be used for the imperfect, with no special force (id .

1 09 k) .The meaning of the present text is very doubtful . Some of

the proposed explanations are : The bird (of evil omen) riseswith a shriek .

” “

He rises (i . e . is roused from sleep) at thesound of a bird

,describing the wakefulness of an old man

who is roused by the twittering of a sparrow ; but the followingwords seem to describe his deafness . “ He (i . e . his voice) risesinto a sparrow

’s voice (a childish treble) 2 « at waficrem t 4mm}

m i} o rpovec’

ov leads Siegfr . to read Sl l’ 7 11321, and the twitteringof the sparrow sinks down—sounds faint .

” The same meaningis reached by Kraetz schmar with 573m(following Cornill onEz . vii . 1 1 p22

“) mobs Dr) Dunn) . Parallelism with men wouldsuggest 5m573m; it is true the imperf . is not found elsewhere,but that

,in itself

,would be no objection . It is questionable

,

however, if imp can mean grow faint, or weak’

; Is . x ix . 6,

xxxiii . 9 (the only passages in which it occurs) do not b ear itout. But the suggestion is attractive .

'

vwnm) : is a general expression for isongs,’

l

or perhaps theindividual notes ’ (Ges . K. 1 28 v) . For men of the voice of .

Is . xxix . 4. Wmmust be human song,as opposed to the song

of birds .The two expressions thus describe the old man

’s deafnessand the sound of the sparrow fades, and all the notes of

(human) song sink low.

1 Printedmp": in some editions.

x ii . 5a] ON SELECT PASSAGES 89

v. 5a . Four additional (DJ) details of incapacity .

new . The sudden introduction of the plural is awkward .

Perhaps read M ”,the 1 being a duplication of the followmg 1 .

mm can hardly mean ‘ from above ’ as opposed to 1 1 1 3 ,

which would require 31mmor mam . They are (or he is)afraid of a high thing, i . e . he shrinks from mounting any highor steep place .

amt-mm dreadful terrors . The old man,blind and deaf,

is frightened at every turn lest he may be injured“

on the road .

“PW“ NJ?! is rendered by many and the almond tree blossoms

,

” treating the verb as Hiphil ofm and since the almondblossom

,which is usually pink, has sometimes been observed by

travellers to bleach when about to fade,the expression is taken

to refer to the white hair of the old man ! The Hiphil isanomalous, whether from rs: orrm,

and it is natural to read

mm,and he rejects the almond,

”i . e . his appetite fails so that

he can no longer enjoy luxuries .3 1m Sn owis the crux of the passage ; lit. and the locust

carries itself as a burden— drags itself along . A fair sensecould be made of it if Sam» could mean

‘ is a burden —is tooheavy for him . The light

,easily digested locust is food too

solid for the old man. This would form a parallel to the

preceding and following clauses, and is clearly the kind of

meaning that the context suggests . It is possible that bothwords are corrupt

’

. The following are among the variedexplanations suggested :

“ The ‘re'

r'n f is burdensome —i . e . its

lovely chirp fails to give pleasure (Taylor) . The locust creepsout —in the dangerous cold days which usher in spring

(Wright) . amis a figure of the coma,the hinder region of the

pelvis, so that the rheumatic old man walks stiffly with failingjoints ! G1; Hier . the locust becomes fat.

”

nwnsn The caper-berry,”so called because it stimulated

appetite’: QB Aq .

vi Kafmraptss. Talm . mmns . See Moore

,in

Journ . B ibl . Lit. x . 55—64.

1 may be the locust tree, the popular name given to the ‘carob

’

cemtonia si liqua ; or : nnnmay be a corruption of 3 11 1110 . Cf . Lk. xv. 1 6,

Pesh . Syrfim-W See art. ‘ Husks in Encycl . B ibl .

2 Whether it was used,as often supposed, for stimulating sexual desire is

uncertain. The thought is quite unsuitable to the context.3 2 is doubtful . S.E . suggests éwlyoros or connecting it in some way

with sexual passion. But codd. 248, 252 give ér lr avos, pointing to ngrggsq,

90,NOTES [x ii 5a

Prob . read “50 1 with ’

Qlir,

‘

31a0 K68a0 9fi, 2 StaKvOfi. Cf .Is . viii . Aq . . derives it from ma—kamretfaa . S'

ome render“

and the caper-berry bursts”

; but even if this were true tonatural ihistory (see BDB it would be very difficultto

‘

assign a meaning to the expression .

Render the caper-berry is made (becomes) ineffectual .v . 5b . The

,writer. indicates the purport of the foregoingverses f or man is on his way to his perpetual home, and thewailers go about m the street ” ; i . e . every man is on the waytowards Sheol (15m,

of . i . 4, iii . 20, vi . 6,ix . and hired

wailers are constantly gomg about for one funeral and thenanother .The literal use of p12} in this verse need not cause any

difficulty in the figurative use in v. 4.

v. 6. 1415were ”

It: marks a transition from pictures of old age

to pictures of the moment of death, to the thought of whichv. 56 has just led .

J

prwKethib be removed (Niphal o

‘

wr. My. ) pn'

vKeri be

bound ” (Nah . 1 1 1 . 1 0 Pual only) . Both are meaning less, andmost commentators now read a 1

“ be broken .

” See App . II .

pp .

[

155f .

nonn53 11 ; This is evidently connected with the following

: mm and Nowack is probably right in referring it’

to thecord or chain which supports a lamp , The nS: of a goldenlampstand occurs in Zech . iv . 2

,31

(ambeing afterwards transferred to the oil in the bowl, v . The fact that no otherinstance Can be quoted of a

l

lamp hanging by a silver cord,is

not of the slightest weight . It is rich Oriental imagery,as e . g .

Prov . x xv.,

1 1 . The snapplng of the cord and the fall of thelamp, by which the bowl would crack and

'

the oil be spilled, isa suitable metaphor for death

’. This explanation is far more

probable than those which refer the cord and lamp to parts ofthe body—e . g . the cord is the Spinal cord or the stringof the tongue which is tied (mm) in

‘

death (Cheyne) ,the bowl

is the head, and so on .

1mm. Either an irregular imperf . Kal from . J?“ with an

intransitive force, or, more probably, to be read’ffim. Thus

fem. of 11 13 s“ the poor soul n 1 11 722 0 . Field

"

(Hex in‘

loc. ) suggests that"

emro~oc was merely a corruption of emno~oc

1 M.T. in v. 3 has mtg, but n‘ag should probably be read.

2 Compare the metaphor of spilt water, 2 Sam. x iv. 14.

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

92 NOTES [x li . 9

n:11 .1 . QB connects with the following verse . Pesh . has it inboth verses .

v . 1 0 . is in apposition to 3 111 : with an adverbial force (Ges .

K. 1 1 8 q) :“ something written in uprightness .

” 31 11 31 would besimpler (with QB Kai yeypanue

’

vov forming a parallelwith the preceding and following 11 3 1 . The emendation 3 171277.(Bick .

, Siegfr . ) is unnecessary .

vv . 1 1,1 2 . Second postscrip t. The

‘ wise man ’dwells on

the value of short incisive meshali fm

,such as are found in (Bol

lections, and are a scribed in general to Solomon .

v . 1 1 .” 13371 3. (Baer, Qu . Vol . p . 70) like goads . Cf .

1 S . xiii . 21 (where see Driver) . There seems to be an

intentional play on the words and two other such

plays, vii . 1 , 6, have been noticed from the pen of the ‘ wiseman .

’ The goad is an instrument for driving, and stimulatingto action ; and m

eshalim have that effect on men’s minds

11 11 13122193 1 and like nails . ” Notw’

(Baer, Qu . Vol . p . theusual form being 11 11 19 0 1: (Jer . x . 4, 2 Chr . iii . 9) or al (Is .x li . 7

,1 Chr . xxii . Cf . i . 1 7. On the masc . see

Albrecht,Z ATW x vi . 90 f .

131111133“

planted”

and so‘ fixed ’

. 2® wa rm/67 69 . Cf . PS .

xciv . 9 , Dan . x i . 45.

11 1a cannot refer to the masters of assemblies,i . e .

the members of the assemblies of the wise ; to say that theyare like firmly fixed nails is meaningless

,especially when their

words have just been described as goads . Siegfried’s emendation 15113 21 is unnecessary . 5113 can be used of things, as in

Is . xli . 15; and Del . explains it well, by reference to

rm: 1511: (Gen . .1 s 15113 (Neh . vi . those who arebound together in a covenant or oath . The words of the wiseare to a certain extent personified ; they are bound together incollections .

1 11 1: 11 111 13 evidently refers to Solomon, who is regarded as

the ultimate source of all proverbs . The metaphor of theshepherd teacher) hasbeen led up to by the goads .

”For 119

afterm: of . 2 K. x x v . 30 . Cheyne accepts Klostermann’s treat

ment of the clause : the members of the assemblies have [inthe case of Ecclesiastes] given -them forth from another

(708 ) shepherd .

”But the Mas . text and punctuation yield a

perfectly good sense .

x ii . 1 3,14] ON SELECT PASSAGES 93

v. 1 2. 1 11 1 1 1 and besides them, 1 11 1 1 having the sameforce as in v. 9 . The expression is somewhat loosely worded .

The writer means ‘ besides (attending to) those (words of thewise) , be warned,

’and be not led away by the multitude of

books .133 . The ‘ wise man ’

assumes the style of many of the

proverbs (Prov . i . 8, 1 1 . 1,iii . 1 ,

devotion to study ” ; unique in BHM See Nowack, in Ice.

The words are divided into two clauses (as inEng . the second depending for its meaning on the first .Hitz ig makes we: the predicate to all the rest : makingmany books without end

,and much study

,is a weariness of the

flesh ” —which,as Del . says

,is a truism.

Krochmal suggests that the “ words of the wise are theHagiographa, and the warning against books is a warning

against the reception of any others into the Canon (see Cheyne,Job and Solomon, pp . 233 But besides the fact that thewords of the wise is quite unsuitable as a description of theHagiographa as a whole

,this explanation relegates v .

.

12 to a

very late date ; whereas it is extremely probable that vv . 1 3,14

were the latest addition to the book, and that they are alludedto by B . Sira (see 7

, p .

vv. 1 3, 14. Third postscript. The Hasid sums up his own

teaching .

1 10 stands grammatically unconnected with the followingwords ; of .

1mB . S . xliii . 27,and Engl . ‘

to conclude . ’

1mm may be treated in three different ways

(1 ) All has been heard .

” The Hasid refers to the teaching about the fear of God

,that he has already inserted in the

book .

(2) Let us hear all,i . e . let us sumup the truth in a

word being the pausal form of the 1 st pers . plur . But

this colloquial use of the 1 st person is unique in the book,and

improbable .It should be noted

,however

,that B . S . xliii . 27 seems to

adopt this View with am: is .

(3) Read very} with at use. (ex o. v 253) Pesh . This isadopted by Siegfr .

,and forms a parallel to N1 1 and 1 13W.

If the M.T. is to stand,

‘

(1 ) is the simplest explanation .

Two others may be noticed : Del . (following“ The

94 NOTES ON SELECT PASSAGES {x li .

final reSult all“having been heard, (is this) - Fe'

ar Grod,

'

etc .

B ut this is much more awkward than the analogous construotions which he quotes , D t. x x i . Ez ra x . 6. Ewald explains

rows“

as audiendum est,and Hier .

,auditv, perfaci lis est, seems to

follow the same method .

man ‘7: 11 1 15 cannot mean for this i s the whole of man

(Ew .,

nor“ the whole duty of man

”

(Engl . nor the

All of man ”

(Knobel) ; mm‘7: must mean every man

,as

in iii . 1 3,v . 1 8

,vii . 2 . Del .

, Now . are undoubtedly right incomparing Ps. cix . 4 I am prayer,

” cx . 3“ thy people are

free-will offering s .”

And see vii . 26 13 1 1 13 13 wn were. Theexpression this is everyman means every man is destinedfor

,and should be wholly absorbed in

,this . ” To

.

supply ifii l

(Siegfr . ) is quite unnecessary .

'

v . 14. D511:‘73 517 into the judgment (which is passed)

upon every hidden thing”

(Del . , Now ., 51) cannot

mean together with ’after the universal .1 v 53 . And see

the Hasid’s words in x i ; 9 which he here echoes .

u‘m The dagesh is to make distinct the pronunciation of

the qul escent guttural , as m 1 K. x . 3,cf . 1 511 1 ix . 8 .

111 mm 3 1 13 DR refers to 11 22171: 53 , not to 05113 5D . This wasindicated by the position of the Ethnach .

After v. 14the Masoretes repeated v . 1 3, to avoid ending thebook with a severe thought . The same was done at the end of

Isaiah the group of the Twelve minor prophets

and Lamentations (n131p) ; and the four books were noted bythe mnemonic letters pp

”

n1 .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

96 A TRANSLATION [i . 14

I saw all the actions which are done under the sun ; and

lo all is a vapour and a striving after wind .

A crooked thing cannot be corrected, and a deficit cannotbe reckoned .

And I spake with my heart saying AS for myself, 10 I havegreatly multiplied wisdom beyond any man who hathbeen before ' me over Jerusalem ; and my heart hathseen to a great extent wisdom and knowledge .

And I have given my heart to know wisdom*and know

ledge madness and folly . I know that this also is astriving after wind;

CHAPTER II .

I said in my heart Come, let me test thee with gladness,and enjoy thou good . And 10 that also was a vapour .

Of laughter I said It'

is mad ; and of gladness What doththis accomplish ?I explored in my heart to refresh my flesh with wine—myheart behaving as usual with wisdom—and to lay holdupon folly, until I might see what good there is for thesons Of men that they may provide [for themselves]under the heavens during the [small] number Of thedays of their life .I did great things ; I built me houses, I planted me

vineyards .I made me gardens and parks ; and I planted in them fruittrees of every kind!I made me pools of water, to water from them a plantation

Sprlngmg up with trees .I procured men-servants and maid-servants

,and I had

home-born slaves ; I also had property in cattle and

sheep in large quantities, more than all who werebefore me in Jerusalem .

I amassed me also silver and gold,and the treasure of

kings and the provinces ; I prepared me singing men and

Singing women, and the luxuries of the sons of mena concubine, yea [many] concubines .

And I grew continually greater, beyond anyone,

who was

before me in Jerusalem ; yet my wisdom stood firm for

my help .

ii . 21 ] A TRANSLATION'

97

And nothing that my eyes asked for did I keep fromthem : I withheld not my heart from any gladness for

my heart was glad as”

a result of all my toil ; and thiswas my portion as a result of all my toil .And I turned [to look] at all my works which my hands

had wrought, and at the toil which I had toilsomely

pursued ; and lo all was a vapour and a striving afterwind

,and there was no profit under the sun .

And I turned to see wisdom and madness and‘

folly ; for

what can the man do that cometh after the king ? Thatwhich *he hath already] doneAnd I saw thatwisdom hath advantage over folly, as the

advantage Of light over darkness .AS for the wise man his eyes are in his head, but the foolwalketh in darkness . But I know, nevertheless, that one

mischance will befal them all .

And I said in my heart, AS the mischance of the fool,me

also will it befal and why was I then superlativelywise ? And I said in my heart that this also was a

vapour .For there is no remembrance alike of the wise man and

of the fool perpetually, because in the days to come allIs already forgotten . And how doth the wise man dieand the fool alike !And I hated life

,because the work was evil unto me

which was done under the sun ; because all is a vapourand a Striving after wind .

And I hated all my toil wherein I was toiling under thesun ; because I must leave it to the man who Shall beafter me .

And who knoweth whether he will be a wise man or a

fool ? And he must have control over all my toil whereinI have toiled and wisely wrought under the . sun . Thisalso is a vapour .And I turned about to make my heart despair concerningall the toil wherein I had toiled under the sun .

For there is a man whose toil is in wisdom and knowledgeand Skill ; and to a man who hath not toiled at it hemust give it as his portion . This also is a vapour anda striving after wind;

- 98 A TRAN SLATION [ii . 22

For What doth a man get by all his toil and his strivingof heart in which he toileth under the sun ?

For all his days his task is [full of] sorrows and trouble ;even in the night his heart resteth not. This also isa vapour .There is no go

'

od thing for man but that he Should eat anddrink and let himself experience pleasure ‘

in all his toil .This also I saw

,that it is from the hand of God ;

for who can eat or who can“ enjoy *

apart from Him*

F or to the man that is good before H im ,H e hath

given W isdom and know ledge and gladness ; but

to the sinner H e hath given the task of gathering

and amassing to give to him that is good be fore

God .

This also is a vapour and a striving after w ind .

CHAPTER III .

For everything there is a fixed moment and a time forevery occupation under the heavensA time to be

‘

born,and a time to die ;

a time to plant, and a time to uproot what is planted .

A time to kill, and a time to heal ;a time to break down, and a time to build .

A time to weep, and a time to laugh ;a time to mourn, and a time to dance .

A time to cast abroad stones, and a time to gather stones ;a time to embrace, and a time to abstain fromembracing .

A time to seek, and a time to lose ;a time to preserve, and a time to throw away .

A time to tear,and a time to sew ;

a time to be silent and a time to speak .

A time to love,and a time to hate ;

a time Of war,and

'

a time of peaceWhat profit hath a worker in that wherein he toileth ?

I saw the task which God hath given to the sons of men

to be occupied with,

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

1 00 A TRANSLATION [iv . 1

CHAPTER IV .

