A COMMENTARY
ON
ECCLESIASTES

Transcriber’s Notes

The cover image was provided by the transcriber and is placed in the public domain.

The original text displayed the Authorized Version of Scripture on the left page and the author’s paraphrase on the facing right page. For the electronic formats, these two versions for each verse have been placed in two columns followed immediately by the corresponding commentary.

Punctuation has been standardized.

Most of the non-common abbreviations used to save space in printing have been expanded to the non-abbreviated form for easier reading.

The text may show quotations within quotations, all set off by similar quote marks. The inner quotations have been changed to alternate quote marks for improved readability.

This book has illustrated drop-caps at the start of each chapter. These illustrations may adversely affect the pronunciation of the word with screen-readers or not display properly in some handheld devices.

This book was written in a period when many words had not become standardized in their spelling. Words may have multiple spelling variations or inconsistent hyphenation in the text. These have been left unchanged unless indicated with a Transcriber’s Note.

Index references have not been checked for accuracy.

The symbol ‘‡’ indicates the description in parenthesis has been added to an illustration. This may be needed if there is no caption or if the caption does not describe the image adequately.

Footnotes are identified in the text with a superscript number and are shown immediately below the paragraph in which they appear.

Transcriber’s Notes are used when making corrections to the text or to provide additional information for the modern reader. These notes are identified by ♦♠♥♣ symbols in the text and are shown immediately below the paragraph in which they appear.

A COMMENTARY

ON

ECCLESIASTES

RIVINGTONS

A COMMENTARY

ON

ECCLESIASTES

BY THE REV.

THOMAS PELHAM DALE, M.A.

LATE FELLOW OF SIDNEY COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE,
AND RECTOR OF ST. VEDAST WITH ST. MICHAEL LE QUERNE, LONDON.

דִּבְרֵי חֲכָמִים וְחִידֹתָם׃ יִרְאַת יְהוָה[♦] רֵאשִׁית דָּעַת

[♦] “יְחוָֹה” replaced with “יְהוָה”

RIVINGTONS

London, Oxford, and Cambridge

1873

TO

JOHN HALL GLADSTONE, Esq. Ph. D. F.R.S.

THROUGH WHOSE LIBERALITY IT SEES THE LIGHT,

IS THIS WORK AFFECTIONATELY DEDICATED BY

The Author.

PREFACE.

THE following Commentary differs from many of its predecessors in the greater weight given to the interpretation of the LXX., and the closer investigation of their peculiar renderings. In many cases these strange renderings on the part of the LXX. are dismissed by commentators as simply errors. But this is not consistent with what true criticism ought to do. The LXX. is not only the oldest translation we have, but also the only one made when Hebrew was yet a living language. Its peculiar renderings then deserve our most serious attention. The investigation of them will fully reward the inquirer. This, then, is the cause of the special line of interpretation adopted in this Commentary.

With regard to the Book of Ecclesiastes itself, the writer must confess himself homo unius libri; for some years past all his Hebrew and Greek studies have been devoted to the investigation of the meaning of this one book in the Sacred Canon, and all his conclusions must be taken with the reservation that they apply, directly, to this one book alone. Such a concentration of effort may be expected to produce results which might not be arrived at by a far wider and more extensive research, just as a few rays of sunlight concentrated by a small lens will burn where the sun himself will only warm.

Nevertheless, this book does not profess to be anything in the nature of a new discovery. Sense is attempted to be made of difficult passages by what may be called a microscopic attention to the grammar of the writer, and a minute and careful analysis of every form and expression he uses. The test of the correctness of the meaning thus found is displayed in the way in which it falls into place in the context, and squares with its tenor. But nothing novel in the way of Hebrew grammar is urged, or anything which may not be found in ordinary commentaries, except, perhaps, it be the fact of the difference of signification between the contracted and full relative pronoun——a usage which is peculiar to the Book of Ecclesiastes. This has hitherto been dismissed by other commentators as evidence of late composition, without giving it the notice it merited.

Many points of interest are started in these pages, which would well repay a more careful investigation than I have either leisure or learning to follow out. They are only presented so far as necessary to illustrate and clear up difficulties in the interpretation of that marvellous book which is the subject of this Commentary. If I have succeeded, the Church will be benefited; if I have altogether failed, my book will only add a few pages more to the vast literature which this, the scientific treatise of the Divine Word, has elicited.

London, Oct. 1873.

INTRODUCTION.

DATE AND AUTHORSHIP.

THE title or superscription of the book is, chapter i. 1, ‘The words of Koheleth, the son of David, king of Jerusalem,’ and this is further explained in verse 12, by ‘I Koheleth was king over Israel in Jerusalem.’ The only person in Jewish history who answers exactly to this description is Solomon, and accordingly the whole ancient Church, Jewish as well as Christian, have regarded Solomon as the undoubted author of the book. With this conclusion even modern criticism is so far agreed, that it is universally admitted that Solomon is the hero or personated author, even though it is denied that he was the real writer. It is alleged that internal evidence is against the supposition of so early a date; for that the language and tone of thought in the book point to a writer further on in Jewish history. The favourite opinion amongst German scholars is, that Ecclesiastes was composed towards the end of the Persian dominion. Ewald, indeed, considers that, so far as language and style is concerned, the book might be the very latest written in the whole Hebrew Scriptures.

A detailed history of the exposition of the book will be found in the Coheleth of Dr. Ginsburg, together with a complete discussion of the reasons for and against Solomonic authorship. It will be unnecessary, therefore, to go into detail on this point. We shall only add what concerns the immediate object of the present Commentary, remarking that several most competent English-speaking scholars remain unconvinced by arguments which have apparently fully satisfied their German brethren. Dr. Wordsworth, Professor Plumptre, Dr. Taylor Lewis of America, argue that the book is really Solomon’s, while even in Germany D. H. A. Hahn (Commentar über das Predigerbuch, Leipzig, 1860) is strongly on the side of the Solomonic authorship.

The principal arguments in favour of later date derived from internal evidence, arise from (first) the state of violence and misery depicted in the book with so much bitterness, and which, it is alleged, cannot be made to harmonize with what we know of the reign of Solomon; and (secondly) the strongly Aramaic character of the language, which assimilates itself to that of the books of Daniel and Esther. With regard to the first point (if we have at all found the real interpretation of the book), it seems improbable that any special description of a particular period could have been ever intended, or even any allusion to the special circumstances of any people. So far also from supposing a time of trouble in the mind of the writer, on the contrary the point and moral of the book will be enhanced if we suppose it to be written rather in a time of prosperity than of adversity or oppression. Thus, if we turn to the expressions of chapter [iv. 1] we shall see that to give any special reference to them, and suppose them peculiar or out of the way, would weaken the force of Koheleth’s argument. Human life generally, under the very best of external circumstances, always exhibits the spectacle both of oppressions by the wicked, and of oppressed without comforters. Now underneath this statement lies the difficulty that He who permits this is the merciful Author of Nature Himself, and it is this difficulty which is especially discussed. There is no necessity to suppose the concluding years of Persian tyranny to be pointedly alluded to, because it is not under an Asiatic despotism alone that hypocrites come and go from the place of the holy (chapter viii. 10), or servants are seen on horseback, and nobles, like serfs, walking afoot (chapter x. 7), or that men continue in prosperous wickedness (chapter ix. 3). Indeed, the same may be said of any other of the similar providential difficulties advanced in this book, for the very same occurrences may be witnessed now in this age of civilisation and progress. The reply then to the assertion that it is ‘impossible to reconcile this state of things with the age of Solomon’ is simply this. There is no need even to make the attempt, because there is no reason to believe that, considering the author’s standpoint, he intended that the instances of human suffering and disappointment he cites should be taken otherwise than perfectly generally. What he adduces of this nature is in sufficient measure true always, at the best of times. It would blunt the point of his reasoning if it could be shown that the difficulties he starts were exceptional or temporary; but this is not so. Koheleth’s repeated declaration is that all——that is, the whole of human life——is vanity or evanescence.

The argument from Aramaic words is much more formidable, and would be conclusive if our knowledge of the successive stages of the Hebrew language were less fragmentary and uncertain than is really the case. It is quite true that such words as מדינה, רעיון, רעות, כבר, זמן, פתגם, have an Aramaic colouring; but we must set against this the fact that, as Ewald remarks, we have in Ecclesiastes a new philosophical terminology, which has modified the Hebrew of the book. And again, it will be seen by referring to the places where these peculiar words occur, that they are introduced either for the purposes of expressing new ideas or terms not found in the language elsewhere. Sometimes the more usual word would be out of harmony with the context, e.g. the word זמון replaces the more ordinary מיעד, because not only is the latter used to signify a feast, but the root-meaning of the former is just what is required by the argument. Again, כבר, as will be seen stated at length in the notes, is used in the purely technical sense, of ‘this present,’ and not in the ordinary meaning of ‘already.’ The unusual [♦]אלו, chapter vi. 6, also is apparently introduced for the sake of the alliteration with הלא in the next clause, and the once occurring עֲדֶן chapter iv. 3, for the sake of the equivoke to which its use gives rise. All these Aramaic words are noticed as they occur in the body of the Commentary, and we think that the conclusion which results from what there appears is to weaken very considerably any argument as to date which can be drawn from them one way or the other.

[♦] “הלא” replaced with “אלו”

Again, the object of the book is so peculiar, and so different from all the rest of Scripture, and especially from those which, supposing Solomon was the author, would stand related to it in point of time, that we may well expect some difference of language and colouring. Again, also, there is another reason. The books immediately subsequent to Solomon’s era are all prophetic. Now it seems natural that prophets should use an antique style, which would be tinged with that of the earlier religious books, while if, on the other hand, as the LXX. seem to imply by their translation of the word Koheleth, and appears also from the alliterations in the book itself, it were an address orally delivered, it would no doubt contain colloquialisms. There are strong indications that it does so. Now these colloquialisms would certainly have an Aramaic cast about them. Thus the difference of diction between the Hebrew of Koheleth and a contemporary prophet would be exaggerated, and any estimate of date due to this difference proportionately uncertain.

