Ecc 2:24-26 | KD | STEP | “There is nothing better among men, than that one eat and drink, and that he should pamper his soul by his labour: this also have I seen, that it is in the hand of God.” The lxx, as well as the other Greek transl., and Jerome, had before them the words באדם שיאכל. The former translates: “Man has not the good which he shall eat and drink,” i.e. , also this that he eats ... is for him no true good; but the direct contrary of this is what Koheleth says. Jerome seeks to bring the thought which the text presents into the right track, by using the form of a question: nonne melius est comedere ... ; against this , ; , are not to be cited where טוב אין stands in the dependent sentence; the thought is not thus to be improved; its form is not this, for טוב rof ,siht, beginning a sentence, is never interrog., but affirm.; thus טוב אין is not = הלא טוב, but is a negative statement. It is above all doubt, that instead of שׁיּ בּאדם we must read בּאדם משּׁיּ, after , ; ; for, as at , the initial letter mem after the terminal mem has dropped out. Codd. of the lxx have accordingly corrected ὃ into πλὴν ὃ or εἰ μὴ ὃ (thus the Compl. Ald.), and the Syr. and Targ. render ש here by אלא דּ and אלהן דּ unless that he eat; 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 8:15. Hitzig remarks, without proof, that bāādām is in accordance with later grammatical forms, which admit ב = “for” before the object. ב, , is neither prep. of the object, nor is ἐν, Sir. 3:7, the exponent of the dative ( vid ., Grimm). bāādām signifies, as at , and as ἐν ἀνθ, Sir. 11:14, inter homines ; also 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, , the causative rendering of the phrase טוב ראה, , or ר טובה, ; 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 ; 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, , , and it is thus conditioned by Him, since man cannot give it to himself; cf. minni, ; mimmenni, Hos 8:4; mimmennu, 1Ki 20:33. This dependence of the enjoyment of life on God is established.

‏ Ecclesiastes 2:24-26

Ecc 2:24 “There is nothing better among men, than that one eat and drink, and that he should pamper his soul by his labour: this also have I seen, that it is in the hand of God.” The lxx, as well as the other Greek transl., and Jerome, had before them the words באדם שיאכל. The former translates: “Man has not the good which he shall eat and drink,” i.e., also this that he eats ... is for him no true good; but the direct contrary of this is what Koheleth says. Jerome seeks to bring the thought which the text presents into the right track, by using the form of a question: nonne melius est comedere ...; against this Ecc 3:12, Ecc 3:22; Ecc 8:15, are not to be cited where טוב אין stands in the dependent sentence; the thought is not thus to be improved; its form is not this, for טוב rof ,siht, beginning a sentence, is never interrog., but affirm.; thus טוב אין is not = הלא טוב, but is a negative statement. It is above all doubt, that instead of שׁיּ בּאדם we must read בּאדם משּׁיּ, after Ecc 3:12, Ecc 3:22; Ecc 8:15; for, as at Job 33:17, the initial letter mem after the terminal mem has dropped out. Codd. of the lxx have accordingly corrected ὃ into πλὴν ὃ or εἰ μὴ ὃ (thus the Compl. Ald.), and the Syr. and Targ. render ש here by אלא דּ and אלהן דּ unless that he eat; 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. 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, ^{▼▼Vid., regarding his noteworthy Comm. on Koheleth, my Jesurun, pp. 183 and 195. The author bears the name among Christians of Professor Levisohn.} 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; (2) this question, in which the king adjudicates to himself an unparalleled right to eat and to enjoy himself, would stand out of connection with that which precedes and follows.

