INTRODUCTION.

INTRODUCTION.DATE AND AUTHORSHIP.THE title or superscription of the book is, chapteri.1, ‘The words of Koheleth, the son of David, king of Jerusalem,’ and this is further explained in verse 12, by ‘I Koheleth was king over Israel in Jerusalem.’ The only person in Jewish history who answers exactly to this description is Solomon, and accordingly the whole ancient Church, Jewish as well as Christian, have regarded Solomon as the undoubted author of the book. With this conclusion even modern criticism is so far agreed, that it is universally admitted that Solomon is the hero or personated author, even though it is denied that he was the real writer. It is alleged that internal evidence is against the supposition of so early a date; for that the language and tone of thought in the book point to a writer further on in Jewish history. The favourite opinion amongst German scholars is, that Ecclesiastes was composed towards the end of the Persian dominion. Ewald, indeed, considers that, so far as language and style is concerned, the book might be the very latest written in the whole Hebrew Scriptures.A detailed history of the exposition of the book will be found in theCohelethofDr.Ginsburg, together with a complete discussion of the reasons for and against Solomonic authorship. It will be unnecessary, therefore, to go into detail on this point. We shall only add what concerns the immediate object of the present Commentary, remarking that several most competent English-speaking scholars remain unconvinced by arguments which have apparently fully satisfied their German brethren.Dr.Wordsworth, Professor Plumptre,Dr.Taylor Lewis of America, argue that the book is really Solomon’s, while even in Germany D. H. A. Hahn (Commentar über das Predigerbuch, Leipzig, 1860) is strongly on the side of the Solomonic authorship.The principal arguments in favour of later date derived from internal evidence, arise from (first) the state of violence and miserydepicted in the book with so much bitterness, and which, it is alleged, cannot be made to harmonize with what we know of the reign of Solomon; and (secondly) the strongly Aramaic character of the language, which assimilates itself to that of the books of Daniel and Esther. With regard to the first point (if we have at all found the real interpretation of the book), it seems improbable that any special description of a particular period could have been ever intended, or even any allusion to the special circumstances of any people. So far also from supposing a time of trouble in the mind of the writer, on the contrary the point and moral of the book will be enhanced if we suppose it to be written rather in a time of prosperity than of adversity or oppression. Thus, if we turn to the expressions of chapteriv.1we shall see that to give any special reference to them, and suppose them peculiar or out of the way, would weaken the force of Koheleth’s argument. Human life generally, under the very best of external circumstances, always exhibits the spectacle both of oppressions by the wicked, and of oppressed without comforters. Now underneath this statement lies the difficulty that He who permits this is the merciful Author of Nature Himself, and it is this difficulty which is especially discussed. There is no necessity to suppose the concluding years of Persian tyranny to be pointedly alluded to, because it is not under an Asiatic despotism alone that hypocrites come and go from the place of the holy (chapterviii.10), or servants are seen on horseback, and nobles, like serfs, walking afoot (chapterx.7), or that men continue in prosperous wickedness (chapterix.3). Indeed, the same may be said of any other of the similar providential difficulties advanced in this book, for the very same occurrences may be witnessed now in this age of civilisation and progress. The reply then to the assertion that it is ‘impossible to reconcile this state of things with the age of Solomon’ is simply this. There is no need even to make the attempt, because there is no reason to believe that, considering the author’s standpoint, he intended that the instances of human suffering and disappointment he cites should be taken otherwise than perfectly generally. What he adduces of this nature is in sufficient measure true always, at the best of times. It would blunt the point of his reasoning if it could be shown that the difficulties he starts were exceptional or temporary; but this is not so. Koheleth’s repeated declaration is thatall——that is, the whole of human life——is vanity or evanescence.The argument from Aramaic words is much more formidable, and would be conclusive if our knowledge of the successive stages of the Hebrew language were less fragmentary and uncertain than is really the case. It is quite true that such words asמדינה,רעיון,רעות,כבר,זמן,פתגם, have an Aramaic colouring; but we must set against this the fact that, as Ewald remarks, we have in Ecclesiastes a new philosophical terminology, which has modified the Hebrew of the book. And again, it will be seen by referring to the places where these peculiar words occur, that they are introduced either for the purposes of expressing new ideas or terms not found in the language elsewhere. Sometimes the more usual word would be out of harmony with the context,e.g.the wordזמוןreplaces the more ordinaryמיעד, because not only is the latter used to signify afeast, but the root-meaning of the former is just what is required by the argument. Again,כבר, as will be seen stated at length in the notes, is used in the purely technical sense, of ‘this present,’ and not in the ordinary meaning of ‘already.’ The unusual♦אלו, chaptervi.6, also is apparently introduced for the sake of the alliteration withהלאin the next clause, and the once occurringעֲדֶןchapteriv.3, for the sake of the equivoke to which its use gives rise. All these Aramaic words are noticed as they occur in the body of the Commentary, and we think that the conclusion which results from what there appears is to weaken very considerably any argument as to date which can be drawn from them one way or the other.♦“הלא” replaced with “אלו”Again, the object of the book is so peculiar, and so different from all the rest of Scripture, and especially from those which, supposing Solomon was the author, would stand related to it in point of time, that we may well expect some difference of language and colouring. Again, also, there is another reason. The books immediately subsequent to Solomon’s era are all prophetic. Now it seems natural that prophets should use an antique style, which would be tinged with that of the earlier religious books, while if, on the other hand, as theLXX.seem to imply by their translation of the word Koheleth, and appears also from the alliterations in the book itself, it were an address orally delivered, it would no doubt contain colloquialisms. There are strong indications that it does so. Now these colloquialisms would certainly have an Aramaic cast about them. Thus the difference of diction between the Hebrew of Koheleth and a contemporary prophet would be exaggerated, and any estimate of date due to this difference proportionately uncertain.On the whole, for myself, I have no theory to support either way. I am content to let the matter rest, as I believe the Scripture itself leaves it, which, after all, nowhere refers the authorship to Solomon. In accordance with this, both to save space and to conduce to clearness, I have always referred to the author by the name Koheleth, and to the book itself as Ecclesiastes, in the course of the subsequent Commentary.DESIGN AND METHOD OF THE WORK.The design of the book is no other than argumentatively to work out the concluding aphorism of the whole: ‘Fear God, and keep His commandments, forthisis the whole problem of Humanity.’ This truth is never for a moment lost sight of, not even in those passages which sound most sceptical or Epicurean. We may compare this marvellous book to an overture, and say that this truth is its subject. This overture, however, is written in a minor key; it is almost always plaintive; sometimes it descends to what sounds like absolute discord; but this subject floats through its wildest and strangest melodies, resolves its harshest discords, connects its most erratic wanderings. Koheleth is a perfect master of sarcasm. A certain grim and bitter yet grave and holy satire runs through his book. He makes his readers think whether they will or no. For this purpose he sometimes descends to plays upon words, equivokes, alliterations, possibly also proverbs in ordinary circulation. He certainly writes in the ‘vulgar tongue.’ But these equivokes always help the sense. If Koheleth appears in the guise of a popular preacher, he never loses sight of the moralist and philosopher. His sermon, for such we believe it to be, will bear comparison with another wonderful sermon found in Holy Scripture, with which it has some striking points of resemblance, and yet how wonderfully different!The book then opens with an exclamation which serves as a text or topic——‘Vanity of vanities,’——and forthwith proceeds to state the question, and work out the conclusion which this topic suggests. Has mankind any advantage (in the sense of a result in the future) by reason of his toil or anxiety (the technical word here used isעמל, by which word is meant the same thing as the Greek expresses byμέριμνα, cares of this life, Matthewxiii.22)? This he answers in the negative by eight aphorisms, four drawn from observation of nature and four from moral considerations, which we have called the eightunbeatitudes of the sermon. This constitutes the first part of the proof. Koheleth then goes on to discuss the question, Can any solution of this providential difficulty be discovered? This, in the first place, is attempted to be answered by an autobiography, in which Koheleth shows in succession that wisdom, mirth, accumulation of wealth,etc., are alike evanescent and unsatisfactory, as his own experience (and no one was likely to do better) abundantly displayed. These together form the first great division of the book——ChaptersI.andII.In the next five Chapters,III.toVII., the same question is discussed from another point of view. Koheleth remarks on the unalterable character of Providence, and shows that even if it were possible that human wisdom could cause change (which it cannot), that the alteration could only be for the worse. He begins by enumerating twenty-eight times or seasons——that is, a fourfold seven——of which the last is ‘a time of peace.’ This is especially worthy of remark, as it is an instance of one of those hopes of better things which Koheleth allows to appear, as it were by stealth, amidst his most melancholy utterances. He then argues this matter, and through a long and sustained course of reasoning, the conclusion of which is, that God must right the wronged.But there naturally arises the objection, If this be so, why does impiety and oppression exist so continually in the very places or circumstances where we ought to expect the reverse? To this Koheleth offers two solutions, which, however, are neither satisfactory; the second indeed would lead to absolute scepticism. The true deduction is however stated in the last verse of chapteriii.(22), which is, that if any result is to be accomplished by human toil, it can only consist in present gratification.Koheleth then turns to the consideration of oppressions or afflictions, this turn of thought being that present enjoyment is marred by the existence of so much irremediable unhappiness; that if this world be all, the dead are better off than the living; that the result even of success is envy rather than pleasure; that it is useless labouring for posterity, and no avail in the present. Koheleth here sarcastically points out that labour for others does give some advantage, the only instance where he sees the possibility of any at all. He carefully limits, however, all this to the present life, this formula ‘under the sun,’i.e.in this world of labour and toil, being introduced frequently, showing that all he says is to be taken with this proviso.In ChapterV.Koheleth begins to display the great remedy for human ills——that is, piety, patience, and submission to the Divine will, cautioning against foolish sacrifices, rash vows, rash speeches, selfishness and avarice. This display of the remedy, however, is as yet subordinate, the main object being to show that all arguments conspire to prove the vanity or transitoriness of human existence. With this ChapterVI.ends, and with it the more argumentative portion of the treatise.ChapterVII.opens with a paradoxical statement of seven good things, which look like evil ones, and on this Koheleth develops the thought that man does not know a good thing when he sees it. He shows that even wisdom itself will not necessarily produce happiness in this world, though this, he is sure, is a good thing; but he is very bitter and sarcastic on those who, because right does not always succeed, resort to impiety; this, he shows, is a great and fatal mistake. Though the proposition that piety is happiness is not formally stated or worked out argumentatively, nevertheless this is proved so completely that Koheleth is able at the end of the whole to cite this as the real result of his argument.If, however, piety be the remedy for human ills, early piety is essential to tolerable ease and quiet in this world. This is set forth in the same paradoxical and sarcastic way as before. We are advised to avoid certain evils while we can. These are described with great pathos in ChapterXII.It is however, we believe, quite a mistake to imagine that the close of the book contains anallegoricaldescription of old age. The weakness and other trials of age are, no doubt, brought before us in very poetic and picturesque language. There is an Oriental richness and floridness about this language at first strange to Western ears; but the images employed all admit of resolution by an appeal to the usage of Scripture elsewhere, and can be shown to be quite in place. The conclusion of the whole is significantly the same as the topic at the beginning, ‘Vanity of vanities, the whole is vanity.’The Epilogue, chapterxii.9, follows. This has been pronounced by some to be an interpolation, the work of a later hand; but we could no more imagine a book of the Old Testament ending with such an aphorism as vanity of vanities, without doing violence to our critical instinct, than we could believe that the Gospel ofSt.Mark was ever intended to end with the words ‘They were afraid’ [ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ, Markxvi.8]. It is rather the bold, open statement of the truth,which has in a more or less covered manner formed the subject of the whole book. The aphorism, ‘Fear God and keep His commandments,’ contains the only possible solution of providential difficulties or remedy of human ills, and it is in vain to look for any other. The reasons for this mystery we must leave to God alone. He will bring into judgment——i.e.into adjustment or declared consistency with justice——every mystery, whether to our notions good or evil. With this assurance the book appropriately ends.GRAMMATICAL PECULIARITIES.The Book of Ecclesiastes being a didactic and argumentative treatise, and the only work of its kind in the Scriptures, its Hebrew is modified to meet the requirements of that which is a new philosophy, so that we may fully indorse Ewald’s expression, that ‘Koheleth uses the Hebrew language as a flexible instrument for the expression of novel ideas.’ This naturally implies a usage of words and phrases peculiar to this book, and accounts for the large number of unusual forms and once occurring words and the like which here meet us. It will be apparent to any who will diligently examine the text, that Koheleth confines himself very strictly indeed to the rules of his own grammar, and uses articles, prepositions, and tenses with an accuracy not inferior to Greek itself. For example, there is a real distinction to be discovered between the usage of masculine and feminine forms, where a substantive is of both genders. It is not a matter of indifference whether the full relative is used or the contracted form; on the contrary, it will be seen that the contracted relative gives an optative or subjunctive sense; or whether a verb governs directly or through the intervention of the particleאת; a distinction which theLXX.were quite aware of, and which gave rise to their adverbialσὺν. What, for want of a better term, we have called distributive plurals——i.e.a singular noun and plural verb in agreement, orvice versâ——are exceedingly significant. They have a peculiar shade of meaning, according to circumstances and position in the sentence. It is too a matter of some consequence whether the nominative precedes or follows the verb; hence in the running translation this order is never reversed, even where our idiom requires it, but explanatory words are introduced. All these matters are, where necessary, pointed out in the notes——perhaps some may imagine pressed too far, and repeatedad nauseam; but the excuse must be thaton these minutiæ depend the evidence of correct rendering. If thus a good sense is made out, as it were spontaneously, and which, moreover, is found to fall into place as it occurs in the context, we have strong evidence that we have hit the real meaning.Connected with this grammatical usage is a peculiar terminology, also to be expected in a scientific treatise. Thusדברis very commonly rendered in this Commentary by ‘reasoning,’ the exact idea implied being a matter or thing reasoned about, with the further notion or conclusion that this reason will become ground of action. No single English or even Greek word will render it, but once let us master its real significance, and the force and cogency of many passages will become manifest. Again,חפץ, which has the sense of ‘an agreeable occurrence,’ ‘a providence,’ and then generally of ‘any event,’ in this book denotes a ‘providentialoccurrence.’ Again,עמלis not exactly toil, but the fatigue, distress, or anxiety that comes of it. It differs fromענין, which is also anxiety, but that kind of anxiety which comes of uncertainty as to a future result. Two most important words areסכלותandהללות: the former is that kind of folly which has the appearance of wisdom, clever folly, or foolish wisdom; the latter is that kind of folly which is begotten of a false expectation of the result, as in our expression ‘made a fool of.’ So againכברis not an adverb ‘already,’ but rather a substantive,——this present considered as now existing. These technical words are all noticed as they occur, and a sense given, the proof of the correctness of which is that appropriate meaning is made in every place in which they occur. As several are found nowhere else in Scripture, this is the only true method of coming at their meaning. It is also worthy of notice that these words occur usually seven or ten times, or some other round or mystic number. This happens so frequently that it can hardly be accidental, but I have seldom been able to trace any rule or law in this circumstance. On the whole, however, it may be taken as an axiom that when Koheleth uses a peculiar word, he intends to express a peculiar idea, and his meaning must be sought accordingly. Careful attention to this point clears up many difficulties.Alliteration and paronomasia occur with great and characteristic frequency, a proof surely that the book was intended to be preached or delivered as an address. It is, of course, very difficult to give these in the English version. Sometimes in the paraphrastic translation this is attempted by means of rhymes and alliterations.I can hardly pronounce these quite successful, and often have felt inclined to return to a more literal rendering, but then this most characteristic feature of the book would have been lost to the English reader. Every one who has ever addressed an assembly knows how very telling these hits are, and moreover they are of real importance to the commentator, as bringing the words on which the alliteration depends into artificial prominence. There is a danger, no doubt, that when once the mind is aroused to this, that equivokes should be found where they were not intended; but of this the reader must judge.This perhaps is the best point at which to discuss the meaning of the word Koheleth. In its present form and pointingקֹהֶלֶתis the active feminine participle of Kal of the verbקהל, occurring as a verb only in niphal and hiphil. The feminine noun occurs Deuteronomyxxxiii.4,קְהִלַּת——i.e.this word differently pointed——which theLXX.render byσυναγωγῆς.