Ver. 9. “All that I have seen, and that, too, directing my heart to all the labour that is done under the sun; to the time when a man rules over a man to his hurt.” The relation of the clauses is mistaken by Jerome, Luther, Hengst., Vaih., Ginsburg, and others, who begin a new clause with ΠΡ: “ there is a time,” etc.; and Zockl, who ventures to interpret ‘s) ny as epexegetical of “Ὁ ΤΟ (“ every work that is done under the sun”). The clause fi?) is an adverbial subordinate clause (vid. under iv. 2): εἰ advertendo quidem animum. ny is accus. of time, as at Jer. li. 33; cf. Ps. iv. 8, the relation of ‘eth asher, like © ῬΌ, i. 7, xi. ὃ. All that, viz. the wisdom of patient fidelity to duty, the perniciousness of revolutionary selfishness, and the suddenness with which the judgment comes, he has seen (for he observed the actions done under the sun), with his own eyes, at the time when man ruled over man id y2, not: to his own [the ruler’s] injury (Symm., Jerome), but: to the injury (LXX., Theod., rod κακῶσαι αὐτόν, and thus also the Targ. and Syr.) of this second man; for after ’eth asher, a description and not a judgment was to be expected. The man who rules over man to the hurt of the latter rules as a tyrant; and this whole section, beginning with viii. 1, treats of the right wisdom of life at a time of tyrannical government.
It is with the Righteous as with the Wicked, and with the Wicked as with the Righteous,—it is best to enjoy Life as long as God grants wt, vili. 10-15.
The theme of the following section shows itself by “and then” to be cognate. It is the opposition of the fate of the wicked and of the righteous to the inalienable consciousness of a moral government of the world; this opposition comes forth, under the unhappy tyrannical government of which the foregoing section treats, as a prominent phenomenon.
Ver. 10. “And then I have seen the wicked buried, and they came to rest; but away from the holy place they had to depart, and were forgotten in the city, such as acted justly: also this is vain.” The double particle j23 signifies, in such a manner, or under such circumstances; with “I have seen” following, it may introduce an observation coming under that which precedes (j233 = Mishnic 723), or, with the force of the Lat. inde, introduce a further observation of that ruler; this temporal signification “then” (= 18), according to which we have translated, it has in the Targ. (vid. Levy's W. B.)! Apparently the observation has two different classes of men in view, and refers to their fate, contradicting, according to appearance, the rectitude of God. Opposite to the (“the wicked”) stand they who are described as 13) WN: they who have practised what is rightly directed, what stands in a right relation (vid. regarding 13, as noun, under Prov. xi. 19), have brought.the morally right into practice, ae. have acted with fidelity and honour (13 ΠΝ, as at 2 Kings vil. 9). Koheleth has seen the wicked buried; mx is followed by the particip. as predic. obj.,as is pov, vii. 21; but D°S3? 15 not followed by O'N2 (which, besides not being distinct enough as part. perfect, would be, as at Neh. xiii. 22, part. praes.), but, according to the favourite transition of the particip. into the finite, Gesen. § 134. 2, by 3, not XN; for the disjunctive Rebfa has the fuller form with
1; οὗ Isa. xlv. 20 with Job xvii. 10, and above, at ii 23. “To enter in” is here, after Isa, xlvii. 2,= to enter into peace, come to rest. That what follows ‘po does not relate to the wicked, has been mistaken by the LXX., Aquila, Symm., Theod., and Jerome, who translate by ἐπῃνήθησαν, laudabantur, and thus read wane (the Hithpa., Ps. evi. 47, in the pass. sense), a word which is used in the Talm. and Midrash along with wone.? The latter, testified to by the Targ. and Syr., is without doubt the correct reading: the structure of the antithetical parallel members is chiastic; the naming of the persons in laa precedes that which is declared, and in laf it follows it; cf. Ps. lxx. 5b, lxxv. 94. The fut. forms here gain, by the retrospective perfects going before, a past signification. ἪΡ ‘Po, “the place of the holy,” is equivalent to ὉΔῚ O19, as also at Lev. vii. 6. Ewald understands by it the place of burial: “the upright were driven away (cast out) from the holy place of graves.” Thus eg. also Zéckl, who renders: but wandered far from the place of the holy... those who did righteously, ἐμ. they had to be buried in graves neither holy nor honourable. But this form of expression is not found among the many designations of a burial-place used by the Jews (vid. below, xii. δ, and Hamburger’s Real-Encykd. fir Bibel u. Talm., article “Grab”), God’s-acre is called the “ good place,”” but not the “ holy place.” The “holy place,” if not Jerusalem itself, which is called by Isaiah II. (xlviii. 2), Neh., and Dan., 'ir haggodesh (as now el-kuds), is the holy ground of the temple of God, the τόπος ἅγιος (Matt. xxiv. 15), as Aquila and Symm. translate. If, now, we find min connected with the verb Aalak, it is to be presupposed that the min designates the point of departure, as also 7e7, Isa. xiv. 19. Thus not: to wander far from the holy place; nor as Hitz, who points 257: they pass away (perish) far from the holy place. The subject is the being driven away from the holy place, but not as if ὅπ were causative, in the sense of Ὁ", and meant ¢iciunt, with an indef. subj. (Ewald, Heiligst., Elst.),—it is also, iv. 15, xi. 9, only the intens. of Kal—but ‘>™ denotes, after Ps. xxxviii. 7, Job xxx. 28, οἵ. xxiv. 10, the meditative, dull, slow walk of those who are compelled
3 The Midrash Tanchuma, Par. y7n, init., uses both expressions; the Talm. Gittin 56), applies the passage to Titus, who took away the furniture of the temple to magnify himself therewith in his city.
against their will to depart from the place which they love (Ps. xxvi. 8, Ixxxiv, 2 ff). They must go forth (whither, is not said, but probably into a foreign country; οἵ, Amos vii. 17), and only too soon are they forgotten in the city, viz. the holy city; a younger generation knows nothing more of them, and not even a gravestone brings them back to the memory of their people. Also this is a vanity, like the many others already registered—this, viz., that the wicked while living, and also in their death, possess the sacred native soil; while, on the contrary, the upright are constrained to depart from it, and are soon forgotten. Divine rectitude is herein missed. Certainly it exists, and is also recognised, but it does not show itself always when we should expect it, nor so soon as appears to us to be salutary.
Ver. 11. “Because judgment against the work of the wicked man is not speedily executed, for this reason the heart of the children of men is full within them, to this, that they do evil.” The clause with asher is connected first with the foregoing gam-zeh havel: thus vain, after the nature of a perverted world (inversus ordo), events go on, because... (asher, as at iv. 3, vi. 120; cf. Deut. iii. 24); but the following clause with ’al-ken makes this clause with asher reflex. an antecedent of itself (asher =’al-asher)—originally it is not meant as an antecedent. 0305+ (here to be written after ΠΟ, with © raph., and, besides, also with 2 raph.), in the postexilian books, is the Persian paigam, Armen. patgam, which is derived from the ancient Pers. paiti-gama: “Something that has happened, tidings, news.” The Heb. has adopted the word in the general sense of “sentence;” in the passage before us it signifies the saying or sentence of the judge, as the Pers. word, like the Arab. naban, is used principally of the sayings of a prophet (who is called peaghdmbar). Zirkel regards it as the Greek φθέγμα; but thus, also, the words ODI, WMEN strangely agree in sound with σμέλη, φορεῖον, without being borrowed from the Greek. The long a of the word is, as Elst. shows, i. 20, invariable; also here 53nB is the constr. To point 23n5, with Heiligst. and Burg., is thus unwarrantable. It is more remarkable that the word is construed fem. instead of mas. For since "δὲ is construed? neither in the bibl. nor in the Mishnic
* Ginsburg points in favour of myys as fin. to Ex. iii. 2, but there ODN is particip.; to Jer. xxxviii. 5, but there Soy (if it is not to be read 55») represents an attributive clause; and to Job xxxv. 15, but there the word is rightly pointed PR, Dot PR; and this, like the yulg. Arab. /aysa, is used as an emphatic x.
style with the finite of the verb, ΠΕΡῚ is not the 3d pret., but the particip. It is not, however, necessary, with Hitz, to read Mey. The foreign word, like the (Arab.) firdans, παράδεισος, admits of use in the double gend. (Ewald, § 174g); but it is also possible that the fem, Mew is per. attract. occasioned by T¥Y}, a8 Kimchi, Michlol 10a, supposes (cf. besides, under x. 15). neyo is const. governed by phithgam, and hara'ah is thus obj. gen. The LXX., Syr., and Jerome read ‘V0, which would be possible only if phithgam min—after the analogy of the Heb.-Aram. phrase, miphra’ (‘ithp*ra’) min, to take one’s due of any one, tz. to take vengeance on him, to punish him could mean the full execution of punishment on any one; but it means here, as Jerome rightly translates, sententia; impossible, however, with méose hara’ah, sententia contra malos. Hengst. supposes that not only the traditional text, but also the accentuation, is correct, for he construes: because a sentence (of the heavenly Judge) is not executed, the work of wickedness is haste, ἐς. speedy.
The LXX. well renders: “Therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully persuaded in to do evil;” for which Jerome, freely, after Symm.: absque timore ullo filti hominum perpetrant mala. The heart of one becomes full to do anything, is = it acquires full courage thereto (Luzzatto, § 590: gli bast) Tanimo; ef. Esth. vii. δ: “ Where is he who has his heart filled to do?” (thus rightly, Keil), ie whom it has encouraged to so bold an undertaking. ὈΠ5 in evil. The author confirms this further, but not without expressing his own conviction that there is a righteous requital which contradicts this appearance.
Vers. 12, 13. “ Because a sinner doeth evil an hundred times, and he becometh old therein, although 1 know that it will go well with them that fear God, that fear before Him: but it will not go well with the wicked, and he shall not live long, like a shadow; because he feareth ‘not before God.” Ewald (whom Heiligst., Elst., and Zéckl follow), as among the ancients, ἐφ. Mendelssohn, translates ver. 12: “ Though a sinner do evil an hundred times, and live long, yet I know,” etc. That an antecedent may begin with asher is admissible, Lev. iv. 22, Deut. xviii. 22; but in the case lying before us, still less acceptable than at ver. 11. For, in the first place, this asher of the antecedent cannot mean “although,” but only “ considering that;” and in places such as vi. 3, where this “ considering that” may be exchanged with “although,” there follows not the part., but the fut. natural to the concessive clause; then, in the second place, by this antecedent rendering of asher a closer connection of 12a and 12 is indeed gained, but the mediation of ver. 12 and ver. 11 is lost; in the third place, D3 ‘5, in the meaning “ however” (gam, ὅμως, with affirmative ἀῶ, is not found; not asher, but just this ki gam," signifies, in the passage before us, as at iv. 14, εἰ καί, although,—only a somewhat otherwise applied gam ki, Ewald, § 362d, as 75» 5 is a somewhat otherwise applied "5 ‘o-by, Rightly, Hitzig: “In 12a, 1la is again resumed, and it is explained how tardy justice has such a consequence.” The sinner is thereby encouraged in sinning, because he does evil, and always again evil, and yet enjoys himself in all the pleasures of long life. Regarding SBN for XM, vid. above, p. 197, 1. AX is = OOP AND, an hundred times, as NOX, Job xl. 5, is =nnx oyp; Hengst. and others, inexactly: an hundredfold, which would have required the word ΘΠ; and falsely, Ginsburg, with the Targ.: an hundred years, which would have required MND, scil, 72¥, Gen. xvii. 17. This centics (Jerome) is, like M89, βοΐ, D3, vi. 3, a round number for a great many, as at Prov. xvii. 10, and frequently in the Talm. and Midrash, eg. Wajikra rabba, c. 27: “an hundred deeply-breathed sighs (ΠΝ mys) the mother gave forth.”* The meaning of ὃ JINN is in general clear: he becomes therein old. Jerome, improbable: et per patientiam sustentatur, as Mendelssohn: he experiences forbearance, for they supply ies (Isa. xlviii. 9), and make God the subject. > is in any case the so-called dat. ethic.; and the only question is, whether the doing of evil has to be taken from ¥) TW,” as obj. to ‘Nbr: he practises it to him long, or whether, which is more probable, 0°? is
1 That 3 is not pointed p3, has its reason in the disjunctive Jethib with ‘5, which is not interchanged with the conjunctive Makpach. Thus, viii. 1, 3 "2, and viii. 7, 3 2.
