548 Luca Mazzinghi the Israelites: “I, I am he that comforts you (μkmjnm)”. Deutero-Isaiah opens, in Isa 40,1, with the double repetition of the verb: “Comfort, comfort my people”; cf., further, Isa 49,13; 51,3; 51,19; 52,9; 54,11 and also Isa 66,13. In all these examples, God himself is presented as the comforter of Israel, thus providing one of the basic themes of the text of Isa 40–55. When, therefore, Qoheleth repeats twice that “there is no comforter”, he is thinking, not so much of the absence of human comforters, but, as in the texts of Lamentations and in polemic with the prophetic vision of Isa 40–55, of the absence of God who is held to be a comforter of the oppressed. It is God, then, who is not open to their appeal (15). This is not the first time that Qoheleth has opposed the prophetic optimism of Isa 40-55; suffice it to think of Qoh 1,9, “there is nothing new under the sun” which, in many ways, constitutes a criticism of the “new thing” announced by Deutero-Isaiah (16). The ancient interpretations of Qoh 4,1 can help us to better understand this text. The LXX respects the Masoretic text sub- stantially; Jerome interprets the passage in a literal sense, without attenuating its scandalous implications, although he does not refer to God the idea of an absent comforter (17). However, the Targum understands the risk of this interpretation and reads Qoh 4,1 in an eschatological key: “And I further observed all the violence which was done to the righteous and how they were oppressed in this world under (15) F. BIANCHI (“‘Essi non hanno chi li consoli’”) is, to my knowledge, the first to defend this thesis convincingly (the study by A. Passaro already cited follows his example); prior to Bianchi, cf. some allusions in E. GLASSER, Le procès du bonheur par Qohélet (LD 61; Paris 1970) 7, and also P. SACCHI, Ecclesiaste (Roma 1971) 153-154 and D’ALARIO, Il libro di Qohelet, 117 (“non è improbabile che Qo ponga qui un problema di teodicea”); many commentators do not take into any account the idea that, in 4,1 Qoheleth is referring to God. (16) Cf., in this connection, L. MAZZINGHI, “Qoheleth and Enochism: a Critical Relationship”, The Origins of Enochic Judaism. Proceedings of the First Enoch Seminar, Univ. of Michigan, Sesto Fiorentino (Italy) June 19-23, 2001; Henoch 24 (2002) 157-168. (17) “Et conversus sum ego, et vidi universas calumnias quae fiunt sub sole et ecce lacrymae eorum qui calumniam sustinent, et non est qui consoletur eos, et in manibus calumniantium eos fortitudo: et non est eis consolator”. Segue alla traduzione il commento di Girolamo: “Et ecce hi, qui injuste a potentitioribus opprimuntur, lacrimis, quas solum habere in calamitatibus licet, rei invidiam protestantes, consolatorem non quaeunt reperire. Et quo maior miseria sit, et inconsolabilis dolor, calumniatores vident in suis iniquitatibus fortiores. Et haec est causa quod non valeant consolari” (Comm. in Eccl., PL 23, 1098).