קְהִלַּתoccurs Nehemiahv.7, renderedἐκκλησίαν. With this before us it seems beside the mark to seek a meaning out of the rootקהל. According to the usage observable in this book, feminines (we should prefer to call them abstracts) inתdiffer from those inה——compareעמדת, chapteri.4; the abstract in this form again becomes as it were a concrete. Thus we should incline to indorse the view enunciated by Preston, who considers the word to be represented by ‘collector’ or ‘concionator’ in Latin. Both these meanings we believe are contained in the word, and it is quite consistent with what we know of the style of Ecclesiastes to admit that both these meanings were intended to be conveyed. The discourse is a collection of separate but connected aphorisms on the transitoriness of human existence——the author is thus a collector of them; and as the discourse was delivered apparently when collected, he is a concionator or preacher also. The word used by theLXX.,ἐκκλησιαστὴς, occurs nowhere else, either in the Old or New Testaments, so that theprecisemeaning they affixed to the word is unknown. In classical Greek it means preacher.The repetition of a word, whether substantive or particle, in the same sentence, of course gives emphasis to that word; to translate accurately, therefore, when this occurs, we have to add some English equivalent, such as ‘this’ or ‘as well,’ and so forth, see Commentarypassim. A careful attention to this rule will often considerably help to clear up obscure passages.ON THE PECULIAR RENDERINGS OF THE VERSION OF THELXX.The remark of Delitzsch on the translation of theLXX., affixed to the Book of Psalms (Delitzsch on the Psalms, Clark’s Library, Edinburgh) may be introduced here:——‘This translation, as being the oldest key to the understanding of the language of the Old Testament writings, as being the oldest mirror of the Old Testament text, and as an important check upon the interpretation of Scripture handed down in the Talmud and Midrash, and in that portion of the national literature not originating in Egypt, is invaluable.’ For this remark applies to the rendering of Ecclesiastes in an equal, if not greater degree, and may be offered as an excuse, if one be needed, for the comparatively large space assigned to the discussion of the Septuagint renderings.A peculiarity which meets us in this book is the occurrence of the prepositionσὺνfollowed by an accusative, and in one case a genitive, and which seldom if ever occurs in other books. This apparently trifling circumstance, which is usually treated as a barbarism, will give the clue which will lead to some curious and interesting facts connected with the methods of translation adopted by theLXX.If we examine carefully and in detail the wording of theLXX.we can hardly fail to be struck with the excessive care that is taken to render in the exact order of the Hebrew——a remark which may be extended to other portions of this version, the Book of Job being, however, a striking exception, (and when there is any considerable departure, in almost every instance hitherto examined a serious variation of text in the different recensions of theLXX.will be found to occur.) In Ecclesiastes this order is so strict that, with hardly an exception, it would be possible to print the Greek text as it stands as an interlinear translation. This most interesting point deserves further investigation than appears as yet to have been given to it. My own impression from this circumstance, is that the version of theLXX.was made with the idea that those who used it had the Hebrew before them, and this hypothesis, for in truth it is nothing more, will I think group together more facts than any other suppositions which have been adopted to explain these strange renderings met with in theLXX.,——as, for example, variation of original text, wilful corruption on the part of the translators, Hagadic influence (of which more presently), and the like. TheLXX.have executed their work so well, that notwithstandingthis restriction which they thus laid upon themselves, we have a very good translation, which for many centuries was used as the sole representative of the ancient Scriptures, and on which the whole fabric of ancient theology was erected.This interlinear character, as we may call it, of the version of theLXX., will explain why they render the same Hebrew word by such very different Greek equivalents. In an interlinear translation there is no special value in uniform rendering; rather the reverse. It is better even to study variety than uniformity, although we believe that theLXX.do neither the one nor the other, but simply endeavour to give the best possible rendering of the passage before them. For example, the wordחפץis rendered in chapteriii.1, 17,v.8 (7),viii.6, byπρᾶγμα, and in the other three cases in which it occurs,viz., chapterv.4 (3),xii.1, 10, byθέλημα. Now the real meaning of this word, as we have shown, is an agreeable providential occurrence, or, since all providential occurrences imply the Divine will on their side, any such whatever. TheLXX.use the one rendering or the other as best suits the context. This book containing so large a number of technical words, the meaning of which is to be sought by a careful comparison of all the passages in which they occur, the renderings of theLXX.become of special interest. The meaning compounded of the meanings of theLXX.’srenderings, to use a mathematical simile, will give us often the precise shade of signification of the Hebrew of which we are in search, and this will then approve itself as correct by its suitableness in every instance.The same observation applies to the grammar of the Greek as representing that of the Hebrew. There is no attempt whatever to render Hebrew grammatical forms with any uniformity. Hebrew perfects are rendered by Greek presents, aorists, or perfects; Hebrew presents by aorists or perfects. Participles are rendered sometimes by participles, at others by principal verbs. The same Hebrew prepositions are sometimes rendered by different Greek prepositions, and sometimes simply by case-endings. The relative is rendered by the relative, by the pronoun, and byὅτι. The Hebrew conjugations are not represented on any settled principle; Piels are sometimes indeed apparently marked by a preposition compounded with the verb, sometimes not noticed at all. In certain cases in which the root is doubtful, as for example in ain vaw, and ain ain verbs, theLXX.do not always follow the Masoretic pointing and derivation. On the whole, however, the deviations of theLXX., from both pointing and accentuation, are more apparent than real, and may be explained, forthe most part, on the principle that the translators felt themselves obliged to follow the order of the words in the original.We must, however, bear in mind that the present text of theLXX.is of all texts the most time-worn, and often requires correction. Most providentially we do not depend on one recension; we have in existing copies the remains of several, and we may make use of them to restore the original readings. The problem in this case differs essentially from that which meets us in revising the Greek text of the New Testament. Here diplomatic evidence has not the same weight as there. Emendations may be detected, even when better readings of the Hebrew, by want of conformity to the Hebrew order (and the temptation to make such kind of alterations, when the version was used independently, would clearly be very great), or again a comparison of the various readings will enable us to guess with tolerable confidence what the Hebrew originally was. In this way, when the Hebrew text is doubtful, we can ascertain the correct reading by searching for that common origin from which the variants in theLXX.were derived, and we may then turn round on the version with the help of the Hebrew, and show how the changes successively arose. An instance of this will be found at chapterx.10; how far I have succeeded the reader must judge. We must also bear in mind that what we should now denote by marginal renderings are in the ancient versions inserted in the text. The interlinear character of the version enables us to detect this: we find two Greek words standing in place of a single Hebrew equivalent. The result of all this, as applied in the Book of Ecclesiastes, is to vindicate the accuracy of the received Hebrew text, and, in a less degree, of the pointing and accentuation also. Only in a very few instances is it needful to propose an emendation of the Hebrew text, and that where the ancient versions are apparently unanimous in requiring it.There remains another point, however.Dr.Ginsburg (and from his extensive acquaintance with Jewish literature no one is better qualified to give an opinion) considers that Hagadic influence must be taken largely into account in explaining difficult passages in Ecclesiastes; amongst other points he notices the rendering ofאתbyσὺν, which has been referred to already. ‘Commentators,’ he says, ‘have been perplexed to account for this barbarism, and violation of grammatical propriety, but a reference to Hagadic exegesis will show that this Hebrew particle was looked up to as having a mystical signification, because the two letters,אandת, of which it is composed, are the Alpha and Omega of the Hebrew alphabet.Hence the anxiety of the translator to indicate this particle in Greek, when a passage appeared to him to be fraught with special mysteries.’ But, as he remarks, it is only in twenty-nine instances out of seventy-one occurrences of this particle that it is so rendered by theLXX.Moreover,Dr.Ginsburg has not shown that these passages are specially mysterious. They are in fact neither more nor less so than some others in which this particle is not so rendered. An examination of these passages will show, we think convincingly, that what theLXX.wished to do was to point out thatאתwas emphatic and with the meaning of ‘respect to,’ or the like, as will be seen by reference to the Commentary, especially chaptersii.17,iii.17,vii.26,viii.8, 15.The Hagadic influence, according toDr.Ginsburg, is still more evident in the peculiar rendering of chapterii.12, as well as chaptersii.17,iii.15,iv.17,v.1, all which are fully treated in the Commentary, and the renderings of theLXX.explained and elucidated, it is hoped satisfactorily. So far from the true explanation of these renderings being found in the Chaldee paraphrase, asDr.Ginsburg imagines, that version gives distorted interpretations of passages but partially understood. Again, the gloss of theLXX.at chapterii.15 is shared by the Syriac, and is a marginal reading; chapterii.17 is a verbatim reading of the Hebrew in every particular; and the gloss at chapterii.9 is too evidently foisted in from the margin to make it of much value in any argument. See note there.Holding as I do the paramount authority of theLXX., I have not scrupled to follow them against the Masoretic interpretation when the sense of a passage seemed to require it, and I deem it a sufficient answer to any objections on this head, that the rendering proposed is supported by theLXX.On the whole, however, these differences are, as remarked above, not very great, and we have rather occasion for surprise, not that there is here and there a divergence, but that on the whole there is so substantial agreement. The pointing which we have in our Hebrew Bibles embodies a most valuable and venerable tradition, but in its present form younger by centuries than that furnished by the rendering of theLXX.While, therefore, we admit its great value, we ought not to make its authority absolute, and this is done to all intents and purposes by those who reject without question the ancient interpretation because it conflicts with the present pointing. No language is too high to characterize our obligations to those Jewish fathers who have guarded so faithfully that special trust committed to them——the oracles of God. Butthe Synagogue is no more infallible in matters of criticism than is the Church. Neither the Masorets nor theLXX.are inspired, though inspiration has been by their respective partisans vehemently claimed for both. Each party, also, has unduly depreciated the other, and the Hebrew scholars have been for centuries divided into punctists and anti-punctists. But as there is no royal road to learning, so there is no short-cut to certainty; the whole evidence, let it come from whence it may, must be diligently weighed and compared. So far as the version of theLXX.is concerned, this is not done until their errors, or supposed errors, have been at least duly explained and accounted for, even when their renderings are rejected.OTHER VERSIONS OF ANTIQUITY.Next in order in point of antiquity to the version of theLXX.stands the Syriac Peshito. This I have sometimes quoted in the present Commentary, having considered it my duty to make myself acquainted with this version, so that if I am not in a position to offer anything of my own, I can follow other commentators, and test their accuracy. The citations are made from the edition ofDr.Lee, published by the Bible Society. As might be expected, the Syriac version stands midway between theLXX.and Masoretic text, agreeing sometimes with the one and sometimes with the other. It is often assumed that the peculiar renderings of the Syriac which agree with theLXX.against the Masoretic rendering, arise from corrections of the former text by the latter; this, however, is not proved. The existence of such an element of correction may well be admitted, but it is only one out of many, and in some cases we shall, I think, have reason to conclude that the sense, set aside as of no critical value by some commentators, does in fact embody the real meaning of the passage under discussion. See chapterx.10for an instance of this.The Vulgate is generally accessible; its value is subordinate as compared with the above-mentioned versions, being only, as is well known, corrected from the Hebrew by Jerome. Sometimes, however, the evidence it affords of an ancient reading is all the more valuable on this account. See the note at chapterx.10.The fragments of the ancient Greek versions of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion are often of the very highest value, and diligent use has been made of them. The edition used is that of Field,Originis Hexapla, edition by Fridericus Field, Oxford, 1867,vol. ii.TheCodex Syriaco Hexaplaris, H. Middedorpf, Berlin, 1835, has also been examined.THE TRANSLATIONS OF THIS COMMENTARY.Two translations of this book are here offered to the reader, the first, dispersed through the notes, denoted by bold-faced type, is absolutely literal, even to utter baldness, and rigidly follows the exact order of the Hebrew. In the accompanying running commentary the construction of the sentences is carefully pointed out, the rendering of theLXX.noted where peculiar, and the attempt made in all cases to account for the peculiarity, either by showing that they have preserved the true interpretation, or else explaining how the error arose. The sense thus obtained is embodied in the paraphrastic version printed at the head of the page. There has been no attempt made to adopt, in this latter translation, the phraseology of the Authorized Version; rather the reverse, as it is not intended to be independent, but is to be regarded as of the nature of an explanatory commentary or an English Targum upon the text. It also seeks to render idea for idea rather than word for word, and gives in every case the meaning which on the whole seemed most probable, and squared best with the context. It attempts also to represent equivokes and alliterations in the original, by corresponding equivokes and alliterations——not necessarily in the equivalent words of the translation,——and points out, by figures, italics, and other typographical signs, instances of artificial arrangement of topics and the like; see ChaptersI.andII.,etc.To the English reader a caution is here needed. The very nature of such a version requires that all be made to run quite smoothly; thus, however obscure the passage, a sense is given, and difficulties are put out of sight. But after all this only represents the meaning the commentator thinks most probable, and he may be quite wrong, and altogether mistaken. Such a version is after all a Targum——in other words, a well-meaning attempt at explanation, with some amplification, of the sacred text. In dealing then with it let the reader imitate the Jews of old, who, when they read the sacred text itself, did so with every outward manifestation of respect and deference; but when they came to read the Targum altered their manner, and showed by posture and gesture that they clearly regarded this as but a mere exposition of the Divine Word, and of no authority.The following works are assumed to be easily accessible to English readers:——Ecclesiastes, Theodore Preston, London, 1845;Commentary on Ecclesiastes, Moses Stuart, New York, 1851;Coheleth, by ChristianD. Ginsburg, London, 1861;Ecclesiastes or Koheleth, byDr.Otto Zöckler, edited byProf.Taylor Lewis,LL.D., Edinburgh, 1870;Commentary on the Bible, C. Wordsworth, Bishop of Lincoln, London, 1868. The work ofDr.Ginsburg especially will be found indispensable.Dr.Ginsburg has stated at length, and for the most part in the writers’ own words, the different opinions of critics, Jewish and Christian, who have written on this book. His vast reading and erudition are thus made available for future scholars. Once for all, I must acknowledge the deep obligation I am under to his work. If in many of my renderings I am compelled to differ from him, I am not the less indebted to him on that account. If I have really seen further than he has, it is only because he has, so to speak, allowed me to mount on his shoulders. Any one who takes the trouble to compare my work with his will see that most of my renderings could have been supported by a name of weight. If, however, I have the authority of theLXX.in my favour, I am content, and cite no others. I have, however, not failed to resort to such of the commentators inDr.Ginsburg’s list, German and English, as well as some published since the appearance of his book, as would be likely to give additional light.The work ofDr.Graetz,Kohelet oder der Salomonische Prediger, vonDr.H. Graetz, Leipzig, 1871, did not come to hand until the larger portion of this commentary was in type.The texts made use of are those contained in thePolyglotten Bibel, zum praktischen Handgebrauch bearbeitetvon R. Stier, und R. G. W. Theile, Dritte Auflage, Bielfeld, 1864.The following notation ofMS.and Editions from the above work is adopted in the commentary:——A   Alexandrine text.A¹  Alexandrine Manuscript.A²  Alexandrine Edition, Grabe, Breitinger, Reineccius.B   Vatican text.B¹  Vatican Manuscript.B²  Roman Edition, 1587.C   Codex Frederico-Augustanus (of Tischendorf.)D   Codex Ephraemi rescriptus (of Tischendorf.)E   Editio Aldina, 1518.F   Complutensium Polyglot.X   OtherMS.not especially named.It may also be noticed that all citations are from chapter and verse as in the Authorized Version; where these differ from the Hebrew, the latter is added in a bracket——thus chapterv.9 (8).

