The Book of Ecclesiastes translated by m. G. Easton introduction

Ecc. 12:12.

With veyother mehemmah the postscript takes a new departure, warning against too much reading, and finally pointing once more to the one thing needful: “And besides, my son, be warned: for there is no end of much book-making; and much study is a weariness of the body.” With “my son,” the teacher of wisdom here, as in the Book of Proverbs, addresses the disciple who places himself under his instruction. Hitzig translates, construing mehemmah with hizzaher: “And for the rest: by these (the ‘words of Koheleth,’ v. 10) be informed.” But (1)גזְהַר , according to usage, does not signify in general to be taught, but to be made wiser, warned; particularly the imper. הִזָּהר is cogn. with השָּׁמר (cf. Targ. Jer. Ex. 10:28, אִזְדְּהַר לךְ =השָּׁמֶר לךָ ), and in fact an object of the warning follows; (2) min after yotheÝr is naturally to be regarded as connected with it, and not with hizzaher (cf. Est. 6:6, Sota vii. 7; cf. Psa. 19:12). The punctuation of veyother and mehemmah is thus not to be interfered with. Either heÝmmah points back to divre (v. 11): And as to what goes beyond these (in relation thereto) be warned (Schelling: quidquid ultra haec est, ab iis cave tibi, and thus e.g., Oehler in Herzog’s R. E. vii. 248); or, which is more probable, since the divre are without a fixed beginning, and the difference between true and false “wise men” is not here expressed, hemmah refers back to all that has hitherto been said, and ve yother mehemmah signifies not the result thereof (Ewald, § 285e), but that which remains thereafter: and what is more than that (which has hitherto been said), i.e., what remains to be said after that hitherto said; Lat. et quod superest, quod reliquum est. In 12b, Hitzig also proposes a different interpunction from that which lies before us; but at the same time, in the place of the significant double sentence, he proposes a simple sentence: “to make many books, without end, and much exertion of mind (in making these), is a weariness of the body.” The author thus gives the reason for his writing no more. But with 12:8 he has certainly brought his theme to a close, and he writes no further; because he does not write for hire and without an aim, but for a high end, according to a fixed plan; and whether he will leave off with this his book or not is a matter of perfect indifference to the readers of this one book; and that the writing of many books without end will exhaust a man’s mind and bring down his body, is not that a flat truism? We rather prefer Herzfeld’s translation, which harmonizes with Rashbam’s: “But more than these (the wise men) can teach thee, my son, teach thyself: to make many books there would be no end; and much preaching is fatiguing to the body.” But נזהר cannot mean to “teach oneself,” and eÝn qeÝtz does not mean non esset finis, but non est finis; and for lahach the meaning “to preach” (which Luther also gives to it) is not at all shown from the Arab. lahjat, which signifies the tongue as that which is eager (to learn, etc.), and then also occurs as a choice name for tongues in general. Thus the idea of a double sentence, which is the most natural, is maintained, as the LXX has already rendered it. The n. actionis עשׂוֹת with its object is the subject of the sentence, of which it is said eÝn qeÝts, it is without end; Hitzig’s opinion, that eÝn qeÝts is a virtual adj., as eÝn ÿavel, Deut. 33:4, and the like, and as such the pred. of the substantival sentence. Regardingלהַג , avidum discendi legendique studium, vid., above, p. 639. C. A. Bode (1777) renders well: polygraphiae nullus est finis et polymathia corpus delessat. Against this endless making of books and much study the postscript warns, for it says that this exhausts the bodily strength without (for this is the reverse side of the judgment) truly furthering the mind, which rather becomes decentralized by this πολυπραγμοσύνη. The meaning of the warning accords with the phrase coined by Pliny (Ep. vii. 9), multum non multa. One ought to hold by the “words of the wise,” to which also the “words of Koheleth,” comprehended in the asuppah of the book before us, belong; for all that one can learn by hearing or by reading amounts at last, if we deduct all that is unessential and unenduring, to a unum necessarium:
[[@Bible:Ecclesiastes 12:13]]

Ecc. 12:13.

