18 I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, [¹]that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts.
[¹] Or, that they might clear God and see.
Then said I to myself also: By the reasonings of the human race in respect to any discrimination of them by the Divine Creator, it seems that but brutes are they at best.
(18.) I said, I did, in my heart (repeating the formula of the preceding verse, and so lending emphasis to it), upon the speech (this phrase occurs three times, and only in this book, viz. here, and chapters vii. 14 and viii. 2. Notwithstanding that a similar phrase occurs Psalm cx. 4, with the meaning ‘after the order,’ LXX. κατὰ τὴν τάξιν, which is apparently sanctioned by New Testament exegesis, compare Hebrews v. 6, etc.; this is really not to the point, for that is על דברתי, the plural, while this is singular. According to strict grammar דברת is the construct of דברה, and should therefore mean ‘reasoning of,’ just as the LXX. render by περὶ λαλιᾶς, and this, moreover, will make good sense in every passage in which this phrase occurs) of the sons of Adam (i.e. the human race) to the discriminating them (hence the LXX. διακρινεῖ αὐτοὺς, considering that the root is ברר, which has the meaning ‘to sift,’ ‘purify by sifting,’ this is the only instance of the infinitive kal. Now we must take this meaning, observing that the pronoun ‘them,’ which is involved in the termination of the verb, is not emphatic; it is the discrimination of God which is the point, the persons on which this is exercised are subordinate. The Jewish commentators for the most part explain לברם as the third person singular preterite of ברה with the objective pronominal affix ם [the only instance, however, in which ברה has the meaning ‘to choose’ is 1 Samuel xvii. 8]; as, however, some copies read לבררם, we can have no difficulty in referring the word to the root ברר, which makes good sense. It is also to be remarked that though ברם does not exist as a root in Hebrew, it does so in Chaldee, Syriac, and Arabic, and the meaning is that which is ‘twisted’ or ‘infolded’——compare Ezekiel xxvii. 24——a ‘garment’ worked in many colours; this would make good sense also in this place, and may possibly have been an intentional equivoke, which is not surely improbable in a sentence in which such manifest artificial alliteration occurs. The meaning then is, that) the Deity (discriminates men, or makes a distinction between them and the lower creatures; but in what respects? This is discussed at length) and to see (but rather might this form of the infinitive be rendered, for which there is sufficient authority, ‘to the appearance’) that they (contract relative, and hence the meaning is that this appearance belongs to them, and them only. In this may be found the key to the whole passage. In appearance there is no choice or discrimination, as subsequent argument proves, because they are) a cattle (singular, following a plural, and thus giving the meaning that each one is so) they to them (which Mendelssohn explains, following the LXX., ‘when left to themselves,’ or, as we should say, as ‘far as they can tell.’ With this Ewald and Ginsburg agree, who consider this latter clause an ironical ‘ipsissimi,’——‘they themselves, indeed!’ Thus, then, the meaning of the whole passage is, ‘I said, yes, I did in my heart again, so far as human reasonings extend concerning any discrimination the Divine Providence has made of them, and as far as appearances go with them, a mere animal is each one of them, so far as they can tell.’ The sentence is very sarcastic and equivocal, as the alliteration at the end shows. Then, again, if we take the root ברם in the sense of ‘web,’ as we use it for something intricate, in that case we should have the equivoke, ‘concerning the web of Divine Providence so far as it appears to them.’ Again, also, the Syriac renders as if לברם were לבראם, ‘their Creator,’ which also makes excellent sense; but this, again, may simply be a rendering of another equivoke. Then, again, there is a possible play between בהמה and the same word considered as המה with the preposition——all these equivokes assist the sense). Consistent with this is what follows:——
19 For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no pre-eminence above a beast: for all is vanity.
For the event which happens to the human race, and the event which happens to the brute-creation, is precisely the same event: the one dies just the same death as the other; and the animal life is the same in both; and the pre-eminence of man over the brute is nothing at all; for all alike are evanescent;
(19.) For a happening of the sons of man, and a happening of the brute creation, and a happening which is one (as we should say, ‘precisely the same’) to them (the threefold repetition of מקרה, ‘hap,’ brings this word into strong prominence. It means, of coarse, that which absolutely happens or results, or comes to them in the end. This is exactly the same in both cases, as the sequel shows). As is the death of this, so (‘exactly so’) is the death of this, and the spirit (or ‘breath’) is one to all, and the pre-eminence (ומותר, this noun occurs in this form only at Proverbs xiv. 23, and xxi. 5, and evidently with the meaning of advantage or increase of one thing over another. The LXX. translate this as if it were ומי יתר, ‘and what profit,’ but this is simply to give the sarcastic turn to the sentence) of the man (humanity generally) over the beasts is nothing, for the whole (in its technical sense of the whole of life, as usual) is a vanity (or evanescent).