DATE AND AUTHORSHIP.

THE title or superscription of the book is, chapteri.1, ‘The words of Koheleth, the son of David, king of Jerusalem,’ and this is further explained in verse 12, by ‘I Koheleth was king over Israel in Jerusalem.’ The only person in Jewish history who answers exactly to this description is Solomon, and accordingly the whole ancient Church, Jewish as well as Christian, have regarded Solomon as the undoubted author of the book. With this conclusion even modern criticism is so far agreed, that it is universally admitted that Solomon is the hero or personated author, even though it is denied that he was the real writer. It is alleged that internal evidence is against the supposition of so early a date; for that the language and tone of thought in the book point to a writer further on in Jewish history. The favourite opinion amongst German scholars is, that Ecclesiastes was composed towards the end of the Persian dominion. Ewald, indeed, considers that, so far as language and style is concerned, the book might be the very latest written in the whole Hebrew Scriptures.

A detailed history of the exposition of the book will be found in theCohelethofDr.Ginsburg, together with a complete discussion of the reasons for and against Solomonic authorship. It will be unnecessary, therefore, to go into detail on this point. We shall only add what concerns the immediate object of the present Commentary, remarking that several most competent English-speaking scholars remain unconvinced by arguments which have apparently fully satisfied their German brethren.Dr.Wordsworth, Professor Plumptre,Dr.Taylor Lewis of America, argue that the book is really Solomon’s, while even in Germany D. H. A. Hahn (Commentar über das Predigerbuch, Leipzig, 1860) is strongly on the side of the Solomonic authorship.

The principal arguments in favour of later date derived from internal evidence, arise from (first) the state of violence and miserydepicted in the book with so much bitterness, and which, it is alleged, cannot be made to harmonize with what we know of the reign of Solomon; and (secondly) the strongly Aramaic character of the language, which assimilates itself to that of the books of Daniel and Esther. With regard to the first point (if we have at all found the real interpretation of the book), it seems improbable that any special description of a particular period could have been ever intended, or even any allusion to the special circumstances of any people. So far also from supposing a time of trouble in the mind of the writer, on the contrary the point and moral of the book will be enhanced if we suppose it to be written rather in a time of prosperity than of adversity or oppression. Thus, if we turn to the expressions of chapteriv.1we shall see that to give any special reference to them, and suppose them peculiar or out of the way, would weaken the force of Koheleth’s argument. Human life generally, under the very best of external circumstances, always exhibits the spectacle both of oppressions by the wicked, and of oppressed without comforters. Now underneath this statement lies the difficulty that He who permits this is the merciful Author of Nature Himself, and it is this difficulty which is especially discussed. There is no necessity to suppose the concluding years of Persian tyranny to be pointedly alluded to, because it is not under an Asiatic despotism alone that hypocrites come and go from the place of the holy (chapterviii.10), or servants are seen on horseback, and nobles, like serfs, walking afoot (chapterx.7), or that men continue in prosperous wickedness (chapterix.3). Indeed, the same may be said of any other of the similar providential difficulties advanced in this book, for the very same occurrences may be witnessed now in this age of civilisation and progress. The reply then to the assertion that it is ‘impossible to reconcile this state of things with the age of Solomon’ is simply this. There is no need even to make the attempt, because there is no reason to believe that, considering the author’s standpoint, he intended that the instances of human suffering and disappointment he cites should be taken otherwise than perfectly generally. What he adduces of this nature is in sufficient measure true always, at the best of times. It would blunt the point of his reasoning if it could be shown that the difficulties he starts were exceptional or temporary; but this is not so. Koheleth’s repeated declaration is thatall——that is, the whole of human life——is vanity or evanescence.

The argument from Aramaic words is much more formidable, and would be conclusive if our knowledge of the successive stages of the Hebrew language were less fragmentary and uncertain than is really the case. It is quite true that such words asמדינה,רעיון,רעות,כבר,זמן,פתגם, have an Aramaic colouring; but we must set against this the fact that, as Ewald remarks, we have in Ecclesiastes a new philosophical terminology, which has modified the Hebrew of the book. And again, it will be seen by referring to the places where these peculiar words occur, that they are introduced either for the purposes of expressing new ideas or terms not found in the language elsewhere. Sometimes the more usual word would be out of harmony with the context,e.g.the wordזמוןreplaces the more ordinaryמיעד, because not only is the latter used to signify afeast, but the root-meaning of the former is just what is required by the argument. Again,כבר, as will be seen stated at length in the notes, is used in the purely technical sense, of ‘this present,’ and not in the ordinary meaning of ‘already.’ The unusual♦אלו, chaptervi.6, also is apparently introduced for the sake of the alliteration withהלאin the next clause, and the once occurringעֲדֶןchapteriv.3, for the sake of the equivoke to which its use gives rise. All these Aramaic words are noticed as they occur in the body of the Commentary, and we think that the conclusion which results from what there appears is to weaken very considerably any argument as to date which can be drawn from them one way or the other.

♦“הלא” replaced with “אלו”

♦“הלא” replaced with “אלו”

♦“הלא” replaced with “אלו”

Again, the object of the book is so peculiar, and so different from all the rest of Scripture, and especially from those which, supposing Solomon was the author, would stand related to it in point of time, that we may well expect some difference of language and colouring. Again, also, there is another reason. The books immediately subsequent to Solomon’s era are all prophetic. Now it seems natural that prophets should use an antique style, which would be tinged with that of the earlier religious books, while if, on the other hand, as theLXX.seem to imply by their translation of the word Koheleth, and appears also from the alliterations in the book itself, it were an address orally delivered, it would no doubt contain colloquialisms. There are strong indications that it does so. Now these colloquialisms would certainly have an Aramaic cast about them. Thus the difference of diction between the Hebrew of Koheleth and a contemporary prophet would be exaggerated, and any estimate of date due to this difference proportionately uncertain.

On the whole, for myself, I have no theory to support either way. I am content to let the matter rest, as I believe the Scripture itself leaves it, which, after all, nowhere refers the authorship to Solomon. In accordance with this, both to save space and to conduce to clearness, I have always referred to the author by the name Koheleth, and to the book itself as Ecclesiastes, in the course of the subsequent Commentary.

DESIGN AND METHOD OF THE WORK.

The design of the book is no other than argumentatively to work out the concluding aphorism of the whole: ‘Fear God, and keep His commandments, forthisis the whole problem of Humanity.’ This truth is never for a moment lost sight of, not even in those passages which sound most sceptical or Epicurean. We may compare this marvellous book to an overture, and say that this truth is its subject. This overture, however, is written in a minor key; it is almost always plaintive; sometimes it descends to what sounds like absolute discord; but this subject floats through its wildest and strangest melodies, resolves its harshest discords, connects its most erratic wanderings. Koheleth is a perfect master of sarcasm. A certain grim and bitter yet grave and holy satire runs through his book. He makes his readers think whether they will or no. For this purpose he sometimes descends to plays upon words, equivokes, alliterations, possibly also proverbs in ordinary circulation. He certainly writes in the ‘vulgar tongue.’ But these equivokes always help the sense. If Koheleth appears in the guise of a popular preacher, he never loses sight of the moralist and philosopher. His sermon, for such we believe it to be, will bear comparison with another wonderful sermon found in Holy Scripture, with which it has some striking points of resemblance, and yet how wonderfully different!

The book then opens with an exclamation which serves as a text or topic——‘Vanity of vanities,’——and forthwith proceeds to state the question, and work out the conclusion which this topic suggests. Has mankind any advantage (in the sense of a result in the future) by reason of his toil or anxiety (the technical word here used isעמל, by which word is meant the same thing as the Greek expresses byμέριμνα, cares of this life, Matthewxiii.22)? This he answers in the negative by eight aphorisms, four drawn from observation of nature and four from moral considerations, which we have called the eightunbeatitudes of the sermon. This constitutes the first part of the proof. Koheleth then goes on to discuss the question, Can any solution of this providential difficulty be discovered? This, in the first place, is attempted to be answered by an autobiography, in which Koheleth shows in succession that wisdom, mirth, accumulation of wealth,etc., are alike evanescent and unsatisfactory, as his own experience (and no one was likely to do better) abundantly displayed. These together form the first great division of the book——ChaptersI.andII.