And I returned and saw all the oppressions which werewrought underthe sun : and lo the tears of . the Oppressed,and they had no comforter ; and from the hand of their

oppressors [went forth] power ; and they had no com

forter .And I congratulated the dead who were already dead

,

more than the living who were still alive .And better than them both, him who hath not yet comeinto existence

,who hath not seen the evil work that is

done—under the sun .

And I saw al l the toil and all the skilful work,that it

meant the jealousy felt for a man . by his neighbour .

This also is a vapour, and a striving after wind .

Thefool foldeth his hands and eateth his own flesh.

B etter is a handful of quiet than two handfuls of toil andstriving after wind .

And I turned and saw an empty wretchednesslunder the

sun .

There is a solitary man,without a second ; moreover he

hath no son or brother ; and there is no end to all his

toil, yea his eye is not sated with wealth . And for whomdo I toil, and deprive myself of good ? This also is a

vapour and an evil task .

Two are better than one,because they have a good reward in

their toi l ..I

For if one fall, the other wi ll raise up his friend ibut alas

for the solitary man that falleth, and there is notl

a second

to raise him up .

Also if two lie [together], they havewarmth; but thlesolitary

man—how shall he be warm ?

And if [someone] overpower the solitary man,et] two

can withstand him ; and a three-fold cord is n quicklysnapped.

1 When occurs outside the usual formula,it requires

/ a variety of

renderings according to the context,

A TRANSLATION 1 0 1

B etter is a youth poor and wise than a king Old and a fool,

who knoweth not how to be admonished any more .

For from the prison house he emerged to become king—foreven in his kingdom he was born poor .I saw all the living who were going about under the sun

,

[that they were] with the second youth who would standup in place of him .

There was no end to all the people—to all at whose headhe was. Moreover they whoc ame afterwards would not

delight in him . For this also is a vapour and a strivingafter wind .

Guard thy foot when thou goest unto the house Of

God ;‘

and'

if thou draw near to hearken ,

*better than

the gift of fools is thy sacrifice* ; for they know not .

’1‘ex cept how to do* ev il .

CHAPTER V .

B e not rash w ith thy mouth , and let not th ine heart

be hasty‘

to utter a word before God ; for God is in

the heavens , and thou art upon the earth therefore

let thy words be few .

F or a dream cometh w ith a multitude of bus iness ;

and the voice of a fool in a multitude of words

W hen thou vow est a vow to God, de lay not to pay it ;

for there is no p leasure in fools . That which thou

vow est , pay .

It is better that thou shouldest not vow than that

thou shouldest vow and not pay .

L et not thy mouth cause thy flesh to incur punish

ment ; and say not before the angel It was an

unintentional error . W hy shou ld God be angry

at thy voice , and destroy the work of thy hands ?

[[For w ith a multitude *Of bus iness i“ [come] dreams ,

and worthless fol l ies *in* many B ut fear

God .

If thou seest’

the oppression of a poorman, and the wrestingof judgment and justice in a province, be not astonishedat the matter

,for one high Official above another is

watching, [

and there are higher ones above them .

102 A TRANSLATION [v . 8

But an advantage to a country in all respects is a king[devoted] to cultivated land .

A lover of money cannot be satisfied with money ; and hewho loveth wealth [shall have] no profit [from it] . Thisalso is a vapour .When good things increase

, many are they that consumethem ; and what success hath their owner save thelooking at them w ith his eyes ?Sweet is the sleep of the labourer

,whether he eat little or

much ; but the satiety [which belongeth] to the rich man

doth not let him sleep .

There is *an evil sickness* [which] I have seen under thesun—wealth kept for its owner to his hurt .And that wealth hath perished with evil trouble ; and

[then] he hath begotten a son and there is nothing inhis possession .

As he came forth from his mother’s womb,naked shall he

go again as he came ; and he shall carry away nothing ,

by his toil,

*Which can go with him*

.

This also is *an evil sickness)“ just as he came so will he

go ; and what profit hath he that he should toil for thewindMoreover all his days [are spent] in darkness

*andmourn

ing and great vexation and sickness* and wrath .

Lo ! what I have seen to be good and excellent is [for a

man] to!

eat and drink and experience good in all his toilwherein he

‘

toileth under the sun,during the [small]

number of the days of his life which God hath givenhim

,for that is his portion .

Also every man to whom God hath given riches and

possessions, and hath granted him the power of using1

them and of taking his portion and of being glad in histoil —this is a g ift from God .

For he will not much notice the days of his life,for God

answereth by [giving him] the gladness of his heart .

1 Lit. ‘eat.

’

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

1 04 A TRANSLATION [vii . 1

CHAPTER VII .

B etter is a name than ointment.=’eBetter is* the day of death than the day of *birth *

It is better to go to a house of mourning than to go to

a house of feasting, inasmuch as that is the end of all

men ; and let the living lay it to heart.

B etter is sorrow than laughter, for in sadness of counte

nance it is well with the heart.

The heart of the wise is in the house of mourning, but theheart of fools is in the house of gladness .

I t is better to hear the rebuke of the wise than for a man to

hear the song of fools.

For as the sound of thorns under a pot, so i s the laughter

of a fool .And this also is a vapour .

For oppression maketh a wise man mad,and a gift des

troyeth the heart.

B etter is the end of a matter than the beginning of it.

B etter is the patient in spirit than i he proud in spirit.

B e not hasty in thy sp irit to be vetted for vexation resteth

in the heart of fools .

Say not, Why is it that the former days were better .than

these —for thou dost not ask in wisdom concerning this .

Wisdom is good with an inheritance, and a p rofit to them

that see the sun .

For *as the defence of wisdom,so is the defence of money

*

and the advantage of knowledge [is] —wisdom keepeth

alive them that possess it.

See the work of God ; for who can correct that which Hehath made crooked ?In a day of prosperity be in prosperity, and in a day of

evil see—even the one over against the other hath God‘

made, in order that man may discover nothing [whichshall be] after him .

I saw everything in the days of my transient lifel there

is a ri ghteous man perishing in his righteousness, andthere is a wicked man prolonging [his days] in his evil .

1 Lit. my vapour.

’

vii . 29] A TRANSLATION 1 05

Be not very righteous, and make not thyself superlativelywise ; why shouldest thou be desolated ?Be not very wicked

,and be not foolish ; why shouldest

thou die before thy time ?It is good that thou shouldest take hold of the one, andalso from the other slack not thine hand,For he that feareth God shal l be quit w ith regard

to them al l .

Wisdom strengtheneth the wise man more than ten ru lers

which are in the city.

for as for man,there is not a righteous one on the earth

who doeth good and sinneth not.

Also to all the words which men speak apply not thineheart

,that thou hear not thy servant cursing thee .

For assuredly many times thy heart knoweth that thoualso hast cursed others .All this I tested by wisdom. I said I will make myselfwise ; but it was far from me .

Far off is that which exists, and deep deep ; who can

discover it ?I turned about * in* my heart to know and to explore andto search out

,wisdom and a reckoning ; and to know the* folly of wickedness * and foolishness madness .And I find [a thing] more bitter than death —a woman

who is nets,and her heart snares, and her hands fetters .

H e that is good before God shall escape from her ,

but a s inner shal l be captured by her .

See what I have found,saith Koheleth, [adding] one

thing to another to find a reckoning,which my soul hath sought again and again

,and I have

not found : one man out of a thousand I have found,

but a woman among all these I havenot found .

Only see what I have found , that God made men

upright, but they have sought out,many contri

vances .

1 06 A TRANSLATION [viii . 1

CHAPTERxVIII .

Who is as the wise man,and who knoweth the interpre

tation of a thing The wisdom of a man lighteth up his

countenance,and *he that is bold * in his countenance

is changed .

"

lObserve the commands ll of a king ,B ut on account of [thine] oath to God , be not fright

ened .

Out of his presence shalt thou go ; pers ist not in an

evil th ing .

for he doeth whatever he pleaseth .

Forasmuch as the word Of a king is authoritative ; and

who may say unto him,What doest thou ?

H e that observeth the commandment w il l counten

ance no ev il thing ; and the heart of a w ise man

know eth a time and judgment .

B ecause for every occupation there is a time and

judgment .

the misery of man is great upon him,

for he knoweth not what shall be ; for how it shall bewhocan tell him ?There is noman that hath control over thewind2 to restrainthe wind 2

,and there is no control over the day of death

,

and there is no leave of absence in the battle, and wicked

ness will not help its possessors to escape .

All this I saw,and applied my heart to all the work that

is done under the sun . There is a time when man hath-power over man to his hurt .

And then I saw wicked men buried, and they had

come l‘ from a holy place ; [and] they used to go about

and *congratulate themselves* 3 in the city because theyhad so done . This also is a vapour .B ecause a sentence on the doing of evil is not

ex ecuted speedily , therefore the heart of the sons

of men w ithin them is ful ly given up to doing evil,

1 Lit. ‘ mouth .

’

2 Perhaps the spirit.’

3 Or ‘ win to themselves flattery.

’

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

1 08 A TRANSLATION [ix . 3

This is an evil in all that is done under the sun,that one '

mischance [happeneth] to them all ; and moreover theheart of man is full of evil

,and madness is in their heart

during their life,and after [a man

’s life]1 —to the dead !

For whosoever is joined unto all the living , there is hope

[for him] for a live dog is better than a dead lion .

For the living know that they shall die,but the dead know

not anything , and they have no longer a reward, for theirmemory is forgotten .

Both their love and their hate and their jealousy alike hathalready perished ; and they have no longer any portionfor ever in all that is done under the sun .

Go ! eat thy bread in g ladness,and drink thy wine witha cheerful heart

,for already God hath consented to thy

works .

At all times let]thy garments be white

,and let not oil on

thy head be lacking .

Enjoy life with the wife whom thou lovest all the days ofthy transient life 2 which He hath given thee under thesun 1

”

for that is thy portion in life,and in thy toil

wherein thou toilest under the sun .

All that thy hand findeth to do,do it with [all] thymight ;

for there is no work or reckoning or knowledge or wisdom in Sheol whither thou goest .I returned and saw under the sun that the

"

race was not tothe swift, nor the battle to the mighty ; and neither wasbread to the wise

,nor wealth to the clever

,nor favour to

the skilful ; but time and accident befalleth them all .

For man knoweth not his time,as fish that are caught in

an evil net,or as birds that are caught in a snare— like

them are the sons of men entrapped at an evil time, whenit falleth upon them suddenly .

This also I saw, [an instance of] wi sdom under the sun ;

and it was great to my thinkingA little city

,and few men in it ; and there came unto it

a great king, and surrounded it, and built against it

great -works” .

And there was found in it a poor wise man ; and he wouldhave delivered the city by his wisdom : butmen took nonotice of that poor wise man .

1 Lit. after him.

’ 2 Lit. ‘vapour.

’

x . 1 3] A TRANSLATION 1 09

16. And I said, Wisdom is better than might, but the wisdom

of the poor man is despised, and his words are not heard .

1 7 . The words of the wise heard in quiet [are better] than the

shouting of a chief among fools .

1 8 . Better is wisdom than weapons of war ; but one sinner

destroyeth much good .

CHAPTER X .

D ead flies contaminate’

r a perfumer’s ointment ; a little

folly is more highly esteemedl

than wisdom *and * honour .

The heart of a wise man [tends] towards his right hand,

but the heart of a fool towards his lef t.And on the very road as the fool i s going, his mind is

lacking, and he saith concerning everyone, He is a fool .

If the spirit of the ruler rise against thee, do not throw up2

thy place ; for soothing p'

acifieth great sins .There is an evil that I have seen under the sun

,like an

unintentional error which proceedeth from the ruler .Folly is set in high places, while the rich sit in a low

place .I have seen slaves on horses

,and princes walking as slaves

on the ground .

He that diggeth a pit shall fall into it ; and he that

breaketh into a wa ll a serpent shall bite him.

He that taketh out stones [from a quarry] shall be hurt bythem he that cleaveth logs shall be endangered by them.

If the axe be blunt and he have not sharpened the edge,then he must strengthen his force ; and an advantage to>’Gthe successfu l man

* is wi sdom.

If the serpent bite from lackof enchantment,there is [after

wards] no advantage in the charmer .

The words of the mouth of the wise man are [fu ll of ]grace but the lips of a fool destroy himself .

The beginning of the words of his mouth is folly, and the

end of his talk3

'

is evi l madness .

1 Lit. ‘ is more valuable.

’ 2 Lit. ‘ let go.

’

3 Lit. hismouth .

’

Perhaps the word should be omitted .

1 1 0 A TRANSLATION

the fool mu ltip lieth words .

[[Man knoweth not what shall be ; and what shall be afterhim who can tell himThe toi l of fools wearieth them

,because [a fool] knoweth

not how to go to town .

Alas for thee O land whose king is a child,and thy

princes feast in the morning .

Happy art thou O land whose king is of noble birth, andthy princes feast at the [right] time, with strength and

not with drunkenness .*By idleness “

<

the roof falleth into decay, and by slackness

of hands the house leaketh.

Men prepare a feast for laughter, and wine* to make life

glad*

and money answereth all things .

Even in thy thought curse not a king , and in thy bedchamber curse not a richman ; for a bird of the heavensmay carry the sound

,and that which hath wings may

declare a”

matter .

CHAPTER XI .

Cast thy bread upon the face of the waters ; for in manydays thou shalt find it .Give a portion to seven

,and also to eight ; for thou

knowest not what may prove to be an evil upon theearth .

If the clouds be filled with ram,they empty it out upon

the earth ; and if a stick fall northwards or southwards,the place where the stick falleth, there it is .He that watcheth the wind shall not sow

,and he that

looketh at the clouds shall not reap .

As thou knowest not what is the way of the wind,as the

bones in the womb of a woman with child,so thou

knowest not the work of God Who doeth all thing s .In the morning sow thy seed

,and till evening slack not

thine hand ; for thou knowest not which shall succeed,whether this or that

,or whether both of them may be

alike good .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

1 12

1 0 .

A TRANSLATION [x ii 7

and the dust return to the : earth as it was,and the Spirit

return unto God who gave 1 t.

Vapour of vapours , saith Koheleth al l is a vapour .

And Koheleth , besides being wise , further taught the people knowledge ; and he weighed and searched out, he arranged many

proverbs .

Koheleth sought to find words of pleasure , and *a writing of *

uprightness , words of truth .

The words of wise men are as goads, and as nai ls firmlyp lanted, gathered in collections ; they are given from one

shepherd .

And besides those,my son

,be warned ; of making many

books there is no end,and much devotion to study is

a weariness of the flesh.

In conc lusion : al l has been heard—fear God and

keep H is commandments ; for this is [the duty of]every man .

’

F or every w ork w il l God bring into the judgment

[that is passed] upon every hidden thing ,whether

good or evil .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

1 16 APPENDIX I .

his arguments do not remove the strong impression producedby fresh study . His conclusion is that an olderGreek translation lay as the groundwork of the present text ; and that thisolder translation was corrected by means of a more accurateone

,for the most part that of Aquila . But on the one hand it

is scarcely conceivable that a reviser would,for purposes of

correction,alter an old translation so fundamentally as to

imbue it with the Aquilean style, both 1n the order of wordsand m many of the smallest details of grammar and syntax .

On the other hand, if his object was to produce a new transla

tion in imitation of Aquila, it is surprising that he was not

more thorough ; for he has left a large number of words and

phrases which, judged by the standard of Aquila’s fragments,are not consonant with his style . But if Aquila himself madean earlier translation

,and then issued a revision of it

,both these

features are to be expected . The early translation would beimbued with his style

,but would nevertheless contain many

words, phrases and grammatical points which would seem to

him to require revision . And there are not wanting facts whichtend to increase the probability that such a revision was made .Aquila is known to have been a disciple of R . Akiba

’

. Helived therefore at an epoch in the literary history of Judaism .

The Rabbinic authorities at Jamnia had but recently made a

final pronouncement on the Canon ; and Ishmael ben Elisha

and Akiba each laid down rules which formed the basis of

future exegesis’. But the system of Akiba, by which every

particle and letter was made to give a special meaning ,necessitated a clear consensus as to the Hebrew text . And

it is in the highest degree probable that under his influencean authoritative recension of the Hebrew B ible was issued .

Whether the standard adopted was guided by the agreement ofthe majority of Rabbis

,or of the majority of their extant manu

scripts , cannot be determined . But the result was a textwhich

,being carefully preserved by tradition, remained nearly

intact till it was stereotyped centuries later by the Masoretes .

Now Akiba, although the chief exponent, was not the

1 Hier. in I sa . viii . 14 Scribae et Pharisaei quorum suscepit scholam

Akybas, quem magistrum Aquilae proselyti autumant.”

2 See Graetz , H istory of the Jews (Engl . vol . 1 1 . pp . 358 f.

3 Jer . Taani th iv. fol . 68 a.

THE GREEK VERSION 1 1 7

first promoter of his exegetical method ; tradition traces it toNachum of Gimso (Emmaus) . And Aquila was a companionand disciple of the Rabbis before he attached himself to Akiba .

If, then, Aquila issued two editions of his translation,it is

reasonable to suppose that the earlier edition was made underthe influence of the ‘ literal ’ school

, but on the basis of an

unrevi sed Hebrew text ; and the later edition on the basis ofthe revised recension

,under the direct influence of Akiba .

And this ceases to be a mere hypothesis when the presentGreek MSS . are carefully studied . In the second Appendix it isshewn that B and 68 (Holmes and

'

Parsons) , which approachthe nearest to the original Greek of Koheleth

, presuppose a

Hebrew text widely different from the MT . This,which was

one of D illmann’s main objections to the Aquila theory

,

becomes,on the contrary

,one of the main factors in the theory .

The following examination of the Greek text is based,to a

large extent,on thematter collected in D illmann

’s article .

