J". z6/o3 
 
 Srom i^t fcifitarj^ of 
 
 gptofeBBor TTiffiam J^^^^K <Breen 
 
 QBequeat^eb 61? ^im to 
 t^e feiBrnt)? of 
 
 Qprinceton C^eofogicdf ^eminarg 
 

COMMENTARY 
 
 ON 
 
 ECCLESIASTES. 
 
 MOSES STUART, 
 
 LATELY PROFESSOR OF SACRED LITERATURE IN THE THEOLOGICAL 
 SEMINARY AT ANDOVER, 5IASS. 
 
 NEW YORK : 
 
 GEORGE P. PU T N AM, 
 
 18 5 1. 
 
Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1851, 
 
 By Moses Stuart, 
 
 in the Clerk's office of the District Court of the District of Massachusetts. 
 
 andover: jonx d.flagg, 
 
 STEREOTTPKB AND PRINTER. 
 
PREFACE 
 
 The book of Ecclcsiastcs presents many apparent problems, which have 
 long been the sulijcct of wonder and dispute, among the Jewish Eabbics as 
 well as in the Christian church. Had not the evidence been strong and deci- 
 sive of its rightful place in the Canon of the Hebrew sacred writings, it would 
 undoubtedly have been rejected long ago T)y many, as not being a book of 
 divine authority. Not a few passages seem to speak, at first vicAv, the lan- 
 guage of skc])ticism, i. c. of unbelief or doubt as to a future state, and also 
 of devotedness to sensual enjoyment. It was on this ground, that some 
 of the Jewish Rabbies, at the time when the Talmud was written, made an 
 effort, as it would seem, to eject it from the sacred Canon, as we arc told in 
 the Talmnd, Tract. Shabb. fol. 30, col. 2. Some of the Christian Fathers 
 have intimated the like feelings, as existing among some Christians in their 
 times ; and since the revival of criticism in its late, and specially in its most 
 recent form, the book has been treated as indeed a clever performance of the 
 kind, but after all as the work of a sl-eptical Epicurean. Even De Wctte, with 
 his sober aspect and seeming impartiality, does not hesitate to bestow such 
 an epithet on the author of the book. No wonder that he has had many imi- 
 tators or followers in Germany. 
 
 The evidence that Ecclesiastes was a portion of the sacred Canon sanc- 
 tioned by Christ and his apostles, is plain, and as certain as anything so 
 remotely historical can be made out to be. This is sliown in its proper jdace, 
 in thclntrod'iction to the Commentary. This admitted, it follows, that a 
 serious obligation devolves on us to read the book, and at least to do what 
 we can to understand it. Thousands of sermons have been preached on 
 portions of the book, and a multitude of Commentaries have been written, 
 most of Avhich arc merely ethical and hortatory. There is indeed no want of 
 material in the book, for a basis to such sermons and homilctic commentary. 
 
tl PREFACE. 
 
 I have done what I could to develop the plan of the book, and the execu- 
 tion of this plan by the writer, more suo. This has cost me more laborious 
 study, than all the philological remarks. Others must judge whether my 
 labor has been bestowed in vain. 
 
 The Hebrew student — the aspirant to sacred knowledge — has been in my 
 eye throughout. I have endeavored to leave not a single grammatical diffi- 
 culty, either as to i\\Q forms of words or the syntax, untouched. In every case 
 of difficulty, or where such student might be in doubt, as to the principles 
 admitted, I have referred him to the Grammar and the Lexicon, with indica- 
 tions of the places where he will find illustration or confirmation of that 
 concerning which he doubts. I would hope that the book, now made easily 
 accessible to learners unless I very much misjudge, may hereafter constitute 
 a part of the course of Hebrew study. It is well deserving of it. The idiom 
 is so unlike most other Hebrew, in certain respects, that a knowledge of it 
 must give any one a much freer scope in the language. The Hebrew in it- 
 self is rather easy than otherwise ; for great simplicity, generally, reigns in 
 the structure of sentences. Seldom need the student be left in doubt as to a 
 satisfactory meaning, when all investigation is conducted on principles 
 purely philological. Any other method of conducting it, is in the main useless. 
 
 In the earlier part of my professional labors here, I undertook to lecture on 
 Ecclesiastes. But at that time I could not satisfy myself, for I could not 
 then obtain cither competent or satisfactory aid. I therefore soon abandoned 
 the attempt, telling my pupils, as my reason for so doing, that I could not lec- 
 ture on a book which I felt that I did not understand. Lately, I have resumed 
 and repeated the study of it, after more widely extended and protracted disci- 
 pline in Hebrew. Difficulties have now seemed to vanish apace. I no longer 
 continue to doubt, except as to some individual expressions ; and even in 
 regard to these, I have at last succeeded in satisfying myself. When we 
 attain to such a state of feeling, it natui-ally inspires a hope, that we may do 
 something to help or to satisfy others. 1 would fain hope, that not a few of 
 the apparent enigmas of the book will be made to disappear, or else meet with 
 a solution, in the following pages. Many a mind has been, and is still, per- 
 plexed with these. If I can afford any aid to anxious and candid seekers 
 after the meaning of the author, I shall regard it as a high reward. 
 
 M. STUAKT. 
 Andover: Theological Semhiary, 1851. 
 
INTRODUCTION 
 
 § 1. General Nature of the Book. 
 
 Ix many respects the book o^ Ecclesiastes lias no parallel in the 
 Hebrew Scriptures. It is the only book, among all the sacred 
 writings, which undertakes the task of philosophizing. But this 
 word, as api)lied to Ecclesiastes, must not be understood in the 
 Grecian or Roman sense, nor even in that of modern European 
 nations. Ontological speculations are utterly foreign to Coheleth. 
 That he was in some degree versed in them, might not be im- 
 probable, provided we should concede to him the latest period in 
 which the writings of the Old Testament were composed. Grecian 
 philosophy made a conspicuous figure, after the time of Socrates 
 and Plato ; so that all the nations around the Mediterranean, 
 who had any acquaintance with the Greek language, would be 
 likely, through the medium of their learned men, to have some 
 knowledge of it, or at least some information in respect to it. A 
 mind so strongly bent on in(iuiry as that of the author of the book 
 before us, could hardly have failed to know something of it, in 
 ease he lived as late as the time of Malachi, when Plato was win- 
 ning renown among all who visited Attica, and specially among 
 all who frequented tiie groves of Academus. It is quite certain 
 that the Jeivs of Alexandria, at a subsequent period, busied them- 
 selves much with the works of Plato ; for Philo Judaeus was so 
 engrossed by the later Platonism, that it has been said of liim, as 
 exhibited in his works, that '' it is difficult to tell whether Philo 
 plaiomzes, or Plato philonizesJ" Fr<jm Kyyptian Jews, or other 
 Jews living in Grecian cities, some knowledge of Grecian philoso- 
 phy might have been attained by Coheleth ; and we might almost 
 venture to say (taking his inquisitive spirit into view) would 
 have been attained, had he lived at a period sufficiently late. But 
 
8 § 1. GENERAL NATURE 
 
 of any sucli knowledge tliere is not the least trace in the book 
 before us. In my own apprehension, this fact seems to favor two 
 positions in regard to the book : (1) That the author was not an 
 Egyptian Jew of a very late period ; for in this case he could 
 hardly have avoided some reference in his work to the learning of 
 that age (i. e. the age of the first two Ptolemies, 323 — 246 b. c), 
 and also to the country. (2) That he lived at a period before the 
 Jews in Palestine became acquainted, in any good measure, with 
 the Greek language or philosophy, i. e. before the period when the 
 chieftains of Alexander's divided empire established themselves, 
 in all the countries around the eastern shores of the Mediterranean. 
 These considerations make against the position, that Ecclesiastes 
 was composed long after the time of Malachi, and more still against 
 the supposition that it was written after the Persian rule in Pales- 
 tine had ceased. 
 
 But however all this may be, this fact is plain and certain, viz. 
 that Coheleth exhibits no acquaintance with Grecian philosophy. 
 He is, through and through, a Palestine- Hebrew, and most probably 
 an inhabitant either of Jerusalem, or of its near neighborhood. 
 The manner in which he speaks of frequenting religious worship 
 (4 : 17—5 : 1 seq.), shows that he speaks of it in a way which 
 would be familiar to those who frequented the temple-service. 
 
 We have then a work before us, not of ontological and meta- 
 physical speculation, but a work of practical philosophy. All the 
 reasonings are built on the results of experience ; and all the pre- 
 cepts which accompany them, are such as have regard, not to 
 mere abstract truth, but to wary, considerate, and sober demeanor. 
 The book begins and ends with one and the same theme ; and 
 this theme itself is the result of observation and experience. 
 
 The general truth, however, which constitutes this theme, is 
 easily divisible into many particulars ; and these require illustra- 
 tion and confirmation. It was the effort to accomplish this object, 
 which gave rise to the apparently variegated and subordinate 
 parts of the work. The general subject is turned round and round ; 
 and as often as a new aspect presents itself, the writer stops to 
 describe, to make comments, to show what objections can be made 
 to such a view, and what can be said to confirm and establish it. 
 Nor is it the general theme only which is thus turned round in 
 order to get a view of its different aspects, but the minor particu- 
 
OF THE BOOK. 9 
 
 lars, in their turn, are often detalt with in the same way ; so that 
 the mere cursory reader is apt to cherish the apprehension, that 
 Coheleth is full of repetitions. A more tliorou<^h examination, 
 liowever, by the aid of competent critical and philological knowl- 
 edge, will show him, that what he regards as mere repetitions of 
 the same thing, is nothing more nor less than the presentation of 
 the same subject in different attitudes and in different relations. 
 Whatever there is, whi(;h strictly speaking is really repeated, is 
 some general result, some ultimate truth — as it were the focus, 
 toward which all the seemingly divergent rays, when traced back^ 
 will be founcfto converge. But it needs much and attentive study 
 of the book to attain to a full perception of this. Yet when such 
 study is thoroughly pursued, and in the right track, nothing is more 
 certain than that this book, apparently a book of miscellanieSy 
 assumes the form of a general unity ; and while all its subordinate 
 parts are intei'woven by fine threads, that escape the notice of the 
 more cursory observer, these are the very things which attract 
 and highly excite the attention of inquiring and discerning minds. 
 But of this, more will be said in the sequel. 
 
 As a specimen of ancient philosophy, the oldest and the only 
 one among the ancient Hebrews which has come down to us, 
 Ecclesiastes would seem to deserve the notice and attention of 
 modern philosophers, and specially of those who undertake to- 
 write the history of ancient philosophy. Have the Hebrews — 
 the only nation on earth, before the Christian era, who had en- 
 lightened views of God and of duty — have they no claim to be 
 heard on the subject of practical moral philosophy ? If the book 
 of Coheleth were a Chinese production, or Mantchou-Tartar, or 
 Japanese, the literati of Germany and France, if not of England^ 
 would break through all the barriers thrown in their way by 
 remoteness of time and strangeness of language, and with glowino- 
 zeal bring before the world the important results of their pro- 
 tracted and laborious examination of this book. Every year now 
 bears witness to some feat of this kind, which attracts notice and 
 confers celebrity. But Coheleth — alas ! who are the philosophers 
 that are investigating his work ? Neology has indeed furnished 
 some philologists, who have bestowed on this work, quite recently, 
 much and attentive study, and some of it to quite an important 
 pur])ose. But even liere, the chief attraction seems to be the 
 
10 § 2. SPECIAL DESIGN AND 
 
 alleged skepticism of the writer. These facts 'indicate, that there 
 is something very attractive to them, in the hope of finding the 
 ancient Hebrews to have been destitute of any belief in a future 
 state. And as not a few things are said in Ecclesiastes, which 
 appear at firet view to support such an allegation in respect to 
 Hebrew opinion, the book has lately become a subject, not unfre- 
 quently, of discussion and interpretation. But beyond this class 
 of persons, the matter of critical interjiretation sleeps in the same 
 quiet nook, where it laid itself down more than a thousand years 
 ago. 
 
 After all, however, it is a just subject of reproof to the historians 
 of philosophy^ that a specimen of it from a writer of the most truly 
 enlightened and religious nation of all antiquity, should have 
 attracted no more of their attention and regard. But it is easier 
 to follow in the, footsteps of the thousands, who have written upon 
 Plato, Aristotle, and Plotinus, than it is to become a sufficient 
 master of the Hebrew to make a radical investigation of the book 
 before us. It is quite plain that the attractions of speculative, 
 metaphysical, and ontological philosophy are far greater, in the 
 view of most philosophical inquirers, than anything which a prac- 
 tical and ethical philosophy can present. The sayings of the 
 earliest Greek sages, in respect to the nature of things or of men, 
 rouse up more curiosity and excite more interest, than any phi- 
 losopher's sayings among the Ilebrews, because the Greek nation 
 elevated the literary standard of the world, while the Hebrews 
 remained without any Schools of Philosophy, or any considerable 
 cultivation of the arts and sciences. It is to be hoped, that after 
 the literary race shall come to a pause, for want of farther ground 
 to move upon, that the moral and practical philosophy of the 
 Hebrews will begin to attract more attention. 
 
 § 2. Special Design and Method of the Booh. 
 
 I couple these together, because it is difficult, if not impossible, 
 to separate them without incurring the danger of frequent repe- 
 tition. 
 
 The general nature of the book, as being of the ethico-philo' 
 sophical cast, has already been described. We come, next in order^ 
 to the theme, or themes, which are discussed. 
 
METHOD OF THE BOOK. 11 
 
 The great and appropriate theme of the whole book, is the 
 
 VANITY AND NOTHINGNESS OF ALL EARTHLY EFFORTS, PUR- 
 SUITS, AND oiiJECTS. With this the book commences, and 
 employs an intensity of expression in stating it, that cjin hardly 
 be exceeded ; Vanity of vanities — vanity of vanities^ all is vanity. 
 The repetition of the word vanity in the plur. Gen. that follows 
 in the first case, then the repetition of the whole of the same 
 phrase, and lastly the universality or extent of the proposition (^</// 
 is vanity), conspire to render the expression of the main theme 
 the most intense of which language is capable. Thus commences 
 the book before us ; and after passing in review a multitude of 
 particular things which belong to this general category, the dis- 
 cussional part of the book ends with the same declaration : vanity 
 
 OF VANITIES; ALL IS VANITY ! 12: 8. 
 
 All the intermediate jwrtions of the book bear a more or less 
 intimate connection with this main theme. Not less than some 
 twenty-three times is the general proposition repeated, in the 
 same or in equivalent words, at the close of different illustrations 
 and discussions.* Like a net of fine threads, this great theme of 
 vanity pervades or spreads over the whole work. A minute and 
 close examination will enable any one to see, that the main thread 
 of discoiu^se is never lost sight of, however the writer may seem to 
 make temporary excursions. He always returns, as true as the 
 needle to the pole, to the same stand-point from which he started ; 
 for to this, after all his short excursions for the sake of discovery 
 and examination, he designs to come back. His " right hand 
 would as soon forget its cunning," as he would forsake, or even 
 lose sight of, the main object that he has in view. 
 
 This is a trait of the book before us, for which it has in past 
 times obtained but little credit. It is only a few years, since 
 some who have directed their studies to Coheleth, have discovered 
 and fully announced this. But now, since this has been once seen 
 and fairly confirmed, it hardly seems probable that it will here- 
 after be forgotten. 
 
 But wl en thus much is said for the unity of the book, it must 
 not be too rigidly interpreted. It is true, that there are subordi- 
 nate themes in the book, which do not very directly, but only more 
 
 * E. jr. !•• 14.17. 2: 1, U, 15, 17. 10, 21, 23, 2G. 3: 19. 4: 4, 8. 16. 5:9. 
 6: 2, 9, 11. 7:6. 8: 10,14. 11:8, 10. 
 
12 § 2. SPECIAL DESIGN AND 
 
 remotely, contribute to the confirmation of the main theme. The 
 author of the book before us is far enough from being a dull proser. 
 Life and animation reign throughout. He has, indeed, nothing of 
 the technical and formal method of the Schoolmen and mere 
 logicians ; for his book is anything rather than an enumeration 
 of particulars in regular logical sequency. He comes upon us 
 unexpectedly at times, with a theme apparently incongruous and 
 irrelativ e, and we feel for the moment that we are thrown off from 
 our track. But he soon shows us, that for a short time only he is 
 moving in a direction diverse from the main line ; for after this 
 we find him to be again converging toward it. This occasions a 
 striking variety in his particulars, and avoids the dulness of a slow 
 and uniform movement. He casts a look at everything, in passing; 
 and sometimes he stops a moment, in order to take observation 
 of a new occurrence or a new object, and then resumes his course. 
 Hence it comes, that many a reader, who does not thoroughly 
 investigate and understand his plan, is disposed to complain of his 
 apparently discursive and miscellaneous method of composition. 
 A closer examination will bring him to see, that the author has not 
 forgotten what he set out to do ; nor has he turned aside from it, 
 except in cases where additional interest could be given to the 
 whole, by special notice of some particular and interesting objects, 
 which claim attention because they are near to the way where he 
 is passing. 
 
 The number of things which he specifically presents to our view 
 as vanities, is not indeed very great. But he evidently designs, 
 that those which he presents should be regarded as specimens of 
 all the rest, which are of a kindred nature and are not mentioned. 
 This is apparent from the declaration at the beginning and end of 
 the book, viz. that all is vanity. But those objects which are 
 presented, are seldom dismissed without showing them in their 
 various aspects and relations. For example ; avarice, or the 
 greedy pursuit of gain, is repeatedly brought to view. First, we 
 have it illustrated in the experiments which Coheleth made in his 
 kingly state, in order to find some stable and enduring good, 2 : 
 7, 8. The heaping up of treasures in its highest extent, he found 
 to be vanity. It would not — it could not — confer the happiness 
 desired. Then, again, we are presented with some of the positive 
 evils which attend greediness for gain, 2: 18 — 23. After much 
 
METHOD OF THE BOOK. 13 
 
 toil and vexation, a man must leave all which he has acquired 
 to some one wlio never contributed in the least to acquire it. 
 He next brings to view severe and dexterous toil for riches, 
 which attracts the envy of others around the successful man, 4: 4. 
 He then presents a solitary man, without child or brotlier, labor- 
 ing ceaselessly to acquire that which he can bestow on no one 
 whom he cares for, or who cares for him, 4 : 8. The evils of such 
 a state of seclusion and lonely toil, he illustrates by several pro- 
 verbial apothegms, 4: 9 — 12. After this, he presents a case, in 
 which there is excessive toil to provide for children, and yet all is 
 lost by casualty, or misfortune, or mismanagement, 5: 13 — 17. 
 Another view of the subject is, the case wliere riches fall into the 
 hands of strangers, instead of being inherited by children, G : 2. 
 It is easy, with a little attention, to see that each of these develop- 
 ments is attended with its own peculiarities and grievances, while 
 all, when traced back, are found to be united in one central point, 
 viz. the utter insufficiency of riches to procure solid and lasting 
 happiness. 
 
 Several subjects are dealt wnth in like manner. Hence it is 
 easy to perceive, how the feeling arises in the cursory reader,, 
 that the writer is repetitious, and often resorts to the same topic,, 
 as if he was in want of something new to say. Closer examina- 
 tion removes this illusion. He has, indeed, repeatedly brought 
 several topics before us ; but he places them, each time, in a 
 different attitude and in new relations ; and it soon becomes evi- 
 dent, that he has insisted on them so frequently, only because of 
 their relative importance to his main object. 
 
 But there is one source of evil to man, which seems to bear 
 upon his mind with more galling, if not heavier, weight than any 
 other. This is that of oppression by kings and civil rulers. If 
 there be any one thing which urges him, beyond all the rest, to be 
 dissatisfied with, or to doubt, the doctrine that wickedness speedily 
 brings punishment after it, it is the permission and toleration of 
 oppressive and wicked rulers. The first glance he takes of the 
 subject, is directed toward the bench of jvstice, or at least toward 
 the place where justice is looked for, and with right expected. 
 There, on that tribunal, he finds wickedness to be seated, and 
 iniquity to take the place of righteousness, 3 : 16. At the sight, 
 liis first emotion, called forth by pious feelings, bids him to hope 
 2 
 
14 § 2. SPECIAL DESIGN AND 
 
 that God will bring them to judgment, 3:17. But still farther con- 
 templation of the spectacle makes him almost to despair of the 
 destinies of man, and to feel that Heaven designs men to know 
 that they are little if any better than the beasts, 3:18 — 21. During 
 the moment of excitement thus produced, he seems in fact to feel, 
 that men cannot consider themselves as any better than the 
 perishable creatures around them. In the midst of this, however, 
 he essays to comfort himself with the thought, that man, although 
 perishable, can after all have some enjoyment at least in the fruit 
 of his labors. But then a renewed look at the effects of op- 
 pression, at " the tears of the oppressed who had no comforter," 
 and the consideration that " on the side of the oppressors was 
 power," bring him again to a state of despair, even so as to 
 count death more desirable than life, and to wish that he had 
 never been born, 4 : 1 — 3. Grievous indeed must have been the 
 oppression under which he groaned, when it forced from him such 
 outbursts of feeling as these. After descanting on the vanity of a 
 greedy desire for riches, (and with this the oppression of rulers 
 in their exactions naturally connects itself), his mind again recurs 
 to the ruler of his land, of whom he speaks in terms of great 
 severity : "Better is a poor and a wise child, than an old and fool- 
 ish king, who will no more be admonished," 4 : 13. He next 
 brings the subject of religious duties into view, and seems to re- 
 turn from the consideration of these, with his excitement some- 
 what abated, and in a state of more calm reflection. He says, 
 that if one " sees the oppression of the poor and the violent per- 
 verting of judgment and justice," he must repress his wonder by 
 the reflection, that there is One higher than the highest earthly 
 magistrate, who will take cognizance of the matter, 5:8. In the 
 sequel, he touches again on the subject, and seems to set forth 
 more fully the bitter consequences of oppression, by declaring 
 that "it renders those madmen who practise it, and that bribes 
 destroy their understanding," 7 : 7. But here he intermingles, in 
 his discourse, a caution against being hastily provoked by op- 
 pression, and says that it is not wise to keep up the comparison 
 of present oppressive times with former and better days, as no 
 good will come from it, 7 : 8 — 10. In the sequel, he again brings 
 to view the then lamentable civil and social state of things. He 
 sees " the just perishing by his righteousness, and the wicked 
 
METHOD OF THE BOOK. 15 
 
 prolonging his days by wickedness," 7:15. That is, the one falls a 
 victim to the anger or the avarice of the ruler, and the other buys 
 himself off from the retributions of justice when it threatens to 
 overtake him. Yet even here, he prudently cautions against 
 believing every report that is whispered about respecting rulers, 
 7:21, 22. He well knew, that such matters are wont to be exag- 
 gerated. But caution of this nature, as he thinks, may be carried 
 too far. To illustrate this, he introduces one counselHng to yield 
 universal and implicit obedience to the ruler, and this as the only 
 means of safety, because the power is in his hands and he can 
 punish at pleasure, 8 : 2 — 4. But to this he answers, that such 
 undistinguishing obedience, rendered through selfish fear of conse- 
 quences, must lead one to do that which is evil ; and that it is bet- 
 ter to call to mind, that there is a time when all the actions of men 
 will be judged, and both the wicked ruler, and his obedient sub- 
 ject, who was willing to do wrong at his bidding, will be tried 
 and rewarded, because that none can escape the dread season of 
 reckoning, 8 : 5 — 8. He sees, indeed, that one rules over an- 
 other to his great injury ; but in looking farther on, he sees the 
 wicked carried out from the city to the tomb, and anticipates that 
 the memory of him Avill soon perish, 8 : 9, 10. The passionate 
 and overbearing demeanor of rulers is next alluded to (10: 4), 
 and caution given against manifesting offence at it in their 
 presence. That arbitrary power, Avhich sets folly on the seat of 
 dignity, which puts servants upon horses and makes princes to 
 walk on foot as their waiters, is next brought under view, 10 : 
 5 — 7. By various proverbial sayings, he illustrates the impor- 
 tance of a wise and discreet demeanor, on occasions when such 
 things are presented to view ; specially does he recommend dis- 
 cretion in regard to what one sai/s on such occasions, for his words, 
 if they be severe, may be fatal in their consequences, 10: 12 — 14. 
 Still, his own heart is deeply grieved at the evil ; and he breaks 
 out into the pathetic exclamation : " Woe to thee, O land, when 
 thy king is a child, and thy princes feast in the morning!" 10: 
 16, i. e. y hen thy king is incapable of governing with discretion, 
 and thy princes are luxurious and profligate. It would seem, 
 that the old and foolish king, mentioned in 4: 13, as then reigning 
 when that passage was written, had now deceased, and had been 
 succeeded by a mere child, who was reigning. when the passage 
 
16 § 2. SPECIAL DESIGN AND 
 
 now before us was written. Matters, as it appears, had grown no 
 better — the king was now an imbecile, the nobles profligate. 
 In fact, the whole of chap. x. is occupied with the subject of bad 
 and incompetent rulers, who are represented (vs. 18, 19) as sloth- 
 ful, and as being gluttons and drunkards. This is the last ex- 
 pression of his views and feelings in regard to this " sore evil ;" 
 :and here, although his heart is beating high with scorn and indig- 
 nation, he still protests against " cursing the king," even in the 
 most retired and secret places, for in some way unexpected, that 
 king may come to the knowledge of the curses uttered, and this 
 will bring additional evil upon the malcontent. 
 
 This now, with the preceding case of avarice, may serve fully 
 to illustrate my remarks on the alleged discursive method of Cohe- 
 ieth, and the repetitions which are charged upon him. Here, 
 half a score of times and more, the subject of civil oppression and 
 wicked rulers is brought to view. Yet among all these, no two 
 ■of the representations are alike. Every time the thing is men- 
 tioned, it is placed in some new light, and something is added to 
 the strength of the impression already made by the writer. This 
 then can hardly be deemed mere repetition. On the contrary, 
 since the subject is not presented as a whole at any one time and 
 place, it behooved the writer, when he laid the matter so much to 
 heart, to fill out the entire picture. That he has gradually done 
 this, instead of doing it all at once, does not prove that he is 
 justly liable to the charge of mere repetition. 
 
 The examples now produced will illustrate the method of Cohe- 
 leth sufficiently for our present purpose. We may deduce from 
 them conclusions, in regard to the method in which some other 
 topics, particularly that of wisdo7n, are treated in this book. In 
 one sense, the composition is fragmentary, i. e. different portions 
 or attitudes of a subject are introduced here and there with vari- 
 ous interruj^tions, and never continuously so as to exhaust the 
 subject in any one passage. In another sense, it is far from being 
 fragmentary. It is no compound of scraps, one here and another 
 there, just as the writer might happen to light u^on them, or to 
 <levise them. It is far remote from being a mere Collectanenm, 
 lika Robert Southey's memorandum-book, or like the great mass 
 of scrap-books. The seeming fragments here are, after all, only 
 portions or particulars of one great whole, and more or less re- 
 
METHOD OF THE BOOK. 17 
 
 motely stand related to it, or have a bearing upon it. Those wlio 
 have not thoroughly examined the book will be slow, perluips, 
 to believe this. Before they get through the Commentary that 
 follows, however, I would fain hope that they will be ready to 
 admit it. 
 
 It is obvious from what has been brought to view respecting 
 oppressive rulers above, that some of the language must have 
 been dictated hy feeling and suffering, rather than by mere calm 
 reflection. Of course, this opens the door for inquiring when and 
 where the writer lived, in order that he should be under such kings 
 and princes as are here mentioned ; and moreover, when and where 
 such extreme misrule, disorder, and injustice prevailed in Judea. 
 A time very different from that which the Bible assigns to Solo- 
 mon, and his peaceful and happy reign, must of necessity be 
 supposed. But of this, more in the sequel. 
 
 No impression is more common, than that Coheleth is like to 
 the book of Proverbs, in its manner and method ; and yet this is 
 far, very far, from the truth. Even De Wette says, that " this 
 book attaches itself, in every respect, to the gnomological and 
 didactic poetry of the Hebrews," Einl. § 282. Instead of saying 
 (with him) in every respect, I should be nearer the truth if I said : 
 In no respect. This, indeed, would be going too far ; but let us 
 examine and see how much is, or is not, true. As to poetry, if 
 parallelism be a necessary ingredient of this, then there is little 
 or none of it here. In a few solitary cases, where apothegms are 
 quoted, and applied to the subject in hand, we find the usual form 
 of Hebrew proverbs, i. e. parallelism. But they belong, not to the 
 writer of the book, but to the maxims which he quotes. In one 
 description, viz. that of old age, in chap, xii, the writer does indeed 
 border very closely on Hebrew poetry ; or rather, it is altogether 
 poetry in the spirit of the composition, and it is nearly so in the 
 form of the sentences. But this comprises only seven verses, 12 : 
 1 — 7. Elsewhere there is, now and then, a kind of couplet, in 
 which contrast is presented, or some special analogy ; and this of 
 course assumes nearly the form of poetry in respect to parallelism. 
 But so it would do, in a writing merely prosaic. With these 
 exceptions, all is prose, mere prose, without any attempt to soar 
 on the wings of the Muse. 
 
 That the book is didactic^ I freely admiL But this does not 
 
 2* 
 
18 § 2. SPECIAL DESIGN AND 
 
 necessarily make it poetic. Some of the later prophets are didac- 
 tic ; the evangelists are didactic ; Paul is didactic ; but none of 
 these writers are poets. 
 
 In regard to the gnomological cast of the book, there is some 
 foundation for asserting this ; and yet very much less than De 
 Wette seems to suppose. Gnomes are sententiae, proverbs, maxims, 
 apothegms, i. e. short and pithy sayings. The book of Proverbs, 
 for example, is made up of these, from chap. x. on to the end of 
 the book. The distinguishing trait of them all is, that they are 
 isolated, and are without any unity or bond of alliance, excepting 
 that all are of a proverbial nature. Rarely can more than two 
 verses be found, where the same subject is continued ; generally 
 it is dispatched in one verse, which for the most part consists of 
 parallelism, and therefore takes the form of poetry. How dif- 
 ferent is the case in Coheleth ! Here an under-current never fails. 
 The whole is pervaded by that solemn and monitory truth : All 
 IS VANITY. Discursive, in a measure, are some of the remarks 
 that are made ; yet seldom do they go beyond quite narrow 
 bounds. But what all-pervading unity is there in the book of 
 Proverbs? Certainly none. Nearly every verse is unlike its 
 nearest neighbor. But in Coheleth, we find little, I might say 
 nothing, of this sort. There are, indeed, apothegms there. But 
 they are pearls strung upon one and the same string. When they 
 assume a poetic form (parallelism), they are evidently quotations 
 of the writer, and not matters of his own device. The book of 
 Proverbs shows us, what was the form usually given to gnomes 
 or sententious sayings among the Hebrews. In like manner the 
 Arabians arrange their very numerous proverbs. Of the same 
 form are those in Coheleth. 
 
 In illustration of what has just been said respecting the object 
 of introducing apothegms, I would refer to chap. 10:8 — 11. 
 Here are four verses in succession," which at first view seem to be 
 not only independent of each other, but also of the context. 
 They run thus : — 
 
 (8) He who diggeth a ditch may M\ into it; he who brcakcth down a wall, 
 a serpent may bite him. (9) He who plueketh up stones may be annoyed by 
 them ; he who cleaveth Avood will be endangered thereby. (10) If one lias 
 dulled the iron, and there is no edge, he swings it so that he may increase the 
 force; an advantage is the dexterous use of wisdom. (11) If the serpent bite 
 without enchantment, then is there no advantage to him that hath a tongue. 
 
METHOD OF THE BOOK. 19 
 
 Now what says the context ? It says that a little folly is ruin- 
 ous to wisdom ; that wisdom or sagacity will be dexterous in the 
 application of proper means to guard against evil. It adduces as 
 a signal example of folly, the conduct of kings who put high per- 
 sonages in low places, and low personages in high places. All this 
 and the like, as the writer means to intimate, wisdom would teach 
 a considerate man to avoid. Still farther to illustrate the princi- 
 ple in question, he quotes the various apothegms above exhibited, 
 in which it is shown that, even in the most common atftiirs of life, 
 the want of wise precaution will occasion mischief They all dif- 
 fer, indeed, specifically from each other, but all have a unity of 
 object in view. This object is developed in the final clause of v. 10, 
 which declares, that '■'•the dexterous use of wisdom is an advantaged 
 This is doubtless intended as a key to the whole of the seemingly 
 unconnected passage that contains the apothegms, which sounds 
 as if one were reading merely in a book of proverbs. Yet even 
 V. 11, at the close of the apothegms, is clearly of the same tenor 
 as the rest. The meaning plainly is, that he who has a tongue 
 that can enchant, should be wise enough to employ it to purpose, 
 at a time when he is in danger from serpents ; otherwise his 
 tongue of enchantment is of no use to him, because he lacks wis- 
 dom to know when to use it. After all this, the author goes on 
 to show how often and how easily the words of a fool injure him, 
 for want of discretion or wisdom. 
 
 In all this, now, the most prominent of all the apothegmatic 
 passages in Coheleth, there is not a single instance in which the 
 proverb is quoted for its own sake, but merely because it can be 
 made to illustrate the mischief that a want of wisdom or discretion 
 will occasion. What the writer would show is, that, even in the 
 most common concerns and transactions of life, discretion and fore- 
 sight are needed, in order to avoid danger, and to make under- 
 takings successful. 
 
 Let us now adduce another example, that will show the man- 
 ner in which a single apothegm is quoted, merely for the purpose 
 of illustrating a sentiment of the text. In 7 : 1, the cliapter begins 
 with the declaration : "A good name is better than i)recious oint- 
 ment." But why say this ? The writer had been saying nothing 
 about the desirableness or importance of a good name. The senti- 
 ment in itself seems wholly foreign to his purpose. It is so, in 
 
20 §2. SPECIAL DESIGN AND 
 
 fact, as it regards what he has already said, but not so in regard 
 to what he is going to say ; for he immediately subjoins to the 
 declaration : " The day of death [is better] than the day of one's 
 birth." The two parts of the verse are members of a comparison. 
 What is meant, is simply this : " The day of one's death is as 
 much better than that of his birth, as a good name is better than 
 precious ointment." Yet between the members of this comparison, 
 there is no particle of similitude inserted (e. g. S as, or "j^ better 
 than). But here is a fair specimen of the peculiar idiom of the 
 Hebrew. In scores of cases, perhaps even in the greater number, 
 where comparison is made, there is no other particle employed 
 but 1. , which, in such cases, should be rendered and so. Our 
 translators seem to have been in a great measure unacquainted 
 with this peculiar idiom of the language ; and consequently, they 
 have often given an appearance of incongruity to expressions in 
 English, where mere comparison is aimed at in the Hebrew. 
 Almost everywhere, in the book of Proverbs, have they seemed 
 to overlook this distinctive idiom, in regard to the particle in 
 question. The Hebrews said : " Such a thing is so or so ; and 
 such another thing is so or so," when the meaning is simply : "^s 
 such a thing is, so is such another thing." How many apparent 
 difficulties of the sacred text would be easily solved, by a correct 
 view of this principle, the attentive and critical reader may easily 
 discern. In the case above, it is no part of the writer's object to 
 teach us simply that fame is better than perfumed oil ; for although 
 it is true, yet by itself it is not apposite here, and in itself it would 
 hardly need inspiration to teach it, nor would it add much to the 
 didactics of the book. But this common and well-known proverb 
 is cited for the purpose of illustrating a much graver sentiment, 
 to which all readers would not so readily accede. When this 
 purpose is answered, the design of quoting the proverb is fully 
 accomplished. 
 
 Again ; in chap. 10 : 1, we have a declaration, that seems more 
 remote still from the context, and which almost startles one, at 
 first, by its apparent incongruity. It runs thus : " Dead flies 
 make the ointment of the apothecary to stink — to ferment ; a 
 little folly is more weighty than wisdom, and also than what is 
 costly." Plainly, the first clause is not cited for the sake of dis- 
 closing the physical fact or truth in question ; for this was of 
 
METHOD OF THE BOOK. 21 
 
 small moment, and wholly foreign to the writer's object. But this 
 acknowledged pliysical truth is adduced because it affords a 
 striking ground of comparison. Tlie plain sentiment of the whole 
 is: ^^ As dead flies (those little insignificant animals) will corrupt 
 and destroy the most precious ointment, so a little of folly will mar 
 all the plans of wisdom, and })revent any advantage from them." 
 The sequel brings to view many cases, where the want of wisdom, 
 or rather a little of positive folly, ruins undertakings of many 
 different kinds. 
 
 The examples produced are sufficient for our present purpose. 
 They are a fait specimen of all the proverbs contained in Cohe- 
 leth. But how can we affirm, with Ue Wette, that, on the ground 
 of such apothegms (which after all are not very numerous), we 
 must m every respect class this book (Ecclesiastes) with the gno- 
 mohgical writings of the Hebrews ? When Solomon writes 
 proverbs, or selects them, he does so for their own sake, i. e. be- 
 cause of the instruction which they are designed to convey of and 
 in themselves. But this Coheleth never does. The primary 
 meaning of them is not what he designs to inculcate, but, taking 
 this as a conceded truth, he builds on it a comparison or illustra- 
 tion. The primary meaning, in the book of Proverbs, is the main, 
 and usually the sole meaning. 
 
 Had De Wette said merely, that the style of Coheleth in many 
 respects resembles that of the gnomological books of the Hebrews, 
 he would have said what is evident on the very first o})ening of 
 the book. Everywhere this presents itself. For example : — 
 
 (Clinp. 7:4.) The heart of the wise is in tlic liousc of moiu-ninp, but the 
 heart of the fool is in llie house of mirth. (5) It is better to liear the rebuke 
 of tlic Avise, than for a man to hear the song of fools. (7) Surely oppression 
 maketh mad a wise man, and a gift dcstroyeth the heart. (8) Bettor is the 
 end of a thing, than the beginning thereof; the patient in spirit is 1 otter than 
 the proud in spirit. (9) Be not hasty in thy spirit to be angry, for anger 
 rcsteth in the bosom of fools. 
 
 (Chap. 10: 13.) The beginning of the words of his [the fooFs] mouth is 
 folly, and the ending of his mouth is grievous madness. (14) The fool multi- 
 plieth words, when no man can know what shall be; for what shall be after 
 him, who can tell ? (Chap. 11: 1.) Cast thy broad upon the waters, for after 
 many d:iys thou shall lind it. (2) Make a portion into seven, and even into 
 eight, for thou knowcst not tlie evil which shall be on earth. (4) He Avho 
 watcheth the wind will not sow, and he who observeth the clouds will not 
 reap. (7) Truly the light h sweet, and a pleasant thing it is for the eyes to 
 
22 § 2. SPECIAL DESIGN AND 
 
 behold the light of the sun. (9) Rejoice, O young man, in thy youth, and let 
 thine heart cheer thee in the days of thine early life ; and ^valk thou in the way 
 of thy desire, and by the sight of thine eyes. (10) Put away vexation from 
 thy heart, and remove evil from thy flesh. 
 
 These are striking specimens of the sententious. But these 
 might be increased by many more, from almost all parts of the 
 book. Their first appearance is that of mere gnomes. A closer 
 examination, however, shows that beneath them all there is an 
 under-current. They all refer to some position which is designed 
 to be illustrated or confirmed ; and this it is, which constitutes the 
 difference between such passages here and in the b4>ok of Proverbs. 
 In the latter, there is no under-current. The obvious and simple 
 meaning is the principal, and in most cases the sole, object aimed 
 at. In Ecclesiastes, the obvious meaning is altogether a subordi- 
 nate one. 
 
 It should be remembered, in a critique on the style of Cohe- 
 leth or his method of writing, that the book is not one of narra- 
 tion or history. The only part which approaches narration is a 
 portion of chap, ii, which relates Coheleth's experience. But 
 even here, the style approaches the sententious. The rest is 
 philosophizing. Not a treatise on moral philosophy ; not a digest 
 of practical and ethical science, orderly and consecutively laid 
 down ; nor yet, on the other hand, a mere mass of miscellany. 
 There is Siplan — an evident plan or design — running through the 
 M^iole. But one must not look for a chapter of Dr. Paley's moral 
 philosophy here, or of Reinhardt's science of ethics. The Aristo- 
 telian logic was never in fashion among the Hebrews, and proba- 
 bly would not have been, had he lived five hundred years earlier 
 than he did. Successive syllogisms, in which the result of one is 
 made the basis of the next, and so on, in logical succession and 
 continuity, is a thing not to be found formally in the Hebrew 
 writings. Even the discourses of Christ himself do not exhibit it ; 
 and Paul, the greatest logician of all the sacred writers, has 
 nothing that even approaches the school-logic. Even the epistles 
 to the Romans, Galatians, and Hebrews, (the nearest approach 
 to Grecian and modern logic), are widely discrepant from it, in 
 respect to manner. Nothing can be more diverse from such 
 methods of argument as Paley, Locke, Bentley, and Whewell 
 employ, than the whole mass of the Hebrew writings, earlier 
 
METHOD OF THE BOOK. 23 
 
 and later. The Hebrews address the understanding and the heart 
 directly with the declarations of truth, and never rely on any 
 syllogistic concatenations of reasoning. And what all others do, 
 Coheleth does. He brings one matter and another before us ; 
 says something important and to be remembered concerning it ; 
 and then passes on to other kindred subjects. When occasion 
 prompts, he calls up again the same subject, and says something 
 else about it, equally to be remembered. And it is thus that Cohe- 
 leth moralizes and philosophizes, through his whole book. 
 
 It is evident from the nature of the book — a book of practical 
 ethical philosophy — that there must be, in some respects, a dic- 
 tion peculiar to itself; I mean, that language adapted to pJiilosophy 
 must be employed. Hence many words in the book, which are 
 not elsewhere found in the Hebrew. To this account, I can hardly 
 doubt, not a few of the words may be put, which are classed by 
 Knobel and others among the later or the latest Hebrew. We 
 shall see, on another occasion, that there are serious difficulties in 
 the way of a part of this classification, inasmuch as the Phenician 
 monuments exhibit many such words, which must of course have 
 belonged to the older Hebrew. 
 
 I have stated, at the beginning of this section, the great and 
 leading design of the book before us. Tfte vanity and utter insuf- 
 Jiciency of all earthly pursuits and objects to confer solid and lasting 
 happiness, is the theme with which the book begins, and ends ; 
 and which, as we have seen, spreads as a network over all its 
 intermediate and subordinate parts. But there are other objects 
 also in view, besides the illustration and confirmation of this great 
 proposition. The writer not only presents us with the pictures of 
 many of the trials and disappointments of life, but also instructs 
 his readers how to demean themselves when these occur. Doubtless 
 this is second only to the main object of the work. It would have 
 been of little avail to convince men, in what a vain and perisliing 
 world they live, (for their own experience and observation would 
 teach them this) ; he felt it incumbent on him to tell them also 
 what they should do, when placed in this danger or that, in this 
 trial and state of suffering or in that, amid these disappointments 
 and those. Salutary in a high degree are many of his precepts. 
 They are instinct with life, and clothed with energy of language ; 
 and springing, as they usually do, from the occasion of the 
 
24 § 2. SPECIAL DESIGN AND 
 
 moment, are destitute of all the formality, the stiffness, and the 
 tameness of a string of ordinary moral and practical precepts. 
 It is the form of these, which has given occasion, in part, to the 
 charge which De Wette makes upon the book, viz. that of "being 
 in all respects like the gnomological and didactic books of the 
 Hebrews." Didactic it surely is, when practical precept is given 
 in respect to the manner in which we ought to act. But beyond 
 this, the gnomic character does not extend, excepting as already 
 stated above, and excepting also the brief, the animated, and the 
 compressed form of the precepts. 
 
 That the writer was a nice observer of human life and actions, 
 as well as of the nature and course of things, no one will deny. 
 That he had moral and practical ends in view, subservient to 
 sober, cautious, and prudent demeanor ; that he was penetrated 
 with the deepest reverence for God, and inculcates the most 
 unqualified confidence in him and submission to him, lies in open 
 day and on the very face of his work. That he was no Epicurean, 
 no Fatalist (in the heathen sense), and on the great points of 
 morality and of religion no skeptic, will appear quite clear, as it 
 seems to me, to every attentive and candid reader. The nu- 
 merous charges preferred against him in these respects, are the 
 result of hasty and incomplete, or else one-sided views of his 
 book. The Commentary will, as I hope and trust, dissipate most 
 of these illusions. 
 
 That a great variety of precept — moral, prudential, and religious 
 — should be the result of his plan, is evident. Instead of embodying 
 in one series the directions which he gives, as results of his vari- 
 ous investigations and reflection, (which is what most writers of 
 our day would do), he everywhere intermingles his advice or 
 commands with the occasions that prompted them. Whatever may 
 be said of his transgressing logical method by writing thus, it will 
 be conceded, by every discerning reader, that he has taken the best 
 method to produce the strongest and most lasting impression on 
 the mind. Many a maxim will be remembered from the spirited 
 manner in which it is announced, and many a reader will be kept 
 wide awake with his vivacity and energy, who would nod over 
 formally correct, but dull and tame pages. 
 
 I am well aware that there are many and discrepant 023inions 
 which have been brought forward, respecting the nature and de- 
 
METHOD OF THE BOOK. 25 
 
 sign of Coheletli. ^Nlost of the later German writers charge him 
 with shepticisin and with unhelief in a future state of existence. 
 Even Umbreit, from whom we should exi)ect sometliing different, 
 has w^ritten a volume, which is entitled Coheletli Skepticus de 
 summo bono. But De Wette has far outstripped him.' He says : 
 " The doctrine of retribution^ which constitutes the religious ele- 
 ment of tlie book, has many strong doubts to contend with, and 
 these his own experience of misfortunes heli)ed to supply. . . . 
 The more unhappy the times were, and the more they led to de- 
 spair, the more also that belief and animation grew cold, the 
 stronger did those doubts become ; so that they finally shaped 
 themselves into the ordinary system of Epicureanism joined with 
 Fatalism. This the author of the book professes," § 282. 
 
 To this statement I cannot in any measure accede. That Cohe- 
 letli has often raised and expressed doubts respecting retribution 
 and a future state, I readily concede. It is impossible to read 
 with candor such passages as 3 : 18 — 21. 9 : 2 — G, and even G: 
 2 — 8. 9 : 11, 12, without feeling that they are effusions of a mind 
 disturbed by difficulties and doubts, if they are considered sepa- 
 rately and as standing alone. But why did not De Wette consider 
 more thoroughly the whole plan and design of the book, before 
 he made up his opinion from such passages as these, and took it 
 for granted that Coheleth has expressed in them his own settled 
 and ultimate conclusions ? What if one should go into Paul's 
 epistles, and extract from them all the passages which he designed 
 should be put to the objector's account, and not reckoned to his own, 
 and then insist that these are the opinions of Paul ? Would the 
 apostle agree to be treated thus ? Certainly not. He would say, 
 that he had not, indeed, formally and always mentioned the objec- 
 tor by name, as often as he has introduced him, because he trusted 
 to the good sense of the reader and the tenor of the context, as 
 sufficient to make it manifest when he speaks himself, and when 
 he makes another to speak. What if the Psalmist's words, in 
 Ps. 73: 3 — 14, should be put to his account, as expressing his 
 own settled opinion? Then what is to become of tlie remainder 
 of the Psalm, where he declares that he was foolish and brutish 
 in speaking as he had done ? Then, in the book of Job, are the 
 speeches of his opponents, who, as God liimself declares (Job 42: 
 7), " did not speak the thing that was right concerning him" — 
 
 3 
 
26 § 2. SPECIAL DESIGN AND 
 
 are these very speeches to be taken as a guide to our faith and 
 our practice ? The absurdity of such a course is manifest, by the 
 mere statement of the case. Why, then, may not the same justice 
 be done to Coheleth as to others ? Undoubtedly, there are some 
 things said in his book, which he does not design should be taken 
 as the exponents of his own settled opinion. He raises doubts 
 sometimes for the very purpose of answering them. He some- 
 times exhibits erroneous maxims and precepts, and then corrects 
 them. The most natural account of the plan of the book seems 
 to be this, viz. that the loriter has given a picture of the struggle 
 and contest through ichich his own mind had passed, when he sat out 
 on the road of philosophical inquiry. Just such is the account 
 given by the Psalmist of his own mind, when he saw the wicked 
 flourishing and the just perishing. Before the prying and inqui- 
 sitive mind of Coheleth, a multitude of difficulties started up, 
 when he came to inquire into the condition and course of things 
 as ordinarily developed. 
 
 It should be called to mind here, that the great moral stumbling- 
 block of the ancient world was, the reconciliation of the doctrine 
 of retribution with the phenomena that ai'e constantly presenting 
 themselves to our view. The wicked prosper ; the righteous are 
 miserable, or perish. All share one common destiny, since all are 
 appointed unto death. The moral sense of men had a strong per- 
 ception of the necessity of a retribution both just and adequate. 
 Experience contradicted this, as to the present world. To those 
 who had not a strong and lively faith in a future state and retri- 
 bution, these two things appeared contradictory and very per- 
 plexing. This is the grand problem which constitutes the basis 
 of the whole book of Job. His opponents assert complete retri- 
 bution in the present world. Job denies it. The dispute gives 
 occasion to all the lofty and soul-stirring sentiments of this great 
 moral epic. The matter in dispute is placed in every position, 
 examined on every side, and everything right and wrong is said 
 about it by the disputants. And after all, the nodus is not untied, 
 but cut, God's dealings are an acknowledged mystery. He does 
 not give his reasons to man, why he has so ordered things ; but 
 he insists on it, that his wisdom, and knowledge, and justice, and 
 mercy, and sovereignty shall be fully acknowledged. The issue 
 of the whole dispute is, that duty requires us to take and occupy 
 
METHOD OF THE BOOK. 27 
 
 this ground of acknowledgment. To the future world, wliere all 
 things will be adjusted, no direct appeal is made. The solvent, 
 which of all others a Christian would now expect to be applied, 
 and which is sufUcient and satisfactory, viz. that of adeqiude fu- 
 ture retribution, is never employed in the book of Job. AViiat 
 more than this can be said of Cohelefh ? Nothing more ; nor, with 
 any justice to the book, even so much. It has many more recog- 
 nitions, more or less direct, of a future existence and reward 
 than the book of Job. 
 
 Let us consider more particularly, for a moment, some of the 
 features of the plan, not as yet fully developed. The writer lived, 
 as is plain from the tenor of his work, at a time when the same 
 subject which is the nodus of the book of Job, was exciting the 
 anxious minds of many. The interest which they took in the 
 theme of retribution, was greatly augmented by the grinding 
 oppression and aggravated injustice of rulers and magistrates. 
 Life was embittered (see 4: 1 — 3), and multitudes were exclaim- 
 iDg : " O Lord, how long ? " His own mind had passed through 
 all the stages of inquiry and perplexity, before it came to settled 
 and permanent conclusions in regard to some of the topics of 
 inquiry. It is evident, in the progress of his work, that his mind 
 is becoming more settled and peaceful. He comes at last to a 
 final conclusion, the crowning reward of all his inquiries, which 
 is, that '' we should fear God, and keep his commandments, 
 because this is the duty of every man." He comes too, after all his 
 struggles and distresses in relation to the doctrine of retribution, to 
 a full and definite conclusion, viz. that " God will bring to judg- 
 ment every work, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or 
 whether it be evil," 12 : 13, 14. Well did he know, that other in- 
 quiring minds would have the same battles to fight which he had 
 fought ; and in his book, he has laid before the reader all the strug- 
 gles through which he passed himself, and the obstacles whicli he 
 had to overcome. What he had felt, others might feel. 15ut many 
 others, perhaps, would, if left without special aid, be less success- 
 ful as to their result than he had been. He wished to show his 
 sympathy for them, and to proffer them all the aid in his power. 
 Hence he gives them, as it were, the history of his own mind, 
 throughout the contest. He brings before them the doubts which 
 were suggested by observation and reflection, or in some cases, 
 
28 § 2. SPECIAL DESIGN AND 
 
 perhaps, were presented to him by others. It is these which have 
 perplexed and misled many interpreters of this book. They have 
 taken the passages that exhibit these doubts, for the expressions 
 of the author's own deliberate opinion. But instead of this, such 
 doubts should be put in the same category with the sentiments of 
 Paul's objectors. It matters not that they had passed through the 
 author's own mind, for they had greatly perplexed and disturbed 
 him. The passing through his mind does not stamp them with 
 the authority of opinions settled, deliberate, and final. It only 
 shows what embarrassments the writer had to remove, what per- 
 plexities to contend with. The question is not, whether this or 
 that thought once occupied his mind, which he has recorded in 
 writing, but whether this or that thought was adopted by him, 
 and made up a part of his settled and ultimate opinion. 
 
 If the book be carefully read, with such considerations in view 
 as have now been suggested, I venture to say it will appear in a 
 new and much less exceptionable light to many readers. Indeed, 
 there will be only one serious difficulty remaining ; which is, that 
 we can hardly help wondering, that one who believed in future 
 retribution and happiness, should not appeal to it oftener and 
 more plainly than he does. But on looking farther, we find this 
 equally applicable to nearly every part of the Old Testament. 
 Moses does not enforce his laws by considerations drawn from the 
 future world, nor by such penalties or promises as the New Tes- 
 tament holds up before Christians. Nor do the Psalms, Proverbs, 
 Job, or the Prophets, speak more plainly on the point of a future 
 world, than Coheleth has done. Why should we demand, that he 
 should so far outstrip all his contemporaries and predecessors, as 
 to make his book a gospel-treatise instead of an Old-Testament 
 production ? 
 
 Let no one suggest, that the view just taken of Coheleth's 
 object, is one got up merely for the sake of parrying or avoiding 
 difficulties. I can truly say, that it did not present itself to my 
 mind in this way. It came from the often-repeated study of the 
 book, and effiarts to trace the writer's plan and object. In order 
 to come to a result like that stated above, several things were to 
 be considered. First, that no writer of such powers as the author 
 of this book, would knowingly and palpably contradict himself, 
 and this too within limits so narrow, that in a few minutes he 
 
METHOD OF THE BOOK. 29 
 
 could overlook everything that he had written. Secondly, 
 that in a book of evident and professed disquisition and inquiry, 
 it is to be ex})ected that objections will be considered and an- 
 swered, as well as thetical propositions made out, and moral and 
 prudential precepts given. Thirdly, that the final conclusions 
 in such a disquisitive work, are naturally to be taken as the index 
 of the writer's ultimate and established opinion. Now taking 
 these obvious principles into view, and conceding to them their 
 due weight, I venture to say that one would come, as a matter of 
 course, to adopt the views which have been stated above. By 
 far the greater part, indeed almost the entirety, of the book is on 
 the side of sound morals, and insists upon watchful demeanor, 
 sobriety, humility, trust in God, submission to his will, and a 
 radical weanedness from the vanities of the world. Intermixed 
 with these grave subjects are many prudential maxims, in respect 
 to industry, thrift, envy and slander of the great, and other objects 
 both social and industrial. But the parts which have given occa- 
 sion to the accusations of De Wette and others, are actually of 
 little extent, and are also sparse. To characterize the whole book 
 from these, and to take these as the true exponents of the waiter's 
 opinions, is far from either justice or candor. 
 
 Indeed, the last thing that one should think of in respect to 
 Coheleth, is to charge him with Epicureanism. In the narration 
 of that series of experiments which he had made, as exhibited in 
 chap, ii, he tells us at the beginning and at the close, that his iris- 
 dom remained with him through the whole. He did not wallow in 
 pleasure, nor indulge in any excess. lie made sober experiments 
 in the way of inquiry. In the somewhat numerous passages, where, 
 after having described some vanity of human pursuit, he exhorts 
 " to eat, and to drink, and to enjoy the good of one's labor," there 
 is not one which savors of encouragement to drunkenness, or glut- 
 tony, or revelling. In 10 : 17, 18, he has most clearly shown his 
 condemning opinion of these excesses. When he exhorts the 
 young to make the best of life, and cheerfully to enjoy it, he throws 
 in the salutiry and soul-stirring caution, " But know thou, that 
 for all these things God will ])ring thee to judgment," 11: 9. In 
 other words, * Do all this, with the constant recognition and re- 
 membrance of the truth, that you are to give .an account to God, 
 for the manner in which you demean yourself amid all your en- 
 joyments.' 3 * 
 
30 § 2. SPECIAL DESIGN AND 
 
 Again and again does he remind those, Avhom he addresses and 
 exhorts to enjoy the fruits of their labor, that all which they en- 
 joy is the gift of God, 2 : 24, 26. o : 18. 3 : 13. 9: 7—9. In 
 other words, ' Enjoy the gifts of God, the fruits of toil ; but 
 remember the hand from whence they come, and be grateful to 
 the Giver of all good.' Is there anything Epicurean in all this ? 
 I see no approach to it. Coheleth, with all his trials and sorrows, 
 is no ascetic, no Franciscan rnonk. He exhorts not to go bowed 
 down all one's days, covered with sackcloth, assuming a gloomy 
 countenance, and mortifying the body. Men's garments should be 
 white, i. e. of a cheerful cast, and they should see that their heads 
 lack not spikenard, (used on occasions of joy) ; yea, and that 
 they should live joyfully with the wife of their youth, 9 : 7 — 9. 
 But in all this there is, or need be found, only a cheerful and 
 thankful acceptance of the gifts of God. To charge this with 
 Epicureanism is doing the writer a manifest injustice. Then as to 
 the other charge made by De Wette, that of skepticism — if the 
 book is read in the light where it ought to be placed, there is no 
 solid ground for making such a charge. That which objectors 
 say, or else that which doubts presenting themselves to the mind 
 of the inquisitive writer would say, is regarded by De Wette as 
 the expression of the writer's settled opinions. If Coheleth be a 
 skeptic, he is not one, at all events, in respect to God, or his wis- 
 dom, or goodness, or sovereignty, or hatred of sin, or love of 
 righteoiLsness. Let us follow him through a few of these par- 
 ticulars. 
 
 All which man enjoys as the fruit of his toil, is to be regarded 
 as the gift of God, 2 : 24. God has made everything ne^ , i. e.Jif, 
 proper, comely, in its time, and made man intelligent, so that he 
 may discern this, 3:11. To this he has added the power, and 
 bestowed the means, of enjoying the reward of toil, 3:13. God 
 is sovereign in the disposal of all things and all events ; and he 
 preserves this attitude of a sovereign, in order that men may yield 
 him that reverential homage which is his due, 3:14. When men, 
 to their great grief, behold oppression and wickedness, they should 
 call to mind, that " God will judge the righteous and the wicked, 
 since there is a time [of judgment] for every undertaking and 
 every work," 3 : 17. It is an objection which suggests, in the 
 sequel, that the object of the divine Being, in permitting so much 
 
METHOD OF THE BOOK. 31 
 
 oppression and wickedness, is lo let men see that they are no bet- 
 ter than the brutes, and that all must perish in the same way as 
 they do, without any distinction, 3 : 18 — 21. God is to be wor- 
 shipped witli tlie deepest reverence, and in spirit and in truth, 
 instead of trusting in sacrifices and offerings, 4 : 17, (o : 1. Eng.). 
 A^ows unto God are allowable, but not rash and foolish ones, and 
 above all not deceitful ones, 5 : 1 — 4, (o: 2 — 5). God will sum- 
 marily punish false vows, 5 : 5 (5 : G). In all that has respect to 
 religion, God is to be regarded witli reverential fear, 5 : G (5 : 7). 
 
 When oppressive rulers do violence and wrong, we must call 
 to mind, that there is One Most High over them all, 5:7 (5:8). 
 God gives men the fruits of their labor, and the power of enjoy- 
 ing them ; and all these things are to be regarded as his gift, 5 : 
 17, 18 (5 : 18, 19). G : 2. God has fixed the order, and measure, 
 and manner of all things and all events ; he has contrasted pros- 
 perity with adversity, and made them to alternate in such a way, 
 that man cannot with confidence foretell the future, 7:13,14. 
 Whoever pleases God shall be delivered from the fatal snares of 
 seductive women, 7 : 2G. Men must not charge their sins upon 
 God ; for he made man upright, and it is man who has sought out 
 many evil inventions, 7 : 29. " It shall be well with them that 
 fear God, and ill with those who do not fear him," 8 : 12, 13. The 
 work of God is inscrutable, 8:17. The righteous and their works 
 are in the hand of God. All is at his disposal, so that many things 
 take place, the ground and reason of which lie not within our reach 
 of understanding, 9:1. When prosperity comes, enjoy it, and 
 regard it as divine favor, 9 : 7. God's ways are unsearchable, 
 11:5. God, our Creator, is to be remembered even in our youth, 
 12:1. The spirit returns to God who gave it, 12 : 7. The grand 
 conclusion of the whole book is, that we should "fear God, and 
 keep his commandments ; because God will bring everything, 
 whether good or evil, into judgment," 12: 13, 14. 
 
 Such are the writer's views of God, of his providence, and of 
 his relations to men. In all this, where is there a trace of skep- 
 ticism ? Nay, we may go nmch farther : Where is there more 
 unqualified reverence, submission, confidence, and obedience re- 
 quired, than in this book ? A submission the more to be com- 
 mended and admired, because of the deep political and civil gloom 
 spread all around the writer. Indeed, his reverence for God 
 
32 § 2. SPECIAL DESIGN AND 
 
 must have been of the highest kmd ; for how else could it sus- 
 tain him, and encourage him to look up with such unqualified 
 submission ? Holy Job broke forth into cursing the day of his 
 birth, and allegations of partiality in the dealings of divine Provi- 
 dence. Coheleth too was led, for a time, to loathe life, because of 
 severe oppression ; but he does not take the j^osition of Job, nor 
 does he complain of either partiality or injustice on the part of his 
 Maker. And all this filial submission is greatly magnified, when 
 we call to mind how faint his views of the future were, in com- 
 parison with those which the gospel has presented to us. Such 
 submission and reverence, under such circumstances, are enough 
 to make us heartily ashamed of ourselves, when we murmur and 
 are disquieted in a condition such as ours. 
 