On the whole, for myself, I have no theory to support either way. I am content to let the matter rest, as I believe the Scripture itself leaves it, which, after all, nowhere refers the authorship to Solomon. In accordance with this, both to save space and to conduce to clearness, I have always referred to the author by the name Koheleth, and to the book itself as Ecclesiastes, in the course of the subsequent Commentary.

DESIGN AND METHOD OF THE WORK.

The design of the book is no other than argumentatively to work out the concluding aphorism of the whole: ‘Fear God, and keep His commandments, for this is the whole problem of Humanity.’ This truth is never for a moment lost sight of, not even in those passages which sound most sceptical or Epicurean. We may compare this marvellous book to an overture, and say that this truth is its subject. This overture, however, is written in a minor key; it is almost always plaintive; sometimes it descends to what sounds like absolute discord; but this subject floats through its wildest and strangest melodies, resolves its harshest discords, connects its most erratic wanderings. Koheleth is a perfect master of sarcasm. A certain grim and bitter yet grave and holy satire runs through his book. He makes his readers think whether they will or no. For this purpose he sometimes descends to plays upon words, equivokes, alliterations, possibly also proverbs in ordinary circulation. He certainly writes in the ‘vulgar tongue.’ But these equivokes always help the sense. If Koheleth appears in the guise of a popular preacher, he never loses sight of the moralist and philosopher. His sermon, for such we believe it to be, will bear comparison with another wonderful sermon found in Holy Scripture, with which it has some striking points of resemblance, and yet how wonderfully different!

The book then opens with an exclamation which serves as a text or topic——‘Vanity of vanities,’——and forthwith proceeds to state the question, and work out the conclusion which this topic suggests. Has mankind any advantage (in the sense of a result in the future) by reason of his toil or anxiety (the technical word here used is עמל, by which word is meant the same thing as the Greek expresses by μέριμνα, cares of this life, Matthew xiii. 22)? This he answers in the negative by eight aphorisms, four drawn from observation of nature and four from moral considerations, which we have called the eight unbeatitudes of the sermon. This constitutes the first part of the proof. Koheleth then goes on to discuss the question, Can any solution of this providential difficulty be discovered? This, in the first place, is attempted to be answered by an autobiography, in which Koheleth shows in succession that wisdom, mirth, accumulation of wealth, etc., are alike evanescent and unsatisfactory, as his own experience (and no one was likely to do better) abundantly displayed. These together form the first great division of the book——Chapters I. and II.

In the next five Chapters, III. to VII., the same question is discussed from another point of view. Koheleth remarks on the unalterable character of Providence, and shows that even if it were possible that human wisdom could cause change (which it cannot), that the alteration could only be for the worse. He begins by enumerating twenty-eight times or seasons——that is, a fourfold seven——of which the last is ‘a time of peace.’ This is especially worthy of remark, as it is an instance of one of those hopes of better things which Koheleth allows to appear, as it were by stealth, amidst his most melancholy utterances. He then argues this matter, and through a long and sustained course of reasoning, the conclusion of which is, that God must right the wronged.

But there naturally arises the objection, If this be so, why does impiety and oppression exist so continually in the very places or circumstances where we ought to expect the reverse? To this Koheleth offers two solutions, which, however, are neither satisfactory; the second indeed would lead to absolute scepticism. The true deduction is however stated in the last verse of chapter iii. (22), which is, that if any result is to be accomplished by human toil, it can only consist in present gratification.

Koheleth then turns to the consideration of oppressions or afflictions, this turn of thought being that present enjoyment is marred by the existence of so much irremediable unhappiness; that if this world be all, the dead are better off than the living; that the result even of success is envy rather than pleasure; that it is useless labouring for posterity, and no avail in the present. Koheleth here sarcastically points out that labour for others does give some advantage, the only instance where he sees the possibility of any at all. He carefully limits, however, all this to the present life, this formula ‘under the sun,’ i.e. in this world of labour and toil, being introduced frequently, showing that all he says is to be taken with this proviso.

In Chapter V. Koheleth begins to display the great remedy for human ills——that is, piety, patience, and submission to the Divine will, cautioning against foolish sacrifices, rash vows, rash speeches, selfishness and avarice. This display of the remedy, however, is as yet subordinate, the main object being to show that all arguments conspire to prove the vanity or transitoriness of human existence. With this Chapter VI. ends, and with it the more argumentative portion of the treatise.

Chapter VII. opens with a paradoxical statement of seven good things, which look like evil ones, and on this Koheleth develops the thought that man does not know a good thing when he sees it. He shows that even wisdom itself will not necessarily produce happiness in this world, though this, he is sure, is a good thing; but he is very bitter and sarcastic on those who, because right does not always succeed, resort to impiety; this, he shows, is a great and fatal mistake. Though the proposition that piety is happiness is not formally stated or worked out argumentatively, nevertheless this is proved so completely that Koheleth is able at the end of the whole to cite this as the real result of his argument.

If, however, piety be the remedy for human ills, early piety is essential to tolerable ease and quiet in this world. This is set forth in the same paradoxical and sarcastic way as before. We are advised to avoid certain evils while we can. These are described with great pathos in Chapter XII. It is however, we believe, quite a mistake to imagine that the close of the book contains an allegorical description of old age. The weakness and other trials of age are, no doubt, brought before us in very poetic and picturesque language. There is an Oriental richness and floridness about this language at first strange to Western ears; but the images employed all admit of resolution by an appeal to the usage of Scripture elsewhere, and can be shown to be quite in place. The conclusion of the whole is significantly the same as the topic at the beginning, ‘Vanity of vanities, the whole is vanity.’

The Epilogue, chapter xii. 9, follows. This has been pronounced by some to be an interpolation, the work of a later hand; but we could no more imagine a book of the Old Testament ending with such an aphorism as vanity of vanities, without doing violence to our critical instinct, than we could believe that the Gospel of St. Mark was ever intended to end with the words ‘They were afraid’ [ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ, Mark xvi. 8]. It is rather the bold, open statement of the truth, which has in a more or less covered manner formed the subject of the whole book. The aphorism, ‘Fear God and keep His commandments,’ contains the only possible solution of providential difficulties or remedy of human ills, and it is in vain to look for any other. The reasons for this mystery we must leave to God alone. He will bring into judgment——i.e. into adjustment or declared consistency with justice——every mystery, whether to our notions good or evil. With this assurance the book appropriately ends.

GRAMMATICAL PECULIARITIES.

The Book of Ecclesiastes being a didactic and argumentative treatise, and the only work of its kind in the Scriptures, its Hebrew is modified to meet the requirements of that which is a new philosophy, so that we may fully indorse Ewald’s expression, that ‘Koheleth uses the Hebrew language as a flexible instrument for the expression of novel ideas.’ This naturally implies a usage of words and phrases peculiar to this book, and accounts for the large number of unusual forms and once occurring words and the like which here meet us. It will be apparent to any who will diligently examine the text, that Koheleth confines himself very strictly indeed to the rules of his own grammar, and uses articles, prepositions, and tenses with an accuracy not inferior to Greek itself. For example, there is a real distinction to be discovered between the usage of masculine and feminine forms, where a substantive is of both genders. It is not a matter of indifference whether the full relative is used or the contracted form; on the contrary, it will be seen that the contracted relative gives an optative or subjunctive sense; or whether a verb governs directly or through the intervention of the particle את; a distinction which the LXX. were quite aware of, and which gave rise to their adverbial σὺν. What, for want of a better term, we have called distributive plurals——i.e. a singular noun and plural verb in agreement, or vice versâ——are exceedingly significant. They have a peculiar shade of meaning, according to circumstances and position in the sentence. It is too a matter of some consequence whether the nominative precedes or follows the verb; hence in the running translation this order is never reversed, even where our idiom requires it, but explanatory words are introduced. All these matters are, where necessary, pointed out in the notes——perhaps some may imagine pressed too far, and repeated ad nauseam; but the excuse must be that on these minutiæ depend the evidence of correct rendering. If thus a good sense is made out, as it were spontaneously, and which, moreover, is found to fall into place as it occurs in the context, we have strong evidence that we have hit the real meaning.

Connected with this grammatical usage is a peculiar terminology, also to be expected in a scientific treatise. Thus דבר is very commonly rendered in this Commentary by ‘reasoning,’ the exact idea implied being a matter or thing reasoned about, with the further notion or conclusion that this reason will become ground of action. No single English or even Greek word will render it, but once let us master its real significance, and the force and cogency of many passages will become manifest. Again, חפץ, which has the sense of ‘an agreeable occurrence,’ ‘a providence,’ and then generally of ‘any event,’ in this book denotes a ‘providential occurrence.’ Again, עמל is not exactly toil, but the fatigue, distress, or anxiety that comes of it. It differs from ענין, which is also anxiety, but that kind of anxiety which comes of uncertainty as to a future result. Two most important words are סכלות and הללות: the former is that kind of folly which has the appearance of wisdom, clever folly, or foolish wisdom; the latter is that kind of folly which is begotten of a false expectation of the result, as in our expression ‘made a fool of.’ So again כבר is not an adverb ‘already,’ but rather a substantive,——this present considered as now existing. These technical words are all noticed as they occur, and a sense given, the proof of the correctness of which is that appropriate meaning is made in every place in which they occur. As several are found nowhere else in Scripture, this is the only true method of coming at their meaning. It is also worthy of notice that these words occur usually seven or ten times, or some other round or mystic number. This happens so frequently that it can hardly be accidental, but I have seldom been able to trace any rule or law in this circumstance. On the whole, however, it may be taken as an axiom that when Koheleth uses a peculiar word, he intends to express a peculiar idea, and his meaning must be sought accordingly. Careful attention to this point clears up many difficulties.