1 . Apart from details, the closeness with which the translator adhered to his Hebrew text is remarkably shewn in theextraordinary exactness with which he maintains the order

of the words ;“ this order is so strict that, with hardly an

exception, it would be possible to print the Greek , text as itstands as an interlinear

2 . To come to details . First to be considered are striking

peculiarities of Aquila’s. style in the treatment of the Hebrew

syntax .

m: (the sign of the accus . ) rendered by 0 15V.

In M . nx occurs 72 times (omitting ix . I4 In 452 it is

rendered by (rim29 times 3 (or 32 times, including v . 3,6,x . 20

where at 03V,o i) and G ov must be corruptions of ov

’

v) . These 32

include the cases where m: is followed by $3 , in many of whicha im was

,m

‘

m mi l/f a etc . have been corrupted into awa rds,mirr mvra etc . But of the 36 cases in which me is not renderedby 0 15V, almost all are capable of explanation . Burkitt

4

remarks

as a peculiarity of Aquila “ when m: is used without the

1 Dale,“

A Commentary on Ecclesiastes, London and Cambridge, 1 873 .

2 QB is used throughout the appendix for the Greek tex t of Koh . , LXX . for

that of the rest of the O. T.

3 vii . 1 5ACS, x . 1 9 ACS

4 Fragments of the B ooks of Kings according to the translation of Aqui la,

1 1 8 APPENDIX I .

article, i . e. before proper names or nouns with suffixes,or in

the construct state,the Greek article is used instead of a i r

,

of . 4Kings xxiii . 27,3 King s x x i . (x x ) This disposes of

31 cases : i . 1 3,ii . 3, 1 0, 14; 20, 24, iii . 15, iv . 5bis

,8,1 0

,v . 5 ter

,

v1 1 . 7 1 3 1 8 (1 9) bis, 21 viii . 8 b , 9 , 1 6,ix . 7

,1 2

,x i . 5

,6,8 . [cf . x ii . I

,1 3 . In 5 cases there seems

to be a development of this practice, when me is followed byfirm: ii . 1 2, iii . 1 1 , iv . 3

,vii . 1 3 viii . 16. But if this is not

allowed,there remain 9 instances in which no reason can be

offered why us is not rendered by will : ii . iii . 1 1,iv . 3,

vii 1 3 14 viii . 16,ix . 15

,x . 1 9

,x l 1 . 1 3 . But from the

extant ' fragments of Aquila in other parts of the Old Testamentit isc lear that his use of 0 13V is not invariable . See

,for example,

Gen . 1 . 28,ii . 6

,vi . 6 (7) xxiv . 59

,x xv . 34

,xxxvii . 2

,xliii . 24

,l . 2 .

Thus,though instances occur of Greek and Syriac MSS .

being coloured by this Aquilean use (e . g . God . A 3 Kingsxii . 24g—n, God . 62 in Ez ek .

,and in the Pesh . Gen . i . 1

,

1 Chr .’

iv. 41 and 4 times in Cant ) , there is no portion of theGreek O . T . in which it occurs with this almost completeregularity .

mandmarendered b y Katye.

The former occurs 40, the latter 1 1 times . The only ex cep

tions are Kai : DJviii . 16, x ii . 5 [AOS ka t’

ye], Kai 7 6 1 ix . 6,and

Kai ye s: iii . 1 9 . But Aq . himself does not invariably adhere

to the usage ; for in v . 1 8 he renders m by w e Kat. SeeJob vii . 1 1

‘

roryapofiv. 1 Sam . x xv1 1 1 . 22,Job xxiv . 1 9

,Jer . iv . 1 2

,

xxxi . (xxxviii . ) 37, Mic . vi . 1 3 Kai .

5with infinitive rendered by with infinitive .

This occurs not only when it expresses a purpose (asfrequently throughout but also when it forms simplythe complement of a verbal expression

e . g . after Stuaodac i . 8, viii . 1 7 [i . 15AS“

,vi . 1 0 AS, v n. 1 3 ( 14)

AOSca ],after ymi

‘

wa t iv . 1 3,x . 15 [vi . 8 C has wov, either a corruption

of rot or an accidental repetition of the first syllable

of wopevfifiva t],after cictce

'

va t v . 1 1,

after dyadav iii . 1 2, v . 1 7, viii . 15, x i . 7,after Ka ipbs 111 . 2—8 .

1 In 1 1 . 1 2 Sc-“V read at” .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

1 20 APPENDIX I .

The treatment of the Hebrew syntax of the relative

11 . 21 51 1.,udxaos (1 137 0 13. 1573112'

IV. 2 30 0 1. a irroi. non"MN.

iv . 9 oi; e’

an v av'

rocs. nn‘) r» . Similarly v . 1 8

,vi . 2

,x . 16.

viii . 14 (in oil/a air-roils. DTISN "MR .

1X . 1 0 37 0 1) (I f) nopev’

y e’

xe'

i . now "

1571 NRC 1 082.

X 1 . 5 50 a 7rom'

0'

et 7amig rraw a . rmnwps fiwx .

Note also : iii . 1 8, v n. 15 wept Kaxt

’

as,and viii . 2 r ep? hdyov, to

express my : 511 (of . Ps . cx . (cix . ) 4mm 511, Aq . Karat Myovabut LXX . Kai-rd riyv raiéw) ; .i . 1 0 (in ?) é

’

mrpoofiev rjpdiv for 13135573ii . 9 dub é’mrpoofie

’

u you for 9351973 ; X 1 1 . 5 El; o

'

ixov a idivos (167 0 13 for

173511: n»: 5s .

3 . Besides these syntactical peculiarities there are severalwords which exhibit Aquila’s constant endeavour to expresshis Hebrew text as literally as possible

vi . 6,vii . 22 Ka668ovs, mops . So Aq . frequently . Ex .

xxxiv . 24,Dt. ix . 1 9

,x vi . 16

,1 Sam . iii . 1 0 bis

,1 K. xxii . 1 6

,

Is . x li . 7 .

v . 1 0,12

,VII . 1 2 viii . 8

,x 1 1 . 1 1 r apd with gen .

,

17113 .

x . 1 2 Karar ovr fl ew, So Aq . Job ii . 3,x . 8

,Prov . x x i . 20

,

Is . x x v . 7 [LXX . only in 2 Sam . xx . 1 9,Ps . liv . (lv . ) 1 0, Lam .

ii . 2,

vii . 14 (15) ovucfmivws, naps. So Aq . Ez . iii . 8,x i . 22

,

Ex . x xviii . 27 (see Field)iv . 8

,v . 1 0

,1 7

,vi . 3

,6,v n. 14 ix . 1 8 dyaowmivn, nnw . So

Aq . v . 1 0,Ps . x x x vn . (xxxviii . ) 21 , and dya90 0

'

15v17 Ps . x v . (xvi) 2 .

x ii . 6 crvv'rpoxaicry, 1 h) .

The above are the most striking in D illmann’s list of the

words which can with most probability be referred to an

Aquilean source .

” His list also includesiv . 1

,v . 7

,v n. 7 (8) pep. So Aq . Psi cxix

‘

.

(cxviii . ) 1 21 , Prov . xxviii . 3 . Words from the same stem occur15 times in Aq . and only 6 times in LXX .

x . 5 ci xoficn ov. nnw. So Aq . v . 5.

iv . 1 2 WSWD ,a, drraf hey.

vii . 8 x . 1 3 e’

crxoim, mans (of . i . 1 1 at; n‘

lv e’

axdmv, nmnss) .

Aq . must have had e’

crxdm in vi i . 8

4. Another consideration, which D illmann dismisses some

1 On the doublet in the latter passage see App . 1 1 . p . 1 63 .

THE GREEK VERSION 1 21

what lightly,is that there are several words or phrases in the

fragments of Aquila in Koheleth which agree with QB

Aq . alone . 1 . 7,1 1 . 1 1

,15

,iii . 15

,viii . 8

,x , 15, perh . 1 1 . 24

,

viii . 1 (see note) .

Aq . and G) . i . 1 3, 1 1 . 1 3,16

,1 9

,iv . 3

,8,v . 1 3

,1 9

,vi . 8

,

l x . 1 1,1 2

,x . 4

,5,x ii . 1 1

,1 3

, perh . vii . 7 24

Aq . and E. x i . 1,x ii . 9

,1 2 .

Aq . 2 (9 . i . 2,iv . 1 0

,v . 1

,vi . 2

,vii . 1 8 26 viii . 1 2

,

ix . 7,8,x .

'

-1 1,xi . 4

,9,x ii . 7 .

So far Dillmann’s lists are in favour of the conclusion that

the Greek text of Koheleth was due to the hand of Aquila.

But he advances a series of objections which require examination .

1 . After citing the above passages in which Aq . agreeswith GE

,he says “ the passages are far more numerous where

Aq . differs from GE.

” This,in the scattered fragments of Aq .

which have survived, is true . But,on the one hand

,it is just

those passages in which differences occur which would bemore likely to survive ; commentators and scholiasts mightoccasionally mention instances of agreement

,but only where

they considered them interesting or striking . And,on the

other hand,a second edition presupposes differences . The

reasons for all the alterations are,of course

,impossible to

trace,though occasionally they seem to be discernible . But

to disprove the Aquila theory it would be necessary to shewthat the bulk of the words and phrases in GB are non-Aquilean .

But the opposite is the case . Of the fifty or so which D illmanncollects as the chief instances of difference

,

” many occurelsewhere in fragments of Aquila

,and some are frequent with

him and rare in LXX .

(a) Words which occur only, or frequently, in Aqui la .

1 1 . 8 . Aq . otm’

at. I-I . $151 0 .

wepiovmaopxis occurs in LX X . PS . CXXXV. (OX X X IV. ) 4. But

cognate words are found in Aq . mama-mv, nsaoMal . iii . 1 7 ;

weptovm'

a, em Gen . x iv . 21 wepcovcrt

'

a,"m” Ps. xvii . (x vi) 14.

1 22 APPENDIX I .

x , 9 , QB Starrov'

qfirfo e'ra t. Aq .a r ac firy

’

a e’ra t. H .

LXX . nowhere has Su r at/779mm or cognates for in—Aq .

,on the contrary

,they are not infrequent

Stat ovnflfiva t, : spnnGen . vi . 6,xxxiv . 7

,I Sam . x x . 3

,34.

Stamimaa, 11 3” 2 Sam . v . 21,Ps . x vi . (x v . ) 14

,cx xv n.

(cxxvi . ) 2, Is . lviii . 3,Ps . cx v . 4 (cxiii . 1 2) 3 see Field .

Brandi/770 1. 9 FIJYVD IS . I.‘

II .

1 . 3 . QB,uo

’

xeos and“ 662V. Aq .

kdrros and nudgew. H . 51317.

,aéxdos is the invariable rendering of5791! inKoh .

,occurring

22 times :

,uoxfie

'

iv occurs 9 times,and KorraSonce

,ii . 1 8 . [But

AS poxewjAq . has noxfios, fl air for 5791) in Ps . lxxiii . (lxxii . ) 16, Koh .

ii . 1 1,1 9

,21 . But throughout the whole of the LXX . neither

the substantive nor the verb is found for 177317. D t. xxvi . 7

pdxoov AF is probably a hexaplaric corruption .

(Aq . also has ,uoxfioiiv (a rim yeyp. ) in IS . Vii . 1 3 bis for

ms‘m. His use of min-0 9 finds a parallel in Ps . xciv . (xciii . ) 20,and probably lv . (liv . ) 1 1 , Job vii .

20 . QB o exwv [Tag] nr e’

pvyagl, Aq . o Kvpi eiiwv r r épvyos.

H . mama]

The rendering o 2’

w is foreign to LXX .

,except in

Dan . vi ii . 6, 20 (LXX . O) .

But Aq . has it frequentlyHOS . 11 . I8 (16) 2

'

w [we (LXX . Baaheiy.)Is . xli . 15 é

’

xo'

w a o ro’

ua o roudraw (LXX .wpio rnpoeideis) .

Nah . i , 2 é'

xwv (LXX . nerd Ovuofi) .

Cant . V1 1 1 . 1 1 E'

xov'n 77A77

'

91) (LXX B eeAajuaiV) .

Jer . Xxxvii . (Xliv . ) 1 3 (acc . to S . H . ) 5 3xwv e’

moKéI/ecs

(LXX . (iii/Optima; fl ap,

of} Kar e'

Avev) .

Job xxxi . 39 (id . ) r a’

iv éXo’

vm v ai w'

u (LXX . entirely astray) .

Nah . iii . 4 (acc . to Hier . ) e’

xotans qtdpaaxa (LXX .viyovue

'

vn

(tapnoixwv) .

See also Mal . ii . 1 1 m l é’

axe,17173 1 (LXX .

Er erritl evo ev) .

IS. IX 11 . 44 éoxnp évn, 7151113 (LXX .

X 11 . 5. Q5edufloc. Aq .

'rpo

'

mp rpomjo ovow. H . mmmmm.

Aq . is nowhere extant where the cognate words “0 , NJ” ,

” 1313, occur ; but LXX . renders none of them by edMBos.

As rendering s of other Hebrew words 901MB“ and cognates

1 B 6Tag r répvyas. . A0 8 6é‘xwr 1 r1' épv

'

yas. 868 App . 1 1 . p . 1 66.

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

1 24 APPENDIX I .

Q5 é'

yxorrou Aq .

‘

Kor ndiow. H . D’m’.

iv . 1 7 . QB 7 0 13 aixodew. Aq . 130 1 ' s oixmiew. H . pawl) .

v , 7 . QB (1 137 0 159 . Aq . ,a e

'ri

a1’

J1'

0 1is. H .

V . 1 8 . Q5 Kai ye. Aq . olAAaKai. H DJ.

Vl l . 1 0 (II) . QB Ti Aq . 3 H. F113 .

Vii . 1 7 Q5 iv Ka ipcii 0 0 11 . Aq .7rp0 7 0 13Ka ipoi) H

.

“my N73Viii . 6. Gii

'

r Kpt'

o ts. Aq . H. 13529 13 .

ix . 1 3 . Q5 7rp6‘

s Mf Aq . wap’

H .11m.

1X . 1 8 . 65 0 70 5157, T OXG’

fl OU . Aq . O'

Kefinwokenmoi. H . 3'

1P"23 .

(b) Words which occur elsewhere in Aqui la .

2 and passim. QB,uam w

'

Tnsl. Aq .

finals or 677169 . H .

In LXX . paraw’

ms is confined to the Psalter ex o. Prov .

xxii . 8 it is the rendering of 53 71 in Pss . xxxi . 7,

xxxix . 6,lxii . 1 0

,lxxviii . 33

,cxliv . 4. Elsewhere mostly

pdrawv,-a

,sideshow, Kal/ (is.

Aq . has only .in Ps . lxxviii . (lxxvii . ) 33 ex o. in Koh .

But he has ,ua

‘

ra io'

fns in IS . lvii . 1 3,Jon . ii . 9

,Job Vii . 1 6

,Prov .

xiii . 1 1 and possibly Jer . x . 8 . (Also Toadra ta Jer . x iv . 22,

poi-mv Ps . xxxix . (xxxviii . ) 1 2, Job ix .

It seems,therefore

,that ,

uam w’

ms was Aquila’s usualrendering of San, but in his 2nd edition of Koh . he preferredthe more literal which was afterwards adopted by

269.

i . 5. QB ZAKGL. Aq . eimrvei . H . qmw.

dom/e? is a 577 11 4? My. But Aq . has 6711w in Jer . ii . 24

(LXX .e’

vrvevparocfiopeiro) , and oicta hxéoawo Job v . 5 (LXX .

e’

c pwvw'fieirj)

i . 1 8, 1 1 . 23 . GE51717 7711 01 Aq . Bdaauos. II. 3 1113 13 .

LXX . nowhere renders 3 18 3 13 by 01117 7111 01, though it occurs

once for 3 15? Ps . xxxix . 2. Aq . has it for 3 1 143 13 Ps . xxxii .

(xxxi . ) 1 0 (LXX . polar-

Wes) . dkyos is found 6 times in Aq .,

and only thrice in LXX .

The only instance of ,Bdaavos for 3 110 13 is cited by Field

from an unknown translator (perh . Aq . ) in 2 Chr . vi . 29 .

1 1 . 6. QB Kohvpflrjepa . Aq.Aim/r]. H . fir m,

Aq. has Koht riOpa 2 Sam. ii . 1 3,iv . 1 2 (Q5 in both Kprivn) .

1 GB autos ix . 9 .

THE GREEK VERSION 125

1 1 . 8 . Q5 e’

vrpvctn'

pam . Aq . rpm/mi. H . minim.

is a, dwarf Aey.

’

But Aq . has e’

vrpvctdv for

1 1pm Is . lviii . 14. So LXX . Is . lv . 2, ‘ lvii . 4.

LXX . and Aq . each use rpvctn'

in 4 passages ; and Aq .

also has Tpvcbn'

ms Dt. xxviii . 54,'rpvctepe

'

a Gen . xviii . 1 2,1 Sam . x v . 32 .

iv . 1 0 . Q5ué‘

roxos. Aq. 4201 0 9 . H .

“

13 11 .

(pace for words from Ju noccurs nowhere else, except 0 .

Dan . ii . 1 3, 1 7, 1 8 . Aq . has ne'

roxos Prov . xxviii . 24,Ps . cxix .

(cxviii . ) 63, and probably Hos. vi . 9 where Hier . translateshis word Participatio.

V . 5. Q5dyuoca . Aq .oiKmimov (x . 5 QBAq . dxodmov) . H . mm) .