conceal from himself; although, on the other hand, as by way of go well; but there is no reason not to interpret the fut. as a pure indic.: that it shall go well, viz. finally—it is a postulate of his consciousness which the author here expresses; that which exists in appearance contradicts this consciousness, which, however, in spite of this, asserts itself, That to #7 ‘> the clause ‘JO πεῖ, explai idem per idem, is added, has certainly its reason in this, that at the
God. Nothing can in point of syntax be said against this (cf. 1 Chron. xxix. 15), although "¥* 2, “like the shadow is he who,” is in point of style awkward. But that the author did not use 80 rude a style is manifest from vii 12, according to which 72 is rightly referred to ὩΣ... τῶν. Is then the shadow, asks Hitzig, because it does not “ prolong its days,” therefore ©) Ἣ t How subtle and literal is this use of oD! Certainly the shadow sur- a single day. In general, ¢‘tsel, ὡς σκιά, is applicable to the life of all men, Ps. exliv. 4, Wisd. ii. 5, ete. It is true of the wicked, if
13d, as at lla, 12a, is the relative conj. Also in ver. 14, Wwe (Ὁ) as a pronoun, and Wwe (0) as a conj., are mixed together.
ticularly of his own consciousness, he places over against this fact ii, 12), so with Mercha sometimes also before other disjunctives, as bere before Tebir.
of consciousness the actual state of things partly at least contradicting it.
Ver. 14. “ There is a vanity which is done on the earth; that there be just men, to whom it happeneth according to the conduct of the wicked; and that there be wicked men, to whom it happeneth according to the conduct of the righteous—I said, that also this is vain.” The limiting clause with ki gam, 120, 13, is subordinated to the observation specified in vers. 10—12a, and the confirmation of it is continued here in ver. 14. Regarding 3°37, to happen, vid. above, p. 193, under 933. Jerome translates ‘13 5 by quasi opera egerint impiorum, and ὙΠ 'D2 by quasi justorwm facta habeant; instar operis..- would be better, such as is conformable to the mode of acting of the one and of the other; for> is in the Semitic style of speech a nomen, Which annexes to itself the word that follows it in the genitive, and runs through all the relations of case. This contradictory distribution of destiny deceives, misleads, and causes to err; it belongs to the illusory shadowy side of this present life, it is a hevel. Theconcluding clause of this verse: “ I said, that alsc this is vain,” begins to draw the facit from the observation, and is continued in the verse following.
Ver. 15. “ And I commended joy, that there is nothing better for a man under the sun than to eat and drink and enjoy himself; and that this accompanies him in his labour throughout all the days of his life, which God hath given him under the sun.” We already read the wltimatum, 15a, in a similar form at ii. 24, iii. 12, 22; οἵ v.17. With ' 839 either begins a new clause, and the fut. is then jussive: “let this accompany him,” or it is subordinate to the foregoing infinitives, and the fut. is then subjunctive: οὐ ut wd eum comitetur. The LXX. and other Greeks translate less appropriately indicat.: καὶ αὐτὸ συμπροσέσται αὐτῷ: Thus also Ewald, Hengst., Zockl., and others: and this clings to him, which, however, would rather be expressed by 1 jin’ 81M or ipon “ἢ, ~The verb md (R. %, to twist, to bend) does not mean to cling to = to remain, but to adhere to, to follow, to accompany; cf. under Gen. xviii. 16. The possibility of the meaning, “to accompany,” for the Kal, is supported by the derivatives 7 and °> (particularly D712 MN}, convoy of the dead); the verb, however, in this signification extra-bibl. is found only in Pih. and Hiph.*
Like the distributions of destiny, so also labour and toil here below appear to the author to be on all sides an inextricable series of mysteries, Far from drawing atheistical conclusions therefrom, he sees in all that is done, viewed in its last causality, the work of God, ie. the carrying out into execution of a divine law, the accomplishment of a divine plan. But this work of God, in spite of all the future. ‘Treating of this inexplicable difficulty, the words here used by the author himself are also hard to be understood.
Vers. 16, 17. “ When I gave my heart to know wisdom, and to view the business which is done on the earth (for neither day nor night doth he see sleep with his eyes): then have I seen all the work of God, that a man is unable to find out the work which is done under the sun: therefore that a man wearieth himself to seek out, and yet findeth not; and although a wise man taketh in hand to k 1ow,—he is unable to find.” A long period without a premeditater plan has here formed itself under the hand of the author, As it lics before us, it is halved by the ταῦ in v‘raithi (“ then I have seen”); the principal clause, introduced by “when I gave,” can nowhere otherwise begin than here; but it is not indicated by the syntactical structure. Yet in Chron. and Neh. apodoses of 7x3 begin with the second consec. modus, ¢g. 1 Chron. xvii 1, Neh. iv. 1, and frequently; but the author here uses this modus only rarely, and not (vid. iv. 1, 7) as asign of an apodosis.
We consider, first, the protasis, with the parenthesis in which τὸ terminates. The phrase > ὥσττας 7, to direct the heart, to give attention and effort toward something, we have now frequently met with from i 13 down. The aim is here twofold: (1) “to know wisdom” (cf. i 17), ie. to gain the knowledge of that which is wisdom, and which is to be regarded as wisdom, viz. solid knowledge regarding the essence, causes, and objects of things; (2) by such knowledge about that which wisdom is in itself “ to see earthly labour,” ‘and—this arises from the combination of the two resolutions —to comprehend this labour in accordance with the claims of true wisdom from the point of view of its last ground and aim. Regarding "inyan, vid. under iii. 10. “On the earth” and “ under the sun” are parallel designations of this world.
With ὍΣ 3 begins a parenthetical clause. Ki may also, it is true, be rendered as at 17a: the labour on the earth, that he, etc. (ZéckL); but this restlessness, almost renouncing sleep, is thereby pressed too much into the foreground as the special obj. of the r*uth (therefore Ginsburg introduces “how that”); thus better to render this clause with ki gam, as establishing the fact that there is ‘inyan, self-tormenting, restless labour on the earth. Thus also 2S is easier explained, which scarcely goes back to léadam, 15a (Hitz..), but shows that the author, by ’inyan, has specially men in view.
Ὥς, 023 18 το 3 od “2 Oy: as well by day as by night, with the negat. following (cf. Num. xxiii. 25; Isa. xlviii. 8): neither by day nor by night; not only by day, but also in the night, not. “To see sleep” is a phrase occurring only here; cf. Terence, Heautontin. iii. 1. 82, Somnum herele ego hac nocte oculis non vidi meis, for which we use the expression: “In this whole night my eyes have seen no sleep.” The not wishing to sleep, and not being able to sleep, is such an hyperbole, carrying its limitation in itself, as is found in Cicero (ad Famil. vii. 30): Fuit mirifica vigilantia, qui toto suo consulatu somnum non vidit.
With ‘», “ Then I have seen,” begins the apodosis: vidi totum Dei opus non posse hominem assequi. As at ii. 240, the author places the obj. in the foreground, and lets the pred. with ii follow (for other examples of this so-called antiposis, vid. under Gen. i. 4). He sees in the labour here below one side of God’s work carrying itself forward amid this restless confusion, and sets forth this work of God, as at iii. 11 (but where the connection of the thoughts is different), as an object of knowledge remaining beyond the reach of man. He cannot come to it, or, as Ny properly means, he reaches not to it, therefore “that a man wearies himself to seek, and yet finds not,” ze. that the search on the part of a man with all his endeavours comes not to its aim. ‘wx $22 [Ewald’s emendation, instead of the words of the text before us]: for all this, that quantumcunque (Ewald, ὃ 362c), which seems to have been approved of by the LXX., Syr., and Jerome, is rightly rejected by Hitzig; b‘shel asher is Heb., exactly equivalent to Aram. Ἢ 72, e.g. Gen. Vi. 3; and is rightly glossed by Rashi, Kimchi, Ifichlol 470, by ¥ 2203 and ¥ 323. The accent dividing the verse stands on yim‘tsa, for to this word extends the first half of the apodosis, with v’gam begins the second. Gam im is=ei καί, as gam hi is=€av καί, “ON 1S to be understood after ‘nx ‘px, vil. 23: also if (although) the wise man resolves to know, he cannot reach that which is to be known. The characteristic mark of the wise man is thus not so much the possession as the striving after it. He strives after knowledge, but the highest problems remain unsolved by him, and his ideal of knowledge unrealized.
The Power of Fate, and the best possible Thing for Man in his Want of Freedom, ix. 1-12.
He cannot attain unto it, for to the thoughts as well as to the acts of man God has put a limit.
ix. 1. “For all this I brought to my consciousness, and all this I sought to make clear to me, that the righteous, and the wise, and their deeds, are in God's hands: neither love nor hatred stands in the knowledge of man, all lies before them.” With si follows the verification of what is said in viii. 17), “is unable to find out,” from the fact of men, even the best and the wisest of men, being on all sides conditioned. This conditioning is a fact which he layeth to his heart (vii. 2), or (since he here presents himself less as a feeling than as a thinking man, and the heart as reflecting) which he has brought to his consciousness, and which he has sought to bring out into clearness. 2% has here not the force of an inf. absol., so that it subordinates itself in an adverbial manner (ct ventilando quidem)— for it nowhere stands in the same rank with the inj. absol.; but the inf. with > (>) has the force of an intentional (with a tendency) fut., since the governing ΤΠ, as at ii, 15a, M9, and at Hab. i. 17), mm, is to be supplied (vid. comm. on these passages, and under Isa. xliv. 14): operam dedi ut ventilarem (exeuterem), or shorter: ventilaturus fui. Regarding the form 23, which is metapl. for 129, and the double idea of sifting (particularly winnowing, ventilare) of the R. 13, vid. under iii, 18. In the post-bibl. Heb. the words ‘ropn? ya Sy would denote the very same as is here expressed by the brief significant word 29; a matter in the clearness of its actual condition is called yma Sy 127 (from ‘72, after the form ὅπ, purity, vid. Buxtorf’s Lex. Talm. col. 366). The LXX. and Syr. have read me *3 instead of nah, apparently because they could not see their way with it: “ And my heart has seen all this.” The expression “all this” refers both times to what follows; asher is, as at viii. 12, relat. conj., in the sense of ὅτε, quod, and introduces, as at vii. 29, cf. viii. 14, the unfolding of the ™,—an unfolding, viz., of the conditioning of man, which viii. 17 declared on one side of it, and whose further verification is here placed in view with fi, la. The righteous, and the wise, and their doings, are in God’s hand, i.e. power (Ps. xxxi. 16; Prov. xxi. 1; Job xii. 10, etc.); as well their persons as their actions, in respect of their last cause, are conditioned by God, the Governor of the world and the Former of history; also the righteous and the wise learn to feel this dependence, not only in their being and in what befalls them, but also in their conduct; also this is not fully attained, ox dv, they are also therein not sufficient of themselves. Revardine ‘avadéhém, corresponding to the Aram. ‘ovadehon, vid. ’avad, δῇ 194.