Alliteration and paronomasia occur with great and characteristic frequency, a proof surely that the book was intended to be preached or delivered as an address. It is, of course, very difficult to give these in the English version. Sometimes in the paraphrastic translation this is attempted by means of rhymes and alliterations. I can hardly pronounce these quite successful, and often have felt inclined to return to a more literal rendering, but then this most characteristic feature of the book would have been lost to the English reader. Every one who has ever addressed an assembly knows how very telling these hits are, and moreover they are of real importance to the commentator, as bringing the words on which the alliteration depends into artificial prominence. There is a danger, no doubt, that when once the mind is aroused to this, that equivokes should be found where they were not intended; but of this the reader must judge.

This perhaps is the best point at which to discuss the meaning of the word Koheleth. In its present form and pointing קֹהֶלֶת is the active feminine participle of Kal of the verb קהל, occurring as a verb only in niphal and hiphil. The feminine noun occurs Deuteronomy xxxiii. 4, קְהִלַּת——i.e. this word differently pointed——which the LXX. render by συναγωγῆς. קְהִלַּת occurs Nehemiah v. 7, rendered ἐκκλησίαν. With this before us it seems beside the mark to seek a meaning out of the root קהל. According to the usage observable in this book, feminines (we should prefer to call them abstracts) in ת differ from those in ה——compare עמדת, chapter i. 4; the abstract in this form again becomes as it were a concrete. Thus we should incline to indorse the view enunciated by Preston, who considers the word to be represented by ‘collector’ or ‘concionator’ in Latin. Both these meanings we believe are contained in the word, and it is quite consistent with what we know of the style of Ecclesiastes to admit that both these meanings were intended to be conveyed. The discourse is a collection of separate but connected aphorisms on the transitoriness of human existence——the author is thus a collector of them; and as the discourse was delivered apparently when collected, he is a concionator or preacher also. The word used by the LXX., ἐκκλησιαστὴς, occurs nowhere else, either in the Old or New Testaments, so that the precise meaning they affixed to the word is unknown. In classical Greek it means preacher.

The repetition of a word, whether substantive or particle, in the same sentence, of course gives emphasis to that word; to translate accurately, therefore, when this occurs, we have to add some English equivalent, such as ‘this’ or ‘as well,’ and so forth, see Commentary passim. A careful attention to this rule will often considerably help to clear up obscure passages.

ON THE PECULIAR RENDERINGS OF THE VERSION OF THE LXX.

The remark of Delitzsch on the translation of the LXX., affixed to the Book of Psalms (Delitzsch on the Psalms, Clark’s Library, Edinburgh) may be introduced here:——‘This translation, as being the oldest key to the understanding of the language of the Old Testament writings, as being the oldest mirror of the Old Testament text, and as an important check upon the interpretation of Scripture handed down in the Talmud and Midrash, and in that portion of the national literature not originating in Egypt, is invaluable.’ For this remark applies to the rendering of Ecclesiastes in an equal, if not greater degree, and may be offered as an excuse, if one be needed, for the comparatively large space assigned to the discussion of the Septuagint renderings.

A peculiarity which meets us in this book is the occurrence of the preposition σὺν followed by an accusative, and in one case a genitive, and which seldom if ever occurs in other books. This apparently trifling circumstance, which is usually treated as a barbarism, will give the clue which will lead to some curious and interesting facts connected with the methods of translation adopted by the LXX.

If we examine carefully and in detail the wording of the LXX. we can hardly fail to be struck with the excessive care that is taken to render in the exact order of the Hebrew——a remark which may be extended to other portions of this version, the Book of Job being, however, a striking exception, (and when there is any considerable departure, in almost every instance hitherto examined a serious variation of text in the different recensions of the LXX. will be found to occur.) In Ecclesiastes this order is so strict that, with hardly an exception, it would be possible to print the Greek text as it stands as an interlinear translation. This most interesting point deserves further investigation than appears as yet to have been given to it. My own impression from this circumstance, is that the version of the LXX. was made with the idea that those who used it had the Hebrew before them, and this hypothesis, for in truth it is nothing more, will I think group together more facts than any other suppositions which have been adopted to explain these strange renderings met with in the LXX.,——as, for example, variation of original text, wilful corruption on the part of the translators, Hagadic influence (of which more presently), and the like. The LXX. have executed their work so well, that notwithstanding this restriction which they thus laid upon themselves, we have a very good translation, which for many centuries was used as the sole representative of the ancient Scriptures, and on which the whole fabric of ancient theology was erected.

This interlinear character, as we may call it, of the version of the LXX., will explain why they render the same Hebrew word by such very different Greek equivalents. In an interlinear translation there is no special value in uniform rendering; rather the reverse. It is better even to study variety than uniformity, although we believe that the LXX. do neither the one nor the other, but simply endeavour to give the best possible rendering of the passage before them. For example, the word חפץ is rendered in chapter iii. 1, 17, v. 8 (7), viii. 6, by πρᾶγμα, and in the other three cases in which it occurs, viz., chapter v. 4 (3), xii. 1, 10, by θέλημα. Now the real meaning of this word, as we have shown, is an agreeable providential occurrence, or, since all providential occurrences imply the Divine will on their side, any such whatever. The LXX. use the one rendering or the other as best suits the context. This book containing so large a number of technical words, the meaning of which is to be sought by a careful comparison of all the passages in which they occur, the renderings of the LXX. become of special interest. The meaning compounded of the meanings of the LXX.’s renderings, to use a mathematical simile, will give us often the precise shade of signification of the Hebrew of which we are in search, and this will then approve itself as correct by its suitableness in every instance.

The same observation applies to the grammar of the Greek as representing that of the Hebrew. There is no attempt whatever to render Hebrew grammatical forms with any uniformity. Hebrew perfects are rendered by Greek presents, aorists, or perfects; Hebrew presents by aorists or perfects. Participles are rendered sometimes by participles, at others by principal verbs. The same Hebrew prepositions are sometimes rendered by different Greek prepositions, and sometimes simply by case-endings. The relative is rendered by the relative, by the pronoun, and by ὅτι. The Hebrew conjugations are not represented on any settled principle; Piels are sometimes indeed apparently marked by a preposition compounded with the verb, sometimes not noticed at all. In certain cases in which the root is doubtful, as for example in ain vaw, and ain ain verbs, the LXX. do not always follow the Masoretic pointing and derivation. On the whole, however, the deviations of the LXX., from both pointing and accentuation, are more apparent than real, and may be explained, for the most part, on the principle that the translators felt themselves obliged to follow the order of the words in the original.

We must, however, bear in mind that the present text of the LXX. is of all texts the most time-worn, and often requires correction. Most providentially we do not depend on one recension; we have in existing copies the remains of several, and we may make use of them to restore the original readings. The problem in this case differs essentially from that which meets us in revising the Greek text of the New Testament. Here diplomatic evidence has not the same weight as there. Emendations may be detected, even when better readings of the Hebrew, by want of conformity to the Hebrew order (and the temptation to make such kind of alterations, when the version was used independently, would clearly be very great), or again a comparison of the various readings will enable us to guess with tolerable confidence what the Hebrew originally was. In this way, when the Hebrew text is doubtful, we can ascertain the correct reading by searching for that common origin from which the variants in the LXX. were derived, and we may then turn round on the version with the help of the Hebrew, and show how the changes successively arose. An instance of this will be found at chapter x. 10; how far I have succeeded the reader must judge. We must also bear in mind that what we should now denote by marginal renderings are in the ancient versions inserted in the text. The interlinear character of the version enables us to detect this: we find two Greek words standing in place of a single Hebrew equivalent. The result of all this, as applied in the Book of Ecclesiastes, is to vindicate the accuracy of the received Hebrew text, and, in a less degree, of the pointing and accentuation also. Only in a very few instances is it needful to propose an emendation of the Hebrew text, and that where the ancient versions are apparently unanimous in requiring it.

There remains another point, however. Dr. Ginsburg (and from his extensive acquaintance with Jewish literature no one is better qualified to give an opinion) considers that Hagadic influence must be taken largely into account in explaining difficult passages in Ecclesiastes; amongst other points he notices the rendering of את by σὺν, which has been referred to already. ‘Commentators,’ he says, ‘have been perplexed to account for this barbarism, and violation of grammatical propriety, but a reference to Hagadic exegesis will show that this Hebrew particle was looked up to as having a mystical signification, because the two letters, א and ת, of which it is composed, are the Alpha and Omega of the Hebrew alphabet. Hence the anxiety of the translator to indicate this particle in Greek, when a passage appeared to him to be fraught with special mysteries.’ But, as he remarks, it is only in twenty-nine instances out of seventy-one occurrences of this particle that it is so rendered by the LXX. Moreover, Dr. Ginsburg has not shown that these passages are specially mysterious. They are in fact neither more nor less so than some others in which this particle is not so rendered. An examination of these passages will show, we think convincingly, that what the LXX. wished to do was to point out that את was emphatic and with the meaning of ‘respect to,’ or the like, as will be seen by reference to the Commentary, especially chapters ii. 17, iii. 17, vii. 26, viii. 8, 15.

The Hagadic influence, according to Dr. Ginsburg, is still more evident in the peculiar rendering of chapter ii. 12, as well as chapters ii. 17, iii. 15, iv. 17, v. 1, all which are fully treated in the Commentary, and the renderings of the LXX. explained and elucidated, it is hoped satisfactorily. So far from the true explanation of these renderings being found in the Chaldee paraphrase, as Dr. Ginsburg imagines, that version gives distorted interpretations of passages but partially understood. Again, the gloss of the LXX. at chapter ii. 15 is shared by the Syriac, and is a marginal reading; chapter ii. 17 is a verbatim reading of the Hebrew in every particular; and the gloss at chapter ii. 9 is too evidently foisted in from the margin to make it of much value in any argument. See note there.

