Jerome also has non est bonum homini nisi quod in his Comm.; only the Venet. seeks to accommodate itself to the traditional text. Besides, only מ is to be inserted, not אם כי; for the phrase לאכל אם כי is used, but not כי אם ס. Instead of ba-a-da-m, the form la-a-da-m would be more agreeable, as at Ecc 6:12; Ecc 8:15. Hitzig remarks, without proof, that bāādām is in accordance with later grammatical forms, which admit ב = “for” before the object. ב, Ecc 10:17, is neither prep. of the object, nor is ἐν, Sir. 3:7, the exponent of the dative (vid., Grimm). bāādām signifies, as at 2Sa 23:3, and as ἐν ἀνθ, Sir. 11:14, inter homines; also Ecc 3:12 designates by טוב טוב what among them (men) has to be regarded as good.
It is interesting to see how here the ancient and the modern forms of the language run together, without the former wholly passing over into the latter; משׁי, quam ut edat, is followed by norm. perfects, in accordance with that comprehensive peculiarity of the old syntax which Ewald, by an excellent figure, calls the dissolution of that which is coloured into grey. טוב ... הד is equivalent to לו הי, Psa 49:19, the causative rendering of the phrase טוב ראה, Ecc 3:13, or ר טובה, Ecc 5:17; Ecc 6:6. It is well to attend to בּעמלו by his labour, which forms an essential component part of that which is approved of as good. Not a useless sluggard-life, but a life which connects together enjoyment and labour, is that which Koheleth thinks the best in the world. But this enjoyment, lightening, embellishing, seasoning labour, has also its But: etiam hoc vidi e manu Dei esse (pendere). The order of the words harmonizes with this Lat.; it follows the scheme referred to at Gen 1:4; cf. on the contrary, Ecc 3:6. Instead of גּם־זה, neut. by attraction, there is here the immediately neut. גּם־זה; the book uniformly makes use of this fem. form instead of זאת. This or that is “in the hand of God,” i.e., it is His gift, Ecc 3:13, Ecc 3:18, and it is thus conditioned by Him, since man cannot give it to himself; cf. minni, Isa 30:1; mimmenni, Hos 8:4; mimmennu, 1Ki 20:33.
This dependence of the enjoyment of life on God is established.
Verse 25
Ecc 2:25 “For who can eat, and who can have enjoyment, without [= except from Him?]” Also here the traditional text is tenable: we have to read ממנו חוץ, after the lxx (which Jerome follows in his Comm.) and the Syr. If we adopt the text as it lies before us, then the meaning would be, as given by Gumpel,[1] and thus translated by Jerome: Quis ita devorabit et deliciis effluet ut ego? But (1) the question thus understood would require ממּנּי יותר, which Gumpel and others silently substitute in place of חוץ ם;
- ↑ Vid., regarding his noteworthy Comm. on Koheleth, my Jesurun, pp. 183 and 195. The author bears the name among Christians of Professor Levisohn.