The expression now following cannot mean that man does not know whether he will experience the love or hatred of God, we. providences of a happy nature proceeding from the love of God, or of an unhappy nature proceeding from the hatred of God (J. D. Michaelis, Knobel, Vaih., Hengst., Zickl.), for MIAN and “Ὁ are too general for this,—man is thus, as the expression denotes, not the obj., but the subj. to both. Rightly, Hitz., as also Ewald: “Since man has not his actions in his own power, he knows not whether he will love or hate.” Certainly this sounds deterministic; but is it not true that personal sympathies and antipathies, from which love and hatred unfold themselves, come within the sphere of man, not only as to their objects, in consequence of the divine arrangement, but also in themselves anticipate the knowledge and the will of man? and is it less true that the love which he now cherishes toward another man changes itself, without his previous knowledge, by means of unexpected causes, into hatred, and, on the other hand, the hatred into love? Neither love nor hatred is the product of a man’s self-determination; but self-determination, and with it the function of freedom, begins for the first time over against those already present, in their beginnings. In ἜΡ pdm, “ by all that is before him,” that is brought to a general expression, in which BD has not the ethical meaning proceeding from the local: before them, prae = penes eos (vid. Song, under viii. 12a), but the purely local meaning, and referred to time: love, hatred, and generally all things, stand before man; God causes them to meet him (cf. the use of 17); they belong to the future, which is beyond his power. Thus the Targ., Symm., and most modern interpreters; on the contrary, Luther: “ neither the love nor the hatred of any one which he has for himself,’ which is, linguistically, purely impossible; Kleinert: “ Neither the love nor the hatred of things does man see through, nor anything else which is before his eyes,” for which we ought at least to have had the words y2pd ἭΝ San ὩΣ; and Tyler: “Men discern neither love nor hatred in all that is before them,” as if the text were wx S52. The future can, it is true, be designated by MNS, and the past by Ὁ, but - according to the most natural way of representation (vid. Orelli’s Synon. der Zeit, p. 14) the future is that which lies before a man, and the past that which is behind him. The question is of importance, which of the two words ΒΡ 59m has the accent. If the accent be on ἜΡ, then the meaning is, that all lies before men deprived of their freedom; if the accent be on 527, then the meaning is, that all things, events of all kinds, lie before them, and that God determines which shall happen to them. The latter is more accordant with the order of words lying before us, and shows itself to be that which is intended by the further progress of the thoughts. Every possible thing may befall a man—what actually meets him is the determination and providence of God. The determination is not according to the moral condition of a man, so that the one can guide to no certain conclusion as to the other.
Ver. 2. “All is the same which comes to all: one event happens to the righteous and the wicked, to the good and the pure and the impure; to him that sacrificeth, and to him that sacrificeth not: as with the good, so is it with the sinner; with him that sweareth, as with him that feareth an oath.” Hitzig translates: “All are alike, one fate comes on all,” adding the remark, that to make ἽΠΝ ΠΡΌ at the same time pred. to $27 and subj. to 525 ἼΦΜΘ was, for the punctator, too much. This translation is indeed in matter, as well as in point of syntax, difficult to be comprehended. Rather, with Ewald, translate: All is as if all had one fate (death); but why then this useless Aevel haasher, only darkening the thought? But certainly, since in 523" the past is again resumed, it is to be supposed that it does not mean personally, omnes, but neut., omnia; and 525, on the contrary, manifestly refers (as at x. 3) to persons. Herein agreeing with Ewald, and, besides, with Knobel, Zéckl, and others, we accept the interpunction as it lies before us. The apparently meaningless clause, omnia sicut omnibus, gives, if we separate sicut into sic and wt, the brief but pregnant thought: All is (thus) as it happens to all, ie. there is no distinction of their experiences nor of their persons; all of every sort happens in the same way to all men of every sort. The thought, written in cyphers in this manner, is then illustrated; the lameds following leave no doubt as to the meaning of $2, Men are classified according to their different kinds. The good and the pure stand opposite the impure; RODD is thus the defiled, Hos. v. 3, ef. Ezek. xxxvi. 25, in body and soul. That the author has here in his mind the precepts of the law regarding the pure and the impure, is to be concluded from the following contrast: he who offers sacrifice, and he who does not offer sacrifice, {κα he who not only does not bring free-will offerings, but not even the sacrifices that are obligatory. Finally, he who swears, and he who is afraid of an oath, are distinguished. Thus, Zech. v. 3, he who
1 The LXX., Syr., and Aq. have read together the end of ver. 1 and the beginning of ver. 2. Here Jerome also is dependent on this mode of reading: sed omnia in futurum servantur incerta (537).
swears stands along with him who steals. In itself, certainly, swearing an oath is not a sin; in certain circumstances (vid. viii. 2) it 18 a necessary, solemn act (Isa. Ixv. 16). But here, in the passage from Zechariah, swearing of an unrighteous kind is meant, te. wanton swearing, a calling upon God when it is not necessary, and, it may be, even to confirm an untruth, Ex. xx. 7. Compare Matt. v.34. The order of the words "Ὁ ‘IY (cf. as to the expression, the Mishnic SOM 8%) is as at Nah. iii. 1; Isa. xxii, 2; ef. above, v. 8. One event befalls all these men of different characters, by which here not death exclusively is meant (as at iii. 19, ii. 14), but this only chiefly as the same end of these experiences which are not determined according to the moral condition of men. In the expression of the equality, there is an example of stylistic refinement in a threefold change; ‘M3 362 denotes that the experience of the good is the experience of the sinner, and may be translated, “ wie der Gute so der Siinder” [as the good, so the sinner], as well as “so der Gute wie der Siinder” [so the good as the sinner] (cf. Kohler, under Hag. ii. 3). This sameness of fate, in which we perceive the want of the inter-connection of the physical and moral order of the world, is in itself and in its influence an evil matter.
Ver. 3. “This is an evil in all that is done under the sun, that one event happeneth to all: and also the heart of the children of men is full of evil; and madness possesseth their heart during their life, and after it they go to the dead.” As 7m, 1a, points to the asher following, in which it unfolds itself, so here to the kz following. We do not translate: This is the worst thing (Jerome: hoc est pessimum), which, after Josh. xiv. 15, Judg. vi. 15, Song 1. 8, would have required the words 232 yx1—the author does not designate the equality of fate as the greatest evil, but as an evil mixed with all earthly events. It is an evil in itself, as being a contradiction to the moral order of the world; and it is such also on account of its demoralizing influences. The author here repeats what he had already, viii. 11, said in a more special reference, that because evil is not in this world visibly punished, men become confident and bold in sinning. V%gam (referable to the whole clause, at the beginning of which it is placed) stands beside χοῦ ra’, connecting with that which is evil in itself its evil influences. 2 might be an adj., for this (only once, Jer. vi. 11), like the verb, is connected with the accus, eg. Deut. xxxiii. 23. But, since not a statement but a factum had to be uttered, it is finite, as at viil. 11. Thus Jerome, after Symm.: sed et cor filiorum hominum repletur mealiticr et procacitate juxta cor eorum in vita sua, Keeping out of view the false sed, this translation corresponds to the accenting which gives the conjunctive Kadma to ¥}. But without doubt an independent substantival clause begins with ‘i: and madness is in their heart themselves up to evil, and revelled in fleshly lusts with security, go the way of all flesh, as do the righteous, and the wise, and just, because they know that they go beyond all restraining bounds. Most modern interpreters (Hitz, Ew., ete) render aharav, after Jer. li. 46, adverbially, with the suffix understood neut.: afterwards (Jerome, post haec). But at iii, 22, vi. 12, vii. 14, the suffix refers to man: after him, him who liveth here = after he has laid down his life. Why should it not be thus understood also here? It is true "72 precedes it; but in the reverse way, sing. and plur. also interchange in ver. 1; cf. iii. 12. Rightly the Targ., as with Kleinert and others, we also explain: after their (his) lifetime. A man’s life finally falls into the past, it lies behind him, and he goes forth to the dead; and along with self-consciousness, all the pleasures and joy of life at the same time come to an end.
Ver. 4. “For (to him) who shall be always joined to all the living, there is hope: for even a living dog is better than a dead lion.” The interrog. "2% Ὅ, quis est qui, acquires the force of a relative, quisquis (quicungue), and may be interpreted, Ex. xxxii. 33, 2 Sam. xx. 12, just as here (cf. the simple mi, v. 9), in both ways; particularly the latter passage (2 Sam. xx. 11) is also analogous to the one before us in the formation of the apodosis. The Chethtb »n> does not admit of any tenable meaning. In conformity with the usus log., Elster reads "12" WW Ὅ, “ who has a choice?” But this rendering has no connection with what follows; the sequence of thoughts fails. Most interpreters, in opposition to the usus /og., by pointing 73) or nz’, render: Who is (more correctly: will be) excepted? or also: Who is it that is to be preferred (the living or the dead)? The verb ὙΠ signifies to choose, to select; and the choice may be connected with an exception, a preference; but in itself the verb means neither excipere nor pracferre.’ All the old translators, with right, follow the Keri, and the Syr. renders it correctly, word for word: to every one who is joined (amv, Aram. = Heb. 727) to all the living there is
: Luther translates, “for to all the living there is that which is desired, namely, hope,” as if the text were ἽΠ2" WW ΠΌ.
hope; and this translation is more probable than that on which Symm. (“who shall always continue to live?”) and Jerome (nemo est que semper vivat et qui hujus rei habeat Jiduciam) proceed: Who is he that is joined to the whole? 1.6. to the absolute life; or as Hitzig: Who is he who would join himself to all the living (like the saying, “The everlasting Jew”)? The expression 123 & does not connect itself so easily and directly with these two latter renderings as with that we have adopted, in which, as also in the other two, a different accentuation of the half-verse is to be adopted as follows:
fimea wh Bunnbarbye nam swig 9B 5 The accentuation lying before us in the text, which gives a great disjunctive to “Az as well as to ‘Ni, appears to warrant the Chethtb (cf. Hitzig under Ezek. xxii. 24), by which it is possible to interpret “2... Ὁ as in itself an interrog. clause. The Kert 'M’ does not admit of this, for Dachselt’s quis associabit se (sc. mortwis?= nemo socius mortuorum fiert vult) is a linguistic impossibility; the reflex may be used for the pass., but not the pass. for the reflex., which is also an argument against Ewald’s translation: Who is joined to the living has hope. Also the Targ. and Rashi, although explaining according to the Midrash, cannot forbear connecting ‘nn-bs 5x with 'n, and thus dividing the verse at 'N7 instead of at'n’. It is not, however, to be supposed that the accentuation refers to the Chethtb; it proceeds on some interpretation, contrary to the connection, such as this: he who is received into God’s fellowship has to hope for the full life (in eternity). The true meaning, according to the connection, is this: that whoever (qguicungue) is only always joined (whether by birth or the preservation of life) to all the living, 1.6. to living beings, be they who they may, has full confidence, hope, and joy; for in respect to a living dog, this is even better than a dead lion. Symmachus translates: κυνὶ ζῶντι βέλτιόν ἐστιν ἢ λέοντι τεθνηκότι, which Rosenm., Herzf., and Griitz approve of. But apart from the obliquity of the comparison, that with a living dog it is better than with a dead lion, since with the latter is neither good nor evil (wid. however, vi. 50), for such a meaning the words ought to have been: chélév hai tov lo min ha aryéh hammeth.