 In respect to the Fatalism which is charged against the book, 
 the preceding views of God and of his doings are a suflicient an- 
 swer. The order of nature, of events, of trial and suffering, and 
 of enjoyment too, is indeed fixed by an overruling Providence. 
 Man cannot change it. But what more of fatalism is there in all 
 this, than there is in Rom. viii, ix, and in many other parts of the 
 Bible ? What more, than in nearly all the Reformed Creeds of 
 Christendom? That God ha?, foreordained aW things, is the com- 
 mon doctrine of all. But still, it is man " who seeks out many 
 inventions." The sinner can plead no fatality^ in extenuation of 
 his guilt. God has foreordained that he should act freely. 
 
 Wherein, then, consists the skepticism in question ? " In the 
 fact," De Wette would doubtless reply, " that Coheleth believed 
 nothing of a future state and a future retrihution^ He does not 
 venture to say, that there is nothing of it ; for 3 : 21 shows, that 
 the question, whether the spirit goeth upward, was within the reach 
 of his inquiry, and of course that he knew something of this sub- 
 ject. Then what is the proof of the unbelief in question ? The 
 very same proof as in the case of Epicureanism ; i. e. it is drawn 
 from the former doubts of the writer's own mind, or else from 
 allegations of objectors. But are there not declarations enough, 
 to show that the mind of Coheleth had a different persuasion 
 from that which these doubts indicate ? It is easy to answer 
 this question, and it is of much importance that it should be 
 answered. 
 
 Let the reader, then, turn to 3 : 17. After stating that he had 
 
METHOD OF THE BOOK. 33 
 
 seen the tribunals of justice filled with oppression and wickedness, 
 the writer says, that "God will judge the righteous and the 
 wicked," and that he has a})pointed a time in which all will come 
 under the judicial cognizance of his tribunal. Again ; there is 
 OxE higher than the highest earthly ruler (5 : 8), namely, One 
 who will punish oppressors, (for of course this is the intimation) ; 
 there is One who will vindicate the oppressed, that have no com- 
 forter here, 4:1. The young may indeed rejoice in their blessings ; 
 but they are always to keep in view the judgment to come, 11: 9. 
 " God will bring to judgment every work, with every secret thing, 
 whether it be good, or whether it be evil," 12:14. Even Knobel 
 acknowledges that this last passage indicates, beyond all doubt, a 
 future retribution. But since he agrees with De Wette as to the 
 skepticism of the book, he is driven to maintain, that this passage 
 was added by a later and a foreign hand. 
 
 Thus much for passages bearing directly on the ideaof a judg- 
 ment to come. Intimately and necessarily connected with these, 
 are all those passages which speak of a just retribution. God is 
 to be feared, 3:14. Sin makes him angry, 5 : 6. Why feared ? 
 And what will his anger do ? Those that fear God, shall expe- 
 rience deliverance, 7 : 18. Wickedness shall not deliver those 
 who are given to it, 8 : 8. " It shall be well with them who fear 
 God," 8:12. "It shall not be well with those who do not fear 
 him," 8 : 13. " Remember thy Creator," 12: 1 ; (with the impli- 
 cation of reward, in case of obedience). " Fear God, and keep his 
 commandments," 12 : 13 ; (with the same implication). 
 
 Thus the doctrine of a retribution for good and evil, and of a 
 time when every action will be scanned and judged, lies scattered 
 through the whole book of Coheleth. It is impossible reasonably 
 to doubt the state of his mind in regard to these things. But in 
 order to cast farther light on his meaning, it is necessary to take 
 into view other things which he has said in relation to this subject. 
 He has, in different ways, fully developed the sentiment, that 
 retribution is not made in the present life. All experience the 
 same evils \ all die alike ; all are subject to the same disa})point- 
 ments ; the lot which the righteous deserves often falls to the 
 wicked, and so vice versa, ; the righteous perish not only in their 
 righteousness, but because of\{ ; and so the wicked prosper by rea- 
 son of their wickedness. Time and chance happen to all alike ; 
 
34 § 2. SPECIAL DESIGN AND 
 
 there is one event or destiny to the righteous and to the wicked, 
 to the clean and to the unclean. (See 2 : 14, 15. 3 : 18 — 21. 4 : 
 1—3. 6:8. 7:15. 8 : 14. 9:1,2, 11). Now although some of 
 this is the language of objection, yet the facts stated are such as 
 cannot be denied. The force of the objection arises from deduc- 
 tions made out of the facts, and does not consist in the facts 
 themselves. 
 
 We assume it, then, as a plain doctrine in Coheleth, that (since 
 such facts cannot be denied) retribution, adequate and final, does 
 not take place in the present world. Indeed, the testimony of all 
 ages unites in the confirmation of this j^osition. We are brought, 
 then, by all this, into a predicament where we are fully and entirely 
 at liberty, and indeed are entitled, to make out the following 
 syllogism : — 
 
 (1) Retribution, adequate and just, of good and evil, will 
 certainly be made. (2) It is not made in the present world. 
 Therefore, (3) It must be made in a future world. 
 
 If there be any way of properly shunning or avoiding this con- 
 clusion, it is unknown to me. That this process of reasoning is 
 built upon the book itself, is quite plain and certain, from what 
 has been produced. It would seem that no intelligent and con- 
 siderate man ought to estimate the understanding of Coheleth at 
 so low a rate, as to suppose him designedly to have presented a 
 medley of palpable contradictions in his book, which, if really 
 admitted, would utterly destroy respect for himself as a writer, 
 and mar all the credit of his work. On the contrary, one feels, in 
 reading the book intelligently and carefully, the grasp of a 
 powerful mind and of an acute observer of men and things. 
 What credit could he expect Epicurean skepticism would gain 
 for a book, among such a people as the Hebrews ? What is there 
 in the Old Testament which is congenial with this ? Nothing — 
 nothing at all. How then can De Wette's views be made probable ? 
 — views in direct opposition to all that is Hebrew ? And how is it 
 possible to attribute the numerous passages of the book before us, 
 (which take high ground on the subject of retribution, and of 
 God's hatred of sin and love of holiness and spiritual obedience), 
 to a devotee of pleasure and a skeptic ? This question calls for 
 an answer ; and an answer I have endeavored to give, in the 
 preceding remarks ; an answer, however, directly the reverse of 
 
METHOD OF THE BOOK. 35 
 
 De Wette's. And I may ap})eal to every intelligent reader and 
 candid critic, whether my answer is not fairly sustained by the 
 book itself? If so, then the principles of exegesis, applicable to the 
 book, must be conceded to be such as I have advocated above. 
 
 The attentive reader must have observed, that I have as yet 
 made no appeal to the inspiration of the book, in order to sustain 
 its claims to our regard. I have purposely avoided this, because 
 those with whom I have been arguing, do not admit the claim or 
 the reality of inspiration. But after passing through this contest 
 on merely ethical and critical grounds, I come now to say, that 
 the book of Ecclesiastes has, in common with the other Old Testa- 
 ment books, a claim to the place which it holds as one of the 
 inspired writings. The author does not, indeed, assert himself to 
 be inspired ; but neither do many other writers in the Old Testa- 
 ment assert this of themselves. There the book is, in the midst 
 of the Hebrew Scriptures ; and there it has been, at least ever 
 since the period when the Hebrew canon was closed. There at 
 all events it was, when our Saviour and the apostles declared 
 the Jewish Scriptures to be of divine origin and authmity. I 
 need not trace the history of its canonical reception and place 
 here ; and more especially may I omit to do this, inasmuch as I 
 have already, in my little volume on the Canon of the Old Testa- 
 ment Scriptures, canvassed the whole subject. Enough for us, 
 that the Jews of our Saviour's time held fast to this book, and 
 that this usage was sanctioned by Christ and his apostles. 
 
 But there is another point of view, in which this subject should 
 now be placed. Would Christ and the apostles have sanctioned 
 a work which taught Epicurean skepticism ? It would seem as if 
 this question needed no answer, except that which the very 
 asking of it suggests. Where is there any parallel to such a 
 proceeding, in the history of the sacred Canon ? It is not sup- 
 posable, that they took such a view of the book as De Wette's. 
 
 " But the New Testament," it is said, "never quotes or refers 
 to Ecclesiastes." True ; but where does it quote Ruth, Esther, 
 Lamentatiors, Obadiah, and some other books ? The reason is 
 plain and simple, viz. that no occasion required quotation. The 
 argumentum a silentio is a very weak and unsatisfactory argument, 
 in all cases of such a nature. 
 
 We seem then to be bound to concede, that the book was re- 
 
36 § 2. SPECIAL DESIGN AND 
 
 garded by Christ and the apostles, in a manner very different from 
 that of De Wette, Knobel, Hitzig, Heiligstedt, and many others. 
 And if so, then the former found in it, most surely, no Epicurean 
 skepticism. No laws of fair exegesis oblige us to find it. We 
 can dispose of the seemingly obnoxious sentiments, in some parts 
 of it, in the same way as we do of the like sentiments in the book 
 of Job, where the objectors appear in propria persona ; and just 
 as we do in Paul's epistles, where they appear without being 
 named, as they do in the book before us. We dispose of them in 
 the same way as we do of what the Scribes and Pharisees say, 
 as reported in the gospels. What they utter is not authoritative 
 either in doctrine or practice ; nor were they at all inspired. 
 But an inspired writer has told us what they said and did, and 
 we give full credit to his narration. Just so in the case before us. 
 The writer, (I believe him to have been an itispired writer), has told 
 us what doubts and difficulties once passed through his own mind, 
 or were suggested to him by others ; and we set them down 
 merely for what he intended them to be considered. I say that 
 he intended them to be regarded as mere objections, because 
 I cannot force myself to believe him to be so weak a man as to 
 contradict himself so egregiously as De Wette makes him to do, 
 or rather would make him to do, if he had brought both sides of 
 the question into view. But he has taken care to shun the doing 
 of this, and has made out Coheleth's settled opinions merely from 
 his doubts and difficulties. This does not seem to be holding the 
 balance Avith the equable hand of justice. 
 
 I feel compelled to say of De Wette's introduction to this book, 
 (in his Einleitung), that it is one of the most hasty and incon- 
 dite of his productions ; and nothing can be more evident to one 
 who has thoroughly studied the book, than that he bestowed very 
 little more than a hasty and superficial glance at the whole mat- 
 ter. The section containing the introduction, was probably the 
 work of a single session in his study. 
 
 In the investigation of the question respecting the design of 
 Coheleth, wx have come at least to a negative conclusion, in addi- 
 tion to the preceding positive ones, viz. that it was not the author's 
 design to teach either Epicureanism or Fatcdism. 
 
 But have we yet brought to view all the topics about which 
 the book descants ? We have exhibited the main topic, and the 
 
METHOD OF THE BOOK. 37 
 
 one wliich stands next to this, namely, lessons or precepts of prac- 
 tical wisdom. We have also touched on tliat of avarice, and that 
 of civil oppression anrl* misrule. A few more to[)ics must be 
 briefly suggested, before we can complete our view of the author's 
 whole design. 
 
 No individual and special topic is so often discussed, in the 
 book before us, as that of wisdom. For the most part this word 
 has a meaning here, different from that which it more usually has 
 in Proverbs, Psalms, and other Old-Testament books. In gen- 
 eral it is equivalent here to sagacity, prudential dexterity, shrewd- 
 ness, cunning in the better sense of the word. Sometimes it desig- 
 nates that prudential foresight, which leads one to fear and obey 
 God ; for there is sometimes developed in the book a religious 
 and ethical wisdom; but in most cases the word is applied to 
 practical sagacious management of aflflxirs, or wise demeanor ; or if 
 not to these, then to sagacity in the investigation of various mat- 
 ters, and ability to make distinctions between things that differ. 
 
 In the commencing part of the book, after giving us a striking 
 picture of the vanity of all things and their ceaseless round of uni- 
 formity, the author proposes, as one great object before him, to 
 " investigate hy wisdom respecting everything that is done under 
 the sun," 1:13. He tells us that " he acquired wisdom above all 
 who were before him in Jerusalem ;" and that in order more fully 
 to understand wisdom, he contrasted it with folly and madness, 1: 
 16, 17. Yet such an ardent pursuit of it brought with it much 
 vexation and sorrow, 1 : 18. In the experiments he made by 
 resorting to all the different means or sources of pleasure, he 
 cautiously took wisdom, i. e. prudential foresight, along with him, 
 so that he might make experiments in the best manner ; see 2 : 
 1 — 11, and specially vs. 3, 9. In examining the wisdom possessed 
 by him, in order to find its excellence or principal advantage, he 
 found that such as possessed it could often see where others were 
 more or less blind, 2 : 13, 14. Yet wisdom could not guard liim 
 against many ills of life, which come equally on the wise and the 
 foolish. In this respect, therefore, he found it to be vanity. Nor 
 could wisdom secure his future fame ; for all die and ^e forgotten. 
 Here again it showed itself to be vanity, even an empty pursuit, 2 : 
 14 — 17. Wisdom, as employed in the acquisition of wealth, is 
 defeated in its ends ; for the effort and trouble j^re great, and aU 
 4 
 
38 § 2. SPECIAL DESIGN AND 
 
 that is amassed soon goes into other hands, it may be into those 
 of a fool, 2 : 18—23. But however w^dom may contribute to 
 one's enjoyment, by enabling him to make a dexterous use of things, 
 it must be acknowledged rather as the gift of God, than as any- 
 thing of which we can boast, 2 : 24—26. Wisdom enables even 
 a child to act more successfully than the aged who are foolish, 4 : 
 13. But in regard to many evils that come upon us, the wise 
 man has no advantage over the fool, 6 : 8. Rebuke from the 
 wise is salutary, 7:5. If a man that is wise, betakes himself to 
 oppression, it will soon make him like to a madman, 7 : 7. Wis- 
 dom is of some avail, as well as wealth ; for it often protects men 
 from threatened evils, even where money would not do this, 7 : 
 11, 12. It is better than the forces and weapons of war, 7:19. 
 In seeking for examples of it, in order to pry into its true nature, 
 he has very rarely been able to find them, 7 : 25 — 28. In fact, 
 the thing is too recondite and deep to be fully attained, as to its 
 real nature, 7 : 23—25. Wisdom will exhilarate the man who 
 can apply it to the solution of difficult things, 8:1. Wisdom will 
 teach discreet behavior in presence of rulers, 8 : 5. Wisdom, as to 
 all matters that are transacted, is difficult of attainment, and no 
 one can thoroughly explore it, 8 : 16, 17. Wisdom belongs to the 
 present life, 9:10; will not always be successful, 9:11; yet some- 
 times it achieves important things in the defence of those who 
 are attacked, 9 : 13 —15. It is better than weapons of war, 9 : 18. 
 It is spoiled by a little folly, 10 : 1. It is needed and is useful 
 in almost all of even the common concerns of life, 10 : 2 — 15. 
 The Preacher, as a wise man (a Hakam), taught the people 
 knowledge, 12:9. The words of the wise are a powerful stimu- 
 lus to the minds of men, who are inclined to be inefficient or to 
 do but little, 12:11. 
 
 Wisdom, then, is placed in a great variety of attitudes, some of 
 which seem, at first view, to be incongruous with others. First, 
 he sought wisdom with much eagerness, and made himself more 
 wise than any before him at Jerusalem. Then he found wisdom 
 to be of no avail in many cases, and that the pursuit of it was 
 vanity. At another time we find him saying, that when he sought 
 after it, he found it was too deep and remote to be explored, 7 : 
 23, 24. At one time, like every other thing that man pursues, it 
 is vanity ; at another, it answers important purposes in command- 
 
METHOD OF THE BOOK. 39 
 
 ing success, and in defending from dangers that threaten. At 
 one time, we feel almost as if he were speaking ironically con- 
 cerning it, when lie speaks of it as merely enabling one to see 
 what the fool does not see. But when all parts of the picture are 
 carefully compared, it will be found that wisdom is often spoken 
 of relatively, i. e. as related to certain things over which we have 
 no control. In such a case, he calls it vanity. Whatever may be 
 its value in other respects, it cannot keep off many of the ills of 
 life, nor prevent our exposedness to many losses and trials, nor 
 enable us to escape from death. It can avail us only in prudential 
 matters, where caution and sagacity are useful and necessary to 
 guard against danger, or to win success. Here, indeed, there is 
 something valuable in it, and worthy of being possessed. But 
 when specidativchj investigated (7 : 23 seq.), it soon presents dif- 
 ficulties that we cannot overcome, and we are forced to abandon 
 the pursuit. But when practically exercised, it is that which is 
 needed in all the concerns of life, in a greater or less degree, if 
 they are capable of being managed, and require to be managed, 
 so as to meet our wishes. 
 
 The author seems to hold on to this mental quality, with much 
 more tenacity than he does to any of the ordinary pursuits of busi- 
 ness or pleasure among men. The reputation of Solomon for 
 wisdom, seems to have thrown a charm around the acquisition of 
 it. Yet after all, conceding the aid which it gives, and its pre- 
 eminence above folly, it is not that high and enduring good after 
 which he is seeking. Some credit, indeed, is due to it, for in 
 many ways it is useful ; but it lacks the power of making us 
 superior to the common and unavoidable evils of life. 
 
 In this view of the subject, we find at once a justification of the 
 definition o^ wisdom, as employed in this book, which I have given 
 above. It is not wisdom in the high sense which the word often 
 bears in the book of Proverbs. The fear of God is there regarded 
 as the heginning of wisdom. Obedience to his commands as the 
 consummation of it. It is almost the equivalent of piety ; while 
 folly is anotiier name for wickedness. Not so in the book before us. 
 Wisdom and folly are indeed abundantly brought into contrast ; 
 but here they are equivalent to sagacity and to the lack of it ; 
 here they are prudent caution and foresight, or the want of it ; 
 and here they are dexterity of management, or- the want of it. 
 
40 §2. SPECIAL DESIGN AND 
 
 In a word, they are practical wisdom or the want of it, as de- 
 veloped in all the circumstances and engagements of life. 
 
 This, it is evident, is altogether adapted to one of the leading 
 purposes of the book, viz. that of giving prudential maxims or 
 rules of life, so that we may avoid as many evils as possible, and 
 acquire and enjoy as much good. While the author gives us such 
 a vivid picture of the vanity of the present world, he endeavors to 
 guide us in such a way, as that we may suffer the least that is 
 possible in consequence of this vanity. Wisdom is so important 
 to the attainment of this end, that it cannot be dispensed with ; 
 but the man who pursues it with the expectation that, in itself, it 
 is adequate to procure for him stable and certain good, will always 
 be disappointed. But of Avisdom in the sense of religion or piety, 
 this cannot be truly said ; for the contrary is true. It is manifest, 
 then, that this is not the kind of wisdom which is so often dis- 
 cussed by Coheleth. 
 
 On the whole, that a philosopher, (for such Coheleth professes 
 himself to be, i. e. a Q^n)? should concern himself with the exami- 
 nation and discussion of wisdom, is altogether congruous with the 
 nature of his book, and is what we might naturally expect. But 
 how different are his views from those of Plato and even of Soc- 
 rates. Speculative discriminations, and the power of making them 
 acutely, are the ao<^ia of the Greeks ; while with the Hebrews, 
 either rehgion, or practical sagacity and prudence in the affairs of 
 life, constitute the essence of wisdom. Of metaphysical reason- 
 ing and subtilties they had little or no conception, or at any rate, 
 they felt little or no interest in them. 
 
 As I have already intimated, there is not the least trace of any 
 acquaintance, on the part of Coheleth, with the Greek philosophy, 
 in any portion of his book. But still, the fame of Grecian phi- 
 losophy might have been one of the moving causes of writing the 
 book. The heathen was disposed to say to the Jew : ' What 
 ground for claiming preeminence have you ? The knowledge of 
 oocpia does not exist among you.' Coheleth has written a book 
 which furnishes an answer to this taunting allegation, although 
 perhaps it was not designed to do so. ' Here is our philosophy,' 
 a Jew might reply, who held this book in his hand. And there 
 indeed it was ; and in a religious, moral, and practical point of 
 view, it was worth more than all the philosophy of Greece. 
 
METHOD OF THE BOOK. 41 
 
 Before we quit the present subject, it will be well to notice the 
 singular theory of Ewald, Hitzig, and some others, in regard to 
 wisdom in this book. It is this, viz. that Coheleth is but another 
 name for wisdom ; and inasmuch as Solomon was regarded by 
 some of the later Hebrews as wisdom incarnate (Wisd. 9 : 7, 8. 
 7: 1 seq.), so it is incarnate Wisdom in the person of Solomon, 
 who speaks tliroughout this book; (Hitz. Comm. on 1: 1). But 
 how such a theory as this could be soberly advanced and de- 
 fended, I cannot well imagine. (1) In the book of Proverbs, chap, 
 viii, ix, in Sirach chap, xxiv, where wisdom is personified, we have 
 the most express intimations of it ; which is as much as to say, 
 that without these intimations the reader would be in danger of 
 mistaking the writer. Nothing of this kind, however, is seen in 
 Coheleth. He appears, speaks, acts, everywhere as a simple per- 
 sonage, and not as a mysterious symbol. If such were not the 
 case, we might reasonably expect to be advertised of it. (2) 
 Whenever wisdom is elsewhere jjersonijied^ i. e. introduced as a 
 person, she is not personified in another individual, but only in 
 and by herself. In other words, she is introduced as personified 
 Wisdom, and not as Solomon. (3) Things are attributed to 
 wisdom here, which, if we suppose abstract and absolute wisdom 
 to be meant by the word, are utterly incompatible with its nature. 
 For example, wisdom is introduced, (i. e. provided Coheleth is its 
 representative or incarnation), as making strenuous efforts to 
 acquire itself, and does actually acquire itself with success ; 1:16, 
 17. 2:12. Wisdom remained with itself, 2:9; and yet wis- 
 dom was far away fi-om wisdom, and too deep and remote to 
 be understood, 7 : 23, 24. In wisdom is mlich vexation, 1:18. 
 Wisdom is altogether vanity, 2: 15, 16. Wisdom exerts itself 
 most strenuously to find out itself, but is unable to do it, 8:16, 17. 
 
 How is it possible now, I ask, to predicate all these things of 
 wisdom absolute, as dwelling in Coheleth ? The bare inspection 
 of them supersedes all argument in the case. It is clear as the 
 sun, that Coheleth is a person seeking to obtain wisdom, that he 
 obtains it imperfectly, and finds it on many occasions useful, 
 while in many others it is quite powerless. Could abstract 
 wisdom say of herself, that she was vanity, and unknown to her- 
 self, and unknowable ? And although this theory can boast of 
 patrons with such names as Geier, Le Clerc, Rambach, Carpzov, 
 
 4* 
 
42 § 2. .SPECIAL DESIGN AND 
 
 Koster, and others of past days, and of Ewald and Hitzig, now 
 living, it must be regarded still, (at least it seems so to me), as 
 coming from the land of dreams ; and these appear to be rather 
 disturbed ones. 
 
 Another topic, which comes under frequent discussion, is that 
 of riches, and efforts to amass them. But as this has been some- 
 what fully exhibited, near the beginning of the present section, 
 I merely advert to it here, as the reader can consult what is 
 there said. It would seem, from the vivid pictures of avarice, 
 or of amassing great wealth, that it was probably a frequent vice 
 in the time of Ck)heleth, and that he regarded it with that strong 
 disapprobation which is everywhere expressed in his book. It 
 is not the mere matter of possessing or acquiring, which he dis- 
 approves, but the setting one's heart on loealth, and the expecta- 
 tion that any solid happiness can be secured by it. 
 
 Other topics are also included in the book. But they are 
 merely touched upon, as it Avere incidentally, and do not appear 
 to have belonged to the main parts of his design. For example, 
 the £o\\j of ambition is represented in strong colors, in 4: 13—16. 
 One cannot help thinking of " the old and foolish king " as being 
 Solomon, in his old age, when led away by his heathen wives. 
 The young man who comes into his place, seems to be Jeroboam, 
 who led away ten parts of the Hebrew nation. His unhappy 
 doom is briefly but forcibly related. But we miss, in this book, 
 many of the topics which we might naturally expect would be 
 touched on, as they concern the means in vain resorted to for the 
 sake of securing enjoyment. Whoredom and concubinage are 
 scarcely brought to view. Many vices that were common, such 
 as defrauding, stealing, idleness, prodigality, and the like, so 
 often treated of in the book of Proverbs, are scarcely, or not at 
 all, glanced at here. It was not within the scope of the author's 
 design, to bring all vices into view. As a remarkable circum- 
 stance of this nature, may be mentioned the entire omission of 
 any reference to, or mention of, idolatry. One is ready to ask : 
 When could this book have been written ? Under good kings, 
 none or little of the oppression and perversion of justice, so often 
 complained of, would exist ; the bad kings were, nearly or quite 
 all of them, idolaters. Yet oppression is a topic rife in the book ; 
 but not one complaint is there of idolatry, and nothing is said of 
 
METHOD OF THE BOOK. 43 
 
 the heatlien. May not this circumstance have some important 
 bearing on the time when the book was written ? 
 
 From all that has been said, we may safely deduce the conclu- 
 sion, that it was not the design of the author to compose a 
 complete Code of Morals. His great theme is the vanity of all 
 earthly objects and pursuits ; and whatever has relation to this, so 
 as to illustrate and confirm it, we may expect to find in his work. 
 Yet not all of the lesser things are mentioned, which might be said 
 to belong even to this category. lie aims at the more important 
 ones, which will leave a deep impression. Having gone through 
 with these, his work is complete, for he has done all which he 
 intended to do. 
 
 Having stated at great length the general o'bject or design of 
 the book, and also the leading particulars which it comprises, 
 and everywhere appealed to the book itself in the way of verifi- 
 cation, I deem it unnecessary to canvass at any length the many 
 and different theories in relation to this subject. I shall merely 
 glance at some of them. (1) Some, e. g. Desvoeux, Staudlin, 
 and Rohde, make the author's object exclusively a religious one. 
 But the small portion of the book, which bears directly on this 
 subject, will hardly sustain this view. (2) Others, e. g. Luther, 
 Bauer, Gaab, Bertholdt, Haenlein, Jahn, and Schmidt, make it a 
 practical essay, designed, as some of them assert, to teach us how 
 to live joyfully and quietly amidst the sorrows and troubles of 
 life ; others, to show us how to avoid suffering ; others, how to 
 bear with sorrow and joy, good fortune and misfortune ; others, 
 to stop the mouths of comi)laining and murmuring men ; others, 
 to direct all our efforts, and keep them within due bounds. All of 
 these theories have some foundation in particulars here and there 
 of the book, but only in particulars. The general tenor of the 
 book does not correspond with any of them. (3) Others admit 
 a theoretical design. Herder, Eichhorn, De AVette, and Fried- 
 lander, state simply, that the author designed to show the vanity 
 of human affairs. So far as this goes, since it has a generic 
 aspect, it is correct ; but it does not of itself cover the whole 
 ground, as we have seen above. (4) Paulus, Umbreit, and 
 Koster, maintain that the subject is the inquiry : What is 
 man's highest good in his present state ? But this gives the 
 book too much the aspect of theoretical Greek philosophizing. 
 
44 § 2. SPECIAL DESIGN AND 
 
 (5) Doderlein, Van der Palm, and Rosenmiiller, state the object 
 to be both theoretical and practical, viz. to show the nothing- 
 ness of human life and human things, and to give practical 
 rules which grow out of this. Rosenmiiller adds, that the author 
 designs to show how a man may enjoy present good, and live 
 virtuously and piously so as to please God. This comes near 
 to the true mark. Knobel has done best of all : " The design is, to 
 show the iwthingness of human life and efforts, and to impart such 
 practical iiistruction relative to tlie conduct of men, as their present 
 condition demxinds ; " Comm. s. 39. 
 
 It is hardly worth mentioning, that Kaiser, a man of some 
 note for learning and acuteness in Germany, has found in 
 Coheleth an allegorico-historical poem, exhibiting the lives of the 
 Jewish kings from Solomon down to Zedekiah. In constructing 
 this fancy-work he has shown much acuteness, exhibited vast 
 reading and extensive learning, and manifested a shrewdness at 
 combination which is uncommon. So far as I know, he has 
 never made a single convert to his opinion. Few minds out of 
 Germany are gifted with such powers of discovery, as are devel- 
 oped here in his schemes. They may well rest contented, how- 
 ever, with their lack of such a rare gift as this writer seemed 
 to himself to possess. 
 
 It is a striking fact, that most interpreters of Coheleth have 
 found in it no plan at all. It is made up, in their view, of 
 various apothegms, proverbs, maxims, etc., thrown together with- 
 out regard to order or method, and is a real thesaurus of miscel- 
 lanies. Nachtigal maintains, that it is a collection of rival songs, 
 gathered from various Schools of the Prophets. This deserves 
 the next place to the plan of Kaiser. What has been adduced 
 above in order to show the nature of the plan, renders any dis- 
 cussion here of Nachtigal's view unnecessary. Umbreit, Van 
 der Palm, Spohn, and Paulus, find this work filled with trans- 
 positions of order, and dislocations. Whoever reads the book, 
 however, with attention, when placed in the light that has of late 
 been cast upon it, will need no other refutation of such a theory. 
 
 Others, e. g. Michaehs, Rosenmiiller, Van der Palm, and 
 Paulus, divide the book into two parts, (to which, however, they 
 assign diverse limits), in the one of which the vanity of things 
 is established, and in the other precepts are given how to demean 
 
METHOD OF THE BOOK. 45' 
 
 one's self, and how to secure any good. Koster makes four 
 divisions. (1) 'Disclosure of the absolute good. (2) Of the 
 relative good. (3) The fool and the wise are contrasted, and 
 true wisdom pointed out. (4) This wisdom is considered in its 
 relation to the various conditions of life.' But it would be very 
 difficult to draw i)ali)able lines of separation between these 
 parts, or to show that they do not intermingle with each other. 
 Herder, Eichhorn, Friedlandcr, and Doderlein, acknowledge a 
 general unity of the book, and a somewhat regular progress in 
 its contents. But as to any preconcerted plan of arrangement 
 in respect to particulars, they think that nothing certain can be 
 made out. The contents have throughout a general relation, but 
 the particulars are too miscellaneous, as they think, to be sep- 
 arated and arranged in any specific order. 
 
 In a work such as that before us, and after the representations 
 given above of what has been actually done by the author, no 
 one will expect that the critic can make out a regular and formal 
 disposition of the whole, after the manner which modern logic 
 and rhetoric would demand. As has already been said (p. 22), the 
 Hebrews w^ere strangers to the training of schools of art, and 
 their writings never exhibit any special regard to it. But still, 
 there is ' a beginning, a middle, and an end,' in Coheleth, iryie- 
 pendent of the mere local position of its contents. His first 
 object is, to show the vanity of human efforts and of all earthly 
 things in which men seek satisfaction. This part comprises the 
 first four chapters. He begins with the unchangeable order of 
 things in the natural world. Over this, man can acquire no 
 influence, and have no control, (1 : 4 — 11). He then proceeds, 
 in various ways, to illustrate and establish the position, that all 
 human efforts to obtain abiding good in the present world, are 
 vain and fruitless. The acquisition of wisdom, or riches, or 
 honors, and also indulgence in sensual pleasure, fails of its end. 
 The most to which one can attain, is to enjoy the fruits of his 
 toil in the sober gratification of the natural appetites. Provi- 
 dence has 8"> arranged the vicissitudes of tilings, that they all 
 have their regular course ; and all that we can do is merely to 
 submit to this, having no power to change or arrest it. After all 
 the strivings of men, all go down to the grave, and perish in 
 common with other living creatures around them. In fact, so 
 
46 § 2. SPECIAL DESIGN AND 
 
 multiplied are the sorrows of life, resulting from man's weak- 
 ness, and springing from oppression, and from vain strife for 
 wealth and defeated projects of ambition, that it is better to die 
 than to live, (1: 12 — 4: 16). 
 
 Thus far the theory of the book. In all this, there is only some 
 three or four hints of a practical nature, such as 2 : 24. 3 : 12, 13. 
 4 : 6, 9. These seem to proceed from spontaneous bursts of feel- 
 ing, which are occasioned by reflection on the subject-matter 
 before him. But the general theory being thus established, he 
 now comes to the part, where he mingles precept and practical in- 
 struction with the representation of facts and occurrences. In 4 ; 
 17 of the Hebrew, (it should be 5 : 1, as in our English transla- 
 tion), he first begins to speak imperatively or in the way of exhor- 
 tation. His very first topic, now, is that of religion. Frequenting 
 the place of worship, prayer, offerings, and vows, are here brought 
 to view, and instructions are given. Thence he proceeds to descant 
 on a variety of topics, with which the happiness and comfort of 
 men are deeply concerned. Several of these topics, e. g. riches, 
 wisdom, the oppression of rulers, etc., are introduced again and 
 again, as occasion prompts, and in order to present them in all 
 their important aspects. In the course of this part of his work, 
 divers objections are presented ; some of which are answered 
 forthwith, and some after intervening matter has been thrown in, 
 which pressed upon his mind. To trace the course of thought 
 through this part of his work requires not a little of study and 
 effort. Most commentators have, indeed, abandoned all effort to 
 trace any connection here, or to find any general thread of dis- 
 course — any generic unity in the whole. But the intelligent 
 and diligent reader may still find reward here for his toil. There 
 is, in reality, much less of the aphoristic, the gnomic, and the 
 apothegmatic, than it is common to suppose ; as has been already 
 shown above. Even aphorisms, which make their appearance, 
 are not introduced on their own account, but in order to make a 
 comparison, or complete an illustration. 
 
 When we come to chap, ix, the whole discourse takes a differ- 
 ent turn. We have thenceforth no more of the desponding 
 declarations: All this have I seen ; all this have I tried; no more 
 of the cheerless conclusion : All this is vanity. The doubts and 
 queries are dismissed, and chap. ix. stands on new ground. The 
 
METHOD OF TUE BOOK. 47 
 
 ultimate conclusions to which Coheleth has come, after examining 
 into the whole matter before him, are now brought before us. 
 God is supreme, and all things and all men are in his hands. 
 He has made, and intends to make, no distinction between men, 
 as to their mortality and exposedness to suffering. This, although 
 it is a source of much concern and sorrow, must be borne as 
 having been appointed by him. Rational and cheerful enjoy- 
 ment, so far as practicable, he permits and even enjoins. More- 
 over, wisdom may alleviate some evils, and prevent some others ; 
 so that although it is not itself the chief good, and cannot of itself 
 secure soHd and lasting happiness, it may be of much use, even 
 in the common affairs of life. In the midst of exposure to oppres- 
 sion and misfortune, it may help to direct our conduct, so far as 
 to avoid as much evil, and secure as much good, as is possible. 
 A diligent observance of active duty, and a thankful enjoyment 
 of what can be enjoyed, are the sum of what we can do to miti- 
 gate the sorrows and trials of life. Through all and in all with 
 which we are conceraed, and at all seasons of life, God is to be 
 remembered, and also his judicial power to be recognized. Then 
 comes, as a very apposite conclusion to the whole, a description 
 of old age, and its preparation for, and approach to the tomb. 
 Here the writer rises above himself, and breaks out into a strain 
 almost purely poetical. In his own mind, he looks back on all 
 the various struggles and sufferings of life which had preceded ; 
 and now he goes on to show here, that the end of life must be 
 after the like tenor with the preceding part of it. It ends in 
 weakness, rendered more grievous by infirmity and sorrow. The 
 dust returns to dust. And as he has before declared, that there 
 is an appointed time for retributive justice to be executed, so the 
 soul returns to the God who gave it, in order that this may be 
 accomplished. 
 
 Thus ends, very appropriately, the book before us. Its end is 
 consonant with its beginning. The final and solemn declaration 
 over the grave of departed man is : Vanity of vanities I All 
 IS VANITT ! All that is added by the writer, is merely a brief 
 account of himself, and of his object in writing the book. It 
 was to give instruction ; the crowning part and essence of which 
 is, that we should fear God, and keep his commandments, 
 
48 § 2. SPECIAL DESIGN AND 
 
 BECAUSE HE WILL BRING EVERY WORK AND EVERY SECRET 
 THING INTO JUDGMENT BEFORE HIM. 
 
 After having taken such an extended view of the method and 
 design of Ecclesiastes, I ventnre to say, that those who regard 
 the book as without plan, and without any unity of design, can 
 hardly have read it with becoming attention. Plaji there is not, 
 in the modern logical and rhetorical sense of that word, as has 
 already been fully conceded ; but as to a definite design, and the 
 general features of its execution, there can hardly be any room 
 for doubt. In a word, it is Hebrew philosophizing, and not 
 Greek or English philosophizing. 
 
 And now a word more on the great question so often asked : 
 < How could the writer, if he believed in future retribution, have 
 everywhere avoided bringing it into view ? Where else, in such 
 a world as he describes this to be, could any one go for comfort ? 
 Where else find a ray of hope? It is spontaneous with us, 
 when we look at the multiplied evils of life, to resort to the 
 future world as a' ground of hope and satisfaction. We look to 
 a future tribunal, to satisfy our minds concerning the justice of 
 God, and we feel that his providential dealings are all to be 
 vindicated and reconciled at that tribunal. Why did not Co- 
 heleth act in the same way ? ' 
 
 After having so fully discussed this subject above, (p. 33 seq), and 
 also in my Commentary (on 3 : 17), it is needless for me to say 
 much here. But I may remark, that there is something of the 
 a priori in this demand on Coheleth. We decide within our- 
 selves rather what he ought to have ivritten, than occupy ourselves 
 only with what he has written. But passing this, let me in all 
 sincerity and earnestness ask : Is there any more reference, in 
 the copious book of Job, to 2i future state, than in the brief one of 
 Coheleth ? There can be, as I think, but one answer. There is 
 not anything like as much reference of this nature ; and what 
 there is, or what is implied, is far short of Coheleth in explicit- 
 ness. I am aware that many readers will start at this, and point 
 me, with confidence that I am mistaken, to that famous passage 
 in Job, 19 : 25 seq., beginning with : 1 hnow that my Redeemer 
 liveth, etc. But alas ! I cannot accede to their exegesis. On 
 the contrary, I think it can be shown beyond the reach of fair 
 
METHOD OF THE BOOK. 49 
 
 j)hilological contradiction, that the passage has no reference to 
 Christ, Christianity, or the linal resurrection of the body. It is sim- 
 ply the dechiration of Job, ready to faint under the accusations 
 of his friends, (which were that he was suffering because of some 
 peculiar and heinous guilt) ; and his declaration that he still hoped 
 in God, who would yet appear as his vindicator (brr;). He trusted 
 that he would, at some future period ("(i"inx), take liis stand on 
 earth, (as he did, see in chap, xxxviii, coming in the whirlwind), 
 and rescue him, though wasted away to a skeleton-state, (^'nbs^) ; 
 so that he should still see him, when restored to a state of renewed 
 strengtli and health. " 1 shall see him,'' exclaims he, "/or mi/self, 
 with my own ei/es behold him ; but not a stranger or enemy'' [shall 
 behold him]. That is, I shall see him on my side, taking my part; 
 but these my accusers, who act like strangers or enemies to me, 
 shall not see him taking their part. Such was the fact ; see 38 1 
 1 seq., and compare 42 : 7. But if this alleged resurrection of 
 Job means the final resurrection, how shall we solve the nodus, 
 which is presented by the allegation that Job loill see him, but not 
 his accusers ? Were they, then, to have no part in the resurrec- 
 tion ? Other insuperable difficulties might be urged against this 
 view of the passage ; but I am digressing. Yet not altogether 
 so, for it was incumbent on me to sustain my allegation relative 
 to the proportional mention of, or reference to, the future, in the 
 two books before us. Indeed, I hesitate not to say, that no book 
 in the Old Testament has so many references to the retribution 
 and judgment, at a future period, as that of Coheleth. For proof 
 of this, I refer to the view^s given above. 
 
 In respect to God, there is no part of the Old Testament 
 which inculcates more thoroughly the fear of him, reverence for 
 him, his supremacy, and his sovereign right to order all things 
 and direct all concerns. In what part of the Old Testament is 
 there more spirituality as to worshipping him inculcated, or the 
 fear of offending more emphatically enjoined? See 4: 17 — 5 : 6 
 (5 : 1 — 7), and other passages quoted on page 30 seq. above. 
 There is, indeed, in tlie Psalms, more of adoration and praise,, 
 and thanksgiving, and confession, and supplication ; and all this for 
 the obvious reason, that the Psalms are composed for this very- 
 purpose, and of course are made up of such matter. But even 
 in the Psalms, numerous as they are, there are not so many 
 
 5 
 
50 § 2. SPECIAL DESIGN AND 
 
 passages concerning future retribution, as in this book; nor is. 
 the character of God set forth, and his claims vindicated, with a 
 stronger hand. But if we go to the Pentateuch, the great work of 
 the Jewish lawgiver, we find scarcely a trace o^ futurity, except- 
 ing what rests on mere implication or inference. How came it, 
 that Moses did not present to the rebellious and idolatrously 
 inclined Jews of his time, the awful terrors of the world to come ? 
 Yet in that solemn chapter on blessings for obedience, — that 
 fearful chapter on curses for disobedience, (written at the close 
 of Moses' life, Deut. xxviii), the blessings consist of abundance 
 as to the necessaries and comforts of life, protection from enemies 
 and superiority over them, and increase in numbers with great 
 renown. Even " the first commandment with promise," in the 
 Mosaic law, offers no better promise than protracted length of 
 days in the goodly land. On the other hand, the curses are 
 drought, famine, pestilence, and various other diseases, loss of 
 children and of property, slavish subjection to foreign nations, 
 and finally, exile in a foreign land. Why did Moses stop here ? 
 Why not hold up before that perverse generation all the terrors 
 of the future world of woe, and all the allurements of the world of 
 peace and joy? Can any one give any other reason for this, 
 than that which has already been suggested above, viz., that 
 under the ancient dispensation there was but the dawning of the 
 day which was to come ? Life and immortality were to be brought 
 fully to light, only by him who is the Light of the ivorld. " No man 
 hath seen God at any time." Neither Moses, nor the prophets, 
 lived under any more light than shines in the dawn of revelation. 
 What God had not yet revealed, they could not fully disclose. At 
 all events, they have not fully disclosed any more than some of 
 the first elements of future things ; and even their hints respect- 
 ing these, are few and far between. Readers of our day find much 
 of a future world in the Old Testament only by carrying back, 
 to the interpretation of it, what they have learned in the New 
 Testament. The only proper question is simply : What did the 
 Old Testament, interpreted without the aid of the New, fairly dis- 
 close to the Jews ? 
 
 When this question is asked, I venture to assert, without the 
 fear of being reasonably contradicted, that Coheleth has more 
 often alluded to future retribution, and more strongly affirmed it 
 
METHOD OF TUE BOOK. 51 
 
 than any other writer in the Old Testament. Can any one find 
 such a retribution in tlie Pent., histories, prophecies. Psalms, 
 Proverbs, more ot\cn, or more plainly than here ? I look in vain 
 for anything: like the frequenn/ of his alkisions to an adequate ret- 
 ribution, in any part of tlie Hebrew Scriptures, of the same length 
 as Coheleth. Tiie book of Job most of all resembles that of 
 Ecclesiastes, in its tJieme. There, the friends of Job warmly 
 defend the idea of an adequate retribution in the present life. 
 Sin is speedily followed, as they maintain, by condign punish- 
 ment. Job as warmly denies this ; and God has decided that he 
 was in the right, 42 : 7. How could such a dispute be so zeal- 
 ously and perseveriiigly maintained, in case the subject of retri- 
 bution had been fully revealed in the Hebrew Scriptures? I trust 
 the answer to this will not be, that the book of Job was written 
 before the other Scriptures. When brought to the tribunal of 
 impartial criticism, this assertion, as nearly all now concede, 
 cannot well stand the test. The composition bears evident marks 
 of a time nearly synchronous with that of Coheleth. The same 
 subject is discussed. The same difficulties and objections are 
 urged. But Coheleth takes a position opposite to that of Job's 
 friends ; and, while conceding the point of imperfect and merely 
 initiatory retribution in the present world, it still maintains that 
 it is to be confidently expected at a future period. One is 
 reminded, at every step, as he is surveying the ground of Cohe- 
 leth, of the kindred feelings, sentiments, and even diction in the 
 book of Job. 
 
 Now we do not undertake to eject the book of Job from the 
 Canon, because we cannot appeal to the speeches of Job's friends 
 as authorUij, in establishing any point of doctrine. I say cannot 
 appeal, because, as God himself (42 : 7) has plainly declared 
 that those fiiends had "said the things concerning him which 
 were not rights' it follows surely that M'e cannot now appeal 
 to what is not right, in order to establish a doctrine. Many 
 things, indeed, which Job's friends said were true ; but the truth 
 rests not on their authority. It must be established elsewhere 
 and by other means. "We do not receive it as true, because they 
 said it, but because experience or some of the sacred writings 
 have established its truth. 
 
 Let all this, so plain and so reasonable, be applied now to 
 
52 § 3. UNITY OF THE BOOK. 
 
 Coheleth. The objections to the great truths Avhich he declares, 
 are no more binding on us, than the speeches of Job's friends ; or 
 than what the objector, introduced so often by Paul, declares or 
 suggests in opposition to the apostle's own opinion. This, when 
 thoi-oughly considered and carried out, removes most of the diffi- 
 culties in Coheleth, and places him in the rank of those, who, in 
 ancient times, taught the doctrine of a future retribution, gave 
 precepts in accordance with this truth, and disclosed sublime and 
 Yivid conceptions of the holiness, the power, the sovereignty, the 
 wisdom, and the goodness of God. The question, why he did 
 not more explicitly urge the great spiritual truths to which I 
 have alluded, is one that justice to him requires us to ask 
 respecting all the other sacred writers of the 0. Test. And if 
 we do ask it, the answer is plain. In this state of things, then, 
 we are permitted to repeat again the question, which has been 
 asked before, viz., Why should more be demanded of Coheleth, 
 than of any other Old Testament writer ? 
 
 In canvassing the question respectirg the design of the book, 
 and showing that it was neither to teach Epicureanism nor Shep- 
 ticism, I have taken a wider range than I had at first intended. 
 The questions of interest, more or less connected with the lead- 
 ing theme here, demanded discussion somewhere ; and although 
 rigid regard to order might have placed some of them under 
 another category, no special advantage to the discussion of them 
 <could be gained by transferring them thither. Liberally inter- 
 preted, my category is ample enough to comprise them all. 
 
 The general nature of the work ; the design of it as manifested 
 by the principal theme, and by the various topics of discussion ; the 
 method in which the writer has pursued the attainment of his 
 object, as developed first in the respective parts of the book and 
 then in the modes of representation and discussion ; — all these 
 have now been developed with sufficient copiousness. We may 
 proceed, then, to other subjects of interest that yet remain to be 
 "discussed. 
 
 § 3. Unify of the Bool. 
 
 After all that has been said above in developing the design 
 and method of the book, little need be said under the present 
 category. Its nnity is manifest from the fi\ct, that the book has 
 
§ 3. UNITY OF THE BOOK. 5$ 
 
 a beginning, a middle, and an end, all consentaneous ; as has been 
 fully shown above. It is manifest from the fact, that the great 
 theme — all is vanity — is repeated some twenty-three times 
 in different portions of the book; which shows, beyond any 
 reasonable doubt, that the same writer who ju'oposed the theme, 
 has carried on the discussion of it tlirough the work. It is 
 granted, tliat there are some digressions. Yet, when strictly 
 examined, they are found to be very few. The sententious 
 consists mainly of precept; the apotheymatic (which really con- 
 stitutes but a very minute portion of the work), is introduced 
 not for its own sake, as in the book of Proverbs, but only for the 
 sake of comparison and illustration. But wherever sententious 
 precept or apothegm is introduced, they are speedily dismissed, 
 and there is a return to the consideration of some one of the 
 vanities of human plans and efforts, which is presented in a new 
 attitude. There is not a book in all the Old Testament, unless 
 it be the book of Daniel, which is more firmly compacted 
 together in its principal framework, nor one which keeps more 
 steadily in view the great object which is designed to be accom- 
 plished. All this renders it utterly improbable, that the works 
 of different authors are here joined together. We can reasonably 
 expect such an arrangement, only from the hand of one and the 
 same author. 
 
 To him who can read and duly appreciate the oriyinal Hebrew, 
 nothing can be said that will convince him of a diversity of 
 authorship. First of all, the language or diction is so strikingly 
 sui generis, that no other book in the Old Test, approaches near 
 to it. There is plainly a peculiarity — a something to he felt, 
 however, rather than described — which runs through the book 
 from the beginning to the end. No careful reader, as it seems to 
 me, can possibly doubt of this. The impress of the writer upon 
 the book throughout, is nearly or quite as palpable as is that of 
 Daniel on his work ; and it would be diilicult to say more of any 
 book. I cannot hesitate to say, that the writing is Jis strongly 
 marked tluoughout, as (for example) the works of Thomas 
 Carlyle of the present day. I do not mean to say, that the 
 peculiarity of it is as revolting to simple and refined taste as his ; 
 for this I do not believe and cannot admit. But the modes of 
 
54 § 3. UNITY OF THE BOOK. 
 
 expression in Coheleth, and the diction, and the distinctive kinds 
 of development which he employs, are altogether as different 
 and as segregating from others, as are those of Carlyle. There 
 arises a feeling^ in every one who reads Coheleth with a power 
 of nice critical discernment, which makes it all but absolutely 
 certain, that one and the same hand penned down the whole book. 
 Almost without exception this is now conceded among critics. 
 
 Time has been, however, when there were various theories on 
 this subject. Paulus maintained, that the book exhibits what 
 passed in a discussion of a Literary Society of the writer's day, 
 of which he was a member. Nachtigal, as we have seen, endeav- 
 ored to show, that the book consists of rival poems derived from 
 different schools of the prophets, which are strung together like 
 Wolf and Heyne's different rhapsodies of various poets, eking 
 out one Iliad at last. But first, we know nothing of such literary 
 discussions among the prophets. Secondly, the book is not 
 poetry. Lastly, the several parts are not put together without 
 *order and sequency. — Others have maintained the mere frag- 
 meniary state of the book, — fragments joined together by some 
 unknown hand. Staudlin maintained, that the book first con- 
 sisted of various rough sketches of Solomon, which were subse- 
 quently brought together, filled up, and then some junction- 
 links added. Others have given it out as a mere mass of aplior- 
 isms, brought together from all quarters, like the book of Prov- 
 erbs, and thrown under one category for the sake of mere con- 
 venience. 
 
 Few books have been the subjects of more discrepant, and in 
 many respects wild, conjectures than this. Li point of extrava- 
 gance and improbability. Kaiser and Nachtigal may deservedly 
 claim the preeminence; and even such a preeminence is not 
 destitute of attractions for some. The sober inquirer has reason 
 to be thankful, that a better day has dawned on philological 
 pursuits. 
 
 It would be useless to pursue, at any greater lengtli, the 
 question in respect to the unity of the book before us. The 
 general and particular grounds for admitting this have been 
 briefly stated ; and we need not urge the proof of a proposition, 
 \which no good Hebrew scholar now ventures to call in question. 
 
§ 4. DICTION OF THE BOOK. 55^ 
 
 § 4. Diction of the Book. 
 
 Long ago Luther remarked, that " this book has singularem 
 quandam phrusin, quae a communis Unquae usu saepe recedit, et a 
 nostra consududinc valde alieiui est." This is entirely eorreet 
 and true, as to dietion and i)eeulianty of phraseology. One 
 reason doubtless is, that the book is of a diU'erent tenor from any 
 other one in the Old Testament. Where else is there a book 
 oi' philosophizing ? And would not this bring with it, of necessity, 
 some new terminology and new words, just as it does with us? 
 As to the younger books of the O. Test., (such as Dan., Ezra, 
 Neh., P2sth.), they have themes entirely discrepant from those 
 in Coheleth, but still present many words belonging only to 
 the later Hebrew, and therefore common to them and Coheleth. 
 Many a phrase, however, in the latter, api)ears nowhere else ; 
 and many phrases and words here, which do appear elsewhere, 
 have a sense different from that in other books. 
 
 The formulas of phraseology first claim our attention. Not a 
 few of these take their rise from the course of thought and inquiry. 
 A large portion of the book is occupied with giving the results of 
 the author's own experience and trials. To designate this, he 
 commences with niX")'? "ri"^;s , 1 turned myself to see, 2 : IL But 
 oftener still he says simply : ''r}"'5<'7 , I perceived, 1: 14. 3 : 10. 4 : 
 4. 5:12. C: 1. 7:15. 8:9, 10,'l8. 9:13. 10:7. Again he 
 says : n^'jb "'r?"'^!? , I turned myself in order to know, 7 : 25. 2 : 20. 
 When he speaks of continued or repeated investigation, he varies 
 the phraseology somewhat ; as, nx-jxi ^V\Zfq , again I saw, or, 
 iri'^xn Tr, 1 further considered, 3:1G. 4:1, 7. 9:11. With a 
 slightly different meaning still, he says : "^sb-px '^nrs , / directed 
 or gave my mind, viz. to the consideration of this or that, 9:1. 
 
 In order to designate the thoughts produced in his mind by 
 experiment or reflective contemplation, he says : "^sb^ Ti'^rx , / 
 said to myself or in my mind, i. e. I thought, 3 : 17, 18, comp. 2 : 
 I. 8: 14. 9 : 16. With the same meaning he employs "^2^3 "nna"! 
 or 'lab ny, 1:16. 2: 15. In expressing a definite sentiment, to 
 which he had come by experience, he says : '^r'^X'^ , Isaiv, 2:13, 
 24. 3 : 22. 5 : 17. 8 : 17. He also employs Tr"!:', J kncic\ 1: 17. 
 2:24. 3: 12,14; and sometimes "^rxri-a , 1 found, 7: 27, 29, 
 comp. 3:11. 7 : 14. 8 : 17. 
 
56 § 4. DICTION OF THE BOOK. 
 
 Next as to the objects of consideration or examination. The 
 generic phraseology (used as it were adjectively) for designating 
 sublunary, earthly, human things, is that they are T-'^s'i'n rTT\ , un- 
 der the sun, 1: 14. 2 : 11, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22. 3 : 16. 4 :'l, 3, 7, 15. 
 5:12,17. G:l,12. 8: 9,15,17. 9:3, 6,9,11,13. 10:5. Some- 
 times, instead of this, we have a-^^^'n rnn, under heaven, 1:3. 3 : 
 1. Once more, simply f"ixrj Vj , on earth, 8 : 14, 16. 
 
 Things or objects themselves are called "i^-i or diis^i , i. e. thing 
 or things in the secondary sense of these words (see Lex.), 1: 8, 
 10. 6:11. 7:8. 8 : 1, 3, 5. The meaning comprises both actions 
 and events. When events are meant, the verb rm is connected 
 with nn'n , and then the phrase means thing that has happened, 
 occurred, or taken place, 1: 9. 3 : 22. 6 : 12. 8 : 7. 10 : 14. 11: 2. 
 When actions are spoken of, then the verb nbri , done, performed, 
 is employed; 1:9, 13, 14. 2:17. 4:3. 8:14,16. 9:3,6. The ac- 
 tive form of the verb nir:^ is connected with the agent who does, 2: 
 3. 3:9. 8:10. Hence the participial nouns, nb"'? , n-ibr^ , are the 
 predominant designations of actions themselves, 1: 14. 2: 17, 22. 
 3 : 17. 4 : 3, 4. 8 : 9, 14. 9 : 7, 10. But sometimes, in order to 
 designate what we appropriately call business, the word ]^En is 
 used, 3 : 1, 17. 5:7. 8:6. This seems to be of later usage, as 
 employed in this sense. In a like sense is "{^^'J employed, but it 
 verges on the meaning of disagreeable or unfortunate business, as 
 in 1: 13. 2 : 23, 26. 3:10. 4:8. 5 : 2, 13. 8:16. More often 
 occurs the word h^zii^ , w^hich properly means toil, wearisome labor, 
 1:3. 2: 10,11,18,^20,21,22,24. 3:13. 4:4,6,8. 5:14,17,18. 
 6 : 7. 8: 15. 9 : 9. In like manner, the verb h'q'J and the parti- 
 cipial h^q-J are employed, meaning to perform toil, etc. 
 
 The result of toil and effort is sometimes called lab , reward or 
 advantage, 4:9. 9:5; at others, pbn , portion, part, as the result 
 of labor, 2 : 10, 21. 3 : 22. 5 : 17, 18. 9:9; but finally, more 
 often than any other word, does he employ '(iin*] , advantage, profit, 
 avail, 1:3. 2:11. 3:9. 5:8, 15. 10 : 10, IL As to all efforts 
 which fail to yield solid profit, he calls them irn ^\^^'^ , nn ^i-^r^ , 
 lit. a luindy affair, i. e. a fruitless business. 
 
 The destiny, or appointed lot, of man he names n")p^, a deri- 
 vate of T\'y^ , to happen, 2 : 14, 15. 3:19. 9 : 2, 3, 11. Sometimes 
 he names it "aQ , occurrence, 8 : 14. Evil destiny he calls 5?'n, ny'n, 
 evil, misfortune, 2 -.21. 6:1. 8: 6. 9:3. 10:5. 11:2,10. 12:'!. 
 
§ 1. DICTION OF THE BOOK. 57 
 
 Sometimes it is nh'.n ny-^ , a f/n'evous evil, o : 12, 15 ; or "n "^bn , 
 of the same meaning, G: 2. 
 
 All the efforts and occurrences of life, taken together, he calls 
 ^2n, when he characterizes them, i.e. notldngncss, vanity; and 
 this he does some twenty-five times in the book ; see on p.l 1 above. 
 Enjoyment or happiness he now calls nn"?b , 2 : 1, 2, 10. 7:4. 8 : 
 15; and then ni'j or nz-J, 2:1,24. 4':'8. 5:10,17. 6:3,6. 7: 
 14. To enjoy (jood, is 3^:: nxn , or ns*:: , or n'-^iss , 2 : 24. 3 : 13. 
 5:17. 2 : 1. : G. Once, :r^ rr::v ,3:12. 
 
 The word wisdom, >'^'^r^ , i=5 sometimes equivalent to intelli- 
 gence, power of insight ; e. g. 1:18. 7 : 23, 24. 8 : 17 ; in which 
 case it can hardly be distinguished from rr^. But usually it 
 denotes practical wisdom, sagacity, dexterity ; as in 2: 21, 26. 4: 
 13. 7:19. 9 : 15, IG, 18. 10:1, 10. The religious use of it, as in 
 Psalms and Proverbs, is unfrequent and only indirect here. The 
 op])Osite of this is r'bzc , bro, i. e. practical folly, manifested in 
 a great variety of ways, and assuming a variety of forms. For 
 example : the fool exposes his folly, 10 : 3 : knows not how to 
 demean himself in the relations of life, 6:8; undertakes things 
 in a wrong way, 2 : 13, 14. 10 : 2, 15 ; gives loose to paroxysms 
 of indignation, 7:9; blusters among fools, 9: 17; is given to 
 prating, 10: 14; utters language injurious to himself, 10 : 12 ; 
 gives up himself to lawless pleasure, 2:3. 7 : 4, 5, 6 ; brings him- 
 self into straits by idleness, 4:5; breaks his vows, 5:3; and 
 the like. When ivisdom has a relation to morcd deportment (7 : 
 
 16. 9:1 seq.), it of course resembles the religious wisdom (n-crn) 
 of other books. It is so with the opposite word, r^zr:i , i. e. this 
 has sometimes the sense of immorality ; see 7:7, 17, 25. An 
 equivalent of rrczn is I'ia'rn , consideration, calculation, 7 : 25. 
 9:10; and the opposite of this is r^ibVn, 1:17. 2:12. 7:15. 9: 
 3. 10: 13. The phrases to hiow or see ivisdom and folly, mean 
 to understand and explain them in their various developments, 1 : 
 
 17. 2: 12. But the phrase, the heart sees ivisdom, means that it is 
 itself cognizant of it, or experiences its power. 
 
 The irork f God, Coheleth designates in a variety of ways. 77ie 
 omnipotent and immntahle control of God is called cribx?! f^br^ , 
 the work of God, 7:13. 8:17. 11:5. When he controls the actions 
 and destinies of men, it is said :i"^i'~x *,r3 , i. e. lit. God gives, puts, 
 
58 § 4. DICTION OF THE BOOK. 
 
 OT places, 1: 13. 2 : 26. 3 : 10. 5 : 17, 18. 6 : 2. 8 : 15. 9 : 9. His 
 kindness is nn^, the gift of God, 3 : 13. 5 : 18, comp. 2 : 24. 
 
 Many of the above words, and some of the phrases, are else- 
 where used, but rarely in such a sense as here. The reader of 
 Hebrew in the other books, when he meets such phrases here, 
 feels himself to be treading on new ground. (1) The obvious rea- 
 son for new phraseology and new meanings of words, is the novel 
 subject of which the writer is treating, i. e. it is his philosophizing 
 on the vanity of the world. He was at liberty, like all other 
 writers, to choose language adapted to his own purpose. We see 
 in it little indeed oi technicality ; but still we perceive, that we are 
 by no means reading the common Hebrew of the other books. 
 But it would be far from candor and fairness, to accuse Coheleth 
 of unacquaiutance with good Hebrew usage, because he feels 
 himself constrained to employ terms and phrases not elsewhere 
 to be found. Cuique suivm. It is his right to choose language 
 adapted to the nature of his discussion. But, (2) There are other 
 peculiarities, which spring not of necessity from the nature of the 
 subject, but belong properly to the peculiar and characteristic 
 style of the author. There is a 'prolixity, ov frequency of repetition, 
 in a part of the phraseology, particularly such a part as marks 
 transitions of any kind. Isaid in myself; I turned to see ; I saw ; 
 I knew ; and the like ; are repeated beyond any example in the 
 Scriptures ; and repeated where our present method of writing 
 would readily dispense with them. This is often done, witiiout 
 any important addition to the general meaning ; and is therefore 
 indicative of peculiarity. Among these repetitions, however, we 
 must not reckon those cases in which repetition is emplo}ed 
 merely in order to make out intensity of expression ; e. g. 2 : 2, 6. 
 3: IG. 4:1. 9: 9, etc. 
 