Aq . nowhere else uses oixmimov,-ws, while it is the almost

invariable rendering of LXX . in Lev ., Num .

,Josh .

Aq . has c’

iwoza Lev . iv . 2,22

, v . 151 ; also dyvotac for

msuw Ps. x ix . (xviii . ) 1 3 .

V . 5. Q5Stagweipew. Aq . Stahtiew. H . 53 11 .

Aq . elsewhere uses 81aA15ew once only,Ez . x ix . 1 2

,H .

imann. He renders by Scatteetpew Cant . viii . 5 (and byéx¢0etpew Is . liv . LXX . Mic . ii . 1 0 only .

Aq .,however, uses it 14times for me .

v . 1 2 . QB Kam'

a . Aq . wovnpév. H . mm(subst . ) 11 2 . Q5 Kako

'

s. Aq . 7r0 v17p0'

9 . H . 71113 (adj) 1

The reason for Aq .

’s alteration in these two passagescannot, of course

,be known . But no stress can be laid on

it,since throughout LXX . and Aq . nth (subst . and adj. ) are

rendered by Kaxta, « 69 , wovnpt’

a, 1 069 , quite indiscriminately .

Vi i . 3 . QB KaKia. Aq .Kd orts. H .

1i.

-1.

No argument can be based on this,since Aq . is not

extant in any other passage where 123 occurs (LXX . has

Kaxta for 123 only in 1 Sam . xvii . 28,Hos . ix . But d wm s

is a word confined entirely to 2,except Aq . 63 here

,and

G) 1 Sam . xxviii . 1 0 .

X . 6. QB {ill/77. Aq . fill/uiua'ra . H . 13 1 131313 .

Aq . nowhere else uses 17

4/what for 1311 13 , though it is hisregular word for man. But he frequently renders 1311 19 byill/1 0 9 , Ps . vii . 8 , x . 5(ix . 26) prob .

,lxxi . (lxx . ) 1 9 , xciii . (xcii . ) 4,

Prov . ix . 3, Is. xxxviii . 14,Jer . xlix . 16

,Ez . xv1 1 . 23 . Of these

LXX . has only in Ps . vii . 8, Is . xxxviii . 14.

1 In connex ion with v. 1 5 see Field’s note on iv. 27 .

1 26 APPENDIX I .

x i , 3 , GEe’

Kxe'

ovow. Aq . e’

KKevoia ovO'w. H . 1D1 ' 1 1 .

This cannot be considered an important variation . Aq .

has e’

KKevw'

trw Ps . xvi ii . (xvii . ) 43, Jer . xlviii . (xxxi . ) 1 2 ; butalso e

’

Kxeéaevov Cant . i . 3 (LXX . And LXX . has

the former 6 times,and the latter twice .

To these may be added some words which find paral lels inAquila

,but of which Aquila’s equivalents in Koheleth have not

survived :

ii . 21,iv . 4

, v . 1 0 . GEdv8peta . H . mmX . 1 0 . Q1; 7 0 13 oil/Speiov. H .

See Prov . xxxi . 1 9,Aq . ail/Spear, H . (distaff) .

v . 2,15. Q5 r apayt

'

ve'ra t. H . N13 .

See Aq . Jud . ix . 37 .

V . 1 2,15

,16

,Vi . 2 . QB dppwor ia . H , n

tpmand 1511 ,

See Aq . D t. xxvi ii . 16,Ps . xv . (xxxiv . ) 1 3, lx x v n.

(lxxvi . ) 1 1 , Prov . xviii . 14,Is . xxxviii . 9

,liii . 3 [ l (3) K. x iv .

1,

in each of which (except 1 K. ) LXX . has a differentrendering . Aq . is not extant in the five (canonical) passagesin which LXX . has the word .

iv . 6,Vi . 5

,1X . 1 7 . Q5 oivo

’

wravm s. H . mm.

Except in Koh . dvdrravo ts is used for run: only in 2

Is . x x x . 15. But in vi . 5 Field g ives“ ’

A . 2 . dvdr avow

from S.H .14nu

,and it is Aq .

’s usual word for other deriva

tives of run, Ps . x cv . (xciv . ) 1 1 , Is . xi . 1 0, xxxiv . 14,lxvi . 1

,

Zech . ix . 1 and see Field on Lev . i . 9 .

Vii . 5 GEcan' t/1 170 1 9 . H . FI'

WJ.

Aq . has it Ps . lxxvi . (lxxv . ) 7, Prov . xiii . 8,xvii . 1 0, Is .

x x x . 1 7,lxvi . 15

,and for Dt. xxviii . 20 . LX X . has it

for my; only 5times, 4of them being in the Pss.

’l

Vii . 1 7 Q5 e’

Kn‘Aayfis. H . DDWN .

'

LXX . nowhere uses this as a rendering of a Hebrewword2 . But it isAq.

’s usual equivalent for

“

Tm,Gen . xxvii . 33,

1 Sam . iv . 1 3,xiii/1

7,xvi . 4, xxi . 2 xxviii . 5.

1 Ps . viii . (xvii . ) 1 6 2 Sam . xxn . 1 6.

2 It cfcurs inWisdom and 2 and 4Mace .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

1 28 APPENDIX I .

Jer . xlviii . (xxxi . ) 1 2 13 13 15331 . 1 .Kal rd. Ke

'

pam 01 131 0 13.

2 . Kat rd ve’

fleh ( 1 131 -0 13 .

Ez f viii . 16 135mm. 1 . 7 779 wpocr‘

rd3os. 2 .

xlii . 1 mm . 1 . separati . 2 .

ii . 1 9,viii . 9 . QB e

’

iovmoizeada i . Aq .Kvp ia iew. H .

(In viii . 8 GEEtovmdéwv for robe ,e’

fovcn’

a for 11 13519 . Aq .

vacat. )The following considerations suggest that Aq . made the

change to distinguish the late word 1952) from the classical 51m(1 ) e

’

iovo'

uiéew in LXX . is almost unknown —for 135W Ez r .

v1 1 . 24,Neh . v . 15only ; for 52213 Neh . ix . 37 only.

(2) It occurs in GI? ix . 1 7,x . 4 for and is Aq .

’s usualrendering

, Gen . i . 16, 1 8, Jud . viii . 22,1 K. v . 1 (iv .

Is . lii . 5,Ez . x ix . 14

,Job x x v . 2

,Ps. viii . lxvi . (lx v . ) 7 .

(3) Kvpmiew is ®’s rendering of 13528 6 times in Dan . (LXX.

Dan . ii . 38,39 only) .

Vii . 25 Q5 e’

xv’

xhwoa . Aq .wepwiSevoa H . mm .

Aq . has KvKKO'

w for 3 3 13 Gen . x x xvn . 7,1 Sam . x xn . 1 8 .

But he seems to have changed his rendering here to distinguish between gyrating (of . i . 6) and travelling from one

point to another .vii . 29 a Aq . ,

uo'

vov. H . 1 35.

Aq . has vrlhiv 16 times, but always for 1 1: (LXX . has it innone of these passages) , while he uses ,

uévov only in this

passage, presumably to adhere more closely to the meaningof the root

Xii . 3 . Q5 Siaorpacbu'

io'w. Aq . (acc . to Hier . ) HAaa n'

oou/ra i .

H . mwnn.

my is rendered by r Aavav here only . The meaning of

the word being quite different from that in i . 15,vii . 1 3

,Aq .

distinguished it by a different (though madequate) ren

dering .

x ii . 5. QB 0011130 1 . Aq .

“

rpO'

noy'rpoan

'

oovm . H . mnnnn.

It has been shewn above that Aq . frequently uses 6011130 9 .

But he here wished to represent more closely the redupli

cated form of the Heb . Cf . Is . xviii . 1 mad mad, H .

Jer . xlvi . (xxvi . ) 20 new} Kal KeKaM ew/Le'

vn, H . mama

1xtpws for occurs LXX . 9 . Dan . iv. 14only.

THE GREEK VERSION 1 29

(iii) Instances in which Aquila’s variations from Q5 were

probably the result of an altered Opinion (derived from hisJewish teacher) as to the derivation or punctuation of Hebrewwords . In

~Field’

s lists of words in his two editions a doz en or

more of such variations occur .1 . 14

,1 7, 1 1 . 1 1

,Vi . 9 . QB npoa ipems. Aq . Vomi. H . 11 1173 .

i . 1 8 . Q5 yvoirr ews‘

. Aq .91111 0 13. H . 0 113 . In his 1 st edition Aq .

read hm.

ii . 8 . Q5oivoxdov Kai oivoxdas . Aq .KvAiKtov Kal xvhima . H . nfiwj n‘

lw.

In his l st edition Aq . seems to have understood thewords as

‘cup

-bearers ’ in his 2nd,of

‘cups .

’

(v n ov

occurs LXX . Est. i .ii . 1 2 . a Aq . BaotAews. H . 1513 .

If Bonk/7’

s is not a mere scribal error for Baa-(Acme

,Aq .

read,in his l st edition

, 1513 , an Aram . and NH word .

ii . 26. Q5wpoofieivat. Aq . ovAAé-yew. H . maxi) .

In his 1 st edition Aq . mistook not: for no» .It is true that in LXX . wpoa r tde

’

va i is used for nos ,but

(except in one or two cases where Heb . is or should be read610

1) only in the special sense of being‘ gathered ’

to one’sfathers—people—grave .

(Aq . renders am: by O'

vAAe'

yew Ps . xxxv . (xxxiv . ) 15, xxxix .

(xxxviii . ) 7, and by crvAAoyiis Ex . xxiii .x 1 1 . 5. QB BiaaKeSdo'Oy. Aq . « amt H .

"

1511 .

Aq . derived the word in his 1 st edition from 333 , in his

2nd from me .

X 1 1 . 6. Q5 ovV'

rpLBfi. Aq . Spill/£ 27. H . jmn.

A change from Jmmto Jpn, if the text of 45 is correct .But it is very unlikely that warmand rfin could have beenrendered by the same word . O

'

vv'rpcfiii, v. 20,may be a

corruption of o-vv-rpéxy (cf . O'

vv'rpoxofoy for the following rm) .

xii . 9 . QB Kai e’

fixmoia era i Ko'

a jawv napafiohdiv.

Aq . Kai rjvw'nfoaro Kai ripev'

vna e Kai Kar emca iao e wapomias.

H . 1315221: 1pn wpmme .

In his 1 st edition Aq . had a reading wpmbefore him,and

pointed the, phrase 131 12251; 1211 7 1213: in his 2nd he followed

the authorised recension ’

. The bald literalness of QR isthoroughly Aquilean .

1 Still,however, connecting as with 111k.

1 30 APPENDIX I .

There still remain 1 7 instances in Dillmann’s list not yetexamined .

‘ii . 25. Q5 m’

en t, Aq . (befo e'

rac are probably both corruptedfrom 77 650 67 11 1 . See

(

App . II . p . 158 .

x ii'

. 1 1 . The meaningless wer vpuinevm QEACS is probably a

corruption of 7 6¢v7 e15nevoc, which Aq . shares with QER

The remaining words are :

i . 3 . QB? Aq . whe'

ov. II . 3 11 1 1 . (Neither o'

ccurs for"mi" outside Koheleth . )

i . 9 . Q5 77p60 ¢a7 0u Aq .Ka ivo

'

v. H . W3 11 . (QB has Kawo'

v in

the foll . v . )i . 1 3 . QB Aq .

ۤ6p6vvdu H . 3111 . (But sinceAq . has the variety voeicr9ac in ii . 3

,why shoul d Kam crxé

¢a0 9a t be denied him1 . 1 7

,ii . 2

,1 2

,Vii . 7 25 1X . 3 . QB napafloha i, r epute

'

pew,

« import, wapactopof. Aq . 7 11 0511 01 1,410 1 9 , H

. 5171 71 ,mS‘nn.

iii . 3 . a easy . Aq . H .

iv . 1 3 . QB rrpoo e'

xew . Aq . (t afim-eo

'fia c. H . mm. (QB has

gbv’

Aafa t in Xii .20 Q5Bonfin

’

o et. Aq. H . mm.

V1 1 . 27 Qfifirjpevlua . Aq (or r aj/186141 017 11 ) H D1 1 13D

(Aq . also has da L’

BAnor-rpov Ez . x ii . 1 3,and oxtpwna Ps .

lxvi . (lx v . ) 1 1 , as rendering s of 11 3 13 13 . LXX . has Gripevna

only in Lev . xvii . 1 3

viii . 1 0 . G Kai érryve'

dnoav. Aq .Ka i 1 11 3 1

-13

1 91 ,

Viii . 15. G Aq .ovuew e

’

pxwa t. H . 131131 . (Aq .

also has 7rp0 0'

7 i960 '

19a 1 Jer . 1 . (xxvii . )X . 9 . QB éfa ipwv. Aq . p 67 a7 190

'

3v. H . V1DD .

X I. 6. QB Aq .613967 150 61 . H .

x ii . 1 (v . 3,x ii . 1 0

,Aq . vacat) . ( Hr 08mm . Aq .

Wpdyua .

H . ran. (There is no reason why Aq . should not haveused cast e , since he has the varieties xpet

’

a x ii . 1 0, BovM

‘

;

Prov . xxxi . 1 3, Bovky

'

na—ra Ps . i . 2 . G has a ptly

/Ma iii . 1 , 1 7,v . 7

,viii . 6

,i . e . in4of the 7 passages in which V5” occurs . )

x ii . 4. QB 7 a7rewwerfo'

ov7 a t. Aq . H . (Aq .

also has KaTaK1i7r7 6w Ps . xlii . (x li . ) 6, 1 2 ; and for me,

Ps. Xliv . (xliii . ) 26.

X 1 1 . 1 1 . G 3 00 vv96no

i

7wv. Aq . 0'

vv7 ay11 d7 wv. H. macs . (Qfisc' a

has e vw ewem l , andAq .

’s rendering is not quite certain . )

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

1 32 APPENDIX I .

xarappoixms in Is . lx . 8,Hos . xiii . 3 ; but, he does not note that

he also has 0vp£86s~ in Gen . v n. (LXX .Ka f appdx

'ra t) . Moreover

this’

is the only passage in the O . T . where rms means f

an

Opening to look through and thus Aq . might think 67 9)

suitable here and nowhere else .'

Lastly, waxfiven"

for Snnon xii . 5 need present no difficulty .

In Ps . cxliv . (cxliii . ) 14 for 13473 0 73 (LXX . waxei‘

s) -Aq . has

om v‘

rof or am or al, shewing that he took the root 53 13 to implyfatness . ’

3 . D illmann lays stress on the frequent free rendering s ofHebrew expressions, and on many passages badly translated .

It might be enough to reply that these would afford Aquilasufficient reason for issuing a new edition . But even in hisacknowledged fragments

,he is far from being invariably accu

rate or literal . See,for example

‘

ii . 5 m'

iv Kafpwmov, H ."15 53 . 1 1 . 1 2 dqbpoorfivac, H . 11 1530 .

1 1 1 . 1 1 (59 m’

fx, H . {6 "

firm”53 73 . iv . 3 76 ” m om/d rop H . 71w .

v . 1 2 wovnpc‘

w «1 13743, H .mm. V1 1 . 7 (8) efirow'

as m’

m-ot, H . mm .

vii . 26 (27) m xpé‘

repov, H . 1 73 . x . l‘

mfpov, H . [mph ] 173W. x . 15numb er (1 13-rots, H . 13mm. X . 20 Wrépvyos, H . D‘ DJD[HJ. Xii . 6Mirpwms

,

To these may be added the eleven instances referred to on

pp . 1 23 f . And a brief study in Field’sHexap la of any O.T. book

of which Aquila’s fragments survive will shew that it is possible to exaggerate his literal "exactness . Montfaucon (P relim.

Hemap l . , p . 48) rightly says potuit Aquila etiam in illa Ka '

r’

(ixpc’

fla av interpretatione non semper eadem religione in vertendouti nec insolitum est Interpretes quoslibet modo litterae haerere

,modo elegantiore interpretandi genere procedere .

”

This examination shews that the Greek text is saturatedwith the style of Aquila ; many of his u nique characteristicsare found in it ; many words and phrases are used in it whichcan be amply paralleled from his fragments ; on the otherhand there is not a word or phrase in it that occurs frequentlyin the LXX . but is

‘ foreign to Aquila . N0 one,at that early

date,who tried to revise an old Greek translation on the basis

of Aquila,could have possessed the artistic skill and inventive

subtlety necessary to do the work as it has been done ; to go so

far in adopting Aquila’s methods

,and yet not to go further

and Agni lisawhere it would seem obvious to do so. While if

THE GREEK VERSION 1 38

Aquila revised his own translation, the revision need not haveresulted from more than D illmann is willing to allow as

possible correction or modification in many passages bymarginal notes . ”

4. D illmann,however, considers conclusive against Aquila

the fact that Origen,Jerome and the Syro-Hexaplar all describe

the present Greek text as that according to,

the LXX .

”But

in an uncritical age it was perfectly possible for a translationto disappear, and another to take its place as part of the LXX .

It is probable that this happened in the case of Daniel . Pro

fessor Swete (Introd . to the O. T. in Greek, pp . 47—49) points

out that Theodotionic renderings are quoted by writersearlier than Theodotion

,even as early as the New Testament .

And the inference seems to be inevitable that there were two

pre-Christian versions of Daniel

,both passing as one

of which is preserved in the Chigi while the other formedthe basis of Theodotion

’s revision .