“The final result, after all is learned, (is this): Fear God and keep His commandments; for this is the end of every man.” Many expositors, as Jerome, the Venet., and Luther, render נשְׁמָע as fut.: The conclusion of the discourse we would all hear (Salomon); or: The conclusion of the whole discourse or matter let us hear (Panzer, 1773, de Wette-Augusti); Hitzig also takes together soph davar hakol = soph davar kol-haddavar: The end of the whole discourse let us hear. But הַכֹל for כֻּלָּנו is contrary to the style of the book; and as a general rule, the author uses הכל for the most part of things, seldom of persons. And also soph davar hakol, which it would be better to explain (“the final word of the whole”), with Ewald, § 291a, after yêmeÝ-olam mosheh, Isa. 63:11 (cf. Proverbs, p. 442, note), than it is explained by Hitzig, although, in spite of Philippi’s (Sta. const. p. 17) doubt, possible in point of style, and also exemplified in the later period of the language (1Ch. 9:13), is yet a stylistic crudeness which the author could have avoided either by writing soph devar hakol, or better, soph kol-haddavar.נשְׁמָע , Ewald, § 168b, renders as a particip. by audiendum; but that also does not commend itself, for נשָמע signifies nothing else than auditum, and acquires the meaning of audiendum when from the empirical matter of fact that which is inwardly necessary is concluded; the translation: The final word of the whole is to be heard, audiendum est, would only be admissible of also the translation auditum est were possible, which is not the case. Is נשְׁמָע thus possibly the pausal form of the finiteנשׁמַע ? We might explain: The end of the matter (summa summarum), all is heard, when, viz., that which follows is heard, which comprehends all that is to be known. Or as Hoelem.: Enough, all is heard, since, viz., that which is given in the book to be learned contains the essence of all true knowledge, viz., the following two fundamental doctrines. This retrospective reference of hakol nishm’a is more natural than the prospective reference; but, on the other hand, it is also more probable that soph davar denotes the final resultat than that it denotes the conclusion of the discourse. The right explanation will be that which combines the retrospective reference of nakol nishm’a and the resultative reference of soph davar. Accordingly, Mendelss. appears to us to be correct when he explains: After thou hast heard all the words of the wise...this is the final result, etc. Finis (summa) rei, omnia audita is = omnibus auditis, for the sentence denoting the conditions remains externally undesignated, in the same way as at 10:14; Deut. 21:1; Ezr. 10:6 (Ewald, § 341b). After the clause, soph...nishm’a, Athnach stands where we put a colon: the mediating hocce est is omitted just as at 7:12b (where translate: yet the preference of knowledge is this, that, etc.).
The sentence, eth-naeolohim yera (“fear God”), repeating itself from 5:6, is the kernel and the star of the whole book, the highest moral demand which mitigates its pessimism and hallows its eudaemonism. The admonition proceeding therefrom, “and keep His commandments,” is included in lishmo’a, 4:17 [5:1], which places the hearing of the divine word, viz., a hearing for the purpose of observing, as the very soul of the worship of God above all the opus operatum of ceremonial services.
The connection of the clause, ki-zeh kol-haadam, Hitzig mediates in an unnecessary, roundabout way: “but not thou alone, but this ought every man.” But why this negative here introduced to stamp כי as an immo establishing it? It is also certainly suitable as the immediate confirmation of the rectitude of the double admonition finally expressing all. The clause has the form of a simple judgment, it is a substantival clause, the briefest expression for the thought which is intended. What is that thought? The LXX renders: ὅτι τοῦτο πᾶς ὁ ἄνθρωπος; also Symm. and the Venet. render kol haadam by πᾶς ὁ ἄνθρ., and an unnamed translator has ὅλος ὁ ἄνθρ., according to which also the translation of Jerome is to be understood, hoc est enim omnis homo. Thus among the moderns, Herzf., Ewald, Elst., and Heiligst.: for that is the whole man, viz., as to his destiny, the end of his existence (cf. as to the subject-matter, Job. 28:28); and v. Hofmann (Schriftbew. II 2, p. 456): this is the whole of man, viz., as Grotius explains: totum hominis bonum; or as Dale and Bullock: “the whole duty of man;” or as Tyler: “the universal law (כל, like the Mishnicכְּלַל ) of man;” or as Hoelem.: that which gives to man for the first time his true and full worth. Knobel also suggests for consideration this rendering: this is the all of man, i.e., on this all with man rests. But against this there is the one fact, that kol-haadam never signifies the whole man, and as little anywhere the whole (the all) of a man. It signifies either “all men” (πάντες οι ἄνθρωποι, οι πα. ἄνθρ. οι ἄνθρ. πα.), as at 7:2, hu soph kol-haadam, or, of the same meaning as kol- haadam, “every man” (πᾶς ἄνθρωπος), as at 3:13; 5:18 (LXX, also 7:2: τοῦτο τέλος παντὸς ἀνθρώπου); and it is yet more than improbable that the common expression, instead of which haadam kullo was available, should here have been used in a sense elsewhere unexampled. Continuing in the track of the usus loq., and particularly of the style of the author, we shall thus have to translate: “for this is every man.” If we use for it: “for this is every man’s,” the clause becomes at once distinct; Zirkel renders kol-haadam as genit., and reckons the expression among the Graecisms of the book: παντὸς ἀνθρώπου, viz., πρᾶγμα. Or if, with Knobel, Hitz., Böttch., and Ginsburg, we might borrow a verb to supplement the preceding imperat.: “for this ought every man to do,” we should also in this way gain the meaning to be expected; but the clause lying before us is certainly a substantival clause, like meh haadam, 2:12, not an elliptical verbal clause, like Isa. 23:5; 26:9, where the verb to be supplied easily unfolds itself from the ל of the end of the movement.
We have here a case which is frequent in the Semitic languages, in which subj. and pred. are connected in the form of a simple judgment, and it is left for the hearer to find out the relation sustained by the pred. to the subj. — e.g., Psa. 110:3; 109:4, “I am prayer;” and in the Book of Koheleth, 3:19, “the children of men are a chance.”¹⁶⁷ In the same way we have here to explain: for that is every man, viz., according to his destiny and duty; excellently, Luther: for that belongs to all men. With right, Hahn, like Bauer (1732), regards the pronoun as pred. (not subj. as at 7:2): “this, i.e., this constituted, that they must do this, are all men,” or rather: this = under obligation thereto, is every man.¹⁶⁸
It is a great thought that is thereby expressed, viz., the reduction of the Israelitish law to its common human essence. This has not escaped the old Jewish teachers. What can this mean: zeh kol-haadam? it is asked, Berachoth 6b; and R. Elazar answers: “The whole world is comprehended therein;” and R. Abba bar-Cahana: “This fundamental law is of the same importance to the universe;” and R. Simeon b. Azzai: “The universe has been created only for the purpose of being commanded this.”¹⁶⁹
[[@Bible:Ecclesiastes 12:14]]