 To this general category, moreover, in an enlarged sense, belong 
 nasLuy pleonasms of expression, such as the following, viz. "^rx be- 
 fore verbs in the first person, in cases where no emphasis is 
 required, as ''D^5 ^n-i^x , -dj< -^n-iS"! , etc. See in 1: 1 G. 2:1,11,12, 
 13,14, 15, 18, 20, 24 3:17, 18. 4:1,4,7. 5:17. 7:25. 8:15. 
 9:16, etal. Pleonastic are such expressions as ^z>'z ?,rrx u^rj, 
 " the sea, it is not fall," 1: 7 ; " to their posterity, to them shall be 
 no remembrance," 1:11; " woe to him, to the one,'' 4:10; ''he 
 
§ 4. DICTION OF THE BOOK. 59 
 
 shall take liold on h'un, on t^ie 07ip" 4:12. The like 3 : 18. 5: 
 
 11, al. These, indeed, are proper Hebraisms ; but iXm'w frequency 
 here is what strikes us. The discrepaney between the number of 
 the verb and its subject, in 2: 7 and 10: lo, al., is an unusual 
 thin_l,^ althou^'h certainly not without p;irallel. In the hortatory 
 and tlidaetic parts of the book, re{)etitions like the above are un- 
 frequent. Indeed, tiie conciseness and energy of expression there, 
 is like that in Proverbs and Job. See in chaps, vii, x. 
 
 Very frequent, unusually so, is the use of a verb and its conju- 
 gate noun ; e. g. b^r b^r , 1:3. 2:11, 18, 19, 20, 22. 5:17. 9 : 
 9. Sonrr-^ nu;r,l:'l4. 2:17. 3:11. 4:3. 8:9; rinp^ n7;r,2: 
 14 ; "i"!? "I"!? , 5:3; ';;':r r:r , 1: 13. 8 : 10. This is genuine 
 Hebraism, but it is unusually frequent here. 
 
 Another marked peculiarity here, like tliat in the book of 
 Daniel, is the frequent use of tJie participle for the verb, specially 
 to designate present or continued action ; as srix , T\rP, ^'^^' i and 
 thehke, 1:4, 6, 7. 2: 14, 19, 21. 3: 20. 4 : 5. 5 : 7,0. G:'l2. 8: 
 
 12, 14, 16. 9:5. 10 : 3, 19. 12:5, ah Often sl pronoun is joined 
 with such participles, thus making out a finite verb, as ""psN^b, 
 S<!:n rr-T , etc. ; as 1:5,7. 3:21. 4:8. 7:20. 8:12. 9:10.' The 
 participial or verbal adjective performs the same office ; asb'ir' X^.n, 
 etc., 2:18, 22. 3 : 9. 4: 2, 8. 6 : 2. 9 : 9. A negative for any 
 of these forms, is made by ■,";i< with a suff. jironoun of the 
 subject, e. g. s";^"t> "i^x, thou hnowest not ; 1:7. 4: 17. 5:11. 6 : 
 2. 8: 7, 13, 16. 9: 1, 2,5, 16. 11:5, 6. 
 
 The use of "J"^ to indicate the simple tJiere is, (like the French 
 il ya),is beyond precedent as to frequency ; e. g. 1: 10. 2 : 13, 
 21. 4:8. 5: 12. 6: 1, 11. 7: 15. 8: 6, 14. 9:4. 10: 5. 
 
 The personal pronouns are employed here, with peculiar fre- 
 quency in a sense which indicates that they include the verb n;^n, 
 to he; and often beyond example elsewhere as to frequency, 
 they designate merely and simply the verb of existence itself; 
 e. g. x^n dnr: ht, this is new, 1: 10. The real shape of the Ileb. 
 is thus: As to this, it is new ; and so in x-n ti-n'rwX rr"2 ht, 5: 
 18, et al. lut in r^':zr\ rrcna cnr, tliat they are beasts, we cannot 
 well apply the same solution, for the last pronoun can be trans- 
 lated only by are, 3:18. And thus, in the one or the other of 
 these ways, in 1: 5, 7. 2 : 1, 23, 24. 3 : 13, 15, 22. 4 : 2, 4, 8. 5 : 
 5, 8, 17. 6 : 1, 2, 10. 7 : 2. 9 : 4, 13. 10 : 3, ah • 
 
60 § 4. DICTION OF THE BOOK. 
 
 The book never employs the common intensive I'x"^ , very, 
 very muck. Instead of this, it commonly and very frequently 
 employs the Inf. of Hiph. na'in (lit. midf.ijjUcando), in the 
 adverbial sense of much, very much, (see Heb. Gramm. § 98. 
 2. cZ), as 1: IG. 2:7. 5:6,11, IG, 19. G: 11. 7: IG, 17. 9: 18. 
 11:8. In a like sense, the participial 'nri'^ is employed, 2:15. 
 7 : 1 G. The opposite negative is rrc^x^ 'px , not anything, 5 : 
 13. 9 : 5. 
 
 The pronoun TiJi;;: , specially in its abridged form 'r, is em- 
 ployed in a greater variety of ways than anywhere else in the 
 Scriptures; e. g. (1) That, in order that; 3: 14. G: 10. 7: 14. 
 8 : 12, 14. 9:1, 5. (2) Because, or for that ; 4 : 3, 9. 6:12. 8 : 
 11, 12, 13, 15. 10: 15. (3) Provided that, if; 8: 12. (4) 
 When; 8: 16. So with prepositions before the pronoun; as 
 niaxa or irn, because, on account of that, 2:16. 3:9. 7:2. 8 : 4. 
 So ndxs and d3, when; 4:17. 5:3. 9:12. 10:3. In like 
 manner, "ndx^ and ^r^a, than that, than; 3 : 22. 5:4. Like to 
 these are ^'^.^^y , until that; 2:3; "iri-; ^''^"^ , loithout which, 
 etc. This is explicable on the ground that iwix is a note of 
 relation generally, and therefore may stand between sentences or 
 clauses which stand related. With all this, the use of ozi in 
 Hellenistic Greek may be well compared. 
 
 (3) Coheleth contains very much which belongs to the later 
 Hebrew. From this are to be distinguished, (if indeed we can 
 make the distinction), the Chaldaisms of the book, or (to speak 
 more generically) the Aramaeisms. The allegations often made, 
 in regard to these, and made even by such a critic as Knobel, 
 are somewhat extravagant, and certainly in a measure un- 
 grounded. Herzfeld has, with great acuteness, gone through 
 the list of Knobel, and made much abatement from it. With 
 him, let us consider — 
 
 (I) TiiK LATKii Hebrew element. Knobel attaches to this 
 category the following words, which cannot properly be put 
 there ; and which, for convenience' sake, may be divided into 
 two classes, viz. : (a) Those which are also found in the old He- 
 brew, but which, as he says, have in Coheleth a new sense attached 
 to them ; viz. *)^sn, thiny, affair, 3 : 1, 17. 5 : 17. 8 : G. But this 
 sense is not new. In Pro v. 31 : 13 is the same meaning. So 
 T|i<'?'3 , priest, 5:5; but the word is everywhere used in the old 
 
§ 4. DICTION OF THE BOOK. 61 
 
 Hebrew in a sense wliicli well fits this passage, viz. the messenger 
 of God who tlechires his word, and the meaning priest is not 
 necessary in Colieletli ; and so too, in respect to this word, in 
 Hag. 1: 13. Mai. 2:7. 3:1. — fr;;?*? (five times), means destiny ; 
 but the proper meaning of the word is occurrence; and in this 
 sense we find it in Ruth 2:3. — '-['Z'J , to rise up, to stand forth, 8 : 
 3, he says is new ; but the answer is, that the verb has not that 
 sense here, for it means to continue to stand, to persevere, which 
 meaning it has also in Josh. 10: 13. 1 Sam. 20: 38. Ezek. 21: 
 35. — Again, "5nx2, together, 11: 6 ; but we have the same word 
 in the same sense, in Is. Go : 25, which at all events is not written 
 in the style of the later Hebrew — n^sr-bs, altogether as 5: 15 ; 
 but this is a form of inte7isity merely. The word n'q'J itself is, in 
 the like sense as here, an ancient one, Ex. 25 : 27. 28 : 27. — 
 r^-y^ (Tj^a"; in 10: 18), is used in the same sense as the old word 
 Tj^"2 , to rot, to moulder axcay ; but the exchange of forms in verbs 
 Agi7i Vaf and Ayin doubled is an old custom, extant in many 
 verbs from the beginning of the written language. Moreover, 
 in Job 24 : 24, is found the Hophal of this form, as is the Kal in 
 Ps. 106 : 43. — The plur, noun in 10 : 12, i. e. nirsb , instead of 
 the dual, is no novelty, as Knobel alleges ; see Ps. 45 : 3. 
 
 The numerous nouns in Ecc. which end in nn-, Knobel sets to 
 the account of the younger Hebrew, not venturing to call this Ghalda- 
 ism, because the ancient Heb. has the same forms. The instances 
 are r'lbVn, mb^, T^zh-z, r.^ibzp, rsibzr, r^r"), r^-^nq, r^ibBd. 
 But abundance of the same forms are in the older Hebrew ; e. g. 
 see Gen. 1:36. 38: 14. Ex. 8:19. 11: 2. 14: 25. 28: 22. 
 Nam. 24:7. 32:14. Deut. 24:1. 29:18. Ps. 22:20. 110: 
 3. Prov. 3:8. 4:24. 9:13. 23: 29. 27:4. Hos. 6: 11. 
 Amos 1:6. Is. 2:11. 12:5. 21:2. 21: 4. Ilab. 3: 14, al. 
 The only difference is \i\ frequency ; a thing which belongs to the 
 style of the writer, and not to the species of the Hebrew. 
 
 As to nouns in ',- , and •,1 — , which he puts to the account of 
 the younger Heb., they abound in the older. Tliey are indeed 
 unusually frequent in Ecc. ; e. g. 1^3? , •|in::3 , Vti2t , "TiDn , 'p'^n^, 
 "jii'rs, "parn, ')"3'in. But the same forms are found in Gem 
 24: 53. 38 : 11. Ex. 25 : 23. Lev. 1 : 2. Hos. 9 : 1.— Gen. 
 3:16. 13 : 18. 33 : 2. 35 : 8. 38 : 17. 40 : 5, 17. 41 : 36. 42 : 
 19. Ex. 12 : 14. 15 : 7. 16: 23. 21 : 30. Num. 21 : 20. 25 : 4. 
 6 
 
62 § 4. DICTION OF THE BOOK. 
 
 Deut. 8:15. 15:4. 28:22, Q5. 32: 10. Judg. 3: 23. 8: 21. 
 Hos. 9:11. Is. 1 : 1. 8 : 1. 9 : 13. 22 : 13. 32 : 14. 25 : 5. 36 : 
 4.47:9. Prov. 1:22. 15:11. 26:26. Ps. 32 : 4. 92:4; 
 besides many proper names of this form, as "ji^as* , "lis'rn , "li^^in , 
 etc. And there are many more such forms, besides those which 
 are here produced. 
 
 If one will now call to mind, how often abstracts are required 
 in a treatise of philosophy like the present, he will think it noth- 
 ing strange, and no special proof of later Hebrew, that such 
 nouns are frequent in Coheleth. There are, however, only 
 a few here, that are not elsewhere found, viz. )'^yj , "li^on , 
 ■|inni , "i'l'is , "P'sain (as an abstract) "ji^r'n , r"'- , V^^^ • 1'^^® 
 easy and obvious formation of these for the writer's purpose, 
 renders it difficult for us to establish anything from them in 
 regard to the age of such forms. The use of them depended, 
 obviously and merely, on the need of them ; for the form is alto- 
 gether 7iormal and analogous. 
 
 The same principle will apply to the frequent use of '*:3"^.}:^5n inrtP} 
 and n';'"CTrn , scarcely found anywhere else. The great question 
 in Ecc. is, the vanity of earthly things. An adjective from ]'";]i<rt 
 the Heb. has not ; and to make the so often necessary sense of 
 earthly, the writer had to betake himself to circumlocution. But 
 the Heb. itself, in both expressions, is old; and the meaning 
 here is not new. The use belongs to the nature of the subject, 
 and to the style of the writer, and is not to be ascribed to the later 
 Hebrew. 
 
 The plur. Q^nha , for the Most High, in 5 : 7, is no indication, as is 
 asserted, of later usage. We have n-^dnp for the Most Holy, in Hos. 
 12:1, and the like elsewhere. So '{2 y'^t\, tvithout, 2 : 25, does not 
 therefore belong to the Rabbinic Hebrew, (where it is common), 
 because we find this compound form of the word nowhere else in 
 the Heb. Scriptures. We have h y^>n and y^n-q in the old Heb. ; 
 and what hindered the use of '^^ "in ? The argumentum a silen- 
 tio proves Httle in such a case. — And the like may be said of 
 r\^^n':i in 11 : 10, which is employed in the Mishna, and put by 
 Knobel to the account of Rabhinism. The word is truly poetical, 
 normally formed, and beautifully applied. Perhaps Coheleth 
 himself first coined it. But it is so exactly analogous to the mul- 
 titude of the earlier Heb. words which have the same form, that 
 
§ 4. DICTIOX OF THE BOOK. 63 
 
 nothing can be urgned from its use, as to tlie lateness of the 
 book. 
 
 Knobel sets to tlie account of later Hebrew, the usage of Ecc, 
 in rejecting the Iniperf. witli Vav consecutive, in narration, e. g. 
 in chap, ii, which gives the history of Coheleth's experience. 
 So much is true, viz. that only the later Hebrew neglects this 
 usage ; which (by the way) none of the other Semitic dialects 
 exhibit at all, except that the Arabic in one case only has some 
 approach to it in the shortened Future. But still, there is so 
 very little of historical narrative in the book, that much cannot 
 be made out of this. The Imperf with Vav consecutive is alto- 
 gether api)ro[)riate to the historical, and not being needed here, 
 it is not employed. If the book were of a historical nature, then 
 some argument might be adduced from this peculiarity. 
 
 Knobel also insists, that d, so often used for ^rx, is Talmudic. 
 But the freqiiency alone can be appealed to here ; for the use of 
 this form (r) is ancient; see Judg. o : 7. 6 : 17. 7 : 12. 8 : 26. 
 Job 19:29. In Cant, (of uncertain age) it occurs 32 times; 
 and in the Psalms, 17 times. In the Talmud, it has almost 
 expelled I'l'x ; but in Coheleth, it is used 68 times, and irx 89 
 times. We have better evidence still of its antiquity. Gesenius, 
 in his Monumenta Ling, Phoenic, (see Hal. Lit. Zeit. 1837, No. 
 81), thus expresses himself: "The Phenician Remains are 
 more kindred to the later than to the earlier Hebrew, e. g. the 
 relative is always d instead of irx ; an important circumstance for 
 the history of the Hebrew language^ Truly it is so ; for the 
 Phenician Remains can have come only from the earlier era of 
 the language. I acknowledge that it is ditficult, in reading Cohe- 
 leth, to avoid the feeling that we have a kind of Rabbinic diction^ 
 in the frequency with w^hich we meet d ; and yet w'e see, that in 
 the Phenician, (a daughter of the older Hebrew), we have this 
 abridged form even to the entire exclusion of the other. In this 
 predicament, we cannot make much out of this argument. 
 
 We have then, after having examined Knobel's list of the later 
 Hebrew vords, only a few remaining. Of those wiiich will best 
 bear the test, tliere remain -)-■"' in the sense of more than ; 'j^^, 
 10 : 20, found elsewhere only in Dan. and Chron. ; "ra ,8:10, 
 elsewhere only in Esth. 4:16; br, 8 : 17, compounded of b-'nrx 
 but even this is found only in Jonah 1 ; 7, 12 ; nbs, (j:Q. 4: 10, a 
 
64 § 4. DICTION OF THE BOOK. 
 
 compound prep., like the later ones, elsewhere only in Esth, 7:4; 
 and ^x, woe! 4: 10. 10: 16, frequent in the Talmud only. To 
 these, noticed by Knobel, some more are added by Herzfeld, viz., 
 ]s 1^-J, 2: d, to stand by or aid one : nr'i'a, province, 2:8; else- 
 where only in Lam., Daniel, Ezek., and Neh. ; ^'^2, 1 1 : 6, ^o 
 prosper, instead of the earlier T\\'i, elsewhere only in Esth. 8 : 5. 
 Perhaps the insertion of the pronoun i:^; after a verb in the 1st 
 pers., and without any special emphasis, may be put to the later 
 usage ; for this is rare in the earlier Hebrew. 
 
 As to i<-}^, followed by "^.DS^^ (instead of '^3^^), in 4: 10. 10 : 
 16, and put by Herzfeld himself to the later Hebrew, we find it 
 in 1 Sam. 18 : 12 ; D^-J>"'2, 5 : 1, is also in Ps. 109 : 8 ; d^D=3, 
 treasures, 5 : 18. 6 : 2, is found in Josh. 22 : 8 ; and as to rn': in 
 6 : 5. 4 : 6, we have it in Is. 30 : 15. These must therefore be 
 excepted from his list. 
 
 Taking the amount of what is left, we find only some 10 or 11 
 cases, which may fairly be brought within the confines of later 
 Hebrew. And even as to these, some doubt must hang over 
 them. It cannot for a moment be assumed, that the present 
 Hebrew Scriptures contain all the stores of the ancient language. 
 Very many words it must have had, wdiich are not here employ- 
 ed ; and many also it employed in different senses from those 
 which are now to be found. Where the w^ords are normally con- 
 structed, and where, following analogy, they might have been 
 easily constructed and readily used in ancient times, although 
 they do not now appear in the Hebrew Scriptures, we can hardly 
 affirm with confidence that this word and that belong only to the 
 later Hebrew. The case of d for "i'«;3x in the Phenician, (which 
 is surely a dialect of the old Hebrew), is full of instruction and 
 caution. The most that we can say is, that we find this word and 
 that only in the later Hebrew hooks. Books of the same age have 
 nearly the same idiom ; and from this general principle we may 
 draw some conclusion as to the time when Coheleth was written. 
 
 II. The Chaldee element. To this Knobel attributes r^T, 
 12:3. But Hebrew derivates of this root are found in Is. 28 : 19. 
 Hab. 2:7; so that the word must be Hebrew. Again 0:3, 2 : 8, 
 26. 3 : 5, is no Chaldee word ; for we have it in Is. 28 : 20. Ps. 
 33: 7. 147: 2. — -i-is, 11: 6. 10: 10, is not Chaldee; neither is 
 •p-ii^s ; for we have ninds in Ps. 68 : 7, and ^id-^s in Prov. 31 : 19. 
 
§ 4. DICTION OF THE BOOK. 65 
 
 -jVr, 2 : 19. 5 : IS. G : 2. 8:9, is also Ileb. as ■J-'^'O, Gen. 42 : G 
 shows. — So •|i"'P'!' must be called Ileb. ; for we have n'nri'i in 
 Est. 29 : 13. — nr"|"3 is of late use, but is not Chaldee ; see Lex. 
 Also "|2p*?, 4: lo. [): 15, 16, is Heb. ; for we have Heb. forms 
 from the root in Is. 40 : 20. Deut. 8 : 9. — D^D=5 , 5 : 18. 6 : 2, is 
 not Clialdee ; for we find it in Josh. 22 : 8. — rpD, 3:11. 7 : 2, is 
 found also in Joel 2 : 20, which shows it to be Hebrew. It is 
 difficult, moreover, to see why Knobel puts D'nis, 2 : 5, among the 
 Chaldaisms ; for it is found in Cant. 2:5; and at most, we can- 
 not tell when this foreign word came into the Hebrew. It is 
 probably of Sanscrit origin, which employs paradesha, in a like 
 sense. — That nn n-r'n and nn ',i"irn may be Hebrew and not 
 Chaldee, is shown by nn nri in Hos. 12:2. In regard to the 
 HehraicUy of t-^T\ and rpi^n, 6 : 10, see Job 14 : 20. 15 : 24. For 
 iheform of the latter, see -^r^ in Gen. 42 : 6. That '32, 8 : 10, is 
 of later usage, is probable ; but there is no particular evidence of 
 its being Chaldee. — 'i^'H'S is as little Chaldee, as TJX"'^ in Ex' 
 32 : 33. That -,=0, 10 : 9, is Heb., see Job 22 : 22! 34 : 9. — 
 D^ir is Chaldee in 3 : 11, only in case we interpret it as meaning 
 world. But as this exegesis will not bear, we strike it from the 
 list. See the remarks on 3 : 11 in the Coram. — That "nj^r, uproot, 
 is not Chaldee, is shown by Zeph. 2 : 4. 
 
 As to forms; Knobel makes X^n^, 11 : 3, a Chaldee form; but 
 this would be X";.?!;; . It is an apoc. form, like ^nn"^^ , and stands 
 for ^rr^ with an x otiant. And so is x otiant in x^in , x-in , etc. 
 With these forms the verb rr^n stands connected. — ^?n, 1 : 21, 
 is const, of ball, and no more Chaldee than b'n^ which comes 
 from b'nr, only it is a more normal const, form. — c^nfiDin, 4: 14, 
 Knob, makes to be Chaldaic, because he supposes it to be = 
 aii^Dxn ; but this probably is not so, (see Comm.) ; and even if 
 it were, it would prove nothing, for in many Hebrew words x is 
 dropped in the writing. Finally, that nns; and 'j'lr, 4 : 2, 3, are 
 Chaldee, is, as Herzfeld says, an exegetical hieroglyph; for no 
 proof is, or can be adduced. 
 
 We come, then, to a small list of what may be called probable 
 
 Chaldaisms : viz. nns, 1 : 10, al. saepe ; p:j3 for cease, 12 : 3 ; 
 
 "i^Dn ,1:15. 7:13. 12 : 9, <o jnake straight ; ■j'-ris ,10:8, pit, nn? , 
 
 9 : l,for nr>T3; oarB, 8:11; -(-ct, 3: 1, for n:? ; and lastly sudi 
 
 6* " 
 
66 § 4. DICTION OF THE BOOK. 
 
 Aramaean forms as x:253, 7 : 26 ; fi<rr-; ,8:1; X'j'n, 8:12. 9:18; 
 S<S-i^ , lO : 4 ; ^^:2^, 10 : 5, are probably conformities to Chaldee in 
 respect to their final vowel. — dnn, 2:25, and ^^2, 9: 1, are 
 doubtful, and cannot be shown to be Chaldaic. 
 
 I may refer the reader here to wliat is said at the close of the 
 list of later Hehreiv. It is impossible to prove, that more or less of 
 this last class of words were not extant in the older Hebrew, or 
 that they are not normal derivates of the Hebrew. But this last 
 list of probable Chaldaisms is small, amounting to only some 
 eight or ten words at most. 
 
 I am much indebted to Herzfeld for his labors on both parts of 
 this list. He has pursued the examination with a diligence, a 
 discrimination, and an accuracy, that are worthy of all commen- 
 dation. 
 
 The general result is, that the book, for so short a one, par- 
 takes, after all, somewhat largely of the two elements of later 
 Hebrew and Chaldee, at least of what we are forced to regard as 
 such. That its style, and diction, and coloring throughout, re- 
 semble most of all the later books, viz., Ezra, Neh., Esth., and 
 Daniel, every reader familiar with these books must feel. That 
 he is moving in an element greatly diverse from that of the 
 earlier Hebrew, becomes a matter of immediate consciousness, 
 when one reads Coheleth. This is, indeed, no objection to the 
 book ; for the later Hebrew may convey truth as well and as 
 intelligibly as the earlier. We need not call the dialect Doric or 
 Boeotian ; much less Yorkshire or Patois. The laws of grammar 
 are, for the most part, strictly observed ; the forms of the words 
 are normal ; the tenses are not unskilfully used, but the contrary ; 
 and as little anomaly is found, on the whole, as in most of the later 
 books. In the use of the particles there is great latitude, specially 
 in respect to ■! , '^S , 3 , b , and the conjunction ^cx (ir) ; and in this 
 respect the style resembles that of the other late books. This of 
 itself is an indication of an advanced state of the language, which 
 must always be changing. 
 
 Having been through the preceding investigations, in respect to 
 the nature, contents, design, form, style, and diction of the book, 
 we are now prepared to enter upon the next question, in which 
 many readers will feel a special interest ; viz. 
 
§ 5. "VVIIO AVAS THE AUTUOR ? 67 
 
 § 5. Who iras the author? 
 
 If this question be referred to the decision of past times, then is 
 it easily answered. One and all of the older writers declare for 
 Solomon. Tlie tradition in the Talmud (Baba Bath. fol. 14. 15), 
 that Ilezekiah and his Society wrote C^-PS , wrote out, copied) 
 Coheleth and some other books ; or the saying of Rabbi Gedaliah, 
 that Isaiah wrote not only his own book, but Coheleth and some 
 others (Shalshel. Ilakkab. fol. GG) ; make nothing against the 
 general position, because nrs , as they employ it, means merely 
 copied, wrote doion or wrote out. 
 
 So far as I know, Grotius was the first, in modem times, who 
 raised a doubt as to the correctness of general tradition in regard 
 to the author of Ecclesiastes. In his Comm. he says : " Ego tamen 
 Salomonis esse non puto, sed scriptum serius sub illius regis tan- 
 quam poenitentia ducti nomine." lie then goes on to adduce, as 
 a reason for this opinion, that the book has many words which 
 can be found only in Daniel. Ezra, and the Chaldee Targumists. 
 Hermann Von der llardt, in an Essay on Ecc, endeavored to 
 sustain tliis view, by the like arguments. Against him rose up 
 Huet, Calov, Witsius, Carpzov, ai^d Van der Palm. So, also, 
 most of the older critics, S. Schmidt, Geier, Le Clerc, Rambach, 
 J. D. Michaelis, L. Ewald, Schelling, etc. On the other hand, 
 Grotius found many ardent defenders ; such as Eichhorn, Schmidt, 
 Doderlein, Bauer, Augusti, Bertholdt, Umbreit, De AVette, Ro- 
 senmijller, Gesenius, Jahn, Ewald, llitzig, Heiligstedt, and others. 
 Of late, scarcely an advocate of the old tradition has appeared. 
 When we have reviewed the ground occupied by the question, 
 we shall i)erhaps deem it strange, if any future critic should 
 engage in such an undertaking. 
 
 That the book purports, by its title, to be the words of Solomon, 
 is plain. It begins thus : " The words of Coheleth, the son of Da- 
 vid, king in Jerusalem.'' King belongs, here, to Coheleth, as being 
 in ai)position with it, and not to David, whicli merely connects 
 with son. Now no one of David's sons was king in Jerusalem, 
 excepting Solomon. Coheleth, then, was Solomon ; and Coheleth 
 was king. So v. 12 : " I, Coheletli, was king over Israel in Jeru- 
 salem." At the close of tlic book, Colielcth again speaks of him- 
 self and his work. In 12 : 9 he says that he wjts a crn, i. e. a 
 
68 § 5. WHO WAS THE AUTHOR ? 
 
 Hakam or philosopher in the ethical sense, and that " he sought 
 out and arranged many d"'blL'? , which contained words of truth." 
 But no reference is here made to his kingly condition. 
 
 • For the meaning of the word Coheleth, I must refer the reader 
 to the Comm. on 1: 1, where it is sufficiently illustrated. Although 
 fern, in form, it is masc. in sense, as the masc. verbs, everywhere 
 joined with it, sufficiently show. It is like our titles of excellency, 
 majesty, grace, highness, etc., when indicative of office, honor, or 
 station. So Kaliph in Arabic is ms'^bs , i. e. it is fem. ; and the 
 like is found in almost every language. Preacher, in the common 
 sense of this English word, Coheleth was not ; for the name im- 
 ports nothing more than that he addresses assembled men (possibly 
 including the idea that he did it) in the hortative strain ; at least, 
 this is very frequent in the book before us. 
 
 AVas it the design, then, of the writer of this book, to declare 
 himself to be king Solomon ? Or does he introduce Solomon pur- 
 posely upon the stage as an agent, and give us what he might 
 well be supposed to say ? In other words : Is Solomon an actor 
 only in the book, or is he the real author of it ? 
 
 Great difficulties lie in the way of the last assumption. 
 (1) Many things are said by Coheleth, which show that Soloinon is 
 only occasionally, and not constantly speaking. He says in 1: 12, 
 that " he was king in Jerusalem" The Praeterite tense here 
 ('^n'T;'!! I was) refers, of course, to a past time, and it conveys the 
 idea that, when the passage was written, he was no longer king. 
 But Solomon was king until his death, and could therefore never 
 have said : ' I was king, but am not now.' Then, again, how 
 passing strange for him, as Solomon, to tell those whom he was 
 addressing, that he was king in Jerusalem ! Could he suppose 
 that they needed to be informed of this ? But a writer in times 
 long after Solomon, might easily shde into the expression, that 
 Coheleth had been king. 
 
 In 1 : 1 G he says : " I acquired more wisdom than all who were 
 in Jerusalem before me." Doubtless, being a king, he compares 
 himself with others of the same rank, i. e. with kings ; and how 
 many of these were in Jerusalem before Solomon ? One only, viz. 
 David. Who, then, constitute the all ? It is only a later writer 
 who would speak thus ; and even such an one could so speak only 
 by omitting any special reference to the incongruity seemingly 
 
§5. WHO WAS THE AUTHOR? 69 
 
 apparent in the declanition as at(ril)uted to Solomon. The sen- 
 tence looks like that of some writer who lived after there had 
 been many kin<i^s at Jerusalem. Moreover, in the mouth of Solo- 
 mon himself, this would wear somewhat of the air of self-magni- 
 fyin<i^; while a lat«'r writer, who admired Solomon, would naturally 
 speak thus of him. In like maimer, in 2 :.7, i), he speaks of sur- 
 passing, in various respects, " all who were in Jerusalem before 
 him." But in the respects there named, only kings could well be 
 brought into comparison with him who was a great king ; and 
 therefore the same difliculty arises as before. 
 
 In 1: IG. 2 : 0, 15, ID he speaks of his own wisdom ; and in this 
 he tells us that he far exceeded all others. This was true, indeed, 
 of Solomon ; but it was hardly the dictate of modest wisdom to 
 speak thus of himself. A later writer might well speak thus of 
 him, althongii there seems to be some little incongruity in at- 
 tributing the words to him. 
 
 If 4 : 8 could be shown to have a particular personal meaning, 
 and that the person in view was the writer of the book himself, it 
 would bring before us a striking incongruity. The case there 
 supposed, is one where the individual has neither son nor brother. 
 Solomon had both. But my apprehension of that text is, that the 
 case in question is merely one supposed, for the sake of illustra- 
 tion. But in 4:14 a case is stated, where it is difficult to avoid 
 the conclusion, that Solomon and Jeroboam are meant. In this 
 case, if Solomon be the writer, then he speaks of himself as "an 
 old and foolish king," while Jeroboam is " the wise and prosperous 
 young man." This would sound very strangely in the mouth of 
 Solomon. 
 
 In 8 : 3, an adviser is introduced, who counsels the prudent 
 course of obeying the king in everything. This would not be 
 strange for a king to say ; but when one clause declares, that the 
 prudent individual ' mus*t not hesitate or delay even in respect 
 to a wicked command,^ it would seem very singular to find Solo- 
 mon thus characterizing his own commands. Then, again, when 
 the writer gxves his own view of this matter of unlimited obe- 
 dience, in vs. 5, 6, he says, that such indiscriminate and blind 
 obedience will incur the guilt of sin, and bring the inevitable judg- 
 ment of God upon him who yields it, vs. 7, 8. All this is hardly 
 congruous with kingly oi)inions. 
 
70 § 5. WHO WAS THE AUTHOR ? 
 
 In 5 : 7, the writer speaks of " the oppressing the poor, and rob- 
 bing him of justice." In 3:16, he says that "in the place of 
 judgment and justice was wickedness." In 4 : 1, he describes him- 
 self as a witness " of oppressions which were committed, and of 
 the tears of the oppressed who had no comforter." In 7 : 7, he 
 declares that " oppression is making even a wise man mad." In 
 7:10, he alludes to " former days which were better than the 
 present." In the sequel (v. 15), he speaks of " the righteous man 
 as perishing because of his righteousness, and the wicked man as 
 prolonging his days by his wickedness." In 8:9 he speaks of 
 " one man ruling over another to his injury." In 10 : 4, he 
 describes rulers as being passionate and excessive in their anger. 
 In 10:5 — 7, he describes the ruler as 'setting fools on high, 
 while the wealthy and princes occupy a low place, and act as ser- 
 vants of the fools.' In 10 : 16 — 19, he covertly speaks of rulers 
 as gluttons, drunkards, and sluggards ; and even in blessing such 
 kings as are of an opposite character, he says the same thing in the 
 way of implication. Can we now, in any way, suppose all these to 
 be the words of Solomon, describing himself as a haughty, violent, 
 unjust, tyrannical, oppressor? Was he a glutton, a drunkard, 
 and an idler, — he who spake 3,000 proverbs, wrote 1,005 songs, 
 and many treatises of botany, besides managing wisely all the 
 affairs of his kingdom ? 1 K. 4 : 32 seq. Did he permit the land 
 to be full of oppressive magistrates, who caught at bribes, con- 
 demned the righteous, and acquitted the wicked ? Was not the 
 power in his own hands, to remedy all this, and to do judgment 
 and justice ? And yet Coheleth says, in 4:2, 3, that death is 
 preferable to life, under the then existing oppression. Yea, in his 
 impatience, he even wishes he had never been born. And all this, 
 when, if Solomon be concerned in the matter, it was at any 
 moment in his power to put a stop to the evils complained of ! 
 How is it possible to suppose that Solomon ascribes all this great 
 wickedness and folly to himself? Let any one read the history of 
 his enlightened and peaceful reign, as given in the books of Kings 
 and Chronicles, and he will see a picture directly the opposite of 
 all this. The matter of Solomon's authorship, in respect to such 
 passages seems quite impossible. 
 
 (2) The general state and condition of things, ivhen this hook icas 
 written, indicates a period very different from that of Solomon's 
 
§ 5. WHO WAS THE AUTHOR ? 71 
 
 reign. We must keep in view here what has ah'eady been said 
 above, respecting the cm/ condition of the kingdom, and the dread- 
 ful oppression, on the one hand, by which the rigliteous were per- 
 secuted and destroyed, and the favoritism, on the other, by which 
 the wicked were exahed. This, of itself, is strong testimony 
 against the royal authorship. But beyond this, there was a gen- 
 eral gloom that overspread all ranks and conditions in life. 
 Wliereverthe writer turns his eyes, he sees little excej)t vexation 
 and disappointment and suffering. So dee})ly are all these things 
 impressed on him, that even the joyous youth is cautioned by him 
 not to rely, for a moment, on the endurance of any good. The 
 writer is indeed very far, after all, from being a gloomy cynic. 
 He has no malevolent or embittered feeling. But he sees before 
 him, on all sides, innumerable i)roofs of the frailty, the vanity, 
 and uncertainty of human life and human endeavors ; and also 
 the utter impossibility of eff(ecting any substantial change for the 
 better. He comes fully to the conclusion, that " the day of one's 
 death is better than the day of his birth." 7:1. Does all this 
 look like being written during the peaceful, plentiful, joyful reign 
 of Solomon ? — such a reign as the Hebrews never saw before 
 or since ? To my mind this seems almost impossible. Every 
 writer is influenced by the things around him, and the circum- 
 stances in which he is placed. So far as we know from O. Test, 
 history, the times here supposed and described belong not to the 
 period of Solomon's reign. It is true that this king, in his old age, 
 was guilty of backsliding, and that he was chastised for it. But 
 as to tlie state of his kingdom in general, it seems to have been in 
 a condition directly opposite, in most respects, to that which has 
 been described above. 
 
 The passage in 4:17, speaks in such a way respecting temple- 
 off'erings and services, as hardly accords with the views given in 
 1 K. 3 : 3. 4:15. 8:5, 62—04. 10 : 5. 1 1: 7. I do not say, that 
 Solomon had views in substance contrary to the spirit of Ecc. 4 : 
 17 ; but that the methods of expression there adopted seem 
 foreign to the condition and circumstances of him who had built 
 the temple, and made magnificent preparations for offerings. 
 
 The peculiar passage, in 7 : 2G — 28, respecting the extreme 
 baseness of ivomen, seems hardly consonant witli the views of him 
 who had 700 wives and 300 concubines, 1 K. ll : 1 — 8 ; and 
 
72 § 5. WHO WAS THE AUTHOR ? 
 
 who was devoted, as it would seem, more than any other Jewish 
 king known to us, to amatory enjoyments. Another and later 
 writer, who looked attentively at the history of the close of Solo- 
 mon's life, might well speak of such women as were in Solomon's 
 harem, as he has done. Most of them were probably of heathen 
 origin ; comp. vs. 2 — 5. 
 
 (3) Another source of doubt os to the authorship of Solomon 
 springs from the style and diction of the booh 
 
 Whoever comes from an attentive, critical reading of the book 
 of Proverbs, written or compiled by Solomon for the most part, to 
 that of Coheleth, will find himself in a region entirely new. 
 William of Malmesbury is scarcely more diverse from Macaulay, 
 or Chaucer from Pope, than Coheleth is from Proverbs. It is 
 impossible to feel that one is in the hands of the same writer. 
 The subjects are exceedingly diverse. In Proverbs, incontinence, 
 falsehood, lying, deceiving, marriage, parents and children, educa- 
 tion, neatness, industry, thrift, and the like, are the subjects 
 treated of; in Coheleth, the vanity of all things, the nothingness 
 of human ends and aims, the oppression of wicked rulers, and the 
 like, are the theme throughout. Of all these, there is scarcely 
 anything in the book of Proverbs. However, this would not 
 prove much, if it stood alone ; for the same writer might change 
 his theme. But when we come to the coloring of the style and 
 diction, it is impossible to make out anything but the widest 
 diversity. 
 
 We have seen above, how much of the later Hebrew and of 
 Chaldaism there is in Coheleth. But where are these to be found, 
 in any such measure, in the book of Proverbs ? Nowhere. 
 Here is the golden Hebrew of the golden age. But in the dark 
 and distressing times of Coheleth, the Hebrew idiom or at least 
 the diction and style, had greatly changed. A mere English reader 
 can, indeed, see but little of this ; for all the ingredients are 
 melted down together in an English crucible. But the very first 
 paragraph in Coheleth tells a Hebrew reader, that he has come 
 to a new and different region. This is a thing, however, which 
 can only he felt by a reader familiar with the Hebrew ; and there- 
 fore one of which an adequate description cannot well be given. 
 
 When we are gravely told, that this change of style is to be 
 ascribed to Solomon's intercourse with foreign women, we may 
 
§ 5. "WHO WAS THE AUTHOR ? 73 
 
 rather smile, tlian feel compelled to argue. Would Solomon, in 
 his old age, be likely to change his mother-tongue? Had he 
 respect enough for his women, to become a learner of fcjrcign lan- 
 guages from them ? Would a mere momentary casual intercourse 
 with them, such as his was, produce such an influence on his 
 idiom ? And then, who can tell, \Yhether the idiom of any of these 
 women resembled that of Coheleth ? Last of all — would the 
 Spirit of inspiration move Solomon to write in the idiom of his 
 heathen concubines, who were unlawfully selected ? See Ex. 34: 
 15, 16. In whatever way we look at this matter — it is vanity of 
 vanities. 
 
 At all events, the hook of Proverbs stands in the way against 
 ascribing Coheleth to Solomon. There brevity, precision, com- 
 pactness, and energy of expression, predominate. But if we 
 except the few aphorisms in Coheleth, and the precepts here and 
 there given, the mode of representation is the reverse of this. 
 Not that tliere is not an energy running through the whole com- 
 position of the latter, but that the repetitious phrases are very 
 numerous, and the style here and there expansive or diluted. 
 What most of all distinguishes Coheleth from Proverbs is, that 
 the former repeats, beyond all example in the Scriptures, certain 
 phrases entirely sui generis, which never occur at all in the book 
 of Proverbs. Such are under the sun, under heaven, I turned to see, 
 I said in my heart, and the like. If Solomon w^rote Coheleth, 
 how could such favorite expressions, every wliere introduced in this 
 book, have never a]ipeared at all in l*roverbs ? No efforts can 
 remove, or even diminish, these palpal)k' discrepancies, in regard 
 to style and manner between the two books. There is more 
 diversity than exists between Isaiah and ^lalachi, or between the 
 narrations in Genesis and those in the Chronicles. Conciliation 
 of manner is indeed out of the question. 
 
 Thus far, then, we have made, as it would seem, but little 
 progress towards discovering the author of the book. If our mode 
 of reasoning and drawing conclusions be valid, we have thus far 
 only come to the decision that Soiomo)i icas not the author. Who 
 then was he, and wJien did he live ? 
 
 According to Hermann Von der Ilardt, he was a man by the 
 name of Jesus, the third son of the high-priest Jehoiadah, who 
 lived under the reign of Artaxerxes Long., Xerxes II, and Darius 
 7 
 
74 § 5. WHO WAS THE AUTHOR ? 
 
 Nothus, (464—404 b. c). If we ask for proof of this, none is or 
 can be produced. Proof was not necessary to Yon der Hardt, 
 and lie deals very little in it. Kaiser makes Zerubbabel, f\\mous 
 in the annals of the exiled and returning Jews, the author ; and 
 even Grotius intimates, that ' the collection of the miscellanies [?] 
 in the book was made by the Scribes under his order ;' — all, 
 again, without any proof. 
 
 As the real author has told us, at the close, that he was a n:rt , 
 (i. e. in modern Arabic, a Hakim or Ulema), a fidyogj 12:9, who 
 collected and compared, and arranged d-Vc^ , and has spoken of 
 himself only by an official designation, viz. Coheleth, we find 
 nothing in the book that leads to the individual and proper name 
 of the writer. We may give up, then, our pursuit after this, and 
 must try to content ourselves, in this particular case, with the 
 simple verdict of ignoramus. 
 
 The times in which the author lived, are the only thing now left, 
 by which we may find some traces of him. The nature of these 
 has been amply described above. They were times of kingly 
 government ; of great oppression by all classes of the magistracy ; 
 of luxury, extravagance, idleness, and debauchery among the 
 upper classes ; of persecution in respect to the righteous, and of 
 promotion and prosperity in regard to the wicked ; times in which 
 the poor and the just were reduced to despair, so that life became 
 a burden ; times in which a whisper against the tyrants of the 
 land was followed by severe penalties : and, in a word, days of 
 darkness, even of thick and impenetrable gloom, so that to go to 
 the house of mourning was preferable to attendance on a feast, 
 because of the feeling that the dead had escaped from the mise- 
 ries of the living. So much lies on the face of the book, and is 
 interwoven with its very texture. But when was there such times 
 in Judea ? We might be inclined to answer : ' Under Manasseh, 
 who reigned fifty-five years, who became a heathen and filled 
 Jerusalem with innocent blood, 2 K. xxi. All the evils just 
 mentioned doubtless may have existed under him.' — But still, it 
 would be utterly unaccountable, that not a word should be said 
 about idolatry, or concerning martyrdom. Possibly, however, 
 such a passage as 7: 15 might occupy the ground of the latter. 
 But inasmuch as no reference is made to the interruption of Leviti- 
 cal rites and temple-worship, but on the contrary they are spoken 
 
§5. AVIIO WAS THE AUTHOR? 75 
 
 of as being an ordinary thing (i: : 17 seq.), it is diflicult to sup- 
 pose the writer, (wliose object it is to bring together the various 
 vanities of human life as then exhibited), could have passed 
 through liis whole work without making any comi)laint of such 
 things. The moderated tone in which the author sjx'aks of ritual 
 wors/iip, seems to indicate a period, in which the religious Jews 
 had fallen off from the earlier and ardent attachment to rites and 
 sacrifices. The spirit of the day when Malachi wrote his book, 
 will help us to undei-stand this ; for so far had it gone from high 
 reganl to the externals of worship, that the prophet felt moved to 
 rebuke the Jews for " robbing God of his offerings," Mai. 3 : 8 seq. 
 Such is the natural effect of a seventy years' exile, when ritual 
 and temple worship was suspended. Still, so long as the Mosaic 
 Law was acknowledged as the constitution of the state, something 
 must be done in this way, and it should be done with decorum ; 
 and Malachi finds it to be matter of reproof, that the returned 
 Jews neglected their duty in this respect. His design, however, 
 is consistent with sucli a spirit as Coheleth shows ; for the latter 
 calls neither offerings nor vows, as such, in question, but cautions 
 against a slight, superficial, merely external, and hypocritical per- 
 formance of such duties. He has, evidently, an enlightened view 
 of the spiritiialiff/ necessary to an acceptable performance of them. 
 But this, of itself, will not decide for us the question : W/teii did 
 he live and write ? For some Jews in every age, as we may well 
 suppose, cherished similar sentiments. 
 
 But if we go down lower than the time of ]Manasseh, we find, 
 indeed, tyrannical kings, and a distracted state of the common- 
 wealth ; l)ut still we find these kings, in all probability, in the 
 practice of heathen and idolatrous rites, for it is said of both 
 Jehoiakim and Zedekiah, that " they did evil in the sight of the 
 Lord," which more usually designates the practice of idolatry, 
 as enn)loyed in the book of Kings. After this, there was no indige- 
 nous king in Judea, until the time of the Hasmonean family, or 
 the age of Judas Maccabaeus. If the book was written after the 
 exile, it must have been under the reign of the Persian kings, 
 and before the (J reek kings of Egypt or of Syria had dominion 
 over Palestine. Oppression under these last-named kings did not 
 take place seriously, until about the time when Antiochus Epi- 
 phanes came on the stage of action, i.e. 17o n. c. Oppression 
 
76 § 5. WHO WAS THE AUTHOR ? 
 
 under the Persian kings might have happened, and did sometimes 
 happen; see Ezra 3:5. 4:1 — 24. Neh. 6:5 — 10, especially 
 Nell. 9 : 37. After Ezra came to Palestine (about 457 b. c), 
 the Jews were generally, but not always, (see texts just cited), on 
 a good footing with the Persian kings, so far as the sacred history 
 carries us, i. e. down to some 434 b. c. It would, on the whole, 
 seem most probable that, between the first return of the Jews 
 from exile (535 b. c.) down to the time of Ezra, (about 80 years 
 afterward), is the period most likely to exhibit the phenomena 
 which we have brought to view above. The neighbors of the 
 Jews gave them much trouble, often misrepresented them to the 
 kings of Persia, and occasioned them many grievances. The 
 governors of Judea were probably corrupt men, under those 
 Persian kings who troubled the Jews ; and a state of things, 
 such as the book before us brings to view, might easily have ex- 
 isted through their management. Persia, moreover, never wor- 
 shipped idols. And this may be the reason why Coheleth never 
 speaks of idolatry as the vice of either king or nobles. 
 
 The only difficulty in the case seems to be, that the king 
 appears to be spoken of as if he were a proper Jewish king, 
 belonging to the country. But still the lines are not drawn 
 strictly here. The fact, that the province (ni'^^^zfi with the 
 article) is spoken of in 5 : 7, fixvors the period of Persian domi- 
 nation at the time when the book was written ; for Judea was 
 plainly a province of the Persian empire. The Jews belonged 
 to Cyrus, by virtue of his conquest of Babylonia, where they 
 then lived. They were afterwards treated as a province by the 
 Persian kings, as the books of Ezra and Nehemiah abundantly 
 testify. The difficulty in carrying out a scheme of proof, lies in 
 the want of more minute historical documents, respecting the 
 period in question. We have only a short passage in Ezra, 
 which specially refers to this period ; and this is occupied mainly 
 with civil troubles and embarrassments. We can argue, there- 
 fore, only from analogy draAvn from other periods. And this 
 will easily serve to convince us, that matters may have then been 
 in the dismal state which Coheleth so vividly describes. The 
 assertion by some critics, that Ecc. was written at the Macca- 
 baean period, is altogether destitute of probability. It must 
 needs have taken its hue from those bitter and bloody times, and 
 
§ 5. WHO WAS THE AUTHOR ? 77 
 
 have administered severe rebuke to the blood-thirsty Syrian 
 tyrant, who was desolating the country by his persecution and 
 his massacres. Besides, it is made quite clear by Josephus 
 (Cont. Ap. i. 8), that no book was introduced into the Jewish 
 Canon, after the reign of Artaxerxes, the son of Xerxes I. Co- 
 heleth, therefore, could not have been written so late. 
 
 Several critics speak of the lateness of the period, as neces- 
 sarily connected with the knowledge of Grecian philosophy, 
 which, as they think, the book evinces. But Knobel himself 
 confesses, (and so Ilitzig), that there is not a tint of Greek 
 philosophy in the whole book ; and nothing can be plainer than 
 this. We are then under no necessity of placing the composition 
 of the book, at a period subsequent to the conquests of Alexander 
 the Great, and the introduction of Greek learning into the East. 
 The book is through and through of Hebrew spirit, and is indeed 
 nothinor but Hebrew. But it is not the work of a stickler for 
 
 o 
 
 rites and offerings ; for it exhibits enlightened and spiritual views 
 in regard to this subject. 
 
 I have given the sum of what can be alleged, both in favor of 
 a later period of writing, and against the personal authorship of 
 Solomon. But whoever the writer was, he unquestionably intro- 
 duces Solomon into his hook, as speaking many things there sug- 
 gested. Chap, ii, in particular, comes under this category ; and 
 it can hardly be made to apply to any other Jewish king than 
 Solomon. Not unfrequently, however, the writer speaks of 
 kings as a third person would speak, who was a mere spectator 
 of their demeanor, and not himself the subject of what is said. 
 We have seen how strangely many passages concerning rulers 
 and oppression, would sound in the mouth of Solomon himself. 
 It is against all critical probability, therefore, that Solomon was 
 the author. But the writer has shown us no other metes and 
 bounds, to separate what he says himself from what Solomon is 
 represented as saying, excepting what the matter spoken supplies. 
 Nor is it important that he should do this ; for it is he who 
 really speaks in both cases, but in one of them he speaks through 
 the medium of a supi)Osed and apparently ditferent person. He 
 gives Solomon's experience ; and in giving it, he figuratively 
 introduces Solomon as himself relating it. This belongs merely 
 7* 
 
78 § 5. WHO WAS THE author ? 
 
 to the form, and not to the substance of the book. No one can 
 justly take offence at this. Why may not the author do so, as 
 well as Solomon could introduce Wisdom as speaking in her 
 own person? Prov. viii. The apocryphal book, the Wi&dom of 
 Solomon, doubtless in imitation of Coheleth's example, introduces 
 Solomon as speaking throughout ; see chap. 7:1, seq. In other 
 words, wisdom is 'personified in Solomon. And although we can- 
 not, with Ewald and Hitzig, admit such a personification here, 
 (see p. 41 above), yet the general principle, in respect to manner, 
 is the same in Coheleth as in the other books just named. In 
 Proverbs, Wisdom itself is personified simply ; in the book of 
 Wisdom, Solomon is her representative and personification; 
 while in Coheleth, Solomon is introduced, not as wisdom, but as 
 relating his own experience in a variety of things, and among 
 these, in his search after wisdom. The w^riter has chosen to 
 introduce him as saying this and that, because Solomon was 
 specially qualified to say it. 
 
 I cannot see, then, any need of introducing, as August! does, 
 Solomon's ghost as the speaker. On this I have already made 
 remarks, in the preceding pages. The Hebrews did not deal in 
 ghosts ; much less set them to carry on dialogues with the living. 
 There is no intimation of anything of this nature in the book 
 itself. It is not a part of Hebrew machinery. 
 
 There are several reasons why the author should introduce 
 Solomon so often as speaker, in his book. (1) As the great 
 theme of the book is the vanity of all earthly things, even in their 
 best estate, no person could be introduced whose experience in 
 regard to all that could adorn life and render it happy, was so 
 signally marked as that of Solomon. If the world could not 
 make him happy, tlien it could promise happiness to no one else. 
 Chap. ii. gives a vivid description of Solomon's experience, and 
 pronounces the general sentence upon it. (2) No topic is so fre- 
 quently introduced into the book, as that of ivisdom. Solomon's 
 experience in respect to this, was beyond that of any other man. 
 Hence the appropriateness of introducing him to speak concern- 
 ing it. Whoever will attentively peruse 1 K. 2: G. 3 : 12, 28. 4: 
 29—34. 11 : 41. 10: 23, 24, will see the ground of Solomon's 
 high and lasting reputation for wisdom. The son of Sirach, 47 : 
 
§ G. CREDIT AXD GENERAL HISTORY OF THE BOOK. 79 
 
 14 — 19, luis sliown how this matter stood in his time ; and Matt. 
 12 : 42. Luke 11: 31, advert to the same matter as it stood dur- 
 ing the first century of the Christian era. 
 
 These considerations are sufficient to vindicate the autlior of 
 Coheleth, for intro(hicing another personage than himself, viz. 
 Solomon. And all tliat has been said above, as it seems to me, 
 is sufficient to show, that the person introduced is merely an 
 agent in the writer's hands, and not one who simply acts for him- 
 self. But be this as it may, it will alter neither the design nor 
 the general meaning of the book before us. It is not a question 
 de re ipsa, but only one de niodo in quo. 
 
 § C. Credit and general History of the Boole. 
 
 It cannot seem strange to any reflecting mind, that a book 
 replete with so many things, which at first view seem to be para- 
 doxical, or skeptical, or in opposition to sound morals, should 
 have excited, in some minds, suspicions of its orthodoxy and 
 divine authority. If it be read, as most readers in ancient times 
 seem to have read it, as containing nothing but the sentiments of 
 Solomon himself, it is indeed a task more difficult than that which 
 Oedipus had to perform in solving the riddle of the Sphinx, to 
 make out such a solution of some parts of the book as will cause 
 them to speak orthodoxg. 
 
 The author of the book of "Wisdom seems to have felt the 
 difficulties presented by Ecclesiastes. In 2 : 1 — he has exhib- 
 ited what looks like a series of quotations and abridged views of 
 parts of Coheleth ; and this series he prefaces by saying : " They 
 say to themselves who speak not rightly;'' after which follow 
 the apparent citations just referred to. When these are ended 
 he makes a f«w additions of the like tenor, and then winds up 
 with saying: "Thus they reason, and are deceived; their evil 
 disposition lias blinded them, and they know not the mysteries 
 of God, neitlier do they hope for reward of holiness, nor regard 
 the reward of spotless souls ;" Wisd. 2 : 21, 22. But to under- 
 stand this matter fully, the reader must compare the following 
 passages : — 
 
80 § G. CREDIT AND GENERAL HISTORY OF THE BOOK. 
 
 Wisdom, CJiap. ii. 
 
 (v. 1) comp. Ecc. 2 : 23, 3. 5 : 17. C : 12. 8:8. 3 : 22. 
 
 (2) " 9 : 11. 3 : 2. 9 : 4, 5, 6, comp. 3 : 18—21. 
 
 (3) " 3:20. 12:7. 
 
 (4) " 1 : 11. 2 : 16. 9 : 5, comp. 4 : IG. 
 
 (5) " 6: 12. 11 :8. 9: 10. 12:5. 3:22. 
 
 (G) " 3:12. G:9. 1 1 : 9, comp. 3 : 22. 5:17. 9:7— 
 
 9. 11:8. 
 . (7) " 9:8. 
 
 (8) " id. 
 
 (9) " 3 : 22. 5 : 17, 18. 8 : 15. 9 : 9. 
 
 At first view, it would seem as if there could not be much 
 doubt, whether the book of Coheleth is cited in Wisdom. From 
 what the writer says immediately before and after the apparent 
 citations, it is plain that he sets himself in array against the 
 sentiments contained in them. But even supposing them to be 
 actual citations, a question still would arise here, viz. Whether 
 he is opposing Coheleth, or the ivrong use of Coheleth ? Perhaps 
 we cannot answer this question with entire certainty. But the 
 high respect which the author of Wisdom shows for the law of 
 the Lord, his precepts, and the religious fear of him, shows that 
 he cherished a great regard for religion, and of course for the 
 Scriptures ; and beyond all doubt Coheleth was attached to the 
 Hebrew Scriptures long before his time. That he should array 
 himself against the book itself, then, is very improbable ; and at 
 all events, it is without any parallel in any other Jewish apocry- 
 phal writer. The Jewish tone of those days is very far from any- 
 thing, which would look like abating from the high claims of the 
 sacred books. For these reasons, I must believe that the author 
 of Wisdom, if he has quoted Ecc, is describing the mal-practice 
 of those who deduced such doctrines as he mentions from the 
 book in question, instead of reading and interpreting it according 
 to its true design and intention. In speaking thus, the implica- 
 tion is, that he understood the ohjeclionahle passages as coming 
 from an objector. Others, supposing them to exhibit Solomon's 
 true views, appealed to them as good authority for skepticism 
 and sensuality ; and these he designs to reprove. But as we do 
 
§ G. CREDIT AND GENERAL HISTORY OF THE BOOK. 81 
 
 not know the degree of light whieli the writer of the book of 
 Wisdom had, respecting the nature of Coheleth, we cannot decide 
 Tvitli entire certainty whether he speaks in opposition to the book 
 or to the abuse of it. The hitter is, at all events, by far the most 
 probable sui)p<)sition, in respect to a high-minded and orthodox 
 Jew. 
 
 A mimile inspection, however, and a comparison of the passages 
 referred to above, will after all suggest doubts, whether the author 
 of Wisdom meant to fjuote Coheleth. There are several turns of 
 expression which seem to come from Ecc. ; for they spontaneous- 
 ly remind the reader of expressions in that book. But there are 
 others which are quite unlike to Ecc. ; and these are sufficiently 
 numerous to raise some doubt. Ilitzig rejects the idea; Knobel 
 strives to vindicate it at length, Einl. § 10. What the latter 
 quotes as citations is comprised in 2 : 2 — 9, as exhibited above. 
 Then follow 11 vs. of his own language; and it is only in vs. 21, 
 22, that we find a condemning sentence passed. Now if vs. 9 — 
 11 contained what he aimed mainly to oppose and condemn, we 
 should expect the condemning sentence to be produced in v. 10, 
 instead of v. 21. As the text now stands, it looks as if the author 
 regarded the whole of 2: 1 — 22 as the expression of his own 
 language, although it hardly admits of a doubt, that his expres- 
 sions were modijied by the reading of Ecclesiastes. The fact, 
 that no other Heb. writer of that day, and long afterwards, ever 
 opposes any part of the O. Test., makes against the views of 
 Knobel, and in favor of the sentiment of Ilitzig. 
 
 The Tahnud seems to intimate, that some Jewish teachers were 
 at that time seeking to show, that Ecc. was a book which did not 
 spring from divine inspiration. In Tract. Shabb. fol. 30. col. 2, 
 it is said : " The learned [the 0^'?^'!!] sought to lay aside (tisab 
 lit. to hide) the book Coheleth, because the declarations thereof 
 contradict each other." In Pesich. Ilab. fol. 33. col. 1, in Yay- 
 yiqra Rabba, fol. IGl. col. 2, and in Midr. Kohel. fol. 311. col. 1, 
 it is said : " The learned sought to lay aside the book Coheleth, 
 because they found therein words leaning to the side of the here- 
 tics." In Midr. Kohel. fol. 1 14. col. 1, a different reason is given, 
 viz. " Because all the wisdom of Solomon consists at last in this : 
 Rejoice, O young man, in thy youth, etc. ; which is at variance 
 with Num. 15: 39." Jerome relates like thini^js of the Hebrews 
 
82 § 6. CREDIT AND GENERAL HISTORY OF THE BOOK. 
 
 of his day. According to him they say : " Among other writings 
 of Solomon, which have become antiquated, and the memory of 
 them lost, this book deserves to be obliterated, because it asserts 
 that all the creatures of God are vain, and regards them as 
 nothing, and it gives the preference to eating and drinking and 
 other transitory pleasures," Comm. in Ecc. 2 : 13. He himself 
 pronounces the book to be one of authority, and worthy to be 
 numbered with the divine books, because it ends with the conclu- 
 sion, that ", We should fear God, and keep his commandments," 
 ib. In Midr. Cohel. and Tract. Shabb., as above cited, the writ- 
 ers subjoin to what is there quoted : " And why did they not lay 
 it aside ? Because at the beginning are words of the law, and 
 at the end are words of the law." Not a bad reason, so far as it 
 goes ; but it cannot go far, for a book might have words of the 
 Law at the beginning and end, without having any claim to be a 
 divine book. 
 
 Spinoza (Tract, theol. pol., p. 15, 27) says of Solomon, that 
 " he excelled others in wisdom, but not in the prophetic gift ;" 
 and he blames him, because he has taught that " every thing is 
 vain." 
 
 All this amounts indeed to very little. We know from Sirach, 
 Philo, Josephus, and the early Christian writers, that Coheleth 
 belonged to the Jewish Scriptures in their times, i. e. both before 
 and after the birth of Christ. It is critically certain, that it was 
 included in the Scriptures sanctioned as divine by Christ and the 
 apostles. But as I have fully discussed this subject in my little 
 work on the Canon of the O. Test., I need not repeat the discus- 
 sion here. 
 