As the verifying clause stands before us, it is connected not with ‘2 &, but with ‘nba DN, of that which is to be verified; the. gives emphatic prominence (Ewald, § 3100) to the subject, to which the expression refers as at Ps. lxxxix. 19, 2 Chron. vii. 21 (cf. Jer. xviii. 16), Isa. xxxii. 1: A living dog is better than a dead lion, ae. it is better to be a dog which lives, than that lion which is dead. The dog, which occurs in the Holy Scriptures only in relation to a shepherd’s dog (Job xxx. 1), and as for the rest, appears as a voracious filthy beast, roaming about without a master, is the proverbial emblem of that which is common, or low, or contemptible, 1 Sam. xvii. 43; cf “dog's head,” 2 Sam. iii. 8; “dead dog,” 1 Sam. xxiv. 15; 2 Sam. ix. 8, xvi. 9. The lion, on the other hand, is the king, or, as Agur (Prov. Xxx. 30) calls it, the hero among beasts. But if it be dead, then all is over with its dignity and its strength; the existence of a living dog is to be preferred to that of the dead lion. The art. in ΘΠ ἘΠ is not that denoting species (Dale), which is excluded by hamméth, but it points to the carcase of a lion which is present. The author, who elsewhere prefers death and nonentity to life, iv. 2 f., vii. 1, appears to have fallen into contradiction with himself; but there he views life pessimistically in its, for the most part, unhappy experiences, while here he regards it in itself as a good affording the possibility of enjoyment. It lies, however, in the nature of his standpoint that he should not be able to find the right medium between the sorrow of the world and the pleasure of life. Although postulating a retribution in eternity, yet in his thoughts about the future he does not rise above the comfortless idea of Hades.
Vers. 5, 6. He sarcastically verifies his comparison in favour of a living dog. “ For the living know that they shall die; but the dead know not anything, and have no more ἃ reward; for their memory is forgotten. Their love, as well as their hatred and their envy, has long ago perished, and they have part no more for ever in all that is done under the sun.” The description of the condition of death begins sarcastically and then becomes elegiac. “They have no reward further,” viz. in this upper world, since there it is only too soon forgotten that they once existed, and that they did anything worthy of being remembered; Koheleth might here indeed, with his view shrouded in dark clouds, even suppose that God also forgot them, Job xiv. 13. The suff. of ‘37, etc, present themselves as subjective, and there is no reason, with Knobel and Ginsburg, to render them objectively: not merely the objects of their love, and hatred, and envy, are lost to them, but these their affections and strivings themselves have ceased (Rosenm., Hitzig, Zockl., and for the dead have no part more in the history which is unfolding itself amid the light of the upper world, and they can have no more any part therein, for the dead as not living are not only without knowledge, but also without feeling and desire. The representation of the state after death is here more comfortless than anywhere else. Ε or elsewhere we read that those who have been living here spend in Sheol, i.e. in the deep (R. δ, to be loose, to hang down, to go downwards) realm of the dead, as r‘phdim (Isa. xiv. 9, etc.), lying beneath the upper world, far from the love and the praise of God (Ps. vi. 3, xxx. 10), a prospectless (Job vii. 7f, xiy. 6-12; Ps. Ixxxvili. 11-13), dark, shadowy existence; the soul in Hades, though neither annihilated nor sleeping, finds itself in a state of death no less than does the body in the grave. But here the state of death is not even set forth over against the idea of the dissolution of life, the complete annihilation of individuality, much less that a retribution in eternity, 1.6. a retribution executed, if not here, yet at some time, postulated elsewhere by the author, throws a ray of light into the night of death. The apocryphal book of the Wisdom of Solomon, which distinguishes between a state of blessedness and a state of misery measured out to men in the future following death, has in this surpassed the canonical Book of Koheleth. In vain do the Targ., Midrash, and the older Christian interpreters refer that which is said to the wicked dead; others regard Koheleth as introducing here the discourse of atheists (eg. Oetinger), and interpret, under the influence of monstrous self-deception, ver. 7 as the voice of the spirit (Hengst.) opposing the voice of the flesh. But that which Koheleth expresses here only in a particularly rugzed way is the view of Hades predominating in the O. T. It is the consequence of viewing death from the side of its anger. Revelation intentionally permits this manner of viewing it to remain; but from premises which the revelation sets forth, the religious consciousness in the course of time draws always more decidedly the conclusion, that the man who is united to God will fully reach through death that which since the entrance of sin into the world cannot be reached without the loss of this present life, 7c. without death, viz. a more perfect life in fellowship with God. Yet the confusion of the O. T. representation of Hades remains; in the Book of Sirach it also still throws its deep shadows (xvii. 22 f.) into the contemplation of the future; for the first time the N. T. solution actually removes the confusion, and turns the scale in favour of the view of death on its side of light. In this history of the ideas of eternity moving forward amid many fluctuations to the N. T. goal, a significant place belongs to the Book of Koheleth; certainly the Christian interpreter ought not to have an interest in explaining away and concealing the imperfections of knowledge which made it impossible for the author spiritually to rise above his pessimism. He does not rise, in contrast to his pessimism, above an eudaemonism which is earthly, which, without knowing of a future life (not like the modern pessimism, without wishing to know of a future life), recommends a pleasant enjoyment of the present life, so far as that is morally allowable:
Vers. 7-10. “ Go, eat thy bread with joy, and drink thy wine with a merry heart; for long ago hath God accepted thy work. Let thy garments be always white; and let not oil be wanting to thy head. Enjoy life with a wife whom thou lovest through all the days of thy vain life, which He hath given thee under the sun—through all thy vain days: for that is thy portion in life, and in thy labour wherewith thou weariest thyself under the sun. All that thy hand may find to do with thy might, that do; for there is not work, and calculation, and knowledge, and wisdom, in the under world, whither thou shalt go.” Hengstenberg perceives here the counterpart of the spirit; on the contrary, Oetinger, Mendelssohn, and others, discover also here, and here for the first time rightly, the utterance of an epicurean thought. But, in fact, this 7 down to ‘? 747 is the most distinct personal utterance of the author, his ceterum eenseo which pervades the whole book, and here forms ἃ particularly copious conclusion of a long series of thoughts. We recapitulate this series of thoughts: One fate, at last the same final event, happens to all men, without making any distinction according to their moral condition,—an evil matter, so much the more evil, as it encourages to wickedness and light-mindedness; the way of man, without exception, leads to the dead, and all further prospect is cut off; for only he who belongs to the class of living beings has a joyful spirit, has a spirit of enterprise: even the lowest being, if it live, stands higher in worth, and is better, than the highest if it be dead; for death is the end of all knowledge and feeling, the being cut off from the living under the sun. From this, that there is only one life, one life on this side of eternity, he deduces the exhortation to enjoy the one as much as possible; God Himself, to whom we owe it, will have it so that we enjoy it, within the moral limits prescribed by Himself indeed, for this limitation is certainly given with His approbation. Incorrectly, the Targ., Rashi, Hengst., Ginsb., and Zéckl explain: For thy moral conduct and effort have pleased Him long ago—the person addressed is some one, not a definite person, who could be thus set forth as such a witness to be commended. Rather with Grotius and others: Quia Deus favet laboribus twis h. ¢. cos ta prosperavit, ut cuncta quae vitam delectant abunde tibi suppetant. The thought is wholly in the spirit of the Book of Koheleth; for the fruit of labour and the enjoyment of this fruit of labour, as at ii. 24, iii. 13, ete, is a gift from above; and besides, this may be said to the person addressed, since 7a presupposes that he has at his disposal heart-strengthening bread and heart-refreshing wine. But in these two explanations the meaning of 123 is not comprehended. It was left untranslated by the old translators, from their not understanding it. Rightly, Aben Ezra: For God wills that thou shouldst thus do } [indulge in these enjoyments]; more correctly, Hitzig: Long ago God has beforehand permitted this thy conduct, so that thou hast no room for scruples about it. How significant 722 is for the thought, is indicated by the accentuation which gives to it Zakef: from aforetime God has impressed the seal of His approbation on this thy eating with joy, this thy drinking with a merry heart.—The assioning of the reason gives courage to the enjoyment, but at the same time gives to it a consecration; for it is the will of God that we should enjoy life, thus it is self-evident that we have to enjoy it as He wills it to be enjoyed.
Ver. 8. The white garments, p22), are in contrast to the black robes of mourning, and thus are an expression of festal joy, of a happy mood; black and white are, according to the ancients, colour-_ symbols, the colours respectively of sorrow and joy, to which light and darkness correspond.’ Fragrant oil is also, according to Prov. xxvii. 9, one of the heart-refreshing things. Sorrow and anointing exclude one another, 2 Sam. xiv. 2; joy and oil stand in closest mutual relation, Ps. xlv. 8, Isa. lxi. 3; oil which smooths the hair and makes the face shine (vid. under Ps. civ. 15). This oil ought not to be wanting to the head, and thus the perpetuity of a happy life should suffer no interruption.
In 9a most translators render: Enjoy life with the wife whom thou lovest; but the author purposely does not use the word 7x7, but TWN; and also that he uses 0%4, and not 0°47, is not without significance. He means: Bring into experience what life, what happiness, is (cf. the indetermin. ideas, Ps. xxxiv. 13) with a wife whom thou hast loved (Jerome: guaccunque tibi placuerit feminarwm), in which there lies indirectly the call to choose such an one; whereby the
1 Cf. Shabbath 114a: ““ Bury me neither in white nor in black garments: not in white, because perhaps I may not be one of the blessed, and am like a bridegroom among mourners; not in black, because perhaps I may be one of the blessed, and am like a mourner among bridegrooms.” Semachoth ii. 10: Him who is outside the congregation, they do not bury with solemnity; the brothers and relatives of such must clothe and veil themselves in white; cf. Joma 39b. Elsewhere white is the colour of innocence, Shabbath 153a, Midrash under Prov. xvi. 11; and black the colour of guilt, Kiddushin 40a, etc.
pessimistic criticism of the female sex, vii. 26-28, so far as the author is concerned, falls into the background, since eudaemonism, the other side of his view of the world, predominates. The accus. designation of time, “ through all the days of the life of thy vanity (i.e. of thy transient vain life),” is like vi. 12, ef. vii. 15. It is repeated in “all the days of thy vanity;" the repetition is heavy and unnecessary (therefore omitted by the LXX., Targ., and Syr.); probably like 7, Ps. xlv. 5, a ditto; Hitzig, however, finds also here great emphasis. The relative clause standing after the first designation of time refers to “the days which He (onden, 7b) has granted under the sun.” Hw in 9} refers attractionally to Won (Jerome: hace est enim pars), a8 at iii. 22, v. 17, cf. vii. 2; ΜΚ of the Babyl. is therefore to be rejected; this enjoyment, particularly of marriage joys, is thy part in life, and in thy work which thou accomplishest under the sun, ¢. the real portion of gain allotted to thee which thou mayest and oughtest to enjoy here below.
