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 (Greek characters)(Transliteration from Greek: ameibesthai), which has both senses. The ancient writer of the
book thought thus in Greek, ((Greek characters)(Transliteration from Greek: auton)) (Greek characters)(Transliteration from Greek: euphrosui â tês
kardias).' Zirkel forgets Ps. lxv. 6. See however Delitzsch.
(e) (Hebrew characters) (vi. 9) = (Greek characters)(Transliteration from Greek: hormê tês psuchês) [M. Aurelius iii. 15]. But
the phrase is idiomatic Hebrew for 'roving of the desire.'
(f) (vii. 18). 'The Hebrew writer found no other
equivalent for (Greek characters)(Transliteration from Greek: mesên badizein).' 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) (xii. 13). 'A pure Græcism, (Greek characters)(Transliteration from Greek: touto pantos
anthrôpou).' 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) (vii. 14) = (Greek characters)(Transliteration from Greek: )euêmeria) (see
however xii. 1); (i) the 'technical term' (i. 13, ii. 3, vii. 25) = [but good Hebrew for 'to explore']; (k) (viii. 11) = (l) (ii. 15) = (Greek characters)(Transliteration from Greek: paradeisos) (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 (vii. 24) were really derived from (Greek characters)(Transliteration from Greek: to ti estin),
as Kleinert supposes, should we not meet with it oftener?
