Page:04.BCOT.KD.PoeticalBooks.vol.4.Writings.djvu/2584

 renders: ὃτι τοῦτο πᾶς ὁ ἄνθρωπος; also Symm. and the Venet. render kol haadam by πᾶς ὁ ἄνθρ., and an unnamed translator has ὃλος 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 Mishnic כּלל) 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 οἱ ἄνθρωποι, οἱ πά ἄνθρ οἱ ἄνθρ πά), as at Ecc 7:2, hu soph kol-haadam, or, of the same meaning as kol-haadam, “every man” (πᾶς ἄντηρωπος), as at Ecc 3:13; Ecc 5:18 (lxx, also Ecc 7:2 : τοῦτο τέλος παντὸς ἀντηρώπου); 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 ἀντηρώπου, Ϛιζ., 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, Ecc 2:12, not an elliptical verbal clause, like Isa 23:5; Isa 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; Psa 109:4, “I am prayer;” and in the Book of Koheleth, Ecc 3:19, “the children of men are a chance.” In the same way we have here to explain: for that is every man,