”

The reason for the disappearance of the latter of these may

have been,as Prof . Swete suggests

,that Theodotion

’s revision

of Daniel may have differed so little from the stricter Alexandrian version as to have taken its place without remark

”

;

but the reason for the rej ection of the Chigi LXX . is sufficiently.

explained by Jerome’s words : hoc unum affirmare possum

quod multum a veritate discordet et recto judicio repudiatasit.

”

If,then

,an old LXX . version of Koheleth was superseded

by Aquila’s first version,the reason was probably the same

the inaccuracy of the former . It was not till the end of the1 st century A .D . that Koheleth gained an undisputed position as

inspired Scripture . Many of its expressions were doubtful and

unorthodox, and it had seldom been used ; and thus a pre

Christian translation of it might well have been careless and

inadequate . And when an accurate translation appeared,which

,by the nature of the book

,could contain no anti

Christian renderings, Christians as well as Greek-speakingJews would be glad to make use of it ; and the older version,

which, in any case, probably had a very limited circulation,speedily became obsolete .

But it is no less possible that a‘ LXX .

’ version of Koheleth

1 God. 87 (H. and P .

1 34 APPENDIX I .

never existed . The recent decision with regard to its canOnicity1

may have led Aquila to undertake its translation for the firsttime. If there were no other Greek version

,a very few years

would suffice to give it a place in the‘ LXX .

’And the very

fact that Christians had adopted his first edition might havebeen one

,among other

,reasons which led Aquila to issue the

second .

Further—D illmann’s objection, that Origen called the present

Greek text applies with even greater force to his ownsuggestion that an old text was revised on the basis of Aquila .

If,on the one hand

,the Greek text was Aquila’s first edition,

there were about 1 00 years before Origen compiled his Hexaplain which it could be accepted as

‘ LXX .

’But if

,on the other

hand,it was a revision of a LXX . text on the basis of Aquila,

the ‘ LXX . text itself must have existed later than Aquila, andmight have survived up to the time of Origen himself . In the

latter case,the only remaining solution would be that the

present Greek text is Origen’s re-writing of the old text . This

happened, as Burkitt points out, in the case of 3 King s xii .24g—n as g iven in A and SH . But the Greek text of Koheleth

is not on the same footing as that passage . Not only does thetranslation differ

,in a large number of

'

passages, from Aquila’s

fragments, but in about 40 per cent. of the reading s in which Bdiverges from MT . it differs also from the Syro-Hexaplar .

1 See p . 8 .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

1 86 APPENDIX II .

that edition follows none of the present cursives 298 is veryclosely allied with ‘ the commentary of Olympiodorus (Migne,

so“much so that Klostermann suggests (p . 1 9) that it is

a collection from his comments,and not strictly a codex of the

version . 253 is closely allied with V,and also with S” ; these

have many hexaplaric reading s, and in this they resemble 252,

whi ch is chiefly important from the fact that its margin is richin citations from Aq . 2 and O V

,however

,sometimes supports

B 68 . Similarly 254has a somewhat composite text, frequentlysiding with B 68, but sometimes with S

” VIt is very unfortunate that so little Old Latin is available .

The text of Jerome’s commentary is eclectic,but is mainly a

translation from the Hebrew,as his own words shew

auctoritatem secutus sum,sed de Hebraeo trans

ferens magis me LX X . interpretum consuetudini coaptavi, inhi s dumtax at

,quae non multum ab Hebraicis discrepabant.

Interdum Aqui lae quoque et Symmachi et Theodotionis recordatus sum

,ut nec novitate nimia lectoris studium deterrerem,

nec rursum contra conscientiam meam fonte veritatis omi ssoOpinionum rivulos consectarer .

”

A fragment of Old Latin of the 8th century is published byB erger in Notices et eatraits . And a stray sentence can hereand there be gleaned from Latin writers, such as Lucifer Calar . ,Priscillian

,Cyprian, Optatus and Tyconius .

On the Peshitta seeW .Wright, art. Syriac literatur e ’ inEm .

B rit. Orig inally a translation from the Hebrew,it has under

gone numerous alterations to produce accordance with QB so

that,as it stands

,it has the appearance, in Koheleth, of being

almost as eclectic as Jerome .

It is not easy to assign values to the various grouping sof the Greek MSS .

,but it is possible to point out some practical

lines of working . (1 ) A very high place must be accorded to68 ; it has the excellencies of B without some of its defects .It is specially valuable when it differs from B

,and is perhaps

the most important Ms . of Koheleth extant . (2) 147—1 57—159are frequently in agreement with S, but sometimes with B 68

against S: In the former case they are mostly bad, and in thelatter also they sometimes support a wrong reading ; but theyare usually good when combined with BS 68 or with BC 68 .

THE GREEK TEXT 1 37

(3) Sc°aV 253 abound both in hexaplaric readings and in

deliberate scribal corrections to produce conformity with MT .

They are therefore of value when they differ from SH . and

MT . (4) Similarly 161—248 and 252 deserve considerationwhen they differ from SH . (5) There is no doubt that insome passages all extant Greek MSS . have been hex aplarised .

And when the uncials are divided, S.H . is in most cases foundon the side of MT.

,and the opposing variant is to be preferred .

But in a large number of passages all Greek MSS . and SH . are

opposed toMT. ,Pesh .

,Hier . In these instances the presumption

is that MSS. ! S.H . point .to a Hebrew variant at least older

than Origen but since comparatively few alterations or cor

ruptions can have occurred in the Hebrew text after the timeof the authorised ‘

Akiban’ recension

,the joint testimony of

MSS . and SH . against MT . must often go back to a pre-Akiban

text . And this is also the case when all MSS . are Opposed toAq . or 2 ,

and toMT. ; in these passages S.H . is of value,or not,

according as it agrees with MSS . or with Aq . 2 . Lastlybeing based on QB

,cannot, for textual purposes, be

’

classed withAq . 2 . Its value is high when it sides with Q5against Aq. 2

, or

against S.H .

The readings in which B diverges from MT. fall into threeclasses :A . Those which seem to imply a Hebrew variant before

the‘

Akiban’ recension . The Hebrew textmust have been in

a very unsettled state, especially in a book like Koheleth whichwas in many quarters an dvn xeyép eyov.

_It should therefore becarefully borne in mind that to say that QB points to an earlyHebrew variant is not the same as to say that that variant wasthe true original reading . In many cases

,for example, QHr

points to a reading which was evidently a mere corruption,and which was rightly corrected in the ‘

Akiban’ recension .

The adoption of emendations is in place only in a commentary ;and instances occur in the Notes on select passages . Here,with few exceptions, no preference is expressed for or againstthe M . reading .

B . There are a few cases in which the evidence seems toshew that changes have been made in the MT . after the time ofOrigen, and even of Jerome . Variants have occasionally been

1 38 APPENDIX II .

preserved along two lines of Hebrew descent, so that even the

Tg . differs from M .

C . There remain the large number of instances in whichdivergencies in QB are probably the result of corruption in

Greek MSS .

—arising either from

'

hexaplaric influence, or frommere scribal mistakes .

It remains to say that the results of this study of“

the text donot depend for their validity on the Aquila theory maintainedin the previous section . The present writer believes that a

pre-Akiban Hebrew text was used by Aquila for his first

edition . But in any case the early Hebrew variants underlyingQh'

r must have been pre-Akiban .

P re-Alciban readings .

Ch. I . v . 1 . 6 MSS . M . om . article .vii . 27 xii . 8 shew that the Mas . tradition did not

decide uniformly with regard to the article ; and it is probablethat the early text had n‘mpn.

’

Icrpan'

AMSS . O . L . om . M . Pesh . Tg . S.H . obelises the word .

Hier . says Superfluum quippe est hic Israel,quod male in

Graecis et Latinis codicibus invenitur .

”

It had found its way into the pre-Akiban text

, perhapsbecause ‘ king of Israel ’ was a common expression, while

‘ king

in Jerusalem ’was strange ; perhaps it was due to v . 1 2. Pesh .

king of Jerusalem .

’

v . 8 . m 2 1 ° MSS . S.H . Pesh . Some MSS . K. de R . om . M .

Hier .'

v. 1 0 .dcAaNq

’

a et Kal 6’

s WDN’l MSS. [V3, ICC—261 39 o

’

iv]S.H . Pesh . Hier . qaoel loqnatv/r I M . 2 .

7 02; a ldiowI

MSS. (8 X 0 . A) , SH . M. D’D’PVS A. [Pesh .

an ) ; It is possible, however, that év is only a repetition

of the last syllable of ye’

yovev.

v. 1 1 . 7 029 '

yevop e'

vow : 1 1 .-awMSS . (ex c . foll . ) S.H . Pesh . one MS .

de R . I M . V 147—159 , Tg .

In the pre-Akiban text Draws-1 and mums together formed

the subject to which 13715referred .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

140 APPENDIX II . [OIL II .

a m ” ; MSS . s. .i1 Pesh . Hier . | M. 5m 2 .

v . 1 2 .

C

‘n s av9pw7ros t he! ”79 MSS . [V 147—157—159 1 1 9 o av9 . ]S .H . Pesh .

Ct Hier . qais est hominnrn I M . mm rm 2 .

Om . 1 3 : MSS . S. .H Pesh . Hier . I ins . M . Tg .

v . 15. c’

yw we'

pwvov BCS* 147—157—159 . 155. [68 .

161—248 . 261 c’

yw“

to r ep1

] Pesh . I M .

“

111 1 m 1 1 11 . AS” V curss.

rel . S.H . Hier .The omission of m in the early Heb . text may have been

accidental,owing to its similarity to JR ,

a scribe’s eye passingfrom the first 1 to the second .

éhdknaa MSS . S.H . Hier . I M .1 11 Pesh .

lv. 1 9 .Ka l el éfovo tafge‘

ra t use/m.

Ins.el’

. MSS . (ex o. 1 55) I om . M . 155. S.H . Aq . Pesh . Hier .e’

fovmaé'

em t BASV curss. (ex c . foll . ) I M . 13519 1

C 1 06S .H . Al lu s m probably points to e

’

fovcn a le‘

rai,and omits

’U. 20 . a s 68 . 1 06. M. 5p . MSS. rel .

SH . Pesh .

ptov BS 254. SH . Hier . M . 5mm.

Mss . rel . “6X9? [A 252 296mg; ,uoxj Pesh .

’U. 22 . a B 68 . 157 . 253 . 254. 261 . 299 M . macs.

MSS. rel . Hier .v. 24. dv9p<67rqg BAC curss. [C seven curss. pr . m3] Pesh .

Hier . 3 MSS . K. de R . M . man. SV, SLH .

It is possible, however, that the omission of e’

uwas accidentalbetween -90 V and Gil/0“

.

a[A 39] scam . 1311 sr 298 . s.H . e : M . saw SnwwnS.H .

mg Pesh . Hier . Tg . So pr . 796W S” V 1 06. 254, pr . 63m) C

curss. rel .The evidence seems to shew that the pre-Akiban text hadthe 13 having fallen out after the prec . D . This was

corrected in the ‘

Akiban’ recension

,resulting in two different

corrections in QB MSS . But later even than the Tg . some Heb .

MSS . omitted the 13 ; hence the present MT .

1 This may be a corruption of 1 67 6 1rep.,but itmay, on the other hand, have

arisen by dittography from era) .

2 Field’s note is misleading, in placing the statement of S E . that 6 is

“similar to the LXX .

” in connex ion with QR Kal ci éfovatdferac.

CH . III ] PRE-AKIBAN READINGS 141

Ch. III . v . 1 . 6xpévos MSS . (ex c . foll . ) I om . art. M . S* 253 . 2 .

’U. 1 0 . 0 0V mi l/Ta BV 68 . 155. 253 . 254Iom . M. ACS SH .

Pesh . Hier . Tg .

v . 1 1 . ofip‘n

'

av'

ra [m’

wmi l/1 a] 'rc’

w a la’

iva BCV 68 . 258 , 254 M .

meAS curss . rel . S.H . Pesh . Hier .

v .

v . 1 7 . Kai elm B 68 . 248 . 298 Pesh . M .1mm: SV curss .

rel . (ex c . S.H . Hier .AC 155 confuse Kai with the 6m? in the prec . clause

,thus

indirectly favouring its insertion .

v . 1 8 . Kai 637m I M .1mm: me .

The foll . five readings occur

(a) Om. DW and read Kal elm-a B 68 .

(b) Om . DW and read 6’

K6? civra A0 8 1 06. 155. 159 . 161 .

(c) éKGZ '

el7m (or elvrov) V 147—157 . 248 . 253 . 261 . 296.

298 S.H . Pesh .

(d) 6’

K6? ’

Kal 637m 254.

(e) 6’

K6? ‘

611 11 1 252 . 299 .

(c) is Masoretic but (17) is not quite on the same footing .

What was the cause which made three uncials and four cursives

(1 06being separated from 261 and 161 from 248) include 6e in

v . 1 8 instead of v . 1 7 Probably it was the fact that the scribeshad before them the reading Ka l 6lvra . Thus (b) may be a

witness for (a) . Similarly in (d) the scribe of 254must havehad Kai before him

,and added 6e owing to h is knowledge

of M. Dr) . (e) is a corruption either of (d) or (c) .

The early text,therefore

, probably omitted Dv and beganv . 1 8 with 1mam.

v . 1 9 m i 7 6 a l’

rrols D115DJMSS . S.H . I om . DJ M . Pesh .

Hier . On nnn see sect . B .

v . 1 9 . ovvofv'nma The following readings occur

(a) crwdvrn/Aa AC curss. (ex c . foll . ) Hier .

(b) of: O'

vvafv‘mpa B .

(0) mp1: 1 : M . S.H . Greg . Agr . 37 1 . Pesh .

evidently corruption of a Alva

.

(Cl) (59 O'

vvafwnpta SV 1447—159 . 253 . 254. 299 .

(b) is probably an orthodox gloss,and is included in sect . C .

If it is,it favours (a) . It is remarkable that no Greek MS . has

1 Q5 Ton? Bmalov probably does not represent pmm. vu . 1 5 (1 6) shews that

the translator used the word as neuter.

142 APPENDIX II . [CPL III .

received (in from S.H .

'

(d) may either have arisen from a

misreading of M. as mpnn, or be a corruption of (a) bydittography from the preceding -0 ts.

All are explicable if the early Heb . text omitted ’D .

20 . 659 7 671-0 1/ BS*V 68 . 147—157—159 . 2541 Ipr . 15m M .

ACS“ lbcurss . rel . S.E . Aq .

' (ap . S.H . ) Pesh . Hier .The pre-Akiban text evidently omitted i5m. Its subsequentsertion may have been due to its presence in y i . 6.

émm-

pe’

q/ et aw» B 68 . 159 . 254. 261 . 296 S.H . Hier . I M .

“

w

ACS curss . rel . Pesh . It may,however

,be a Greek corruption,

since a confusionbetween <1) and ll! would be easy .

v . 21 .m l 7 59 MSS . S.H . Pesh . Many MSS . K. de R . I M .

Hier .

Ch. IV. 2 .afipnavras [ 0 0V wail/Ta g] BO

V’d 68 . 1 06. 253 . 254.

299 . Hier . in Ep . Eph . Ambr . cle fide’

Resi trr . I nvnnnm: M .

ASV curss . rel . S.H . Pesh . Hier . C . Ambr . in Ps . cxviii .v . 4.

37 a 76 Zfihos civ l. Although B is the only MS . whichhas both 7 0 6771 0 9 and cit/8

,05,it has good support for each . And

this is probably the true reading, pointing to 11s 13 . Theauthorities are as follows

(1 ) 7 6 (fil es B*CS 147—157 (6 Zn)» 253 . Pesh .

Hier . om . pronoun I M . nNJp wn Bab '

V curss . rel . SH .

(2) .1 ./3s 1 06. 155. 254. 296 [c hiat] aspenASV curss .

rel . S.H . Pesh .

“

Hier . oil/3p? need not imply a Heb; variant.

It denotes the envy felt by a man’it is slightly more difficult

than the objective gen . aspen, hence the latter was a naturalalteration .

v . 8 .m i 76 013€X¢59 rmDJ MSS . (ex o. S’Ié

l

296) S.H . I M .

11 121 296. Hier . Pesh .143 ( b e

.

v . 1 7 .év (gl e

’

av (or air) WIN: MSS . (ex c . Several MSS .

K. de R . Sc' a V 253 7457rop61560‘ 9at I M

“

719 1123 .

1571-6p 86pm. [marwv 1 06,

-

,ua '

ra 296. 299] 11 11 7373 . MSS . (ex c

foll . ) SH . Pesh . I M . nnn Sc ' a V 253 13. To80 0m l . Aq .

ow la [S Ja g, 258 l av] a ov = 1n: 1 . Mss . (ex c . V) SH . I M . rmV Aq .

G) . Pesh .33 m“

V has 9vm’

av, and the omission of the pronoun may have

been accidental, for 253 has 9vm’

av c m) .

1 s*om. t itsmtwe. supplied by S

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

144 APPENDIX II . [OH . V .

beyond anything of which the translator is elsewhere guilty ;and he camrender nzmmfi (ii . 21 ) correctly—wovnpc

’

a

In v .

.

1 2 the early Heb . text may have run "Sn u'

ll h

(read”if! there is an evil

,a sickness ” (cf . vi . 1

,x . . 5)

and similarly in v . 15 moreover this is an evil , a sickness

(cf . mm ix . In the former verse nv‘ l had accidentallydisappeared before the time of QB hence QT: 20 e appwo

-n a .

In the latter verse QB probably ran KaL'

ye 7 0 137 0 wovnpz’

a aippwa‘

rla,

which a scribe, perhaps influenced by vi . 2, would easily corrupt

into wovnpd dppwon’

a .

v . 15. weptcw ec'

a 0 . 13m i) = 1Jfi n~ BV curss .

