Next in order in point of antiquity to the version of the LXX. 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 of Dr. Lee, published by the Bible Society. As might be expected, the Syriac version stands midway between the LXX. 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 the LXX. 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 chapter [x. 10] for 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 chapter [x. 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. The Codex 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 the LXX. 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 Chapters I. and II., 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 Christian D. Ginsburg, London, 1861; Ecclesiastes or Koheleth, by Dr. Otto Zöckler, edited by Prof. Taylor Lewis, LL.D., Edinburgh, 1870; Commentary on the Bible, C. Wordsworth, Bishop of Lincoln, London, 1868. The work of Dr. 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 the LXX. in my favour, I am content, and cite no others. I have, however, not failed to resort to such of the commentators in Dr. 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 of Dr. Graetz, Kohelet oder der Salomonische Prediger, von Dr. 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 the Polyglotten Bibel, zum praktischen Handgebrauch bearbeitet von R. Stier, und R. G. W. Theile, Dritte Auflage, Bielfeld, 1864.
The following notation of MS. and Editions from the above work is adopted in the commentary:——
A Alexandrine text.