Ver. 10. The author, however, recommends no continual dolee far niente, no idle, useless sluggard-life devoted to pleasure, but he gives to his exhortation to joy the converse side: “ All that thy hand may reach (i.e. what thou canst accomplish and is possible to thee, 1 Sam. x. 7; Lev. xii. 8) to accomplish it with thy might, that do.” The accentuation is ingenious. If the author meant: That do with all might (Jerome: instanter operare), then he would have said Ucholkohhacha (Gen. xxxi. 6). As the words lie before us, they call on him who is addressed to come not short in his work of any possibility according to the measure of his strength, thus to a work straining his capacity to the uttermost. The reason for the call, 108, turns back to the clause from which it was inferred: in Hades, whither thou must go (iturus es), there is no work, and reckoning (vid. vii. 25), and knowledge (Ayn *), and no wisdom. Practice and theory have then an end. Thus: Enjoy, but not without working, ere the night cometh when no man can work. Thus spake Jesus (John ix. 4), but in a different sense indeed from Koheleth. The night which He meant is the termination of this present life, which for Him, as for every man, has its particular work, which is either accomplished within the limits of this life, or is not accomplished at all.
1 Not nym, because the word has the conjunctive, not the disjunctive accent, vid. under Ps. lv. 10. The punctuation, as we have already several times remarked, is not consistent in this; cf. ny, ii. 26, and 35y}, Ps. Ixv. 9, both of which are contrary to the rule (vid. Baer in Abulwalid’s Rikma, p. 119, note 2).
The Incalculableness of the Issues and of the Duration of Life, a rt. To
Another reflection, so far not without connection in the foregoing, as the fact of experience, that ability is yet no security for the issue aimed at and merited, is chiefly referred to wisdom:
Ver. 11. “Further, I came to see under the sun, that the race belongs not to the swift, and the war not to the heroes, and also not bread to the wise man, and not riches to the prudent, and not favour to men of knowledge; for time and chance happeneth to them ali.” The nearest preceding ‘83, to which this ΝῊ '2¥ suitably connects itself, is at viii 17. Instead of redii et videndo quidem = rursus vid: (cf. vill. 9 and under ix, 1), we had at iv. 1 the simpler expression, redii et vidi. The five times repeated 5 is that of property, of that, viz., by virtue of which one is master of that which is named, has power over it, disposes of it freely. The race belongs not to the swift (7179, mage. to TY, only here), ze. their fleetness is yet no guarantee that on account of it they will reach the goal. Luther freely: “To be fleet does not help in running,” ze. running to an object or goal. “ The war belongs not to the heroes,” means that much rather it belongs to the Lord, 1 Sam. xvii. 47.—God alone gives the victory (Ps. xxxili. 16). Even so the gaining of bread, riches, favour (ie. influence, reputation), does not lie in wisdom, prudence, knowledge of themselves, as an indispensable means thereto; but the obtaining of them, or the not obtaining of them, depends on times and circumstances which lie beyond the control of man, and is thus, in the final result, conditioned by God (cf. Rom. ix. 167); time and fate happen to all whose ability appears to warrant the issue, they both [time and fate] encounter them and bar to them the way; they are in an inexplicable manner dependent on both, and helplessly subject to them. As the idea of spiritual superiority is here expressed in a threefold manner by ΠῚ (whence Π2 of the plur., also with the art. ix. 1; Ex. xxxvi. 4; Esth. i 13), ‘23, and “3, so at Isa. xi. 2, the gifts of “ wisdom,” “ counsel,” and “ knowledge ” follow each other. ’Zth is here “time” with its special circumstances (conjunctures), and pega’, “ accident,” particularly as an adversity, disappointment, for the word is used also without any addition (1 Kings v. 18) of misfortune (cf. yx» Ww, Ps. iii, xci.). The mase. ‘pis regulated after "ΒῚ; eth can, however, be used in the masc., Song Hie Ld; Bottch. § 648, viz. “with the misapprehension of its origin ” (vy. Orelli).
? But not Jer. ix. 22; this passage, referred to by Bernstein, is of a different nature,
This limitation of man in his efforts, in spite of all his capacity, has its reason in this, that he is on the whole not master of his own life: Ver. 12. “For man also knoweth not his time: like the fishes which are caught in an evil net, and like the birds which are caught in the snare—like them are the sons of men snared in an evil time, when it suddenly breaks in upon them.” The particles 53 ‘2 are here not so clearly connected as at viii. 12, iv. 14, where, more correctly, the pointing should be 03 3 (kt with the conjunct. accent); ki rules the sentence; and gam, as to its meaning, belongs to eth-itto. The particular has its reason from the general: man is not master of his own time, his own person, and his own life, and thus not of the fruits of his capabilities and his actions, in spite of the previously favourable conditions which appear to place the result beyond a doubt; for ere the result is reached of which he appears to be able to entertain a certainty, suddenly his time may expire, and his term of life be exhausted. Jerome translates ’itto (cf. vii. 17) rightly by jinem suum; ny, with the gen. following, frequently (vid. under Job xxiv. 1) means the point of time when the fate of any one is decided,—the terminus where a reckoning is made; here, directly, the terminus ad quem. The suddenness with which men are frequently overtaken with the catastrophe which puts an end to their life, is seen by comparison with the fishes which are suddenly caught in the net, and the birds which are suddenly caught in the snare. With ‘3% (that are caught) there is interchanged, in two variations of expression, Mint, which is incorrectly written, by v. d. Hooght, Norzi, and others, 3A," ΧΌ, a net,—of which the plur. form vii. 26 is used,—goes back, as does the similar designation of a bulwark (140), to the root-conception of searching (hunting), and receives here the epithet “evil.” Birds, O8¥ (from a ground-form with a short terminal vowel; cf. Assyr. issur, from ispur), are, on account of their weakness, as at Isa. xxxi. 5, as a figure of tender love, represented in the fem.
The second half of the verse, in conformity with its structure, begins with 092 (which more frequently occurs as omip2). +‘ is part. Pu. for wD (Ewald, δ 170d); the particip. Ὁ is rejected, and? is treated altogether as a guttural, the impracticable doubling of which is compensated for by the lengthening of the vowel. The use of the part. is here stranger than eg. at Prov. xi. 13, xv. 32; the fact repeating itself is here treated as a property. Like the fish and the birds are they, such as are caught, etc. Otherwise Hitz.:
Like these are they caught, during the continuance of their life in the evil time...; but the being snared does not, however, according to the double figure, precede the catastrophe, but is its consequence. Rightly, Ginsb.: “Like these are the sons of men ensnared in the time of misfortune.” 27 might be adj., as at Amos v. 13, Mic. ii. 3; but since it lies nearer to refer ‘NYD to ra’ah than to ’eth, thus ra’ah, like the frequently occurring yom raah (vii. 14; ef. Jer. xvii. 17 with xv. 11), may be thought of as genit. An example of that which is here said is found in the fatal wounding of Ahab by means of an arrow which was not aimed at him, so that he died “at the time of the going down of the sun,” 2 Chron. xvill. 33, 84,
Experiences and Proverbs touching Wisdom and the Contrasts to τί, ix, 13—x. 3.
With the words, “further, I saw,” 11a, the author introduced the fact he had observed, that there is not always a sure and honoured position in life connected with wisdom as its consequence; here he narrates an experience which, by way of example, shows how little wisdom profits, notwithstanding the extraordinary result it produces.
Ver. 13. “ Also this have I come to see as wisdom under the sun, and it appeared great to me.” The Venet. construes falsely: “This also have I seen: wisdom under the sun;’ as also Hitzig, who reads ΠῚ (neut. as at vii. 27). There is no reason thus to break up the sentence which introduces the following experience. Zoh 18 connected with hhochmah, but not as Luther renders it: “I have also seen this wisdom,” which would have required the words nst 'nn, but, as Jerome does: Hane quoque sub sole vidi sapientiam; this, however, since gam-zoh, as at v. 15, cf. 18, is attractionally related to hhochmah as its pred., is— “also in this I saw wisdom,” as the LXX. translates, or as Zockl.: “also this have I seen—come to find out as wisdom,”—also this, viz., the following incident narrated, in which wisdom of exceeding greatness presented itself to me. As Mordecai is called “ great among the Jews,” Esth. x. 3, so here Koheleth says that the wisdom which came to light therein appeared to him great (DN, as elsewhere *)*Y2 or *250),
Now follows an experience, which, however, has not merely a light side, but also a dark side; for wisdom, which accomplished so great a matter, reaped only ingratitude:
Vers. 14, 15. “A little city, and men therein only a few,—to which a great king came near, and he besieged it, and erected against it high bulwarks. And he met therein a poor wise man, and who saved the city by his wisdom; and no man thought of that poor man.” What may be said as to the hist. reference of these words has already been noticed; vid. above, p. 215. The “ great king” is probably an Asiatic monarch, and that the Persian; Jerome translates verbally: Civitas parva εἰ pauci in ea viri, venit contra eam— the former is the subj., and the latter its pred.; the object stands first, plastically rigid, and there then follows what happened to it; the structure of the sentence is fundamentally the same as Ps civ. 25. The expression Sx #2, which may be used of any kind of coming to anything, is here, as at Gen. xxxii. 9, meant of ἃ hostile approach. The object of a siege and a hostile attack is usually denoted by 58, 2 Kings xvi. 5; Isa. vii. 1. Two Codd. of de Rossi's have the word OSD, but that is an error of transcription; the plur. of ΣΟ is fem., Isa. xxix. 4. pvtive is, as αἱ vii. 26, plur. of > (from “ny, to lie in wait); here, as elsewhere, #73 and Pz is the siege-tower erected on the ground or on the rampart, from which to spy out the weak points of the beleaguered place so as to assail it.
The words following 33 XS are rendered by the Targ., Syr., Jerome, Arab., and Luther: “and there was found in it;” most interpreters explain accordingly, as they point to i 10, 1O#, dicat aliquis. But that xxo in this sequence of thought is =*¥o2 (Job xlii, 15), is only to be supposed if it were impossible to regard the king as the subject, which Ewald with the LXX. and the Venet. does in spite of ὃ 294d. It is true it would not be possible if, as Vaih. remarks, the finding presupposed a searching; but cf. on the contrary, eg. Deut. xxiv. 1, Ps. exvi. 3. We also say of one whom, contrary to expectation, a superior meets with, that he has found his match, that he has found his man. Thus it is here said of the great king, he found in the city a poor wise man—met therein with such an one, against whom his plan was shattered. 39 is the adjective of the person of the poor man designated by ish misken (cf. 2 Chron. ii 13); the accents correctly indicate this relation. Instead of wurode, the older language would use D922; it does not, like the author here, use pure perfects, but makes the chief factum prominent by the Sut. consec. The ὁ of millet is, as at xiii. 9, that of limméd before Makkeph, referred back to the original a. The making prominent of the subject contained in millat by means of hu is favourable to the supposition that wmatsa’ has the king as its subject; while even where no opposition (as eg. at Jer. xvii. 18) lies before us this pleonasm belongs to the stylistic peculiarities of the book (vid. above, p. 198, No. 3). Instead of adam lo, the older form is ish, lo; perhaps the author here wishes to avoid the repetition of ish, but at vii. 20 he also uses adam instead of ish, where no such reason existed.