-

S.H . Ambr . de

Nativit. c . 6 abundant/5a ejus I M . 15mm ACS 2 Pesh .

v . 1 8 . 7rd; a’

ivepm os ms 5: Mss . (ex o. V) M . mm ‘7: V .

In the ‘

Akiban’ recension the article was added to am

almost uniformly throughout the book, of . vi . 7, vii . 2

viii . 1 7 bis,x . 14.

’U. 1 9 . wepw ‘lré: atrov MSS . SH . Pesh . IM. mm: Hier . ‘

QB seems to point tomy [on-15s] .

Ch. VI . v . 4.r opeiie

'rat MSS . (ex o. foll . ) Hier . IM .

“

159 .

147—157—1 59 . 258 . 299 . S.H . Pesh .

v . 6. (a) ( is win-av 21 m. r apever ac B (299

(b) e’

. 1' 2 7 d wdvra 7rop. M . 248 . 252 . 254. 296. 298

ov'

ra t,-0

'

erat) SHH Hier .

(c) e’

. 7 . E'

. 7rop. 7amil/7 a ACSV 68 . 253 . 261 (147—157159 Pesh .

The isolation of B,and intrinsic evidence, both condemn (a) ;

and of the other reading s (c) has far the stronger support, and

points to a pre-Akiban 13m

v.oil/Opaiwov B 68 . 296. 298 I M . pr . art. ACS curss . rel .

See on v . 1 8 .

v . 8 . (in wepw'

o et'

a BS* 68 . 147—157—159 . 254.

’

299 [V 253

wepuro'

etiec] Pesh . SH . as’

A® 7 59 (f IM. am"mo. ACS“ curss .

rel . Aq . Hier .It is probable that

“mm m (perh . written wnw) had been

corrupted in a pre-Akiban text to firm: cf . iii . 1 9 . And this

corruption may have been either accidental or polemical .1 Hier . C . quia D eus occupat in laeti tia. cor ejus would require D

"R ”D

135nnnwn. But his rendering is probably an attempt tomake the best of theMT. as it stands . Vg. eo quod D eus occupet delici is cor ejus may mean that

he afterwards adopted the pronunciation t ig’

,

CH . VI . ] PRE-AKIBAN READINGS 145

But it is possible, of course, that the omission of n’

s was an

error of a Greek scribe .

dain 6 71 033W MSS . (157 Sta f f, 299 om . 6) SH . Pesh . IM.

’v fin. Hier . quid paw/pervm'

svut vadat.

There seems to have been an early corrupt reading warm,

probably due in part to the , preceding‘7 in 5mm. In Ed .

Saphetana 1578 there is an interesting emendation wm' ’v ms .

v. 1 2 [l 7 vii . dya06v BV 68 . 1 06—261 . 296. 299 [Q vac ]M . am no . pr . 75AS“ [S

* we] curss . rel . S.H . 2 Pesh . Hier .Kai e

’

m t’

ncrev ai rs : nwmMSS . [O vac ] S.H . Pesh .

being a corruption of m ) favours Q}; M . Bra/W Hier .e’

v cm é‘

. 5x: Mss . (ex o. SH . M . 53 : V 253 . 1 06—261Pesh . Hier .

Ch. VII .

’U. 1 yevv'

a ews’

BS* 68 . 147—157—159 . 161 . 299

Pesh . SH . 46’

A aim ?) . l I M . 1 15mACS°° aV curss . rel . Aq . Hier .This points to an early reading was [Bickell nifaqj.v . 2 xa66n = wws3 MSS . M . was : Hier . [s.H . and

Pesh .n Asp ]

ail/Opai‘n

'

ov BA curss. (ex c . foll . ) IM. pr . art. CSV 157 . 161—248 .

252. 299 . See on v . 1 8 .

v. 6 « is 4mm} BS 68 . 147—157—159 . 296. 299 . SH .

at 37 4. I M . pr .”3 AC curss . rel . Pesh . Hier . Tg .

a

’

xavGu'

Sv B 68 . 248 . 254. 296 I M . pr . art. ACSV curss . rel .The art. is more likely to have been inserted in the

‘Akiban

’

recension to complete the parallelism withmen,than omitted if

it was already present?

v. 8 Mywv MSS . (ex c . foll . ) I M .

"

13 1 V 258 . 298 S.H .

2 Pesh . Hier .The foll . 0 may have been accidentally doubled formingmmv . 1 0 év O

‘

q t'

q: moan: Mss. SH . Pesh . M . mama.

[Tg .

"nSit]v. 1 2 (1 137 179 1

° MSS . S.H . I om . pron . M . 2 Pesh . Hier .

In the pre-Akiban text the n of "

armhad been accidentallydoubled .

A

cv mug, fu nk.

(a) e’

v (I ndi

u m; O'

KL'

a MSS . SH .

(6) app . 2 Pesh . Hier .

(c) Brus hy: M .

1 ACSV 252. 296yevéa'

ews.

2 E (ap . S.H. ) dad yap dwacdeé'rwv cannot be used as evidence

M.

146 APPENDIX II . [CPL VII .

The corrupt reading Sn u t r: evidently stood in the pre

Akiban text . This was corrected to (b) , which is idiomatic,

and makes good sense ; but afterwards corrupted again to

Bratipyvpfov DV 68 . 254. 298 I pr . art. M . ACS curss . rel . 2 .

v . 1 8 d MSS . S.H . Hier . om . M . 2 Pesh . (pass .

ptcp . him that is made crooked )l

v . 24 inrép 3 73V“mum MSS . S.H .

'

Hier . Pesh . (in theorder mm mmwb ) M . nvnw rm; In the early Heb . text theword was probably understood as ” 719979

,of . vi . 8 mm.

25 dG GfiODS oiq omfi/nv MSS. IM . SD) VW'

I . Pesh .

433 m“ mhM -fi, Hier . impv

'

etatem stu ltv’

. It is impossiblenot to think that the translator would have rendered MT . bydo efiec

’

av oictpocnivns S.H . transposes thewords—( A n k h 4 31 .3 . .l50 3

. It is,therefore

, probable that the pre-Akiban texthad rm SD) ,

and that when the words were transposed, Q5wassimilarly treated to produce correspondence .

dxknpfav MSS . IM . pr . art.

ma“ peeps MSS . SE . M . m‘psm. Aq . 2 Hier .The similar passages, i . 1 7, ii . 1 2, are in favour of the

coordination with 11 153 1: by“and .

”

v . 26 Gripevua “mmBC curss . (ex c . foll . ) Hier .M . amino ASV 1 06. 161—248 . 252 . 258 . 296 Aq .

36mm) ? ei9 .xe'

ipa 9 «1 61-fig MSS . (258 Sea/ mi) I M . FM" D’WIDN Pesh .

Hier . Aq . (ap . Hier . ) Vinctae suntmanus ejus .

It is difficult to suppose 45 to be a corruption of ded uct a i

[or eicn Ed . Alex . ] xe’

ipes atrfis. Aq. suggests another solution .

If lav-nos were spelt mm: in an early text,the expression might

easily be corrupted into nw : more ‘

a chain is on her hands . ’

And with the revised Heb . text Aq . still expressed the samethought .

v . 27 6 MSS . (ex c . 252) I om . art. M . 252

v. 28 Kai dv9pw7rov MSS . SH . (Berger) IM. me:Pesh . Hier .

1 Bymeans of the masc . 8p and az’

rréu the translator expresses a thought

afterwards found in 2 and in Tg .—thatmay refers to man being made crooked

(2 punished”

) by God . This was evidently the Rabbinic Viewof the passage,and the rendering favours the Aquilean authorship .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

148 APPENDIX II . [CI-1 . VIII .

1 2.

“it wovnpéu MSS . I M . om . art. A corruption due to

the prec . n; either it was doubled in the early text, or thesecond 71 wa s omitted in the MT . by homoeoteleuton .

fir ?) 7 67 6 new MSS . S.H . I Aq . 2 a

’

vré9avev no I M . mar:Pesh . Hier . strives to find a sui table meaning both in cm tune

and in mortuus est. None of these three reading s is satisfactory

l. The el lipse of DVD after mm is very harsh, and mm is

nowhere else used as an indefinite expression for a large number .A solution is required which will account both for the "

rand for

the n at the end of the word . An d two are possible :1 . A scribe began to write jfi xm,

but having accidentallyomitted the 1 discovered his mistake when he had written am ,

and wrote the word again . Then Tamm ie: was written "anmm

,

and,later

,

"73 1 mm.

2 . The original text had “mm, which would similarly give

rise to the two variants .ti7ropaKpO

'

TnTOS : MSS . S.H . (mi sreading 05 as 037 6 Ina-m af

7 777 0 9) M.

"

WIND Pesh . Hier .1 8 .

e’

v m aMSS . (ex c . S*) S.H . M . 533 Pesh . Hier . S*

has confl .« is 6

’

v mag? (Sc-a

om . 2 (ap . Hier . ) om . 53 : al

together .a

’

atmbs = nn5v B 68 . 147—1 57—159 . 298“

M . 13 .-i5x .

1 rpos aim-obs ACVS curss . rel . S.E .

‘

Pesh . Hier . The alteration

was made to conform to nn‘w below .

c’

v 0739 firm: MSS . (ex o. 252) SH . two MSS . K. de R . IM . arms .

(2 252 816. Pesh .4 1m l s

vb "

. Hier . quapropter . )7 i7v d oc/i fav MSS . (ex o. fell . ) I om . art. M . 147—159 .

’0 . 1 7 .dvfipwfl

'

os 1 ° MSS . I M . pr . art. See V . I8 .

avopm og 2° BACV curss. (ex o. foll . ) pr . art. M . S . 161—248 .

252 . 254. 296.

croqbbs BV 68 . 157 . 252 . 253 . 254. 296 I pr . art. M . ACS carss . rel .

Ch. IX .

’0 . 1 [Q5 V11 1 . 1 7] . Kai Kap3L'

a,uov 0 15,14.a 63861/ 7 0 137 0 MSS

(W ith small variationsz ) . SH .i K. K. Ia . 7 0 137 0 a ti

,t1 a eISeV. Pesh .

x . x .

,u. . ciSev 0 6,4a 7 0 337 0 I M . m5: m: 2 (ap . Hier .

The early text ran m5: me nm "351 . The transpositionmfmrow eZSev seems to have been hexaplaric .

1 ?ND is adopted by B ickell and Siegfried.

2 B*

OH . 1x . ] PRE-AKIBAN READINGS

W . I,2 [Q5 ”0 .

7 a?

mi l/7 a 7rpovrpooui'

zrov afiru’

iv ua7 ac07n9

7 0 2; m’

imv. MSS . S.H . This points to a pre-Akiban reading

.1 1 W 11 3 ama‘; all that is before them is vanity ;

inasmuch as to all there is one In thiscase c

’

v 7 0 2; ” am must be an early Greek corruption of e’

u ate

7o 7 . (cf . viii . 16, xi . 5; and in viii . 4« MT . has aw n) .In the ‘

Akiban’ recension the only change made was to

read "

NZ/SD for 1 2211 3 . SO 5. 7 d. miw a é'

pwrpoaeeu 01 137 0 13 dt a,

propterea quod omnibus eveuiuut simi lia (see Field) . And the'

Vg . , though free, is evidence for this : omuia in futu/rum ser

vantur fiuccfrta,co quod universaacque etc .

But in a line of Heb . MSS . which did not affect the Vg .,but

which produced the present MT.,

was corrupted tonecessitating its inclusion in the second

,instead of the first

,

clause .Lastly Pesh . has a conflation

,reading at the end of the

first clause,and 5215“

1rw: at the beginning of the second .

2.Kai Kata? MSS . S.H . Pesh : Hier . I om . M . Tg .

This is placed here because Pesh . Hier . may have adoptedthe words from 45. But if they knew a Heb . reading 11151, theomission was a corruption at a later stage in the MT .

75V 3pKOV MSS . IM. om . art.

3 .m i 6m

’

crw ail-rev : 13 .-11 1mm Mss . S.E . Pesh . 2 (vid . ) I

M . 1 1mmHier . Tg .

(Hier , at post haec. 2 7 8. BE7 ehev7 afa 01137 6314)4. 6 C6v= ~nn MSS . Did . de Trn

'

a . « 15am 6 {131/ IM .énn.

2 xvi/i.

It is possible, however, that this does not point to a Heb .

variant,but that the article was instinctively inserted by a

scribe,making the expression parallel to 7 0V Ae

’

ow a 7 0V vexpév.

On the Aquilean 6Kfiwv for 3535see App .

’

1 . p . 1 1 9 .

’U. 5. yvaia ow a c =w1 1 MSS . (ex c . foll . ) IM . V. 253

ytvuia k ovcnm Pesh . Hier .

The alteration in MT . was probably due to the foll . 13 1111 1 1 .

01 131-o é’

n MSS . SgH . Pesh . Hier . I M . transp .

The agreement of MSS . and versions points to an earlyreading

“

1111 ans. But it is possible that the transposition cc

curred in a Greek MS . owing to (1 131-02; 27 1 in the foll . verse .

6. m i ye p epis p51“

! DJBS* curss. (ex c . Hier . sed at I

M. pSmACS“ 161—248 . 252. S.E . Pesh .

1501

APPENDIX II . [OH . IX .

’0 . 9 . Kati ? e MSS . SH . Pesh . I M . mm 2 Hier .7 619 G ov

. It is probable that the two clauses

(a) mm "11

”5”J WIN,

and (6)"

151 m1 13 1 were absent fromthe pre-Akiban text used by the translator . In the case of (6)this amounts to a certainty. For

(i) B (alone) has wdoa t fipépacfiuépa t (sic) G ov, which isclearly a corruption of Aq .

7 60 0 1. atfiuépac d.

(ii) In OSV 147—157—159 . 161—248 . 296 S.H . a literal rendering has been supplied from the earlier similar clause ln the

Verse—mic a ; fip e’

pas [7 7791 ,ua7 acci7n769

(iii) ,The clause is omitted in A curss. rel . Pesh . Hier . Tg .

and in some Heb . Mss . K. and de R .

Clause (a) is found in all Greek MSS . (ex o. 1 06—261 ) and inS.H . But Pesh . om. The rendering SoOefa as is foreign to

the style of the translation,and may have been supplied from

2 or as clause (6) was from Aq . It is omitted,together with

the first clause,in ten MSS . K. de R .

6’

V 17? ( « inG ov Mss . S.H . om . pron . M . Pesh . Hier . (om . pron .

With pdxeq) also) .

This may, however, be a mistake of a Greek scribe, owingto theoccurrence of G ov with nine other words in fv . 7—9 .

1 0 .«J; 15815mm o ov z

-mm Mss .

‘

SH . I M . 1 11 13 : Pesh .

Hier . Tg .

14.a

’

1 0 : ms: MSS. SH . Pesh . M . at »: Hier .

1 7 .eavm um u 115m MSS. SH . M. 5m 2 Pesh . Hier .

The B may have arisen from a doubling of the foll . 3 , cf .vn . 8

a oiq omiva t9 =mSI733 3 MSS . (157 . 298 SH . m y. 147 . 159 61

Pesh . a foolish ruler . IM. 2 Hier .The plural of 5D: is elsewhere used only for ‘

loins . ’ It is

probable that the word was written without the 9 in the early

text,but was intended to be read D’SDDJ .

Ch. X . 1 . 74q 6Myov [B* 5 252 Xo

'

yos] o-

q L’

as‘

[TOG—261 dM’

yn o odn'

a] {fi rép Bo'

fav 11 67 001 179 [47V] MSS .

(ap . S.H . ) ended the clause with ,ueydknv, if he did not

follow G throughout . This points to a pre-Akiban reading

11 153 1: 1 13 3 13 moanmm1 1 06. 253 . 25480 7) 615V.

2 The lapsus calamz’

is corrected in B“ .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

152 APPENDIX II . [OIL X .

Internal evidence favours the reading of B,since a scribe

would be more likely to add 0 76ua 7 0 9 owing to the prec . clause,than to omit it . It was the desire for parallelism which probably caused the insertion of 1 11 15 in the

‘

Akiban’ recension .

But if was the original reading it may have been omittedin an early text owing to its similarity to 1n1 1

u . 14. dvdpw‘

n'

os BV 68 . 1 06—261 . 258 . 296. 298_ Ipr . art. M .

ACS curss . rel . See on v . 1 8 .

Wpds Ka ipav z np‘; Mss . (ex c . SE . M . 11 113 253 .

Pesh . 4 mm,

a iaxvvdvio ow a z probably points to a corrupt 11m in the preAkiban text . See sect . O.

ot ov 7 0 1) efi¢pavdfivat = 11a B 68 . 147—157459 . 2542 .

Pesh . Hier . ut epu leutur fut/veutes I M . 11 t AOVS curss . rel .owos evcfipac

’

vet (or evdpavet) SHm wavra =53n BS* 68 . 147—1574 511 254. S. .H IM. pr . 11 s .

AOV curss. rel . 0 11V 751 fl at/7 0. 3 ,

20 .Kowwvwv = 1

133wr> Mss . (ex o. foll . ) I M .

“

13 329 13 . 155. 248 .

252 . 298 S.H . Pesh . Hier .

Aéyov a'

ov MSS . S.H . Pesh .%h I M . om . pron . Hier .4

Ch. X I . 1 .vip epu

'

iv B . 68 . 254. 298 I M . pr . art. ACS curss .

rel . (6X 0 . 7 07V 0 0 1) V 1 06—261 . 252 .