Holding as I do the paramount authority of the LXX., I have not scrupled to follow them against the Masoretic interpretation when the sense of a passage seemed to require it, and I deem it a sufficient answer to any objections on this head, that the rendering proposed is supported by the LXX. On the whole, however, these differences are, as remarked above, not very great, and we have rather occasion for surprise, not that there is here and there a divergence, but that on the whole there is so substantial agreement. The pointing which we have in our Hebrew Bibles embodies a most valuable and venerable tradition, but in its present form younger by centuries than that furnished by the rendering of the LXX. While, therefore, we admit its great value, we ought not to make its authority absolute, and this is done to all intents and purposes by those who reject without question the ancient interpretation because it conflicts with the present pointing. No language is too high to characterize our obligations to those Jewish fathers who have guarded so faithfully that special trust committed to them——the oracles of God. But the Synagogue is no more infallible in matters of criticism than is the Church. Neither the Masorets nor the LXX. are inspired, though inspiration has been by their respective partisans vehemently claimed for both. Each party, also, has unduly depreciated the other, and the Hebrew scholars have been for centuries divided into punctists and anti-punctists. But as there is no royal road to learning, so there is no short-cut to certainty; the whole evidence, let it come from whence it may, must be diligently weighed and compared. So far as the version of the LXX. is concerned, this is not done until their errors, or supposed errors, have been at least duly explained and accounted for, even when their renderings are rejected.

OTHER VERSIONS OF ANTIQUITY.

Next in order in point of antiquity to the version of the LXX. stands the Syriac Peshito. This I have sometimes quoted in the present Commentary, having considered it my duty to make myself acquainted with this version, so that if I am not in a position to offer anything of my own, I can follow other commentators, and test their accuracy. The citations are made from the edition of Dr. Lee, published by the Bible Society. As might be expected, the Syriac version stands midway between the LXX. and Masoretic text, agreeing sometimes with the one and sometimes with the other. It is often assumed that the peculiar renderings of the Syriac which agree with the LXX. against the Masoretic rendering, arise from corrections of the former text by the latter; this, however, is not proved. The existence of such an element of correction may well be admitted, but it is only one out of many, and in some cases we shall, I think, have reason to conclude that the sense, set aside as of no critical value by some commentators, does in fact embody the real meaning of the passage under discussion. See chapter [x. 10] for an instance of this.

The Vulgate is generally accessible; its value is subordinate as compared with the above-mentioned versions, being only, as is well known, corrected from the Hebrew by Jerome. Sometimes, however, the evidence it affords of an ancient reading is all the more valuable on this account. See the note at chapter [x. 10.]

The fragments of the ancient Greek versions of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion are often of the very highest value, and diligent use has been made of them. The edition used is that of Field, Originis Hexapla, edition by Fridericus Field, Oxford, 1867, vol. ii. The Codex Syriaco Hexaplaris, H. Middedorpf, Berlin, 1835, has also been examined.

THE TRANSLATIONS OF THIS COMMENTARY.

Two translations of this book are here offered to the reader, the first, dispersed through the notes, denoted by bold-faced type, is absolutely literal, even to utter baldness, and rigidly follows the exact order of the Hebrew. In the accompanying running commentary the construction of the sentences is carefully pointed out, the rendering of the LXX. noted where peculiar, and the attempt made in all cases to account for the peculiarity, either by showing that they have preserved the true interpretation, or else explaining how the error arose. The sense thus obtained is embodied in the paraphrastic version printed at the head of the page. There has been no attempt made to adopt, in this latter translation, the phraseology of the Authorized Version; rather the reverse, as it is not intended to be independent, but is to be regarded as of the nature of an explanatory commentary or an English Targum upon the text. It also seeks to render idea for idea rather than word for word, and gives in every case the meaning which on the whole seemed most probable, and squared best with the context. It attempts also to represent equivokes and alliterations in the original, by corresponding equivokes and alliterations——not necessarily in the equivalent words of the translation,——and points out, by figures, italics, and other typographical signs, instances of artificial arrangement of topics and the like; see Chapters I. and II., etc. To the English reader a caution is here needed. The very nature of such a version requires that all be made to run quite smoothly; thus, however obscure the passage, a sense is given, and difficulties are put out of sight. But after all this only represents the meaning the commentator thinks most probable, and he may be quite wrong, and altogether mistaken. Such a version is after all a Targum——in other words, a well-meaning attempt at explanation, with some amplification, of the sacred text. In dealing then with it let the reader imitate the Jews of old, who, when they read the sacred text itself, did so with every outward manifestation of respect and deference; but when they came to read the Targum altered their manner, and showed by posture and gesture that they clearly regarded this as but a mere exposition of the Divine Word, and of no authority.

The following works are assumed to be easily accessible to English readers:——Ecclesiastes, Theodore Preston, London, 1845; Commentary on Ecclesiastes, Moses Stuart, New York, 1851; Coheleth, by Christian D. Ginsburg, London, 1861; Ecclesiastes or Koheleth, by Dr. Otto Zöckler, edited by Prof. Taylor Lewis, LL.D., Edinburgh, 1870; Commentary on the Bible, C. Wordsworth, Bishop of Lincoln, London, 1868. The work of Dr. Ginsburg especially will be found indispensable. Dr. Ginsburg has stated at length, and for the most part in the writers’ own words, the different opinions of critics, Jewish and Christian, who have written on this book. His vast reading and erudition are thus made available for future scholars. Once for all, I must acknowledge the deep obligation I am under to his work. If in many of my renderings I am compelled to differ from him, I am not the less indebted to him on that account. If I have really seen further than he has, it is only because he has, so to speak, allowed me to mount on his shoulders. Any one who takes the trouble to compare my work with his will see that most of my renderings could have been supported by a name of weight. If, however, I have the authority of the LXX. in my favour, I am content, and cite no others. I have, however, not failed to resort to such of the commentators in Dr. Ginsburg’s list, German and English, as well as some published since the appearance of his book, as would be likely to give additional light.

The work of Dr. Graetz, Kohelet oder der Salomonische Prediger, von Dr. H. Graetz, Leipzig, 1871, did not come to hand until the larger portion of this commentary was in type.

The texts made use of are those contained in the Polyglotten Bibel, zum praktischen Handgebrauch bearbeitet von R. Stier, und R. G. W. Theile, Dritte Auflage, Bielfeld, 1864.

The following notation of MS. and Editions from the above work is adopted in the commentary:——

A Alexandrine text.

A¹ Alexandrine Manuscript.

A² Alexandrine Edition, Grabe, Breitinger, Reineccius.

B Vatican text.

B¹ Vatican Manuscript.

B² Roman Edition, 1587.

C Codex Frederico-Augustanus (of Tischendorf.)

D Codex Ephraemi rescriptus (of Tischendorf.)

E Editio Aldina, 1518.

F Complutensium Polyglot.

X Other MS. not especially named.

It may also be noticed that all citations are from chapter and verse as in the Authorized Version; where these differ from the Hebrew, the latter is added in a bracket——thus chapter v. 9 (8).

ECCLESIASTES.

CHAPTER I.

THE words of the Preacher, the son of David, king of Jerusalem.

THE discourse of the Preacher, the son of David, king of Jerusalem.

I. (1.) The words of Koheleth, the son of David, king in Jerusalem. The meaning of the term Koheleth, and the question of authorship of the book, is discussed in the introduction. We have only to remark here on the use of the word דבר as it occurs in this book in the technical sense not only of a ‘word’ or ‘reason,’ but also including the matter or thing which the word represents. Usually it refers to words, reasonings, and matters connected with the mysteries of Providence——the whole treatise itself being argumentative and didactic, discussing the vanity, that is, the transitoriness, of human existence, as its topic.

2 Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity.

Section I.——The vanity or evanescence of all things human.

Utterly evanescent, utterly evanescent, saith the Preacher; the whole is evanescent.

(2.) Vanity of vanities, said Koheleth; vanity of vanities (very emphatic), the whole (הכל, with the article giving a slightly different notion to כל, the ‘whole collectively’ therefore; the word is equivalent to the Greek τὸ πᾶν, with the limitation however to human life in this world, as will become manifest in the course of the book) is vanity, (הבל, that which is ‘evanescent’ or ‘transitory,’ but never used in the modern sense of being frivolous or empty.) There is nothing of scoffing epicureanism in this book; the life of man is ever spoken of in the most serious and solemn tones. There is, indeed, much sarcasm, but it never touches upon lightness or indifference; it is always grave and solemn, and even when to superficial observation appearing equivocal or sceptical, proves, on further examination, to hide promises and hopes beneath its bitterness. This first verse may be looked upon as the text or topic of the discourse; Koheleth next proceeds to work out the argument suggested by it in detail.

