Page:Job and Solomon (1887).djvu/281

is accepted by Kleinert and also by Tyler. The very next verse seems to explain this phrase by (Hebrew characters) (comp. v. 17); certainly the ethical meaning is against the analogy of ii. 24, iii. 22, and similar passages. But should we not, with Grätz and Nowack, correct (Hebrew characters) in iii. 12?

(d) '(Hebrew characters) (v. 19) must mean, God gives him joy of heart. (Hebrew characters) "respondere" seems to have borrowed the meaning "remunerari" from ἀμείβεσθαι, which has both senses. The ancient writer of the book thought thus in Greek, ὅτι θεὸς ἀμείβεται (αὐτὸν) εὐφροσύνῃ τῆς καρδίας.' Zirkel forgets Ps. lxv. 6. See however Delitzsch.

(e) (Hebrew characters) (vi. 9) = ὁρμὴ τῆς ψυχῆς [M. Aurelius iii. 15]. But the phrase is idiomatic Hebrew for 'roving of the desire.'

(f) (Hebrew characters) (vii. 18). 'The Hebrew writer found no other equivalent for μέσμν βαδίζειν.' But unless he borrowed the idea (that of cultivating the mean in moral practice), why should he have tried to express the technical term?

(g) (Hebrew characters) (xii. 13). 'A pure Græcism, τοῦτο παντός ἀνθρώπου.' But how otherwise could the idea of the universal obligation to fear God have been expressed? Comp. the opening words of iii. 19.

To these may be added (h) (Hebrew characters) (vii. 14) = εὐημερία (see however xii. 1); (i) the 'technical term' (Hebrew characters) (i. 13, ii. 3, vii. 25) = σκέπτεσθαι [but good Hebrew for 'to explore']; (k) (Hebrew characters) (viii. 11) = φθέγμα; (l) (Hebrew characters) (ii. 15) = παράδεισος (see above).

No one in our day would dream of accepting these 'Græcisms' in a mass.

Zirkel tried to prove too much, as Grätz himself truly observes. Any peculiar word or construction he set down as un-Hebraic and hurried to explain it by some Greek parallel, ignoring the capacity of development inherent in the Hebrew language. His attempt failed in his own generation. Three recent scholars however (Grätz, Kleinert, and Tyler), have been more or less captivated by his idea, and have proposed some new and some old 'Græcisms' for the acceptance of scholars. To me it seems that, their three or four very disputable words and phrases are not enough. If the author of Koheleth really thought half in Greek, the Greek colouring of the language would surely not have been confined to such a few expressions. If (Hebrew characters) (vii. 24) were really derived from τὸ τί ἐστιν, as Kleinert supposes, should we not meet with it oftener?