In the next five Chapters,III.toVII., the same question is discussed from another point of view. Koheleth remarks on the unalterable character of Providence, and shows that even if it were possible that human wisdom could cause change (which it cannot), that the alteration could only be for the worse. He begins by enumerating twenty-eight times or seasons——that is, a fourfold seven——of which the last is ‘a time of peace.’ This is especially worthy of remark, as it is an instance of one of those hopes of better things which Koheleth allows to appear, as it were by stealth, amidst his most melancholy utterances. He then argues this matter, and through a long and sustained course of reasoning, the conclusion of which is, that God must right the wronged.

But there naturally arises the objection, If this be so, why does impiety and oppression exist so continually in the very places or circumstances where we ought to expect the reverse? To this Koheleth offers two solutions, which, however, are neither satisfactory; the second indeed would lead to absolute scepticism. The true deduction is however stated in the last verse of chapteriii.(22), which is, that if any result is to be accomplished by human toil, it can only consist in present gratification.

Koheleth then turns to the consideration of oppressions or afflictions, this turn of thought being that present enjoyment is marred by the existence of so much irremediable unhappiness; that if this world be all, the dead are better off than the living; that the result even of success is envy rather than pleasure; that it is useless labouring for posterity, and no avail in the present. Koheleth here sarcastically points out that labour for others does give some advantage, the only instance where he sees the possibility of any at all. He carefully limits, however, all this to the present life, this formula ‘under the sun,’i.e.in this world of labour and toil, being introduced frequently, showing that all he says is to be taken with this proviso.

In ChapterV.Koheleth begins to display the great remedy for human ills——that is, piety, patience, and submission to the Divine will, cautioning against foolish sacrifices, rash vows, rash speeches, selfishness and avarice. This display of the remedy, however, is as yet subordinate, the main object being to show that all arguments conspire to prove the vanity or transitoriness of human existence. With this ChapterVI.ends, and with it the more argumentative portion of the treatise.

ChapterVII.opens with a paradoxical statement of seven good things, which look like evil ones, and on this Koheleth develops the thought that man does not know a good thing when he sees it. He shows that even wisdom itself will not necessarily produce happiness in this world, though this, he is sure, is a good thing; but he is very bitter and sarcastic on those who, because right does not always succeed, resort to impiety; this, he shows, is a great and fatal mistake. Though the proposition that piety is happiness is not formally stated or worked out argumentatively, nevertheless this is proved so completely that Koheleth is able at the end of the whole to cite this as the real result of his argument.

If, however, piety be the remedy for human ills, early piety is essential to tolerable ease and quiet in this world. This is set forth in the same paradoxical and sarcastic way as before. We are advised to avoid certain evils while we can. These are described with great pathos in ChapterXII.It is however, we believe, quite a mistake to imagine that the close of the book contains anallegoricaldescription of old age. The weakness and other trials of age are, no doubt, brought before us in very poetic and picturesque language. There is an Oriental richness and floridness about this language at first strange to Western ears; but the images employed all admit of resolution by an appeal to the usage of Scripture elsewhere, and can be shown to be quite in place. The conclusion of the whole is significantly the same as the topic at the beginning, ‘Vanity of vanities, the whole is vanity.’

The Epilogue, chapterxii.9, follows. This has been pronounced by some to be an interpolation, the work of a later hand; but we could no more imagine a book of the Old Testament ending with such an aphorism as vanity of vanities, without doing violence to our critical instinct, than we could believe that the Gospel ofSt.Mark was ever intended to end with the words ‘They were afraid’ [ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ, Markxvi.8]. It is rather the bold, open statement of the truth,which has in a more or less covered manner formed the subject of the whole book. The aphorism, ‘Fear God and keep His commandments,’ contains the only possible solution of providential difficulties or remedy of human ills, and it is in vain to look for any other. The reasons for this mystery we must leave to God alone. He will bring into judgment——i.e.into adjustment or declared consistency with justice——every mystery, whether to our notions good or evil. With this assurance the book appropriately ends.

GRAMMATICAL PECULIARITIES.

The Book of Ecclesiastes being a didactic and argumentative treatise, and the only work of its kind in the Scriptures, its Hebrew is modified to meet the requirements of that which is a new philosophy, so that we may fully indorse Ewald’s expression, that ‘Koheleth uses the Hebrew language as a flexible instrument for the expression of novel ideas.’ This naturally implies a usage of words and phrases peculiar to this book, and accounts for the large number of unusual forms and once occurring words and the like which here meet us. It will be apparent to any who will diligently examine the text, that Koheleth confines himself very strictly indeed to the rules of his own grammar, and uses articles, prepositions, and tenses with an accuracy not inferior to Greek itself. For example, there is a real distinction to be discovered between the usage of masculine and feminine forms, where a substantive is of both genders. It is not a matter of indifference whether the full relative is used or the contracted form; on the contrary, it will be seen that the contracted relative gives an optative or subjunctive sense; or whether a verb governs directly or through the intervention of the particleאת; a distinction which theLXX.were quite aware of, and which gave rise to their adverbialσὺν. What, for want of a better term, we have called distributive plurals——i.e.a singular noun and plural verb in agreement, orvice versâ——are exceedingly significant. They have a peculiar shade of meaning, according to circumstances and position in the sentence. It is too a matter of some consequence whether the nominative precedes or follows the verb; hence in the running translation this order is never reversed, even where our idiom requires it, but explanatory words are introduced. All these matters are, where necessary, pointed out in the notes——perhaps some may imagine pressed too far, and repeatedad nauseam; but the excuse must be thaton these minutiæ depend the evidence of correct rendering. If thus a good sense is made out, as it were spontaneously, and which, moreover, is found to fall into place as it occurs in the context, we have strong evidence that we have hit the real meaning.

Connected with this grammatical usage is a peculiar terminology, also to be expected in a scientific treatise. Thusדברis very commonly rendered in this Commentary by ‘reasoning,’ the exact idea implied being a matter or thing reasoned about, with the further notion or conclusion that this reason will become ground of action. No single English or even Greek word will render it, but once let us master its real significance, and the force and cogency of many passages will become manifest. Again,חפץ, which has the sense of ‘an agreeable occurrence,’ ‘a providence,’ and then generally of ‘any event,’ in this book denotes a ‘providentialoccurrence.’ Again,עמלis not exactly toil, but the fatigue, distress, or anxiety that comes of it. It differs fromענין, which is also anxiety, but that kind of anxiety which comes of uncertainty as to a future result. Two most important words areסכלותandהללות: the former is that kind of folly which has the appearance of wisdom, clever folly, or foolish wisdom; the latter is that kind of folly which is begotten of a false expectation of the result, as in our expression ‘made a fool of.’ So againכברis not an adverb ‘already,’ but rather a substantive,——this present considered as now existing. These technical words are all noticed as they occur, and a sense given, the proof of the correctness of which is that appropriate meaning is made in every place in which they occur. As several are found nowhere else in Scripture, this is the only true method of coming at their meaning. It is also worthy of notice that these words occur usually seven or ten times, or some other round or mystic number. This happens so frequently that it can hardly be accidental, but I have seldom been able to trace any rule or law in this circumstance. On the whole, however, it may be taken as an axiom that when Koheleth uses a peculiar word, he intends to express a peculiar idea, and his meaning must be sought accordingly. Careful attention to this point clears up many difficulties.

Alliteration and paronomasia occur with great and characteristic frequency, a proof surely that the book was intended to be preached or delivered as an address. It is, of course, very difficult to give these in the English version. Sometimes in the paraphrastic translation this is attempted by means of rhymes and alliterations.I can hardly pronounce these quite successful, and often have felt inclined to return to a more literal rendering, but then this most characteristic feature of the book would have been lost to the English reader. Every one who has ever addressed an assembly knows how very telling these hits are, and moreover they are of real importance to the commentator, as bringing the words on which the alliteration depends into artificial prominence. There is a danger, no doubt, that when once the mind is aroused to this, that equivokes should be found where they were not intended; but of this the reader must judge.