3 What profit hath a man of all his labour which he taketh under the sun?

Is there any profitable result to Humanity in all his cares, over which he ever moils, in this hot work-day world? [No, for]

(3.) What is? (expecting the answer no, and so nearly equivalent to a denial) the profit (יתרון, a word peculiar to this book——occurs chapter i. 3; ii. 11, 13 twice; iii. 9; v. 9 (8), 16 (15); vii. 12; x. 10, 11——i.e. ten times in all; it is a technical word, and is used to signify that which remains over and above after the act is performed, and apart from its present results. Koheleth uses frequently these nouns ending in ון——thus יתר ‘to extend,’ ‘run over,’ יתרון ‘remainder,’ זכר ‘remember,’ זכרון ‘remembrance,’ etc. These nouns are in their nature abstracts, but differ from the ordinary abstracts; see [chapter i. 14]) to man (לאדם, this word occurs in its different combinations forty-eight times in this book, and always with the signification of man as a member of the human race. There is a tone of personification about the word similar to that which occurs in the expression ‘the old Adam;’ when this generic character is not to be expressed, then איש or אנוש is used instead; see chapters [i. 8]; [ix. 14 and 15]), in all his toil (עמל, a favourite word of Koheleth, and used as frequently in this book as in all the rest of Scripture put together. The exact meaning to be affixed to it, and which, carefully kept in view, will be found to explain more than one otherwise obscure passage, is that toil, care, or anxiety which labour produces, and answers to the idea contained in our metaphor ‘takes pains;’ see chapter [ii. 20]), which he toils at (this is the first instance which occurs of the contracted relative ש־ joined to the word. Koheleth uses also the full relative אשר, but with a slight difference of meaning. The contracted relative refers to the word only which it joins, and in case of verbs often gives a subjunctive or optative meaning; the full relative refers back to the whole idea or clause. Hence the meaning of this passage is this, ‘Is there any abiding advantage to humanity of the pains of his labouring in so far as he does take pains, or toils’) under the sun (or in this present state of existence). The phrase תחת השמש occurs twenty-five times in this book, and is always expressive of a limitation. It shows that what is affirmed is to be understood as confined to its relation to this sublunary existence only. The idea implied is that of man toiling under the sun in the heat of the day in the sweat of his brow (Genesis iii. 17), and earnestly desiring the shadow (Job vii. 2), which shadow is yet the symbol of decaying life. It is true that Ecclesiastes is never quoted in the New Testament, but there are certainly several allusions to it, more or less direct; one of these apparently occurs Revelation vii. 16: οὐ πεινάσουσιν ἔτι, οὐδὲ διψήσουσιν ἔτι, οὐδ’ οὐ μὴ πέσῃ ἐπ’ αὐτοὺς ὁ ἥλιος, οὐδὲ πᾶν καῦμα——‘They shall hunger no more, neither thirst any more, neither shall the sun light on them by day, nor any heat.’ The Chaldee Targum expresses this idea quaintly but forcibly: ‘What advantage is there to a man after his death from all his labour which he laboured under the sun in this world, except he studied the word of God, in order to receive a good reward in the world to come from before the Lord of the world?’ In order to remind the reader of this meaning of the words ‘under the sun,’ I have whenever they occur paraphrased them by ‘in this hot work-day world’——not that this paraphrase is quite satisfactory, but it is the best I could find.

To answer the above question, Koheleth cites eight different instances; four from natural, and four from moral experience. Those we might call the eight unbeatitudes of this sermon.

4 One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever.

I. A generation comes, and that generation departs. But the earth the same abides.

(4.) A generation comes (i.e. proceeds; the word occurs five times in the passage). A generation sets (using exactly the same word as for the setting of the sun in the next verse), but the earth to the age abideth (i.e. remains the same as it was ‘to the age’ לעלם——this word is used in a technical sense, and occurs chapters i. 4, 10; ii. 16; iii. 11, 14; ix. 6; and xii. 5 in this book. The LXX. render by αἰών, which Bengel says is ‘sæculum præsens, mundus in sua indole cursu et censu.’ Hengstenberg observes that it is not an absolutely endless eternity, but only a future of unlimited length. Bengel’s definition, ‘the present period in its quality, course, and account,’ is exactly what the word signifies in this book. It is to be noticed that each instance of change is followed by a sentence which points out that this change is resultless. In the first, the fluctuating and fleeting generations or life-periods of man contrast with the absolute endurance of an unchanged order of things). ‘The great mill-wheel of existence only revolves for the same cogs to come uppermost again and again.’——[Hamilton, Royal Preacher.]

5 The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and [¹]hasteth to his place where he arose.

[¹] Hebrew panteth.

II. Bursts forth the sun, and sets that sun again; and wearily advancing, bursts forth as he did before.

(5.) And rises (i.e. ‘bursts out’ or ‘irradiates’) the sun, and sets the sun (as ‘sun’ is repeated, the second is equivalent to that same sun) and towards his place panting (this word ‘pant,’ שאף, occurs Job vii. 2; Psalm lvii. 3; Psalm cxix. 131, and denotes earnest desire: the metaphor is a very beautiful one in this context)——rising (irradiating) is he there.

6 The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits.

III. Going southwards, and twisting northwards, twisting, twisting goes the blast; and so with all its twistings the wind returns.

(6.) Going (i.e. ‘walking,’ ‘proceeding,’ as in verse 4) towards the south (the quarter of warm winds), and turning round towards the north (the place of cold), turning turns, going the wind (there is in the Hebrew a concourse of sibilant letters imitating the sound of the wind, which is attempted to be rendered in the paraphrase), and in its turnings returns the wind (that is, ever goes round in the same circuits, as the Authorized Version translates). Thus we have an allusion to the four cardinal points of the universe, North, South, East, and West.

7 All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they [¹]return again.

[¹] Hebrew return to go.

IV. All the torrents are running towards the sea, that sea which never overflows; to the place where these torrents are hastening, thither they are only returning to go back.

(7.) All the torrents (נחל, a mountain stream especially) are going to the sea, and the sea it is not full (equivalent to ‘that sea which is never filled or any fuller’), to the place to which the rivers (contract relative, meaning these same rivers) are going, thence are they returning to go back. (So the LXX.; others with the Authorized Version translate, ‘Thither they return again.’) It is to be remarked that this fact is scientifically accurate in statement. The Targum has the gloss that the rivers flow into the ocean which surrounds the world like a ring, and that they return again through the subterranean channels, but Koheleth knows nothing of such false philosophy.

8 All things are full of labour; man cannot utter it: the eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing.

V. All matters are fatiguing; impossible for any one to reason out. Never is the eye satisfied by seeing, nor ever the ear filled with sound.

(8.) All the words (with the article, and therefore generic; ‘matters’ or ‘things,’ in the technical sense of things reasoned about, see [verse 1]) are fatiguing (so the LXX. and Vulgate; Ginsburg has ‘feeble;’ Preston, ‘in activity;’ and Hengstenberg, ‘all words become weary;’ but the ancient verses make better sense with the context), not possible is it for a man (not אדם here, but איש = ‘one,’ or ‘any one’) to utter them (לדבר, ‘to speak rationally concerning them,’ and so to account for their existence or explain their nature. The impossibility of exhausting a subject by talking or reasoning about it is here the point, as is evident from the order of the words); not satisfied (answering to the ‘not possible’ above) is the eye with seeing, and not is filled the ear by sound (or by what it hears). So then, while the consideration of any matter is pretty sure to produce weariness, it is quite certain not to produce satisfaction.

9 The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.

VI. Whatever has been? ’tis just the same as will be; and whatever has been done? ’tis just the same as will be done. So there is nothing altogether new within this work-day world.

(9.) What is that which has been? it is the same which will be; and what is that which has been done? it is the same which will be done (so the LXX., literally following the Heb. text), and there is nothing all new under the sun. The Authorized Version understands by this ‘no new thing;’ but the peculiar position of this word ‘all’ seems to imply that ‘nothing’ must be taken with some slight qualification,——nothing morally new. The next verse admits material novelty.

10 Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us.

VII. [No doubt] there occurs a matter such that people say, See, now this is really new. The present was it once in some age before our time.

(10.) There is (יש, which is so far different from היה that it assumes the existence as a fact, ‘There really are matters which are called new’) a matter which one says (contracted relative joined to the verb, and giving an emphasis to it, equivalent therefore to our ‘of which it may be said, indeed’) see this new it is (emphatic) the present (כבר occurs eight times, viz., i. 10, ii. 12, 16, iii. 15 twice, iv. 2, vi. 10, and ix. 6, 7——in Ecclesiastes only; it is a technical word used to denote the present state of things, that part of the עלם or ‘age’ which is now in existence. In the later Hebrew and Syriac it is used as an adverb, ‘already,’ but that is not its use here. This remark is the more important because it is one of those so-called Aramaic words, the occurrence of which is supposed to indicate the late period of this book’s composition. A careful observance of its real import will throw considerable light on several very obscure passages. Generally, it may be taken for granted that if Koheleth uses a new word or form not known in other parts of the Scriptures, it is because he desires to indicate a new idea.) It was to the ages which (full relative, referring back, therefore, to the whole sentence) were from before us (as we have ages in the plural, followed by a singular verb, היה, the meaning is some one of the ages). This thing which is said to be new is really one of those forgotten matters which existed in one or other of the eras which were before our time.

11 There is no remembrance of former things; neither shall there be any remembrance of things that are to come with those that shall come after.

VIII. There is no remembrance of former matters; and so also with regard to subsequent ones which will be, there will be no remembrance with those who will succeed them.

(11.) There is nothing of remembrance (or memorial) to former events (or persons) and in addition to succeeding events which will be. There will not be to them (emphatic) a remembrance (the repetition of this word shows it to be the prominent word of the sentence) amongst those which shall be to (i.e. belonging to) the last of all (so the LXX.) We have here the feminine form, אחרנה. Koheleth usually expresses the abstracts by this form, and so here. Thus, then, we find that history always repeats itself: not so, however, that its events can be anticipated, but always so that its teachings may be forgotten.

This then forms the first division of the book. By these eight instances Koheleth proves the existence of unceasing toilsome care and resultless progression in all human things. He proceeds in the next place to give his own personal experience, in the form of an autobiography to the same effect. All commentators, even those who deny that Solomon himself was the author of this book, are agreed that he is the hero, and that his life and experience form the groundwork of what is here set before us.

12 ¶ I the Preacher was king over Israel in Jerusalem.

Section II.——Containing a more formal discussion of the problem of human existence, drawn from the Preacher’s own observation and experience.

