24 ¶ _There is_ nothing │ There is no real good then to better for a man, _than_ that │ man in eating or drinking, or he should eat and drink, and │ in supposing he will satisfy _that_ he should make his soul │ himself with his toil. Moreover, enjoy good in his labour. This │ I must make this observation, also I saw, that it _was_ from │ that these things are all in the hand of God. │ the hand of the Almighty, (24.) The conclusion of this argument now follows, viz.:――This toil is useless, and the reasoning is set out at length. =There is nothing= of a =good= (not לא here, but אין, the former would be required if the meaning were ‘it is not good that’) =in a man= (_i.e._ as an instance of humanity, and the whole is equivalent to ‘It is not to humanity real good that’) =that he should eat and drink, and show his soul= (_i.e._ himself) =good= (repeated, ‘that good’) =in his toil. Moreover this= (pointed זהֹ, feminine or _neuter_, which the LXX. confirm, τοῦτο) =have I seen,= even =I, now from= the =hand= (but ‘the’ is not emphatic at all, which would have required a different construction) of =the Deity= (on the contrary, ‘the’ is emphatic here, and, as will appear, the use of the article is significant) =it is= (emphatic). 25 For who can eat, or who │ for who could eat or even drink else can hasten _hereunto_, │ apart from Him? more than I? │ (25.) =For= (repeated) =who eats or who= even =drinks= (because drinking is possible when eating is not) =apart from him?= (for we read with the LXX. חוץ ממנו, for clearly this makes good sense, and preserves the real meaning of חוץ, which has the signification of ‘without,’ ‘on the outside,’ Genesis vi. 14, Deuteronomy xxv. 5, references.) The phrase ומי יחוש חוץ ממני requires further elucidation. The reading ממנו, supported by the LXX., is also confirmed by Hebrew MSS. The literal rendering is――‘and who hastens outside him.’ This the LXX. translate καὶ τίς πιέται πάρεξ αὐτοῦ, ‘who drinks,’ etc. There is a reading of A², φείσεται, ‘spares.’ The former is supported by Peshito, Arabic, and Theodotion――the latter by Aquila, Symmachus, and Jerome. If the Greek text alone had to be considered, φείσεται would, as the harder reading, be entitled to the preference. It is readily seen, however, that it arose from a conjectural alteration of the Hebrew text into חוס, for which there is no authority; neither will the meaning to ‘spare’ make any sense in the context. As the root occurs frequently, we are driven to the conclusion that the rendering of the LXX. was by design. Schleusner’s conjecture that πίεται is used in the signification of ‘sensibus frui,’ is no doubt correct――compare Habakkuk i. 8, as also Isaiah xxviii. 16. Considered as _ad sensum_, this rendering gives the idea of the Hebrew text correctly.