Even though with Ginsburg, after Rashi, Aben Ezra, and Rashbam, we find in Ecc 2:25 the thought that the labourer has the first and nearest title to the enjoyment of the fruit of his labour (חוץ ם thus exemplif. as Ecc 4:8, ע ... למי), the continuation with כּי, Ecc 2:26, is unsuitable; for the natural sequence of the thoughts would then be this: But the enjoyment, far from being connected with the labour as its self-consequence and fruit, is a gift of God, which He gives to one and withholds from another. If we read ממּנּוּ, then the sequence of the thoughts wants nothing in syllogistic exactness. חוּשׁ .ssen here has nothing in common with חוּשׁ = Arab. ḥât, to proceed with a violent, impetuous motion, but, as at Job 20:2, is = Arab. ḥss, stringere (whence hiss, a sensible impression); the experience here meant is one mediated by means of a pleasant external enjoyment. The lxx, Theod., and Syr. translate: (and who can) drink, which Ewald approves of, for he compares (Arab.) ḥasa (inf. ḥasy), to drink, to sip. But this Arab. verb is unheard of in Heb.; with right, Heiligst. adheres to the Arab., and at the same time the modern Heb. ḥass, חושׁ, sentire, according to which Schultens, quis sensibus indulserit. ממנו חוּץ is not = ולא ם, “except from him” (Hitz., Zöckl.), but מן חוץ together mean “except;” cf. e.g., the Mishnic לאמנה וחוץ לם, beyond the time and place suitable for the thank-offering, חוץ מאחד מהם, excepting one of the same, Menachoth vii. 3, for which the old Heb. would in the first case use בלא, and in the second זולא or מן לבד (= Aram. מן בּר) (vid., p. 637). Accordingly ממנו חוץ means practer cum (Deum), i.e., unless he will it and make it possible, Old Heb. מבּ, Gen 41:44.

In enjoyment man is not free, it depends not on his own will: labour and the enjoyment of it do not stand in a necessary connection; but enjoyment is a gift which God imparts, according as He regards man as good, or as a sinner. Ecc 2:26 “For to a man who appears to Him as good, He gave wisdom, and knowledge, and joy; but to the sinner He gave the work of gathering and heaping up, in order to give it to him who appears to Him as good: this also is vain, and grasping after the wind;” viz., this striving after enjoyment in and of the labour - it is “vain,” for the purpose and the issue lie far apart; and “striving after the wind,” because that which is striven for, when one thinks that he has it, only too often cannot be grasped, but vanishes into nothing. If we refer this sentence to a collecting and heaping up (Hengst., Grätz, and others), then the author would here come back to what has already been said, and that too in the foregoing section; the reference also to the arbitrary distribution of the good things of life on the part of God (Knobel) is inadmissible, because “this, although it might be called הבל, could not also be called רוח רעות“ (Hitz.); and perfectly inadmissible the reference to the gifts of wisdom, knowledge, and joy (Bullock), for referred to these the sentence gains a meaning only by introducing all kinds of things into the text which here lie out of the connection.

Besides, what is here said has indeed a deterministic character, and לפניו, especially if it is thought of in connection with ולח, ^{▼▼Written with segol under ט in P, Biblia Rabb., and elsewhere. Thus correctly after the Masora, according to which this form of the word has throughout the book segol under ,ט with the single exception of Ecc 7:26. Cf. Michol 124 b, 140 b.} sounds as if to the good and the bad their objective worth and distinction should be adjudicated; but this is not the meaning of the author; the unreasonable thought that good or bad is what God’s arbitrary ordinance and judgment stamp it to be, is wholly foreign to him. The “good before Him” is he who appears as good before God, and thus pleases Him, because he is truly good; and the חוטא, placed in contrast, as at Ecc 7:26, is the sinner, not merely such before God, but really such; here לפניו has a different signification than when joined with טוב: one who sins in the sight of God, i.e., without regarding Him (Luk 15:18, ἐνώπιον), serves sin. Regarding ענין, vid., under 23 a: it denotes a business, negotium; but here such as one fatigues himself with, quod negotium facessit. Among the three charismata, joy stands last, because it is the turning-point of the series of thoughts: joy connected with wise, intelligent activity, is, like wisdom and intelligence themselves, a gift of God. The obj. of לתת (that He may give it) is the store gathered together by the sinner; the thought is the same as that at Pro 13:22; Pro 28:8; Job 27:16. The perfect we have so translated, for that which is constantly repeating itself is here designated by the general expression of a thing thus once for all ordained, and thus always continued.