This perhaps is the best point at which to discuss the meaning of the word Koheleth. In its present form and pointingקֹהֶלֶתis the active feminine participle of Kal of the verbקהל, occurring as a verb only in niphal and hiphil. The feminine noun occurs Deuteronomyxxxiii.4,קְהִלַּת——i.e.this word differently pointed——which theLXX.render byσυναγωγῆς.קְהִלַּתoccurs Nehemiahv.7, renderedἐκκλησίαν. With this before us it seems beside the mark to seek a meaning out of the rootקהל. According to the usage observable in this book, feminines (we should prefer to call them abstracts) inתdiffer from those inה——compareעמדת, chapteri.4; the abstract in this form again becomes as it were a concrete. Thus we should incline to indorse the view enunciated by Preston, who considers the word to be represented by ‘collector’ or ‘concionator’ in Latin. Both these meanings we believe are contained in the word, and it is quite consistent with what we know of the style of Ecclesiastes to admit that both these meanings were intended to be conveyed. The discourse is a collection of separate but connected aphorisms on the transitoriness of human existence——the author is thus a collector of them; and as the discourse was delivered apparently when collected, he is a concionator or preacher also. The word used by theLXX.,ἐκκλησιαστὴς, occurs nowhere else, either in the Old or New Testaments, so that theprecisemeaning they affixed to the word is unknown. In classical Greek it means preacher.

The repetition of a word, whether substantive or particle, in the same sentence, of course gives emphasis to that word; to translate accurately, therefore, when this occurs, we have to add some English equivalent, such as ‘this’ or ‘as well,’ and so forth, see Commentarypassim. A careful attention to this rule will often considerably help to clear up obscure passages.

ON THE PECULIAR RENDERINGS OF THE VERSION OF THELXX.

The remark of Delitzsch on the translation of theLXX., affixed to the Book of Psalms (Delitzsch on the Psalms, Clark’s Library, Edinburgh) may be introduced here:——‘This translation, as being the oldest key to the understanding of the language of the Old Testament writings, as being the oldest mirror of the Old Testament text, and as an important check upon the interpretation of Scripture handed down in the Talmud and Midrash, and in that portion of the national literature not originating in Egypt, is invaluable.’ For this remark applies to the rendering of Ecclesiastes in an equal, if not greater degree, and may be offered as an excuse, if one be needed, for the comparatively large space assigned to the discussion of the Septuagint renderings.

A peculiarity which meets us in this book is the occurrence of the prepositionσὺνfollowed by an accusative, and in one case a genitive, and which seldom if ever occurs in other books. This apparently trifling circumstance, which is usually treated as a barbarism, will give the clue which will lead to some curious and interesting facts connected with the methods of translation adopted by theLXX.

If we examine carefully and in detail the wording of theLXX.we can hardly fail to be struck with the excessive care that is taken to render in the exact order of the Hebrew——a remark which may be extended to other portions of this version, the Book of Job being, however, a striking exception, (and when there is any considerable departure, in almost every instance hitherto examined a serious variation of text in the different recensions of theLXX.will be found to occur.) In Ecclesiastes this order is so strict that, with hardly an exception, it would be possible to print the Greek text as it stands as an interlinear translation. This most interesting point deserves further investigation than appears as yet to have been given to it. My own impression from this circumstance, is that the version of theLXX.was made with the idea that those who used it had the Hebrew before them, and this hypothesis, for in truth it is nothing more, will I think group together more facts than any other suppositions which have been adopted to explain these strange renderings met with in theLXX.,——as, for example, variation of original text, wilful corruption on the part of the translators, Hagadic influence (of which more presently), and the like. TheLXX.have executed their work so well, that notwithstandingthis restriction which they thus laid upon themselves, we have a very good translation, which for many centuries was used as the sole representative of the ancient Scriptures, and on which the whole fabric of ancient theology was erected.

This interlinear character, as we may call it, of the version of theLXX., will explain why they render the same Hebrew word by such very different Greek equivalents. In an interlinear translation there is no special value in uniform rendering; rather the reverse. It is better even to study variety than uniformity, although we believe that theLXX.do neither the one nor the other, but simply endeavour to give the best possible rendering of the passage before them. For example, the wordחפץis rendered in chapteriii.1, 17,v.8 (7),viii.6, byπρᾶγμα, and in the other three cases in which it occurs,viz., chapterv.4 (3),xii.1, 10, byθέλημα. Now the real meaning of this word, as we have shown, is an agreeable providential occurrence, or, since all providential occurrences imply the Divine will on their side, any such whatever. TheLXX.use the one rendering or the other as best suits the context. This book containing so large a number of technical words, the meaning of which is to be sought by a careful comparison of all the passages in which they occur, the renderings of theLXX.become of special interest. The meaning compounded of the meanings of theLXX.’srenderings, to use a mathematical simile, will give us often the precise shade of signification of the Hebrew of which we are in search, and this will then approve itself as correct by its suitableness in every instance.

The same observation applies to the grammar of the Greek as representing that of the Hebrew. There is no attempt whatever to render Hebrew grammatical forms with any uniformity. Hebrew perfects are rendered by Greek presents, aorists, or perfects; Hebrew presents by aorists or perfects. Participles are rendered sometimes by participles, at others by principal verbs. The same Hebrew prepositions are sometimes rendered by different Greek prepositions, and sometimes simply by case-endings. The relative is rendered by the relative, by the pronoun, and byὅτι. The Hebrew conjugations are not represented on any settled principle; Piels are sometimes indeed apparently marked by a preposition compounded with the verb, sometimes not noticed at all. In certain cases in which the root is doubtful, as for example in ain vaw, and ain ain verbs, theLXX.do not always follow the Masoretic pointing and derivation. On the whole, however, the deviations of theLXX., from both pointing and accentuation, are more apparent than real, and may be explained, forthe most part, on the principle that the translators felt themselves obliged to follow the order of the words in the original.

We must, however, bear in mind that the present text of theLXX.is of all texts the most time-worn, and often requires correction. Most providentially we do not depend on one recension; we have in existing copies the remains of several, and we may make use of them to restore the original readings. The problem in this case differs essentially from that which meets us in revising the Greek text of the New Testament. Here diplomatic evidence has not the same weight as there. Emendations may be detected, even when better readings of the Hebrew, by want of conformity to the Hebrew order (and the temptation to make such kind of alterations, when the version was used independently, would clearly be very great), or again a comparison of the various readings will enable us to guess with tolerable confidence what the Hebrew originally was. In this way, when the Hebrew text is doubtful, we can ascertain the correct reading by searching for that common origin from which the variants in theLXX.were derived, and we may then turn round on the version with the help of the Hebrew, and show how the changes successively arose. An instance of this will be found at chapterx.10; how far I have succeeded the reader must judge. We must also bear in mind that what we should now denote by marginal renderings are in the ancient versions inserted in the text. The interlinear character of the version enables us to detect this: we find two Greek words standing in place of a single Hebrew equivalent. The result of all this, as applied in the Book of Ecclesiastes, is to vindicate the accuracy of the received Hebrew text, and, in a less degree, of the pointing and accentuation also. Only in a very few instances is it needful to propose an emendation of the Hebrew text, and that where the ancient versions are apparently unanimous in requiring it.

There remains another point, however.Dr.Ginsburg (and from his extensive acquaintance with Jewish literature no one is better qualified to give an opinion) considers that Hagadic influence must be taken largely into account in explaining difficult passages in Ecclesiastes; amongst other points he notices the rendering ofאתbyσὺν, which has been referred to already. ‘Commentators,’ he says, ‘have been perplexed to account for this barbarism, and violation of grammatical propriety, but a reference to Hagadic exegesis will show that this Hebrew particle was looked up to as having a mystical signification, because the two letters,אandת, of which it is composed, are the Alpha and Omega of the Hebrew alphabet.Hence the anxiety of the translator to indicate this particle in Greek, when a passage appeared to him to be fraught with special mysteries.’ But, as he remarks, it is only in twenty-nine instances out of seventy-one occurrences of this particle that it is so rendered by theLXX.Moreover,Dr.Ginsburg has not shown that these passages are specially mysterious. They are in fact neither more nor less so than some others in which this particle is not so rendered. An examination of these passages will show, we think convincingly, that what theLXX.wished to do was to point out thatאתwas emphatic and with the meaning of ‘respect to,’ or the like, as will be seen by reference to the Commentary, especially chaptersii.17,iii.17,vii.26,viii.8, 15.

