Page:04.BCOT.KD.PoeticalBooks.vol.4.Writings.djvu/2582

 “teach oneself,” and ēn qētz 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 עשׂות with its object is the subject of the sentence, of which it is said een qeets, it is without end; Hitzig's opinion, that ēn qēts is a virtual adj., as ēn 'avel, Deu 33:4, and the like, and as such the pred. of the substantival sentence. Regarding להג, avidum discendi legendique studium. 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 polupragmosu'nee. 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:

Verse 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 נשׁמע 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 הכּל for כּלּנוּ 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 yemē-olam mosheh, Isa 63:11, 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. נשׁמע, Ewald, §168b, renders as a particip. by audiendum; but