Now, I myself, the Preacher, was king over Israel in Jerusalem,

(12.) I (emphatic) Koheleth was king over Israel in Jerusalem. Ginsburg supposes that by this declaration that he was king, he intends to imply that he was so no longer; but not only does the LXX. render by an imperfect, but the same word occurs in precisely the same form at Exodus ii. 22, and clearly at the time there mentioned Moses continued to be a stranger in Midian. The object in stating this fact is rather to show that as a king he possessed peculiar facilities for making the investigation, an account of which follows.

13 And I gave my heart to seek and search out by wisdom concerning all things that are done under heaven: this sore travail hath God given to the sons of man [¹]to be exercised therewith.

[¹] Or, to afflict them.

and I took the greatest pains to seek out and to investigate by means of wisdom everything that is done within the limits of this world; how it is a painful uncertainty appointed of God to the human race that they should be distracted with it.

(13.) And I set my heart (gave great pains to, or thought much on, see [i. 17], [vii. 21], [viii. 9], 10; Daniel x. 12; 1 Chronicles xxii. 19) to inquiring (דרש, being used of something lost or hidden, Genesis xxv. 22, Deuteronomy xxii. 2) and to investigating (תור, refers to spying out or searching, Numbers xiii. 15, chapter vii. 25) in wisdom (the Authorized Version considers that wisdom was the means by which inquiry was made) concerning (על, over) all which (equivalent to ‘all that which’) is done (but being niphal it has an objective sense, and includes what is suffered) under the heavens (this formula occurs chapter ii. 3, and iii. 1, and is of larger import than under the sun) it is (‘I mean that’ is the equivalent expression in English) uncertainty (ענין, this is another technical word, it occurs eight times, chapter i. 13, ii. 23, 26, iii. 10, iv. 8, v. 3 (4), viii. 16, and a careful comparison of places will show that the meaning is ‘uncertainty,’ accompanied with ‘anxiety’ as to what is to happen in the future) which is an evil (for it is without the article) given of God (without the article; because God is here used personally, it is nominative to נתן of course, but as the nominative follows the verb, this is the best way of rendering in this case) to the sons of the Adam (the ‘whole human race’ is the meaning of this form), that they may be made anxious (LXX. τοῦ περισπᾶσθαι) therewith (emphatic).

14 I have seen all the works that are done under the sun; and, behold, all is vanity and vexation of spirit.

I perceived with respect to all the actions whatsoever, in so far as they are performed within this work-day world, that they are certainly all of them (1.) evanescent, (2.) a vexation of spirit,

(14.) I have seen (I have observed, that is) with respect to all actions (את is here emphatic as standing first) which are performed (niphal and contracted relative, hence having the meaning in so far as they are or may be done) under the sun (for without this limitation the above proposition would not be true), and behold (asserting a matter of fact patent to all) the whole (with the article and in its usual sense, see chapter i. 2) is a vanity (i.e. an instance of something evanescent) and a vexation of spirit (רעות, occurs seven times in this book, viz., chapters i. 14, ii. 11, 17, 26, iv. 4, 6, and vi. 9; רעיון occurs three times, i. 17, ii. 22, iv. 16. These words have usually been regarded as absolutely synonymous, and hitherto the difference of meaning has not been noticed; but there is a slight difference, as a comparison of places will show. The exact sense to be attached to them is a matter of dispute, and ‘a windy notion,’ ‘striving after the wind,’ have been proposed, but the rendering of the LXX., προαίρεσις, ‘distraction,’ represents the meaning best. With regard to רעות we may notice that it is formed quite regularly from רעה, which is ‘evil,’ in the sense of something that ‘hurts’ or ‘offends,’ and is in the nature of a collective plural; so do we account at once for the peculiar pointing and for the rendering of the LXX. On the other hand, רעיון has, as nouns with this termination usually have, a more subjective meaning; the distinction between the two is that between ‘vexations of’ and ‘vexing of’ spirit; thus in verse 17, where the trouble came from his own spirit, caused by his inability to explain the difficulty which confronted him in his argument, Koheleth uses the subjective form).

15 That which is crooked cannot be made straight: and that which is [¹]wanting cannot be numbered.

[¹] Hebrew defect.

(3.) a perplexity which it is impossible to set right, (4.) a defect which it is equally impossible to account for.

(15.) A crookedness (occurs chapters vii. 13, xii. 3, and Amos viii. 5, whence it appears that the precise meaning is moral obliquity) not enabled to be set in order (occurs chapter i. 15, vii. 18, xii. 9, only), a defect (occurs here only, but see Deuteronomy xxviii. 48, 57, where the root is used of famine, and 1 Kings xvii. 16, to denote the failure of the oil) not enabled (repeated, hence we must render ‘it is equally impossible’) to be numbered (infinitive plural niphal). The meaning of this verse has been very much disputed, but if it be considered as the sequel to what went immediately before, the sense will be quite plain. We may discern in it a fourfold description of human life, in respect of its cares and anxieties and uncertainties, the first point being (i.) that this care is for something evanescent; (ii.) that it is vexatious; (iii.) and then this anxiety is useless, because life is so perverted as to be beyond the possibility of being set in order by any care of ours; (iv.) and so defective that no account can be given which would set it right: ‘which of you by taking thought can add one cubit to his stature?’

16 I communed with mine own heart, saying, Lo, I am come to great estate, and have gotten more wisdom than all they that have been before me in Jerusalem: yea, my heart [¹]had great experience of wisdom and knowledge.

[¹] Hebrew had seen much.

I reasoned over the matter with my own heart to this effect. I who have, it appears, become greater and more advanced in wisdom than any who were before me in Jerusalem, and experienced over the widest extent of wisdom and knowledge,

(16.) Reasoned I myself together with my heart to say (as reasoned stands first, this is the subject of the whole, and the words ‘to say,’ לאמר, are the usual formula of introduction of the thing said; they are equivalent to our ‘to this effect.’ This then is Koheleth’s reasoning, the result of which is to be given), I behold (stating it as an admitted and patent fact) I have been made great, and I have been added to in wisdom above all which were before me in Jerusalem, and my heart has seen the much (with the article expressed; equivalent therefore to very much, or as much as possible of) wisdom and knowledge.

17 And I gave my heart to know wisdom, and to know madness and folly: I perceived that this also is vexation of spirit.

and have set my heart earnestly to know wisdom, and to know false successes from real acts of prudence, know but this: it is simply vexing one’s spirit;

(17.) And I have given my heart in order to know wisdom (that is, he made wisdom his special study and object) and the knowledge of (‘know’ being repeated rises into special prominence, and hence the meaning is to know wisdom, or to be wise enough to recognise) false expectations and prudences. (This passage is one of great difficulty, but the exact sense will become apparent on investigating the meaning of the two words הוללות and שכלות; now הוללות occurs chapter i. 17, ii. 12, vii. 25, ix. 3, and pointed with Shurek at x. 13, and is peculiar to Ecclesiastes. It is a technical word, and is correctly translated ‘folly,’ but it is that kind of folly which displays itself in false joy. The future poel from which this noun is derived occurs Job xii. 17, chapter vii. 7, Isaiah xliv. 25; and the participle at chapter ii. 2, Psalm cii. 89. Thus we see the connexion between this sense and the more ordinary one of ‘praise;’ it is the ‘bepraised’ used in a bad sense. The word שכלות occurs here only, but it is rendered by the LXX. ἐπιστήμη, and by the Syriac

, compare also Genesis xli. 33, with the meaning ‘prudence,’ and with this agrees the later Hebrew. Now these meanings make consistent sense. Koheleth wished to know wisdom and the knowledge of folly and prudence; in other words, to have a wisdom which could tell the one from the other. Thus the LXX. render הל״ by παραβολὰς, which A² has altered into περιφορὰν; this apparently very strange rendering is thus intelligible enough, especially to those who had the Hebrew before them. To alter the text to סכלות, as some have proposed, is not even to cut the Gordian knot, for with the true meaning of this word, ‘clever-folly,’ ‘false-wisdom,’ no better sense will be made, although it is quite possible that שכ״ may have been chosen for the equivoke it gives, not even differing in sound, if the pointing can be trusted, from סכ״. The truth is that so much of our elaborate wisdom and best plans are but elaborate mistakes, that to attempt to judge the one from the other is a hopeless task. Hence then the following) I know (this is the fourth time this word occurs in the clause, thus it is brought out with the very strongest prominence, and gives the meaning ‘what I do know is’) that even this (שגם, compare places chapter ii. 15, viii. 14, has a peculiar meaning, expressive of surprise that this should be so) really is vexing of spirit (רעיון, not רעות, as above; because in this case the vexation is subjective,——the idea conveyed by the whole passage being ‘what I do know as the result of my wisdom and knowledge being just even this, that it is only a vexing of the spirit’). It may be observed that רעיון occurs in the Chaldee of Daniel——see Daniel ii. 29, 30; iv. 19 (16); v. 6, etc., always in the sense of a ‘painful reflection,’ but in later Chaldee and Syriac as ‘a reflection’ of any kind. As the sense in which Koheleth uses the word is the nearest to the root-meaning, is it not an evidence, so far, of earlier composition of his book?

18 For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.

because, in increasing wisdom, there is an increase also of disappointment, and what adds to one’s knowledge adds to one’s sorrow.

(18.) For (introducing a reason for this conclusion as follows) in much wisdom is much grief (grief in the sense of ‘vexation,’ caused by disappointment——see chapter ii. 23, vii. 3, 9, xi. 10, 1 Samuel i. 6. The LXX. translate by γνῶσις, ‘knowledge’! Is it possible that they intended to refer to Genesis ii. [♦]17, using γνῶσις in a bad sense?) and he that increases knowledge increases sorrow (chapter ii. 23; Exodus iii. 7, of the Israelitish sorrows at the hands of their task-masters). ‘In a world like this much science is much sorrow, for it is the knowledge of penury, the statistics of starvation, the assurance that our case is desperate.’——[Hamilton.]