5.Kvoctopmfcms BV 68 . 155 I M . pr . art. Mss . rel .

v. 6.Kal c

’

v écnre’

pq perhaps points to an early 21 313 1 . So Ed .

Saphetana . But see sect. O.

£7 1 76a 1376= 11 r1 1 Mss. SH . I M . 1 ns3 Pesh . Hier .

Ch XII . u. 5. B 68 . 147 . 155. 252mg M D: ACS curss .

rel . S.H . Pesh . Hier .

Kai may point to a reading which became DJ

through the doubling of the But re might easily fall outfrom KAII

'

GGIC .

v 6 Ka t H . Pesh . I M . I’tJi .

Kai coufriugatu’r .

1 1 55 1rpbs Kacpéi.2 261 0711 0 3 el

’

npuvflfivat .3 S“ 7 11. 0 1511 7 01 11 7 01 .

4 Hier. also omits pron . with ecoem in prec . clause.

5 248 m l 7 1 , which must be a corruption of m l 1 6.

OH . X II ] PRE-AKIBAN READINGS 158

W évflpwvrov= n1 sn Mss . (ex c . foll . ) SH . I M . 13a

V 258 Pesh . Hier . Copt .é§ txwoitre7 a t = fipn1 MSS . (ex c . Se‘ a

) SHH IM. m [Se a l] Aq .

Pesh . Hier .This is the only variation in the consonants as

'

read by thetranslator : but he followed a different pronunciation to that

adopted afterwards ; “PD: Aq . has Kai n’

vwn’

a aro

Kai. vippxrivevo e Kai.2Ka7 em< e15a <r e wapozuias. 1 06—261 have a complete

conflation of Aq . and GE.

1 1 , 7 6V avvdeuoim w [0 vvayud7 wv, 0'

vV7 ay/ wf7wv] MSS. IM.

om . art.

1 3 .a’

xove z ynwMss . (ex o. Pesh . M . 1113 19: V 253 .

SH . reads dK0 1567 € which is probably a corruption of dKote—rat,and in marg .

“ ’

ACH) similar to Hier .,auditu perfaci lis est

,

seems to follow M .

v . 14. 7rav7 i MSS . (ex c . 252) SH . M. 2 wept.

Pesh . Hier .

(In xi . 9 45has e’

7rl with M . )

‘Akitan

’readings which suffered late/r alteration in the

Hebrew tezet.

Ch. I . u. 1 8 . 7 5V ov’

pa1/6V: D1Dwn BAOS* 68 . 1 06—261 . 155.

161—248 . 254 SH . and M . I rc‘

w th ey”

: 19131111 S“ V . curss . rel .Pesh . Hier . Tg . The former reading is found in a cod . of Pesh .

,

and the latter in several Heb . Mss . (Kenn . and de Thevariant is thus found preserved till a late date .

Ch. II . 8 .Kai Karec

'

rKa/xoiunv MSS . S.H . Aq . 2 I M .1 11 1 11

Pesh . Hier .v. 24. m l 6

‘

m’

erauBOS 68 . 161—2418 . 254. 298 Pesh . M . fine/1AV curss . rel . S.H .

m l 8 . BAGS curss . (ex c . foll . ) Aq . Pesh . I M . mmmV 147—157—159 . 258 . 299 . S.H .

The evidence is strong for an early reading nmnm finer/1 .

’v. 25.m péé a137 06= 11 13 13 rm MSS . SH . Pesh . Hier . Copt .

eight Mss . K. de R . I M .1 1 13 13

"11 Vg . Tg .

1 S": a Kal 0 13g éfcxmdaam z'

lpn HR“ .

2 Ten MSS . K . de B . have 1pm.

154 APPENDIX II . [OIL III.

Ch. III . my. 4, 5. 7 053 ico' t/zaafia i . 'raii 6pxii0'

a0'0a i . 7 0 13 ow ayayeii/

MSS . Pesh . I M . om . 5.

v . 1 8 . om . nunMSS . I ins . M . S.H . Pesh . Evidently a repetition of the last syllables in man) .

v . 1 9 . O'

vvafv'

r'

rma MSS . Several MSS .K. de R . I M . pr .

.1 .

Kal. Ti ér epioa evo ev z'mv nm written 'wm) MSS . (ex c . foll . )

SHH 2 Ti ‘n'Aéov. Sc' a’ V 258 6) f ig r epwa eia IM . finjm Pesh .

Hier .

Ch. IV. 3 . aim . .a 5: me Be vid . [s* w e] 68 . 254. Aq .

® 1 Hier . in Ep . Eph. I M . m: AS“ a curss. rel .2

S.H . Pesh .

Hier . C .

v . 1 2 . ém xpamwifiy z “IRE”. MSS . (ex c . 253) S.H . The same

consonants are attested by 253 twepwxéa a ,2 -x15<ry, Pesh .

’IDOZ'IM . 1spmHier .

Ch. V . i) . 2 .e’

vfivrmov'

MSS . 2 I M . pr . art. It is possible, however

,that QB represents e xmm; but the word is nowhere

distinctly feminine,though the plural is always mmSn.

’U. 5. 7 d watfipa ‘

ra : WA”: MSS . Hier . Vg . eight MSS . K. de R. I

M . new? Cf . vii . 1 3 viii . 1 7

,Xi . 5.

'v. 1 6.Kai c

’

v r év9ec=53mMSS . [V om . e’

v] S.H . Copt. I M . SawPesh . Hier .The extreme difficulty of Saw makes it improbable that it

was adopted instead of 53m in the ‘Akiban

’ revision . (SevenMSS . K. de R . have

Re ; appe ase MSS . SH . Pesh . M . v‘pmHier . Tg .

As in the preceding instance, it is the difficulty of the Mas .

reading which makes it probable that it is a later corruptione

It could easily arise from the doubling of the following 1 in

arm.

Ch. VII .

”v. 12 (1 3) «59 mafiaz‘m: MSS . SH . 2 (vidf

‘

) Pesh . IM . 523 . See sect . A .

v . 13 7 61 r oan/Law MSS . 2 Hier . Vg . I M . nwmz . See v . 5.

c . 14 Zfi9t= n’n MSS . S.H . Aq. Copt . M . n’n2 ~Pesh2Hier . Tg .

1 2) Te xarcd é‘p'

ya rd '

ywéueva . The plural may imply the presence of 53 .

2 253 ov1rw (sic).3

and Pesh . are uncertain, since their reading depends on the presence

or absence of the ri bbui .

4chs (252

ml! ) or 6,140 l (SH ) axéwet Tb dp‘

yfipzov.

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

156 APPENDIX II . [OIL XII .

Ch. X II . v . 6. dva 'rparfi MSS . If the suggestlon made in

sect. C 1 s right, that this 1 s a corruption of avappayfior, perhaps,of a r oppayi}, the commonly adopted reading pnr (for pm»Kethibor phr K

eri) gains additional force . 2 Hier . both render “ bebroken

,Pesh .

m 3“ “

be cut off and pm” is used in iv . 1 2

(QB dr oppayn’

tre‘

ra t) of a thread or cord,where Pesh . has the

same word as here .

wocnaat r -mwvs BAGS” curss . S. .HAq. 2 M . S* 7rom<m c

,BLB. 147—157—159

Greek Corrup tions .

Ch. I . v . min} ; civwre’

v B 68 . 147—157- 159 . 261 M . tr .MSS. rel . S.H . Hier .It is scarcely possible that a reading m'nmn could have

existed .

v . 7 .oi xec

’

pappm 20 B M . pr . w. pr .

of} MSS. rel . S.H . Hier .v . 1 1 .

easy BAS 155. 254. 296 M . 13 .-15. (1 13-rots cv curss .

rel . S.E . Hier .afira

’

iv cannot represent a Heb . variant,and is foreign to the

style of the translation .

‘

1 7 .Kai, 630mm

“ yvu'

iaw

Om . 68 . 1 06. 161—248 . 296. 298 . S.H . has it with ale.

Clem . Al . Olymp . Copt .Add after yvu

’

Saw M . ABSV Pesh . Hier . [0 vote.

Add after IepovcraMy/L 147—157—159 ed . Rom .

The evidence is strongly in favour of the omission of theclause . If the pre-Origenian Greek text omitted it, two solutions are possible : 1 . At an early stage in the Greek transmission a scribe’s eye passed accidentally from yvu

'

icrw to yc GW .

But,being included in the other hexaplar translations, it found

its way back into the Greek text . 2 . The orig inal Heb . textomitted, and it arose as a doublet . The latter is the more

probable, and the insertion is on that account placed here as aGreek corruption .

1 8 . yvaio ews I M . By) . The words o odn’

a and yvu’

icn s occurtwice (or once) in the prec . verse

,which

'

might lead to themistake . See sect . A .

CH . GREEK CORRUPTIONS 157

Ch. II . c . 3 .ee

’

exicfipomivyW ) Mss.

‘ Pesh . M . ms» : Hier .The use of in i . 1 7 for m‘pz o, where all

GEMSS . have émom’

pnv (foll . by shews that in the earlyHeb . text the two words were sometimes confused, and it is

possible that some MSS . of that text read mSw here . But the

present reading is more probably a corruption of i 7r’

fictpomivn.

is usually the rendering of ance (of . my. 1,2,1 0 and

dim. stands for aiqbp. in other passages where there can be littledoubt that it is a scribal error z .

'v. 6. Om. ffika B . Evidently a slip, followed by no otherMS.

3

[0 rue ]v . 15. [6] d¢pwv e

’

K r eptoo eiiyaros Aahe’

i . Inserted after

para tci‘

r‘

qs in BC 155. 2541 . 298 Pesh . Copt . , and after e’

V Kapdig you

in ASV curss . rel . (ex c . 253) S.E . Hier . I om . M . 2534

It is evidently a gloss, possibly from a Christian source ;

of . Mat. x ii . 84IILk . vi . 45.

The alteration of the clauses by which 7repw'

0'6V (or e

’

ya‘

: m p . )was connected with e

’

AdMaa seems to have been due to polemicalreasons

,and is perhaps from the same source .

16.a i rise

'

pa z e’

pxép evac. The article before the participle

is omitted in BCS* 155. 252 . 254. 299 I ins. M . AS"' abcurss . rel .

S.E . Hier .The reading m i; 771 i . m ic e

’

px. is found in AS” Land several

cursives,and seems clearly a grammatical correction . 147

157—159 have a i rip . Scepx. which must be derived from an uncialin which an was mistaken for Au, and they are thereforereckoned among the MSS . which preserve the article . Theomission of a i in B and C was easy after rip e

'

pat, and cannot

point to a Heb . variant .1 9 . Kai éG O¢LUdM77V B

*S* 1 06—261 . 147—157—159 . 155. 299 IM. mmnww. Bab ACS“ curss. rel . Kai (f; e

’

crod) . S.H . Pesh . Hier .v 21 . d

’

veptmros (53 BS. S.E . M .

"W D'

IN . C curss. (ex c .

fi ned; Aq . Pesh . Hier . 5

1 Except 253

2etqbp. for d¢p. ii . 1 2 cod. V, vn . 25 (26) codd. 147—1 59 . d¢p. for e6¢p. 1 1 . 2

cod . 253, vii. 5cod. 1 06.

3 Pesh . ( 1334 0 .

4 The confusion arising from its variation in position is shewn in S.H

which adds after the interpolation m l 166m l 7 6 7 061-0 uaracéms 4

5 -1ros 63 S“ V 1 06. A om. é'

s.

APPENDIX II . [OH . II.

’0 . 22 . (in yivera t MSS . (ex c . 157) S.H . I M . mmm: ’D

'

157 .

2 Pesh . Hier .A Heb . variant is impossible . T l was accidentally omitted

between on and r|

v . 25.m

’

era c MSS .G) Pesh . I (beta s-ra t S.H . Aq . 2 . Hier .

parcet I M . cm’ Tg . NEW/n.

Ewald defends r im-c l.,referring to the Arab . hasa

‘drink ’

;

but there is no corresponding Heb . root . Both Greek readingsappear to be corruptions of m ic a -

ac. On the one hand the

occurrence of (bdyem e and m’

em c in the prec . verse caused theslip in a, primitive MS . hence m

'

e‘rou. is found in all Q5 MSS .

and 69. On the other hand wan» would easily be read imrv cw ,

as was done by Aq . 2 (ap . and hence qSec'

cre'rac

found its way into S.H . text .Both readings are explained by wefo e

‘

rac. In NH . and Aram .

win, m feel pain . So Tg . here . Hence it may be used - for

any kind of strong feeling—here one of enjoyment .

Ch. III . e . 1 1 . mini ravm oi '

MSS .

l

(ex o. 155) S.H . Pesh . I M .

om . rel . 1 55Hier . The reading new would yield good sense ;but the a would so easily be doubled that it is safer to regard, itas a Greek corruption .

16. ez’

mefln’

s MSS . S.H . I M . W i n Pesh . Hier . It is im

probable that this was a slip for do e/3759 . It must have been a

deliberate alteration in the cause of orthodoxy .

’U. 1 8 . (in ata kpwei [6 curss .

KPH/62] MSS .

2 SHH IM. D'

D‘?

Pesh .

Hier . has both quia separat and a t eligeret. No explanationcan be offered of this difficult reading , ex cept that it may havebeen a primitive corruption of 7 06 Seaxptva c. It seems to havebeen

glue to a scribe who did not understand the ellipse before

11 1 3 7 9 .

v . 1 9 . of) aw ait/Twat B . Probably an orthodox g loss . Seesect . A .

Ch. IV.’0 . 1 .

i80 1) B M . mm, pr .Ka i AOVid' SV carss . S.E .

Pesh . Hier .c . 9 . 360 B 252 254 S H .

.Pesh .

3 M . pr . art. AOSV curss.

rel . The omi ssmn of oi was easy after dya90 c’

.

1 261 8ou .

2 252m has 1 06 éké‘yfat ai’

rrobs' 61

066g, M d 7 0 17 66250 4 afirofis, which may be a

more or less accurate citation of Aq.

3 Pesh. om. art. alsowith é‘va.

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

APPENDIX ' II . ICE . V .

Jimrep ydp wapeye’

ve‘

ro oii‘rws Ka i dwehewio'

e‘ra t MSS.

1S.E . Hier.

The whole clause savours of 2,though wapaya

’

vem t N3 occursin 45v . 2 ; the use of yap is foreign to the translation ; mim e m l

is loose oiwe’

pxeadac occurs nowhere in this book in Q5 for 15h

(which is normally rendered trapeifw ea t) , while 2 has it in x . 15,

and a vvar ekefia erac in v . 14; and lastly in vii . 14( 15) G rendersmp5by the Aquilean ovptuil/ws.

Ka i ri wepw a efa B 68 I M . mmmm.Kai n

’

s 75w. MSS . rel . S.H .

2 Pesh . Hier .c . 1 7 . eiSov e

’

ytb BS“ 68 . 253 . 261 . 296. 298 [S.Hf ] I M .

9mm were, pr . 3 ACS* Pesh . Hier . 6'

would easily drop out in

Q5,while a Heb . variant is improbable .1 8. éfovm

’

ao ev (1 1576311 B IM . “9 15m .e’

fovcr. (1 1,

)q C 68 .

161—248 . 254. 261 . 296 [ 1 06. 252 . Hier . concessitque350W . c in'ov ASV curss . rel . vi . 2 shews that (161 is right .

aiirov is a correction .

v . 1 9 .O13K «ma B M . mm i s.

mm v 68 [ 147—159om .

0 13] 253 . 261 . S.H. Aq . Pesh . Hier . 0 13 new ; ACS

curss . rel .nam e is an attempted improvement, tomake the word agree

With “

rip e’

pas.

Ch. VI . e . 1 . are f ew even. 3 8 15258 M. mienSp . a t f . .i .

S“ MSS . rel . S.H . Pesh . Hier . 15m) is a slip , probably due tothe foregoing {mo 7 6V 'fy

'

htov.

’v. 5. BASV 68 . 161—248 . 253 . 254: IM . NH) .-0

'

l s

C 1 06. 252 . 261 . 298 Pesh . Hier . -0'w curss. rel . Aq .

from the idea that the word was governed by é’v .-0

'

€ t9 was a

case of itacism in an early_

MS .

6. WOpaie‘ra l. B . Accidental omission of “

rd mi l/m .

sect . A .

1 1 06om. yap. 299 m l r opeuce‘

rac.

2 4 34 hum ( my ; lotion 6760 1! é‘yu'

z . 2 e’

uol 06V e’

cpdunis too 10 0 86 to be

used as evidence .

3 Those in brackets read eu acr tfi, repeating-the last syllable of the verb .

4 S.H . cites 2 not only as o’

wd'

lravaw,but also xal 0 13K e

’

7retpd07) 5La¢opds é‘

répov

wpdyuaros 71'

p i—‘ r epov. So 254 after duar atfi

aets, and V 253 after fme‘

p 7 061-0 11 .

In this, and in S.H . tex t and Tg . , nm is given the meaning of the NH"p m:

‘ better than.

’ And from this arose the punctuation by which é‘v gov.

dvdvravaw. The stichometrical arrangement in B has the same efiect. But

there is no reason to depart from the meaning which DH) bears in iv. 6,

ix . 1 7

CH . VII . ] GREEK CORRUPTIONS 161

Ch. VII .

’U. 2 ii (in r cpevdfivat BAGS

)“ 68 . 161—248 . 252 .

254 I M . 11 3573 . vrapat r cpeve. S ” V 258 (clearly a correction) .i} 7rop€ v9. curss. rel . S.H . Pesh .

l té al fl(3 Chrys . Thdt.

an is a primitive corruption somewhat difficult to accountfor . The only explanation that suggests itself is that either Hor the n of vropeve. was accidentally doubled, and read as Tl,

which a later scribe wrote as 3n 1.