 It is true, indeed, that none of the N. Test, writers have quoted 
 it ; but equally true as to several other books ^^'ho^e canonicity 
 cannot be questioned. The argumentum a silentio, we may again 
 say, is of no value here. ' They did not cite it, because they did 
 not need to cite it for their purpose,' — is a sufficient answer. 
 
 In like manner Christians of the earliest ages do not cite it, 
 and for a like reason. At a later period, Gregory Nyss., Jerome, 
 Olympiodorus, and Oecumenius, wrote Commentaries on Cohe- 
 leth. Philastrius of Brescia (t387), and Theodore of Mopsuestia 
 (t420), regarded it as savouring of Epicureanism, and as unin- 
 spired. But the Council of Constantinople (A. D. boo), at which 
 
§ 6. CREDIT AND GENERAL HISTORY OF THE BOOK. 83 
 
 165 bishops were present, anathematized this position. Abul 
 Pharagius, the Jacobite Maffrian (11286), maintained that the 
 book agrees with P^mpedocles, viz. that it dechires there is no 
 future state of existence. 
 
 The book remained without being seriously assailed, after the 
 decision at Constantinople, nntil a period subsequent to the Re- 
 formation. The older commentators among the Reformers main- 
 tained the position, that it was written by vSolomon, and they 
 regarded all its words as indicative of his opinions, and did the 
 best they could to reconcile them with each other, and with the 
 rest of the Scriptures. If the subject were not of so grave a 
 nature, many of their efforts at interpretation would provoke the 
 smile of the interpreter at the present day. It is, indeed, a diffi- 
 cult task to make such passages as 4 : 19 — 21 speak ortJiodo.ry. 
 
 Le Clerc threw out hints, calling in question the inspiration 
 and authority of the book. He was answered by Witsius, Carp- 
 zov, and others. On the same side with the latter were S. 
 Schmidt, Geier, Rambach, and many others. In recent times 
 the book has undergone every kind of accusation and contumely. 
 Eichhorn, and even Jahn and Staudlin, Augusti, De Wette, and 
 others, accuse it now of immorality, of skepticism, and of Epicu- 
 reanism, then of gloomy views, of contradictions, and the like. 
 Knobel accuses it of fatalism and skepticism ; as does Hitzig also ; 
 but both allow, that the book makes mention of many things 
 which are not to be taken as the settled opinions of the author. 
 Yet even these two last-named critics do not appear to have 
 sufficiently considered the whole plan and modus of the book, as 
 to its presenting doubts and diilicultics, and then sooner or later 
 solving them. If the author is allowe<l to be a man of acute and 
 discerning mind, (and most will allow this), then the supposition 
 that all parts of the book, even those which contradict each other, 
 are to be regarded as each giving alike the author's own views, is 
 little short of an absurdity. No man of sense would contradict 
 himself so often, within such narrow limits. 
 
 It is hardly necessary to give the recent history of the views 
 respecting Coheleth, which have been entertained by many crit- 
 ics ; since their oi)inions have been sufficiently stated in the pre- 
 ceding pages. One thing undoubtedly is true, viz. that many 
 Christians, and even many preachers of the gospel, seldom re- 
 
84 § G. CREDIT AND GENERAL HISTORY OF THE BOOK. 
 
 sort to this book for instruction, with the exception of a few 
 favorite apothegms and sententious declarations. There are 
 things in the book which seem to them plain ; and these they 
 quote with the more pleasure, because they are so pointed and 
 full of meaning. But in many parts of the book, they fail en- 
 tirely in discovering any thread of discourse, or the specific object 
 which the writer has in view. The consequence is, that they 
 look on the book much as they do on the book of Proverbs. I 
 mean that they regard it as having about as little of unity and 
 connection as the latter book. When the author speaks of ' dead 
 flies as causing the ointment of the apothecary to become offen- 
 sive in smell ;' or when he speaks of ' a dulled tool which must 
 be swung the harder in order to make it cut ;' they wonder what 
 bearing this can have on the subject of religion, or even on the 
 general theme of worldly vanity. And certainly this perplexity 
 is not to be wondered at, considering the nature, plan, and course 
 of thought in the book. It requires long and diligent study to 
 discover all its bearings, after they have so long been overlooked, 
 and nearly the whole of commentary has betaken itself to mere 
 moralizing on some of the leading apothegms. A folio o^ preach- 
 ment on Ecc. is rather a formidable affair to readers who have 
 but little time at command. What they really want, is to get at 
 the thoughts of the writer, and not merely to know what others 
 have thought and said on certain ethical topics presented by him. 
 Hence not a few of the folios which have been written, disap- 
 point their hopes. More than most readers want, in respect to 
 the views and reasonings of commentators, they can easily find ; 
 but of the difficulties in the text itself, whether of language or 
 sentiment, they are still obliged to forego the solution. 
 
 C(juld the l)ook be placed in its true light before the public 
 mind, it would aid very much in restoring to it the usefulness 
 which it is adapted to subserve. At all events, many of the 
 difficulties would be removed, which now embarrass and hedge 
 up the way of the inquirer, and especially of the common reader. 
 The writer of the following commentary would fain indulge the 
 hope, that more satisfactory views of the book may be disclosed, 
 by the efforts which he has made to explain it. At least the 
 student of Hebrew has a claim, to expect that something more 
 may l)e done to aid him, than will be found in the great mass of 
 even the recent commentators. 
 
§ 7. SEPT. VERSION. 85 
 
 § 7. Ancient Versions of Cohehth. 
 (I.) The Skptuacixt. Tlic most ancient version of the whole 
 Hebrew SLTii)tiires, of which we liave any kno-wledge, is that of 
 the SepfmtffinL Tliat this work as a whole was made by differ- 
 ent hands, is quite evident from the variety of diction and style 
 of translating in different books. Aristobulus says, that the 
 whole of tlie Hebrew Scriptures were translated, during the reio-n 
 of l^tolemy Lagi and Ptolemy Philadelphus, his son,°(323— 246 
 B. c.) ; quoted in De Wette, Einleit. § 40. n. e. But whether for 
 the purposes of augmenting the far-famed Alexandrian Library, 
 or to meet the religious wants of the Jews, is a question not 
 entirely settled. I see no dilficuity in combining both reasons. 
 The two first Ptolemies treated the Jews with great favor, and 
 drew multitudes of them to Alexandria. They might have 'pro- 
 cured the Sept. version to be made, as a designed I'avor towards 
 them. 
 
 Very diverse is the genius of translation in different books, as 
 I have intimated above. But this diversity could as well be 
 exhibited during the seventy-seven years of the reign of the two 
 Ptolemies, as in a longer and later period. If any one would 
 obtain full conviction of the discrepancies of the Greek, in various 
 books of the Sept., let him read Job and Proverbs, and then 
 come to the reading of Coheleth. Job and Prov., being translated 
 by a reader of the classics, afford evidence that the author strove 
 to exliibit classical Greek; especially in the Prov. does he do 
 this, even at the expense, not unfrequently, of the meaning of the 
 Hebrew. By his transpositions, his large additions, and his sub- 
 tractions also, he has made the book quite another thing than 
 what the original is. But in Ecc, there is next to notiiing of all 
 this ; nor is there any aim at classic style. As a whole, the ver- 
 sion must be pronounced a faithful, and in this respect, successful 
 one. There is a literality of translating, which sometimes sur- 
 prises, and sometimes (I had almost said) amuses us. For exam- 
 ple, the translation not unfrequently renders the TX , which 
 marks the Ace. in Heb., by a6v in Greek, even when the noun 
 connected with tx is put in the Ace. ; e. g. / hated u^^nr^'r^_ is 
 translated by f>/(T/;rr« avv ti]v ^coijp, 2:17; and sp in 3':"l7 bis 
 4:3. 7:30. 8:8,15,17. 0:15. 11:7. 12:9. Yet in other 
 8 
 
86 § 7. SEPT. VERSION. 
 
 cases, the writer appears plainly to understand the true meaning 
 of -rs , as marking the Ace. and being equivalent to a demon- 
 strative. But one would come to erroneous conclusions respect- 
 ing the translator's Greek, should he judge of it by such a barba- 
 rism. The simple truth is that, in his rigid effort to be as literal 
 as possible, he has admitted avv as a translation of -nj<, because 
 this word not unfrequently means ivith = Gvr. He aimed to give 
 what he thought to be the very shape of the Hebrew, even at the 
 expense of grammatical propriety in Greek. 
 
 Servile imitations of the Hebrew double pronoun, i. e. ^'rx with 
 a subsequent pronoun, may be seen in 4: 9, oig Iditv avTOig fiia&og. 
 So in 6 : 2. But this is less frequent here than in some other 
 books. In other cases, there is a servile literality in deference 
 to etymology, without due regard to usage and proper sense; 
 e. g. n-in^n ^3) , on account of, Sept. neol Icdidg, making n'nnT = 
 "i^ri, si 18. 7 : 15. So in 8:9, Ci'nxa, [m/e] over man, Sept. Iv 
 aVoQ^^mp, h being inapposite here, but still it gives the literal 
 sense of 2. So 6 : 6, n^-cs'Q, twice, Sept. y.ad-odovg, vices, i. e. 
 turns or returns, which, although singular Greek here, still does 
 not spoil the sense ; 10 : 17, nn^3.;\3, on account of strength. Sept. h 
 dvvuim, which gives an erroneous sense in this place, altliough 
 literal. Instances not unfrequently occur, where the form of the 
 Heb. Fut. tense is imitated by a Greek Future, when the sense 
 merely indicates what is often repeated or habitually done, which 
 is according to the genius of the Heb. verb ; while in such cases 
 the Greek verb might properly be put in the Present. E. g. 10 : 
 6, ^^'4: , sit, Sept. yia{yii6ovzai Fut., while it should be 'AaO^vrai. 
 So 11: 5. 10: 12. 10 : 4, al. 
 
 In not a few cases, the Heb. words were read by the translator, 
 by supplying vowels differing from the present ones, and in such 
 a way as to make it plain, that his copy had no ivritten vowels ; 
 e. g. i<^n^3&, he is a fool, Sept. dcpQoavvtj taziv, i. e. the transla- 
 tor read i<5nb3D, 10 : 3 ; so ix'n^:' rrn^^"? , theij are afraid of what is 
 high, Sept. «tV to vipog oTiGovtai, they shall see, etc., i. e. they 
 read ;i5<T. from nn^, 12: 5. In the passage 12: 9, is a peculiar 
 example "of this soVt, viz., nsnn n'^b'^'? il^^ ^^.^) ':^^:' ^^^ '^f^'^¥'< 
 and sought out, and arranged many apothegms, Sept. y.ui ovg 
 i^iXvidoFTca xod^uov mioa^olav, i. e. the ear searches out an 
 orderly array of parables, where the text must of course have been 
 
§ 7. SEPT VERSION. 
 
 87 
 
 read =^Vr:3 •,;?n ^.pn;} "(."rx^, while ns-n is joined by the translator 
 to the following verse. In 2 : 12, -'^'zn , the King, is rendered r^? 
 §ovXF^i;, i. e. it was read 7);^^, wln<;l^ a^^ in Chaldce, probably- 
 meant counsel. In 10 : 4, iufiu is an exami)le of the literal sense 
 of xs-i-s instead of the troi)ical one, viz. gentleness. In 10 : 17, we 
 have ovy. aiaivv&i]aovTia for the Ileb. "^r'i-n xb, not on account of 
 drunkenness; where, of course, the translator must have read 
 n'iJn xb, no shame. Instead of simply saying, with the Ileb. thus 
 pointed, no shame, the Sept. now says : They ivill not be ashamed. 
 
 In other cases, mistakes were made by a wrong reading of con- 
 sonants. In 5: IG, he renders hz)k^, shall eat, by h ntvOei in 
 mourning, i. e. he read bzxi , jjutting ifor d. In 6 : 12 (Sept. 7 : 1) 
 for bits , as a shadow, he has Iv G'aiu, exchanging consonants as 
 before. In 8 : G, for rrn , evil, Avas read rrn . In 8:10, ^nsrir^ , 
 they were forgotten, was read ^in^nr;', and then translated by eti^- 
 vi'&Eaar, they were praised, by the same error of reading n for 3. 
 In 7: 12 (Sept. 7: 13), bss2 was again read b:i3, and translated 
 co<^ C'/Ja. 
 
 From the facts already exhibited, it seems quite clear, that the 
 translator had no written vowels to guide him ; and that the con- 
 sonants 3 and 2 were often carelessly wa-itten, so that the distinc- 
 tion between them could be made only with difhculty. A fact 
 like this shows also, that the Hebrew^ alphabet must have then had 
 the same/orms of letters which it now exhibits. 
 
 In a few cases, words in the text are overlooked ; e. g. 3 : 20, 
 7|b"in Vxn, which is translated only by ta ndvia. In 5:12, 
 nrn is omitted. In 8 : 9, ^.rx rr is either omitted, or else read 
 as ^urx br and translated ra ooa, inasmxich as. If there be 
 any more omissions, they have escaped a careful perusal. These 
 make quite an insignificant number. 
 
 Additions, however, amount to more than omissions. Yet 
 few are of any consi(leral)le importance. In 4 : 2, all is added to 
 the dead ; in 4 : 17, merely thy after sacrifice ; in 5 :\, above after 
 heaven ; in 7 : 15, lo ! before the third clause ; 7 : 22 (Ilebr. 7 : 
 21), for they say, we have the phrase, the ungodly say ; in 7 : 23 
 (Ileb. 7 : 22), Tihidrcr/.i^' TzoryotvasTat as has no corresponding 
 original ; and in the next clause, t"'^.^ was read for rn^ ; in 7: 
 27 (Ileb. 7 : 2(j), y.a] hjm is not in the Ileb. ; the last clause of 8 : 
 17 is very paraphrastic, corresponding only in a remote way with 
 
88 § 7. SEPT. VERSION. 
 
 the Ileb. in 9:1; in 9 : 2, y.a) lo) xuxm is added after the Heb. 
 "nv^ , apparently with good reason, if analogy in the rest of the 
 verse be regarded; in 10; 1, in the second clause, the sense is 
 strangely missed, by rendering it ti^uov oliyov oo(fiag vttIq dohiv 
 dqjQOGvvrjg [itydlf]^ ; 10 : 19, after "i^^ the Sept. has added y.al 
 eXaiov, and afterwards inserted rantivojoti ; and in 11: 9, the 
 Greek says : " Walk in the way of thy heart blameless, (diicofAog), 
 and ?iot by the sight of thine eyes ;" the words italicised not being 
 found in the Hebrew. It is evidently a loose paraphrase of the 
 Hebrew, designed to save the credit of Coheleth's orthodoxy. 
 In 2: 15, diozi 6 uq)Qcov i/. TitQiooavixazog lalei is added to the 
 text. 
 
 These are nearly all the additions made to the text, in the trans- 
 lation before us. They constitute but a small list, considering the 
 length of the book ; and they are of very little importance in a 
 doctrinal point of view. Doubtless the translator, although he 
 follows the Hebrew so closely in his version, did not feel himself 
 bound to say, in all cases, exactly what the Hebrew says and no 
 more. Still, he would have done better to stick closely to his text ; 
 for his additions do not help the sense of the Hebrew, nor enable 
 us better to understand it 
 
 In some cases we find mistakes in the Greek version. In 3 : 
 16, we have tva^^ijg where w^e should have ccGe^/jg, (probably, 
 however, a mere error of some transcriber) ; 4 : 1 is avy.oqjuvTiug, 
 false accusations, for nijrrds'ri ; 4 : 4, dvdQtav for "jii'^iis ; 5:5, 
 Ivd [i^ for n^b ; 5 : 6 he renders : In the multitude of dreams, 
 and of vanities, and of many words, mistaking the relation of the 
 last two nouns. To save detail, I refer the reader to 1: 17, 18. 2 : 
 12,20,25. 5:9,10. 7:8,13,15,17,26. 10:19. 12:5,11. This 
 last-cited passage (12:11) is worth inserting, for its version of 
 perhaps the most difficult passage in the whole book. It runs 
 thus : Xoyoi oocpojr ag rd ^ovxEvzQa, vau ^g ijXoi 7Teq)Vitvfit'i>ot, oi 
 7TU()d Tojv ovvi}r^fidro3v idoOticrav i/. TToifuvog Evog, i. e. " the 
 words of the wise are as goads, and as nails driven in, which are 
 given from the collections by one shepherd ;" almost as rendered 
 by Ilitzig, and with only a shade of difference from the version 
 which I have given to it in the Commentary. One cannot well 
 see, why such strange translations should have been made of this 
 verse, either in earlier or later times, with this model before the 
 
§ 7. VULGATE VERSION. 89 
 
 writers. The tiuqu ovvOmidxwv gives us a hint of the true sense 
 of msDX "^'s:;?, the possessors of collections, and na()u. here marks 
 merely the rehition o^ source, while avvOi^tiu means lit. tilings put 
 together. The translator failed to discern, that these Hebrew words 
 are in the Noni., and constitute the subject of the second clause. 
 See Commentary. 
 
 Besides this, there arc other fortunate renderings. For ex- 
 ample, in 5 : 8, Kai TzeQiaatia j'/;;,' ^^i navii tan, ^uaiXtv^' rov 
 dyQov tiQyaafit'rou, exactly true to the original, and quite plain, 
 although endlessly varied in modern times. So the last clause of 
 5: 19, Otog TTtQiana uvthv h> Evcfoocivv)] y.andiu^' avzov. Here 
 TTF.Qta^u means to divert one's attention from a thing, and so to 
 divert it, in this case, from brooding over afflictions in past times. 
 This is accomplished by the joyful state of mind now conferred. 
 The Heb. nai'TS has more usually been rendered here by humble 
 or afflict, while it means in reality, in the case before us, causes 
 to answer or correspond with. In another way than by a literal 
 rendering, the Sept. has hit upon the kernel of the thought, and 
 very expressively given it. These may serve as specimens. To 
 save room, I must merely refer the reader to other more or less 
 happy renderings of difficult and controverted passages ; e. g. 6 : 
 3. 7: 25. 10: 10, (singularly curious, but not correct). 10:11. 
 12: 11, which is given in full above. 
 
 On the whole, this version should be a Vade mecinn with the 
 student of this book. Even where he does not get light from it, 
 he will feel an interest in it, and will be led to inquire, how and 
 whg the w^riter departed from the apparent meaning of the He- 
 brew ; and such inquiries will lead him to a more minute study 
 of the Hebrew. The literal nature of the version in general is an 
 admirable i)ledge for the correctness of the jiresent Hebrew text, 
 as compared with what it was in the time of tlie translator. 
 
 (II.) The Vulga-TE. This is so commonly known, and so 
 easy of access, that much need not be said here respecting it. 
 Jerome, as every one will see who reads his work, translated from 
 the original Hebrew. This he did, after having spent some 
 twenty years in Palestine in order to learn it thoroughly. He 
 accomplished his object, beyond what we should have deemed 
 possible, under his disadvantages. There were then no grammars, 
 no lexicons, no commentaries, extant to guide him, unless we name 
 8* 
 
90 § 7. VULGATE VERSION. 
 
 the scanty remarks of Origen on the Hebrew a help of importance; 
 which would surely be overrating them. But he had the Rabbies 
 of Tiberias to give him instruction, among whom the Masora, if 
 not the Talmud, was already concocting. It is plain that tliey 
 possessed a good traditional knowledge of the Hebrew. 
 
 In translating Coheleth, Jerome doubtless made use of the same 
 Sept. version that has been characterized above. His translation, 
 rigidly as he professes to follow the Hebrew, has, on the whole, 
 quite as many deviations from a literal rendering as the Septua- 
 gint. E. g. the very difficult passage in 3 : 11, he renders thus : 
 " Cuncta fecit bona in tempore suo, et mundum tradidit disputa- 
 tioni eorum, ut not inveniat homo opus quod, etc." How he dis- 
 posed of csbs , to make disputationi eorum of it, one cannot well 
 see. Rather better has he hit the spirit of 5 : 8 : " Et insuper 
 universae terrae rex imperat servienti ;" still, it is scarcely pos- 
 sible here to show how he disposed of the original Hebrew 
 M^ords, in order to make out such a version. The disputed 3:21, 
 &<'ir| nbi'rt etc., he renders interrogatively : " Quis novit si spiritus, 
 etc. ;" as also the Sept. does. The controverted 8 : 10 he renders : 
 '' Vidi impios sepultos, qui etiam cum adhuc viverent, in loco 
 sancto erant, et laudabantur in civitate quasi justorum operum." 
 Nothing is plainer, than than he did not understand the Hebrew 
 here ; or, at all events it is clear, that he has not given us a pic- 
 ture which nearly resembles the original. The very difficult 12 : 
 11, he has, by the aid of the Sept., hit much nearer : " Verba sapi- 
 entium sicut stimuli, et quasi clavi in altum defixi, quae per 
 magistrorum consilium data sunt a pastore uno." 
 
 In general, as we might expect, Jerome follows closely the 
 Hebrew, and shows himself to be familiar with the idiom of the 
 book. But where one comes to a serious critical difficulty, 
 which nothing but a nicer knowledge oi formal grammar and of 
 syntax will solve, he may usually expect to find Jerome halting. 
 About the same dependence can be placed on him, as on the Sept. ; 
 and neither of them will satisfy, in all respects, the present de- 
 mands of criticism. But still, at all events, the Vulgate is well 
 worth consulting. We see in it the actual acquisitions of a Chris- 
 tian father in the Hebrew ; and it is well worthy of attention, as 
 the product of the only real and thorough Hebrew scholar among 
 all the Christian fathers. 
 
§ 7. THE SYRIAC VERSION. 91 
 
 (III.) The Syriac Version, or Pesiiito. This is, in respect 
 to time, the next after that of the Septuagint. This was doubtless 
 made directly from the Hebrew, because this language was more 
 easily understood by a Syrian, than the Greek. Jerome api)ears 
 to have had no knowledge of this version ; although he might have 
 been aided by it in a number of respects. But there is no good 
 evidence that he drew from it. In some cases, where Jerome has 
 a peculiar rendering, the like may be found in the vSyriac ; which 
 looks as if the former drew from the latter. But here again we 
 may without much difficulty suppose, if possible, that Jerome of 
 himself hit upon the same mode of j)araphrasing a difficult pas- 
 sage, which the Syriac translator had adopted. 
 
 That the Syriac Pesiiito was made in the second century, 
 seems highly probable, from the recent investigations of the sub- 
 ject which have been made. The name itself d-^^AJk-iS Pesldto) 
 signifies simple ; and it seems plainly to have been given to the 
 translation as a simple and literal version, in opposition to, and 
 distinction from, all paraphrastic and allegorical versions, for 
 example such as the Targum below. Ephrem Syrus (flour. 350), 
 who wrote Commentaries in Syriac during the fourth century, 
 speaks of the Peshito as being our translation, (Poc. ad Joelem, 
 fol. 2) : and he undertakes to explain a number of Syriac words 
 in the version as being already antiquated, and unknown to com- 
 mon readers. Tradition among the Syrians goes back even to the 
 apostle Thaddeus and king Abgarus of Edessa, as causing the 
 translation to be made ; (Wiseman, Hor. Syr. p. 103). It is not 
 contented even with this, but assigns the translation of a part of 
 the 0. Test, to the age of Hiram, king of Tyre, who, as it says, 
 requested and obtained a translation of some books from Solomon ; 
 (Wisem. ut sup. p. 97). At all events, considering how early 
 Christianity was introduced into Syria, and how learning flour- 
 ished at Edessa, we shall not be in danger of erring much, if we 
 assign the version before us to the second century, and perhaps 
 even to the middle or earlier half of it. 
 
 Be this, however, as it may, nothing is more plain and certain, 
 than that the translation was made directly from the Hebrew. 
 Jews in great numbers, who had been driven out of Palestine, 
 had emigrated to Syria, and lived there, at the period in question. 
 A Christian Jew was the probable author of the translation ; for 
 
92 § 7. THE ARABIC VERSION. 
 
 the manner of handling the Messianic passages shows clearly his 
 Cliristian predilections. Whatever resemblances may be found 
 in it, to some peculiarities of the Sept., it is plain that they come 
 from later interpolations, made with the design of conforming it to 
 the Septuagint. 
 
 The following testimony of Ilavernick respecting this version 
 seems to me to be quite correct : " Among all the known ancient 
 versions, no one attaches itself so faithfully to the original as the 
 Peshilo. Usually, it gives the sense of the ground-text very hap- 
 pily ; and even where it indulges in explanation, it limits itself 
 merely to what is necessary, and shuns all paraphrastic prolixity," 
 (Einl. s. 05). The translator, (doubtless of Jewish origin), stood 
 in the same relation to the Hebrew, as did the Sept. translators. 
 But the former had one advantage over the latter, viz. that the 
 idiom into which he translated was altogether a twin sister of the 
 Hebrew, while the Greek was sufficiently remote from it. Hence 
 the Syriac translator could give, and has given, a more exact pic- 
 ture of the Hebrew, than the Sept. presents. The chief reason 
 why appeal has not oftener been made to it in O. Test, commen- 
 taries, seems to have been a want of familiarity with it, and a 
 want of knowledge as to its real worth. 
 
 (IV.) The Arabic Version, which appears in Walton's Poly- 
 glot, was partly made from the original Hebrew, and partly, as it 
 would seem, from the Septuagint. So far as it respects Coheleth, 
 it is by no means an unskilful version. It keeps close to the text, 
 and indulges in no prolix or conjectural explanations, like to 
 those of the Targum and the Midrashic commentaries. But the 
 difficulty of reading it, and indeed of getting access to it, is such, 
 that but little use has hitherto been made of it. When and hy whom 
 it was made, is unknown. So much seems probable, viz. that it 
 was made by an Arabian Jew, who was probably a Christian. 
 
 (V.) The Targum. Not long before the Christian era com- 
 menced, most of the Hebrew Scriptures were translated into the 
 Ghaldee language, for the use of those who could not readily under- 
 stand the original Hebrew. After the return from the Babylonish 
 exile, the Jewish people in general spoke the Chaidee, which they 
 had learned during the long period of their captivity. The Penta- 
 teuch was translated into this language by Onkelos : the historical 
 and prophetical books by Jonathan ben Uzziel, who probably pre- 
 
§ 7. CHALDKE TAKGUM. 93 
 
 ceded Oiikelos in respect to time ; and here the work of transla- 
 tion, for a considerable period, ceased. At a later period, the 
 books of Job, Psalms, and Proverbs: and finally, with the excep- 
 tion of Ezra, Nehemiah, and Daniel, all the rest of the Ilaijioor- 
 rai)hy were translated, or j)arai)hrased into Chaldee. Ezra and 
 Nehemiah were anciently counted as one book ; and since a part 
 of this composite book and nearly half of Daniel were originally 
 written in CItaldee, no attempt has ever been made, so far as I 
 know, to give the whole book a Clialdee translation. 
 
 The book of Kutli, Cant., and Ecc, were translated, as it would 
 seem, last of all ; but exactly when, or hy whom, is not known. 
 Since, however, in Cant., the Targums and probably the Moham- 
 medans are mentioned, (Cant. 1: 2. 5: 11 — 1:7), it would seem 
 that the version of the three books last named was post-lalmudic. 
 
 The internal evidence of late composition is made out, (1) From 
 the kind of idiom (Chaldaeo-Rabbinic) which pervades them. 
 (2) From the fashion of the commentary (as it might be called), 
 or paraphrase, which shows that the Midrash (-"'^'l -) or allegorical 
 commentary had already been fully adopted ; (see Buxt. Lex. 
 Cliald. on the word). As we have scarcely any specimen of this 
 kind of paraphrase or commentary which is accessible in English 
 books, and as it is a matter of some interest that every Hebrew 
 student should know what kind of a version or commentary he 
 will tind in a work written after the manner of a Jlidrash, I shall 
 here lay before him a specimen, (rather a prominent one), from 
 the Targum on Ecc. ii. The large type represents a close transla- 
 tion of the original Hebrew ; that which follows, in each case, in 
 smaller letters, gives the Targum, which is as literally translated 
 as the two idioms will bear. 
 
 Ecc. II. 
 
 (1) I said in my heart: Come, now, let me try thee with 
 pleasure, and do thou enjoy good ; and lo ! even this is vanity. 
 
 I said in my heart: Come liitlier now. and I will try tlico witli jjloasiire; 
 and when distr'^ss and aflhciion came upon me, 1 said, hy his word, Lo ! this 
 also is vanity. 
 
 (2) In respect to laughter, I said : Madness ! And in respect to 
 pleasure : What avails it ? 
 
 In respect to laughter, I said, in a season of distress : It is mockery ! And 
 in respect to pleasure : Of what use is it to tic man vho f'roturcs it ? 
 
94 § 7. ECC. II. WITH TARGUM. 
 
 (3) I sought in my mind to draw my flesh by wine, and my 
 mind continued to guide with sagacity ; and also to lay hold 
 ujwn folly ; until I should see what is good for the sons of men, 
 which they should do during the number of the days of their 
 lives. 
 
 I sought in my mind to protract in the hanqucting-honse of Avinc my flesh, 
 and my heart guided with wisdom; and also to h\y l)old on tlie folly of the 
 young, until I should try and see what there is of them which is good for the 
 sons of men, which they may procure while they abide in this world under 
 heaven, during the number of the days of their lives. 
 
 (4) I engaged in great undertakings ; I built for myself houses, 
 and planted for myself vineyards. 
 
 I multiplied goodly works in Jerusalem ; I built for myself houses : the 
 house of the sanctuary to make atonement for Israel ; and the house of re- 
 freshment for the king ; the council-chamber, and the porch, and the liouse 
 of judgment with hewn stones, Avhere the wise men sat who exercised judg- 
 ment ; I made a throne of ivory for the seat of royalty ; I made plantations 
 for myself in Jabne for the sake of grape-vines, that we might drink wine, 
 myself and the masters of the Sanhedrim, and also make libations of wine 
 new and old upon the altar. 
 
 (o) I made for myself gardens and pleasure-grounds ; and I 
 planted in them fruit-trees of every kind. 
 
 I made for myself watered gardens and pleasure-grounds ; and I sowed 
 there all kinds of herbs, some of them for the use of food, and some of them 
 for the use of drink, and some of them for a medicinal use, every kind of aro- 
 matic herb; 1 planted in them sterile trees, and all kinds of aromatic trees 
 which the sprites and demons brought to me from India, and every kind of 
 tree which produces fruit: and its boundary was, from the wall of the city 
 which is in Jerusalem to the margin of the waters of Siloah. 
 
 (6) I made for myself pools of water, for watering from them 
 the forest shooting up trees. 
 
 I sought out a receptacle of water, such as is needful to water trees and 
 herbs ; and I made for myself pools of water, from them also to water the 
 grove producing wood. 
 
 (7) I procured servants and handmaids, and those born in the 
 house belonged to me ; much property also in flocks and herds 
 belonged to me, more than to all who were in Jerusalem be- 
 fore me. 
 
§ 7. ECC. II. WITH TARGUM. 95 
 
 I procured servants and handmaids, who were of tlic chihlrcn of Ham and 
 other foreign nations; and stewards. apjjointcd over the feeding of my house- 
 hold, l)elongcd to me, for the nouri>hing of me and the men of my house, 
 twelve months of the year; and one for nourishing nic during tlie inter- 
 calary month ; moreover, I possessed cattle and sheep, more than all the 
 dwellers who were before me in Jerusalem. 
 
 (8) I hca})e(l up for myself silver and gold, and the treasures 
 of kings and i)rovinces ; I i)rocured for myself singing-men and 
 singing-women, and the delight of the sons of men, a wife and 
 wives. 
 
 I heaped up for myself treasures of silver and fine gold, that I might make 
 the wi-ights and balances of justice out of pure gold ; and the treasures of 
 kings and provinces were given to me for tribute ; 1 made in the house of the 
 sanctuary instruments of music, that the Levites might make music with 
 them, while presenting oblations ; and harps and pipes, that the singing men 
 and women might make music with them in the banquet-house ; and the 
 delights of the sons of men, warm baths and baths, with tubes which poured 
 forth tepid water, and pii)cs which poured forth hot water. 
 
 (9) And I waxed great and increased more than all who were 
 before me in Jerusalem ; my wisdom also continued with me. 
 
 And I increased goods and added riches, above all the dwellers who were 
 belbre me in Jerusalem ; my wisdom, however, remained with me and 
 helped me. 
 
 (10) And all which my eyes sought for, I withheld not from 
 them ; I kept not back my heart from any joy ; for my heart 
 was cheered by all my toil, and this was my portion of all my 
 toil. 
 
 And as to all which the masters of the Sanhedrim requested of me, in re- 
 spect to purifying and polluting, to justifying and condemning — I kept not 
 back from the exi)lanation of things, I restrained not my heart from every 
 joy of the Law ; for I had an inclination of heart to rejoice in the wisdom, 
 which had been given to me from God more than to all other men; and I 
 rejoiced, and this was the gooiUy portion which was assigned to me, to leceive 
 on account of it a perfect reward in the world to come for all my toil. 
 
 (11) Then I turned towards all the works which my hands 
 had performed, and towards the toil whicii I had labored to 
 accomplish, and lo I all was vanity and fruitless ettbrt, and there 
 is no profit under the sim. 
 
 Then I considered all the works which my hands had accomplished, and 
 
96 § 7. Ecc. ir. with targum. 
 
 the toil wliich I liad labored to accomplish ; and lo ! all was vanity and 
 crushing of spirit; for there is no profit in them under the sun, in this world^ 
 but there is a perfect reward for good works in the world to come. 
 
 (12) Then I turned to contemplate wisdom, even madness 
 and folly ; for what shall the man [do], who comes after the 
 king ? Even that wliich he did long ago. 
 
 Then I gave attention in order to see wisdom, and the commotions of the 
 kingdom, and understanding; for of what use is it to a man to make suppli- 
 cation after tlie decree of the king, and after retribution? See! long ago 
 was the decision made respecting him, and it was done for him. 
 
 (13) I saw, moreover, that there is a preference of wisdom 
 over folly, like the preference of light over darkness. 
 
 I saw, moreover, by the spirit of prophecy, that there is a preference of 
 wisdom over folly, more than the preference of the light of day over the dark- 
 ness of the night. 
 
 (14) The eyes of the wise man are in his head, but the fool 
 walketh in darkness ; yet still I know, even I, that one destiny- 
 awaits them all. 
 
 The wise man sees in the beginning what will come to pass at the end ; 
 and he prays and averts the decree of evil from the world ; but the fool walk- 
 eth in darkness ; and I also know, even I, that if the wise man does not pray, 
 and avert the decree of evil from the world, when retribution shall come 
 upon the world, one destiny shall overtake all of them. 
 
 (15) Then I said in my heart: As is the destiny of the fool, 
 so also will it happen to myself; and why then should I be over- 
 much wise ? Then said I in my heart : This also is vanity. 
 
 Then I said in my heart, as the destiny of Saul the son of Kish. (the king 
 who perversely revolted, and kept not the command which he had received 
 concerning Amalek, and the kingdom was t;iken from him), so will it happen 
 to me, and wliy then am I thus wise more than he 1 Then I said in my 
 heart, that this truly is vanity, and there is nothing excei)t the decree of the 
 word of Jehovah. 
 
 (16) For to the wise man, with the fool, there is no remem- 
 brance forever ; because that long ago, (in days which are to 
 come), every one will have been forgotten. And — how dieth 
 the wise man like the fool ! 
 
 For there is no remembrance to the wise, with the fool, in the world to 
 
§ 7. ECC. II. AVITII TARGUM. 97 
 
 come; and after the death of a man, tliat whicli was lon^^ a;:o in liis lime, 
 (when tlic days sliall eomc which will he after him), even all will he discov- 
 ered. Then why do the sons of men say, that the end of the righteous is 
 like the end of the wicked .' 
 
 (17) Tiien I luited life ; for the deed? that are done under the 
 sun were odious to nie ; for all is vanity and wortldess eHort. 
 
 Then I hated all of saddetiing life, hecause evil is njion me, even the evil 
 work which is done against the sons of men under heaven, in this world; 
 because all is vanity and crushing of spirit. 
 
 (18) Yea, I liated all the toil which I had performed under 
 the sun, because I must leave it to the man who sliall come after 
 me. 
 
 Yea. I liatcd all the toil which I had performed under the sun. in thi? 
 world, because I nnist leave it to KehoI)oani, my son, who will come after 
 me; and Jeroboam, his servant will come, and will take out of his hands the 
 ten tribes, and possess half of the kingdom. 
 
 (19) And who knoweth whether he will be a wise man or a 
 fool ? And yet he will have power over all my toil which I have 
 performed, and on which I have exercised my sagacity under the 
 sun. This too is vanity. 
 
 And who knoweth whether he will be a wise man or a fool, viz. the king 
 who will come after me? And yet he will have power over all the toil that 
 I have performed in this world, and over all which I have acquired by my 
 sagacity under the sun. in this world. And I was confounded in my mind, 
 and I said again : This too is vanity. 
 
 (20) Then T turned to make my heart despair in respect to all 
 the toil whicli I liad })ertbrmed under the sun. 
 
 Then I turned to make my heart despair respecting the toil to acquire, 
 which I had performed under the sun; and because that I had been saga- 
 cious to make preparation under the sun, in tliis world. 
 
 (21) For there is a man, who has toiled with sagacity, and 
 with intelligence, and with dexterity, and to a man who has 
 never toiled for it must he leave his })ortion: This too is vanity, 
 and a sore evil. 
 
 For there is a man, who has toiled with wisdom, and with intelligence, and 
 with justice, and he dicth without children ; and to the man who has not toiled 
 for it, must he give it to be his portion : This is vanity and a great evil. 
 
 9 
 
98 § 7. ECC. II. WITH TARGUM. 
 
 (22) For what is there for a man in all his toil and strenuous 
 efforts of his heart, which he has performed under the sun ? 
 
 For what is there useful to a man, as to his toil and the worryinj^ of his 
 heart, which he has toiled for under the sun, in the piesent world ? 
 
 (23) For all his days are grievous, and his employment har- 
 assing ; even by night his heart is not quiet. 
 
 For all his days are grievou^!, and his business makes velicmcnt his indig- 
 nation; even by night he sleeps not because of the solicitude of his heart. 
 Truly this is vanity ! 
 
 (24) There is nothing better for a man, than that he should 
 eat and drink, and enjoy good in his toil ; even this I have seen 
 to be from the hand of God. 
 
 There is nothing which is comely for man, except that he eat and drink 
 and make his soul to enjoy good before the sons of men, that he may perform 
 the commandments, and walk in the ways which are right before him, that it 
 may be well with him on account of his toil; yea, this have I seen, that when 
 a man prospers in this world, it is from the hand of God that this is decreed 
 to be unto him. 
 
 (25) For who can eat, and who can enjoy himself more than I ? 
 
 For who is he that will bestow laI)or on the matters of the Law, and who 
 is the man that has solicitude concerning the great day of judgment which is 
 to come, more than 1 1 
 
 (2G) For to the man who is well-pleasing in his sight, hath 
 he o-iven sagacity, intelligence, and enjoyment ; but to the sinner 
 hath he given the task of gathering and amassing, that it may be 
 given to him who is well-pleasing in the sight of God. This is 
 vanity and fruitless effort. 
 
 But to the man whose works are ujiright before Jehovah, hath he given 
 ■wisdom and knowledge in this world, and joy with the righteous in the world 
 which is to come; but to the man who is a sinner hath he given a grievous 
 task, to amass riches, and to heap up many posse-^sions, that they may be 
 taken from him, and given to the man who is well-pleasing in the sight of 
 God ; surely this is vanity to the sinner and a crushmg of his spirit ! 
 
 From even a slight comparison of the Talmudic version with 
 the original Heb., it is evident that the translator meant to act 
 the paraphrast or commentator, as well as the Targumist. Most 
 of the additions consist of minute specifications of particulars, e. g. 
 
§ 7. Ecc. ir. M'lTii TARGUM. 99 
 
 as in V. 4, the siini)le word c^na, Iiouses, and again in v. 5 the 
 words gardens and pleasure-grounds^ are expanded into long 
 detail derived from history or tradition. Besides this, many 
 clauses are added throughout, for tlie sake of ex})lanation, and 
 sometimes to guard the reader against assigning to a word or a 
 phrase a wrong sense. Thus, after the declaration of the text in 
 V. 11, that there is no profit under the sun, the Targumist adds: 
 But there is a perfect reicard for my worls in the world to come. 
 This is a s[)ecimen of the Jlbieinexegesiren or interpreting into 
 the text, rather than showing what the text of itself means. 
 But tliis is not a practice limited to the Rabbins ; for it has come 
 down to the present hour, and is exhibited in all our homiletic 
 commentaries. Where the matter thus added is good and true, 
 there is no special objection to it in this species of commentary, 
 provided the writers do not claim for their additions the same 
 authority which the original text has. But this is too often the case. 
 
 One feature of the proper Midrash is wanting in this Targum. 
 "What I mean is, that it does not launch forth into tlie great abyss 
 of vjtovnia, i. e. an under ov secondary, occult, figurative, and sym- 
 holic meaning. We find a leaning towards this, as to some of the 
 dilucidating particulars ; e. g. when, in v. 5, the Targumist men- 
 tions " the aromatic trees which the sprites and demons brought 
 to Solomon from India." Bordering on this will be found the 
 pregnant meaning assigned to the simple text in vs. 15, 18. The 
 translator anxiously watches over every expression which might 
 seem to be at vjiriance with orthodoxy. E. g. where (v. 14) Cohe- 
 leth declares that one " and tlie same destiny awaits all men," 
 both wise and foolish, the Targumist adds, that this will happen, 
 provided the wise man does not pray, and avert the decreed evil 
 from the world when the retribution shall come ; a condition and 
 mode of escape not provided for by the original autlior. 
 
 Among other things, the writer (as usual among the Rabbins) 
 betrays his ignorance of historical geograpliy. He represents (v. 4) 
 Solomon as planting vineyards in Jahneh, a place on the INIediter- 
 ranean sea belonging to the Philistines, until some 200 years later 
 than Solomon's time, and taken from tlicm by U/ziah about 800 
 B. C. But this is in good keeping with Rabbinic geography. 
 
 Diffuse as this Targumist is, on the chapter before us, it is 
 nothing in comparison with what he has written on Canticles- 
 
100 § 8. MODERN VERSIONS. 
 
 There, as Jerome says of Origen, he has sailed cum pleno velo. 
 On the words Song of Songs he has a full octavo page, giving an 
 account of nine other Songs mentioned in the Scriptures. It is 
 easy to see, what latitude a writer of his MidrasMc spirit would 
 take, in paraphrasing such a work as the Canticles. But even 
 here again, he has his rivals in modern as well as ancient days. 
 
 The Targumist rarely betrays an ignorance of the Heb. text. 
 Yet in a few cases, he seems to have been in total darkness ; e. g. 
 in V. 8, ni'n'r) irrnr , wife and wives, which he renders, warm baths 
 atid baths with siphoyisfor tepid and hot water ; wdiich is hardly 
 less ridiculous, however, than many other ancient and modern 
 translations of the clause. The Sept. version has some more 
 resemblance to a possible meaning of the Heb. original, viz. 
 oivoxoov 'Aul oivoioag, i. e. a butler and female butlers ; deriving 
 n^'J from riTi , to pour out ; for reading the text without vowels, 
 they read the word nTd without a Daghesh in "n. Jerome has 
 another guess, viz. scyphos et urceos, glasses and pitchers. The 
 Syriac and Arabic follow in the track of the Septuagint. It is 
 but a short time, indeed, since the words in question were con- 
 sidered as presenting a problem not to be solved. Hitzig has 
 made them quite plain. 
 
 Mixed, however, with a few guesses of a similar character scat- 
 tered here and there, are many spirited renderings of the Heb., in 
 cases where translation is not an easy task. If any one wishes 
 to learn the genius of the later Jewish Targums, this on Coheleth 
 may be recommended to him, as affording a fair specimen. It is 
 easy to be read, with the aid given by the London Polyglott, pro- 
 vided the reader is somewhat versed in the Chaldee dialect. The 
 idiom is thoroughly Chaldaeo-Rabbinic. 
 
 § 8. Modern Versions. 
 
 Among the Latin ones, Arias Montanus, the literalist, whose 
 version is mixed with the Hebrew, in tlie London Polyglott, may 
 sometimes be of service to the learner. Among the best older 
 versions is that of Junius and Tremellius. Dathe's, more recent, 
 has some good qualities ; and so has the version of I. F. Schel- 
 ling, 180G. 
 
 Amonof the German versions, that of Knobel and of De Wette 
 
§ 9. COMMENTATOIIS. 101 
 
 are entitled to special preeminence ; both of them made from a 
 familiar acJiiiaiiitaiice with the Hebrew. Ilitzig and lleiligstedt, 
 in their conmientaries, have translated the greater portion of the 
 book, although in a fragmentary manner. In both will be found 
 some happy expressions of the spirit of the original ; but most of 
 all in Ilitzig. The last-named writer possesses a knowledge of 
 the Hebrew which seems to me quite rare, notwithstanding the 
 many tine Hebrew scholars which Germany atlbrds. De Wette, 
 whose knowledge was of the highest cast, does not appear ever 
 to have given himself very seriously to the study of Coheleth. 
 Hence his somewhat barren chapter on this book, in his Einlei- 
 tung, § 282 seq. ; and hence he was less fitted to render Coheleth 
 with the best skill, than either Knobel or Hitzig. 
 
 1 know of no English version, lately made, which has any 
 special claim on our attention. Our common English version is 
 substantially good ; but there are passages in Coheleth, which 
 were beyond the critical reach and power of the translators, at 
 the period wdien it was made. I would fain hope that the ver- 
 sion given below, will more accurately represent the original text, 
 and specially in difficult passages. 
 
 § 9. Commentators. 
 
 I deem it useless to aim at making a universal list of them. 
 My design extends only to commentaries critical for the most 
 part ; and even of these I shall mention only a few, because, in 
 the present state of Hebrew studies, only a few are worthy of 
 particular consideration and study by him, who is in pursuit of 
 critical knowledge. 
 
 I. Ancient Commentators. 
 
 (1) Gregorii Thaumaturgi Metaphrasis in Ecc Salom. in 
 Greg. Nazianz 0pp. I, p. 749 seq. Par. 1G09. 
 
 (2) Gregorii Nysseni Accurata in Ecc.^ Narratio, Tom. I, p. 
 373seq.ed, Par. 1615. 
 
 (3) Olympiodori in Ecc. Comm. in Biblioth. patr. max. Tom. 
 XVIII, p. 480, seq. 
 
 (4) Oecumenii Catena in Ecc. 1532. 
 
 (5) Hieronymi Comm. in Ecc. 0pp. Tom. II.. 
 
 9* 
 
102 § 9. COMMENTATORS. 
 
 These, with the exception of Jerome, must not be read with 
 the expectation of much critical aid. In the main, it is more a 
 matter of curiosity than of usefulness to spend time upon them. 
 
 11. Older Protestant Commentators. 
 
 (6) Lutheri Ecc. Salomonis, 0pp. Tom. Ill, 1532. 
 
 (7) Merceri Comm. in Job.; Ecc. etc. 1651. 
 
 (8) Grotii Annott. in V. Test. Opp. 
 
 (9) Rambachii Notae Uberiores in J. H. Michaelis's edit, of 
 his Annott. Uberiores in Hagiographos, 1729. 
 
 (10) Clerici Vet. Test. Libri. Hagiog. 1721. 
 
 (11) J. D. Michaelis Poetischer Entwurf des Predigerbuchs 
 Salomo, Getting. 1762. 
 
 (12) Doderlein Scholia in Lib. V. Test. 1784. 
 
 (13) Van der Palm, Ecclesiastes, Lug. Bat. 1784. 
 
 Here and there some good notes will be found in most of 
 these. Such men as Grotius, Mercier, and Le Clerc, seldom 
 wrote without suggesting something critically valuable. 
 
 III. Recent Commentators. 
 
 (14) Umbreit Koheleths Seelenkampf. 1818. 
 
 (15) Koheleth Scepticus de summo Bono, 1820. 
 
 (16) Kaiser Coheleth (as a curiosity). 
 
 (17) Rosenmiilleri Scholia in V. Test. 1830. 
 
 (18) Koster, das Buch. Hiob und Prediger, 1831. 
 
 (19) Knobel Comm. ijber Coheleth, 1836. 
 
 (20) Hitzig der Prediger Salomo's 1847, in Exeget. Hand- 
 buch des Alten Test. Band VII. 
 
 (21) Heiligstedt, in Maureri Comm. gramm. et crit. Vol. IV, 
 1848. 
 
 Nos. 1 9 and 20 are in reality original works, the fmit of much 
 and- deep critical investigation. Knobel led the way in this. 
 Hitzig followed, although not exactly in his steps. The work of 
 the latter comprises but little more than 100 pages ; but it is full 
 of remarks disclosing a most intimate critical acquaintance with 
 the Ileb. language ; and the author aims, more than any writer 
 to whom I have had access, to trace the connection of thought and 
 reasoning in the book, and with more success. Bating his strong 
 
§ 9. COMMENTATORS. 103 
 
 neological tendencies, his book is worthy of thorough study and 
 high regard. 
 
 The more recent work of Ileiligstedt has some good traits. 
 He pursues criticism grammatically. But his work is lacking in 
 judgment as to the course of thought in Coheleth ; and it contains 
 some striking conceits in respect to a part of the dijjicult pas- 
 sages. It is in general very perspicuous and easily understood. 
 
 In a critical point of view, Knobel and Ilitzig take the lead, 
 and are worth all the rest of the list. 
 
 Of the preaching or homiletic connnentaries, there are many ; 
 and some valuable English ones. But they do not come within 
 my present scope. The preaching pastor may consult some of 
 them to advantage on ethical subjects ; but he must not expect 
 critical and hermeneutical aid from them. A work of a high 
 critical character, on this book, is as yet a desideratum in English. 
 It was with a hope of doing something to advance a critical 
 knowledge of the book among us, that the present work has been 
 undertaken. 
 
COMMENTARY ON ECCLESIASTES. 
 
 Chap. T. 
 1. Vs. 1—11. 
 
 The londinfr and predominant dcsipn of the book is to showthe vanity of all 
 earthlji olijects. ptirmiis, anil disii/ris. The Itook begins and ends witli the solemn 
 assevonuion, that all is vanity. This principal theme is never really lost 
 sight of by the writer, whatever may be his ajij^arcnt digressions from it. 
 These, it must be confessed, apjjcar at first view to be somewhat numerous, 
 but when their connection and design arc strictly scrutinized, the number is 
 greatly reduced. Ever and anon the writer returns expressly to his leading 
 theme, by repeating the impressive declaration that all is vanity. Other objects, 
 indeed, he has in view, besides e.«tablisiiing and illustrating his main point; 
 but of these I have spoken more particularly in my account of the plan of the 
 book (§ 2), in the Introduction. Our present purpose is merely to state the 
 course of thought or argument, exhibited in this first paragraph or section of 
 the work. 
 
 First the title of the book, as usual, is given, v. 1. Next comes the general 
 proposition, which covers the whole ground of the work: Vanity of vani- 
 ties ; ALL IS VANITY. Then follows an illustration of this, by presenting 
 the following course of thought : ' Man, by all his eflbrts, can attain to no 
 stable and lasting condition of enjoyment ; for there can be no stability, where 
 one generation is constantly passing from the stage of action or enjoyment, 
 and another is coming upon it. On the other hand, the world in which he 
 lives is ever and always the same. The occurrences of the natural world all 
 take place in one established and continual round, from which there is no 
 departure or variation. The sun always rises and sets in the same manner; 
 the wind continually goes round its circuits in the same way. The rivers flow 
 into the sea without filling it, and always are fiowing back again to the source 
 whence they originated. Language would fail to describe all of the like 
 occurrences. They are so numerous, that no eye can ever be satisfied by a full 
 sight ; nor ear so filled, that no more remains to be heard. Yet in all this 
 countless variety of things there is nothing new, i. e. no betterment, no im- 
 provement, no change. Any one who thinks that any new thing occurs, will 
 find himself mistaken. There is the same unchangeable and ceaseless round 
 of things forever repeated, so that no new sources of pleasure can be hope- 
 fully looked for in this (piarter, vs. 3 — 11. 
 
106 Chap. I. 1. 
 
 From this introductory statement it appears, that the writer had in view 
 some propositions of a general nature. These consist mainly of two things ; 
 first, that man can find no abiding good in the present world, because of his 
 own frail and perishable nature ; and secondly, that he cannot secure happi- 
 ness by making any changes in the world, or in the state of things, since they 
 are fixed and immutable, and have been so ordered and arranged by a Power 
 above him. From the world without, therefore, he cannot expect to derive 
 any new source of enjoyment ; for the ceaseless round and repetition of the 
 same occurrences leave no room to hope that any change will be made from 
 the present to a better state — no room to hope that anything new can occur, to 
 add to his outwanl means of happiness. Thus he finds himself helpless and 
 hopeless, because of his own frail, mutable, and perishable condition, and 
 because the order of things without, under which sadness and suffering have 
 been and are his lot, has been rendered fixed and immutable by that Power 
 which directs and controls the universe. 
 
 Such is the general course of thought in § 1. We come now to the exami- 
 nation of particulars. 
 
 (V. 1) tnbrip *i';in'n, lit. the words of Coheleth, constitute the 
 general title of the book at large, '^'ns'n does not mean doctrines 
 or narrations specifically considered, but things said, or words in 
 a generic sense. Thus we have the words of Jeremiah (Jer. 1:1); 
 the words of Amos (1:1); and the title to the book of the Chroni- 
 cles is S'^^^ti 'I'nn'n , i. e. words in respect to the times. We might 
 well translate : sayings of Coheleth. 
 
 rqrip has the form of the Part. act. fern, in Kal. Knobel 
 (Comm. p. 8) asserts that ^^ concrete nouns are converted into 
 abstract ones, by appending a fem. ending." This he represents 
 as a universal principle ; and therefore he extends it to the Part, 
 pres. as well as to other classes of words. According to this rule, 
 then, ri^fip must of course here mean preaching ; and the abstract 
 being put for the concrete, (which indeed is, in itself, a thing very 
 common), he thus makes out the signification ^:)rea<7/?^r. So Gese- 
 nius, in his Thesaurus. But the application of this principle to the 
 Part. pres. is not so easily to be made out. Of the five examples 
 of a fem. ending which designates an abstract meaning, as pro- 
 duced by Knobel, all but one come from masc. adjectives ; as, e. g. 
 nb^s; folly, from h^^ foolish, etc. t^^;:!;^ is the only Part. pres. 
 form to which he adverts ; but even this does not prove the point 
 in question, for in Ex. 26 : 4, 10, where it is employed, its mean- 
 ing is socia and not the abstract conjunctio. Possibly, however, 
 nn^in abomination, (which is a frequent word), and ntn in Is. 28 : 
 
CiiAr. I. 1. 107 
 
 lo==n!iTn in V. 18, may support the allegation before us in a 
 modified shape, viz. that sometimes the aetive Part. fem. has an 
 abstract meaning. Beyond this we eannot safely go ; for sueh 
 occurrences are very rare. But leaving this view of the word as 
 doubtfully established in such a way, we may illustrate it more 
 satisfactorily by another view. The Hebrews were accustomed, 
 in some cases, to designate men by the fem. name of the office 
 which they held ; e. g. nnQ jwaefect, Neh. 5:18. 12 : 2G. Mai. 1: 
 8 al. ; r:3 colleague, Ez. 4: 7, (frequent in Chald.), r-iEO scribe, 
 prop, name in Ez. 2 : bb. Neh. 7 : 57, and so r"i=2, Ez. 2 : 57. 
 Neh. 7 : 59. Such a usage in Arabic is very frequent; as rs'^bn 
 Caliph, r;5^?n Creator, and so (in fern, forms) advanced age for 
 old man, story for sforg-teller, care for curator, service for slave, 
 and the like. In some words, both the mase. and fem. forms are 
 employed in the same sense, as Aga and Agath, signifying de- 
 fender, reprover, etc. The general principle receives confirmation 
 from other languages. Homer calls Oceanus {^tdSv ytveaig, II. 
 xiv. 201. 302. Euripides puts uyt^iovtvuu {government) for ijyeftcov 
 governor, Phoen. 1492 ; and vv^qiavfia (espousal) for vv^cfr^ bride, 
 Troad. 435. So in all the modern languages of Europe, we find 
 such words as majesty, excellency, Jnghness, honor, grace, magnifi- 
 cence, (all feminines and abstracts), designating persons of a par- 
 ticular rank or office. Even we republicans call our governor His 
 Excellency. It need not, and should not, seem strange to us, then, 
 when we find the word rbrip employed to designate preacher. 
 
 But what means preacher ? The root or stem-word, bnp , means 
 io assemble, to summon together; but it is spoken only in reference to 
 persons. Mostly, it designates summoning them together for 
 religious purposes ; and the assembly thus brought together, is 
 called bn;^ , and the discourse nbn;?. Ilitzig says (Comm. P^cc.l: 
 1), that " r'^ji;;:' cannot possibly mean preaching in the abstract ;" 
 to which (omitting the word possibly) 1 should fully assent. But 
 preaching as an act it may mean, by a little defiection from its 
 ordinary sense. Tlie Latin concionatrix, by which it has often 
 been translated, and the barliaious Greek -wovd ty.y.).i,(7id(77(}ia, in 
 the Venet. Grace, are attempts to give the exact shade of the lite- 
 ral meaning; and in theory they are correct tran>lations. Those 
 who thus translate, however, refer the word (as fem.) to wisdom 
 as the preacher. Tliat the discourse in the present case (^"-"n) is 
 
108 Chap. I. 1. 
 
 not like a modeT'n sermon, is sufficiently plain. Equally plain is it, 
 that what is said is not supposed to be addressed to a mass of men 
 assembled. Nearly always the person addressed is of the singular 
 number; e. g. " Keep tJiy foot, when thou goest to the house of God," 
 " Rejoice, O young man, in thy youth, etc." But still, as the book 
 is designed for general reading, and the writer often warns, 
 reproves, and instructs, he might not unaptly call \\imse\^ preacher. 
 So far as Solomon is concerned, we know only of one occasion 
 on which he addressed the great bn;^ , viz. at the dedication of the 
 temple, 2 Chron. 6 : 1 seq. His proverbs, and songs, and botanical 
 and zoological treatises, are mentioned in 2 K. 4 : 30 seq. ; but 
 nothing is said of his preaching. The name, Thr^p, was not 
 given subsequently to the author because of his writing the book 
 so called, but he had the name already when the book was begin- 
 ning to be written, Ecc. 1:1. If Solomon himself wrote the book, 
 w^e can hardly make out a reason why he should style himself 
 Coheleth ; but if, (as seems to be nearly certain), it was w^ritten 
 at a later period, (see § 5. Introd.), and Solomon's views and feel- 
 ings were presented by the writer to the consideration of the 
 reader, it w^as natural enough for the writer to call him Coheleth, 
 in reference to what he had uttered. At any rate, the Sept. 
 Greek i-AyXtjaiaaTrig, Jerome's Latin Concionator, Luther's Pred- 
 iger, as well as our English Preacher, are generally acquiesced 
 in, at present, as the appropriate meaning of the word. That the 
 meaning is masc, is clear from the fact, that in all cases the masc. 
 verb is associated with it ; for 7 : 27, nbn'p n^ix is no exception, 
 since it should be read Thr\pT\ Tcx , as it is in 12 : 8. That Cohe- 
 leth himself is represented as a king, is clear from 1 : 12. 
 
 The various, and some of them even whimsical, meanings 
 given by many to this word, need not be formally discussed and 
 refuted. Such is collector, viz. of sayings and maxims ; whereas 
 htrp means only to collect men. Then we have assejnhly, academy, 
 i. e. a literary consessus ; which meaning is defended by men of 
 name, as Diklerlein, Paulus, Bauer, Bertholdt, Hartmann, and 
 others. But 1 : 12 decides this matter; for according to this 
 exposition, Solomon is made gravely to address his consessus, by 
 saying : " I, O Academy, w^as king in Jerusalem." Did tliey 
 need to be told this? And then, icas king — when? Solomon 
 was kins to the end of his life, and could never tell them he was 
 
CiiAi'. L 1. 109 
 
 once Iving, which woiihl iin{)ly of course tliat lie is now no longer 
 so. Next comes senex, the old man, from the corresponding Ara- 
 bic verb which, among other things, signifies to f/row ynnj. But 
 why go to the Arabic in this case ; above all, why go there, when 
 we can find in senex nothing specially appropriate to the book ? 
 Once more, from the Arabic bn;?, in the sense of exaruil cutiSf 
 is the word derived, and so Coheleth means t/te penitent, who 
 becomes withered in skin by doing penance ! Zirkel and others 
 assert, however, that the fern, ending is given by Solomon to 
 Coheleth, in order that it might mark gentleness and gracefulness 
 in his speech ; (like Voltaire substituted for Arouet). Others 
 say it sprung from the effeminacy of Solomon in his old age ; 
 others, that Solomon's ghost is the speaker, and that the fern, 
 ending is given, to show that ghosts have no specific gender, 
 (comp. Matt. 22 : 30). This last phantasy comes from Augusti, 
 Einl. s. 242. f. Jahn holds the r- final to be an auxesis to the 
 force of the word ; for the like is often the case in Arabic. But 
 such an uvhiaig, if admitted, would strictly mean preaching much, 
 not preeminent preacher. — But enough. We have no need of 
 gaessing, in the present case. That Coheleth means one who 
 addresses serious discourse to his hearers, or rather to his readers, 
 is sufficiently plain. This too is in accordance with the nature of 
 the book, and with the character of the author ; and we may 
 therefore acquiesce in it. Happily, we are not often called upon, 
 at the present time, to notice and contend against such })hantasie3 
 as have just been brought to view. Their existence shows how 
 unsafe and adventurous it is, to forsake the simple principle of 
 grammatico-historical intcrjjretation. 
 