Threatened by a powerful assailant, with whom it could not enter into battle, the little city, deserted by its men to a small remainder capable of bearing arms (this idea one appears to be under the necessity of connecting with pyn... ‘2x)), found itself in the createst straits; but when all had been given up as lost, it was saved by the wisdom of the poor man (perhaps in the samewayas Abel-beth-maacha, 2 Sam. xx., by the wisdom of a woman). But after this was done, the wise poor man quickly again fell into the background; no man thought of him, as he deserved to have been thought of, as the saviour of the city; he was still poor, and remained so, and pauper homo raro vit cum nomine claro, The poor man with his wisdom, Hengst. remarks, is Israel. And Wangemann (1856), generalizing the parable: “ The beleaguered city is the life of the individual; the great king who lays siege to it is death and the judgment of the Lord.” But sounder and more appropriate is the remark of Luther: Zs¢ exemplum generale, cujusin multis historiis simile reperitur; and: Sic Themistocles multa bona fecit suis civibus, sed expertus summam ingratitudinem. The author narrates au actual history, in which, on the one hand, he had seen what great things wisdom can do; and from which, on the other hand, he has drawn the following lesson:
Ver. 16. “ And I said: Better is wisdom than strength; but the wisdom of the poor is despised, and his words are not heard.” With the words, “ I saw,” the author introduces his observations, and with “ I said” his reflections (vid. above, No. 3, p. 198). Wisdom is better than strength, since it does more for the wise man, and through him for others, than physical force-—more, as expressed in vii. 19, than ten mighty men. But the respect which wisdom otherwise secures for a man, if it is the wisdom of a poor man, sinks into despect, to which his poverty exposes him,—if necessity arises, his service, as the above history shows, is valued; but as a rule his words are unheeded, for the crowd estimate the worth of him whom they willingly hear according to the outward respect in which he is held.
To the lessons gathered from experience, are now added instructive proverbs of kindred contents.
Ver. 17. “The words of the wise, heard in quiet, have the superiority above the cry of a ruler among fools.” Instead of tovim min, there stands here the simple min, prac, as at iv. 17, to express the superiority of the one to the other. Hitzig finds in this proverb the meaning that, as that history has shown, the words of the wise, heard with tranquillity, gain the victory over the cry of a ruler over fools. But (1) the contrast of AM? and ΠΡΨῚ require us to attribute the tranquillity to the wise man himself, and not to his hearers; (2) ‘23 “Ὁ is not a ruler over fools, by which it would remain questionable whether he himself was not a fool (cf. Job xli. 26), but a ruler among fools (cf. 2 Sam. xxiii. 3, ‘2, “a ruler among men;” and Prov. xxxvi. 30, ‘2 ‘23, “the hero among beasts”), ic. one who among fools takes the place of chief. The words of the poor wise man pass by unheeded, they are not listened to, because he does not possess an imposing splendid outward appearance, in accordance with which the crowd estimate the value of a man’s words; the wise man does not seek to gain esteem by means of a pompous violent deportment; his words ‘2 '¥? are heard, let themselves be heard, are to be heard (cf. eg. Song ii. 12) in quiet (Isa. xxx. 15); for, trusting to their own inward power of conviction, and committing the result to God, he despises vociferous pomp, and the external force of earthly expedients (cf. Isa. xlii. 2; Matt. xii. 19); but the words of the wise, which are to be heard in unassuming, passionless quietness, are of more value than the vociferation with which a king among fools, an arch-fool, a non plus ultra among fools, trumpets forth his pretended wisdom and constrains his hearers.
Ver. 18. The following proverb also leans on the history above narrated: “ Better is wisdom than weapons of war; and one sinner destroyeth much good.” The above history has shown by way of example that wisdom accomplishes more than implements of war,? ve) Ξ- Ὃ 5 (Assyr. unut tahazi'), i. than all the apparatus belonging to preparation for war. But the much good which a wise man is accomplishing or has accomplished, one sinner (*O‘"? cf. above, p. 254, note) by treachery or calumny may render vain, or may even destroy, through mere malicious pleasure in evil. This is a synthetic distich whose two parts may be interpreted independently. As wisdom accomplishes something great, so a single villain may have a farreaching influence, viz. such as destroys much good.
x. 1. The second half of the foregoing double proverb introduces what now follows: “Poisonous flies make to stink, make to ferment the oil of the preparer of ointment; heavier than wisdom,
2 The Syr. (not the Targ.) had xpn before it, and thus realized it, which appears to correspond better with the parall. mo3n.
than honour, weighs a little folly.” We do not need to change My 33], on account of the foll. sing. of the pred., either into "Ὁ ‘212 (as possible by Hitz.) or Mv 2) (Luzz.); both are inadmissible, for the style of Koheleth is not adorned with archaisms such as Chirek compaginis; and also such an attrib. clause as my 212), “a fly which dies,” is for him too refined; but both are also unnecessary, for a plur. of the subj., in which the plurality of the individuals comes less into view than the oneness of their character, is frequently enough followed by the sing. of the pred., ¢.g. Gen. xlix. 22; Joel i. 20; Isa. lix. 12, ete. It is a question, however, whether by »n21 no, death-bringing, ὁ.6. poisonous flies (LXX., Targ.,’ Luther) or dead flies (Symm., Syr., Jerome) is meant. We decide in favour of the former; for (1) mm sna for OND OI (ix. 4; Isa. xxxvii. 36), “ death-flies ” for “dead flies,” would be an affected poetic expression without analogy; while, on the contrary, “death-flies” for “deadly flies” is a genit. connection, such as ΠῚ DD [instruments of death, 2.¢. deadly instruments] and the like; Bottcher understands dung-flies; but the expression can scarcely extend to the designation of flies which are found on dead bodies. Meanwhile, it is very possible that by the expression ‘np ‘nt, such flies are thought of as carry death from dead bodies to those that are living; the Assyr. syllabare show how closely the Semites distinguished manifold kinds of paar (Assyr. zumbi = zubbi). (2) In favour of “ dead flies,” it has been remarked that that influence on the contents of a pot of ointment is effected not merely by poison-flies, but, generally, by flies that have. fallen into it.
But since the oil mixed with perfumes may also be of the kind which, instead of being changed by a dead body, much rather embalms it; so it does not surprise us that the exciter of fermentation is thus drastically described by μυῖαι θανατοῦσαι (LXX.); it happens, besides, also on this account, because “a little folly” corresponds as a contrasted figure to the little destructive carcase—wisdom ¥3 ΠΗ (“ giveth life,’ vii. 12), a little folly is thus like little deadly flies. The sequence of ideas '3. '2" (maketh the ointment stink) is natural. The corrupting body communicates its foul savour to the ointment, makes it boil up, z.e. puts it into a state of fermentation, in consequence of which it foams and raises up small blisters, ΤῊΣ (Rashi). Τὸ the asyndeton ‘2’ '3’, there corresponds, in 16, the asyndeton ‘30 ‘NO; the Targ., Syr, and Jerome,’ who translate by
1 The Targ. interprets, as the Talm. and Mid. do, deadly flies as a nous of the prava concupiscentia. Similarly Wangemann: a mind buried in the worl. δ 2 The LXX. entirely remodels 16: τίριον x.7.2. (“ἃ little wisdom 1s τὰ
“ and,” are therefore not witnesses for the phrase ‘25%, but the Venet. (καὶ τῆς δόξης) had this certainly before it; it is, in relation to the other, inferior in point of evidence In general, it is evident that the point of comparison is the hurtfulness, widely extending itself, of a matter which in appearance is insignificant. Therefore the meaning of 1 cannot be that a little folly is more weighty than wisdom, than honour, viz. in the eyes of the blinded crowd (ZécklL, Diichsel). This limitation the author ought to have expressed, for without it the sentence is an untruth. Jerome, following the Targ. and Midrash, explains: Pretiosa est super sapientiam εἰ gloriam stultitia parca, understanding by wisdom and honour the self-elation therewith connected; besides, this thought, which Luther limits by the introduction of swrerilen (“folly is sometimes better than wisdom, etc.”], is in harmony neither with that which goes before nor with that which follows. Luzz, as already Aben Ezra, Grotius, Geiger, Hengst., and the more recent English expositors, transfer the verbs of la zeugmatically to 14: similiter pretiosum nomine sapientiac et gloriae virum foctidum facit stoliditas parva. But ys forbids this transference, and, besides, [Ὁ ὙΠ, “ honoured on account of,” is an improbable expression; also ‘35 7p" presents ἃ tautology, which Luzz. seeks to remove by glossing ‘30, as the Targ. does, by 39 ΘῸΣΝ wey. Already Rashi has rightly explained by taking ἋῬ᾽ (Syr. jakfr, Arab. wakur, wakér), in its primary meaning, a8 synon. of 7122: more weighty, ic. heavier and weighing more than wisdom, than honour, is a little folly; and he reminds us that a single foolish act can at once change into their contrary the wisdom and the honour of a man, destroying both, making it as if they had never been, cf. 1 Cor. v. 6. The sentence is true both in an intellectual and in a moral reference. Wisdom and honour are honour than the great glory of folly”), ée. 39 πῦϑο "N33 FosN sD WP (7122 in the sense of “" great multitude”). Van der Palm (1784) regards this as the original form of the text.
‘tigD0; thus in the Biblia rabb. 1525, 1615, Genoa 1618, Plantin 1552, Jablonski 1699, and also v. d. Hooght and Norzi. In the Ven. 1515, 1521, 1615, minpt is found with the copulat. vac, ἃ form which is adopted by Michaelis Thus also the Concord. cites, and thus, originally, it stood in J., but has been corrected to 3i330- F., however, has 71220, with the marginal remark: 330 meroe Ὁ ὙΡῈΡ 15 (Simson ha-Nakdam, to whom the writer of the Frankf. Cod. 1294 here refers for the reading ‘5p, without the copul. rap, is often called by him his voucher). This is also the correct Masoretic reading; for if ‘D0: were to be read, then the word would be in the catalogue of words of which thrce begin with their initial letter, and a fourth has introduced a ταῦ before it (Mas. fin. f. 26, Ochla veochla, Nr. 15).
swept away by a little quantum of folly; it places both in the shade, it outweighs them in the scale; it stamps the man, notwithstanding the wisdom and dignity which otherwise belong to him, as a fool. The expressive ΠΡ jv’ is purposely used here; the dealer in ointments ( pigmentarius) can now do nothing with the corrupted perfume,—thus the wisdom which a man possesses, the honour which he has hitherto enjoyed, avail him no longer; the proportionally small portion of folly which has become an ingredient in his personality gives him the character of a fool, and operates to his dishonour. Knobel construes rightly; but his explanation (also of Heiligst., Elst., Ginsb.): “a little folly frequently shows itself more efficacious and fruitful than the wisdom of an honoured wise man,” helps itself with a “frequently” inserted, and weakens '3» to a subordinated idea, and is opposed to the figure, which requires a personality.
Vers. 2, 3. A double proverb regarding wisdom and folly in their difference: “The heart of a wise man is directed to his right hand, and the heart of the fool to his left. And also on the way where a fool goeth, there his heart faileth him, and he saith to all that he is a fool.” Most interpreters translate: The heart of the wise man is at his right hand, ie. it is in the right place. But this designation, meant figuratively and yet sounding anatomically, would be in bad taste’ in this distinguishing double form (vid. on the contrary, ii. 14). The $ is that of direction;? and that which is situated to the right of a man is figuratively a designation of the right; and that to the left, a designation of the wrong. The designation proceeds from a different idea from that at Deut. v. 32, etc.; that which lies to the right, as that lying at a man’s right hand, is that to which his calling and duty point him; 7 denotes, in the later Hebrew, “to turn oneself to the wrong side.”