[♦] “xvii.” replaced with “17”

Even the wisdom of Solomon having failed to find any solution of the problem of human anxiety, he next tries mirth, but with no better success. This experiment takes only two verses to record, for it was but soon over.

CHAPTER II.

I SAID in mine heart, Go to now, I will prove thee with mirth, therefore enjoy pleasure: and, behold, this also is vanity.

SAID then I in my heart, Come now, I will try thee with mirth, and so get a sight of a real-good; but see now, this is altogether an evanescent thing. Of laughter, I said Delirium:

II. (1.) I said, even I (the personal pronoun is not redundant, it indicates that Koheleth is recording his own experience), in my heart (this formula usually introduces in this book a thought more specious than true), Come now, I will try thee with mirth and see into good (i.e. still addressing his heart, ‘to see a real good;’ טוב is used in this book as a technical word, like bonum in the summum bonum); and behold (stating a manifest fact) also this (emphatic, signifying this same mirth) is a vanity (an evanescent thing; joy or mirth then is too short-lived to be considered a real good).

2 I said of laughter, It is mad: and of mirth, What doeth it?

and of mirth, What will that do?

(2.) To laughter I said, Madness (that which is made mad, see note to chapter [i. 17]), and to pleasure (or mirth), What doth that do? (as this expects the answer No, it is very nearly equivalent to ‘It does nothing.’) (The Syriac reads here

, ‘What is the usefulness,’ ‘gratification,’ or ‘delight’? It seems then as if the translators of this version recognised a play upon the words מה הולל, ‘what a folly,’ and מהולל, ‘befooled,’——this being one of those equivokes in which Koheleth delights. The LXX. render verbatim, as is their custom, τὶ τοῦτο ποῖεις; ‘why doest thou this?’ but possibly with the same intention.)

Koheleth next tries material enjoyment. The meaning of the following passage has been much disputed; we shall follow the rendering suggested by the LXX., which gives clear and intelligible sense.

3 I sought in mine heart [¹]to give myself unto wine, yet acquainting mine heart with wisdom; and to lay hold on folly, till I might see what was that good for the sons of men, which they should do under the heaven [²]all the days of their life.

[¹] Hebrew to draw my flesh with wine.

[²] Hebrew the number of the days of their life.

I tried with my heart to allure as wine does one’s flesh (that heart, however, being conducted with wisdom), and so get a hold over false wisdom, so that I might see thereby where lies the real good to the children of men, when they are working in this world, as the tale of their daily lives. [Accordingly]

(3.) I investigated with my heart (or in my heart; but the former makes better sense. His heart was the medium through which the investigation was made. He wanted to see if material enjoyment would satisfy his heart, i.e. the emotional part of his nature) in order to a drawing with wine (the LXX. render ὡς οἶνον, ‘as wine,’ but they probably did not read otherwise than our present text, for this as represents the את which follows) as to my flesh (the meaning of the Hebrew is that he drew or enticed with wine with respect to his flesh, and that hence his object in using the wine was to entice the flesh. The rendering of the LXX. is ad sensum, preserving also a rendering of each word), and my heart led (i.e. as a man leads an animal, Psalm lxxx. 1, Isaiah xi. 6. As ‘heart’ is repeated, we have the meaning ‘that same heart’) with wisdom (because unless he enjoyed wisely he would not enjoy at all) and (repeated in the same clause, equal therefore to ‘and so’) to lay hold of false wisdom (סכלוּת, occurs chapters ii. 3, 12, 13, vii. 25, x. 1, 13, and is peculiar to this book. The LXX. render εὐφροσύνην ‘pleasure,’ which, however A² alters to ἀφροσύνη, ‘folly,’ the reason of which will appear presently. The meaning of the root סכל is to ‘play,’ or ‘act the fool,’ and in this respect differs from כסל, which has the idea of ‘stupidity,’ and in the hiphil form, ‘made stupid,’ or ‘befooled.’ In all the ten places in which the root סכל occurs in other parts of Scripture, we find the meaning of elaborateness and subtilty as well as folly; compare 1 Samuel xiii. 13, Saul’s burnt-offering in the absence of Samuel; 2 Samuel xxiv. 10; 1 Chronicles xxi. 8, David’s numbering the people; 2 Chronicles xvi. 9, Asa’s reliance on Syria; 2 Samuel xv. 31, Ahithophel’s counsel; similarly Isaiah xliv. 25, where knowledge is said to be misused; so also סָכָל, occurs Jeremiah iv. 22, v. 21, has evidently the same shade of meaning. It is hard to find a single word which will render it; ‘foolish wisdom’ or ‘clever follies’ are the best combinations that occur. It will be seen also, in referring to the lexicon, that the LXX., who translate by εὐφροσύνη, apparently use the word occasionally in a sinister aspect, see Proverbs xxx. 32, Sira xiii. 8. The Syriac here reads

(see [i. 17]), ‘prudence,’ ‘intelligence,’ contrary to its interpretation in other places. On the whole, however, it is not difficult to see why the LXX. rendered as they did. That this pleasure was of a bad kind, or deceptive, the sequel shows, but it may be doubted whether their rendering preserved the meaning of סכ״, even if, which is not impossible, they themselves understood it). Until I should see where (in the sense of whereabouts, see 1 Samuel ix. 8) is this good to the sons of Adam, which (full relative, referring back to the whole idea, equivalent therefore to ‘what good it is which’) they do under the sun the number of the days of their lives (this phrase occurs chapter ii. 3, v. 18 (17), vi. 12, as ‘the tale,’ or ‘account of the days,’ of their lives; an additional limitation to the words ‘under the sun’). In making this experiment he began to work and toil more than ever.

4 I made me great works; I builded me houses; I planted me vineyards:

I increased my works.

(1.) I built for myself houses.

(2.) I planted for myself vineyards.

(4.) I increased my work, I built for myself (this emphatic ‘myself’ occurs eight times in the passage, and is therefore its key-word) houses, I planted for myself vineyards.

5 I made me gardens and orchards, and I planted trees in them of all kind of fruits:

(3.) I made for myself gardens and parks, and planted in them fruit-trees of every kind.

(5.) I made for myself gardens and parks, and planted in them trees of every kind of fruit. It should have been mentioned that פרדס is also considered to afford an indication of late composition. It is said to be a Persian word; it occurs, however, Nehemiah ii. 8; Canticles iv. 10. The word admits of Semitic derivation, from פרד, ‘to divide,’ ‘cut off in portions,’ ‘lay out.’ If it be really an exotic, no date of introduction is more probable than that of Solomon. It is also to be noted that in the context it follows the word ‘gardens,’ which is quite natural if it were intended to denote a foreign luxury recently introduced.

6 I made me pools of water, to water therewith the wood that bringeth forth trees:

(4.) I made for myself reservoirs with which to irrigate meadows and growing copses.

(6.) I made for myself pools of water to irrigate from them the meadows shooting forth trees. (This, which contains ‘for myself’ four times, the first half of the seven, consists of an enumeration of immoveable objects, or what the law calls real property, the others which follow are moveables or personal.)

7 I got me servants and maidens, and had [¹]servants born in my house; also I had great possessions of great and small cattle above all that were in Jerusalem before me:

[¹] Hebrew sons of my house.

(5.) I purchased slaves and maidens, and had for myself home-born servants, besides herds of great and small cattle, more numerous than any of my predecessors in Jerusalem.

(7.) I obtained slaves and maidens, and sons of my house (home-born slaves, that is) were belonging to myself, besides possessions of herd and flock; many such were belonging to myself; more than all who were before me in Jerusalem.

8 I gathered me also silver and gold, and the peculiar treasure of kings and of the provinces: I gat me men-singers and women-singers, and the delights of the sons of men, as [¹]musical instruments, and that of all sorts.

[¹] Hebrew musical instruments and instruments.

(6.) I procured for myself silver and gold and precious objects of every kingdom and province.

(7.) I obtained for myself men-singers and women-singers, every delight that man can enjoy, to the very ecstasy of ravishment.

(8.) I gathered for myself, moreover, silver and gold, and the peculiar treasure of kings and the provinces. I made for myself (i.e. procured) men-singers and women-singers, the delights of the sons of men, outpouring and outpourers. (The different meanings given to these two last words, שדה ושדות, which occur here only, are various, scarcely a commentary or version agreeing. The LXX. translate a ‘butler’ and ‘female cup-bearers,’ the Vulgate ‘pitchers and vases,’ Ginsburg ‘a concubine and concubines’; but the most probable etymology seems to give the idea of ‘overflowing’ to the word in some sense or other. It is possible then to take the words generally, and interpret them as referring to the overflow, not only of the generous wines, but of all the delights of which wine is a type, as in the words ‘The feast of reason and the flow of soul,’ or like Milton’s——

‘Did ever mortal mixture of earth’s mould

Breathe such divine enchanting ravishment?’

The arrangement of these different objects of pleasure is somewhat artificial, as will be seen on examining the grouping.)

9 So I was great, and increased more than all that were before me in Jerusalem: also my wisdom remained with me.

So I was great and increased more than all that were ever before me in Jerusalem, yet notwithstanding my wisdom remained fast with myself,

(9.) And I was great (rightly the Authorized Version, ‘so,’ referring back to verse 4) and increased more than all (all now becomes the key-word, which occurs seven times) which was (singular, giving the sense than ‘any was’) before me in Jerusalem; also (אף, affirms strongly, see Job iv. 19, ‘but beside,’ for without this provision of a wise enjoyment the experiment was necessarily a failure:) my wisdom remained (i.e. stood; it is usual to say that עמדה is feminine to agree with חכמה; perhaps it would be equally correct to say that it was an instance of two abstract ideas in apposition, giving the sense ‘was still a thing standing’) with myself (emphatic, and the eighth repetition of this word).

