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. The Title Qoheleth (twice, see below, 'the Qoheleth').
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 ((
Greek characters)(Transliteration from Greek: kôleth)).
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,[1] 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. (Hebrew characters)). But
how to explain the feminine form Qohéleth? By a tendency of
later Hebrew to use fem. participles with a masc. sense.[2] In
Talmudic Hebrew, e.g., we find (Hebrew characters), 'buyers,' (Hebrew characters), 'stone-*masons,'
(Hebrew characters), '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