8010 61. dyadov MSS . Pesh . Iom. M . S.E . 2 Hier .A striking instance of the freedom with which early scribes

treated the Greek text . The insertion was probably caused bythe influence of the six -fold recurrence of aynetu in in) . 1—8 .

3 (4) dyaevvfin'

o e‘

ra t om.Kapdt

'

a B SHH =X<’

A® Kapdt'

a J IM . ACSV curss. Aq . 2 Pesh . Hier .The Heb . sentence would be awkwardly abrupt if it closed

wi th 3 D” . The omission must have'

been due to the foll .Kapdt

'

a.

etiyevet'

as aii‘roi} BC68 . 147—1 57—159 I M . a D . enrol/ [as-av S*] (1 131-0 8 AS“ curss. rel . (ex c . foll . ) S.H . Aq . Hier .

eii'rom'

av‘rfis d 3fas aii'roii V 1 06—261 . 253 . The last

reading is a deliberate alteration of the second,to produce

some sense .

etrevet’

as is clearly a corruption ofi

efirovtas,the latter being

probably the true reading . The translator derived the,word

a D from J Int)‘ be 13'a perhaps

assuming a sing . and reading The care with which

(acc . to Hier . ) Etransliterates MAT®ANA,and adds the ex pla

A ’I

nation 'rov

‘

r can 86pm} , would suggest that he was the first

translator to give the true Masoretic meaning .

8 wvefiua 7 1114739 BS

* 68,the M HC of In} 0 71 being

doubled . I M . rm. w etpan‘ MSS . rel . versions .

1 3 6debs MSS . S. H . Hier . Iom . M. 2 Pesh .

It is very unlikely that ran-i5m would have been omitted

had it stood in the pre-Akiban tex tz.

1 Isid. Pel . 81 1. 1ropev0 . Cyr. Al . ii To 1ropev0 . Hier. cm. the verb : quamad doinum convivi i .

2 By means of the“

masc. 811 and atrbu the translator expresses a thought

afterwards found in 2 and Tg . ,i . e . that imp refers to man being made crooked

(2 punished”

) by God. This was evidently the view taken of the passage in

the Rabbinic'

schools ; and the rendering is so far in favour of the Aquilean

authorship.

162 APPENDIX I I . [0 11 VII .

’U. 14 « at i'

3e e’

v mm. we MSS. (ex c .foll . ) IM.

mm mm Om. i’

de 1 ° S . H . Pesh . Hier . Om.’

c’

e 2° SM '

V1 06—261 .

The original GEwas evidently in accordance with M.,

7771 . x . me. But when a stichometrical arrangement was adoptedby which i’8e was connected with Ka l ye a scribesupplied ZSe as a verb for c

’

v mm . The omi ssion of the second9,

1,8em S‘ m etc . was a supposed improvement on thi s .Ka i ye 0 13V 7 0 157 ? B 68 .

Kai ye 7 0 157 9 159 .

Kac'

76 7 0537 0 ACS curss . rel . Hier .ovpgbaivws 7 067 0 B 68 .

-OV 7 037 0 AV 253 .

-0 v 7 0 157 ? S curss . rel . Hier .-€ L7 0 1

5

7 19 0 .

2 Kai yap 7 0 137 0 oil/dhoyov 7 0 157 0 1 1 .

These varieties can best be explained if GEoriginallyran Kac'

ye 7 057 0 ovpcfiuivws [or -0 V] 7 0 151 1 9, in strict accordance W lth M .

fv . 16 1 7 These verses seem to have sufferedsome corruptions which cannot now be traced . is foreignto the style of the translation

,and savours rather of 2 : and no

less strange are mi wore and i’

va In) for M . upsu mu‘z For theformer 2 has i’ua but for the latter he is not extant:Pesh .

A b and e ase. and Hier . na

and 713 . And for the second m5147—157—159 . 299 have M wore.

It seems probable that the early Heb . text had two differentwords

,and that GEhas been corrupted .

v . 1 8 ,w?) pai l/gs MSS . (ex c . The result of ditto

graphy—M HMHANHC . ,m

‘

yoil/fie 6) ,mi) dcbfis Aq 2 253 .

BS 68 . 1 06. 157 . 161—248 . 252 [254 7 029

M . mu -Vos CV 147—159 . 261 . 296. 6 (toB. A 253 . 298 . 299 .

Aq . 2 G).

The reading of B etc . was probably a corruption of

by a scribe who did not understand the construction e’

fehetforera t

7 d. writ/7 01 1 .

v . 21 do e/Bets Eslecurss . (ex c . foll . ) Pesh . Tg . om. M .

ACSM bV 248 . 252 . 258 . 296. S.H . 2 Hier .It is improbable that mpwwwould have been omitted, had it

stood in the pre-Akiban text . oiO'

eBefs‘ must have been added

1 Was be influenced byRom. viii . 28 ?

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

164'

APPENDIX 1 1 . [0 11 VII .

11 . 28 e’

fl'

ebi‘rna ev MSS . (ex c . 147—159 ain’

t,157

S.H . sought, om.

“

1120 I M . nwpn“

1111 Pesh . Hier . errwas a

mistake for en .

Ch, VIII . 1 [GE v1 1 .7 1

'

s 0 f3e(v) MSS. [ 147- 157 .

161 248 S.E . I M . Danna ”D Pesh . Hier . But Aq .

7 1’

s aide o-aetos can n: 1D ,

which helps to explain Q5. If «536

o oqbcs was written e cocboc, it would easily be corrupted to 0336

o-odmbs

‘

,owing to the foll . 7 1

'

s 038611 Maw .

11 . 1 0 . ex m i} oiyfov MSS . [V 253 111m) 7 . aha] I M . rampmpronAq. 2 Pesh . Hier. was perhaps abbreviated On the

rest of the verse see sect . A .

11 12 a137 131/ MSS S.H . |Mz asz Pesh . Hier .A corruption of AYroo1

2

e’

1m (v) BV 68 . 161—248 . 254IM . ri 1mAC [S eO'

Te]curss. rel . 2 Pesh . Hier . A case of itacism. eom

‘

e is preserved

in the contrastedclause 1 8 a .

’U. 15.059 3

,

B *I37 1 B

ab MSS. rel . (eX C . foll . ) 161

254 159 are attempted improvements .16. you yvu

'

ivac B I 7 0 13 ywSi/a t MSS . rel ,30 0 . a 20 MSS . S.E .

3 Pesh .a h e IM. me, Hier .

siquidem at 8 13. Evidently due to the prec . 31m 6211 11 0x915077.

Ch.

'

IX . 1 [QB viii . 0 1 111 7 01 11 [613W ] . A transposition,

found in all MSS .

,of £ 3611 av

'

mrav. See sect . A .

1 .6a

'

uepem MSS . (ex o. foll . ) Aq . 2 Hier . M . S 147—1 59dvdpwwos before eiSais. Ed . Ald . 6(iii/Hp. before ease.

But S.E . ascribes 6,c’

ivfipwwos wi th at to Aq . It is thus areading in which all extant MSS . have received a hexaplariccorruption,

although Origen’s '

critical mark has survived .

e’

u Tots r am . Probably a corruption of £ 11 of; 7 .

sect. A .

9 .c’

v Cain 0 0 1 1. Perhaps a scribe

’s slip owing to theoccurrence of 0 0 11 with nine otherwords in 11 11 . 7—9 . See sect . A .

mikef ws B IM . pr . art. MSS . rel .The scribe was led astray by

4

the instinct to preservesymmetry W ith ap

'

roe, 71 1 0 137 0 9 , xapts“.

1 Montef. Pal . Graec. pp . 1 31 f .

2 252m has the same slip in citing 2 .

3 1 06- 261 30 01 édw. 253 S.E . 8 édu.

4 The art. is suitable with 1mmand HDHSD , but notwith the other three

CH . IX . ] GREEK CORRUPTIONS 165

B 68 . 147—157—159 M . moansMSS. rel . Pesh . Hier .Internal evidence favours M . TOICCO¢ O IC might easily be

misread TO ICO<I>O I. See viii . 1 in this section .

Kal 410 . B 254. S.E . I M . DJ. MSS . rel . Kai ye.

’v. 1 2 .Kai ye Kai B 68 . 254. 296. 298 I om . « at 2° M . MSS . rel .

S.H . Hier .It is probable that « atwas written without ye in an ancestor

of B ,and Kae

’

7 6 was a marginal correction which found its wayinto the text, forming a doublet .

KaNS B I M . MN. Ramp“

MSS . rel . [0 om . ] SHH Aq . Pesh .

Hier .S has the same slip in iv . 1 7 . The omission in C was

probably due to the similarity of mm» to the fol] . Kat’v. 1 6. ofiK

'

eiO'

axovo/Aevoc BV . 68 . 155. 261 I M . D’PDWJ DJ’N .

0 13K oixovop evm MSS . rel .

Ch. X . 1 . avian Ga l/017 0 130 11 1 MSS . (ex o. foll . ) S.H . 161—24811 . 1901 11 0 130 61 1

,so Optat. muscae moritum e. 258 . E ,

am’

e y 0dva7 os IM . mm13 13 1 Pesh . Hier .It is difficult to think that the translator rendered mn

flies that cause death .

”QB is probably a corruption of 11 11201 1.

Gavdrov,the (Tab arising from the doubling of the foll . 0 am

O'

Kevamfav MSS . (ex o. 253) S.E . I om. M . 253 z 2 Pesh .

Hier .In Ez . xxiv . 1 0 O

'

Kevacn'

a is ®’s word for nnpwn,

and is

probably his rendering of np‘mhere, which has found its way

into QB through the Hexapla .

’v. 3 . Kal. (if

Aoyeefnu mi l/7 0. MSS. S.E . Pesh . IM. 5351 13 11 1 .

The true reading was probably Ka l Myer. 7 61 wa'

w‘ra

,corrupted

first to m i 62A. 7 . m,and then to the present text.

’0 . 8 . 5511 150 d MSS . S.E . IM. om . art.

All MSS . render the parallel runwithout'

an art.,and the 0

of 6pv’

o-o-mv would easily be doubled . Perhaps due to the same

cause as the foll . sis 11 137611 .

eis 11 137 011 B 68 . 1 06—261 . 147—157—1 59 . 2541 IM . 12 . ev 01137 19"

MSS . rel . S.H .

A Heb. variant is impossible . eZs 01137611 may have been dueto the Greek of Prov . xxvi . 27

,B .S. x x v n. 26.

words. But the same desire for symmetry led scribes to insert it throughout

before aprosmss . (exc. B 68 . 253 . 254. 298) before 7 Aof1‘

7 os MSS. (exc . BV 68 . 155.

1 61 . 253 . 254. before xdpcs‘ ACS 147—1 57—159 .

1 1—3

166 APPENDIX II . [OH . X .

e . 1 1 . fi gs MSS . [v 253 Pesh . M . pw‘anSpas.

It is inconceivable that this could have been the work of atranslator who renders W115N5: c

’

v 0 13 tl/cfiv pé . S.H . gives( m oi for 21 115, and ” An for 51135. Since

,then

,

2 has 37 193139 for 141 115it is ] probable that 74; e’

1rgiSow-1. was also his

,

and entered QB through the Hexapla . On the other hand Hier .habenti lingnam suggests that QB had 74} é

’

xovn 7 17V yh ia-auv.

Of . 20 (i 2'

w 71'

7 epv'

yag.

141 . 7 1'

67 'w «1 137 0 13 B 147—157—1 59 31 1 01137 . MSS . rel .

(ex c . 254) SR 3167 1 61 7 . 01137 . 2541 IM. 1 1mm: Aq . 2 Pesh .

Hier .B is in bad company ; and mus run. with relative omitted is

not inKoheleth’s style . 57 1 must be a doubling of the foll . o’

m,

and 7 1’

is an attempted improvement : while 8167 1 is probablythe result of the conflation 7 1 on .

16. a dmMss. S.E . Pesh . I M . 11 1 11 2 Hier .

The parallelism of 1 7 makes it probable that was

the original reading . Either there were special contemporary

circumstances which induced a scribe to alter the word,or it

was the result of pure carelessness owing to 7 6Aw in the prec .

clause .11 . 1 7 . a ioxvven

'

oovrat MSS . S .H . I M .vnm

'

Pesh .

If Hier . confusione was based on 45,the present reading

must be a corruption of a iaxfivn~

either hexaplaric, or due tothe foregoing ¢dyov7 a t . This points to an early corrupt reading“W3 .

“

11 . 1 9 . Kal E'

Aacov BSV curss. (ex c . foll . ) Pesh . I 0 1 1 1 .‘M . AC

155. 252 . 296. 298 . S.E . o

'

nier .

Perhaps a reminiscence of Ps. civ . (ciii . ) 15, or of the similarinterpolation in Ps . iv . 8 (7

7 a7rew050 '

e1. e’

7raK0 150 '

e7 a 1. Bs* 68 , 254. Pesh .< > 3

v=ml“Eb b ”

om.

“rur a l/ 160 61 M . AOVSM V curss. rel . S.H . 2 efixpno

'm'

tr ec.

Hier . obediwnt.

A doublet formed from a marginal gloss .20 . G ov 7 1511 rimmiv BS

M 2541 I M . 51mmeHier .7 15V 95. S

9"68 . 7 ; crov AC carss . rel . S.H . 2 Pesh .

An unusual distribution of MSS .,

The reading of B etc .

explains the others,and is itself a corruption of 0 1311 7 . qt.

1 ? corruption of “ dun e .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

168 APPENDIX II . [OH . XII .

’v. 6.oivarpa

'

rrfiMSS . I M. Kethib pm», Keri pnfi".

2 has « 0 7 1711 01 1 . Pesh . m a t-u, Hier . rumpatwr . It is pro

bable therefore that is a corruption of either civappayfi or

oivroppayfi. In iv . 1 2 giaoppayvjo em t stands for pm”,Where Pesh.

has the same word as here . See sect . B .

9 .37 1 2°

”

Mss . [296 d7 e, 298 37 1 ar e] S.R . Pesh . M . 1 111

Hier .A slip for 37 1

‘

1 All mss . (exo. B 68 . 1 55. 254and S.E .,Pesh . ) have suffered from a scribal

correction,

’ m i being inserted before 87 1 , probably tomake the clause a parallelstatement to 87 1 e

’

yév.

’

Bkk . [V 258 m i, om.

INDEX TO THE INTRODUCTION

Alexander 43 1

Alexander Balas 1 2

Alexandria 9 n . 2

Alphabet of B . Sira 36

Antiochus IV. 1 2

Antiochus V.,1 2

Aristobulus I . 1 2

Astyages 1 1

d7 apa£la 52 f.

Nature 15, 44Baba ben Buta 4 Nebi

’

im 3 f .

Ben Sira 3 , 5f. , 1 2 , 32 f 34—37 , New Testament evidence for the38 canonicity of Koh . 5 n . 1 , 6Bickell

, arrangement of the book by28 f . Onias 1 2

Buddhism 44and n . 3 Onkelos, Targum of 43Origen 8

Christ 53,

Chrysippus 49Cleanthes 52

Codex -form of books 29

Cyrus -1 1

Defile the hands”8

Demetrius 1 2

Determinism 47

’

Exxlvna'

taafi fis 1Ecclesiasticus . See Ben SiraElohim 1 5, 46

Empedocles 53 n . 1

Epicureanism 43,52 -54

Esdras, 4th book of 7

Fatalism 53

Gamaliel 4Graecisms inKoheleth 39 43

Torah 3 f.

Hasid, additions by the 24—27, 3 1 f Tyler’s View of Koh.

’s philosophy

37, 48 n .

‘ 42 f ., 53 f .

Heraclitus 47 and n .

Herod 4, 1 2 n'

. Urijah 7 f.

Inscriptions , Sidonian 40 and n . 1 Wisdom 2, 22 n . 2 , 28 f . , 50

Wisdom,Book of 3 f . , 21 ; 37—39 , 43

Jamnia (Jabne) , synod of 8“ Wise man ”

, additions by the 22 f. ,Jannaeus 4 30 f .

Jesus 6f . Wisdom Literature 2, 22 n . 2 , 50JHVH 14

,46

Joseph son of Tobias 1 2 Xenophanes 45 f 52Josephus 7 , 43 and n . 3

Kethubim 3—5, 7

Literature on the efiect of Greek influence onKoh . 55

Logos 50

Lysias 1 2

Maccabees, 4th book of 43M°

gilloth 3

Melito, Canon of 8

Pantheism 47 , 53Paul , St 4n . 4

, 5n . 1'

Pharisees 7 , 43 n . 3

Philo 5

Pneuma 47Preacher (Prediger) 1Ptolemy Euergetes 1 2

Pyrrho 51 f .

Sadducees 7

Scepticism 50 , 52

Seleucus 1 2

Seneca 49Sibyl 43Siegfried, analysis of thebook bySimon ben Shetach 4

Solomon 1,1 6, 21 f . , 53 n . 1

Spinoz a 47Stoicism 43—53

INDEX OF PASSAGES REFERRED TO

IN THE INTRODUCTION

Exod .

Rom.

1 1 1—9

8 . of S .

37 n . 3

CAMBRIDGE : PRINTED BY J. AND C. F . CLAY , AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS .

Berakoth n 1

vii 2

Shabbath i 3

Sanhedrin x 1‘Eduyoth v 3

Yadaim iii 5

Shabbath 14a30 b

M°

gillah 7 a

BabaBathra4a