 Son of David \\o\\V\ not particularize enough for the writer's 
 purpose, for David had many sons. Therefore he adds : Kitig in 
 Jerusalem ; which words belong to David's son, and not to him, 
 for they are epexegetical of Son of David. But why King in 
 Jerusalem ? Solomon himself, if he wrote the book, would natu- 
 rally say : King (f Israel. But in after times, when there were 
 kings over the ten tribes of Israel, who were of a separate race, 
 and had a diflTerent capital (Samaria), it would be natural to 
 speak of a Ileb. king either as belonging to Jerusalem, or else to 
 Samaria, in order to distinguish accnratrly. That the writer of 
 the book has here spoken in the usual manner which prevailed at 
 10 
 
110 Chap. I. 2. 
 
 a period later than that of Solomon, seems plain. And as only 
 one of David's sons ever reigned at Jerusalem, Solomon is of 
 course meant here. 
 
 (2) Vanity of vanities, saith the preacher, vanity of vanities ! iVU is vanity. 
 
 Here the main subject of the book is at once announced. Van- 
 ity of vanities ! An exclamation, and not a part of an ordinary 
 complete sentence. The word bnn is one of tlie older Segholates, 
 retaining its original Inf. form. In Hebrew this is rare, the com- 
 mon Segholates (such as bnn) being substituted for such forms ; 
 Heb. Gramm. § 83. 11. 10.* Like to bnn are -1x2, ^xs, etc. ; but 
 in Syr. and Chald. such forms are the usual Segholates. The 
 unusual form in Hebrew seems to be chosen here for the sake of 
 variety in diction, inasmuch as the plur. d'^bnn comes from the 
 usual bnn. The root bnn means to breathe; hence bnn breath, 
 then vapor, and lastly, in a tropical sense, nothingness^ vanity, i. e. 
 that which is altogether momentary and unsubstantial. The 
 meaning of the whole j)hrase is, most absolute or extreme vanity ; 
 see Gramm. § 117. 2. — In rbn'p n-2x we see that the noun is 
 used as a mascuUne. — The repetition of vanity of vanities gives 
 the highest intensity possible to the idea expressed. The extent 
 of its application next follows. 
 
 Vsrn must not be regarded here as = the Greek to ndv, the 
 universe, as Rosenm. and others affirm ; but it includes all the 
 eflPorts of men and all which befalls them. In other words, it 
 includes all that is done or happens under the sun, as the book 
 everywhere expresses it; see vs. 3, 9, 14. 2 : 14, 17 — 20, etc., 
 passim. Neither divine operations, nor the great objects of 
 nature, are asserted to be vanity. In respect to the work of God, 
 the author never criticizes this, nor finds it to be defective. It is 
 the doings, purposes, designs, wishes, and strivings of men, which 
 he pronounces to be vanity, because all these never secure solid 
 and permanent happiness. — The article is prefixed to ^3, be- 
 cause it comprises a universality of efforts and events, a tout ensem- 
 ble ; and so it corresi)ond8 with the Greek article before nag in a 
 like case. — ^nn for hyq , because of the pause-accent, Gramm. 
 
 * The Grammar referred to, where no title is given, is Roediger's edition of 
 Gesenius's Heb. Grammar, translated by M. Stuart. 
 
Chap. I. 3. Ill 
 
 § 20. 4. Ill this last clause the copula (n;ri) between subject 
 and predicate is, as usual in such cases, omitted ; Gr. § Ml- 
 
 (3) What profit is there to iDan by all his toil, uhich he hilioriously pcr- 
 formeth under the sun 1 
 
 Tiie (luestiou virtually contains the strongest kind of atlirina- 
 tion, that there is no profit. In other words, it challenges all 
 men to show that there is any profit. And if none, then all is 
 vanity indeed. This verse also shows the extent of the ground 
 which bir; of the preceding verse is designed to cover. — For 
 rr: followed by a Dagh. conjunctive, see Lex. it:, Note (b.) at 
 the close. — "pir";, from the root "n;;, means literally remainder^ 
 what remains, and then secondarily gain, profit. — cnxb, with 
 the article-vowel under b, § 35. B. h. Note 2 and § 35. 1. Here 
 again the article makes the word denote the whole race of men, the 
 genus humanum, like our word mankind. It is the Dat. of appur- 
 tenance ; the copula being omitted, as usual. Or we may call 
 it a case of the Gen. made by prefixing b , Gr. § 113. 2. — In 
 all his toil is a literal rendering of n"^":r-'-r2 , but the true sense of 
 S here is by, on account of, or in respect to, Lex. 2 , B. 10. The 
 usual meaning of in would hardly make an intelligible sense 
 here. — The suff. i", appended to hiiv , refers to D'lij , which is in 
 the sing, number; but as the latter noun is generic, so also must 
 the sufi'. be. 
 
 b^"^"r has the common abridged form of "rx combined with it. 
 The N of the pronoun is droj)[)ed, because of its feeble sound, and 
 the "^ assimilates to the letter which follows it, and is expressed 
 by a Dagh. forte in that letter. No book in the Ileb. Scriptures 
 makes such a use of this abridged form, or employs it with any- 
 thing of the like frequency, as Cohcleth, Early cases of its use 
 are rare, and mostly somewhat doubtful. It is found mainly in 
 Ecc, Cant., and some of the later Psalms. Its frequency is so great 
 in Cohcleth, that it even reminds one of the Rabbinic, and is one 
 of the distinctive characteristics of the peculiar diction of the 
 book. Tiie "mperf., as h'zv^ i designates continued, repeated, cus- 
 tomary action more frequently than any other tense ; Gr. § 125. 
 4, 6. The Ileb. much oftener than our own language, puts a 
 kindred noun after a verb to render the ex})ression energetic. 
 We can say 7'un a race, fight a good fight, etc., but our hmits are 
 
112 CiiAP. I. 5. 
 
 narrow as to this kind of diction. On the contrary, the Hebrew 
 extends this mode of expression very widely ; as b^v hyj , l^hn 
 •^bn , n^^ 'p^'^ , etc. To avoid saying (as the Heb. does) toiled a 
 toil, I have translated by toil wliich he laboriously performeth — 
 which is ad sensum although not ad liieram ; see Gr. § 135. n. 1. 
 Under the sun occurs only in Coheleth ; but here it is repeated 
 some twenty-five times, and constitutes a marked peculiarity of 
 the book. (See p. 11, for a list of the cases). We convey the 
 same idea by calling things sublunary = under the moon. The 
 Heb. expression is more striking than ours. Earthly or worldly 
 purposes, actions, and events are designated by assigning this 
 predicate to tliem. — d^'j for ■d'2^; , because of the pause-accent. 
 
 (4) [One] generation passeth away, and [another] generation conicth: and 
 the earth abidcth forever. 
 
 The Heb. "^i^ , without the article, is equivalent to a generation 
 or one generation. The latter is the preferable English here. — 
 tjbn is often used to designate departure, going away ; and X3 
 (Part, here) means coming in the sense of entering upon the 
 scene of action. This going and coming shows the brevity and 
 vanity of human life, for it shows that there is nothing of the 
 permanent or enduring in man. Of course this confirms the 
 preceding verse, which denies that man has any solid and lasting 
 good or reward in the present world. On the other hand, the 
 earth abideth forever. The meaning here given to n'l'ci.' (Qamets 
 before pause) is by no means unusual ; see Lex. s. v. No. 2. 
 All three of the participles here employed, are designedly used 
 to express continuance of action. The sentiment is, that the earth 
 is fixed and immutable, admitting no changes for the better, and 
 consequently no hopes of lightening human misery by such 
 changes. Man's condition in the world, and his relation to it, 
 must ever remain the same. His frailty in himself on the one 
 hand, and on the other the foreclosure against any change for 
 the better in the things without, concur to show that he can find 
 no permanent happiness here. Vs. 3 and 4 fall back upon, or 
 stand related to, the assertion in v. 2, that " all is vanity." 
 
 (5) And the sun rise'.h, and the sun sctteth, and to its phioe it hasteneth, 
 where it ariseth. 
 
 Here i<3 (verb) is employed in a sense apparently the oppo- 
 
CnAP. I. 6. 113 
 
 site of tliat in the vcr.'^o above. The simple fact is, that occasion- 
 ally the verl) ^^'z, whose usual meaning is intrare, tngredi, is also 
 employed in tiie general sense of ire, viz. to go or move forward 
 in any direction ; see Lex. Exactly to our j)uri»ose, is its mean- 
 ing in Gen. 15: 12. Perhaps (with Knobel) we may attribute 
 its use here, to an associated idea that the setting sun enters (in- 
 greditur) its subterraneous dwelling, viz. the ocean, according to 
 the view of the Hebrews. — The greater distinctive accent on 
 "iiaipq is not well placed ; for this word is intimately connected 
 with rsr:; . This last word literally means to pant, e. g. as one 
 does in consequence of running swiftly. Figuratively it is attri- 
 buted to the sun, in his race from the place of setting to that of 
 rising, in order that he may be ready to rise again, the next 
 morning. I have given in my version the real meaning which 
 the word is designed here to express, viz. hasteneth instead of 
 panteth. The imagery is vivid. The sun must make great haste 
 (which occasions pantiiig), in order to return, in a few hours, to 
 the i)lace from which it arose. In Avhat way the ancient Hebrews 
 conceived this return to be accomplished, w^hether by going round 
 the world, or under it, we are unable to say. In the Targum on 
 this verse (Gth century), it is said, that ' the sun goes round by 
 the side of the north, in the path of the abyss.' But in the Heb. 
 Scriptures I can recall no passage which seems to designate the 
 common views of the ancient Hebrew^s on this subject. It must 
 have appeared very mysterious to a thinking man among them. 
 
 Where it ariseth, or will arise. As habitual action is here im- 
 plied, the former is the preferable version. The clause is relar 
 tive, and nrx is imj)lied before nnii, and therefore modifies nd, 
 making it to mean ivhere, Gramm. § 121. 3, comp. 1. Tim present 
 tense is formed most frequently of all, in this book, by the Part, 
 pres., which has often an accompanying })n>n()un, as here x^n n"i*T. 
 
 (6) The wind gocth to the south, and turneth al)oiit to the north, turning 
 and turninrj it j^oeth. and to its circuits doth the wind return. 
 
 The IIcl». order of words we cannot well follow hci-e ; for we 
 must then translate : Jt gocfh to the south, and tiinieth altoKf to the 
 north, turning turning gueth the wind. The Part, fp-n does not 
 here indicate departure, as in v. 1, but progrediens, progressing in 
 any direction. Tarneth about, or circuiteth, im})lies a moving of 
 10* 
 
114 Chap. I. 7. 
 
 the wind through the intermediate points, from the south round 
 to the north. But why these two points rather than east and 
 west ? Evidently because the sun's rising and setting in the east 
 and west had already brought them to view, and the writer did 
 not wish to repeat the same points. There are six participles in 
 this verse, all indicative of continued successive action. — nni is 
 here employed as masc. ; and so in Ex. 10: 13. Ps. 51 : 12. 
 1 K. 19 : 11. It is fem. elsewhere, nsinn = 6 dvs(iO(;, the wind. 
 The repetition of nnio gives intensity to the description of the 
 turning, representing it as occurring in constant succession. 
 
 The wind returneth to its circuits, i. e. it turns until it reaches 
 the point from which it started, and then goes again upon the 
 like circuits. In other words, the same thing is repeated over 
 and over again continually. 
 
 (7) All the streams go to the sea, but the sea is not full: to the place 
 where the streams go, thither do they again return. 
 
 d"'bn5 is of wider meaning than rivers. It means runriing or 
 jiowing water in streams large or small. Statistically accurate 
 we need not require the writer to be ; for many brooks are lost 
 in the sand, or flow into the Jordan ; and even the Jordan itself 
 flows into the lake of Sodom. But in Hebrew, a lake is called 
 a sea. The usual fact as to the course of rivers, is enough for 
 the writer's purpose. How the rivers get back to their sources 
 again, so as to repeat the flowing into the sea, the writer does not 
 intimate ; even as before, he does not tell us how the sun gets 
 back to his place of rising. Probably underground channels 
 were supposed to exist; comp. Gen. 7 : 11, where the fountains 
 of the great deep are said to be unstopped, in order to overflow 
 the earth. The fact that rain is formed by evaporation from the 
 sea, (by which the sea parts with as much as it receives and so is 
 never full), seems hardly to have been known to the Hebrews, at 
 least in any such way as we now understand the matter ; although 
 there is something like to this in the earth-watering mist of Gen. 
 2:6. — ^2D*'^^ is the negative of the verb to be, combined with 
 tt^in, see Lex. I'^x with the remai-ks on the sufiixes. The nega- 
 tive before a def. verb would be stb ; before a Part, it is *^x. — 
 n'lp^ const, form before ^^ = "ic^. 5 Gri'* § H^. 2. The article n, 
 being a Guttural, does not admit the Dagh. forte that would 
 
Chap. I. 8. 115 
 
 normally follow 'r . — 1-" is rifrlitly connected ])y the accent ^vitii 
 the clause that follows it, and means there or (as we say in such 
 a case) thither. — c-»z*J Part., lit. returning, but it is here employ- 
 ed in the sense of agitin or repetition ; see Lex. We might lite- 
 rally translate : thither they repeat to go. For b , i. e. this prefix 
 with (.^ainets before the fern. Inf. rrb (root Tj^^), see Lex. b. The 
 other C^amets, belonging to the verb, arises from the pause, § 
 20. 4. 
 
 (8) All words grow weary, no man can utter [them] ; the eye is not satis- 
 fied with seeing, nor the ear filled ^o tliat it cannot hear. 
 
 The Part, c^rs"; belongs to an intransitive verb, and we may 
 translate grow weary or are ivearied, since ra^ is both act. and 
 passive as to its form. The language is clearly tropical, but the 
 meaning is plain, viz., that language would fail to tell the whole, 
 or to tell it would weary out language. So the clause that fol- 
 lows ; which affirms that no one can utter all the words necessary 
 to tell the whole story. The article stands before D''"i2'n , in order 
 to show that the words or descriptions in question have relation 
 to such things as are mentioned in vs. 4 — 7, = all words neces- 
 sary to relate all such things. — V=^^, the Imperf. Hoph. of bb^, 
 lit. shall he made able, is in common use for Kal, which is unem- 
 ployed in this verb. — Li nixnb the h may be rendered to, or in 
 respect to. I have adopted our more familiar phraseology — 
 satisfied witJt seeing. — Nor the ear he Jilled so that it cannot hear. 
 The ^ before the Inf. has usually a negative meaning (see Lex. 
 ',"2, 5. c), i. e. lit. it means from, away from, any thing or action, 
 and so a negation of it. But the sense of the two last clauses 
 appears, at first, to be rather obscure. They are, however, evi- 
 dently a commentary on the two preceding clauses, designed to 
 illustrate and confirm them. The eye is satisjied, only when it 
 has seen all that is to be seen. But this can never happen, for 
 the things that might be seen are at any time more than worda 
 can tell. Of course, the eye cannot be satisfied in the sense here 
 meant, becau e it can never see all. So with the ear. It can 
 never be filled, so that there is not more which might be told and 
 heard ; and, until all is told, it is not full so that no more can be 
 heard. Hence r^r"2, ita id non audiat. Both of these ctises 
 show, that the number of occurrences and events iti so great, that 
 
116 Chap. I. 9, 10. 
 
 it is beyond the power of eye or ear to see or hear of all. They 
 are, as asserted above, more than words can describe. 
 
 (9) That which was is that which shall be, and that which was done is 
 that which shall be done, and there is nothing new under the sun. 
 
 For ^;"!T2 , id quod, see Lex. T\i2 , 2. This word loses its inter- 
 rogative power, when combined (as here) with another word. — 
 n^ri , has occurred or taken place, accidit, like yivofua. — Jt'ti , in- 
 volves the copula is, and may therefore be literally translated is 
 that, or is the same ; Gr. 119. 2. — !^b"D, verb Niph. The Part, 
 of this same form would be fern., and so not accordant with the 
 masc. xin. — nb^';^ , Imperf. Niph., Gr. § 62. 4. — For -px , the 
 const, form of 'i-iij^ , see in Lex. — bs with short 6, because ojf the 
 Maqqeph. The first clause of the verse refers to things which 
 happen, the second to things which are done, i. e. the two clauses 
 include both occurrences and actions. Of these it is said : " There 
 is nothing new." 
 
 (10) Is there any thing of which one may say: See, this is new? Long 
 ago was it, in ancient times which were before us. 
 
 ^'^n , matter, thing ; as often elsewhere ; Lex. 3. — The d im- 
 plies a preposition before it, a or h , concerning or in regard to, 
 Gr. § 152. o. 'i^x^ has no subject expressed, and has therefore an 
 indef. Norn, one, any one. — i<in simply is, see Gr. § 119. 2, and 
 Lex. — ^33 , frequent in Syriac, but peculiar to Ecc. in the He- 
 brew. Hitzig has best illustrated it by the Arabic StS^ i^ 'n^S) 
 
 which means extreme old age. Knobel doubts such a meaning of 
 the Hebrew, but without good reason. At any rate, it tits the 
 passage well. — That f^^cH' often means ancient times, days of yore, 
 the Lex. will show, b before it, in such a case, is not unfrequent, 
 for this preposition is often prefixed to a word designating time. 
 Gr. 151. 3. e. — The verb n^n which follows is sing, while its 
 antecedent subject is plural. But like cases occur in respect to 
 this verb and some others ; see in Ecc. 2: 7. Gen. 35 : 26. 47 : 
 24. 1 Chron. 2:9. 3:1. Similar anomalies of t\'^'r\ in respect 
 to gender also occur; comp. Ex. 12: 49. Gen. 15: 17. Li fact, 
 then, n^n seems to be occasionally used in a kind of impersonal 
 way, so that the sing, number may be employed, even if the 
 
Chap. I. 11. 117 
 
 noun (o whifli tluj verb stands related is in tlic i)liiral. It may be, 
 too, that I'Jx (in tlie j)resent case), having a sing, form, even 
 when a jihir. is desi^rnated by it (as liere), may take after it a verb 
 of the like form. Ewald translates thus : what happens before our 
 eyes, making this clause the subject or ]\om. to n^■^ n^s. liut this 
 would rc(juire ^l.^sb , and not admit of ^DIE'^'C , Avliich means /rowi 
 [the time] before ns ; see Is. 41: 2G. 
 
 The bearing of vs. 0, 10, on what precedes, is plain. The writer 
 had said, that everything moved on in one perpetual circle of repe- 
 tition, the same things always occurring over and over again. 
 Here he confirms his assertion, by challenging any one to point 
 out a single thing which is actually new, i. e. which is an excep- 
 tion to what he atfu-ms. Long ago did everything hai)pen, which 
 now happens ; therefore, there is one unvarying round of occur- 
 rences. 
 
 (11) Tliere is no remcmhi-iincc of former things; and also in respect to 
 after thini^s wliich are to come, there will be no remembrance of them among 
 those who will exist thereafter. 
 
 This verse assigns the reason, why some err in supposing that 
 something new takes place. This reason is, that no regard is 
 paid to the fact, that former occurrences are forgotten ; and not 
 recognizing this, some suppose that things happen which are new. 
 Moreover, what is true in regard to forgetting past things, will, in 
 future, be equally true of things yet to come. Those who succeed 
 the next generation will, in like manner, forget what preceded 
 them. Consequently, tliere can be no proof that any new thing 
 actually takes place. 
 
 The word ■)•"'=''. (from liiST) is in the const, form ; and it may 
 be so, notwithstanding the h that follows ; Gr. § 114. 1. But not 
 improbably the apparent const, form here may, in reality, be abso- 
 lute, like V*r? ' "0"'''r? ) etc., as some nouns, we well know, have 
 more than one absolute form. — Jn =":"ri<~b , the b has the article- 
 voicel, and the article is employed before a word designating an 
 entire totality. Lit. the word means primus, frst ; but, by 
 usage, (since there is no compar. form for adjectives in Ileb.), 
 it means, former, antecedent, viz. former occurrences and actions. 
 The same is true of c^s-nxV, which is generic, and designates 
 all that will occur or be done thereafter. Of course the article 
 may be used before it, as it is in b . — cr , icith, but also as 
 apiid, among, which is the better sense here. 
 
118 Chap. 1. 12. 
 
 § 2. Efforts to oUain Jiappiness hy the acquisition of ivisdom. 
 
 [We have seen that § 1 contains an introduction, by proposing tlic theme, 
 and pointing out the general sources wlicnce the proof of that theme will be 
 drawn, viz. from the brevity find vanity of human life, and the immutable and 
 ever-recurring round of phenomena in the world about us and above us. A 
 divine Omni])otent hand has enstamped these characters on everything; and 
 man, who is miserable now, cannot indulge any hope of bettering his condi- 
 tion by changes made in the order and intluence of natural piienomena. 
 Having thus introduced his reader to the outlines of his theme, the author 
 proceeds to tell us who he is, and Avhat experiments he has made in order to 
 discover the secret of human happiness in the present world. His experience 
 is very diversified ; and he shows us that, in wliatever way he turned hiniself, 
 he was always forced at last to the same conclusion, viz. that all is vanity.] 
 
 Chap. I. 12—18. 
 
 (12) I, Coheleth, was king over Israel in Jerusalem. 
 
 If, as Hitzig intimates (Vorbemerk. § 3), Coheleth be Wisdom 
 incarnate in Solomon, and thus personified, how could the writer 
 speak as he does here ? In Prov. viii, and in the book of Wisdom, 
 the personification of Wisdom is made plain and palpable to the 
 reader. But here we have a personage, who is king over a par- 
 ticular people, and in a definite city. The designations in v. 12 
 would, indeed, seem very strange in the mouth of Solomon, on the 
 supposition that he, in person, is addressing his contemporaries. 
 Did they need to be told that he lived at Jerusalem ? Above all, 
 those who think Coheleth means a literary academy, or consessus, 
 are forced to an almost ridiculous translation here. So Doderlein : 
 " I, O academy, was king, etc." The language seems to be expli- 
 cable only on the ground, that the book was composed when the 
 nation had been divided, and there were two kings and two capi- 
 tals in Palestine. — Israel is a name applicable to the whole nation, 
 or to the ten tribes, or, finally, to the two tribes of Judah and Ben- 
 jamin. Here it has the latter meaning. — The emphasis laid on 
 was, by expressly inserting the verb '^n'^^ti , shows that the day 
 had passed by, when Coheleth was king. This was not the case 
 with Solomon while he lived, for he was king to the time of his 
 death ; and therefore he could not speak of himself as a past king. 
 — Tlie plui'al (or dual) form of c^Vrn';^ probably took its rise 
 from the upper and lower parts of the city ; like C^"::^*:: , the two 
 Mitzars, or Egypt, upper and lower. 
 
Chap. I. 13. 119 
 
 But why does the writer bring this to view ? Phiinly because 
 that wisdom, the tirst special and individual topic of discussion, 
 belonged preeminently to Solomon. If any one could iind happi- 
 ness m the pursuit of it, he surely was the man. 
 
 ( I.-l) And I fiavc my mind to seek out and make careful investigation l.y wis- 
 dom, eonccm.n- ,,11 whic-l, is done under heaven ; this is an unhappv employ- 
 ment wh.eh God has given to the sons of men, to oeeupy themselves 'therewith. 
 
 The verb 'd'^rj means to seek after, to seek out. n^pi means 
 more than this, viz. it literally signifies to go round and round 
 a tlnng, ni order closely to inspect it ; hence it means, in its 
 secondary sense, to investigate carefully and closely. The first verb 
 designates looking up the object, the second means careftilly pry- 
 ing into it and minutely examining it. The 2 (pre],.) marks the 
 instrumentality employed, or the manner in which the investicra- 
 tion was conducted. The Pattah under it is the article-vowel • 
 and rightly does it stand here, for rrcrnn means the ivisdom requi- 
 site or appropriate to such an investigation. — Everything which 
 IS done, refers to the ac(io?is of men, and not the objects of nature ; 
 for he could not well say of them, what he affirms in v. 14, viz' 
 that they were all vanity and an empty affiiir. Their immutable 
 order and ever-recurring and uniform phenomena, however, ren- 
 der them incapable of control by man, as vs. 4—8 show ; and 
 therefore they are incapable of being so used by him as (o prevent 
 all his inconveniences and sufferings. Yet the things in them- 
 selves are beautiful and good, as 3:11 declares. It is the vanity 
 of human effort after knowledge, i. e. such knowledge as will 
 secure and render stable our j.resent happiness, which the writer 
 IS going to discuss, lie declares at the outset, that this employ- 
 ment is an unhappy one, although Providence has seen fit to dis- 
 cipline men thereby. 
 
 ^ .yn it is, or the same is, § 110. 2. _ r.^, l^^mness, occupation, 
 in the const, state before rn , which is here a noim used for an 
 adjeclive, § 104. 1 . The distinctive accent (Rebhia) gives the form 
 With (^ainets, instead of the original Pattah, :-. Such a gram- 
 matical relation of nouns connected intimately, is not unfr((iuent • 
 •see Ecc. 4 ; 8. 5 : 13. Ezek. 11: 2. Prov. G : 24. 24 : 25. 28 • 5* 
 and comp. Gr. § 104. 1. The meaning of the word •-" here, and 
 in several other places in Ecc, viz. occupation, business, is pecu- 
 
120 Chap. I. 14. 
 
 liar to tliis book alone in the O. Testament. In Rabbinic, the like 
 is very frequent. It comes from the meaning of No. II. under n::^' , 
 which is lahorem impendit, followed by 2 before the object on 
 which tlie labor is bestowed ; see the end of this verse. The 
 same meaning and construction is common both to the Syriac and 
 Arabic. Specially is the word applied to a toilsome labor be- 
 stowed on anything ; which is just the case before us. — Before 
 'jjns the pron. ^'rx is implied, § 121. 3. — God has assigned to the 
 sons of men, is designed to shoAv, that an overruling Providence 
 controls all such things, and therefore that men sliould not mur- 
 mur, because this is their lot. Nowhere does the writer cast 
 imputations upon Providence for its allotments ; but still, he fully 
 states the trials and grievances of man, under the immutable 
 arrangements of Providence. — niDr in the like sense as ',2;? . 
 
 (14) I considered all the works which are done under the sun, and lo! all 
 is vanity and fruitless effort. 
 
 '^ri'^i^'n is used to designate mental seeing or consideration, (so 
 here), as well as corporeal seeing. — Works are here the same 
 which have before been brought to view. Vsh with the article, 
 because it designates an entire class of things. — nn r.^i^'n some 
 translate affliction of spirit, deducing the word from rn or rr'n. 
 But this cannot be done ; for such verbs do not yield the form in 
 question. Another class render \i feeding of the wind, deriving it 
 from t\'J*\ to feed, and comparing Hos. 2 : 2. But "the noun is 
 abstract in its present form, and will hardly bear this verbal 
 active sense. It should be ni^?"! , an Infin. nomen actionis. The 
 word seems best derived from t\'Jj"\ as equivalent to niin , to take 
 pleasure in, to will or desire. So the Chald. m^^n means. We 
 may translate : studiiun venti, i. e. a ivindy affair, or a. icorthless 
 business. Considering how much of the diction of the book consists 
 of the later Hebrew, which approaches to the Chaldee, such a use 
 of the word is not improbable. But this use, however, in Hebrew, 
 is to be found only in Ecclesiastes. This sense harmonizes well 
 with 'J'^ l^?:;, in v. 13. So Knobel, Ges., Eosenm., and Heiligs. ; 
 and to this I see no weighty objection. The form is like T.^'O 
 from nnd , Gr. § 84. V. 
 
 This result shows why, in the preceding verse, he declares the 
 undertaking of a close investigation to be an r'n )'2)^^ , a disagree- 
 able occupation. 
 
CiiAP. I. 15, IG. ♦ 121 
 
 (15) That which is crooked cannot he straiglitcncd. and that which is want- 
 ing cannot I)c niunhcrcd. 
 
 Here is tlie grotind of the sentiment in v. 14. Human efforts 
 are vain and fruitless, because they cannot change or amend the 
 constitution and course of things. In 7:13, the r^v^ is attributed 
 to God as a work of his, or something which he has made. Of 
 course, what the writer means, in the present case, is, that there 
 are numerous causes of Imman misery and suffering, wliich lie 
 under no control of man. INIany things are lacking which might 
 administer to his comfort, that cannot be at all supplied by any- 
 human effort. Hence the efforts of man, in pursuit of gratifying his 
 desires, are a nin r^irn . The Part, r^v^ is in Pual of r}v , with 
 1 as a reg. consonant. — 'j?n is a neut. intrans. verb, rectizs fuit, 
 and so it may be rendered passively, as above. ■)i"ipn , instead 
 of "lOn or "ion , shows the tendency, in the later Hebrew, to forms 
 of this kind. — m:^n , Inf. Niph. of n^-c , to number. When the 
 parts of a thing can be all numbered, everything is there which 
 makes a complete whole. The lack, in the present case, shows 
 imperfection ; and one which no man can supply or make up. 
 
 (16) I spake in my licart, saying : I, lo ! I have increased and added to wis- 
 dom beyond all who were before me at Jerusalem — and my mind lias con- 
 sidered wisdom and knowledge very much. 
 
 To speak in, the heart, means to commune with one's self, to 
 reflect or deliberate upon. The "OX which stands before r-\iT) is 
 designed to give special emj)hasis to the clause. The shape of the 
 Heb. is such as I have given to the Eng. translation above. — 
 ■'tnb'njn , in Hiph. means to make great, i. e. to increase, to enlarge. 
 — "'nsD'in , Hiph. of ro^ , / made addition to, i. e. he increased 
 the wisdom which had before become great, he added to it still 
 more by his strenuous efforts. — The second b:?, before the 
 name of a place, means at; see Lex. b? . 3. — ria^iH, Inf. Hiph., 
 lit. midtiplicando. In meaning = *is<p (not used in this book), 
 and sometimes both are united in the Hebrew for the sake of in- 
 tensity. Its adverbial use, as here, is very common everywhere, 
 Gr. § 98. 2. d. — ^^l'^'^ '^'t't'7' ^^^^ ^^^^ word means practical or 
 prudential wisdom, while rv"! designates theoretical knowledge or 
 sagacity ; like the Greek cocfia and yrcoaii;. For the first Qa- 
 mets in r^n; , see Lex. l ; for the second, Gr. § 29. 4. The form. 
 11 
 
122 ♦ Chap. I. 17, 18. 
 
 is the same as that of the feminine Infinitive of 'J"}'^ ; but the mean- 
 ing is abstract, and it is not, like the Inf., a mere nomen actionis. 
 All ivho were before him in Jerusalem, cannot mean all persons 
 of every class, but all kings. IIow many of these were there 
 before Solomon ? Only one, viz. his father David. Would it 
 not seem strange for Solomon himself to use such an expression ? 
 Even a later writer, who personifies him, must be here regarded 
 as giving his own impressions about a succession of kings, and 
 speaking of it in the language then current. Strict concinnity is 
 not closely observed in the clause before us. It has the hue of 
 a later composition than the age of Solomon. 
 
 (17) And I applied my mind to know wisdom, and to know madness and 
 folly ; I perceived that this also is fruitless effort. 
 
 For the n- in the first verb, see § 48b. 2. a. — 'r-'S'-^ , with 
 h implied, as in the preceding case it is expressed, viz. in T\'$_^. 
 For the pointing of b, see Lex. h. — nibVn, Plur. of nibbin (10: 13), 
 and much oftener employed, because it is intense = ravings. 
 — n^bsb with Sin ; more correctly is D put for b in 2:3, 
 12, 13. 7 : 25. 10 : 1, 13 ; for D follows the true etymology. — 
 i<!in is, as before. — n^n 'li^j^n the same as n^i n^i"^ in v. 14. 
 It is from the same root (ti:^"^) , and differs merely in form from 
 the other, § 83. 15, 16. 
 
 (18) For in much wisdom is much irritation; and he who addeth to 
 his knowledge, addeth to his sorrow. 
 
 The reason is here given of what is asserted at the close of the 
 preceding verse. Irritation or vexation results from the often- 
 disappointed hopes and efforts to extend one's knowledge. Sorrow 
 may refer to the depression of mind which often succeeds intense 
 study and efforts to acquire knowledge, or possibly to the bodily 
 indisposition which commonly attends such exertions. When the 
 pursuit of wisdom, and the efforts to separate it from folly, result 
 in this state of mind and body, it becomes plain that it is a fruit- 
 less pursuit, as it respects one's fully attaining to solid and per- 
 manent happiness. In accordance with this sentiment Cicero 
 speaks : Videtur mihi cadere in sapientem aegritudo, Tusc. III. 4. 
 So Montenabbi : " Destiny contends with the preeminent ; by the 
 side of greater knowledge marches greater grief ;" in Gynsburg's 
 Geist des Orient, s. 144. 
 
Chap. II. 1, 2. 128 
 
 § 3. Efforts to obtain happiness hy the pursuit of pleasure. 
 Chap. II. 1—11. 
 
 [These arc presented in reg:anl to a variety of partieulars. Colieletii in- 
 dulged in mirth and wine; in building and phinting; in parks and pleasure- 
 gardens; in tlie possession of many servants and of many flocks and lierds; 
 in heaping up gold and silver; in procuring singing men and women; in 
 marrying a wife and taking many concubines ; and finally, in every thing 
 which could gratify either the eye, or the car, or any of the senses. At last. 
 he found all these indulgences to be utterly incompetent to aflTord the happi- 
 ness wliich he sought, vs. I — 11. In 1 : 17 he says, that he sought out both 
 wisdom and folly- Of his ill success in the former pursuit, he has already 
 told us; he is now going to tell us what resulted from the folly of pursuing 
 pleasure.] 
 
 (1) I said in my heart: Come now, let me try thee with pleasure, and do 
 thou enjoy good ! And lo ! even this is vanity. 
 
 This form of monologue with one's self is not without parallel 
 in the Heb. Scriptures ; see Ps. 42 : G, 1 2. 43 : 5, perhaps Ps. 
 16 : 2. comp. Luke 12: 18 seq., " I will say to my soul : Soul, 
 thou hast many good things," etc. — (for T\P,), !^=^ emphatic pro- 
 longed Imper., come thou! — !"'=&:><, Piel of noj with suff. hav- 
 ing n paragogic : Let me try thee. Both suffixes refer to sb = 
 Trs3 , for both occasionally =- self. — nn^bs , with joy, i. e. plea- 
 sure of every kind. — f^>?"ii, and enjoy thou ; but the form is Im- 
 per. masc. in reference to zh . Some translate : " Tiioii shalt 
 enjoy, etc." But this is less energic than the Imper. form of 
 the Hebrew. To see is often used in the O. Test, and in the 
 New for perceiving, enjoying ; comp. (S:^. — C5 , also, likeioise, i. e. 
 found this to be vanity as well as the matter set forth in 1:17. 
 — l-iiri , see here, lo ! calling special attention. — x^in, IVds is. 
 
 Such is the general proposition of § 3. The proofs and illus- 
 tration of what is here laid down, are detailed in the sequel. 
 The good in question is not moral or spiritual, but natural physi- 
 cal good, i e. pleasure or enjoyment. The writer intends to 
 show, that all tlie sources of it fail to produce the desired end, i. e. 
 solid and lasting ha{)piness. 
 
 (2) In respect to laughter I said: Madness! And in respect to i)lcasurc: 
 What avails it? 
 
124 Chap. IL 3. 
 
 b in respect to, see Lex. ^ A. 5. — bbiln^ , Part. Poal, neut. gen- 
 der, silly stuff or a stupid business. By laughter is meant boister- 
 ous or noisy mirth, i. e. unrestrained and immoderate rioting. — 
 But nnrb designates pleasure in general, comprehending all 
 and every kind of it. Respecting this he asks : What does it 
 avail, or yield'? i. e. it yields nothing of solid and lasting worth. 
 — riT is fern., and peculiar to this book only as to frequency. It 
 belongs to the later Hebrew, and seems to be an apoc. form of 
 nJjT, like n'pa out of niba; for examples of it, see 5: 15, 18. 7: 
 23. 9: 13. — ti'&J Part, fern., with meaning as in '^"iS Mb^, to 
 produce fruit ; which meaning is very common. — For the Dagh. 
 conjunc. in t , see under t\-q in Lex. 
 
 (3) I sought in my mind to draw my flesh by wine, and my mind con- 
 tinued to guide with sagacity; and also to hiy hold upon folly, until I should 
 see what is good for the sons of men which they should do under heaven, 
 during the number of the days of their lives. 
 
 The b here before the Inf. might have the same sense that I 
 have, given to it in the preceding verse, viz. with respect to ; but 
 the version above is more congruous here. The preceding verb, 
 •'tn'iF] , means to investigate, lit. to go round and round a thing in 
 the mind ; with the design of preparing for action. Erroneous is 
 the version : " I determined in my mind to confirm, or attract, 
 etc." The meaning is, that Coheleth often and seriously reflect- 
 ed on the doings in which he was about to engage. — T|"i^p^ here 
 has long been an off'endiculum criticorum. The literal meaning 
 of the verb is to draw, drag along, draw out in the sense of ex- 
 tracting, or (in case of sound) protracting. These meanings ex- 
 haust the legitimate sense of the word ; the rest assigned to it are 
 factitious, and made out from the apparent stress of the occasion. 
 Ges. renders: Jirmavit, strengthened, because the corresponding 
 Syriac verb has the sense of induruit. But this meaning is 
 inapposite here ; for it is pleasurable indulgence in wine, which is 
 the immediate subject-matter of the discourse, and not wine used 
 as a tonic or medicine, i. e. to strengthen. We are not at liberty 
 to appeal to the Syriac, if we can do as well without it. Knobel ; 
 festhalten, in the sense of holding fast to, i. e. retaining and not 
 remitting the use of wine. But so the proper order of things 
 would be reversed. It is the driukin": of it that comes first in 
 
CiiAP. 11. 3. 125 
 
 order; the holding on to drinking is a suhsequent matter, and 
 therefore shouKl not be placed first. Ilciligstedt: trahere, i. e. 
 attrahcre, to attract. But this gives to tlie word trahere here the 
 sen-e of allure, which surely is not the meaning of r^&Q . Then 
 it requires "i^jia to be translated to wine, (altrahere ad vinum, as 
 he renders it) ; which is out of the question liere, because wine 
 is the instrument or agent by which the drawing is done. J. H. 
 Mich, (in Bibl.) : " ut profraherem, i. c. j)aullo diutius detinerem ;" 
 a sense which would give to the wine-drinking a medicinal object 
 and aspect here, instead of a pleasurable one, as the text demands ; 
 and this would be inapposite. Besides, diutius detinerem is a 
 sense that the verb will hardly bear. But after rejecting all 
 this, what have we left ? Ilitzig has given a new turn to the 
 matter. He puts T^'di2 in relation with the following m ; the 
 one draws the chariot in which the man ("^"^'wa) is seated, while 
 the other drives or guides it. He compares Avith it the phrase : 
 to support or proj) up the lieart with bread. In this last phrase, 
 bread is represented as holding up or supporting. So to draw or 
 carry along by the aid of wine, he thinks to be a parallel mode 
 of expression. Wine " keeps the machine in motion." But 
 this seems rather far-fetched, at first view. 2h draw along the 
 body or flesh is, at least, a metaphor elsewhere unknown. To 
 protract the flesh would be less strange, if it could have any other 
 meaning than a medicinal one, i. e. prolong its continuance. To 
 draw out, in the sense of widening or expanding, would be inap- 
 propriate. Coheleth surely could not expect pleasure, from mak- 
 ing his body huge and unwieldy. Still, that m has a relation to 
 '7^'6'Q , seems to be altogether probable. They are correlates, in 
 a like way as coach and driver. Urged by this apparent correla- 
 tion, and by the difficulties of the other and different versions, we 
 can hardly refuse to conclude, that the first expression regards 
 men as moving along on the journey of life, while wine is, so to 
 speak, the drawer of their chariot. But such a steed is often 
 furious, and so it needs a "j^ri} endowed with wisdom, i. e. skilful 
 leader or driver. And such a driver Coheleth employed. In other 
 words : he did not go into excess in drinking wine, and tlius injure 
 or destroy himself; but when he indulged in it, he took MTSDn for 
 his guide, i. e. discretion, wariness, or sagacity. In this way he 
 might proceed some length in his experiment, without material 
 11* 
 
126 Chap. II. 3. 
 
 harm. — ^bs is the corporeal me, the physical self. — Mib means 
 literally panting ; then making to pant, to agitate, or urge, and so 
 the Part, means, one who urges, etc., e. g. as a driver urges his 
 team, or a shepherd his flock. The discretion of Coheleth, in 
 providing such a guide or coachman (so to speak) as ?^^2^ , 
 when wine was carrying him along on his journey, is very appar- 
 ent. On the whole, there can be no doubt, that the sense thus 
 given by Hitzig is significant, and to the writer's present purpose. 
 The main difficulty is the seeming strangeness of the figurative 
 or symbolical representation. But we now and then are compel- 
 led to admit, in other cases, imagery not elsewhere employed, on 
 the ground of securing congruity in the sense. Must we not 
 acquiesce in this here, inasmuch as it does not violate the princi- 
 ples of lexicography, while it makes the passage altogether sig- 
 nificant ? 
 
 — thxb connects with Tp^^^ ? and both fall back on '^Pi'in . He 
 resolved in his mind the project of laying hold on folly, i. e. to 
 grasp it and keep hold of it, until he could thoroughly examine 
 it. In the preceding chapter, we are told how he had been dis- 
 appointed in the pursuit of wisdom. Now he is making a new 
 sort of trial. He mixes wisdom and folly together, i. e. he gives 
 up himself to indulgence in wine, but takes care not to lay aside 
 discretion in the matter. The drinking is the matter of folly ; 
 and this is what he designs to investigate. — Until I might see 
 what is good, etc. '^^^ const, form of "^i^, and usually connected 
 with a pronoun of some kind. Originally, it means where ; but 
 secondarily it occupies the same place as 'm:;JK , and has a like 
 sense. It is the sign of a question before pronouns and adverbs ; 
 and this, whether the question be direct, or (as here) indirect. 
 We may therefore translate it here by what, as do Hitzig, Knob., 
 and Ileiligs. — nil: here, as usual in this book, means what is 
 useful, pleasant, promotive of enjoyment. — IbsJ;^ 'nOii , thai they 
 should do, not (as many) : what they do ; see Lex. "luix , B. 2. 
 The object of Coheleth was to see, by experiment, what could be 
 done to advantage, or so as to secure true enjoyment in respect 
 to the matter before him. — lepri is translated by De Wette, 
 Knobel, and others, few (lit., as they aver, fewness). But no 
 case occurs of 'nQpp, in the const, state as here, with such a 
 meaning. AU the cases, e. g. Gen. 34 : 30, Deut. 4 : 27. Jer. 
 
Chap. II. 4, 5. 127 
 
 44:28. Ps. 105:12. 1 Cliron. 16: 19. Job 1 6 : 22, et al., arc cases 
 ■where the form is "iBp:: , which is in the Gen. after another noun, 
 and thus meaning fewness, it becomes an adjective = few, § 104. 
 I. Lit. it designates tlait xchicft can he numbered, and of course 
 comparatively a few. But it also means number simply con- 
 sidered ; and such is tlie meaning here, it being in the Ace. of time 
 how long ; we must then transhite thus : during the number of the 
 days, etc. See § IIG. 2. 
 
 Sentiment : ' I revolved in my mind the effort, to make the 
 journey of life by the aid of wine to carry me along, associated 
 with sagacity as my conductor or guide ; and thus to subject to 
 examination the apparent folly of drinking wine, until I should 
 come to see how far it might promote our present enjoyment.' In 
 this meaning we may acquiesce, undisturbed by any incongruity 
 excepting the apparent singularity of the imagery employed. I feel 
 philologically compelled to assent to this ; at least, until more light 
 is thrown upon the doubtful clauses. The new meanings given to 
 the word T\^'Q do not make an apposite sense here ; and therefore 
 it is better to abide by the old one if we can. 
 
 (4) I engaged in great undertakings ; I built for myself houses, and 
 planted for myself vineyards. 
 
 The first clause is a general introduction to what follows ; 
 which consists in designations of the specific undertakings that 
 constituted his works. The first clause lit. means, Imade great my 
 works. The true idea is given in the English version above. — 
 ^h is the Dat. commodi. Solomon was thirteen years in building 
 his own magnificent house ; he also built a like one for his Egyp- 
 tian wife, besides his " house of the forest of Lebanon," (1 K. 7 : 
 1, 2, 8), not to mention the temple, 1 K. 9:19. His vineyards are 
 mentioned in Cant. 8:11. 
 
 (5) I made for myself gardens and pleasure-grounds, and I jdanted in them 
 fruit-trees of every kind. , 
 
 la is from '33 ; hence the Dagh. forte in the plural. But the 
 verb means to protect ; and therefore the lleb. idea of a garden 
 is that of an enclosed or protected place. — D"niB is a foreign word, 
 found elsewhere only in Cant. 4: 13. Neh. 2 : 8. .The latter pas- 
 sage shows that large trees belonged to such a paradise. The 
 
128 Chap. IT. 6, 7. 
 
 Greeks transplanted the word, through Xenophon, into their lan- 
 guage — TTaoddeiaog ; Xen. Cyrop. I. 3. 5. 12. Oecon. 4. 13. In 
 Armenian, pardes signifies a garden close to the house, filled with 
 herbage, flowers, and grass. Hitzig and Heiligs. derive the word 
 from the old Sanscrit jorarfepa, which means an enclosure, like the 
 Heb. "^ . Still, a pleasure-ground would be enclosed, and would 
 naturally contain trees and bushes of every kind, and specially 
 fruit-trees. The Arabians use the word, and the Persians seem to 
 have derived it from them. It belongs only to the later Hebrew. 
 In the older Heb., '|'is> "^l designates the place where Adam was 
 originally stationed. Gen. 2 : 8, 10. 13 : 10. — QfiS , in them, de- 
 notes that both the gardens and pleasure-grounds were planted 
 with fruit-trees ; comp. Cant. 4:13. 
 
 (6) I made for myself pools of water, for watering from them the forest 
 shooting up trees. 
 
 niD'ns with - immutable in regimen, § 93. l,in e.g. The first 
 meaning of Tlt]^ is to kneel, so that t^'^^,^ lit. designates a hneeling- 
 place, viz. for camels when they drink. Hence a pool, a watering- 
 place. The design of the pools is described in the sequel, viz. to 
 supply water for the trees. See the jooo/ of the king, Neh. 2 ; 14, 
 which the Jews held, and not improbably, to have been con- 
 structed by Solomon. — 'TPT'^ is properly a neut. intrans., but 
 still it is followed by the Ace. n'^^ j) , which is often employed to 
 designate the object in respect to or as to which the assertion of the 
 verb or Part, is made, § 117. 3. Comp. Prov. 10: 31. 24 : 31. 
 Is. 34 : 13, for like specimens of the Ace. 
 
 (7) I procured servants and handmaids, and those born in the house be- 
 longed to me ; much property also in herds and flocks belonged to me, more 
 than all [possessed] who were before me in Jerusalem. 
 
 'in'^i)^ often means to buy or purchase, which I take to be the 
 sense here, although my translation does not imply it of necessity. — 
 n';in"'^i3 , sons of the house, was the softer Heb. appellation o{ slaves. 
 It designates such as were born of bond-women in the houses of 
 their masters ; for, by universal custom, the children followed the 
 condition of the mother ; Gen. 14:14. 15 : 2, 3. Sometimes they 
 are called n';'^ ^"}^'b^, ; at others, n^i< "^sa . — "^h ri^n , lit. there 
 was to me = I had, or possessed. On this ground, i. e. because 
 the meaning of a verb active is really designated, the Ace. (sons 
 
Chap. II. 8. 129 
 
 of the house) is placed after lTr\ ; see like cases in Gen. 47 : 24. 
 Ex. 12 : 49. 28 : 7. Num. 9 : iV. 15 : 29. Deut. 18 : 2. 2 Chron. 
 17 : lo, where n^rt disngrees with its subject, either in number or 
 gender, i. e. it is used in a kind of impersonal way. — *,x:i, ren- 
 dered ^oc^-5, includes both sheep and r/oafs. — Above all before me, 
 etc, i. e. above all kiiigs who were before him (comp. 1: IG) ; for 
 surely a king would compare himself, in such a case, only with 
 his equals in office. See the remarks on 1: IG. For the illustration 
 of abundance in such possessions, see Gen. 12 : IG. Job 1:3. 
 
 (8) I heaped up for myself both silver ami gold, and tlie trensures of kings 
 and provinces ; 1 procured for myself sinjrin<r-mcn and singing-women, and 
 the dch'glit of the sons of men, a wife and wives. 
 
 Riches were of course to be expected among the train of experi- 
 ments. In these, Solomon abounded above all. — The treasures of 
 kings, viz. such as are brought to view inlK. 5:1. 10:15. 4:21. 
 
 — And provinces, viz. such as the 12 provinces mentioned in 1 K. 
 4 : 7 seq. comp. v. 20, which were divisions of the kingdom for the 
 purpose of collecting revenue, rij"*"!^ is a word belonging to the 
 later Hebrew only. The article before the plur. in the text, refers 
 to well-known provinces ; comp. 1 K. 20 : 15, and Ps. 45 : 17 (16). 
 As to riches in general, see 1 K. 10 : 27 seq. 2 Chron. 1: 16. 9 : 20. 
 
 — Singing-men and singing-women were a part of the usual ac- 
 companiments of feasting ; 2 Sam. 19 : 35. Compare the allusions 
 to the like custom, in Is. 5:12. Amos 6 : 5, 6. 
 
 n'i'H';:') mt:: has been the theme of much conjecture and dispute. 
 Still, it would seem that a plain path has at last been oj)encd by 
 Ilitzig. It is certain that n-'rsrn , in Cant. 7 : 7, refers to amo- 
 rous delight ; as the Latins sometimes use deliciae. It is plain 
 that Solomon, beyond any other Jewish king that we know of, 
 was addicted to such pleasures ; see 1 K. 1 1: 3. Cant. G : 8. Again, 
 this kind of pleasure is nowhere referred to in the context ; and 
 we can hardly conceive that it would be entirely omitted in such 
 a case as his, for he had 700 wives and 300 concubines. More- 
 over, the sujgular here (irnd), and then the plur. ni^d , agrees 
 w^ell with the fact, that there was one, the proper queen, who was 
 Solomon's b:'j (Ps. 45 : 10), i. e. spouse in the higher sense (see 
 1 K. 3 : 1. 7:8), and that he also had many subordinate wives. 
 In accordance with the characteristic traits of Solomon's life, this 
 
130 Chap. IL 9, 10. 
 
 circumstance is put last, as being the highest point or summit of 
 his efforts to obtain enjoyment. The stem of the word appears 
 to be "nyj, from which the derivate rrid comes, with 3 assimilated 
 and expressed by Dagh. f., as elsewhere often. This verb is 
 used in Arabic, and in the third Conj. (='^3^^d), it means, ^o 
 take into one's arms, to embrace, to enclose around the neck, etc. 
 The derivate noun, with 73 prefixed, means in Arabic holster, pillow, 
 and then is figuratively employed, as in our text. So the Greek 
 Xt/og, a couch, a marriage-couch, also a spouse. The endless 
 conjectures of commentators respecting these words, are hardly 
 worth recounting and refuting, when the case seems so plain as 
 here. Inasmuch as the words are ana^ XsyojAsva, it is proper, 
 of course, to resort to a kindred language for illustration ; and 
 this makes a congruous meaning quite plain. It would seem as 
 if dispute might henceforth be superseded ; for the meaning thus 
 obtained fits the passage exactly, and supplies a necessary desid- 
 eratum in the list of objects which had been pursued. 
 
 (9) And I waxed great, and increased more than all who were in Jerusa- 
 lem before me ; my wisdom also continued with me. 
 
 Waxed great in the same sense as in Gen. 24: 35. 26 : 13. 
 Job 1: 3, i. e. in the sense of acquiring large possessions ov prop- 
 erty. — Above all before me in Jerusalem, see on v. 7. — ry'r\ sing. 
 because Vs is so. — t^'^^S' continued, stood firm, abode, Ps. 102 : 
 27. Jer. 48: 11, seq. In v. 3 he tells us, that he indulged in 
 wine under the guidance of wisdom or discretion. Here he tells 
 us, that his discretion was ever retained, in the midst of all his 
 various indulgences. In other words : He never gave himself 
 up to immoderate and excessive indulgences, but acted as a sober 
 man, earnestly making experiments in order to learn what the 
 true good is. Tempered by this same discretion were his indul- 
 gences at large, which he next describes. 
 
 (10) And all which mine eyes sought for I withheld not from them; I 
 kept not back my heart from any joy ; for my heart was cheered by all my 
 toil, and this was my portion of all my toil. 
 
 Sought for, lit. asked for, demanded. Of course he means, 
 when he says / kept not back, to designate indulgence only in 
 such things as were within his power. — "^ab (froranb ) is hardly 
 represented, as to its Hebrew meaning, by heart. It means the 
 
CiiAP. II. 11. 131 
 
 source of sensations, affections, and emotions. AV'e have no one 
 word that corresponds wholly to it. SouL mind, which sb some- 
 times means, is not congruous here. It designates the self that 
 feels and enjoys. — nfrb, Part, of a verb intrans., § 43. 1. § 49. 
 2. a. — bs'a , ^ , i. e. '{o by, by reason of "3 before a noun designat- 
 ing the cause or source of the joy in question; comp. for the like 
 sense, 12: 12. Ps. 28: 7. 2 K. 6: 27. Prov. 5 : 18. 1 Chron. 20: 
 
 27 By all my toil, i. e. his toil was the ground or source of his 
 
 enjoyment. He sought not for pleasure beyond those things on 
 whicli he bestowed time and pains. lie was not a mere reck- 
 less debauchee or Epicurean. — pbn means that ichich is appor- 
 tioned or alloted to any one. — bs^ here means of or from all, "O 
 again denoting source, quasi out of 
 
 (11) Then I turned towards all my works which my hands had performed, 
 and towards the toil which I had labored to accomplish, and lo ! all was 
 vanity and fruitless effort, and there is no profit under the sun. 
 
 One may supply the verb to look (from v. 12) after '^n*^:Q. 
 Plainly, the Hebrew expression is elliptical ; but that ellipsis is 
 immediately supplied in the sequel. — Tlie toil, etc., lieb. lit. the 
 toil which I had toiled to accomplish. Our idiom hardly permits 
 in this case such a mode of expression. — There is no profit, etc., 
 a general proposition ; for if such things as he had pursued, 
 would not afford any substantial good, then nothing else earthly 
 could do it, and the proposition is generally true. 
 
 § 4. The advantage of tvisdom over folly is of little account, and 
 does not exempt from the common lot of suffering and sorrow. 
 
 II. 12—26. 
 
 [The writer lias now come to the end of his experiences in regard to the 
 means of hapi)iness. Neither efforts to acfjuire wisdom, nor folly in indul- 
 gence, will secure this, nor even these combined, vs. 1 — 11. He comes then 
 deliberately to incpiire, whether irisdom in itself has any preeminence over 
 folly. In some respects, lie says it has; but still, these arc not >ufHcient to 
 exempt it from the imputation of bein^ raniiy ; for first, it dies with every 
 man who acquires it, and passes not on by heritage to another. Kvery one 
 must begin de novo to acquire it for himself Next, it does not cxcni|tt the 
 wise man from the same common lot with tlie fool. All are the sjiort of 
 accident alike, and all die at last alike, and are equally forgotten. Thirdly, 
 a repulsive aspect is given to life, by the fact that all w/iich one has labo- 
 
132 Chap. IL 12. 
 
 riously and skilfully toiled to acquire, passes, at his death, to others of whom 
 he cannot know whether they will he wise or foolish. What good, then, can 
 come to him, which will compensate for all the toil and suffering and wake- 
 ful nights which he has endured, in order to obtain substance? Who can 
 look on all this, but with feelings of despair ? 
 
 The conclusion then to which he comes is, that the only real good to be 
 derived from all, is that which we enjoy, from day to day, in the gratifica- 
 tion of hunger and thirst, and other appetites which are the sources of present 
 pleasure. This is our own, and we may regard it as a kind of good. But 
 even this, to whatever it may amount, comes all from the hand of God. 
 Such as are good in his sight, i. e. the objects of his favor, may sometimes be 
 permitted to enjoy what the sinner, his enemy, has labored to provide. But 
 after all, even this will not exempt the whole from the category of vanity and 
 empty pursuit. Such pleasures are too low and fleeting to confer substantial 
 good on rational beings.] 
 
 (12) Then I turned to contemplate wisdom — even madness and folly; 
 for what shall the man [do] who comes after the king? Even that which he 
 did long ago. 
 
 Evidently, a new aspect of the subject is introduced by this 
 verse. I have therefore rendered ^ as a transition-particle, as it 
 often is, like xai in xal iyEvero, etc. — ^"9?" here, and generally 
 through this book, has the sense of sagacity, discreet wariness, 
 or dexterous management. In the book of Proverbs, it often has 
 a sublinier moral sense, designating sagacious religious and 
 moral demeanor. This makes one point of palpable distinction 
 in the usus loquendi of the two books. — The words nibVim 
 nM^ap^ are not easily explained here. If we may regard them 
 in the usual way, the case is simple enough ; for this would con- 
 sider them as related to nix"i , in the same way as <^'2Dn is, and 
 treat them as coordinates with the latter word, i. e. all are in the 
 Ace. after the verb, and are objects of the action expressed by 
 the verb. But in 1: 17 the writer, to avoid any misunderstand- 
 ing, has repeated the verb before the two last nouns. Here^ 
 however, he does not do so. Moreover, if we adopt the exegesis 
 just mentioned, we only make him to repeat here, what he has 
 already said in 1:17. In the mean time, the context shows, that 
 he had done what was proposed in 1: 17. Why should he speak 
 here as if he were now about to commence the process, when in 
 fact he has already been through it ? It would rather seem, then, 
 that some result of his investigation is here designated ; for the 
 clause that follows, shows that no other person can do anything 
 
CiiAP. II. 12. 133 
 
 more tliaii tlic king hus done ; for sucli person can only repeat 
 what has already been done, and done so as to come to a result. 
 This result then must stand, if the investigator is competent ; and 
 it is to be regarded as correct. It has been suggested, tliat folli/ 
 is here a second object in the Ace, so as to give tlie chiuse this 
 turn : to contemplate wisdom as folhj^ i. e. to regard it in the 
 light of folly. The whole of the first clause would then signify, 
 that he addressed himself to the effort of considering wisdom in 
 this light. But to be told that he set out with such a design in 
 view, sounds rather strange. He may come to such a result, but 
 would hardly propose it beforehand as an object or design which 
 he had in view. Moreover, the double Aec, in such a case, 
 seems doubtful, if we compare Judg. 9 : 3G. It appears more 
 probable, that madness and folly aie the result which he finds in 
 respect to the wisdom here spoken of; comp. Zech, U: 6. Is. 
 66 : 3. Jer. 17:2, for like cases of residt. Such wisdom ends in 
 nothing essentially better than folli/. And so the sequel goes on 
 to show. All would be i)lain, if there stood before ribbini 
 n^bsp-i the usual pxt cr« or r\:n. But brachylogy or pathos may 
 have occasioned the omission of them. In the sequel, the writer 
 has shown that although wisdom, in itself considered, and regard 
 being paid only to its proper nature, is preferable to folly, yet in 
 its results, it has nothing to boast of. This the various consider- 
 ations subsequently suggested plainly serve to show. We have 
 then this sense: To consider wisdom (which is even madness 
 and folly) ; for, etc. 
 
 The last half of the verse has received a great variety of expo- 
 sitions. The history of them would not be very instructive. 
 Enough, if the sense can be made plain. — "3 is causal, as usujU, 
 i. e. it assigns a ground or reason for admitting the preceding 
 declaration. It is as much as to say: This is t rue, y^;- no one 
 can better investigate, or better come to a conclusion, in regju'd to 
 this matter, than the king (Coheleth, 1: 12), who has already 
 examined it. — nnxn n^:, what shall the man [do], etc., plainly 
 implying the verb nrr-, as in Mai. 2: 15 it is of necessity im- 
 plied. U iv/io wei-e the sense recpiired, then should we have "^"Q. 
 instead of n-:. This last is the Ace. after the verb implied. The 
 article here stands before D7X, regarded as a specific individual, 
 viz. the king's successor, i. e. he icho comes after the king. The 
 12 
 
134 Chap.il 12. 
 
 question is, whether he can do anything better than has ah-eady 
 been done by the king before him, and so make out a different 
 result. The answer follows : £ven that which he long ckjo did, 
 i. e. he can only repeat the same process, and come to the same 
 
 result. sinsibr may be disposed of, in two different ways. 
 