Ver. 3. This proverb forms, along with the preceding, a tetrastich, for it is divided into two parts by vav. The Kert has removed the art. in ὩΣ and ‘ny, vi. 10, as incompatible with the w. The order of the words v‘gam-baderek k'shehsachal holek is inverted for v'gam Kshehsachal baderek holek, cf. iii. 13, and also rav shéyihyn, vi. 3; 50
1 Christ. Fried. Bauer (1732) explains as we do, and remarks, ‘‘If we translate: the heart of the wise is at his right hand, but the heart of the fool at his left, it appears as if the heart of the prudent and of the foolish must have a different position in the human body, thus affording to the profane ground for mockery.”
? Accordingly, ver. 2 has become a Jewish saying with reference to the study of a book (this thought of as Heb.): The wise always turn over the leaves backwards, repeating that which has been read; the fool forwards, superficially anticipating that which has not yet been read, and scarcely able to wait for the end.
far as this signifies, “supposing that they are many.” Plainly the author intends to give prominence to “on the way;” and why, but because the fool, the inclination of whose heart, according to 20, always goes to the left, is now placed in view as he presents himself in his public manner of life. Instead of sama) 10n we have here the verbal clause 707 12>, which is not, after vi. 2, to be translated: corde suo caret (Herzf., Ginsb.), contrary to the suff. and also the order of the words, but, after ix. 8: cor gus deficit, i.e. his understanding is at fault; for 35, here and at ver. 2, is thus used in a double sense, as the Greek νοῦς and the Lat. mens can also be used: there it means pure, formal, intellectual soul-life; here, pregnantly (Psychol. p. 249), as at vii. 7, οἵ, Hos. iv. 11, the understanding or the knowledge and will of what is right. The fool takes no step without showing that his understanding is not there,—that, so to speak, he does not take it along with him, but has left it at home. He even carries his folly about publicly, and prides himself in it as if it were wisdom: he says to all that he is a fool, se esse stultum (thus, correctly, most Jewish and Christian interpreters, ey. Rashi and Rambach). The expression follows the scheme of Ps. ix. 21: May the heathen know mortales se esse (vid. l.c.). Otherwise Luther, with Symm. and Jerome: “he takes every man as a fool;” but this thought has no support in the connection, and would undoubtedly be expressed by 727 0°20. Still differently Knobel and Ewald: he says to all,“ it is foolish;” Hitzig, on the contrary, justly remarks that $20 is not used of actions and things; this also is true of DD, against himself, v. 2, where he translates gol K’sil by “ foolish discourses.”
The Caprice of Rulers and the Perverted World, x. 4—T.
Wisdom is a strong protection. To this thought, from which the foregoing group proceeded, there is here subordinated the following admonition.
Ver. 4. This verse shows what is the wise conduct of a subject, and particularly of a servant, when the anger of the ruler breaks forth: “If the ill-humour of the ruler rise up against thee, do not leave thy post; for patience leaves out great sins.” Luther connects ver. 4 and ver. 3 by “therefore;” for by the potentate he understands such an one as, himself a fool, holds all who contradict him to be fools: then it is best to let his folly rage on. But the vio is a different person from the 93D; and ΠΡΟΣ ‘PD does not mean, “let not yourself get into a passion,” or, as he more accurately explains in the Annotationes: “remain self-possessed” (similarly Hitzig: lose not thy mental state or composure), but, in conformity with wire dich Ss. viii. 3, “forsake not the post (synon. 23 and 7yd, Isa. xxii. 19, cf. 23) which thou hast received.” The person addressed is thus represented not merely as a subject, but officially as a subordinate officer: if the ruler’s displeasure (ΠΥ, as at J udg. viii. 3; Prov. xxix. 11) rises up against him (noy, as elsewhere; cf. ἢν, Ps. lxxiii. 21; or 79M, 2 Sam. xi. 20), he ought not, in the consciousness that he does not merit his displeasure, hastily give up his situation which has been entrusted to him and renounce submission; for patience, gentleness (regarding ΑΒΘ, vid. Prov. xii. 18) "32... 2),
This concluding clause of the verse is usually translated: “It appeaseth (pacifieth) great sins” (LXX. καταπαύσει, Symm. παύσει) The phrase (79M) ἮΝ ΠῸΠ is not to be compared, for it signifies. quieting by an exhausting outbreak; on the contrary, ms» in the passage before us must signify quieting, as the preventing of an outbreak (cf. Prov. xv. 1). It appears more correct to render 137 in both cases in the sense of ἐᾶν, missum facere: to leave great sins is = not to commit them, to give up the lust thereto; for hinniahh signifies to let go, to leave off, eg. Jer. xiv. 9; and to indulge, Esth. 111. 8, rere as at vil. 18, xi. 6, “ to keep the hands from something.” The great sins cannot certainly be thoucht of as those of the ruler; for on his part only one comes into view, if indeed, according to the old legal conception, it could be called such, viz. cruel proceeding with reference to him who wilfully withdraws from him, and thus proves his opposition; much rather we are to think of the great sins into which he who is the object of the ruler’s displeasure might fall, viz. treason (viii. 2), insubordination, self-destruction, and at the same time, since he does not stand alone, or make common cause with others who are discontented, the drawing of others into inevitable ruin (viii. 80). All these sins, into which he falls who answers wrath with wrath, patience avoids, and puts a check to them. The king’s anger is perhaps justified; the admonition, however, would be otherwise expressed than by non-bx ‘py, if it were not presupposed that it was not justified; and thus without pera- βασις εἰς ἄλλο γένος an J-section follows the reflection regarding wise deportment as over against the king’s displeasure, a section which describes from experience and from personal observation the world turned upside down in the state.
Ver. 5. “There is an evil which I have seen under the sun, like an error which proceedeth from the ruler.” The introduction by the virtual relative rditht is as at v. 12, cf. vi. 1. Knobel, Hengst., and others give to the 5 of ‘¥3 the meaning of “according to,” or “in consequence of which,” which harmonizes neither with ra’ah nor with rditht. Also Kleinert’s translation: “There is a misery—lI have seen it under the sun—in respect of an error which proceedeth from the ruler,’ is untenable; for by this translation 7a’ah is made the pred. while it is the subj. to ὅν, and kishgagah the unfolding of this subject. Hitzig also remarks: “as [wie ein] an error, instead of which we have: in respect to [wm einen] an error;” for he confounds things incongruous. Hitz., however, rightly recognises, as also Kleinert, the 5 as Caph veritatis, which measures the concrete with the ideal, Isa. xii. 6, compares the individual with the general which therein comes to view, Ezek. xxvi. 10; Neh. vii. 2; cf. 2 Sam. ix. 8. Koheleth saw an evil under the sun; something which was like an error, appeared to him altogether like an error which proceedeth from the ruler. If we could translate *% by quod exiit, then 3 would be the usual Caph similitudinis; but since it must be translated by quod exit, "δ "ὩΣ places the observed fact under a comprehensive generality: it had the nature of an error proceeding from the ruler. If this is correct, it is so much the less to be assumed that by pein God is to be understood (Dan. v. 21), as Jerome was taught by his LHebraeus: quod putent homines in hac inaequalitate rerum illum non juste et ut aequum est gudicare. It is a governor in a state that is meant, by whom an error might easily be committed, and only too frequently is committed, in the promotion or degradation of persons. But since the world, with its wonderful division of high and low, appears like as it were an error proceeding from the Most High, there certainly falls a shadow on the providence of God Himself, the Governor of the world; but yet not so immediately that the subject of discourse is an “ error” of God, which would be a saying more than irreverent. N¥*=¥" is the metaplastic form for ONS? or Ns (for which at Deut. xxviii. 57 incorrectly NS), not an error of transcription, as Olsh. supposes; vid. to the contrary, above, No. 1, p. 197. ὩΒΡ (Symm. ἐξ ἔμπροσθεν) with xy’ is the old wsus log. There now follows a sketch of the perverted world.
Vers. 6, 7. “Folly is set on great heights, and the rich must sit in lowliness. I have seen servants upon horses, and princes like servants walking on foot.” The word 2200 (with double seghol, Aram. 1730) is used here instead of those in whom it is personified. Elsewhere a multiplicity of things great, such as O'DY, Ὁ, and the like, is heightened by 0°37 (cf. eg. Ps. xviii. 17); here “oreat heights” are such as are of a high, or the highest degree; rabbim, instead of harabbim, is more appos. than adject. (cf. Gen. xliii.
14; Ps. lxviil. 28, exlii. 10; Jer. ii. 21), in the sense of “ many ” (eg. Ginsburg: “in many high positions”) it mixes with the poetry of the description dull prose." Ashirim also is peculiarly used: divites = nobiles (cf, Si, Isa. xxxii. 5), those to whom their family inheritance gives a claim to a high station, who possess the means of training themselves for high offices, which they regard as places of honour, not as sources of gain. tegibus multis, Grotius here remarks, quoting from Sallust and Tacitus, suspect qui excellunt sive sapientia sive nobilitate aut opibus. Hence it appears that the relation of slaves and princes to each other is suggested; hoc discrimen, says Justin, xli. 3, of the Parthians, enter servos liberosque est quod servi pedibus, liberi nonnisr equis vncedunt; this distinction is set aside, princes must walk ’al-haareéts, 1.6. b’regel (b’ragléhém), and in their stead (Jer. xvii. 25) slaves sit high on horseback, and rule over them (the princes),—an offensive spectacle, Prov. xix.10. The eunuch Bagoas (vid. above, p. 214), long all-powerful at the Persian Court, is an example of the evil consequences of this reversal of the natural relations of men.
That which is Difficult exposes to Dangcr; that which is Improper brings Trouble; that which comes Too Late 1s not of use, x. 8-11.
How much time, thought, and paper have been expended in seeking to find out a close connection between this group of verses and that going before! Some read in them warnings against rising in rebellion against despots (Ginsb.); others (e.g. Zockl.) place these proverbs in relation to the by no means enviable lot of those upstarts (Zockl.); more simply and more appropriately, Luther here finds exemplified the thought that to govern (regere homines et gerere res humanas) is a difficult matter; on the other hand, Luzz. finds in 8—11 the thought that all depends on fate, and not on the wisdom of man. Jn reality, this section forms a member in the carrying forward of the theme which the author has been discussing from ix. 135: wisdom and folly in their mutual relations, particularly in difficult situations of life. The catchword of the foregoing section is BID, patience, resignation, which guards against rendering evil for evil; and the catchword of the following section is 1¥27, considerate and provisory straining of the means toward the accomplishment of that which one purposes to do. The author presents a prelude in
' Luzz. reads jn3: ‘* Folly brings many into high places.” The order of the words, however, does not favour this.
four sentences, which denote by way of example, that whoever undertakes any severe labour, at the same time faces the dangers connected therewith.