The Hagadic influence, according toDr.Ginsburg, is still more evident in the peculiar rendering of chapterii.12, as well as chaptersii.17,iii.15,iv.17,v.1, all which are fully treated in the Commentary, and the renderings of theLXX.explained and elucidated, it is hoped satisfactorily. So far from the true explanation of these renderings being found in the Chaldee paraphrase, asDr.Ginsburg imagines, that version gives distorted interpretations of passages but partially understood. Again, the gloss of theLXX.at chapterii.15 is shared by the Syriac, and is a marginal reading; chapterii.17 is a verbatim reading of the Hebrew in every particular; and the gloss at chapterii.9 is too evidently foisted in from the margin to make it of much value in any argument. See note there.

Holding as I do the paramount authority of theLXX., I have not scrupled to follow them against the Masoretic interpretation when the sense of a passage seemed to require it, and I deem it a sufficient answer to any objections on this head, that the rendering proposed is supported by theLXX.On the whole, however, these differences are, as remarked above, not very great, and we have rather occasion for surprise, not that there is here and there a divergence, but that on the whole there is so substantial agreement. The pointing which we have in our Hebrew Bibles embodies a most valuable and venerable tradition, but in its present form younger by centuries than that furnished by the rendering of theLXX.While, therefore, we admit its great value, we ought not to make its authority absolute, and this is done to all intents and purposes by those who reject without question the ancient interpretation because it conflicts with the present pointing. No language is too high to characterize our obligations to those Jewish fathers who have guarded so faithfully that special trust committed to them——the oracles of God. Butthe Synagogue is no more infallible in matters of criticism than is the Church. Neither the Masorets nor theLXX.are inspired, though inspiration has been by their respective partisans vehemently claimed for both. Each party, also, has unduly depreciated the other, and the Hebrew scholars have been for centuries divided into punctists and anti-punctists. But as there is no royal road to learning, so there is no short-cut to certainty; the whole evidence, let it come from whence it may, must be diligently weighed and compared. So far as the version of theLXX.is concerned, this is not done until their errors, or supposed errors, have been at least duly explained and accounted for, even when their renderings are rejected.

OTHER VERSIONS OF ANTIQUITY.

Next in order in point of antiquity to the version of theLXX.stands the Syriac Peshito. This I have sometimes quoted in the present Commentary, having considered it my duty to make myself acquainted with this version, so that if I am not in a position to offer anything of my own, I can follow other commentators, and test their accuracy. The citations are made from the edition ofDr.Lee, published by the Bible Society. As might be expected, the Syriac version stands midway between theLXX.and Masoretic text, agreeing sometimes with the one and sometimes with the other. It is often assumed that the peculiar renderings of the Syriac which agree with theLXX.against the Masoretic rendering, arise from corrections of the former text by the latter; this, however, is not proved. The existence of such an element of correction may well be admitted, but it is only one out of many, and in some cases we shall, I think, have reason to conclude that the sense, set aside as of no critical value by some commentators, does in fact embody the real meaning of the passage under discussion. See chapterx.10for an instance of this.

The Vulgate is generally accessible; its value is subordinate as compared with the above-mentioned versions, being only, as is well known, corrected from the Hebrew by Jerome. Sometimes, however, the evidence it affords of an ancient reading is all the more valuable on this account. See the note at chapterx.10.

The fragments of the ancient Greek versions of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion are often of the very highest value, and diligent use has been made of them. The edition used is that of Field,Originis Hexapla, edition by Fridericus Field, Oxford, 1867,vol. ii.TheCodex Syriaco Hexaplaris, H. Middedorpf, Berlin, 1835, has also been examined.

THE TRANSLATIONS OF THIS COMMENTARY.

Two translations of this book are here offered to the reader, the first, dispersed through the notes, denoted by bold-faced type, is absolutely literal, even to utter baldness, and rigidly follows the exact order of the Hebrew. In the accompanying running commentary the construction of the sentences is carefully pointed out, the rendering of theLXX.noted where peculiar, and the attempt made in all cases to account for the peculiarity, either by showing that they have preserved the true interpretation, or else explaining how the error arose. The sense thus obtained is embodied in the paraphrastic version printed at the head of the page. There has been no attempt made to adopt, in this latter translation, the phraseology of the Authorized Version; rather the reverse, as it is not intended to be independent, but is to be regarded as of the nature of an explanatory commentary or an English Targum upon the text. It also seeks to render idea for idea rather than word for word, and gives in every case the meaning which on the whole seemed most probable, and squared best with the context. It attempts also to represent equivokes and alliterations in the original, by corresponding equivokes and alliterations——not necessarily in the equivalent words of the translation,——and points out, by figures, italics, and other typographical signs, instances of artificial arrangement of topics and the like; see ChaptersI.andII.,etc.To the English reader a caution is here needed. The very nature of such a version requires that all be made to run quite smoothly; thus, however obscure the passage, a sense is given, and difficulties are put out of sight. But after all this only represents the meaning the commentator thinks most probable, and he may be quite wrong, and altogether mistaken. Such a version is after all a Targum——in other words, a well-meaning attempt at explanation, with some amplification, of the sacred text. In dealing then with it let the reader imitate the Jews of old, who, when they read the sacred text itself, did so with every outward manifestation of respect and deference; but when they came to read the Targum altered their manner, and showed by posture and gesture that they clearly regarded this as but a mere exposition of the Divine Word, and of no authority.

The following works are assumed to be easily accessible to English readers:——Ecclesiastes, Theodore Preston, London, 1845;Commentary on Ecclesiastes, Moses Stuart, New York, 1851;Coheleth, by ChristianD. Ginsburg, London, 1861;Ecclesiastes or Koheleth, byDr.Otto Zöckler, edited byProf.Taylor Lewis,LL.D., Edinburgh, 1870;Commentary on the Bible, C. Wordsworth, Bishop of Lincoln, London, 1868. The work ofDr.Ginsburg especially will be found indispensable.Dr.Ginsburg has stated at length, and for the most part in the writers’ own words, the different opinions of critics, Jewish and Christian, who have written on this book. His vast reading and erudition are thus made available for future scholars. Once for all, I must acknowledge the deep obligation I am under to his work. If in many of my renderings I am compelled to differ from him, I am not the less indebted to him on that account. If I have really seen further than he has, it is only because he has, so to speak, allowed me to mount on his shoulders. Any one who takes the trouble to compare my work with his will see that most of my renderings could have been supported by a name of weight. If, however, I have the authority of theLXX.in my favour, I am content, and cite no others. I have, however, not failed to resort to such of the commentators inDr.Ginsburg’s list, German and English, as well as some published since the appearance of his book, as would be likely to give additional light.

The work ofDr.Graetz,Kohelet oder der Salomonische Prediger, vonDr.H. Graetz, Leipzig, 1871, did not come to hand until the larger portion of this commentary was in type.

The texts made use of are those contained in thePolyglotten Bibel, zum praktischen Handgebrauch bearbeitetvon R. Stier, und R. G. W. Theile, Dritte Auflage, Bielfeld, 1864.

The following notation ofMS.and Editions from the above work is adopted in the commentary:——

A   Alexandrine text.A¹  Alexandrine Manuscript.A²  Alexandrine Edition, Grabe, Breitinger, Reineccius.B   Vatican text.B¹  Vatican Manuscript.B²  Roman Edition, 1587.C   Codex Frederico-Augustanus (of Tischendorf.)D   Codex Ephraemi rescriptus (of Tischendorf.)E   Editio Aldina, 1518.F   Complutensium Polyglot.X   OtherMS.not especially named.

A   Alexandrine text.

A¹  Alexandrine Manuscript.

A²  Alexandrine Edition, Grabe, Breitinger, Reineccius.

B   Vatican text.

B¹  Vatican Manuscript.

B²  Roman Edition, 1587.

C   Codex Frederico-Augustanus (of Tischendorf.)

D   Codex Ephraemi rescriptus (of Tischendorf.)

E   Editio Aldina, 1518.

F   Complutensium Polyglot.

X   OtherMS.not especially named.

It may also be noticed that all citations are from chapter and verse as in the Authorized Version; where these differ from the Hebrew, the latter is added in a bracket——thus chapterv.9 (8).

Back to IndexNext