The Old Latin has many peculiarities; its inaccuracies are no proof of arbitrariness; the translator means to be faithful to his Greek original. Many verses are transposed; others misplaced. For instances of the former, Fritzsche refers to iii. 27, iv. 31, 32, vi. 9, 10, ix. 14, 16, xii. 5, 7; for the latter, to xvi. 24, 25, xix. 5, 6, xlix. 17. Sometimes a double text is translated, e.g. xix. 3, xx. 24. It is to be used with great caution, but its age makes it valuable for determining the Greek text. For the text of Ecclesiasticus in the Codex Amiatinus, see Lagarde’s Mittheilungen.
23. Page [198] (Aids to the Student).—To the works mentioned add Bruch, Weisheitslehre (1851), p. 283 &c., and especially Jehuda ben Seeb’s little known work The Wisdom of Joshua ben Sira rendered into Hebrew and German, and paraphrased in Syriac with the Biur, Breslau, 1798 (translated title), and Geiger, ‘Warum gehört das Buch Sirach zu den Apocryphen?’ in Zeitschr. d deutschen morgenl. Gesellschaft, xii. 536 &c.
24. Page [207], note 2.—The name is undoubtedly an enigma, and M. Renan thinks that ordinary philological methods are inadequate to its solution. Even Aquila leaves it untranslated (κωλέθ). Without stopping here to criticise M. Renan’s theory that QHLTH were the initials of words (comp. Rambam, Rashi) in some way descriptive of Solomon,[[445]] let me frankly admit that none of the older explanations is absolutely certain, because neither Qōhēl nor Qohéleth occurs elsewhere in the Old Testament literature. Two views however are specially prevalent, and I will first mention that which seems to me (with Gesenius, Delitzsch, Nowack &c.) to deserve the preference. In one respect indeed it harmonises with the rival explanation, viz. in supposing Qal to have adopted the signification of Hifil (the Hifil of Q H L is found in the Old Testament), so that Qōhēl will mean ‘one who calls together an assembly.’ The adoption thus supposed is found especially in proper names (e.g. רחביה). But how to explain the feminine form Qohéleth? By a tendency of later Hebrew to use fem. participles with a masc. sense.[[446]] In Talmudic Hebrew, e.g., we find לְקוּחוֹת, ‘buyers,’ נְקוּרוֹת, ‘stone-masons,’ לְעוּזוֹת, ‘foreigners’ (passive participles in this stage of the language tend to adopt an active sense). But even earlier we find the same tendency among proper names. Take for instance Sophereth (hassofereth in Ezra ii. 55; sofereth in Neh. vii. 57), Pokereth (Ezra ii. 57). Why should not the name Qoheleth have been given to the great Teacher of the book before us, just as the name Sophereth was given apparently to a scribe? Delitzsch[[447]] reminds us that in Arabic the fem. termination serves sometimes to intensify the meaning, or, as Ewald puts it, ‘ut abstracto is innuatur in quo tota hæc virtus vel alia proprietas consummatissima sit, ut ejus exemplum haberi queat.’[[448]] Thus Qoheleth might mean ‘the ideal teacher,’ and this no doubt would be a title which would well describe the later view of Solomon. It is simpler, however, to take the fem. termination as expressing action or office; thus in Arabic khalifa means 1, succession or the dignity of the successor, 2, the successor or representative himself, the ‘caliph,’ and in Hebrew and Assyrian pekhāh, pakhatu ‘viceroy.’ Comp. ἡ ἐξουσία, ‘die Obrigkeit.’
The alternative is, with Ewald, Hitzig, Ginsburg, Kuenen, Kleinert, to explain Qoheleth as in apposition to חָכְמָה, Wisdom being represented in Prov. i. 20, 21, viii. 1-4, as addressing men in the places of concourse (Klostermann eccentrically explains ἡ συλλογίζουσα or συλλογιστική). Solomon, according to this view, is regarded by the author as the impersonation of Wisdom (as Protagoras was called Σοφία). It is most unlikely, however, that Solomon should have been thus regarded, considering the strange discipline which the author describes Qoheleth as having passed through, and how different is the language of Wisdom when, as in Prov. i.-ix., she is represented as addressing an assembly! A reference to vii. 27, where Qoheleth seems to be spoken of in the fem., is invalid, as we should undoubtedly correct haqqohéleth in accordance with xii. 8[[449]] (comp. hassofereth, Ezra ii. 55).
The Sept. rendering ἐκκλησιαστής, whence the ‘concionator’ of Vulg., is therefore to be preferred to the singular Greek rend. ἡ ἐκκλησιάστρια of Græcus Venetus.
25. Page [210].—Eccles. iii. 11. Might we render, ‘Also he hath put (the knowledge of) that which is secret into their mind, except that,’ &c., i.e. ‘though God has enabled man to find out many secrets, yet human science is of very limited extent’? This implies Bickell’s pointing עָלֻם.
26. Page [219].—Eccles. vii. 28. The misogyny of the writer was doubtless produced by some sad personal experience. Its evil effect upon himself was mitigated by his discovery of another Jonathan with a love passing the love of women.’ This reminds us of the author of the celebrated mediæval ‘Romance of the Rose.’[[450]] ‘What is Love?’ asks the lover, and Reason answers, ‘It is a mere sickness of the thought, a sport of the fancy. If thou scape at last from Love’s snares, I hold it but a grace. Many a one has lost body and soul in his service’ (comp. Eccles, vii. 26). And then he continues, ‘There is a kind of love which lawful is and good, as noble as it is rare,—the friendship of men.’ To quote Chaucer’s translation,
And certeyn he is wel bigone
Among a thousand that findeth oon.
For ther may be no richesse