Vers. 8, 9. “He that diggeth a pit may fall into it; whoso breaketh down walls, a serpent may sting him. Whoso pulleth out stones may do himself hurt therewith; he who cleaveth wood may endanger himself thereby.” The futures are not the expression of that which will necessarily take place, for, thus rendered, these four statements would be contrary to experience; they are the expression of a possibility. The fut. >i5’ is not here meant as predicting an event, as where the clause 8a is a figure of self-punishment arising from the destruction prepared for others, Prov. xxvi. 27; Sir. xxvii. 26. 33} 15, Prov. xxvi. 27, the Targum word for Nn’, ditch, from 723 =Mw, depressum esse. 13 (R. 33, to cut), something cutting off, something dividing, is a wall as a boundary and means of protection drawn round a garden, vineyard, or farm-court; 773 ΚΒ is the reverse of ΚΞ 1733, Isa. lviii. 12. Serpents are accustomed to nestle in the crevices and holes of walls, as well as in the earth (for a city-wall is called mnin and OM); thus he who breaks into such a wall may expect that the serpent which is there will bite him (ef. Amos v.19). To tear down stones, hissi’a, is synon. of hhatsav, to break stones, Isa. li. 1; yet hhotsév does not usually mean the stonebreaker, but the stone-cutter (stone-mason); hissi’a, from nasa’, to tear out, does not also signify, 1 Kings v. 31, “ to transport,’ and here, along with wood-splitting, is certainly to be thought of as a breaking loose or separating in the quarry or shaft. Ne'etsav signifies elsewhere to be afflicted; here, where the reference is not to the internal but the external feeling: to suffer pain, or reflex.: to injure oneself painfully; the derivat. ’etsev signifies also severe labour; but to find this signification in the Wiph. (“he who has painful labour”) is contrary to the wsws log., and contrary to the meaning intended here, where generally actual injuries are in view. Accordingly 02 39), for which the Mishn. i»yva {30° “he brings himself into danger,” would denote, to be placed in danger of life and limb, οἵ, Gittin 65b, Chullin 87a; and it is therefore not necessary, with Hitzig and others, to translate after the vulnerabitur of Jerome: “He may wound himself thereby;” there is not a denom. 3D, to cut, to wound, derived from 39 ("3)ὺ, an instrument for cutting, a knife.”
* The Midrash understands the whole ethically, and illustrates it by the example of Rabsake [we know now that the half-Assyr., half-Accad. word rabsak
The sum of these four clauses is certainly not merely that he who undertakes a dangerous matter exposes himself to danger; the author means to say, in this series of proverbs which treat of the distinction between wisdom and folly, that the wise man is everywhere conscious of his danger, and guards against it. These two verses (8, 9) come under this definite point of view by the following proverb; wisdom has just this value in providing against the manifold dangers and difficulties which every undertaking brings along with it.’ This is illustrated by a fifth example, and then it is declared with reference to all together.
Ver. 10. “ If the iron has become blunt, and he has not whetted the face, then he must give more strength to the effort; but wisdom has the superiority in setting right.” This proverb of iron, 1.6. iron instruments (oma, from 113, to pierce, like the Arab. name for iron, hadtd, means essentially something pointed), is one of the most difficult in the Book of Koheleth,—linguistically the most difficult, because scarcely anywhere else are so many peculiar and unexampled forms of words to be found. The old translators afford no help for the understanding of it. The advocates of the hypothesis of a Dialogue have here a support in δ, which may be rendered interrogatively; but where would we find, syntactically as well as actually, the answer? Also, the explanations which understand Don in the sense of wartroops, armies, which is certainly its nearest-lying meaning, bring out no appropriate thought; for the thought that even blunt iron, as far as it is not externally altogether spoiled (lo-phanim qilgqal), or: although it has not a sharpened edge (Rashi, Rashbam), might be an equipment for an army, or gain the victory, would, although it were true, not fit the context; Ginsburg explains: If the axe be blunt, and he (who goes out against the tyrant) do not sharpen it beforehand (phanim, after Jerome, for l’phanim, which is impossible, and besides leads to nothing, since l’phanim means ehedem [formerly], but not zuvor [prius], Ewald, ὃ 220a), he (the tyrant) only increases his army; on the contrary, wisdom hath the advantage by repairing the mischief (without the war being unequal);—but the “ruler” of the foregoing group has here long ago disappeared, and it is only a bold imagination which discovers in the hu of 10a the person addressed in ver. 4, and represents him as a rebel, and augments means a military chief], whom report makes a brother of Manasseh, and a renegade in the Assyrian service.
1 Thus rightly Carl Lang in his Salom. Kunst im Psalter (Marburg 1874). He sees in vers. 8-10 a beautiful heptastich. Butas to its contents, ver. 11 also belongs to this group..
him into a warlike force, but recklessly going forth with unwhetted swords. The correct meaning for the whole, in general at least, is found if, after the example of Abulwalid and Kimchi, we interpret pn 123 of the increasing of strength, the augmenting of the effort of strength, not, as Aben- Ezra, of conquering, outstripping, surpassing; 133 means to make strong, to strengthen, Zech. x. 6,12; and porn, as plur. of On, strength, is supported by pn 133, 1 Chron. vii. 5, 7,11, 40, the plur. of 5n 123; the LXX. renders by δυνάμεις δυναμώσει [and he shall strengthen the forces], and the Peshito has on for δυνάμεις, Acts viii. 13, xix. 11 (cf. Chald. Syr. ΠΤ, to strengthen oneself, to become strengthened). Thus understanding. the words ‘2° 1 of intentio virium, and that not with reference to sharpening (Luth., Grotius), but to the splitting of wood, etc. (Geier, Desvoeux, Mendelss.), all modern interpreters, with the exception of a few who lose themselves on their own path, gain the thought, that in all undertakings wisdom hath the advantage in the devising of means subservient to an end. The diversities in the interpretation of details leave the essence of this thought untouched. Hitz., Bottch., Zockl., Lange, and others make the wood-splitter, or, in general, the labourer, the subject to ΠΠΡ, referring xm to the iron, and, contrary to the accents, beginning the apodosis with qgiigal: “If he (one) has made the iron blunt, and it is without an edge, he swings it, and applies his strength.” DYE", “without an edge” (lo for blo), would be linguistically as correct as 5°33 Nd, “ without children,” 1 Chron. ii. 30, 32; Ewald, ὃ 2869; and qilqal would have a meaning in some measure supported by Ezek. xxi. 26. But eranting that gilgal, which there signifies ‘‘to shake,” may be used of the swinging of an axe (for which we may refer to the Aethiop. kualkuala, kalkala, of the swinging of a sword), yet ippop (ink Pe?) could have been used, and, besides, D'3),means, not like "8, the edge, but, as a somewhat wider idea, the front, sace (Ezek. xxi. 21; cf. Assyr. pan ilippi, the forepart of a ship); “it has no edge” would have been expressed by (ni*5‘D) ΠΡ N?.NIM, or by ΟΡ WIS VN (7m, D119), We therefore translate: if the iron has become blunt, hebes factum sit (for the Pik. of intransitives has frequently the meaning of an inchoative or desiderative stem, like D2, to become little, decrescere, xii. 3; 773, hebescere, caligare, Ezek. xxi. 12; Ewald, § 120d), and he (who uses it) has not polished (whetted) the face of it, he will (must) increase the force. 7) does not refer to the iron, but, since there was no reason to emphasize the sameness of the subject (as eg. 2 Chron. xxxii. 30), to the labourer, and thus makes, as with the other explanation, the change of subject notice- pp, or pointed with Pattach instead of T'sere (cf. garqar, Num. xxiv. 17) in bibl. usage, from the root-meaning Jevem esse, signifies to move with ease, 1.6. quickness (as also in the Arab. and Aethiop.), to shake (according to which the LXX. and Syr. render it by ταράσσειν, naa, to shake, and thereby to trouble, make muddy); in the Mishn. usage, to make light, little, to bring down, to destroy; here it means to make light = even and smooth (the contrast of rugged and notched), a meaning the possibility of which is warranted by PoP ‘nd, Ezek. i. 7, Dan. x. 6 (which is compared by Jewish lexicographers and interpreters), which is translated by all the old translators “ glittering brass,” and which, more probably than Ewald’s “ to steel” (temper), is derived from the root gal, to burn, glow.’ With vahhaylim the apodosis begins; the style of Koheleth recognises this vav apod. in conditional clauses, iv. 11, cf. Gen. xlii. 9, Ruth i. 13, Job vil 4, Mic. v. 7, and is fond of the inverted order of the words for the sake of emphasis, xi. 8, cf. Jer. xxxvil. 10, and above, under vii. 22.
In 100 ther~-follows the common clause containing the application. Hitzig, Elster, and Zockl. incorrectly translate: “and it is a profit wisely to handle wisdom;” for instead of the inf. absol. ‘33, they unnecessarily read the inf. constr. 1W29, and connect W327 mtn, which is a phrase altogether unparalleled. Hichsir means to set in the right position (vid. above, p. 193, kaser), and the sentence will thus mean: the advantage which the placing rightly of the means serviceable to an end affords, is wisdom—z.e. wisdom bears this advantage in itself, brings it with it, concretely: a wise man is he who reflects ron this advantage. It is certainly also possible that ‘von, after the manner of the Hiph. moyn and Syn, directly means “to succeed,” or causatively: “to make to succeed.” We might explain, as 6.5. Knobel: the advantage of success, or of the causing of prosperity, is wisdom, 7.c. it is that which secures this gain. But the meaning prevalent in post-bibl. Heb. of making fit, equipping,—a predisposition corresponding to a definite aim or result, —ais much more conformable to the example from which the porisma is deduced. Buxtorf translates the Hiph. as a Mishnic word by aptare, rectificare. Tyler suggests along with “ right guidance” the meaning “ pre-arrangement,” which we prefer.’
Ver. 11. The last proverb of this series presents for consideration the uselessness of him who comes too late. “Ifa serpent bite without enchantment, the charmer is of no use.” The Talm. interprets this dx, like that of ver. 10, also as interrog.: Does the serpent bite without its being whispered to, 1.6. without a providential determination impelling it thereto? Jer. Peah,i. 1. But WN, except at Isa. xxvi. 16, where whispering prayers are meant, signifies the whispering of formulas of charming; “ serpents are not to be charmed (tamed),” wind, Jer. viii. 17. Rather for ‘53 ΟΞ the meaning of slander is possible, which is given to it in the Hageada, Taanith 8a: All the beasts will one day all at once say to the serpent: the lion walks on the earth and eats, the wolf tears asunder and eats; but what enjoyment hast thou by thy bite? and it answers them: “ Also the slanderer (pwn Syn) has certainly no profit.” Accordingly the Targ., Jerome, and Luther translate; but if 08 is conditional, and the vav of v’én connects the protasis and the apodosis, then ba’al hallashon must denote a man of tongue, viz. of an enchanting tongue, and thus a charmer (LXX., Syr.). This name for the charmer, one of many, is not unintentional; the tongue is an instrument, as iron is, ver. 10: the latter must be sharp, if it would not make greater effort necessary; the former, if it is to gain its object, must be used at the right time. The serpent bites ‘nd ‘23, when it bites before it has been charmed (cf. b’lo yomo, Job xv. 32); there are also serpents which bite without letting themselves be charmed; but here this is the point, that it anticipates the enchantment, and thus that the charmer comes too late, and can make no use of his tongue for the intended purpose, and therefore has no advantage from his act. There appropriately follow here proverbs of the use of the tongue on the part of a wise man, and its misuse on the part of a fool.
The Worthless Prating and the Ainiless Labour of the Fool, x. 12-15.
It is wisdom, as the preceding series of proverbs has shown, to be on one’s guard to provide oneself with the right means, and to observe the right time. These characteristics of the wise man ver. 11 has brought to view, by an example from the sphere of action in which the tongue serves as the instrument. There now follows, not unexpectedly, a proverb with reference to that which the words of a wise man and the words of a fool respectively bring about. meaning of ‘‘ to set, ἃ priori, in the right place.” Luther translated gilqal twice