 Usually, it is taken (as it is pointed) for the 3d pers. plur. imper- 
 sonal, what they did, i. e. other men — a verb with an indef. 
 Nom. § 134. 3. This would be well enough, if in it were con- 
 tained a good reason why wisdom is found to be folly. But the 
 simple fact, that nothing new can be done, has no direct bearing 
 on the proposition to be estabhshed. But if the writer can bring 
 forward his own experience, after such long and thorough trials 
 as he has made in regard to this matter, then the conclusion to 
 which he has come would seem to be stable. Accordingly, we 
 may (with Hitzig) point thus : !",!-iibs;. That the Lif. const, of this 
 verb, in several cases, omits the usual final n, and is pointed as a 
 regular verb, is clear from Gen. 50 : 20. Prov. 21:3. Ps. 101 : 3 
 (followed by a Gen.), and Exod. 18:18, where the very form in 
 question occurs with a sufftx, in the same manner which is now 
 proposed. We then obtain for the meaning : the doing of him, 
 i. e. what he did. The 'nrx nx of course is in the Ace, and is 
 dependent on nirr;: implied! So : [He shall do] what long ago 
 was his [the king's] doing. In other words : He may repeat the 
 experiment, but can never alter the conclusion, for he can never 
 repeat it to any better advantage. Consequently, the conclusion 
 indicated by the first clause must remain unshaken. Heiligstedt, 
 in his recent commentary, comes out with this strange result : ' I 
 compared wisdom and folly, in order to know what sort of a fool- 
 ish man he would be, who should succeed the king, in comparison 
 with him (nrN; rx), whom they long ago made king ;' which he 
 explains by saying, that the design is to point out Rehoboam, the 
 successor of Solomon, who was long ago made king, and who, as he 
 strongly suspects, will overturn his father's wise institutions. — 
 This seems, to me at least, to be almost '^ a new thing under the 
 sun." And yet he even has the assurance to say, at the close : 
 « No one of the other interpretations of this verse aptum sensum 
 habet." But to refute his interpretation would be little less than 
 a loss of time, and to small purpose, since the language and drift 
 of sentiment in the text are so utterly at variance with him. 
 
Chap. II. 13, 14. 135 
 
 Hitzig lias ably defended the sentiment which I have f^iven 
 above. 
 
 From tlie view tluis taken of sagacifi/ or loisdom, considered in 
 respect to its j)ower of conferring solid and husting happiness, the 
 writer turns, for a moment, to the consideration of the natural 
 and essential ditlerence between wisdom and folly in themselves 
 considered, or viewed merely in respect to their proper nature. 
 This difi'erence he hits expressed in the sequel. 
 
 (13) I saw, moreover, tliat there is an excellence of wisdom over folly, like 
 the excellence of li^ht over darkness. 
 
 In taking another view of the matter, he felt himself compelled 
 to yield to the superior claims of wisdom, in respect to its nature. 
 It gives insight into things, and explains many of them which 
 must remain dark to folly. — 'ji-ir'^ , projit, excellence^ lit. something 
 over ajid above. — "p , iji comparison ivith, more than, over. The 
 light and the darkness are both specific and monadic objects, to 
 which the article is properly prefixed, ad libitum scriptoris ; in 
 English it is quite useless here. The preeminence asserted is 
 illustrated and confirmed by the next verse. 
 
 (14) The eyes of the wise man arc in hU head, but the fool walketh in 
 darkness; yet still I know, even I, that one destiny awaits them all. 
 
 To say that one's eyes are in his head, means that he has eyes, 
 and that they are in their proper place and will be appropriately 
 employed, i. e. that the man who has them will employ them to 
 see. But the fool, who has no mental eye, who is nb "px, must of 
 course walk in darkness. So far as there is naturally a 'I'lin'^ , 
 then, it is on the side of the wise man ; for who does not prefer 
 light to darkness ? Yet the latter part of the verse djishes down, 
 in the main, the hopes which any one might be inclined to 
 cherish, from the circumstance of the essential difference between 
 the two. One destiny awaits all ; i. e. they have after all a com- 
 mon lot; all are subject to toil and suflTering and death, to loss of 
 property, loss of friends, and loss of hopes. — ^'^'^^, , overtake, hap- 
 pen to. — zk'D , all of them, \VA. both the wise and foolish. The 
 Hholem in Vs, goes into the short vowel Qibbuts in the sufli'. 
 state, § 9. 10. 3. 
 
136 Chap. II. 15—17. 
 
 (15) Then I said in my heart : As is the destiny of the fool, so also will it 
 happen to myself; and why then should 1 be wise over much ? Then said I 
 in my heart: This also is vanity. 
 
 *i5X, I, prefixed to the verb which has the suff. of the same pro- 
 noun. ^3 — me, after a preceding "^sx , is a construction which we 
 cannot imitate. The force of it, however, is expressed in the 
 translation myself. It makes the word me very emphatic. See 
 the like in Gen. 24 ; 27. Ezek. 33; 17, al. saepe. — tx, then, 
 Hitzig remarks, refers to the close of life, when all his experience 
 has been had. But it is enough to assume a point when his con- 
 victions are full. — This also is vanity^ viz. the strife to become 
 overmuch wise, i. e. wiser than all others. I take icx (ir) to be 
 here only the sign of quotation, like on in Greek. The next 
 verse adds a new reason for the conclusion to which he has come. 
 
 (16) For to the wise man with the fool there is no remembrance forever, 
 because that long since, (in days that are to come), every one is forgotten. 
 And how dieth the wise man like the fool ! 
 
 With the fool, D^' with designates a communion of lot or condi- 
 tion, as well as with in the usual sense of association. We might 
 translate as well as, or as, for both parties are associated under a 
 common category, and of both the same destiny is announced ; 
 see Lex. ds? , B. 1. e. — ^Y'^\ . . . . ■,ix = iiever, so that we might 
 translate : There never will be any remembrance. — The "ins , long 
 ago, long since, applies to a stand-point in future time, during 
 days that are to come, as this future is expressed in the Hebrew. 
 That is, in future time the day will arrive, when both the wise 
 and the foolish will have been long forgotten. — D-^xsn D'^^^fi 
 are the Ace. of time, § IIG. 2. — rpx for hd^x, made up of ^x 
 and n3 , quo modo, how, or alas ! an exclamation of grief. — J^^^^^ 
 Imperf , to designate what is continued or often repeated. The 
 consideration of such a matter forces a sigh from the writer, 
 which is expressed in the exclamation that he utters. It is as 
 much as to say : ' Alas ! that all should share the same destiny ! ' 
 
 (17) Then I hated life, for the deeds that are done under the sun were 
 odious to me ; for all is vanity and worthless effort. 
 
 The phrase i^s* rn lit. means an evil upon me, where the bs 
 indicates the burdensome consequence of the evil, lying upon him, 
 
Chap. II. 18—20. 137 
 
 or pressing him down, r"^ is by no means confined to moral 
 evil. It designates anything grievous or incommodious. — Deeds 
 that were done, viz. sucli things as men are engaged in doing, 
 comp. 1:14. The doings of God are not inchided in tiiese. To 
 these the author assigns another and a different character ; see 
 3: 11, 14. 
 
 (18) Yea, I hated all the toil which 1 had performed under the sun, be- 
 cause I must leave it to the man who shall be after me. 
 
 •'b^r means, wJint I have acquired by toil here, inasmuch as this 
 only could be inherited by posterity. — h-zv, Part, for verb, as 
 frequently everywhere in this book. Moreover, the Part, best 
 designates continued action. — ^irn-^rx , from n^2 with suff., see Lex. 
 in liiph. B. For suff., see Parad. p. 289. — ^nnx , in Pause. 
 This evil of transferring to another the fruits of toil, is aggravated 
 by another circumstance, which he proceeds to name. 
 
 (19) And who knowcth whether he will be a wise man or a fool ? And 
 yet he will have power over all my toil which 1 have performed, and on 
 which I have exercised my sagacity, under the sun. This too is vanity. 
 
 The 1 before mV-^? I have rendered, as the sense requires, by 
 and yet — a meaning not unfrequent of ^. The two verbs that 
 follow might be well rendered : have sagaciously laboured; § 139. 
 3. That a fool should have the disposal of property acquired by 
 sagacity, makes the toil doubly a vanity. The writer of this 
 book plainly does not hold fools in much estimation. For the 
 pointing of n interrog. in Drnn , see Lex. n , Note d. 
 
 (20) Then I turned to make my heart despair, in respect to all the toil 
 which I had performed under the sun. 
 
 ■>ri-2D is turning from one occupation in order to engage in 
 another, while nrj and n:s mean, turning in order to see or be- 
 hold anything ; see 7 : 25. 1 Sam. 22 : 18, for the first case. 
 For the two latter verbs, see v. 12. 4 : 1, 7. 9:11. Disappoint- 
 ed in all his toil, and in view of what was speedily to become 
 of that which he had ac(iuin'd, he set himself to despair of the 
 whole matter. — -rx^ is Inf. Picl of ds; ; for form see § 63. 3. 
 His despair he proceeds to vindicate by the mention of an addi- 
 tional evil, described in the next verse. 
 12* 
 
138 Chap. II. 21—24. 
 
 (21 ) For there is a man who has toiled with sagacity, and intelligence, and 
 with dexterity, but to a man who has never toiled for it he mu^st leave his 
 portion ; this too is vanity and a sore evil. 
 
 The idea, that one who never made an effort to acquire, is to 
 bear rule over what another has acquired by his sagacious and 
 successful toil, is very grating to a sensitive mind. It gives a 
 despairing aspect to human effort. The writer feels it deeply, and 
 names it nsn nrn , an intensity of expression not before employed. 
 
 (22) For what is there for a man in all his toil and the strenuous effort of 
 his heart, which he has performed under the sun? 
 
 What is there, etc., i. e. there is nothing — iiin , Part, of nin , 
 later Hebrew, or rather Aramaean, = n-n . — •|'i^^"n is intensive 
 'here, as it is designed to be climactic. 
 
 ^23) For all his days are grievous, and harassing his employment; even 
 by night his heart is not quiet. This too is vanity. 
 
 Hitzig and Ewald take ^3 here in the sense of truly, surely ; a 
 meaning that it sometimes has, where it is true, or it is so, etc., 
 may be easily supplied. If the preceding question, however, is 
 regarded as a negative, (and so I have taken it), then is ^3 causal, 
 as it assigns a good reason for the negative. It is, in one aspect, 
 a new suggestion. The question might be asked : Whether men 
 might not enjoy themselves in their labour and their efforts ? 
 The verse before us seems to answer this question : All his days 
 are sorrows, i. e. sorrowful, grievous. — A7id vexation or harass- 
 ing his employment ; i. e. instead of comfort and ease, his efforts 
 have been sources of suffering and vexation. His solicitude will 
 not even let him sleep at night. His mind is disquieted with 
 plans and disappointments. But surely this proposition must 
 appertain only to such excessive and ambitious pursuits, as make 
 life a bustle and a scene of disquietude. Occupation, business, 
 of some kind or other, is essential to man's being, or at least to 
 his well-being. " Labor ipse voluptas." Coheleth, then, must be 
 regarded as having special reference here to a bustling life, en- 
 gaged in by reason of ambition or avarice, or with erroneous 
 expectations of finding solid and lasting happiness in worldly 
 concerns. 
 
 (24) There is nothing better for man, than that he should eat and drink, 
 and enjoy good in his toil ; even tliis 1 have seen, that it is from the hand of 
 God. 
 
CiiAP. II. 25, 2G. 139 
 
 The shape of tlie first clause shows, that the sense is such as I 
 have expressed in the version above. — 21:3 , as in the compar. 
 den^rcc, shouhl be followed by "2 . So in 3 : 22, n*:r"' "^~*X'C zi'J , 
 better i/ian that he should rejoice. The rciadinfr re(|iiired here 
 seems to be brx'^r': , and the *2 may liave been dropped in tran- 
 scribing, because another "0 immediately precedes. — In tnsa , 
 the 3 takes the same place which h elsewhere sometimes occupies 
 in this book; see 6: 12. 8: 15. So is it with 2 in 3 : 12, C2, 
 for them; and so is it twice with 2 in 10: 17. — Make himself 
 happy in his toil, lit. make his soul to see good. Comp. on 2 : 1. 
 Even this (ni tern, and neut.) is from the hand of God, i. e. even 
 such enjoyment is not secured by our own efforts. God alone 
 bestows all blessings. Without his favour and aid, all human 
 efforts are b^r: . Comp. 3:13. 5:18. 
 
 (25) For y\\\o can eat, and who can enjoy himself, without him 1 
 
 The Ileb. text, as ifc now stands, says, in the last clause, more 
 than I ? That is : ' Who can better say what the good is of eat- 
 ing, etc., than I, who have had so much experience, and enjoyed 
 so much?' But if with the Se})t., Syr., Jerome, Ewald, Ileiligs., 
 and riitzig, we adopt the reading ^il'sri , without him, (as I have 
 done), the sense is seemingly more appropriate. It runs thus : 
 ^ Who can enjoy the good of his labour without the divine bless- 
 ing ? ' lie had just said, that to God, and not to his own etlbrts, 
 this enjoyment was to be attributed. This latter translation, also, 
 better suits the sense of j'^in , which means extra, without, i. e. 
 apart from him. See Lex. for rin , and also I'ln . The union 
 of '{2 Y'T\ occurs nowhere else in Ileb. ; but it is frequent in the 
 Talmud and among the Rabbins. 
 
 (26) For to the man who is well-pleasiiif,' in liis si;;ht, hath he given 
 sagacity, aii<l intellij;cncc, and enjoyment; hut to the sinner liath he given 
 the task of gathering and amassing, that it may he given to him who is well- 
 pleasing in the sight of God. This too is vanity and fruitless eftbrt. 
 
 Well-pleasing, a^i::, does not mean good here in the sense of 
 holy, but designates merely the idea of one regarded in a favour- 
 able light ; so in Neh. 2:5. 1 Sam. 29 : 6. Of course, xii'in , 
 the opposite here of "2^'^ , means in this case one who is offensive 
 to God ; for ^^:l^ is of course implied after it. — rrb lit. /br the 
 giving. Inf. of "|r3 . 
 
140 Chap. II. 
 
 But what is it which is vanity and a fruitless affair? Surely, 
 not the distribution which God makes ; and not the scraping to- 
 gether of treasure, for this has already been denounced in vs. 
 17, 18. We can therefore do no less than fall back on v. 24, 
 and refer it to the effort to obtain enjoyment in the way which is 
 there spoken of; not, indeed, an enjoyment which is altogether 
 satisfactory in itself, but only such as is more promising than 
 that obtained by other efforts and pursuits. But even this, al- 
 though the portion which God gives, and although it is to be 
 gratefully received, is still, compared with good which is great 
 and true, and lasting, little less than vanity and a fruitless affair. 
 Under the circumstances before us, we can, of course, give to 
 these last words here only a limited and comparative sense. Ab- 
 solute vanity the enjoyment of the fruit of one's labour is not ; 
 but in comparison with the enjoyment which a rational and im- 
 mortal being is capable of, in comparison with a happiness unin- 
 terrupted, solid, and lasting, all this is vanity. 
 
 Thus we are brought, step by step, after passing prominent 
 particulars in review, to the general conclusion, that no possessions 
 or pursuits of men secure the good which they need and seek for; 
 and that the most we can make out of all these, is the enjoyment 
 which we experience from the actual satisfying of the wants and 
 cravings of our physical nature. Even this is not the result of our 
 own efforts merely, but is bestowed upon us by the special favour 
 of God. 
 
 Such is the conclusion of a most acute observer, a man endowed with high 
 intellectual powers, and who sought for wisdom and knowledge, in all the 
 various ways practicable at the time when he lived. But what was science or 
 philosophy then, and specially what Avere tliey among the Hebrews, who never 
 set up any academies or colleges for the study of science and philosophy ? 
 How different, we may well believe, would be the conclusions of the same 
 investigator, in some respects, and to a certain extent, were he now to re- 
 appear and come among us, and again make his experiments ! In his day, 
 all that science could oflfer of satisfaction, in tlie pursuit of it, was meagre 
 indeed, and very unsatisfactory to an active and inciuisitivc mind. In a little 
 time, such an one would come, by diligent study, to the ne plus ultra ; and 
 well might he call it vanity and an em})iy pursitit. But at the present time, the 
 same inquirer might turn, in scores of directions, and find enough busily to 
 engage his whole life and much more, in any one of the numerous sciences. 
 He would iind, too, that there was much to instruct and to gratify the mind, 
 in each or any one of them. Put such a man as Coheleth, at the present time, 
 
Chap. II. 141 
 
 i n the position of a Xcwton. Laplace, Lidu};, Cuvicr, Owen, Linnaeus, Davy, 
 Hamilton, Ilunihohlt, and niuliitudcs of other men in Europe, and in Amer- 
 ica, and he would find cnou;:h, in the pursuit of wisi/cm imd hwuhdiji-, to fill 
 his soul with the deepest interest, and to aflbrd hij:h ^raiification. "To eat, 
 and drink, and enjoy tlie good of one's toil," while it is always a gratefal 
 blessing, would not even he named in comparison with ])ursuiis like theirs. 
 How would every true votary of science now look down on mere sensual grati- 
 fications, (important and even necessary as they inii:ht ho in tlieirprojier place, 
 and in their appropriate measure), compared with the delight which he would 
 experience in his literary and scientific pursuits ! But it does not follow that 
 Coheleth fell wrongly or wrote erroneously, at his time, in respect to these 
 matters. Literary and scientific pursuits, such as are now common among us, 
 were, in his day. hcyond the reach and heyond the knowledge of all then living ; 
 and how could he reason, then, in reference to what these pursuits now are? 
 His experience he honestly, faithfully, and intelligently lavs hcfore us. His 
 conclusions, made in view of that experience, are altogether sober and con'cct, 
 in the sense and within the limits that have been explained ahovc. How dif- 
 ferent they would have been, had they been made in circumstances such as ours, 
 by such a mind as that of Coheleth, it is very easy to imagine ; nay. one can- 
 not help the feeling that, in regard to the pursuit of wvWo/h and knoichihie his 
 conclusions would have been very different, in many respects, from what they 
 then were, in the state of things then actually existing. I speak in this manner, 
 only in reference to \\\c present world, and the means of promoting worldly hap- 
 piness or temporal enjoyment. But if we take a stand where we must look 
 beyond this, and have regard to the immori(d soul of man, and the happiness 
 of the world to come, then all the delights of even science and philosophy, 
 ardently pursued, dwindle down to insignificance, in comparison with hope ani- 
 mated by a living faith. All the science or philosophy of the world has never 
 made, and would not and could not make, one good man, in the gospel-sense 
 of this word ; and all, therefore, which they could bestow on us. or encourage us 
 to hope for, would be mere vmiti/ofcaniiirs in comparison with the possession of 
 such a faith and such a hope. 
 
 I must add a word, in order to prevent any misconccf)tion of the object of 
 these remarks. I believe Coheleth to be one of the genuine books of the holy 
 Hebrew Scriptures. I bi-lieve it to have been in the Canon of the O. Test., 
 when this was sanctioned by Christ and his apostles ; and therefore, that it is 
 to be numbered among the inspired books. But inspired books may have a 
 plan in view, and carry one into execution, as well as other books. The book 
 of Job has a plan ; and the hook of Proverbs and that of Canticles have each 
 a p/nn at their basis. I take the plan of Coheleth to ho, a relation of vhat passed 
 in the mind 0/ a reasoninr/ man of his time, a man ardent in the jmrsiiit of finding 
 out what are the principal means nfltapjnness in the present world, and how one muit 
 demean himself amidst the incidetits and trials of life, in order to secure some good 
 degree of enjoipnent and preserve a conscience I'oid of offence. That the author has 
 a deep and abiding sense of the divine power, and sovereignty, and wisdom, 
 and goodness, is everywhere apparent ; (see Introd. ^ 2. p. 30scq). Not a word. 
 — amid all his complaints respecting the vanity and uncertainty of terrestrial 
 
142 Chap. II. 
 
 things — not one word in derogation of a superintending Providence; not a 
 word of apology for mistrust or want of suljmission. But all this is the result 
 of conclusions to which experience had led him, when he sat down to write his 
 book. Yet still, while he gives us these conclusions, he t.-lls us al-o, at the 
 same time, of the doubts and difficulties with wliich he had to struggle in his 
 own mind, before he came to them. He lays open to our view the process 
 throuixh which he had passed. The book is, in fact, a kind of monologue, or 
 self-dialogue. The mind, in some past attitude, has suggested things which, in 
 themselves, are far from being correct and true ; but, in another and better atti- 
 tude, it now 'suggests things which remove doubts, or at least extract from 
 objections their sting, and, in many cases, even annul all their force. One 
 must hear him to the close, before he can ful y decide what his creed was. 
 The interpreter, who overlooks such a plan, gives himself endless and useless 
 perplexity to reconcile whatever seems to be at variance in the book, and 
 which, if interpreted simply by the usual laws of language, is indeed plainly so. 
 It is like the case of Paul when he introduces the objector to his doctrines ; 
 for this he often does, without even giving any notice that he is going to do so. 
 So with Coheleth. The objections with which he struggled are related, and, 
 in due time, are answered : not. it may be, in our way of attack and defence, 
 under the guidance of modern systematized logic and method, but in a way 
 altogether accordant with the taste, and genius of the Hebrews. If, now, the 
 interpreter undertakes to make ort/todoxy out of these objections, which are 
 contrary to it, then surely he undertakes a task which is desperate indeed. 
 But if he allows the writer to present a picture of the operations of his own 
 mind, when in a doubting and inquiring state, then he must concede to him 
 the right of presenting the objections which once wrought upon him, and 
 filled him with perplexity. From this poison he now extracts potent medicine. 
 He settles down, at last, on a solid and immovable basis, not likely to be again 
 shaken. But one must follow him through his book, with his eye on all this, 
 before he can fully attain to the writer's ultimatum. 
 
 This picture of a struggling mind, which comes off triumphantly at last, and 
 settles down on "fearing God, and keejiing his commandinents," as the way 
 to happiness and as the sum of human duty, will be felt by multitudes of like 
 struggling and inquiring minds, to be a resemblance of what passes within 
 themselves. They may therefore draw, from the contemplation of such a pic- 
 ture, much important instruction. But to make it truly interesting and profit-' 
 able, it must be placed in an appropriate light, and contemplated fiom an 
 advantageous station. 
 
 Thus, in reviewing the ground so f^ir passed over, we must look at the writer 
 in the state in which he truly was, with regard to the pursuit of wisdom and 
 knowledge, in order to sympathize with him in respect to the acquisition of 
 these. In our day, the pleasure or good that towers high above all other mere 
 worldly enjoyments and pursuits, and ranks as inferior only to true piety, is 
 the purfinit of knowledge. This is the high prerogative of man ; his excellence 
 above all the creation around him. It would be impossible for tin now to rea- 
 son as Coheleth seems to do, in respect to this : and ctiually impossible to deny 
 the truth of what he said, at the time when he wrote the book which bears his 
 
Chap. III. 1. 143 
 
 name. And even now. the spirit of wliat lie snid is ai)pli(nl)lc to all science 
 and all knowlcdj^c of a mere worldly nature, when we hrinjr them into compe- 
 tition with that knowledge which concerns the life to come. " 77</s is eternal life, 
 to know thee, the otifi/ true (Jod, anil ./<sns C/inst uhoin thou host s«?//." 
 
 We have no uood ground, then, in view of the wliole, to take offence at 
 what Coheleth has here advanced. He tuins it all. at last, to good and proper 
 account. He shows, in a ^ivid and impressive manner, liow impossihle it is 
 for the world, and all which is therein, to give enduring peace and joy to the 
 soul of man, which the inspiration of the Almighty has hreaihed into him, 
 and thus exalted him to a rank that makes him aspire to something more ele- 
 vated, more holy, and better than all which the world can bestow. 
 
 § 5. Dependence on Providence of everything which can hofpen, 
 or he done, or enjoyed. All is jixcd and immutable beyond any 
 change by the power of man. 
 
 CiiAP. III. 1—15. 
 
 [The prolonged title given above, shows the nature of the next section. 
 Vs. 24 — 26 of chap. ii. above give express intimation, that whatever good 
 there is to be enjoyed, results from the interposition and favour of God. The 
 mind of the writer seems to be conducted, by those thoughts, to the contem- 
 plation of the extent to which this interposition goes. It extends, in his view, 
 to everything. All events, and all the actions and efforts of men, are under 
 the surveillance and guidance of a Being who is wise and good; vs. 1 — 8. 
 God has given em|)loyment to m.en ; he has given them intelligence to discern 
 his works ; and he has made these his arrangements permanent. That they 
 have any enjoyment conies from him and is to l)e viewed as his gift. God has 
 prescribed bounds to all these things, which we can neither enlarge nor dimin- 
 ish, for the purpose of inspiring men with reverence and awe of him. He 
 steadily pursues his course, and causes the circle of events, onte gone over, to 
 be renewed, so that all may recognize his continual providence, and know 
 what they arc to expect from the invariable coui>c of things which he has 
 established; vs. 9 — l.'i.] 
 
 (1) To everything there is an appointed time, and a season for every 
 undertaking. 
 
 bbb to everything, i. e., a.s the .sequel shows, to all hiimai) ac- 
 tions and conditions. Tlie article (which the pointing \ shows) 
 is employed because of totality, like to ndv. — '|"it , used only 
 here and Neh. 2:6. Esth. 9: 27, 31. It designates a defined, 
 appointed, or certain time. — rr means sj)ecially opportune sea- 
 son or ti77ie. — I'sn , negotiiun, business, undertaking. In this 
 
144 Chap. III. 2—5. 
 
 sense it belongs rather to the later Hebrew. The sentiment is, 
 that the when and the where of all actions and occurrences, are 
 constituted and ordained of God. They are not within the 
 power of man, and cannot be controlled by him. What is thus 
 announced here in the way of a general proposition, is confirmed 
 by the particulars that follow in vs. 2 — 8. The series of them 
 begins with the birth and death of every man, and proceeds with 
 recounting some of the more striking actions and occurrences of 
 human life. 
 
 (2) A time for birth, and a time for death ; a time to plant, and a time to 
 pluck up that which is planted. 
 
 T\^\ , Inf. nominascens, hirth ; indicating, hovfey^v, parturition by 
 the mother, and not = "i5?^<n. Inf. pass, being horn. Theb pre- 
 fix prep, in both cases, is so pointed because it stands before a 
 tone-syllable ; see Lex. h . What birth and death are to man, 
 planting and being plucked up are to plants and trees. 
 
 (3) A time to kill, and a time to heal ; a time to break down, and a time 
 to build up. 
 
 The killing and healing relate to men ; the pulling down and 
 building up have respect to structures, such as houses, etc. ; what 
 the former doings are to men, the latter are to edifices, etc. 
 
 (4) A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to 
 dance. 
 
 Weeping and moiuming stand connected with the dying and 
 killing of the preceding verses. Laughing and dancing are 
 exhibitions of mirth, and stand opposed to mourning. — "iip"> in- 
 stead of nisb, because of its assonance with ^isp. The bis 
 omitted before the two last Infinitives, for the sake of variety in ' 
 the construction. 
 
 (5) A time to cast abroad stones, and a time to gather up stones : a time 
 to emi)race, and a time to remove from embracing. 
 
 Probably, the first half of the verse refers to casting stones, by 
 an invading enemy, over arable land, in order to render it unfit 
 for cultivation, (see 2 K. 3: 19, 25); to gather them up, is to 
 restore the land again to its useful state ; see Is. 5:2. — P'^an 
 probably designates amorous embrace; comp. Prov. 5: 20. To 
 
CiiAi'. Iir. G— 10. 145 
 
 refrain from this in due time is necessary, if one would guard 
 against enervating indulgence. 
 
 (fi) A tiiiK' to scL-k, ami a time to lose ; a tinio to iuvsltvc, a time to cast 
 away. 
 
 To seek, viz. Avitli the prospect of finding ; which is the oppo- 
 site of what follows. — As "i2X in Kal is intrans. and sometimes 
 means, (o be lost, so Piel (nsx ) means, to lose anything. The 
 translation by destroi/ here, interferes with vs. 2, 3, inasmuch as 
 it would tiius make a virtual rei)etition. 
 
 (7) A time to rend, aiul a time to sew together; a time to he silent, and 
 a time to sj)eak. 
 
 The rending probably refers to the rending of garments, on 
 the receipt of bad news, or on the part of mourners. The sewing 
 together is mending such rents, i. e. it indicates the time when 
 mourning is past. llie time to be silent probably refers to 
 silence observed through excessive grief; see Job 2: 13. Of 
 course, the time to speed; designates the period when that excess 
 is past, and speaking is resumed. 
 
 (8) A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of 
 peace. 
 
 From hatred proceeds ivar. Peace follows war, at last ; and 
 with this the author ends his list of particulars. He has marked 
 it, moreover, by adopting jiouns in the last couplet, instead of the 
 Inf. mode, which is employed in all the cases preceding. Pie 
 now resumes his general declaration, so often made respecting 
 things which he had tried by experience. 
 
 , (9) What is the advantage of the doer, in that for which he has toiled 1 
 
 It was for the sake of raising this question, and of the answer 
 which it elicits, that he introduced the preceding list of doings 
 and occurrences, which are prominent among human efforts and 
 affairs. He proceeds immediately to the answer. — rt'i;:*n, i)arti- 
 cipial noun, doer, having the article. 
 
 ( 10) I have considered the task which God hath given to the sons of men, 
 to busy them therewith. 
 
 All these things in which men are engaged, and by which 
 13 
 
146 Chap. III. 11. 
 
 they are affected, proceed from divine arrangements. Nothing 
 can be done out of the time allotted by God, and all must be 
 done or take place when his time comes. So, more clearly, in 
 what follows. 
 
 (11 ) Evcrythin;^' hath he made beautiful in its season ; moreover, he hath 
 put intelli,<:cnce in their heart, without which no man can find out the work 
 that God doeth, from l)eginning to end. 
 
 Everything here depends mainly on the meaning of ^Isa^ 
 ^"b nrx. I cannot assent to most of the recent translations of 
 this, although by the hand of masters. Ges. : so that not ; 
 Herzfeldt, that not ; Knobel, without that ; Ewald, only that not — 
 none of which can well be made out from the language. If 
 ^^2^ means not, then how could the J^b follow ? "i^ of itself may 
 mean ivithout, as in Job 21: 9. Jer. 2: 15. 48: 45 ah But yq 
 has many other meanings. In order to make the privative 
 meaning certain here, ^ba seems to be added ; but "^^a is merely 
 an accessory, and not the' leading part of the word. For "^ba^ as 
 meaning ivithout, see also Zeph. 3:6. Job 6:6 — very plain 
 cases. In the same way r>? is put after -q , when it means with- 
 out, see Is. 5 : 9. Cases of ^^3-Q where the t? means on account 
 of, because of, such as in Ex. 14: 11. 2 K. 1: 3, do not compare 
 with the case now before us. Only that would in Heb. be ^3 D£5< , 
 and cannot be expressed by ^::.:s: ^ba-a ; see Amos 9: 8. Judg. 4 : 
 9. 2 Sam. 12 : 14, al. The writer could not say l-^ba^ (as Ges. 
 intimates in Thes.), in order to designate without, for ^h^ admits 
 of no suffix. He could not well employ 1^^:^*^ , because the word 
 would then present a sense doubtful at first view. It seems, 
 then, that *idx 'ibs^ is the most plain and specific of all. Indeed, 
 
 v-e may come to the meaning without, in another way. Lit. 
 
 r^wH ^\2i-c^ means froyn the lack of ivhich, or by reason of the fail- 
 ure' of which, which is = ivithout ivhich. This fully vindicates 
 the translation, and is satisfactorily sustained by Zeph. 3 : 6. Job 
 6 : 6. But to what does ^d5< relate ? Not to n3> surely, but to 
 D^rn; and to this word some such sense must of course be 
 attached, as will make it designate the organ or instrument em- 
 ployed in acquiring a knowledge of what God has done. But 
 
 nearly all the versions assign to it a sense which defeats this end. 
 ubs (or rather nhi^) is a frequent word, always bearing the sense 
 
 we 
 
 lire 
 
CiiAP. III. 11. 147 
 
 of remote or obscure or indejinite time or age, past or future, except 
 in this place. Much controversy has been made about the mean- 
 ing here. The Sept. and Aquila translate it by aiui' ; the Vulg. 
 and some moderns, by mundus ; Bauer, Rosenm., Midi, et al., 
 by eternity; Ges., I)e Wette, Knobel, by Welfsinn or mundorum 
 rerum studium, uhich may mean a love for or attachment to the 
 worlds or the desire of searching out or investigating worldly things. 
 But in the some 300 or more examples of u\rj in the Ileb. Scrip- 
 tures, not one of them approaches such a sense as world or world- 
 sense; and plainly it is the mere offspring of a supjjosed exigentia 
 loci. What is more still, it disagrees with the context, nbr must 
 from the nature of the case be something without which men 
 cannot investigate the works of God, and something therefore 
 with which they can investigate them. But a Welfsinn (world- 
 sense) cannot aid in such an investigation, if we understand by it 
 love of the world; and as to a desire of searching out worldly things, 
 even the German word ( Weltsinn) cannot well have this mean- 
 ing, and much less can ob:? have it. But even if it be admitted, 
 it would be incongruous. Tlie searching after worldly things is 
 not the way of finding out the works of God from the beginning 
 to the end. Gesenius (in Thes.) renders : " God hath put into 
 their heart the desire of worldly things, so that man cannot find 
 out," etc. Here man is represented as being hindered by Ids 
 Weltsinn (studium mundanum), instead of being aided hy it; and 
 the divine Being is brought before us as giving to man su/'li a 
 worldliness of mind, as to defeat his efforts to acquire knowledge ; 
 — a degrading view of Providence, which cannot well be put to 
 the account of Coheleth. — To translate by world simply, is liable 
 to the same objection ; for it either has no tolerable sense in itself, 
 or else it has one wholly inapprojiriate, viz. love of the world. — 
 To translate by eternity is equally incongruous, in case we render 
 xb "irx '^ba': by so that not; for if eternity here means (as it must 
 if it liave any tolerable sense) eternitatis studium, then this would 
 aid investigation, instead of l)eing given to defeat it. If eternity 
 sim})ly be meant, then no appropriate sense whatever can be 
 elicited from it. 
 
 Another and different rendering has, in view of these difficul- 
 ties, been proposed by Gaab, vSpohn, and recently by Ilitzig. 
 
148 Chap. III. 11. 
 
 This is intelligence or the active faculty ofhiowing. To justify this 
 they resort to the Arabic ^-Lfc = c^^* , meaning wisdom, under- 
 standing, etc. ; wliich is altogether appropriate. In Ex. 3G : 2, we 
 have ilibs M^rn 'rs in just the same way, and probably with the 
 same meaning. That the Ileb. word, as now written, was not 
 designed to bear the usual sense, seems probable from the fonn 
 itself. In some 210 cases of cVii', eternity, age, the i is inserted 
 throngliout. In 14 cases with the article, only one (1 Chron. 16 : 
 oQ) besides that before us, omits the i . It is only when an acces- 
 sory syllable follows, (as in tiip^i?, i^^i')? ^^^^ the "i is left out, as 
 in 1 : 10. 12:5. In Ecc. we have, excepting such cases as those 
 and also the one before us, always the form dVis* ; see 1:4. 3 : 
 14. 9 : 6. Is it not fair, then, to draw the conclusion, that in the 
 case before us i is designedly omitted, in order to advertise the 
 reader of a different meaning ? The punctators, indeed, read and 
 pointed it as = dbi3> . But the passage seems not to have been 
 understood by them, and being in doubt they followed the com- 
 mon analogy. I hesitate not to prefer (with Hitzig) the point- 
 ing r^h'J , as the Masorites are of no binding authority. Gesenius 
 and Ileiligst. disclaim the meaning of intelligence, because such a 
 case as this is nowhere else to be found in the Hebrew Scriptures. 
 But where else do they find their admitted sense of w^/.'tdijs ill 
 Ileb.? It is only in the late Talmud and among the Rabbins, 
 'u^^^tl':''' can be found, ^^^^f "course, one may make the same 
 objection against * flieir view, as they make against ours. Ges. 
 also says, that it can in no way be rendered probable, that -h^-q 
 ^t^_ ever means without. The examples given above fully dis- 
 prove this, and show plainly that it sometimes does so mean ; 
 and the context shows, that c^i' , in the sense of studium munda- 
 man, is wliolly inai>posite. That we may resort to a kindred 
 dialect to illustrate the meaning of a word, which common Ileb. 
 analogy does not explain, is conceded on all hands, and is often 
 (lone.° There are a goodly number of words in Hebrew which 
 are best illustrated in this way. Here, the Arabic leads the way 
 to a plain and fiicile and appropriate sense ; and that is a good 
 reason for admitting the appeal to it. 
 
 In further confirmation of this view, we may refer to Sir. G : 22, 
 2:oq)iu jdo y.aiu to ovofia avTtjg Ian, y.ai ov nolloJg iart qartna, 
 
Chap. ni. 11. 149 
 
 i. e. '' For wisdom is according to her name, and is not manifest 
 to many." The name then, here alhuled to, must of course be a 
 name indicating some concealed or hidden thing. Plainly, there 
 is an allusion here to Job 28 : 20, 21, which runs thus : " Whence 
 does wisdom come ? And where is the place of undcrstan<ling ? 
 For she is concealed fi'oni the eyes of all the living." Here the 
 word concealed is in Ileb. ni:b:;r , from nbr, to conceal. The 
 declaration of Sirach, that according to her name she is not mani- 
 fest = concealed^ seems plainly to be built on the verb n^r , as 
 here applied to her ; and this of course is the root of C^r . It 
 would seem that Sirach understood this noun, which might be 
 literally rendered concealment, to be one of the aj)pellations of 
 wisdom. It is a significant way of indicating, that wisdom is 
 something recondite, deep, and difficult to be discerned. If so, it 
 gives a Heb. interpretation of cbr in his time, and helps to illus- 
 trate and confirm the one just given. 
 
 What, then, have we as the result of all ? We have this : 
 ' God has made everything goodly or appropriate (he^) in its 
 proper time ; and not only so, but he has given to the mind of 
 man intelligence, without which no one can scan the work which 
 he has done from the beginning to the end.' In other words : In 
 their proper season, all his arrangements arc fitting or goodly, 
 and he has enabled men to find out this, by the intelligence be- 
 stowed upon them. But chap. 8:17 seems to gainsay this ; for 
 it denies that men can seek and find out the work of God. But 
 there the subject-matter is difierent. The writer is treating of 
 the fact, that no difference is made between the righteous and 
 the wicked in tliis life, and that one and the same destiny awaits 
 all. This mystery is too deep for him. tie declares that he 
 cannot Jind it out. But in our text, it is the jitness of things in 
 their apj^ropriate season which men's understanding can search 
 out and see. Yea, the whole course of things, from beginning to 
 end, as it respects this matter, may be understood by the nb? , 
 intelligence, of man. K one is not satisfied with this method of 
 conciliation, he may betake himself to another mode of exjilana- 
 tion, viz. that the writer, in 3 : 11, throws out an erroneous view, 
 viz. that of an objector, which is corrected in the j)i"ogress of his 
 work, i. e. in 8 : 17. So Ilitzig; but I prefer the former. 
 13* 
 
150 CHAr. III. 12—14. 
 
 (12) I know that there is no good for them, except to rejoice and to pro- 
 cure happiness during their lives. 
 
 D3,/or them, see remarks on G'iNa in 2 : 24 ; 2 and h are not 
 unfrequently used, in the like sense, in the later Hebrew. The 
 plur. sufF. refers to n^ixii , mankir,d, in the preceding verse, which 
 is a noun of multitude. At the end of the verse, in I'^l^na , is a 
 suff. sing, referring to the same noun in its sing. form. — si:: , 
 hapjnness or enjoyment, as usual in this book. — ni:: J"'i^'?.^ ? not 
 to do good in a moral sense, (as many construe it), but to make, 
 i. e. to acquire, ov procure happiness ; comp. 2 : 24. 3 : 22. 5 : 17. 
 8: 15. 9:7, which make this meaning clear. — Here the writer 
 recapitulates the sentiment already expressed in 2 : 24, from which 
 he started in this present section. The next verse is, in like man- 
 ner, a repetition of 2 : 2ih. 
 
 (13) And moreover, as to every man who eateth, and drinketh. and enjoy- 
 eth good ill all his toil, the gift of God is this. 
 
 In 2 : 24 he says : This is from the hand of God. — Js^ri , tliis is. 
 — ninT2 , noun from )r^ with 5 assimilated, a formative r , and the 
 fem. ending n . So entirely dependent are we on the divine Being, 
 that even the little which we enjoy, is not secured by our own 
 plans and efforts, but by God's own arrangements. He has consti- 
 tuted the perpetual circle and order of all things. We can neither 
 hasten nor retard his designs. We can neither add to his work, 
 nor diminish from it. It remains ever the same. He keeps all 
 things evermore at his own disposal, in order that, from our de- 
 pendence on him and a sense of our own weakness, we may 
 regard him with revy^ence. So the sequel. 
 
 (14) I know that all which God doeth, the same shall continue for ever; 
 to it there is no addition, and from it there is no excision; and God so doeth, 
 that they may fear before him. 
 
 It shall he forever, i. e. his doing will always be the same. No 
 one can add to it or abridge it. He is a sovereign, and " doeth all 
 things after the counsel of his own will." God so doeth, lit. has so 
 done ; but as he remains ever the same, so he is still doing, and 
 will continue to do, the same. — That they [men] may fear before 
 him ; not in order that, or for the jmrpose that, but he is sovereign 
 and uniform in his doings in such a way, that men do and will fear 
 
Chap. ni. 15. 151 
 
 before liim, or luive reason to fear. Fear, in Ileb. usage, when it 
 has respect to God, implies what we name reverential awe. — 
 The construction of "px here twice before the Inf. made with b , 
 is rather aside from the common usage. Usually, it stands before 
 nouns, jironouns, and participles ; but sometimes before the Inf. 
 gerundial or Inf. nondnascens, as in the present case. The two In- 
 finitives may be regarded as virtually in the Gen. here; § 113. 
 
 (15) That which is, was lonu' since; and that which is to come, was long 
 since; and God seckcth out that which is past. 
 
 The first 'n'^'n here, although in the form of the Praeter tense, 
 of necessity includes a present sense, (as the Praet. often does), 
 viz. ivhich was and is. The sequel shows this to be necessary. 
 So, what is and what will be, happened long ago, see 1 : 9, 10 ; 
 in other words : " There is no new thing under the sun." — God 
 seeketh out that ivhich is past, T'lD , Part. Niph. of z"n , which 
 means, to follow after, to chase atvay. The idea of the writer is, 
 that one thing or occurrence follows after or upon another, and 
 expelling it (so to speak), occupies its place or rather time. What 
 has thus been thrust away by more recent events, God seeks out 
 again, i. e. he does this in order to renew and repeat it. Thus the 
 generic sentiment of the first two clauses is developed in the last 
 clause. And this completes the view which the writer takes of 
 the fixed, established, and invariable sequency of things which 
 God has ordained in the world, and so arrahged that no efforts or 
 toil, on the part of man, can change his ordinances, or arrest the 
 course of things. Man is thus impressively taught how dependent 
 he is, and of how little avail it is to repine and murmur at the irre- 
 sistihle ivill of an overruling Providence. 
 
 § G. Ohjections against the assertion thcd God lias made everything 
 
 goodly. 
 
 Chap. III. IG— 22. 
 
 [The manner in which this section commences ("ll"";), sliows lliat it stands 
 connected with the preceding one. An ohjection to a previous assertion, that 
 all is made flS"^. occurs to the writer's reflection, viz. that wicked men. instead 
 of good ones, occupy places of judgment. But this he answers hy the sug- 
 gestion, that such things continue only for a time, and are brought speedily 
 under inquisition. Again, his mind suggests to him, that there is one and tho 
 
152 Chap. ni. 16, 17. 
 
 same lot or destiny for man and beast. That all die alike ; they return to dust 
 alike ; and, so far as we can sec, we cannot discern whether the spirit of man 
 goes upward, or the spirit of a beast downward. AVhat else is left for us, in this 
 predicament, but to enjoy what we can of the fruits of our toil ? These last 
 doubts or difliculties, however, are but partially solved here. The sngi,festion 
 is made at the outset (v. 18), that the object of such an arrangement is to try 
 men, and see whether they will act like the brutes, Avhich, as to their destiny, 
 they seem so much to resemble. The writer gives full scope to the doubt or 
 difficulty without further answer here, than what is implied in the assertion, 
 that all is for the trial or exploration of them. But he draws from the state- 
 ment thus made, the conclusion that, since the matter of fact is thus, one must 
 do what he has repeatedly advised men to do (2: 24. 3: 12, 13, 22. 5 : 18. 8 : 
 15), viz. enjoy the good of his toil, and, at all events, make sure of that. So 
 much, at least, can be said with propriety, whether we know or do not know 
 what the future will be. The general view and conclusion, to which he ulti- 
 mately comes, is not given here, but towar^J the close of his work. Objections 
 (as here) are sometimes brought forward, which are not immediately and fully 
 answered. The sequel usually develops the answer.] 
 
 (16) And further, I saw under the sun the place of judgment, there was in- 
 justice 5 even the place of justice, there w^as injustice. 
 
 "115)1 shows a transition to another subject, and has reference to 
 V. 10, which commences with ^t^'^Sf'i . — Not dip^o alone is the ob- 
 ject of the preceding verb, but the thing or fact described in the 
 whole verse, viz. the occupation of the place of justice by injus- 
 tice. loQd'o means here hoihpoiver of deciding and ohligation to 
 a just decision. The tribunal is occupied by S-^D'n , lit. improUty, 
 -ivJi'Micp. : here the latter, because it stands opposed to p'lis ^justice. 
 The article before an abstract noun is a very comn^on usage in 
 Heb., § 107. N. I.e. That the concrete, however, viz. an utijust 
 judge, is here meant, is quite plain. The spectacle adverted to is 
 one to which this book frequently adverts, (4:1. 5:8. 6:7. 8 : 
 9, 10) ; too frequently to leave us at liberty to suppose that it 
 could have been written in the time of Solomon, when such things 
 did not occur ; see 1 K. 10 : 24. 3 : 12. 13 : 28. 
 
 (17) I said in my heart, the righteous and the wicked God will judge; 
 since a time for everything and for every work he hath appointed. 
 
 God will judge, i. e. he will pass sentence on each man accord- 
 ing to his deserts. He will do so, because he has appointed a 
 time when every deed and work will be judged. In most of the 
 versions, dd is regarded as an adverb, which some translate there^ 
 
Chap. III. 17. 153 
 
 and iome t/ien. That Dr,a3 an adverb, may designate either 
 time or place, is familiar to every reader of Hebrew. But if it 
 mean t/iere, then a diflicuUy is easily raised, by asking : tvltere ? 
 No place has been adverted to, in the context. If we render it 
 then, we naturally inquire, of course, ivhen ? No time has yet 
 been mentioned, to which t/ien can refer. Besides, if the?e be the 
 meaning, =•:: should be placed earlier in the clause ; see in Ps. 
 36 : 13. 53 : G, for a different position. There are other difficul- 
 ties, moreover, which are serious ones. r:^ time — time for 
 what ? Not a time appropriate for the doing of any or every 
 action, as in v. 1 ; for this would be merely a repetition of v. 1. 
 Besides, that there is such a time, would not help to prove that 
 God will judge the righteous and the wicked. Nor can time 
 here mean a limited time beyond which the wicked will not be 
 tolerated ; for then it must apply to the righteous as well as the 
 wicked. Such a meaning cannot ever be urged upon yt.r~'bzh n^ , 
 for this means, ojjporlunit}/ to do this thing or that, and not a brief 
 space, beyond which doing cannot extend. ^Ye must seek, then, for 
 some other meaning. This is easily found. Houbigant, Doderl., 
 Van der Palm, and Hitzig, point the last word cb (not c"j), 
 which means to appoint, constitute. The version which this 
 would require, is given above. The course of thought, then, runs 
 thus : ' God will judge all men, for he has appointed a time [of 
 judgment] for everything which they do.' This gets rid of all 
 the doubt about the where or the when. The only difficulty that 
 remains is, whether b and hv can well mark the same relations. 
 But this too is easily removed. Ges. (in Lex. b>, 4. c.) says: 
 " Non raro ponitur pro b et bj? ," as in Esth. 3 : 9. Job 33 : 23. 
 22 : 2. G : 27. 19 : 5. 30 : 2. 33 ': 27. 38 : 10, al. Of course, then, 
 we need to say no more here, than that hv is employed merely 
 in the way of varying the diction. — But in this way of construing 
 the clause, it follows that the verb ob is rather unusually sepa- 
 rated from its object n:^ Yet cases of the like kind are not very 
 rare. Time, i. e. a judgment-time, is made emphatic by standing 
 first. The greater concinnity of the meaning thus elicited, must 
 be quite evident to all. 
 
 But when is tliis TrJ = opportune time to come ? Is it in tliis world, or in 
 the next? Hear Knobel : " The last judgment one jnust not here think of. 
 
154 Chap. III. 17. 
 
 but hold fast to the idea in general of a retribution some time or other to be 
 made," i. e. in the present world. Of the sameojtinion is Hitzig, Heiligstedt, 
 Dc Wette, Ges., and many others. But they extend the same rule of exe- 
 gesis to all the passages in the 0. Test, which speak of a divine judgment 
 respecting the doings of men. Hciligs. has appealed to more than 20 pas- 
 sages, all which (and many more besides), as he says, refer only to the pres- 
 ent life. Tlicrefore, (such is liis reasoning), Coljeleth knew nothing of a 
 flit are judgment. One might object that this is a uon sequitur here ; but still, 
 it could hardly be made probable, unless the language is very cogent, that 
 the author knew so much more than all his fellow Hebrews. That there are 
 things in this 1)ook, which, if taken as the established opinion of Cohelcth, 
 would show that he doubted or denied a future existence, cannot well be 
 gainsayed. So vs. 18 — 20 below, where he seems to doubt, or ignore any 
 knowledge of, the spirit of man after death, viz. whether it goes upward, or 
 not. In 9 : 5 he says, that '• the dead know nothing, and have no reward." 
 In 9 : 6 he says : " There is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, 
 in tlie grave, whither thou goest." Certainly, these things cannot be fairly 
 disposed of by any one, who maintains that the writer gives everywliere his 
 settled opinion, instead of communicating sometimes the doubts he had expe- 
 rienced in a course of philosophical inquiry. They are forced, in this way^ 
 to admit contradictions in the book, by their mode of exegesis ; and if not, 
 then they have to put the author's words on the rack, to make them confess 
 what they themselves wish. On the other hand, admitting the expression of 
 such doubts and objections, the question remains : Has the writer developed 
 anywhere his ultimate and settled opinion 1 In regard to the point now 
 before us — the judgment of men's actions — it seems to me quite clear that 
 he has. I bring out this conclusion by means of several things, which lie 
 on the face of his book. 
 
 (1) The present life presents no important distinction between the right- 
 eous and the wicked as to their condition and destiny. The wise and the 
 foolisii have ihe same experience of the evils of life, 2 : 14, 15. Even that 
 which befalleth the beasts, bcfalletli all men in common, 3: 18 — 21. The 
 oppressed have no comforter ; the dead, yea the unborn, are in a more desir- 
 able condition than the living, 4: 1 — 3. Wliat hath the wise man more than 
 the fool ? 6:8. The just perish in their righteousness, and the wicked pro- 
 long life in tlieir wickedness, 7: 1.5. There are just men to whom it happen- 
 eth according to the work of the wicked, and there are wicked men to whom 
 it happeneth according to the work of the righteous, 8:14. All things come 
 alike to all ; there is one event to the righteous and to the wicked, to the 
 clean and to the unclean, 9: 2, No man knowcth either love or hatred by 
 all that is before him, 9:1. Time and chance happen to all, 9 : II. — Thus 
 we have, according to the simple tenor of these words, complete doubt, or 
 rather direct denial, of any distinctions in the present life between the 
 righteous and the wicked. If now we take these declarations as evidence of 
 Colieleth's settled 0])inion, it is idle to talk of reward and punishment as 
 applicable to men in this world. On the other hand, if we regard all decla- 
 
Chap. III. 17. 155 
 
 rations of this kind as indicative merely of a doubfinf; state of mind, or as 
 related simply to those misfortunes and sntterin«;s of all men, which are in 
 common while they are in their temporal condition, neither of these })Osition3 
 wilj <,^o to disprove a future judgment. At all events, it is in sober earnest 
 that Coheleth maintains the lot of all men, without distinction, to be one of 
 misery and death. In this respect, all arc alike, for there is no distinction. 
 But, 
 
 (2) lie still holds fast the idea, that there is a rrlrihttlion to the n<^hti:o\i3 
 and the wicked. 
 
 (iod is to be feared, 3 : 14. His worshippers are to avoid olTendinir him, 
 by the most scrupulous attention to their religious duties, lest he should be 
 angry, 5: 1 — 7, He that feareth God, shall come forth out of all harm, 7: 
 18. God made man upright, but they have sought out many evil inven- 
 tions (7 : 29), and consequently deserve chastisement. Wickedness shall not 
 deliver those who are given to it, 8:8. It shall be well with tliem that fear 
 God, . . . but it shall not be well with the wicked, 8: 12, 13. Eemember thy 
 Creator in the days of thy youth, 12 : 1, (with the im[)lication of reward for 
 so doing). Fear God, and keep his commandments, 12: 13, (with the same 
 implication). 
 
 Here then, in Nos. 1. 2. arc diverse and o/)])osite sentiments — opposite, \n 
 case we maintain that there is no retribution beyond the present life in Cohe- 
 leth's view: as ncological critics mostly do, and some others. Let us now see 
 where we are. First, there is no distinction in the present life, as to the con- 
 dition of the righteous and the wicked ; " all things come alike to all." Sec- 
 ondly, " it shall be icell with them that fear God ; it shall not be irell with the 
 wicked." — When? Not in this world, according to the preceding view, 
 for, according to that, " all things come alike to all." If, then, the second class 
 of texts be true, (and why should we call this in question ?) it must be that a 
 future retribution awaits men. We come now to our text again. 
 
 (3) There is, then, a time for judgment, according to this text, when dis- 
 tinctions will be made, and retribution will follow. There is * One higher 
 than the highest," who will punish oppressors, 5 : 8, and vindicate the op- 
 pressed, who "had no comforter" here, 4:1. He that feareth God shall be 
 delivered, 7 : 26. The young may rejoice in their blessings, and live cheer- 
 fullv; but they are to remember always, that "for all these things God will 
 bring them into judgment," 11:9. " God will bring to judgment every work, 
 with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil," 12: 14. 
 This last passage forces even Knobel to acknowledge its reference to a 
 
 future judgment. He assigns two reasons; the first, that everi/tla'/if/ is to be 
 brought into judgment : the second, that even cveri/ secret tliimj is to be judged. 
 This formula, as he well remarks, is always applied to a jiuhpnent after 
 dtath; see Rom. 2: 16. 1 Cor. 4: .'3. 1 Tim.. 5: 24, 25. He then goes on to 
 say : " Neit ter of these two expressions could be expected, if the writer were 
 speaking merely of the natural conscciuenccs of human actions as a retribu- 
 tion:" see Knob, in loc. This is ingenuous; but what next? Knob, says, 
 that "such being plainly the sentiment of 12: 14, it could not possibly have 
 
156 Chap. III. 17. 
 
 been written by Coheleth, and must have another author." In like manner, 
 Dodcrlein, Schmidt, Bcrtholdt, Unihreit, etc Of all these assaiUmts of the 
 genuineness of the passa<^e, HeiUgstedt well says: Authentiam anjumentis 
 injirniissiinis et inanibus hnpiKjuurant. 
 
 I see no way of consistency, then, but that of sui)posing a futare judgment 
 and retribulion. The motives to i)iety, without this, are inert and powerless. 
 If you say, that the prospect of a judgment during the present life, is suf- 
 ficient, we may well ask how that can be, when Coheleth tells us, that" there 
 be wicked men to whom it hai)])cncth according to the work of the righteous," 
 (8: 14) ; and that " all things come alike to all," 9:2? What retrilmtion is 
 there in all this ? All exhortations to '' fear God, and keep his command- 
 ments," are fruitless on any other ground than that of a judgment after death. 
 Retribution is the very soul of all. " He that cometh unto God, must believe 
 that he is, and that he is the rewanler of them that diligently seek him," 
 Heb. 11: 6. 
 
 And when we are told so often and so confidently, that the ancient He- 
 brews had no idea of a future state and a future judgment, and therefore 
 Coheleth could have no reference to either ; we must crave the liberty of 
 hesitating before we receive this. What did the Hebrews think had become 
 of Enoch and Elijah, after their translation 1 What is the meaning of being 
 gaihertd to one's fathers ? Gen. 49 : 29. Judg 2: 10. Ges. says: " It is spoken 
 of the entrance into Orcus, where the Hebrews supposed their ancestors to 
 be assembled." (Lex. pjDX , Niph.) Then what means : '' In thy presence is 
 fulness of joy ; at thy right hand are pleasures for ever more?" Ps. 16: 11. 
 What shall we say of Ps. 17 : 15. " I shall be satisfied, when I awake in thy 
 likeness ? " And Daniel, not improbably a contemporary of the real Cohe- 
 leth — what means he, when he tells us, that '" many of them that sleep in 
 the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame 
 and everlasting contempt ? " Here is not only futurittj^ but a resurrtdion of 
 the body itself. Isaiah, too, has added his testimony: " Thy dead men shall 
 livA.j with my dead body shall they arise. Awake and sing, ye that dwell in 
 dust [i. e. ye dead] ; for thy dew is as the dew of herbs, and the earth shall 
 cast out [hrim/ forth, in the Heb.] the dead," 26 : 19. Beautiful imagery this ; 
 in which the grave is represented, like the grass on which dew falls, as fruc- 
 tiferous, and bringing forth its dead as the fruit. This is now generally 
 admitted to refer to the resurrection. And when the Saviour says, respect- 
 ing the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, that '' he is not the God of the 
 dead, but of the living,'" does not he supj^ose the Jews, with whom he was 
 reasoning, to believe in a future state ? All this, and more Avhich might be 
 easily adduced from the O. Test., makes me hesitate to receive the neologi 
 cal doctrine in respect to the sul)ject before us. Hoav can any man reasona 
 bly suppose, that the Hebrews, with Moses, and Samuel, and David, and 
 Solomon, and Isaiah, and other highly distinguished men to teach them, 
 and above all if we believe them (as I do) to have been ins}>ired — that the 
 Jewish nation, after all, knew less than the Egyptian and other heathen 
 nations around them, about a future state of existence ? The idea is all but 
 
Chap. III. 18. 157 
 
 preposterous in my view. Still, I would not claim for Coheleth more tlian 
 his book will justify. Those who find f/ospel-clearmss in the O. Test., on 
 such sulijicts, seem to forj^ct that Paul has assigned to Uie gospel of Christ 
 the high ])rorogative of '' bringing life and immortality to light." It has 
 brought out into noonday splendor, what before was seen only in the 
 twilight. 
 
 A more inconsistent man tlian Coheleth it would be difficult to find, put- 
 ting all his views side by side, provided he has abjured aW futurili/, and vet 
 insists on retribution to the righteous and the wicked, while he at the same 
 time has again and again declared, that " all things [in this world] come alike 
 to all," and that "no man knoweth either love or hatred from all that is here 
 before him." But when we view him in the light of proposing the doubts 
 and difficulties which perplexed his own mind ; and sooner or later as solring 
 them ; then we meet with no very serious embarrassment in the plain and 
 straight-forward grammatico-historical interpretation of the book.] 
 
 (18) I said in my heart, on account of the sons of men, in order that God 
 might search them, and that they might see for themselves that they are 
 beasts. 
 
 Ofi account of the sons of men — what is it which has beeu 
 done, or is to be clone, on their account ? This verse is coordinate 
 with V. 17, both beginning in the same way, and both equally- 
 having relation to v. 16. There we have the declaration, that 
 injustice occupies the tribunal oi justice. Tliis is suffered or per- 
 mitted, partly in order that men might be brought to see how 
 brutish their conduct often is. God searches them by such a 
 dispensation, and makes them conscious, in this manner, how 
 wickedly they can demean tliemselves. — c'^^b , Inf. of *i jS , with 
 pref. h and suff. C- . The Inf. ending with "i takes Pattah, like 
 verbs b Gutt.; and the usual form of Ayin doubled, whicli takes a 
 Dagh. forte when any accession or suffix is received, is super- 
 seded here, because a Dagh. in the "i is inadmissible, § ^Q. 3. Of 
 course, the Pattah goes into Qamets, § 22. 2. C- is the usual 
 Suffi, here in the Ace. after "i2. The verb *Tn3 = ^^12 in : 1, 
 and moans here to explore, to search; see Lex. The subject of 
 the Inf verb (n'^nbxrn) follows the verb as usual, the Ace. pro- 
 noun suif. being inserted between them, which also is the usual 
 practice. The b before the verb designates purpose or design. 
 Sentiment : ' It is for their sakes, or on their own account, tliat 
 God sifts or explores them.' Why ? That they might see, etc. 
 Here, as D"iri?jt is not repeated after nix'^b , so as to designate a 
 subject for the Inf. verb, we must supply one from the context. 
 
 M 
 
158 Chap. III. 19, 20. 
 
 This gives us sons of men. It is that 7nen (not God) mai/ see how 
 brutish they are, in placing and continuing injustice on the tribu- 
 nal of justice. They are thus made to perceive for themselves, that 
 they are leasts. — 12J instead of '6 = ^^"X , is perhaps shortened 
 because of the Maqqeph that follows ; once, however, -q occurs in 
 2: 22, without Maqqeph, but with variations, as some Mss. have 
 la. — ID^T} are, simply a copula, § 119. 2. — nnb gives intensity to 
 the expression of the subject that they themselves might see, or 
 that they might see for themselves, § 119. 3. 
 
 The writer next proceeds to give a reason, why he has be- 
 stowed on mankind the degrading appellation of beasts. He 
 points out the resemblance between them and the beasts. 
 
 (19) For as to the destiny of men and the destiny of beasts — there is even 
 one destiny for them ; as dieth this, so dieth that ; there is one breath to all ; 
 and excellence of man over beast there is not; for all is vanity. 
 