10 And whatsoever mine eyes desired I kept not from them, I withheld not my heart from any joy; for my heart rejoiced in all my labour: and this was my portion of all my labour.

and all my eyes desired I kept not from them, nor did I deny my heart even one of all its joys: for this heart of mine did rejoice in my toils, and this was what I procured for all my toil.

(10.) And all which asked mine eyes I did not restrain (or keep back; see Genesis xxvii. 36, Numbers xi. 17, for the meaning, the only other instances where it occurs in Kal.) from them (emphatic), I did not deny my heart from all rejoicing, for my heart rejoiced from all my toil (i.e. there was a certain kind of pleasure derived from doing all this), and this was my portion (‘lot’ or ‘inheritance’ from all my toil; equal to our ‘this was all I obtained for my pains’).

11 Then I looked on all the works that my hands had wrought, and on the labour that I had laboured to do: and, behold, all was vanity and vexation of spirit, and there was no profit under the sun.

So I turned to look on all my work my hand had wrought, and all my toil which I had moiled and done, and lo! that ALL was——evanescent, and vexation of spirit, and nothing of profit in this hot work-day world.

(11.) I turned myself (פנה differs from סבב; the former is ‘to turn round in order to look,’ the latter is to ‘go round in order to do.’ The distinction is not without importance) in all my works which worked my hands, and in my toil which I had toiled to work (notice the occurrence of these words——work, work, toil, toil), and behold (a manifest and indisputable conclusion) the whole was vanity and vexation of spirit, and there was nothing of profit (i.e. over and above the slight amount of present pleasure which he obtained) under the sun. (It is especially worthy of remark that while Koheleth found some small pleasure in work, he found none from it. Take, oh men, to your curse kindly, but a curse it is!)

12 ¶ And I turned myself to behold wisdom, and madness, and folly: for what can the man do that cometh after the king? [¹]even that which hath been already done.

[¹] Or, in those things which have been already done.

Then I turned myself again to perceive wisdom in regard to [its power of detecting] false hopes and false prudence, for how is any man to enter upon the results of that plan which he may have made beforehand?

(12.) And I turned (this coming immediately after a similar expression, verse 11, rises into emphasis; it equals our ‘again I turned’), I myself (emphatic, it was, as above, a personal experience), to see wisdom and self-deceptions and also false successes (the meaning of this passage most probably is, that Koheleth desired to see wisdom in conjunction with those two kinds of folly which he denotes respectively by הוללות, false expectations or hopes, see chapter [i. 17], and סכלות, false wisdom, that kind of folly which is so either through ignorance or sin, but has to all appearance the semblance of wisdom, see chapter [ii. 3]. If he could succeed in accomplishing this, he might by his wisdom avoid the mistakes into which men fall). For (this must introduce a reason) what? (Genesis xx. 10, מָה, Genesis iv. 10, מֶה, both forms being similar in use) is the man (with the article; generic therefore, and equivalent to ‘what is the man?’) who enters (but as this is the contracted relative, it is equivalent to ‘that he should enter’) after (but the word is strictly speaking a noun plural in regimen, and means ‘that which comes after,’ ‘the sequel of’) the king (this the LXX. render by βουλῆς, the reasons of which we will discuss presently). With respect to which (for the את is emphatic, hence some of the recensions of the LXX. read σὺν τὰ ὅσα) the present (the present state of things, כבר in its usual meaning, which it has everywhere in Ecclesiastes, see chapter [i. 10]) they make it עשבהו, third person plural with the affix, which the LXX. refer back to המלך. The meaning of this passage has been much disputed, and our difficulties are not diminished by the very strange rendering of the LXX., which is usually dismissed by commentators as erroneous; an explanation, however, of this rendering will probably clear up the difficulty. We must first notice the corrupt state of the present text of the LXX. The Alexandrine reads ὅτι τίς ἄνθρωπος ἐπελεύσεται ὀπίσω τῆς βουλῆς τὰ ὅσα ἐποίησαν αὐτήν; E. X. read πάντα ὅσα; F. X. σὺν τὰ ὅσα; B. X. ἐποίησεν; and X. αὐτή; Aquila reads ὃς ἐπιλεύσεται ὀπίσω τοῦ βασιλέως; Symmachus, τί δὲ ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἵνα παρακολουθήση βουλῇ; Theodotion, ὃς ἐλεύσεται ὀπίσω τοῦ βασιλέως; but, as Field remarks (Hexapla, p. 384), it is doubtful whether the Syriac text reads

, ‘king,’ or

, ‘counsel.’ In the same way, Theodotion reads σὺν τὰ ὅσα ἐποίησαν αὐτήν.

We must observe that all these versions, without exception, omit to notice כבר, which everywhere else is noted by ἤδη, being content with τὰ ὅσα or σὺν τὰ ὅσα. The explanation of these difficulties seems to be that המלך was probably intended to be equivocal. It is, to say the least, not impossible that it had, even in Solomon’s time, the meaning of ‘counsel,’ which attaches to it as a usual signification in Aramaic; if so, המלך means the counsel, and of course has the idea of rule as well. Castell gives as the meaning of

, ‘Intellectum, Consilium dedit,’ vel ‘inivit,’ ‘Consultavit,’ ‘Promisit,’ ‘Pollicitus est;’ thus we must understand it to mean, ‘plans formed and intended to be carried out.’ The question then which Koheleth asks is this, ‘Who is the man who will enter upon——as we say, carry out——his plans with respect to that which in the present moment he makes them or devises them;’ in other words, can he carry out what he now devises, and can any man do this out of the number of human creatures who make these plans? This is the reason of the distributive plural which the best recensions of the LXX. preserve. The equivoke involved in the meaning ‘king’ is obvious. Koheleth himself is, of course, the king: could any one do better than he? It must be allowed that this meaning makes excellent sense with the context, and violates no Hebrew grammar. If, however, I have failed in giving a real interpretation of this most difficult passage, I may be excused a conjecture which is as plausible as many that have been advanced on this point. The corruptions of the old versions may be explained by the fact that the equivoke was lost so soon as readers ceased to have the Hebrew text before them, and hence the attempt to better their text. This most obscure passage may perhaps receive some light from a further discussion of the word כבר and other forms derived from the same root. The feminine or abstract occurs Genesis xxxv. 16, xlviii. 7, and 2 Kings v. 19, joined with ארץ, rendered in the Authorized Version a ‘little’ way. The verb occurs in hiphil, Job xxxv. 16, xxxvi. 31, translated ‘multiplied,’ ‘in abundance;’ and in the hiphil form, with the characteristic jud̄ inserted——Job viii. 2, xv. 10, etc.; Isaiah x. 13, xvii. 12, etc.——in the sense of ‘full of years,’ ‘overflowing,’ and the like. A diligent comparison of these meanings shows that ‘fulness,’ in the sense of ‘completeness,’ must be the root-meaning; and hence, when applied to time, the LXX. render ἤδη, ‘already.’ With this meaning agree also the Arabic and Syriac, see Fuerst, Lexicon, s. voc. The meaning then of the word is, the ‘complete present.’ With regard to the use of the root מלך in the sense of counsel, it occurs once in Hebrew, viz. Nehemiah v. 7, and once in biblical Chaldee, Daniel iv. 27 (24). This meaning is common, as remarked in the note, in Aramaic. The fair inference from this is, that the root-meaning of the Hebrew word is ‘to counsel,’ just as the root-meaning of the word Apostle is ‘one sent.’ These senses are just what the context requires. Koheleth turns round to see wisdom in comparison with, or contradistinction to, false hopes and false prudence, and asks how the man, that is, humanity, can tell the one from the other. His words are ‘what is,’ not ‘who is the man,’ etc., equivalent to——‘in what way can humanity enter upon the results of the counsel,’ ‘or the king,’——the equivoke being, we believe, intentional, and the contracted relative giving a conditional turn to the sentence——‘with respect to that which at present he performs it.’ It would have been better if the word with had been printed in the notes with a small letter, as the division hardly amounts to a period, though the connexion is not close. The suffix of the verb refers back through the relative pronoun to counsel, and might be well rendered into English thus——‘In respect of which he at present takes that counsel.’ The LXX., contrary to their custom, omit ἤδη, because it is perhaps sufficiently included in ἐπελεύσεται, or because τὰ ὅσα ἤδη ἐποίησαν αὐτήν would not have been intelligible. It is evident this all squares with the context. Koheleth, as Solomon, discovered that with all his wisdom he could not practically discern the difference between this true wisdom and that false prudence which led him to accumulate only to be disappointed in his successor.

13 Then I saw [¹]that wisdom excelleth folly, as far as light excelleth darkness.

[¹] Hebrew that there is an excellency in wisdom more than in folly, etc.

Now, I have myself perceived that there must be a profit to wisdom over false prudence as great as the profit of light over darkness.

(13.) And I have seen, I have (with the emphatic I again, as a personal experience) that there is (i.e. that there really is), a profit to wisdom above folly (these same elaborate mistakes which look so like wisdom) as the profit of the light above the darkness. (Here profit is repeated, hence the meaning is ‘as great as the profit of light above darkness.’) The wise, his eyes are in his head, but the fool (i.e. the ‘deceived fool’——notice the hiphil form——equivalent to the befooled, but not necessarily by others——by himself also) in darkness walks (hence a wise man ought to be as much better off than a fool as a sighted man is better than one blind, but experience does not confirm this conclusion); and I know also, I (emphatic), that the hap (i.e. the result or what occurs) is one happening (present here as opposed to participial noun) to all of them (i.e. both wise and fools alike——equivalent in our idiom, ‘precisely the same result occurs to all’).

14 The wise man’s eyes are in his head; but the fool walketh in darkness: and I myself perceived also that one event happeneth to them all.