 As to sentiment, comp. 9 : 2, 3. 2 : 14, 15. Ps. 49: 13, 21. In the 
 first clause ii'lp'? , as now pointed, is Nom. absolute. In irnpTcsi , 
 the ^ is climactic, § 152. Vav, B. 2. The copula, as usual, is 
 omitted in all three clauses, § 141. — ni'a may be Inf. nominascens, 
 or a noun in the const, state before nt , lit. as is the death of this, 
 so is the death of that. That r\^l means vital breath here is plain ; 
 for this breath belongs in common to both, and is designated in 
 each case by ri^^ ; comp. Gen. 2:7. 6:17. 7 : 15, 22, where the 
 idea is fully expressed by &"i'^n nn. Sometimes the word desig- 
 nates anima, also animus and intellectus ; see Lex. — bbb , with 
 the article, because of universality. — No excellence of man over 
 beast, i. e. none in regard to the thing which he has in view. One 
 and the same destiny, viz. suffering and death, equally awaits all. 
 — l-jx is not, its subject is ^ni^a. All are to be placed alike under 
 the general category of vanity. — The writer next proceeds to 
 confirm v. 18 by other facts. 
 
 (20) All go to one place; all sprang from the dust, and all return to the 
 dust. 
 
 Tir^r^ = iysvsTo, originated, came into existence — ST^ , 3 Praet. 
 of •2.^•<^, and not Part., comp. rrr^ in the preceding clause. — "ifirrt , 
 article before the name of a well-known substance, § 107. 3. 
 N. 1. ^». For the vowel (Seghol), see Lex. n, Not. 2. c. Beasts 
 
Chap. III. 21. 159 
 
 are from the dust, Gen. 2:10. 1 : 24 ; and so is man, Gen. 2 : 7. 
 3: 19. Both return to dust, Ps. 104 : 29. 14G: 4. — Thus far 
 the bodies only of each party are compared ; for of these only is 
 the assertion true, liut what of the n^rn , the animatiuff breath of 
 life .^ This is not material or corporeal. Whither, then, does it go ? 
 
 (21 ) "Who knoweth the spirit of the sons of men, whether it asceneleth up- 
 ward, and the sjnrit of beasts, whether it dcscendeth downwards to the earth? 
 
 l-ibi-ri, the n is rendered as the article-pronoun (§ 107. 1) in our 
 version, viz. that = which. But all the old versions make it the 
 interrogative h, viz. Sept., Vulg., Syr., Arab., Chald., and so Luther 
 and others, with nearly all recent critics. Even the present point- 
 ing does not decide against this, for n interrog. not unfrequently 
 takes a Dagh. after it, like the article, e. g. in Job 23 : G. Lev. 10 : 
 19. Is. 27 : 7. Ezek. 18 : 29, al. Here, as the Dagh. is suppressed, 
 because of the Guttural, the short vowel becomes long, as in 
 case of the article. So also in r"i-ii^ri , where the Dagh. is in- 
 serted, as stated above. Besides n pronoun does not couple with 
 X^^rj which here follows. It must be ndx , in such a case. More- 
 over, who knoweth ? implies the indirect interrogative whether after 
 it, i. e. who knoweth whether it is so, or so ? The doubt which is 
 suggested here about the spirit of man is not answered, for the pres- 
 ent, but is fully answ^ered in 12 : 7, where we are told, that "the 
 spirit returns to God who gave it." Comp. Job 33 : 28 — 30. 34 : 
 14. Ps. 104 : 29. As to the spirit of beasts, the question is not one 
 of the same interest. No answer to it, therefore, is anywhere given. 
 It would seem that the common impression about the entire extinc- 
 tion of beasts at their death, is tacitly admitted to be true. The 
 fc^'^n , in both cases, answers the purpose of the substantive verb 
 in forming the participles so as to make them into verbs, § 119. 
 2. § 131. 2. c. It is fem., because nn is usually so. — r^:i'z prob- 
 ably from 13^ depression, with fi- parag ""^^^ makes the 
 
 meaning still more express and emphatic. 
 
 That an opinion was entertained by some around him, when 
 Coheleth wrote his book, that the spi7-it of man goes upwards, 
 i. e. returns to God (12 : 7), is clear from his putting the ques- 
 tion. The idea was not new to him. But here, in his doubting 
 and desponding mood, he makes it a question by asking : Who 
 knoweth ? That is, he here intimates that this matter is doubt- 
 
160 Chap. III. 22. 
 
 ful. It is to his purpose here to leave it so ; for this brings man 
 and beast into a closer resemblance, and his present concern is to 
 make out this. The whole passage (vs. 18 — 21) shows, that 
 when the writer penned it, he was in that perplexed state of 
 mind which is so often developed in the book, before we come 
 near to the close of it. There the mist begins to dissipate, and 
 he sees many things in a truer and more cheering light than 
 before. Hesitation and skepticism are overcome, and his manful 
 struggle to obtain light and truth becomes triumphant. But, 
 taking things as they now appear to him, he comes once more to 
 the former conclusion, viz. 
 
 (22) Then I saw tliat there is no good other than tliat a man rejoice in 
 his doings, since this is his portion; for who shall bring him to look upon 
 that which shall be after him. 
 
 The same sentiment above, in 3 : 12, 13. 2: 24 — l^b?.^ his 
 doings, not merely toil or labour, but all his actions and efforts. 
 Let each one take all the enjoyment which his efforts can secure. 
 Rational and moderate enjoyment, not Epicureanism, is doubt- 
 less to be understood here ; see 2 : 9, 3. — For suff. ^s- in ^iX'^:^'? , 
 see Par. of Suff. p. 289. — n nxn means, to look intently upon, i. e. 
 with interest or pleasure. Sentiment : ' Seize on the present, 
 and enjoy what you safely and reasonably (iroans) can ; for the 
 future no one can disclose with any certainty.' In other words : 
 ' Make the best of what is now at your command, and trust not 
 to the uncertainties of the future.' Confining our view merely to 
 the world of sense, this advice is beyond all doubt correct and 
 proper. Every being instinctively desires enjoyment ; and Cohe- 
 leth would have him secure what he can derive from his efforts, 
 but to enjoy it with moderation and caution. Such advice is far 
 enough, indeed, from any monkish asceticism. Coheleth, for the 
 present, is looking only at this mutable and transitory world, and 
 inquiring what good it can afford which is worth striving for. — 
 He comes repeatedly to the conclusion, that all is mutable, evan- 
 escent, unsatisfactory, and not to be depended on, since we have 
 no control over it. To satisfy our innocent natural appetites, 
 and supply our wants, is all to which we can attain in the present 
 world. This he urges all to do, in order, as it 2)lainly seems, 
 that they may be more contented and happy and cheerful. But 
 
Remarks on HE. 21. 161 
 
 it would be a great mistake to cite from this book passages in 
 order to encourage men to become Epicureans, or, on the other 
 hand, to be gloomy and discontented Fatjiiists. Coheleth was 
 neither the one nor the other. 
 
 In my remarks al)ove, on v. 1 7, I have stated tlie views of most of the 
 recent German commentators, respecting the opinions of Cohelctli as they 
 regard a future state. The doubt expressed about the final destiny of n^i-i , 
 in V. 21, they are well satisfied to accept as evidence of his skeptical views 
 concerning the future. But 12: 7 stands somewhat in their way. "The 
 nn returns to God who gave it." The explanation which they give of this 
 is, that ' God takes back the breath of life {ryr\) which he originally gave.' 
 Hitzig asserts that the writer, in 12: 7, has declared this to be true of the 
 nsil of both man and beast. If so, however, it does not lie in the words of 
 12 : 7, for there the nn of man only is spoken of. But Ps. 104 : 29 seems 
 adapted to sustain his position. The Psalmist is speaking of all the animals, 
 great and small. He says respecting them : " Thou takest away their nn , 
 and they expire," i. e. breathe out their vital breath, 'j^S'l^^ . In Job 34 : 14, 
 15, occurs the like expression respecting man: " He [God] taketh to himself 
 his spirit (in^I'n) and his breath ; all flesh perisheth together, and man return- 
 eth to dust." In 33 : 30, this is expressed by iL"£5 2^L^n^ , to take back his 
 soul or life. It is clear, then, that m'l may be and is employed to designate 
 vital breath, both of man and animals, and that the taking aicaij of this brings 
 on natural death. But when, as in 12: 7, it is said of the tyTi itself, that it 
 returns (n'lirn) to God who gave it (Gen. 2: 7), it is doubtless the same 
 n^in, of which (Gen. 6: 3) it is said: It shall not always be humiliated (','l'T' 
 
 from "i*^ = Arab. Jj! J 'o humble) in man; i. e. God will speedily recall it, 
 or take it back, since it is so degraded. It is said to return to God, in our text. 
 But how did the Hebrew conceive of such a return ? Was it a reabsorption 
 into the source whence it came, and was the breath of life regarded as some- 
 thing material, e. g. like to our atmosphere ? I know not how we can an- 
 swer this question with entire confidence; for a minute knowledge of Heb. 
 speculative philosophy, with respect to such a point, we do not possess. Yet 
 Job 4 : 15, 16, gives us an important hint : " Then a sjn'rit passed before my 
 face; the hair of my flesh stood up. It stood still, but I could not discern 
 the form thereof; an image was before mine eyes ; silence, and then a A-oice," 
 etc. In other words, a shadowy undefined something was before him, visible 
 as distinguished from other things, and yet not defined in the detail. Here, 
 then, is a n^l'n diverse from vital breath. It seems, in the speaker's view 
 (Eliphaz), to be the visible symbol or representative form of something which 
 was immaterial in man, viz. the breath of life. This then, as it would seem, 
 does not dissolve and perish like the body, and with it.' It goes back to God, 
 14* 
 
162 Remarks on III. 21. 
 
 who gives to it this subtile and unsubstantial form. With this agree the 
 words of Jesus (Luke 24: 39): " A spirit {nvevfia = 'n^^) hath not flesh 
 and bones, as ye see me have." The two passages let us into the porch of Jew- 
 ish pneumatology ; but do not lead us into the adijtum of the building. What 
 returns to God, what he takes awaij (^l&x), seems not to be absorbed in him, 
 but to take to itself as it were a shadowy form, capable of motion and devel- 
 opment. Nor does this stand in opposition to Ecc. 9: 10, which declares 
 that " in Shcol, there is neither work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom." 
 The meaning of this is, that the dead cannot perform the functions of the 
 living ; but irdoes not decide, that there is no future existence, no surviving 
 of aliuman being in any sense, in and by something which belongs to man. 
 There may be a n^^ , like that described by Eliphaz and by Christ, and yet 
 all the actions of the common physical man be unsuitable to be ascribed to 
 it. Nor can we appeal with confidence to Is. 14: 9, 10, where the t^.SS'l 
 (umbrae) in Sheol are represented as in commotion, to meet the approaching 
 ghost of the Babylonish monarch and deride him ; for this picture has its 
 basis merely in the popular views respecting bii^^ , like those among us 
 about ghosts. Hitzig, on Ecc. 12: 7, says that Coheleth represents the n^l 
 " as a particle of the divine breath, or world-soul, which, at decease, is reab- 
 sorbed." With all due deference, I would suggest, that a world-soul belongs 
 to Greeks and Komans, but not to the Hebrews. God, a personal God, infi- 
 nitely above all matter, separate from it, and independent of it, is an unvary- 
 ing doctrine of the Hebrew theology. " God is a spirit," is a declaration of 
 Je'sus (John 4 : 24) ; but evidently a declaration which develops only the com- 
 mon Jewish sentiment. 
 
 The question then : What becomes of the niTl physiologically which ascends 
 upioard — which returns to God who gave it? is one on which no portion of 
 the 0. Test, Scriptures directly passes sentence. It must be made out from 
 inference, if made out at all. An incorporeal being Eliphaz saw ; one that hath 
 neither flesh nor bones, Jesus decides a spirit to be. But beyond this, who 
 can with certainty affirm ? The ^vord n^^ , means breath of the mouth or 
 nostrils ; then breath of the air, i. e. wind ; then breath of life = "trSS , (No. 2 
 Lex.), and ipvxv, or anima; then the seat of sensations, affections, and emotions; 
 then the love or temper of these, and specially the will and purpose of the soul ; 
 and lastly, intellect, intelligence. For the last we have a notable passage in 
 Job 32 : 8 : " There is a spirit in man, and the inspiration of the Almighty 
 hath given him understanding:' The two clauses are parallelisms, and of the 
 like meaning. See also Job 32 : 18. Is. 29 : 24. 40 : 13. Ps. 139 : 7. Yet 
 none of all these meanings compare with our Enghsh word soul in the higher 
 sense, viz. a spiritual incorporeal being, having a separate and personal exist- 
 ence. Has the O. Test, disclosed such an idea, except it be obtained by 
 implication ? That the later Hebrews believed in something of this nature, 
 is clear from the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, and from the words of 
 our Saviour to the thief on the cross : " This day shalt thou be with me in 
 Paradise," Luke 23 : 43 ; which is confirmed by Heb. 12 : 23. Eev. 5 : 8—13; 
 
Remarks on III. 21. 1G3 
 
 6:9, 10, al. So too angels are spirits, and demons are spirits. But there is 
 nothing so express as this in the O. Test. When the divine Being is called 
 " the God of the spirits of all flesh," (Numb. 16: 22. 27: 16), the meaning 
 is simply, that he is supreme over all men that live or have vital breath; comp. 
 Job. 12:10. Is. 57:16. 
 
 "We must give up, then, the idea of finding exactly tlie jmetnuatohf/y which 
 is taught by our philosophical systems, in the 0. Test. An incorporeal per- 
 sonal being after death, wc cannot find expressly and definitely in the Jewish 
 Scriptures; i. e. this is not formally and directly developed there. But is it 
 not a matter of fair inference from what is there said ? At the close of 
 Cohelctb, when the writer brings old age to view, and death as its proximate 
 sequel, he announces the latter by saying, tlien " shall the spirit return to 
 God who gave it." But what says he a moment after this 1 " For God 
 will bring to judgment every work, with every secret thing, whether it be 
 good, or whether it be evil ?" But how shall the spirit which has returned to 
 God be judged, if it be absorbed in him as the aniina mundi (Hitzig), or as a 
 part of his subtile impalpable essence? How can it be judged, without any 
 personality, or any identity of being with the former man ? IIow can it have 
 " fulness of joy in God's presence," (Ps. 16; 11), or be " satisfied, when it 
 awakes in his likeness" (Ps. 17: 15), w^ithout personal it tj and real existence 
 of its own ? In Dan. 12:2, and Is. 26 : 19, a resurrection of the body is taught ; 
 so that we cannot appropriately appeal to those texts, as to the point now 
 before us. But the other passages just quoted, and Ecc. 3:17. 11:9, view- 
 ed in the light which they afford, seem to lead us to the conclusion, that 
 while h^'n , in far the greater number of cases, means breath, breath of life, 
 the seat of affections and emotions, and understanding or intelligence, the use of 
 it in some cases, like that of Ecc. 12:7, imports a surviving of the germ or 
 source of those affections and of that intelligence. That the Hebrew pneuma- 
 tology was well defined as to this point, that ancient metaphysics made it out 
 as plainly and fully as ours under the teachings of the gospel, no considerate 
 man will assert, who has well studied the subject. The judgment, the reward, 
 the retribution, still were realities in the view of the HcbrcAvs. At least, this 
 seems to be plain in the way of inference. And although Cohcleth here 
 appears to doubt this (3 : 21), he plainly quits all his doubts in 12 : 7. and 
 speaks decidedly. 
 
 § 7. Difficulties in respect to enjoyment. Toil and disapjiointment 
 consequent on plans to he rich or powerful. 
 
 Chap. IV. 1—16. 
 
 [The writer has just been urging the present enjoyment of one's labors an.d 
 efforts. Difficulties that lie in the way of this, now seem to start up and pre- 
 sent themselves. Oppression is rife, and even carried so far as to make life 
 disgusting. All one's efforts arc frustrated by it, so that the pursuit of good, 
 in this way, turns out to be vanity, vs. 1 — 6. One sets out to accumulate 
 
164 Chap. IV. 1, 2. 
 
 much wealth ; he even lives a solitary life in order to avoid expense ; yet this 
 lonely condition is attended with inconvenience and harm, vs. 7 — 12. One 
 born poor is presented as striving to^obtain even a throne ; he succeeds, to the 
 prejudice of the old king; but at last his own disappointment and disgrace 
 follow,vs. 13— 16.] 
 
 (1) Then I turned and saw all the oppressions which are done under the 
 sun; and behold! the tears of the oppressed, and they had no comforter; 
 and from the hand of their oppressors was violence, but to them no comforter. 
 
 The wound of oppression, disclosed in 3: 16, dwelt so on the 
 mind of the writer, and was so aggravated by his own experience, 
 that it breaks out afresh here, and he suggests the subject as 
 practically connected with the preceding advice about enjoyment. 
 This, he thinks, is impossible, while things remain as they are. 
 — ti^ibsJi , committed, perpetrated. — inSJia^ , const, sing, being a 
 collective noun. We must render it by the plural, because our 
 idiom does not employ the sing, in such a case. — The second 
 d'lpiDSJ is Part. pass. — nb , power in malam partem, i. e. force, 
 violence. The three participles here well designate the continued 
 action which the case presents. 
 
 (2) Then I praised the dead, those who long since died, more than those 
 who are living unto the present time. 
 
 'r3.p_ most critics regard as a Part, with 5a dropped ; which 
 sometimes occurs, perhaps, in Part. Piel, Zeph. 1: 14. Knobel 
 has cited four examples in proof of this usage, every one of which 
 belongs to Pual, and not to Piel. Hitzig denies such a usage in 
 Piel ; and Ges. has noted none in his Grammar. Hitzig says, that 
 we must make it in the Inf. absolute, which may follow a definite 
 verb, and continue the Construction as though it were a definite 
 mode, 1 Chron. 5 : 20. In like manner, on the other hand, the def. 
 mode may follow the Inf. abs. in the same construction, Job 40 : 2. 
 Gen. 17 : 10. But in 1 Chron. 5 : 20, the Inf. abs. is not followed 
 (as in our text) by a Nom. or subject of the verb, which seems to 
 make a difference. The "^3 it, in our text, seemingly requires a 
 Part., or else the def. verb "^riri?^ must be implied. Yet cases 
 of the Nom. or subject in the third person, may be found in Job 
 40 : 2. Ezek. 1: 14, (see § 128. 4. n. 1), joined with the Inf. abs. 
 We may, therefore, accept this solution. As to making an adjec- 
 tive of na^lJ , as some have done, the meaning of the word puts 
 
Chap. IV. 3. 1G5 
 
 thisoutof question. — W^ declined with the Tseri of the ground- 
 form, n?3 . — G^lin adj. from ^n . — n5sn are^ § 119. 2. — ^T^'i,t 
 compound particle from Hin-"ir , unto here, either as to place or 
 time. The n- is local and paragogic, the root being '{r\ . 
 
 (3) And better than botli of them is he who hath not hitherto come into 
 existence, who hath not seen the evil deeds which are done under the sun. 
 
 trt^ri-'a , lit. than the two of them, the dual Nom. is D^i'j . — 
 idx rx , Ace. governed by n^iJ implied, and to be deduced from 
 the preceding verse. Some make it the Nom., for n5< is some- 
 times found before the Nom. (see Lex. nx , 2. a.) ; but this is 
 unnecessary. Still, I have made the translation as if it were in 
 the Nom. ; for literally rendered as Ace, it would run thus : And 
 as better than both of them [I praised] him who, etc. The version 
 above is more facile. — 'j'lr , apoc. form, without the parag. T\- . 
 — n^fi is a real Perf. here, and should be rendered : has not been ; 
 and so of nx'n . — r'nn adj. here, final Qamets made by the pause- 
 accent, from H"^ . See a different construction in 'J"^ )^^^_ (1: 13), 
 where 5>'n is a noun in the Genitive. 
 
 The pressure of the times must have been grievous to call forth 
 such a sentiment as this. We cannot imagine anything like to this 
 in the days of Solomon. The connection of vs. 1 — 3 with what 
 immediately precedes, is such as serves to show, that the advice 
 given in 3 : 22 could not be followed, at the time then present, so 
 as to secure the enjoyment in question ; and as this was the 
 writer's last hope respecting earthly things, and this hope was 
 now frustrated by oppression, Coheleth despairs of life, and 
 wishes rather for death. He pushes the matter even to the highest 
 extreme. ' It would be better,' he says, ' never to have been born, 
 than to come into life, and undergo such vexations and disappoint- 
 ments.' But we are ready to ask : How could a man, who had a 
 good hope respecting a future state, give utterance to such a senti- 
 ment ? It seems paradoxical, at first view ; and yet Job often 
 expresses the same feelings, and Jonah (4:8), from mere vexa- 
 tion about his credit as a prophet, earnestly felt and expressed 
 the like wishes. Paul, too, had " a desire to depart," and be freed 
 from his sorrows ; but he expected to be with Christ, " which was 
 far better" than any earthly good. There is nothing strange, then, 
 in the feeling of Coheleth. But it must have been indulged, when 
 
166 Chap. IV. 3. 
 
 he was in darkness and doubt about the ways of Providence, and 
 also under the lash of the oppressor. "What he says here is surely 
 no pattern for us. He only tells us, ingenuously, how he felt and 
 acted, under the gloomy state of his fretted mind. Thousands, 
 every day, now sympathize with him. The only mystery about 
 the matter is, that he does not here say one word about a, future 
 world ; for a lively hope of happiness there ought, full surely, to 
 make him patient and submissive. But alas ! as he has told us : 
 " There is not a just man on earth, that doeth good, and sinneth 
 not." Job, with all his patience, in a moment of exasperation, 
 " cursed the day of his birth," 3 : 1 seq. Moses wished rather to be 
 " blotted out of the book of God," i. e. to be erased from the cata- 
 logue of the living, than that the request which he made should be 
 refused, Ex. 32 : 32. Elijah, when hotly persecuted by Jezebel, 
 wished heartily to die, 1 K. 19 : 4. Jonah was doubtless a good 
 man ; but when under disappointment, he gave expression to the 
 wishes already noted above, Jon. 4:3. If we allow Coheleth 
 the same latitude which sacred history shows us was tolerated 
 in others, we cannot be at all surprised at his impatience ; 
 especially if we regard his views of the future, at that time, as 
 somewhat unsettled and vacillating. It is only when we insist, 
 that he must at all times utter Christian sentiment, that we are 
 perplexed about his views and feelings. Allow him the freedom 
 that is conceded to Paul, when he introduces an objector to his 
 views ; and then suppose the objections of the author, in the 
 present case, to have come from his own struggling mind, and 
 that he has told us, ingenuously, how he then felt and acted, and 
 all is plain and easy. We need no Procrustes's bed for the text. 
 We are not bound either to approve of, or to follow, Coheleth's 
 conclusions, when he was in his perplexed and unsettled state, 
 but rather to take warning from them, and seek to avoid them. 
 Any other ground, for the exegesis of this book, puts many parts 
 of it on the rack, and even then we cannot make it intelligibly 
 confess what we desire. Very different from all this is the close 
 of the book, where he develops the ultimatum to which his mind 
 comes. Christians have a spontaneous feeling, that such a state of 
 despair is wrong ; and yet, under the full blaze of gospel-light, 
 and all its revelations of the future, more or less of them indulge, 
 at times, the like feelings with those of Coheleth. More pardon- 
 
Chap. IV. 4. 167 
 
 able and less strange were they in him, because, at the best, he 
 could only see by twilight. The full strength of Christian senti- 
 ment we see in Paul and Peter, and others of similar hopes. "All 
 things shall work together for good," sustained them in their most 
 dark and dismal hours. Coheleth comes, at last, to the same con- 
 clusion ; but the process in him was slower, and attended with 
 more difficulty, than in their minds. — Thus much for the dark 
 cloud which oppression threw over him. Will the amassing of 
 wealth serve to heal the wound ? We shall soon see. 
 
 (4) Then I considered all toil and dexterity of doinsjj, that it becomes mat- 
 ter of jealousy toward a man on the part of his neighbor ; this too is vanity 
 and fruitless effort. 
 
 When one strives to outdo his neighbor in his efforts to be rich, 
 he often becomes an object of that neighbor's jealousy or envy ; 
 and this is a passion so bitter, that all pursuits which excite it 
 . become worthless by reason of it. Most render 'i"i^'3 here emolu- 
 ment, 'profit. But in 2:21 it has the sense assigned to it in the 
 version above, and so it should have the same sense here, because 
 the connection and sentiment are alike in both passages. Indeed, 
 dexterity is more enviable than wealth. — "^3 stands connected with 
 'ip'^j};'! , / saw . . . that, etc. ; it is not causal. — 5<"in is fem., 
 and is usual when the neuter (id) is required. It means, it is, or 
 it becomes. But what is the it, which is matter of jealousy ? 
 The answer is, both the toil and the dexterity. These are included 
 under s<"'ri = that thing. — rxDp , most explain by object of 
 jealousy ; for toil and dexterity are not, themselves, jealousy. 
 Hitzig, however, insists on Beneiden, the envying (active), not the 
 being envied. In this case, we must give to J<"ri the sense of it 
 occasions — a possible, but not very facile meaning. — ^•i?'^^ ^"^J?: , 
 if we adopt Hitzig's view, is more readily explained, "{O often 
 standing before the author or cause of anything ; and so Ave may 
 translate : of envying by his neighbor. The sense is good ; but the 
 other mode of interpretation makes it equally so. a would then 
 mean from or on the part of, designating the source of envy or 
 jealousy ; a meaning not unfrequent of this particle. (See Lex. A. 
 2. c. For the suff. ^in- to the noun, see § 89. § 91. 9). If such be 
 the consequences of dexterous toil to grow rich, it may well be 
 said : All is vanity and an empty pursuit. That, such is often the 
 
168 Chap. IV. 5, 6. 
 
 case, every day bears testimony. But to the author's view some 
 one may object, (in the words of an old proverb), that still none 
 hut fools are inactive and lazy. So the next verse : — 
 
 (5) The fool foldeth his Imnds, and consumeth his own flesh. 
 
 To fold the hands, is to assume the position of one unemployed 
 and idle. — A7id consumeth his oion flesh, not — sucks his own fat, 
 and lives on it, like the bear — but destroys himself In other 
 words, through idleness he lacks the means of healthful nutriment, 
 and his body pines away under its deprivations. He is felo de se ; 
 comp. Ps. 27 : 2. Mic. 3 : 3. Is. 49 : 26. Num. 12:12. Such, then, 
 are the consequences of laziness ; and if so, how, it is asked, can 
 dexterous toil be vanity, which supplies the wants of the body ? 
 Such seems to be the objection made to the preceding view of 
 Coheleth ; and by the activity which he mentions, it is implied 
 that some serious advantage is gained which the foolish idler 
 must forego. Idleness is its own punishment ; therefore activity, 
 which makes provision for want, is not altogether vanity, as Cohe- 
 leth had called it. Such is the logic of the objector. To this, an 
 answer is made forthwith : — 
 
 (6) Better is a handful of quiet, than two hands full of toil and fruitless 
 effort. 
 
 The reply does not commend the course of the idle or foolish 
 man ; how could it ? But it decides, that quietude in life, with a 
 modicum, is better than to have a double portion, or both hands full, 
 which turns out, after all, to be but vanity and fruitless effort. 
 In other words : It is better to be contented with what can be 
 obtained in a quiet way, and without bustle and strenuous effort, 
 than to toil incessantly in order to get both hands full, i. e. an 
 overflowing abundance. Coheleth would choose, for himself, 
 neither the extreme of the bustling covetous man, nor yet that of 
 the idle man whose inaction must bring him to want. In medio 
 iutissimus. Strive for a sufficiency, and be content with that ; 
 for this can be procured consistently with quiet. Therefore, 
 neither overdo, nor be idle. Both are vain and fruitless in their 
 issue. — 5<b^ is Inf. nominas. followed (as often) by a Genitive. 
 mm, in the Ace. governed by i^b^a , § 135. 3. h. Qamets on the 
 penult here, on account of the pause. ts'i^iEH , used only in the dual, 
 
Chap. IV. 7—9. 1G9 
 
 lit. both jists or clenched hands, referring to the grasping of an 
 object with both hands in order to hold it. — h-QV , etc., both 
 nouns in Ace. by reason of xb^ , as above. The folly of a greedy 
 pursuit of M'ealth is still further illustrated by the sequel. 
 
 (7) And I turned and considered a vanity under the sun. (8) There is 
 one man, and no second ; moreover lie lias no son, nor brother ; and yet 
 there is no end to all his toil, his eyes also are not satisfied with riches: 'For 
 whom then [saith lie] do I toil, and deprive myself of enjoyment ?' This too 
 is vanity, a sad undertaking is it. 
 
 The discourse is climactic. Beginning with the vanity of 
 excess in toil in order to acquire, it goes on here to illustrate the 
 extreme folly to which this jiassion will lead. The writer 
 begins, in v. 7, by calling it a vanity, he ends (v. 8) by calling it 
 a sore evil. 
 
 And not a second, is exegetical of the emphatic meaning of inx , 
 viz. one only. — -pi^ , being in the Const, state, it implies after it one 
 or each of the two preceding nouns. — T^i^iy takes a sing. fern, verb 
 after it, being the plur. of things and not oi persons, § 143. 3 ; see 
 1 Sam. 4: 15. Ps. 37 : 21. Jer. 2 : 15. There is no need of the 
 Qeri ir J? . — 'nirr, Ace. § 135. 3. h. — And from whom^ etc., i. e. the 
 miser is introduced as exclaiming thus, n^oj? being omitted, as 
 often in other cases. The statement is rendered more vivid and 
 striking by this. — "'"rss I have rendered myself, to which it is 
 often equivalent. — S?"! "{'^'i'J , the first is in the Const, state, and 
 lit. we must render : an undertaldng of sadness or misfortune. — 
 fi<'^ri is it, as usual, fem. for neut., and it means the whole business 
 or the whole affair in question. 
 
 Having adverted emphatically to the loneliness of the miser, 
 he pursues this view of the subject further, and describes the 
 evils that result from such an insulated position. 
 
 (9) Two are better than one, because they have a good reward on account 
 of their toil. 
 
 Heiligst. says, that 'n^rx does not mean quia here, but is to be 
 referred as a relative j^ronoun to the preceding c^sd . But the 
 verse then would run thus : Better are two than one, to which 
 [two] there is a reward, etc. But this would defeat the speaker's 
 object, for it would limit better only to such two as might 
 have a reward. The assertion is more general. — ^^x , because, 
 15 
 
170 Chap. IV. 10-12. 
 
 is a very common use of the word, see Lex. B. 3. What the 
 reward in question is, he now goes on to illustrate by some par- 
 ticulars. 
 
 (10) For if they fall, the one shall raise up his fellow, but woe to him — 
 the one who shall fall — should there then be no second to raise him up. 
 
 If they fall, that is, either one or the other ; but not both at 
 the same time, for then no helper is left. — '\'h>'^i< is two w^ords 
 compounded, viz. i^ 'ij* , woe to him. ^'^^^^ being in apposition 
 with the pron. in i^ , by implication the h prefix is carried on 
 mentally, so as to stand before it. Falling need not be confined 
 merely to stumbling physically, but may be extended to any case 
 where 2i friend in time of need is a good. 
 
 (11) Moreover, if two lie together, then they have warmth; but to one 
 alone, how shall there be warmth 1 
 
 The nights in Palestine, when the cold is nearly approaching 
 to frost, become to the feelings severely cold, by reason of the 
 warmth at mid-day. It would seem, from Ex. 22 : 26, that a 
 man's cloak or outer garment was all the covering usually pro- 
 vided for sleeping. The point aimed at in the text becomes, in 
 this view, quite conspicuous. With us, provided as we are with 
 abundance of covering, the allegation of the verse seems com- 
 paratively tame. But the Hebrews slept on a floor-mat at the best, 
 and not on feather-beds ; and they had few if any blankets, made 
 for the purpose of procuring warmth by night. Many refer the 
 text to conjugal union in sleeping; but the sentiment is more 
 general, and the writer is not discussing the subject of matri- 
 mony. The object is merely to illustrate the sentiment he 
 designs to confirm, by examples taken from the common occur- 
 rences of life. — nni, lit. then is it warm, for ) the?!, see § 152. 
 B. d. — dn;^ , Imperf. with A. of dTon , Qamets by reason of the 
 pause ; see § 66. Note 3, also 5, e. g. 
 
 (12) And if one prevails over him who is alone, two shall stand firm be- 
 fore him ; and a threefold cord is not hastily broken. 
 
 The verb ti*pri';i is here impersonal, and therefore requires the 
 indefinite one, any man^ before it. — '^nsn is exegetical of the 
 preceding suff. i — used anticipatively, and means the lonely one, 
 — Stand firm before him is used to express successful resistance ; 
 
Chap. IV. 13, 14. 171 
 
 see 2 K. 10: 4. Josh. 10: 8. — ij^nrt, designating a particular 
 substance, it takes the article. — iii^'^;J"2tn , trebled, Part Pual of the 
 denom. verb. — ir^npn , wWi haste, used adverbially. That is, 
 if it be, an advantage that two should combine, still more may be 
 expected from the addition of a third. The last clause was 
 doubtless a common proverb. 
 
 Thus much for the advantages of society or union. The lonely 
 miser fails of securing these. His wealth, gotten by the relin- 
 (luishment of the assistance and consolation which he often needs, 
 is indeed but vanity. 
 
 But how fares it w4th the amhitious man ? Do the honours 
 which he covets, and which he successfully strives to win, render 
 him secure, and stable, and renowned ? We shall soon see. 
 
 (13) Better is a youth indigent and sagacious, than a king old and foolish, 
 who cares not to be any more admonished. 
 
 BDln , sagacious, cunning, the secondary and low^er sense of the 
 word. — "'ii^ , not only novit, scivit, but also to care for, to have regard 
 for ; see Lex. No. 7. — All sorts of kings, from Nimrod down to 
 Rehoboam and even to Joash, have been conjectured here, in order 
 to make out the old king mentioned. It is not absolutely neces- 
 sary, indeed, to make out any other than merely a case supposed 
 by way of illustration. If, however, any suppose that Solomon 
 should be regarded as the author of the book, is it not very 
 improbable that he w^ould characterize himself as old and foolish ? 
 But a later writer, who read such an account of Solomon as is 
 given in 1 K. 11: 1 — 13, might well deem him to be old and 
 foolish, and disinclined to hear wholesome admonition. It was 
 not enough to have 700 wives and 300 concubines, many of 
 them heathen, but Solomon built heathen temples in the face of 
 the temple of God, and worshipped in them, 1 K. 11: 5. The 
 young sagacious man seems not improbably to be Jeroboam ; as 
 we shall see in the sequel. — h sn^ , lit. cares not in respect to. 
 The ni:: , at the beginning, does not mean better in a moral sense, 
 but more fortunate, 
 
 (14) For from tlie house of fugitives he goes forth to reign; for in his 
 own kingdom he was born a poor man. 
 
 d^^i^ort , as appears by the r\ (article with Qamets) was doubt- 
 
172 Chap. IV. 15. 
 
 less understood by the punctators as put for d'l'nii&yiri , the impris- 
 oned. Hence our version out of prison ; and so, most of the 
 critics have translated. That 6< is sometimes dropped in such 
 cases, is clear, from 2 Chron. 22 : 5, comp. w'ith 2 K. 8 ; 28. Is. 
 13 : 20. But if ^ox is the stem of the word, we might expect 
 ti^TP^, here, as in Judg. 16: 21, 25 (Kethibh), and Gen. 39 : 20 
 (Qeri). On the other hand, no change in the text is really- 
 needed ; for nil'i^D gives an apposite sense; see in Jer. 17: 13. 
 2 : 21, where it means departed from. The general sense of 'i^D 
 is to turn away, recede, either to avoid danger, or to seek a place 
 of safety. Fugitives is our nearest word ; for men become so, in 
 order to avoid danger, or to find safety. If now Jeroboam be 
 the cmining youth in question, the language applies fitly. He 
 fled to Egypt for safety, 1 K. 11: 40. Moreover, Egypt was 
 the common asylum of fugitives from Judea, Jer. 26 : 21. 24 : 8 ; 
 and in later times, Joseph with Mary and the child Jesus went 
 thither, Matt. 2 : 13 — 22. From Egypt did Jeroboam come to 
 reign over ten tribes in Israel. He was born in Judea, and his 
 mother, at the time of his flight, was a widow, 1 K. 11: 26. As 
 he was a servant of Solomon, he was probably poor ; but his 
 sagacity soon gave him the place of an officer under him. When 
 he " lifted up his hand " against the old king, Solomon sought to 
 kill him, and he fled to Egypt, the house or asylum of refugees, 
 1 K. 11: 26, 40. — The second 'iS is causal here, stating a ground 
 or reason of his flight. In the kingdom over which he afterwards 
 reigned, he w^as born poor, and so had not the means, at first, of 
 exciting and carrying out a revolt. On this ground he became a 
 fugitive, until opportunity of returning with a prospect of success 
 occurred. On his return, the people, disgusted by the new king 
 and his exactions, hailed Jeroboam with joy. So the sequel. 
 
 (15) I saw Jill the living, who walked beneath the sun, with the youth, the 
 second, who stood up in his room. 
 
 Living, i. e. living men, those who lived at that period. All 
 the living, is hyperbole in form ; but every reader feels at once, 
 that it is merely a strong expression of the idea of great num- 
 bers, yet still such as belonged to Palestine, and not all the living 
 of the whole human race. See the like in Matt. 3:5. — Walked 
 under the sun, moved hither and thither on the earth. — d5? ivith, 
 
Chap. IV. 16. UV, 
 
 in the usual sense of association. Ileiligs. takes fiS" in the sense 
 of comparison — the living compared with the youth, etc. But 
 what sense can be made of this,' I do not see. Clearly the mean- 
 ing is, that he saw the populace thronging around the youth, 
 who was to be second, i. e. to be successor to the old king, instead 
 of his own son, who retained only two tribes. — The article in 
 "ib^rt makes it plain, that the 'ib';] of v. 13 is referred to here. — 
 So ■'3"i•^^ , in apposition and explicative, also takes the article. 
 The second king may mean the next which follows the old one, 
 or comes after him in the throne ; but a somewhat different 
 sense will be adverted to in the sequel, v. 1 6. To stand up, is to 
 stand firm, to establish one's self. — In his room, i. e. in the room 
 of the old king. 
 
 (16) There is no end to all the people, to all before Avhom he was, [whose 
 leader he was] ; moreover, those who come afterwards will not rejoice in 
 him. Truly this also is vanity and fruitless effort. 
 
 Before whom he was ; many refer '^ssb to time, but this makes 
 no sense approj)riate to the writer's purpose. He is describing 
 the popularity of the young king. He has just said, that all the 
 people are with him, and now he adds that he is leader — is he- 
 fore — a mass of men not to be numbered — there is no end to 
 them. That the Heb. idiom readily admits this sense, may be 
 easily shown. In 1 K. 16: 21, it is twice said, that half of the 
 people were after such and such an one, i. e. followed him as 
 their leader. In Num. 27 : 17, the leader is characterized by 
 saying : " He shall go out before them [the people], and come in 
 before them^ The same is said of David, 1 Sam. 18: 16 ; also 
 of Solomon, 2 Chron. 1: 10. — TJx makes the suff. pron. trt a 
 relative, § 121. 1. — rm relates of course to the young king. 
 Thus we gain a consistent and continuous sentiment; and so 
 Hitzig and Knobel, while Ewald and Heiligs. refer "^asb to time, 
 which appears to be altogether irrelevant. — n'^iinnxn , the after- 
 comers, i. e. those who come on the stage of action after the ele- 
 vation of the young man to the throne, will take a different 
 course from that of those who surrounded him with huzzaings at 
 the outset. Such was the case with Jeroboam. The terrible 
 message communicated to him by the prophet Abijah (1 K. 14: 
 15* 
 
174 Chap. IV. 16. 
 
 7 — 16), and the testimony concerning him in 2 K. 17 : 21, show 
 that, with all the good and pious among the ten tribes, he must 
 have been held in abhorrence for his gross idolatry. While the 
 mourning of Israel over the grave of his infant child is particu- 
 larly related (1 K. 14: 18), not a word of this nature is spoken 
 about him, on the occasion of his death. The opposite of regret 
 is implied in 1 K. 14: 10, 11. The wars which he waged (1 K. 
 14: 19) must have occasioned heavy taxes to be laid upon the 
 people, and this would render him odious ; for in the light of a 
 conqueror he is not presented, and conquest only could secure 
 popularity in such a case. — So we may conclude, with our text, 
 that they, viz. the people who lived under him, would not rejoice 
 in him. — This too is vanity ; truly so, because the object of his 
 rebellion and treason was not attained, viz. a quiet settlement on 
 a throne. Such is the end of all projects of mere ambition. It 
 is fruitless effort. — The 13 before the last clause has made some 
 difficulty. But it is unnecessary. — 13, at the head of a sentence 
 or clause, not unfrequently is an intensive (§ 152. II. d. Lex. 'iS, 
 6, c), and is equivalent to the Lat. imo, or the German ^a, i. e. = 
 yea, indeed, truly ; see Is. 32 : 13. 15 : 1. Ps. 71 : 23. 77 : 12. 
 Ex. 22 : 22. Job 8:6. So Ewald, Gramm. § 320. h. (5th edit.), 
 who has finely illustrated this use of the particle, which is im- 
 perfectly treated of in Ges. Gramm. and Lex. — da denotes ad- 
 dition, cumulation. Here the addition is to the preceding vani- 
 ties ; also this, or (as we must express it here in our idiom) this 
 :too, this also, i. e. this matter must be added to the list of vani- 
 ties. Ambition, then, comes out badly at last. 
 
 If we are correct in referring the old Icing to Solomon under 
 the guidance of his heathen wives, and the young man to Jero- 
 boam, there still remains some difficulty in the case. Rehoboam, 
 Solomon's son and successor, is, to all appearance, not brought to 
 view ; and this seems somewhat strange. Perhaps, however, 
 there is in reality a reference to him implied, by the ^yq , which 
 designates Jeroboam in v. 15. I have supposed above (on v. 15), 
 that it may mean the successor of Solomon, as king to the great 
 mass of the Hebrew nation. But I do not see, on the whole, 
 why we may not suppose, that i3ij designates Jeroboam, and refers 
 to Rehoboam, as being implied by the first, because his birth and 
 
Chap. IV. 16. 175 
 
 rank gave him the lawful title to the kingdom. A second lb;; 
 would seem to imply that there was ajirst ^h'l ; and if so, this 
 must have been Rehoboam. 
 
 Hitzig concedes the applicability of vs. 13 — 16 to Solomon 
 and Jeroboam ; but the fact that Rehoboam is not adverted to, he 
 thinks so strange, that we must seek elsewhere for an explana- 
 tion of the passage. Accordingly, he goes down to the time of 
 Ptolemy Euergetes, king of Egypt, (fl. 246—221 b. c), and 
 linds that the high j^riest of that time, Onias, is represented as 
 old and foolish by Josephus (Antiqq. xii. 4), and that his nephew, 
 Joseph, is described as being a shrewd manager, who wrested his 
 office from his uncle, and then, in consequence of being farmer of 
 the Syrian tribute-revenue, he afterwards became unpopular. He 
 even finds in 0t/oA«, Joseph's native place, another form of Pldge- 
 la, an Ionian town built by fugitives, as the name imports. This 
 then, as Hitz. supposes, is the tinJifeh n'la from which the young 
 man comes. — All this is ingenious, no doubt, yet not very satis- 
 factory ; for first, there is no evidence worthy of credit, that any 
 part of the Jewish Scriptures was written so late as 246 — 221 
 B. c. ; and secondly, Onias was not king, while the old and fool- 
 ish man of our text is king ; nor Avas Joseph a hing, who ousted 
 and succeeded him. Still, it is mainly on this ground, that Hit- 
 zig puts the authorship of Coheleth down to the time of Euer- 
 getes, (Vorbemerk. § 4.) Surely this has slender support, and 
 is on the whole a real ""n '];;':" . Nothing but desperation in neol- 
 ogy, as it seems to me, could have contrived such an interpreta- 
 tion as this. It cannot appear very inviting, at all events, to 
 such as do not sympathize with the critical views of the con- 
 triver. In fact, a consummate Heb. philologist, as Hitzig clearly 
 is, ought not to risk his reputation on such a phantasy as this. 
 How could he reasonably expect, that others would be satisfied 
 with such criticism, who should investigate for themselves? I 
 trust that few of such will be brought to believe, that the office 
 of a priest and a king is the same. And whoever looks at Jo- 
 sephus's a ".count of Joseph, will find a very different character 
 from that of the lb;; . It must be a desperate cause that needs 
 such aid as this, or can induce any one to rely upon it. 
 
176 Chap. IV. 17. 
 
 § 8. In what way, under such circumstances, a man ought to demean 
 himself in respect to the ordinances of God. 
 
 IV. 17— y. 6. 
 
 [Thus far all has been description of the evils and disappointments of life, 
 interspersed with a few incidental remarks. A new turn is now given to 
 the discourse. It becomes preceptive and monilory, which thus far it has not 
 been. The first great question for a man Avho reverences God is: ' How 
 shall I demean myself toward him, when his providence has placed me in 
 the midst of such trials and disappointments, from which there is no escape 1 
 Shall I shun his presence, and cease to Avorship him, since I despair of any 
 solid good in tlie present life ? If not, how can I propitiate him, or how 
 worship him acceptably V This brings the question to a point, where Cohe- 
 leth feels it needful to interpose and give his advice. He addresses the ques- 
 tioner in the way of precepts and precautions. Hence the second person 
 (which has not before appeared), in the precepts that follow. As the transition 
 is so great from 4 : IG Avith the preceding context to the subject in 4: 17, it is 
 wonderful that those who divided the Ileb. Scriptures into chapters should 
 not have joined 4:17 with what follows in Chap. V., as is done in our English 
 version. The present division in the Heb., helps to bewilder the reader.] 
 
 (17) Keep thy foot when thou goest to the house of God: and to draw 
 near to hear is better than the sacrificial-feast which is given by fools ; for 
 they know not how to be sad. 
 
 In ^■''brit'? the vowels are adapted to the sing, "r^^y^, as the 
 Masoretic marginal note indicates. With the latter agree the 
 versions of the Sept., Syr., Vulg., and most of the modern critics. 
 See the sing., also, in like cases, in Pro v. 1:15. 4:26. Keep thy 
 foot = look well to thy going ; seek to go safely and surely by 
 looking well to thy steps. — Goest to the house of God, seems to 
 imply, that both the adviser and those whom he designs to in- 
 struct live in the vicinity of the temple, where they often and 
 habitually worship. It seems probable, from this, that the author 
 wrote this book at Jerusalem or in its vicinity, or at least had 
 lived there. — d'i|5'i , Inf. abs. Piel, and so it may be of any mode 
 or person, § 128. 4. 6 ; here it means the approaching or drawing 
 near. Here too it is the subject of the sentence ; which is rare, 
 § 128. 4. n. 1. comp. Job 40 : 2. Ezek. 1 : 14. The object is to 
 show what keeping the foot, etc., signifies. An approaching to 
 hear, denotes entrance into the interior temple, where the priests 
 read the law, and uttered their exhortations ; see Deut. 33 : 10. 
 Mic. 3: 11. Mai. 2 : 6, 7, comp. Acts. 3: 11. — ntn^, i. e. yq 
 
Chap. IV. 17. 177 
 
 before the Inf. rn (from ]r^), which is a contraction of p?n fern. 
 Lif. Before this word (nnTa) did is plainly implied, (because 
 a is comparative, § 117. 1.), but it is not here expressed; as e. g. 
 in 9: 17. Ezek, 15: 2. Is. 10: 10, al., where it is omitted. 
 Accordingly I have rendered it — better than the instituting or 
 giving by fools of a sacrificial-feast. — cb^psri (article before a 
 whole class) is the agent or subject of nn ; but as it is impossible, 
 in our language, to imitate the Heb. construction, I have desig- 
 nated the agency in the translation thus : Z>y fools. — That nnt 
 (in Pause n3T) may and does often mean the feast on a part of 
 the victim which is offered, is plain ; see Lex. and comp. Prov. 
 17:1. Is. 22:13. Dent. 33: 19. Here, as the offerers are 
 l^lural (fools), and the feast singular, it is probably indicated, 
 that while one victim is sacrificed and feasted on, there is a 
 company who sit down at the feast upon it. Such, indeed, was 
 the usage ; comp. 1 Sam. 9:13. 2 K. 1 : 9, 41. If this were not 
 meant, we should expect D^^nnt in correspondence wdth Di^^^CiSil 
 — The "IS causal, that begins the last clause, indicates a reason 
 why the offerers in the preceding clause are called fools. When 
 they go to the temple, instead of going there to be instructed, 
 instead of entering the inner court and listening to prayers and 
 instructions, they content themselves with staying in the outer 
 court, and there holding their sacrificial-feast, accompanied by 
 their friends, for the sake of social enjoyment. There they eat 
 and drink for pleasure, and are merry withal. This the writer 
 opposes to, and contrasts with, that sadness which becomes a 
 penitent, who goes to the temple to confess his sins, to offer 
 sacrifice for expiation, and to hear the monitions of divine truth. 
 All this imports godly sorrow and penitence, with desire to be 
 corrected. But fools neglect this part of duty. They go to the 
 temple to keep up appearances as worshippers, but mainly for 
 the pleasure of the social feast. This is the doing of fools, and 
 not of men who act reasonably. They are full of exhilaration 
 and merriment, and do not feel or exhibit any of the sadness 
 which contrition occasions. — That i'"! (in pause r"^) often means 
 sadness, is made clear in Lex. Cases in point, which cannot 
 be mistaken as to the meaning of ""i nib:?, may be found in 2 
 Sam. 12: 18; and the opposite, viz. niiJ nto, in Ecc. 3: 12 
 above. As the latter clearly means to ejijoy good or procure 
 
178 Chap. IV. 17. 
 
 pleasure^ so the former means lit. to make sad, i. e. to demean 
 one's self with sadness. The idea of a suffering condition stands 
 connected with it ; for sadness comes through this. But it is by- 
 no means confined to physical suffering ; it extends to mental. 
 Fools know not how to sorrow for the sins which occasioned the 
 nint in question. But he who keeps his foot — i. e. looks well to 
 his goings — will avoid their folly. He will go up to the temple 
 with becoming solemnity, and will be sorrowful or sad for his sins, 
 and listen to admonition. 
 
 This explanation I owe to Hitzig. Its correctness, as to truly 
 representing the Heb. idiom, cannot well be questioned. But 
 others translate differently, and after the old fashion : Knob. : 
 That do not concern themselves about evil-doing ; Ewald : Be- 
 cause they knoiv not that they do evil; Heiligs. : Nam nesciunt 
 se facere malum. But what is the evil, in this case ? Not the 
 mere offering of sacrifice ; for that the Law commands. If real 
 ignorance of evil is implied by the last clause, would not this pal- 
 liate instead of enhancing their fault ? To put them in fault, they 
 must neglect some known duty. When they feast and carouse, 
 and sorrow not for sin, they neglect the obvious duty of one Avho 
 brings a sacrifice. Therefore they act foolishly, and therefore are 
 they called fools. The word c'^r^i'' is not confined to mere 
 mental perception ; for the word also means advertere animiim, 
 providere, curare, to take knowledge of a thing, in the sense of 
 looking after it and caring for it ; see Lex. s. v. No. 7. The above 
 modes of exegesis, then, are conformed neither to the Heb. idiom, 
 nor to the exigencies of the case. In the other mode of interpre- 
 tation, M^e obtain an excellent sentiment : ' Wlien thou goest to 
 worship God, go not to indulge in levity and mirth, but to humble 
 thyself and be sad for thy sins. Fools stay in the outer court, 
 where they can indulge in the first ; go thou into the inner one, 
 where thou canst be made better by sadness.' See this sentiment 
 fully and explicitly repeated and confirmed in Ecc. 7 : 3 — 6. 
 It is indeed plain, that men are not fools for offering an appointed 
 sacrifice ; nor yet from mere ignorance about its true value ; but 
 they are fools for refusing to receive the obvious instruction which 
 such a transaction implicitly gives, viz. that the offerer should be 
 penitent, and desirous of admonition. 
 
Chap. V. 1, 2. 179 
 
 Chap. V. 
 
 (1 ) Be not hasty with thy mouth, and let not thy heart urge thee on to utter 
 words before God : for God is in heaven, and tliou art on eartli, tliercforc let 
 thy words be few. 
 
 The preceding verse brings to view the subject of sacrifice ; 
 but here we liave the duty o^ prayer, which would naturally follow 
 on. Caution is given against hasty and thoughtless utterance of 
 words in prayer. — Be not hasty with thy mouth, ^"^S h'$ , like 
 ivdb h'S Ps. 15:3, lit. means, on thy mouth. We say : Let no 
 slander be on thy tongue ; but the Hebrews have extended the 
 usage further, and speak of the mouth in general as the seat or 
 source of utterance, or on which utterance rests. — '^S'l , a word, 
 i. e. any word, any one thing in thy prayer. — Before God, here 
 means in the temple where he peculiarly dwelt ; but the spirit of 
 the precept will apply to prayer anywhere, or at any time. — 
 God is in heaven and thou on earth, i. e. God is infinitely exalted 
 above all created things, but thou art only one of the latter, and 
 on his footstool; comp. Ps. 115 : 3. — Let thy words be few, i. e. 
 do not speak much and at random, as men in light and free con- 
 versation with familiar friends and equals are apt to do. Speak 
 as penetrated by reverential awe of the exalted majesty and 
 power of God. — d"^*?"? , a Pilel form from ::r^ ,feivness; used 
 only in the later Hebrew. 
 
 (2) For a dream cometh with much occupation, and the voice of a fool 
 with a multitude of words. 
 
 "i;^?:? (not n"i3S;i3), not hand-labor, but occupation in business that 
 tries and perplexes the mind. Common experience shows how 
 often the fact here stated is verified. — And a fooVs voice, etc., 
 i. e. only the foolish prattle and outpour a flood of words. The 
 two parts of the verse include a comparison, iov the Hebrew often 
 makes a comparison with only i between the members of it, which 
 in such cases may well be rendered and so or and thus; § 152. B. 3. 
 If the phras( were filled out, 3 or "jS would be inserted between 
 the two parts. The intimation of the verse is, that dreamy 
 visions have as much substance as the prattle of the fool ; or, in 
 other words, overdoing in business or in talking is followed by a 
 dreamy sequel. 
 
180 Chap. V. 3—5. 
 
 The two preceding verses are not directed against earnest, 
 repeated, or even long prayers, where they proceed from the heart, 
 and are uttered with holy earnestness and fervour. The Saviour's 
 words in Matt. G : 6 — 13 are a good comment on the true meaning. 
 It is much, and light, and thoughtless loquacity before God, which 
 is disapproved and rebuked, as showing want of due reverence. 
 This is the ground or reason (tS at the beginning of the verse), 
 why the words should be few. 
 
 (3) When thou shalt make a vow unto God, make no delay to pay it. for 
 there is no pleasure in fools ; Avhatever thou shall vow, pay it. 
 
 That is, only fools delay to fulfil or to pay their vows ; do thou 
 not be one of them. — Make a vow, we say in English ; but the 
 Hebrews said, vow a vow. We can say the same, but commonly 
 do not. — No pleasure^ i. e. there is no complacency on the part of 
 God toward the conduct of such as neglect their vows. — i'nlT! , 
 Imperf. of 'n'lS , answers to the conditional fut. here. 
 
 (4) It is better that thou shouldest not vow, than that thou shouldost vow 
 and not pay. 
 
 In other words : As vows are a voluntary thing, and not a pre- 
 scribed duty, it is much better to forbear making them, than to 
 make and then violate them ; for by this, one incurs the guilt of 
 falsehood or perjury. — 'ni'n!n^5^, ^ is the comparative = than; 
 t: = 'niijx , as often in this book. All three Dagheshes arise from 
 omitted letters, viz. 3 , ^ , and D . 
 
 The two preceding verses have respect to what often took place 
 among worshippers. They asked certain things of God, and 
 vowed to render certain offerings of gratitude in case they ob- 
 tained them. It was natural to associate such acts with the 
 subject of prayer, as all belonged to the subject of religion. 
 
 (5) Let not thy mouth bring punishment upon thy flesh; and say not be- 
 fore the messenger, that it was an error. Why should God be displeased on 
 account of thy words, and destroy the Avork of thy hands '? 
 
 Nearly all the expositors translate ^^'^rh by cause to sin. 
 To tliis there are several objections : (1) The O. Test, does not 
 employ "nba in the sense of adq"^ in the N. Test. ; the Jiesh, in 
 
Chap. V. 5. 181 
 
 the Ileb. Scriptures is not the sinner, but the mind, heart, soul, are 
 the sinners. (2) This mode of explaining does not well coincide 
 with the last part of the verse, which api)ears to ask the question 
 (in the way of remonstrance), why the punishment in question 
 need be incurred. 27/e destrofjinf/ of ones handy-icorh, seems to aim 
 at expressing, for substance, the same thing as the punishment of the 
 flesh. Ges. (Lex.), under Hiph. of the verb, has not, indeed, given 
 the meaning assigned to it above ; but under rj<un (the noun), 
 ■ he has given us poena, cqlamitas, as one of the meanings, i. e. the 
 consequence of sin. The same is the case with "j^'J , which signi- 
 fies crimen, and very often also poena, calamitas. And so r'iB , de- 
 lictum, and also jooe?zo. This gives us a clue to the Hiph. of the verb, 
 5<"jn ; it may mean either to cause to sin, or to subject to punishment, 
 i. e. to the consequences of sin, having the same twofold sense as 
 the noun. The mouth that speaks much and at random, and utters 
 false vows, is of course the cause of the punishment that follows. 
 The sinning is described in vs. 1 — 4 ; the consequences in v. 5 ;, 
 for this does not describe a new sin, but adverts to those already 
 described. — nr^ is the animal man as the seat of feeling, the 
 body which suffers penal consequences in the present world ; 
 comp. Job 14 : 22, which gives the exact idea of the word in such 
 a connection. — T|5<^53n , the messenger, i. e. the person commis- 
 sioned to explain the laAv of God, and propound it to the people, 
 i. e. God's ambassador. In the present case, the priest of course is 
 meant, before whom confession of sin is to be made. The same 
 sense of the word in Mai. 2 : 7. But in neither case should we 
 translate by priest. How the priest was concerned with vows, 
 may be seen in Lev. 27 : 2 seq. — ^"z here merely introduces 
 direct speech, like on in Greek. — "^^^"^ well characterizes the sin 
 in question here, for the root means : to commit a faidt through 
 error or imprudence. Hitzig translates : Unbesonnenheit, i. e. an 
 act of inconsideration ; altogether ad rem, for hasty vowing is 
 still in the view of the writer. We cannot hit the mark quite so 
 well in English. The design of the whole clause is not to pro- 
 hibit confesrion before the priest, after a fault has been commit- 
 ted, but to teach that a man should avoid the necessity of making 
 a confession, by avoiding the sin which will demand one. — bx be- 
 
 16 
 
182 Chap. V. 6. 
 
 fore the first two clauses is the negative before a hortatory verb 
 = the Greek p/, while ^"b is positive and = the Greek ov. — 
 K'ln it ivas, viz. the thing done was. — n^ab , for what ? why ? It 
 is the intensive interrogative of one dissuading or rebuking. — 
 T^\ip (- with a pause-accent), see b'^DS bip in v. 2. It means 
 words uttered by or with the voice, or what the voice declares, 
 and tlius it is of a ffe?ieric sense. I have therefore rendered it 
 by words. 21ie work of thy hands, means any active employment 
 or business in which a man is engaged. His undertakings may 
 be frustrated or destroyed in a great variety of ways, by sickness, 
 by untimely accidents, or by misfortune (as we say) of any kind. 
 Such is the threatened punishment ; which, like the threats in the 
 Pent, and nearly througliout the 0. Test., has a reference, pri- 
 marily, to chastisements in the present woild. It is rather by 
 inference, than by direct and plain words, that a state oi future 
 punishment is disclosed in the Heb. Scriptures. 
 
 (6) For in a multitude of dreams there are indeed vanities ; and so [in] 
 many words : but fear thou God. 
 
 This verse is a general summary of vs. 1 — 5, making a conclu- 
 sion of the paragraph. One must refrain from idle prattling in 
 prayer, and from false vows; because, like dreams, they come to 
 nothing, or are of no avail. The "^S at the outset is causal, since 
 a reason is given for refraining from the things before specified. 
 — The ^ before D"^^nn is intensive, § 152. B. 2. The ^i before 
 n^'nn'n means and so, because comparison is made by it, § 152. 
 B. 3. The n in i"a is by implication carried forward to D"''-;^- , 
 as translated above. — ^3 , before the last clause, is disjunctive 
 and adversative = hut ; see Lex. "r, No. 6. — Fear thou the God 
 (lit.), where the article marks the only living and true God, xhv 
 S^tov. The word r.irr; never occurs in this book. At the period 
 ■when this book was written, the ovo^a dcpcxivtjzov began to be 
 disu^ed ; and it is eveiywhere dropped in the version of tlie 
 Seventy, who always read (as the Jews now do) ""nx in the 
 room of n^rr; . Sentiment : ' Many words, like many dreams, 
 come to nothing ; fear God, so as neither to speak lightly or 
 vow falsely.' 
 
Chap. V. 7. 183 
 
 § 0. Sapplemenlary reflections on various topics, wJdch lead to the 
 same general result as before. 
 
 Chap. V. 7—19. 
 
 [The topic o^ oppression, made so prominent in 3: 16. 4: 1, is here brought 
 again to view, and some mitigation of the evil is suggested. The Most High 
 will watch and oversee rulers, vs. 7, 8. The covetous can enjoy no real good ; 
 they can only look at their wealth. The industrious labourer has much the 
 ad antageovcr them. Wealth often injures its possessors, and perishes by 
 adverse occurrences, so that it does not continue even for one's own children. 
 At the most, the rich can carry awny nothing with them at their death ; and 
 while they were living, much vexation en>ucd from the acquisition of wealth 
 and the safe guarding of it ; vs. 9 — 16. To enjoy the fruits of labor as they 
 are gathered, therefore, is fit and proper, and this must be regarded as the gift 
 of God ; for men could not, of themselves, attain even to so much. A man 
 who enjoys this, will in a good measu)-e forget his sorrows, while God makes 
 all things respond to the joys of his heart: vs. 17 — 19.] 
 
 (7) If thou shall see oppression of the poor, and robbery of judgment and 
 justice in the province, be not astonished concerning such a matter, for there 
 is one higli above him who is elevated, a watchful observer, yea, there are 
 those high above them. 
 
 And robbery of judgment and justice, p'^2 is in the Gen., as well 
 as the preceding noun, and both stand related to bn . Oppressive 
 magistrates often refuse trial of the causes of the poor, from 
 motives of haughtiness or self-interest ; and when they do try 
 them, they rob them of their just rights by a wrong decision. — In, 
 the province, i. e. in the particular province to which the person 
 seeing belongs ; see on 2 : 8, and comp. Est. 1:1. The Hebrew 
 kingdom was divided into provinces for the sake of collecting 
 imposts and revenues. — n^pn , astounded here, reg. with n Map- 
 piq, i. e. vocal as a consonant, at the end, and therefore a regular 
 guttural verb. — 1*^"^! j the matter, as several times before. The 
 art. is prefixed, because it refers to the particular matter just 
 mentioned. — nh?, , elevated, high. — b>"a, lit. on the part of over, 
 i. e. above • see h-J, B. in Lex. The second nbj. designates the 
 oppressive magistrate who is elevated to office ; the first n'lJ desig- 
 nates his superior in office, i. e. one above him in point of rank. 
 Tiiis superior magistrate is a "rcir, one who watches over any 
 things or persons, and observes all actions in order to take cogni- 
 
184 Chap. V. 8. 
 
 zance of them. The implication seems to be, that in such a case 
 he will call to an account the oppressor. But if not, then, as an 
 ultimate resort, there are D"inhi\ , lit. elevated ones, over them both. 
 I take the last word, in the plural form here, to relate to God, the 
 Most High, the plur. being intensive (§ lOG. 2. h.), and so like to 
 other plural participles and adjectives applied to the Supreme 
 Being: e. g. D-^dnp, IIos. 12: 1. Prov. 9 : 10. 30 : 3 ; c\s:n2, 
 Ecc. 12: 1. V3^"\? (Chald. plur.) Dan. 7: 18, 22, 25, 27. The 
 last clause of the verse before us contains a reason why one 
 should not be astonished, since it is introduced by "^S. Sentiment : 
 * When inferior magistrates are oppressive, and in the habit of 
 robbing and plundering the poor, do not regard this as a perplex- 
 ing, inexplicable, and hopeless matter. An appeal lies to a higher 
 court ; (see Acts 25 : 11) ; but if the matter still goes on adversely 
 there, then remember for your comfort that there is One superior 
 to all, who will bring all into judgment.' 
 
 Hitzig makes three orders of magistrates, all concurring in, or 
 conniving at the same injustice and oppression. But how would 
 a knowledge of this lessen the astonishment of the beholder? 
 Oppression and injustice from any judge of causes, is always a 
 matter of astonishment to the good and upright ; and if so, a reg- 
 ular series of them, from the lowest to the highest magistrate, 
 would be still more so. Coheleth advises the person astonished 
 to consider the matter in its ultimate results. Apparent incon- 
 sistencies in the government of Providence will then be much 
 diminished, if they do not entirely disappear. With Hitzig's exe- 
 gesis one cannot well rest satisfied, because in 3 : 16, 17, the same 
 complaint is made as here, and the answer to it is, that God has 
 appointed a time for judging all. This is too plain to be mis- 
 understood ; and this of course makes plain the verse under dis- 
 cussion, which is of a parallel nature. It is difficult to see, how 
 so sharp-sighted a critic as Hitzig could overlook this obvious 
 auxiliary in interpreting the verse before us. 
 
 (8) Moreover, an advantage of a laud in all this, is a king to a cultivated 
 field. 
 
 A text which has occasioned no little difficulty and perplexity 
 among critics. Our first object is, to obtain a right view of the 
 grammatical sense. The proposition is a general one ; for he 
 
Chap. V. 8. 185 
 
 says not the country or the land, but simply "i^'nx , a land, any land. 
 — The Kethibh should of course be pointed thus : K-^ri ^ra , i. e. 
 in all this. The pointing in conformity with the Qeri would be 
 thus: x^-ib'22. AVe must then translate the latter as follows: 
 The advantage of a land — in everything is it. But first, this is in 
 itself an extravagant assertion ; at the same time, it is irrelative 
 and incongruous with respect to the context, which affords no 
 reason for saying this. Next, the position of N^fi, in this case, is 
 very strange, on the supposition that the Qeri is the right reading ; 
 for then x^in is a copida. But if it is so, it should be placed imme- 
 diately after the subject, and not (as here) after both subject and 
 predicate. Besides, a copula in this case is unnecessary, § 141. 
 It is only when emphasis is demanded, that it is inserted ; and 
 none is required here. The Kethibh, therefore, viz. 5<in-brs , is 
 undoubtedly the true reading. Compare rjifbss in Is. 9 : 11, 20. 
 10 : 4, for this latter expression can mean only : in all this ; and 
 jfi?! ^32 is virtually the same, for this means : in all of that thing, 
 (the fem. represents the neuter). But what is that thing "^ It is 
 what is described in the preceding verse, viz. the need of pro- 
 tection from the highest ruler, the king, against oppression. An 
 advantage to a land is it, to have a king endowed with power and 
 will to interfere and protect. This cannot be a king, who throuo-h 
 oppression lays waste a land, by causing its poor labouring men 
 under his yoke to despair of obtaining anything for themselves ; 
 but it must be a king to a cultivated field-land ; a king, therefore 
 who renders justice to the poor, and encourages the labourer to 
 continue his toils, instead of despoiling him. — That i:3"j; JTib^ 
 means a cultivated field or champaign, is rendered clear by Ezek. 
 36 : 9, 34. Deut. 21 : 4; and so the Sept. translate. The word 
 rrib has no article, because j'-^x has none, and both mean sub- 
 stantially the same thing. The proposition, therefore, is general 
 and indefinite. Sentiment : ' To any land exposed to oj^i^ression 
 and injustice, it is an advantage to have a king who reigns, not 
 over a country made desolate by oppression, but over a cultivated 
 field-land. Justice will then be so administered, that the country 
 will pour forth an abundance by reason of the poor labourer's 
 toil in cultivating it ; and this is an advantage.' See Prov. 14 : 28. 
 1 merely mention some of the renderings of the last clause 
 here. Kosenm : rex est agro addictus. Herzfeld :• the king is sub- 
 16* 
 
186 Chap. V. 8. 
 
 ject to the field. Ewald : a Icing is set over the country. Knobel : 
 a king honored hy the land. Heiligstedt : a king is made for the 
 field. Eng. version : a king is served hy the field. Not one of 
 all these accords with the grammatical meaning of the Hebrew. 
 Rosenm., makes the king only a lover of agriculture ; Hertz., the 
 king to be servant of the field : Ewald, a king set over the field, 
 (a meaning that ^ns^.3 never has) ; Knob., a king honoured, etc., 
 while the proper word for this is "1^2^ ; Heihgst. (like Ewald), 
 a king teririe j^raefectus ; the Eng. version, a king served hy the 
 field, which is nearer than any of the others to the Hebrew, 
 but still gives an irrelevant sense. To what direct purpose is 
 all this, or rather, are all these views ? While that which is 
 given above, commends itself by its concinnity with the context. 
 Rulers may be oppressive ; they often and usually are so ; but it 
 is an advantage to any land where the poor are exposed to 
 oppression, to have a king who will not suffer any to lay waste 
 his domain by oppressing, but will cause it to be cultivated by 
 dealing justly with all. 
 
 The verse is probably a side blow at some tyrant of the day, 
 whose measures had made the country a comparative desolation. 
 A striking illustration of the effect of such a government on the 
 country is found, by casting our eye over Palestine and Asia 
 Minor ; the latter of which once had an immense population, but 
 now has not one twentieth part of the numbers which it could 
 support. Scarcely any region of the earth is capable of support- 
 ing more inhabitants on its soil. Yet Turkish despotism has 
 made it a waste. The Sultans have never aimed to be kings 
 over cultivated fields, and have been something very different 
 from a "\T\T\\ to the land. Coheleth seems to have lived under 
 some prince of such a character ; and while he complains of 
 oppression, and reminds the i^h;\ , or king, that he should look to 
 his under officers, he reminds him also of his responsibility to a 
 higher King, and that he would be a blessing to his realm, if by 
 his justice and equity he would convert the whole country into a 
 cultivated field. It is comforting to the oppressed, when such 
 admonition is faithfully given. 
 
 These views in respect to avaricious and rapacious magistrates, 
 naturally led the mind of the writer to the consideration, once 
 mere, of riches and of the strife to acquire them. His views in 
 
CiiAP. V. 9, 10. 187 
 
 the sequel are more general, and are not confined to magistrates, 
 although ihey are doubtless mcluded. The subject lay heavily 
 upon his mind. In 2 : 7 — 9 he has spoken plainly respecting 
 regal wealth. In 4 : 8 he returns again to the subject, and takes 
 a more general view. But now, when occasion again prompts, 
 he conies out more fully still, and contemplates the subject from 
 various points of view. 
 
 (9) He Avlio loveth silver shall not be satisfied with silver; and whoever 
 loveth wealth shall not [be satisfied] with levenue; this too is vanity. 
 
 Silver was the most com-mon coin, and therefore is employed 
 here as the representative of all wealth. The second :rp3 is in 
 the Ace, after a, vevh of Jilling, § 135. 3. b. — "li^na, with the 
 article, as the vowel under n shows ; for pointing, see Lex. n ; 
 the word being abstract, it naturally takes the article in Hebrew, 
 § 107. n. 1. c. For s, after nrix, see in Lex. s. v. That yab'i is 
 implied after 5<b is quite plain ; and I have translated accordingly. 
 — nx^nn is Ace. after this verb imphed. Here a new shape is 
 given to the vanity in question. The eager pursuit of wealth 
 enkindles desires that never can be quenched or allayed. Of 
 course, it is truly a tormenting ^nfi . 
 
 (10) By the increase of goods, they who consume them are increased : and 
 what advantage is there to their owner, except the looking on with his eyes ? 
 
 nn"::^!, sing, generic, while our exactly corresponding Eng- 
 lish word (goods) is employed only in the plural, in the sense 
 here required. I have translated in accordance with our idiom. 
 The article is put here before a word designating a class of 
 things, § 107. n. 1. b. — The suff. to the Part, (ri-) is sing, in 
 order to correspond with the noun to which it relates. The 
 same with the suff. in ■I'^^rab , from bra — nx ^3 , see in Lex. — 
 n*^^'^ has vowels belonging to the Qeri nsixn . Which form is 
 preferable, it would be difficult to decide, since both are good. 
 Both of these forms are 7iotms of the Inf. formation ; while nin"! , 
 at the beginning of the verse, is Inf. nominascens. — That "jl'ids 
 does not here mean dexterity (as in 2 : 21), is plain from the con- 
 text, which requires such a meaning as I have given in the 
 version above. — Great wealth must needs be furnished with a 
 large retinue, to guard it and to add to it ; c.omp. Job. 1: 3. 
 
188 Chap. V. 11—13. 
 
 These must consume much ; so that the owner can do no more 
 than gratify his eyes for a time, by looking at his treasures. — 
 T^a^^ , his eyes, but 1 sing, refers to the preceding apparently plur. 
 noun. But still, as the plur. of this noun (like nin?x) has 
 always a sing, meaning (see Lex.), the concord ad sensum is 
 complete, § 107. 2. h. 
 
 (11) Sweet is the sleep of the labourer, whether he cat little or much; 
 but the abundance of the rich man does not permit him to sleep. 
 
 Here is another defect in riches. The poor labourer has quiet 
 sleep, and is so hardy that whether he has more or less food it 
 does not disquiet him. The rich are kept awake through fear of 
 losing their riches ; or perhaps the writer alludes to the satiety 
 of the rich in their food, which disturbs their sleep of course. — 
 Observe that ^nb Part, {labourer) has a different meaning from 
 nnS/ servant. — '^'^''^J*^ with the art., it being abstract. This word 
 is in the abs. state, and of course the following noun is in the 
 Dat. of appurtenance, having the force or meaning of a Gen. 
 § 113. 2. The article (its vowel is under h) is put before a 
 whole class. — n'^S'o Part. Hiph. of the form B. or No. II. (Lex), 
 from n^i , concessit. By a little change in the version we can 
 imitate the Heb. i^ that follows, e. g. does not afford leave or per- 
 mission to him, etc. — I'i^'^t'j Inf. with h of "(d^; for the first 
 vowel, see § 24. 1. (^b for ^b). 
 
 (12) There is a grievous evil whicli I have seen under the sun, riches 
 kept to the owner's harm. 
 
 Hitherto, the negative side of the evil has been presented to 
 view. Now comes the positive one. There is a grievous evil, 
 etc., excites attention in the reader to a new attitude of the thing 
 considered. — nbin fem. Part, of J-ibr|,used adjectively. — Be- 
 fore '^n'^l<'7 the pron. idx is implied, § 121. 3. — "'"^brn with sing, 
 meaning as before. — '^^^^'^ with sing. sufF. accordingly. The 
 lit. Heb. here runs thus : for its oivner, to his harm. I have 
 abbreviated the expression in my version. The proposition made 
 by this verse, he now goes on to illustrate by particulars. 
 
 (1.3) And those riches perish by luckless undertakings; and lie has be- 
 gotten a son, and there is nothing in his hand. 
 
 5?'^ ');^p>' , lit. an affair of evil, wdiich is not limited to bad bar- 
 
Chap. V. 14, 15. 189 
 
 gains only, but extends to any unfortunate occurrences in busi- 
 ness which call for a sacrifice of property. — He hath hegotten a 
 son, viz. while he was rich. — And there is nothing in his hand. 
 Whose hand ? Some say, the son's ; others, the father's. I 
 agree with the latter ; because the writer seems desirous to con- 
 vey the idea that, having begotten a son, he now has nothing to 
 bestow upon him. This is a sore evil to paternal feeling. — '■p^^ 
 const, form is connected with ircnx^ . This last word is com- 
 pounded of n-^^i rt^ = quid quid. The negative 'j'l'X or i<b before 
 it, makes it mean nofhing. 
 
 (II) As lie came forth from the womb of his mother, naked shall he again 
 depart as he came, and nothing shall he receive by his toil, ^vhich he may 
 carry away in his hand. 
 
 In other words : He shall go out of the world as he came into 
 it ; he brought nothing into it, he shall carry nothing out of it. — 
 Ty?y:^, , as pointed, is in Hiph. Imperf., which means, among other 
 things, to take ivith one, to carry away with one. I take the 
 sense of the passage to be given in the version. The Imperf. 
 Hiph. is from TyT • Hitzig insists on pointing the word Ty?^. 
 (Kal. Imperf.), and then translating thus : his toil, which goes 
 through his hand, i. e. either which his hand performs, or which 
 escapes through his hands. But I know of no case in Hebrew, 
 where such a manner of expression occurs. Persons go, or cause 
 to go, not things. Nor can I see any objection against the meaning 
 given above, which is of serious import. Minutiae of manner in 
 coming and departing, are not aimed at. The general and obvious 
 sense is given above. — The verb nvd^ here signifies again, see 
 Lex. — rs = 'rrxs , as. 
 
 (1.5) And this too is a sore evil, that altogether as he came so shall he 
 depart ; and what advantage is there to him who toils for the wind ? 
 
 This second sore evil is not merely like that just mentioned, 
 viz., of coming into the world without anything and leaving it 
 without anything, but in addition to this part of troubles comes 
 what is mentioned in the next verse. Both vs. 15 and 16 de- 
 scribe the second sore evil, as cr> between them shows. — r53""b3 , 
 altogether as, like as, ti'Z'J (like zv ) is literally a noun, meaning 
 conjunction or communion, root z.'C'S . As a prep., it always takes 
 
190 Chap. V. 16. 
 
 this const, form. — In 5<ad, the *idx ('ij) is superfluous for us. Lit. 
 the three words mean altogether like that. — r^;^ often means 
 depart^ as here. — To toil for the wind, is to toil to no purpose. 
 
 (16) Also he consumes all his days in gloom, and is much irritated, and 
 his intirmitics are matter of indignation. 
 
 ^3si"i {to eat) has often a tropical sense, as to devour, consume, 
 etc. So here. The literal meaning would only say, that he, 
 during all his days, takes his meals in a gloomy state of mind ; 
 but the tropical meaning gives us the idea, that all his time is 
 spent in gloom. — So darkness is not literal here, but has a tropi- 
 cal sense = gloom, sadness. — The rest of the verse is difficult, 
 and has given rise to a variety of interpretations. Taking the 
 text as it stands, t5s'3 is a neut. intrans. verb, and may be ren- 
 dered passively, as above. — ^i^^"^ 'i'^^'7!' > '^^^'^ ^""^ infirmity is even 
 indignation, is the literal version. The first part of the verse 
 discloses his gloomy state of mind ; the second, his bodily infirm- 
 ities and their consequence, viz. excitement, indignation. I take 
 1 before the last word to be a note of intensity, § 152. B. 2. 
 Sentiment : 'His infirmities excite him to anger or strong indig- 
 nation, i. e. he is impatient and frets while they are upon him.' — 
 I have rendered i'^bn by the plur. (infirmities), because it is an 
 abstract noun (of the Inf. form, § 84. V.), and denotes a state or 
 condition of infirmity; which same thing is designated more 
 usually with us by the plural, for the sing, has respect commonly 
 to some specific malady. As to the 1 before the last noun, in 
 many cases it is put before a noun which makes an accession to 
 what precedes, in the way of explanation, or of comparison, or 
 for the sake of adding a stronger or more explicit word. Thus 
 Zech. 14: 6: "There shall be no light, li^Spl ni^'i^ , coldness, 
 even ice [shall there be "]. Here, the latter noun designates the 
 intensity of the cold. To translate ^ in such a case by the simple 
 and, would make the sentiment tame. As rendered above, the 
 words convey the same idea for substance, as very cold ; for 
 when ice is formed in Palestine, the sensation of cold is extreme. 
 As the words are now, we have a fine poetic substitute for the 
 prosaic "ik?? , very much. And in such a light I regard our text. 
 I take the writer to be showing the usual concomitants, or rather 
 the consequences, of wealth which procures the means of living 
 
Chap. V. 16. 191 
 
 luxuriously. The temptation to such living is very great, and in 
 its train it usually brings the evils here mentioned, viz. gloom of 
 mind^ irritability, prolonged injirmity, with impatient and angry 
 fretting under it. All this is, indeed, what the writer calls it — 
 a sore evil. 
 
 In this way of interpretation, no change of the text is needed. 
 Hitzig thinks the text to be so corrupt, that he ventures to re- 
 fashion it thus : t'4;p^ 1^^!72 ^?'?'T! ^".r.^ • H^ then makes Drr the 
 Ace. after b=N"i implied, which must be rendered: devours via- 
 lence ; and this he explains or illustrates by a reference to 
 G"Gn nrd, he drinks in violence (Pro v. 2G: 6), and by the Latin 
 aegritudinem devorare. He might have added to the last : 
 devorare molestiam — ineptias — libidos — pecuniam, etc. But 
 the Latin verb means both to devour, to eat up, and also to sup- 
 press, to keep under. But the expression in Proverbs means 
 receiving or suffering much violence = drinking a large draught 
 of it. It is possible, that Ds*3 brx"i may be construed in like way ; 
 but it is hardly probable. There is nothing like it elsewhere. 
 Devouring or destroying is the prominent tropical meaning of bri< , 
 and this would make no sense in the passage before us. Hitzig 
 gives the verb the sense of sioallow down ; but that belongs 
 rather to inPiL" . No analogon, then, can be found in Hebrew, to 
 support his view. As to the verb Drs , it is by no means unfre- 
 quent ; and it is employed here in 7 : 0. Hitzig says, that the 
 text as it stands must refer the suff. in i"^^?! to covetousness as 
 implied in the preceding context. But this would be singular, 
 indeed, to personify that covetousness, and then apply to it the 
 word infirmity. To us, sick covetousness soimds strangely. What 
 need of this ? The same person who consumes his time in gloom, 
 who is irntated, i. e. the greedy and covetous man, is the person 
 referred to by the suff. in i'^'bri . Why perplex that which gives 
 a good sense as it stands ? Indeed, the changes in the text 
 proposed by Hitzig are too numei-ous to be credible ; and clearly 
 they are unnecessary. Heiligstedt pursues the same course, 
 without either explaining or defending the necessity of it. Surely, 
 it is not a safe course to pursue, when we not only transform 
 the text, but also assign to it a meaning new and strange. All 
 this is easier, indeed, than to enucleate the somewliat obscure 
 declaration of Coheleth, simply in the way of grammatico-critical 
 
192 Chap. V. 17, 18. 
 
 investigation. But after all, labour laid out on artificial exegesis 
 is an 'J"! )';^yj , to say the least of it. Seldom, indeed, does Hitzig 
 take such liberties ; and here we may well dispense with them. 
 
 We come now, after this repeated survey of oppression and 
 avarice, by placing them in some new positions, to the same 
 general conclusion as before : — 
 
 (17) Lo ! what I have seen which is good, what comely ; to eat, and to drink, 
 and to enjoy good for all one's toil which he hath endured under the sun, 
 during the number of the days of his life which God hath given him ; for this 
 is his portion. 
 
 ids; may be regarded as emphatic here — ' I, who have so long 
 reflected on this matter, have come to this conclusion.' It is 
 usually (but not always) emphatic when expressed as the subject 
 of a verb, § 134. 3. n. 2. — Before m':: the pron. ""('ri^ seems to 
 be implied, with the meaning wJdch is ; for the same is inserted 
 before ns'^ , which is in the same predicament. This latter word 
 means comely, decorous, etc. ; i. e. enjoying the fruit of one's toil 
 is not only a pleasure, but one which is becoming and proper. — 
 The b before the three Infinitives = ut, that ; and so we may 
 translate : that one should eat, etc. Our simple to before the Inf. 
 answers the same purpose as to meaning. — See good; see 
 remarks on 2: 1. — 2 , o?i account of, in the sense o^ for ; see 
 Lex. 3 B. 9. — ^^r^^J , lit. ivhich he toils. We can say toil a toil, 
 but we do not. We substitute endure or undergo in lieu of em- 
 ploying the correlative verb. — '^S&'c const, and in the Ace. of 
 time. It is only when it is in the Gen. after a noun, that it 
 means few. — Which God hath given him, I must refer to the 
 allotted time of man, and not (with Hitzig) to the enjoyments 
 before named. — For this is his portion, i. e. it is good to eat, etc., 
 because this is the portion, and our only one, allotted to its hy God, 
 in order that we might have enjoyment. To the same conclusion 
 which this verse expresses, the writer has repeatedly come be- 
 fore; see 2:24. 3: 12, 13, 22. 
 
 (18) Moreover, as to every man to whom God hath given lidies and 
 wealth, and hath given him ]»ower to ent thereof, and to tiike his portion, and 
 to rejoice in his toil — iiiis is the gift of God. 
 
 d'lX-^s is Nom. absolute, suggesting the main subject of the 
 sentence, but having no verb. I have translated accordingly. — 
 
Chap. V. 19. 193 
 
 Riches and wealthy two synonymes, and therefore the meaning is 
 abundant riches. — S::"'Vrn , lit. made him to have control. — ^Vsp2 , 
 of it, viz. of "nrr. — nxb contracted fem. Inf. of xb3 , put for 
 nxb . — rn^ contract of r.:n'2 , from ",r3 . — Jf^n , is, as often be- 
 fore. He means to say, that it is a good gift, so far as it goes. 
 He proceeds to assign a reason for so saying : — 
 
 (19) For he will not much remember the days of his life, when God shall 
 cause [things] to correspond with tlie joy of his heart. 
 
 3fuch remember, etc., where the days of his life seems to refer 
 to his past life, which had so often been checkered with sorrow. 
 Now, in the enjoyment of the special gift of God, his reflections 
 on the sombre past, or on the shortness of his days, will cease to 
 be painful and disturbing to him. The reason is more explicitly 
 stated in the last clause. — na:?^ , Part. Hiph., has made not a 
 little difficulty here; but without adequate cause. T\)'S is to re- 
 spond to, to chime with. Here the writer asserts, that God will 
 cause a response, viz. in the things around him, to the tone of the 
 man's mind who is enjoying. The things are not named, for 
 they are indefinite and unlimited. All things may be understood. 
 Li the version, I have supplied an Ace. In Hos. 2 : 21, 22, is a 
 passage which well illustrates this : " I will ansiver [nrrx , the 
 same verb as here] the heavens, and they shall answer the earth, 
 and the earth shall answer the grain — etc., and that shall answer 
 Jezreel ;" i. e. everything shall be ready and responsive to its 
 proi)er purpose. So in the verse before us : ' God will cause 
 everything to respond to the joy fid state of mind which follows 
 his gift. Hope and pleasing anticipation shall prevail.' As to 
 the phrase joy of heart, see it in Cant. 3:11. Jer. 15 : 16. Is. 
 30 : 29, comp. Ps. 21 : 3. In this way, no change in the text is 
 needed. 
 
 It is needless to repeat here, what has been already said (on 
 2 : 3, 24) concerning the prudent and cautious indulgence which 
 wisdom demands. Coheleth is no Epicure. Specially is he re- 
 mote from Epicurism, as it concerns the acknowledgment of a 
 God, and gratitude to him for his blessings. Most earthly pleas- 
 ures he finds at last to be altogether empty and vain ; but the 
 enjoyment of the fruits of one's industry, he repeatedly declares^ 
 is a good, and the only good that promises much,, while even this 
 17 
 
194 Chap. YL 1. 
 
 is short-lived and transitory. But wliatever there is in it of 
 satisfaction, this is God's gift, and not procured by ourselves. A 
 deep and reverential feeling toward God must have prompted 
 such a sentiment, in such a connection. Providence is not taxed 
 with injustice, nor is unbelief in it excited, on account of the 
 apparently undistinguishing distribution of good and evil in the 
 \Yorld, or because of the untoward events of life. All good comes 
 from God, and demands thankful acknowledgment. Suffering 
 and sorrow, when they come on all alike, are mysteries not to be 
 explained, but not things which give us any right to complain. 
 It would seem that the writer had drunk deep of the spirit of the 
 book of Job, and perhaps it is probable that he lived near the 
 time when that book was written. We shall see that he quotes 
 or alludes to it in the sequel. 
 
 § 10. Disappointments frequeni, in respect to attainable good ; 
 they come upon the wise and the foolish both, and none can control 
 divine arrangements. 
 
 Chap. VI. 1—12. 
 
 [The declarations in 5:17 — 19, respecting our liighest attainable earthly 
 good, give occasion to further consideration of the subject. There are men 
 who lose this good. Their lot is an unhappy one. It would be better, had 
 they never been born. And even if one lives to old age, he must at last die 
 like others. All toil is for sustenance, and yet the appetite is never satisfied. 
 Both the wise and foolish are subjected to the same law of never-satisfied- 
 craving. Experience of enjoyment would be better than the wanderings of 
 desire; but the order of Providence cannot be changed, which has definitely 
 fixed and limited circling events. Who, then, can point out any stable good 
 for man, in days yet future ?] 
 
 (1) There is an evil which I have seen under the sun, and heavily docs it 
 lie upon man. 
 
 ns*! , lit. great, much, but connected as it here is with ^^ (upon), 
 the indication is that it bears heavily on him, i. e. so as to grieve 
 or oppress him. h'$ often indicates upon in the sense of a burden, 
 a grievance; § 151. 3. b. The transition by d^ at the outset, 
 marks an advance to a new phase of the subject. 
 
Chap. VL 2, 3. 195 
 
 (2) There is a man to whom God hath given riches and wealth and 
 si)!endor, and he hicketh nothing for his soul of all which he desireth, and 
 yet God hath not given him power to eat thereof, but a stranger eateth it; 
 this is vanity, yea, a grievous malady is it. 
 
 Riches and wealth, i. e. great riches, as in 5 : 18. — ^in3 may 
 mean either the splendour connected with wealth, or the honour of 
 elevated rank. The former seems more congruous here. — "iDH 
 Part, of a verb final Tseri, § 49. 2. a. — VJDD means the physical 
 animal man, with his appetites and desires. — b's^a , the 59 being 
 connected with "nDn and naturally following it, "{q = part, portion. 
 — Hfii^n';' , reg. Ilithp., with l consonant in the root — ^S^"a , of it, 
 viz. of his wealth which he has acquired. — A stranger eateth it, 
 i. e. his unknown heir; see 2 : 18. — The case of the man here 
 presented is different from that in 5 : 12, 13 (Eng. 13, 14), inas- 
 much as he keeps in possession of his property through life, but 
 has no disposition to enjoy it, while the man described in 5:12 
 seq. loses his estate. But even the power of enjoyment depends 
 on God — God hath not given to him, etc. 
 
 (3) If a man beget a hundred [children], and live many years, and the 
 days of his years, that are to come are multiplied, and his soul is not satisfied 
 with good, and moreover there is no burial to him, I say : Better than he is 
 an untimely birth. 
 
 The word heget carries with it of course the implication of 
 children, which I have supplied in the version ; see the like ellip- 
 sis in 1 Sam. 2 : 5. Jer. 15 : 9, al. — U^TJ fem. with masc. form, 
 as nin'n shows. — n j^ appears to be a verb here (root ^5'^), for 
 if it were an adjective, the plur. D"'2'n would be necessary in 
 order to agree with i?:^ , days. The Heb. cannot be closely fol- 
 lowed in the translation, as to its order ; but the sense of the 
 clause is presented in the version above. :an is an impersonal 
 verb here, and the clause lit. rendered would run thus : And if 
 there he much which shall be the days of his years. 
 
 Two circumstances of his misery are developed ; first, his soul 
 is not satisfied with his portion, because God has not given to 
 him power to be satisfied, (v. 2) ; and secondly, he dies without 
 the honours of a burial. The fact that he was too covetous to 
 appropriate his wealth to his own enjoyment, renders it probable 
 that he makes no provision for an honourable or expensive fune- 
 ral or monument, such as becomes his rank. His heir, if a stranger 
 (as he is named in v. 2), would not be anxious to do at his own 
 
196 Chap. VI. 3. 
 
 expense, what he had left unprovided for. We are not, however, 
 to take rr'i^np in the sense of mere sepulture, (for no man would 
 be left unburied, in the midst of society and in a time of peace), 
 but in that of sepulchre (Gen. 35 : 20. 47 : 30), a costly structure 
 which the raiser was not willing to erect in his lifetime, and 
 which his heir will not now erect ; or else in that of funeral, i. e. 
 burial with customary and expensive ceremonies. The meaning 
 of sepulchre is rather preferable, because this is an enduring 
 monument of the man, who is laid in it and has his name inscrib- 
 ed on it. To leave the dead unburied is a disgrace inflicted only 
 by the most hostile enemy; see in Is. 14: 18, 19. For disgrace- 
 ful burial without expense, see Jer. 22: 18, 19. The feelings of 
 the Hebrews in respect to the decorum of burial, are well devel- 
 oped in Gen. 23 : 3 — 13. In Coheleth's view, that man's lot is 
 sorely grievous, who is very rich and yet so miserly as to dis- 
 pense with the comforts of life for himself, and who dies un- 
 noticed, and unhonoured by a sepulchre befitting his condition. 
 Putting these both together, he makes out of the case something 
 which is very revolting and odious. " Better," he exclaims, " is 
 an untimely birth, than such a person." The reason of this de- 
 claration is given more fully in the sequel. 
 
 Hitzig finds great difficulty in this verse, and thinks it partly 
 spurious. The clause about burial, he thinks, has a wrong loca- 
 tion, and should be put before "iUJSS, with the omission of xb. 
 The clause would then run thus : " And moreover should be 
 buried, and his soul not be satisfied with good," etc. From a 
 strange hand he thinks the latter part of the verse, as it now is, 
 must have come, and that it should be stricken out. But what is 
 there strange or incongruous in the preceding view of the mean- 
 ing of the verse ? He represents the words of Coheleth, now in 
 the text, as comprising or implying the sentiment, that if the 
 circumstance of being unburied were omitted, then the case of 
 the miser would be better than that of the untimely birth. But 
 on this, as it seems to me, he lays more stress than the writer 
 intended. His renunciation of comforts through life, and then 
 his death unmourned and as it were unnoticed, are both combined 
 in the writer's mind, while the latter is only the climax of the 
 former. That the poor and friendless should die unnoticed and 
 unlionored, would be nothing strange in such a world as this ; 
 
Chap. VI. 4— G. 197 
 
 but when the honours of a tomb or a funeral are withheld from a 
 rich man, his case must be grievous in the view of the pubhc, 
 and one which shocks the common sensibility. Other commen- 
 tators have not found, and none need to find, such ditHculties as 
 Ilitzig ; and his allegations seem hardly to justify a charge of 
 surreptitious addition to the text, or a violent dislocation of it. 
 
 (4) For it Cometh in nothingness, and it dcpartcth in darkness, and in 
 darkness is its name concealed. 
 
 Li nothingness, bzri^ , i. e. it has no real life, no proper existence 
 as a human being, or none to any purpose. — In darkness it depart- 
 eth, i. e. it perishes unseen, before it sees the light. It does not 
 even obtain a name = a remembrance. There is nothing to call 
 or remember it by. For the article before bnn as abstract, see 
 § 107. 3. n. 3. c. ; before "rin the article stands also, because it is 
 either a kind of abstract, or the name of a special substance so 
 considered, ib. h. 
 
 (5) Moreover, it hath not seen the sun, nor had any knowledge ; quiet hath 
 this rather than that. 
 
 Hitzig translates : It hath not seen and hath not known the sun ; 
 and this may be done, as the Hebrew stands. But I apprehend 
 that this version falls short of the writer's meaning. It hath not 
 seen the sun, alludes to its death before its birth ; while ^'y^ &<b'i 
 goes further, and declares that it has not had any kind of knowl- 
 edge. This verb not unfrequently is used as intransitive, i. e. 
 without an object after it, and so means to possess cog7iition or 
 knowledge. This surely makes the text more significant. — Quiet 
 has this, viz. this untimely birth, which so prematurely perishes, 
 rather than that, viz. the miserly man without a sepulchre. Not 
 more quiet after both are dead, for then the case is the same 
 with both ; but quiet on the whole ; quiet considered in opposition 
 to the turmoil and vexation of the rich man. Quiet is a thing 
 which stands high on the list of Oriental enjoyments, and is re- 
 garded as a matter of eager desire. The rest in heaven, and in 
 the land o2 Canaan, borrows a part of its intense significancy 
 from this circumstance. 
 
 (6) And even if he live a thousand years twice told, and enjoy no good — 
 do not all go to the same place 1 
 
 17* 
 
198 Chap. VI. 7. 
 
 !lb^t , contraction of ^ib ex , both of which mean if. In this case 
 of highest doubt as to the possibility that the case stated sliould 
 be realized, the double if makes the expression very congruous. 
 "We may translate by even if The l before the particle has an 
 influence on the following n;^n , and makes an Imperf. or Fut. 
 sense. — ^^'OV'B , dual, two times, used adverbially, like our tivice. 
 — &<brt with r: interrog. — One place, viz. Sheol, the grave. — bsri 
 the whole mass, the totality, and therefore it takes the article, § 107. 
 3. n. 1. b. — T\P.'^^, depart, go away, as very often in this book. — 
 The question here asked is easily understood. Instead of say- 
 ing, in case a man should live two thousand years and enjoy no 
 good, then all would be vanity and fruitless effort, he asks a ques- 
 tion which places this sentiment in a very strong light ; for it 
 virtually means : ' Live he ever so long, yet he goes at last to 
 the same place as the untimely birth, i. e. to the region of the 
 dead ;' so that " one destiny equally awaits all," without distinc- 
 tion, 3:19. In fact, the question in reality asserts in the strong- 
 est manner, that all will go to one and the same place. In 9 : 4 
 and 11:7, our author speaks of the high value to be set upon 
 life, and the pleasure derived from beholding the light. But in 
 these passages a contrast is made with death, and the latter is 
 rendered the more bitter because it cuts us off from enjoyment. 
 But in the text before us, life is not asserted to be of no value, 
 but the gist of the assertion is, that, be it ever so long, it saves us 
 not from going to the same place where an untimely birth has 
 gone, i. e. the grave. In itself, the enjoyment of what one has 
 acquired is a good which is desirable ; but the time is at hand 
 when this enjoyment will le r.o more, and our condition will then 
 be the more annoying, because of what we have lost. Such is 
 the course of thought here. 
 
 (7) All the toil of man is for his mouth, and yet the soul is not satisfied. 
 
 This connects with the preceding context. There it is de- 
 clared, that however long life may be, yet at last it comes to 
 vanity. All must go down to the grave. Long life, therefore, will 
 not secure a permanent good. All the toil of man can do no more 
 than procure the means of eating and drinking — it is all for his 
 mouth, i. e. all which promises enjoyment. But even here our 
 hopes are in a measure dashed. The author has too often else- 
 
Chap. VI. 8, 9. 199 
 
 where commended eating and drinking, i. e. the enjoyment of the 
 fruits of toil, (see in 2: 24. 3: 13. 5: 17. 8: 15), wholly to 
 decry it here. But even the privilege of this enjoyment has its 
 drawbacks. The appetite, (ilJssn , the animal soul), is never satis- 
 fied so that it does not return. The same want and necessity 
 press us again, which we felt before eating and drinking. Stable, 
 abiding good, then, is not to be looked for even here. Too much 
 must not be expected from this source. — Da here means i/et, 
 tamen ; see Lex. c?*. No. 5. 
 
 (8) Then what advantage is there to the wise man over the fool, and 
 what to the poor man who knoweth how to walk before tlie living ? 
 
 13 is variously rendered ; Knobel : dock, still ; Heigligs. : immo^ 
 tamen; neither congruously. It is the "^3 apodotic, i. e. such 
 as is employed in sentences of this nature : If — so and so ; then 
 (''3 ) this or that is the consequence. I understand the question 
 here to be a kind of apodosis to the preceding verse. TJie appe- 
 tite is not satisfied ; — then (asks the inquirer) how do the wise 
 have any more advantage than fools, for both have the same 
 appetite ? The last part of the verse merely sets the tan in a 
 special light. He is regarded as being an ^3^ , a poor man, but 
 dexterously conducting himself. To walk before the living, is to 
 behave with propriety and discretion before men. " Enoch 
 walked with God," Gen. 5 : 24 ; "I am God . . . walk before me, 
 and be thou perfect," Gen. 17 : 1. — ^'^'i'') as agreeing with ''rrri 
 (having the art.) we might expect would also have the article- 
 pronoun -n ; but the Part, of itself contains or implies the pro- 
 noun (§ 131. 2. n. 2), and the repetition of it is not necessary. 
 In Greek, it is much ofi. er omitted in iL^ Part, than in adjec- 
 tives. — Difn is used in this book frequently to designate men on 
 the stage of action. Only such can witness one's demeanor. 
 Sentiment : ' If what you have said about desire never satisfied 
 be true, what advantage is there in superiority of knowledge, or 
 in sagacious correctness of demeanor ? ' This question is not 
 directly and explicitly answered here. It has already been 
 answered in one respect, in 2 : 14 — 16. But the following verse 
 suggests a species of answer : — 
 
 '(9) The sight of the eyes is better than the wandering of desire; this too 
 is vanity and fruitless effort. 
 
200 Chap. VI. 10. 
 
 To see good is, as we have seen, the usual expression in this 
 book for the enjoyment of it. It is that same seeing which is 
 here designated. As the noun is used {sight), the organ is here 
 named at the same time on which it depends ; but this changes 
 not the essential meaning of the phrase. The mere natural see- 
 ing of objects is not meant, but the word is employed in its tropi- 
 cal sense. — The wandering of desire, in the Heb. tj^n^ is Inf. 
 with short o because of the Maqqeph that follows ; the ^ is the 
 sign of the comparative after nii: . The verb "r^y^ means to go in 
 any direction, to progress : and here it designates the Jiuctuating 
 or going forth of desire from one thing to another, or the con- 
 tinual motion of it. In other words, Coheleth concedes the evil 
 of desiring continually, and says that it is vanity and fruitless 
 effort ; but still, he maintains that there is some good in present 
 enjoyment. — The nt refers to the ;!JS3-T(^li'5 . The use of Tib^^ 
 in the preceding verse, probably occasioned the employment of 
 the same word here. But it is in the way of paronomasia, the 
 meanings in the two cases being quite different. 
 
 The writer betakes himself once more to his usual resort, 
 when evils come up that cannot be shunned. Providence, says 
 he, has arranged all these matters. There is an established order 
 and succession of things, and it is of no avail to quarrel with it. 
 Man cannot strive with his Maker. 
 
 (10) That which is, was long ago called by name, and it was known, be- 
 cause he is man, that he is unable to contend with him who is stronger 
 than he. 
 
 The Perf. n^n is here used as an abstract Pres., including 
 what loas and still is, § 124. 3. — Its name ivas called, i. e. it 
 had a name, and therefore an existence, long ago. — ^dx , because, 
 or since, introduces a circumstance which serves to explain the 
 inability that is asserted in the sequel. — &5^M , he is, as often else- 
 where. — Man, i. e. a frail and dying creature, springing from 
 the dust, and returning to the dust. — b^^i'^-J^^I connects with 
 S5Ti3, it was known . . . that he will be unable, § 152. B. e. — 
 fj'i^rnnq is said, by the Masoretic note in the margin, to have a 
 superfluous t\ , and accordingly it has no vowel-point assigned to 
 it. But there is no need of this criticism. It may be read aijd 
 pointed wj^i^nnd , i. e. him who is the mighty One, the Almighty, 
 
Chap. VI. 11, 12. 201 
 
 of course with the article. This is the very idea that the writer 
 meant to convey, but which the Punctators failed to discover. — 
 p, him who. — '^l'2'3 = ^T^j'Si-o , than hivi, not them us. Here the 
 sentiment comes out fully, that striving against the arrangements 
 of Providence can be of no avail. The presinnption of so doing 
 is also implied. 
 
 (11) Truly, there are many words increasing vanity ; what advantage is 
 there to man ? 
 
 ■^S here is clearly not causal^ but intensive, and so I have translated 
 it. It might be Avell rendered by however, and then the shape of 
 the discourse would be thus : ' However, I will say no more, since 
 much speaking has already been condemned ; ' see 5 : 6, and 
 remarks on 4 : 16. — D'^^'^.-a , Hiph. Part, of ns'n . — What advan- 
 tage to man ? i. e. no number of words, however great, can dis- 
 close a permanent and immutable good for him, in the present 
 world. Words, therefore, are multiplied in vain. 
 
 (12) For who knoweth what is good for man in life, during the number of 
 the days of his vain life, since he spends them as a shadow ; so that who can 
 tell man what shall be after him under the sun 1 
 
 The "13 at the beginning may be rendered for (causal), and 
 then its connection stands thus : ' What advantage is there to man ? 
 [I ask this question] because (^3 ) who knoweth,' etc., i. e. ' be- 
 cause no one can know and tell. No one can point out any 
 stable good, not even in tXm future ; for who knoweth the future ? ' 
 
 — In life, i. e. while a man is living. — *,5p?2 is Ace. of measure 
 or time, and needs no prep, or verb. The indication is that of 
 a definite number told or appointed. — ibnn ^jn , his vain life 
 (§ 104. 1), i. e. life which yields no solid good. — Db?.:]T , since 
 he spends, or with 1 intensive : he even spends them. That nrs 
 may mean the same as Ttomv iqovov, to spend time, is plain from 
 Lex. 2. g. This usage is even somewhat frequent. The suff. 
 them refers to the preceding days. — bsts as a shadow, for the arti- 
 cle here, sec § 107. 3. n. 1. a. It is inadmissible, however, in 
 such a case, in our language. The idea is, that the days of man 
 pass quickly or swiftly away, as a shadow does, (comp. 8:13. 
 Job 14:2); they are continually on the move and soon vanish. 
 
 — Trx , here (as often) is like "^3 , so that, see Lex. "irx ; No. 
 
202 Remarks on Chap. VL 
 
 10. — Who can tell, etc., i. e. his days are so fleeting and short, 
 that no one can gain a knowledge which will enable him to see 
 and foretell future things. — I'^'^nx may be rendered aftei^ him, or 
 after it, viz. the mimber of his days. What is beyond, is un- 
 known to all ; so that the question : What advantage is there for 
 man'^ (in v. 11) must remain without any answer which is 
 wholly satisfactory. 
 
 [In such a state of mind as is here described, it seems strange to us, that 
 the inquirer did not look beyond those dark and gloomy scenes around him. 
 How spontaneously Avould the Christian, in like circumstances, now look, by 
 faith, beyond the veil of time, to that blessed world where all is peace and joy, 
 and where is no vanity nor vexation, where " there shall be no more pain, 
 and no more death !" The circumstance above adverted to is, of itself, a very 
 significant commentary on the declaration of Paul, that '' the gospel has hrotight 
 life and immortality to lights Surely, if Coheleth enjoyed the full vision of this 
 immortality which Christians now enjoy, he must have spontaneously looked 
 for the adjustment, in another world, of all the seeming difficulties and con- 
 tradictions and mysteries that are apparent in this world. Everywhere does 
 Paul rise superior to his sorrows, when he directs his eye to the glories of the 
 upper world. His afflictions are " light," his sufferings '• only for a moment," 
 when he is anticipating " the glory that is to be revealed." And so, we are 
 ready to say, must Coheleth have felt and acted, had he cherished such a 
 strong belief as Paul's. But are we not somewhat hasty in reasoning thus 
 from the one case to the other ? When one sees as clearly as Paul did, he 
 may well exult in hope, and forget all his sorrows. But suppose that instead 
 of noon-day, it is only twilight by which he is surrounded. Can the same ani- 
 mation and hope be expected from one whose lot it is to live under the latter, 
 as from one who looks on the meridian sun ? It must be a rare case, if indeed 
 there be any such, when those who grope their way by the glimmerings of twi- 
 light, yet move as rapidly and cheerfully as those who travel by broad day iuht. 
 
 But at all events, Coheleth does not stand alone. Where, we ask again, is 
 the appeal, in the book of Job, to a future adjustment of all the difficulties 
 and troubles that assailed him ? Read Job 14 : 7 — 14, and then say, whether 
 the patriarch felt as Paul did when he was suffering ; e. g. as described in 
 2 Cor. iv, V. The celebrated passage in Job 19 : 25— 27, will hardly stand the 
 test of criticism, if brought to support such an appeal. And in all the laws of the 
 great Jewish legislator, where is the appeal to a future judgment, a heaven, 
 and a hell ? The Hebrews had not even a word in their language, at least as 
 known to us, which corresponded to the Gehenna of the N. Testament. ?ii<T23 
 is cither grave, sepulchre, or else uwldofthe dead, region of death (as in Is. xiv), 
 but never Gehenna. The future judgment I have already discussed, under 3: 
 17 above. If at all taught, it is mostly by iniplicatlon ; and by that very sel- 
 dom. Read through all the prophets, i. e. the preachers to the Hebrews. 
 Promises of reward, and threats of punishment, are everywhere abundant; 
 
Remarks on Chap. VI. 203 
 
 but where, except in Is. 26 : 19 and Dan, 12: 3, is there anything wliich is 
 patent respecting the future state ? Many are the promises and threats in the 
 Psalms and Proverbs ; but where, excepting in Ps. 16:11 and 17 : 15, is there 
 anything which necessarily respects the/»/?/re Avorld ? We bring it out, indeed, 
 from the Jewish Scriptures, by transferring our N. Test, ideas to the exegesis 
 of the 0. Test. ; but did the Jeics of old so construe their Scriptures ? To say 
 this, would he attributing to them more than Paul is willing to allow. 2 Tim. 
 1: 10, and more than John would be willing to concede, John 1: 17, 18. The 
 simple truth is, that we must come at last, in the way of exegesis, to the con- 
 cession, that the Mosaic dispensation was.only p-e;w;rato?-^ to the gospel ; it 
 was "only the shadow of good things to come." There was enough in it to 
 encourage the obedient, and to lead to faith and trust in God. And in the case 
 of Coheleth, the latter part of his book shows, that he attained, at last, to a 
 steadfast condition of mind, and that all his inquiries terminated in leadinghim 
 to a belief in a future judgment, and to a deep conviction that, to " fear God, 
 and keep his commandments." is the great end of man's being, Ecc. 12: 13, 
 14. Through how many doubts and difficulties he had to pass, with his busy 
 and inquiring spirit, the book before us shows. But let us not understand him 
 as having come to a real ultimatum^ before he gets through the contest Avith 
 his doubts and difficulties. AVe have, specially in the chapter above considered, 
 a despairing and hesitating frame of mind ; a state which bounded his circle 
 of vision by narrow limits, for the time being ; one which made life a burden 
 to him ; one from which he found no escape, and for which he could find no 
 substantial alleviation, but in the unquestioned and unquestionable supremacy 
 of the Divine Being. This he never denies ; of this he never doubts ; and it 
 adds greatly to our regard for his piety to find him, in the midst of such strong 
 temptations to unbelief and murmuring, always approaching God with the 
 highest solemnity and reverence, and not unfrequently with gratitude. What- 
 ever is wrong in men, and however much of evil is done, he still believes, that 
 " God made man upright," while " the evil inventions" are his OAvn. Must 
 it not be conceded, then, that there was in him a strong and active principle 
 of living faith, which could support him amid such trials and such inquiries, 
 and keep him steadfast in the attitude of reverence and submission ? It would 
 really seem, after all, that while he had far less lifjht than we have, he had 
 more oi filial reverence and submission than most of us would venture to claim. 
 As for his doubts and perplexities, and occasionally even his despair, who can 
 wonder at them, that contemplates him struggling on his way, by twilight, 
 and anxiously seeking how to solve all the mysterious occurrences in the 
 natural and moral world, in the manner of a reasoning philosopher? Who 
 can help feeling the deepest interest in the struggles of such an inquiring, 
 sensitive, and anxious man. He does, indeed, at times, seem to succumb, and 
 to wisli for dealh. So did Job ; and so did Jonah. But after all, the tenor 
 of his book is far from inculcating gloom and reckless despair. Cheerfulness 
 and sober enjoyment are cveryAvhere commended, when he comes to advise 
 and to give precepts. All impiety, lightmindedness, murmuring, and distrust 
 of God's justice or goodness, arc discarded by him and condemned, even in 
 the midst of all the temptations to indulge such feelings, while one is under 
 
204 Remarks on Chap. VI. 
 
 hopeless siifferinf!:. unrler an oppressive government, and has onlj glimj^ses of 
 the world of future haj>piness. To any one who reads the book intelligeiit y, 
 who looks at the condition, and sees the design of the writer, such a struggle 
 in regard to the most interesting question man can ask : viz. How can Ijind 
 true and lasling hajipinrss ? — to such an one a picture is presented, to be con- 
 templated with the most lively emotions. It is only when we mistake the 
 tenor and object of the book, and look for and demand that which is not in it, 
 nor in any other book of the O.Test, (except as stated above), — it is only then, 
 that we meet with insoluble dithculties at every turn. Many persons resort to 
 downright violence upon the simple meaning of the language, in order to make 
 all parts of the book speak orthodoxy. But this can never satisfy the mind, 
 although it may, perhaps, silence its inquiries. Many there are, who do this 
 with honest and commendable intentions, because a better way has not been 
 disclosed to them, or found by them. But no one who gets an enlightened 
 view of the whole book, can feel that a straight-going exegesis will endanger 
 our faith. Quite the contrary. We are led to see, step by step, what the 
 mind can struggle with and overcome, where there is an unshaken confidence 
 in God at the bottom of the heart. If one in ages past, before the Sun of 
 Righteousness arose in his full splendor, could thus struggle, and thus triumph, 
 shame and reproach to us, who live under the full blaze of gospel light, f we 
 doubt, and grow cold, and murmur, when the ways of Providence are myste- 
 rious and afflictive to us ! 
 
 That Neologists should exult in the alleged skepticism of this book, is no 
 wonder indeed ; but I cannot think it to be indicative of much candour and 
 liberality of feeling. Coheleth is an ardent inquirer, and in one respect, if I 
 may be allowed to say it, he is like them, i. e. he is o. philosopher . But Cohe- 
 leth's philosophy begins with doubts, and ends with deep conviction of truth 
 and with reverence for God and his commandments. Their course is usually 
 the reverse of this. Kant's last words are said to have been : " All is dark." 
 And so indeed it is, where the Bible is superseded, and one's own reason be- 
 comes the supreme arbiter of all things. Even if Coheleth be in reality a 
 doubter in immortality, it would not prove that all the Hebrews were so; it 
 could not disprove the assertion of Paul, that Abraham '"looked for a city 
 which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God," nor could it con- 
 vict him of error when he declared, that other patriarchs did " seek a better 
 country, even a heavenly one," Heb 11:10 — 16. Such critics mistake the 
 doubts suggested in the process of investigation, i-n this book, for the con- 
 firmed opinions of the writer himself, and thus they argue against all knowl- 
 edge of the future among the Hebrews, from his alleged views. They seem 
 to ignore the fact. thatS-what the writer undertakes in this book, is not to dis- 
 cuss the doctrine of the soul's immortality, or the existence of a future world ; 
 but to ask, and if possible answer, the question : h tJiere any solid and lasting (jood 
 attainable in the present ivorld ? They may wonder, and so ma}' we, that the 
 author rarely steps beyond the boundaries of this question, until near the close 
 of the book. We can scarcely repress the feeling, that views of the future 
 must have thrust themselves in, as the means of solving many &nodus which 
 is presented. And we have that same feeling, when we read the book of Job, 
 
Chap. Vn. 1—29. 205 
 
 which, in many respects, has resemblances to Ecclcsiastcs. Yet in cases of 
 this kind, very much depends on the special object which tlic writer had i 
 view, as well as on his state of knowledge. Inspiration does not put a man 
 out of the age and country in which he lives. The circumstauUals of a writer 
 remain the same, whether insj)ired or not. And these always aflcct the cos- 
 tume of his work. Let Coheleth be judged, then, by his time, his circum- 
 stances, and the object he had in view ; and if so, his book need not fear the 
 tribunal of criticism. The work is far enough removed from the gloomy con- 
 ceptions and views of a hopeless skeptic, and from the tame and dull truism 
 of a wiseacre. It is full of vivacity, of deep feeling, and of a pervading spir i t 
 of submission to God in all his doings. If we do not profit by it, the fault is 
 our own.] 
 
 §11. Alleviations in various distressing circumstances. Caution as 
 to demeanor toward oppressors and rulers. Our miseries are 
 not from God, hut from the perversion of men. 
 
 Chap. YII. 1—29. 
 
 [Left in despair of any adequate remedy for the evils of life, or of attaining 
 to wisdom adequate to point out true and lasting good, the writer declares 
 death to be preferable to life. Death is indeed an evil, but not unmixed with 
 good ; for some advantage, in such a case, may accrue to mourners, and the 
 wise may profit by being among them. Fools only desire continual merri- 
 ment ; vs. 1 — 4. But even the rebuke of the wise, well administered, is better 
 than the merry shouts of fools, which are short-lived, vs. 5, 6. Still, the wise 
 are sometimes thrown off their guard by passion^ which causes much misery, 
 and makes even the wise grow mad under it. But they ought to wait with 
 patience for the end of such things, and see how Providence disposes of the 
 issue or sequel, and not to be impetuous in their feelings, nor to complain of 
 the badness of the times, vs. 7 — 10. After all, wisdom, as well as a heritage, 
 is of some profit, although imperfectly attained, and liable to be blinded for 
 the moment by untoward circumstances. Both wisdom and money are, at 
 times, a protection, vs. 11,12. Still, we must remember that God has ordered 
 all matters, and tliat we ought to submit to his ordinances, v. 13. Agreeably 
 to his ordinance, we may rejoice in prosperity, but we should also consider 
 well in the day of adversity. God disposes of both these in the way of alter- 
 nation, and in such a way that wc cannot scan his doings, v. 14. All this 
 Coheleth has reflected upon while engaged in his vain pursuit. Nor does 
 the mystery stop even here. The righteous sometimes perish through their 
 probity, and the wicked enjoy long life through their improbity, v. 15. To 
 this the writer brings forward a kind of reply, or at least an attempt at expla- 
 nation. It comes in tiie form of a precept, the purport of which is to tell how 
 the evil in question may be shunned. ' One must not be rigidly unbending in 
 his righteousness, carrying the matter to severe excess. Nor should he sedu- 
 
 18 
 
206 Chap. VIL 1—29. 
 
 lously endeavour to sliow how wise he is, for this will make him singular and 
 cause liim to be deserted. Nor should he be very wicked, since this would 
 show him to be a fool : for it brings on a premature death. It is good to 
 attend well to both these cautions, for he who fears God will proceed with 
 both in his eye, vs. 15 — 18. That this comment on the destiny of the 
 righteous and the wicked (v. 15), and on the wisdom here aimed at (v. 16), 
 is not satisfactory to the writer, will appear in the sequel. For the present, 
 as wisdom has been spoken of, in the attempted reply, as a means oi destroying 
 or making one desolate^ he contents himself with remarking, that wisdom is a 
 more effectual security for protection, than ten military chieftains with their 
 forces. In respect to such protection, wisdom does, at times, what virtue fails 
 to do, because all men sometimes sin, and then, not their virtue but their skill 
 protects them; vs. 19, 20. If one makes an efl'ort to act wisely, he will doubtless 
 set in motion the tongue of slander ; but he must give no heed to it, for it is 
 not worth minding. If you are over eager to listen, you will hear something 
 to your own disadvantage, even from servants. Besides, you yourself have 
 sometimes indulged in such scandal, and you must therefore expect it from 
 others, vs. 21, 22. — Coheleth now sums up by saying, that he has, with wari- 
 ness, subjected to trial the wisdom of which so much is said, in order to dis- 
 cover its true nature, and tried to become wise in this matter. But he has 
 found the thing too remote and deep to be probed, vs. 23, 24. He has pur- 
 sued the investigation of wisdom by considering it as contrasted with/oZ/y and 
 madness, v. 25. Of this folly, he has sought out the most prominent and con- 
 spicuous sources and exemplars. He has found these in the ensnaring women of 
 his time, whose seductive appearance and demeanor are so alhiring and fatal, 
 that only those specially favored of God escape from them. He has desired 
 to find some abatement of this charge, but he cannot find one in a thousand 
 who is to be excepted. Among men, the case is somewhat belter. But even 
 there, examples are very rare, vs. 27, 28. But whence come such abounding 
 perversity and wickedness ? God made man upright ; therefore it is not to be 
 put to his account, but to the account of man himself who has degenerated, 
 V. 29. 
 
 This chapter mav be numbered with the most difficult ones in the book. 
 There is less of orderly sequency and of close or discernible connection. 
 Actual digressions, indeed, are not exactly to be found in the chapter ; but 
 transitions from one subject, or one aspect of a subject, to another are frequent. 
 To a mere cursory reader much of the chapter has the appearance of apo- 
 thegms or sententious sayings, like the book of Proverbs. But a closer exami- 
 nation dissipates this illusion, and shows, in the main, a connected under- 
 current of tliought. Still, it is miscellaneous. The writer goes, for example, 
 from the subject of death and mourning to that of oppression, and strives to 
 present some alleviations and administer some cautions in both cases. Once 
 more he resumes the oft-considered topic of «/Wo?». and also glances again at 
 that of wealth. Both of" these things have their value, in some respects ; but 
 they cannot reverse or stay the ordinances of Providence. God has designed 
 to hide somethings from our view, and therefore we cannot search them out; 
 but our safe course is to yield implicit submission to his will. Some things 
 
Chap. VII. 1—29. 207 
 
 take place which confound ns ; the ri;j,htcous suffer the doom of the wicked, 
 and, cice w/srt,the wicked prosper as if righteous. This cannot be explained, 
 by putting it to the account of excess in the righteous, and of small sins in 
 the wicked. Excess in either is not the ground on wliich this matter rests. 
 As to wisdom, it often serves for a defence, even where virtue would not, 
 or could not, because it is so imperfect. Let no one be dissuaded from labor- 
 ing to attain wisdom, by the tongue of slander and .scandal. Give no ear to it, 
 and thus escape tlie mortifications of it. — As to the essential nature of wisdom, 
 what it is in itself, and whence it originates — we cannot develope these mat- 
 ters as we may wish. But something we may know, by looking at and con- 
 sidering the opposite of wisdom, \\z. foil i/. The most striking examples of this 
 are among enticing Avomen ; examples of virtue, moreover, are very rare even 
 among men. So much, at all events, is clear, amid all that may be doubtful, 
 viz. that God made man upriijht, and that he has corrupted himself 
 
 Such is the tenor of thought, briefly expressed, and divested of all its cir- 
 cumstantial minutiae. This is a discursive method of writing, beyond any 
 doubt; but still, disciirsii'eriess and free latitude in thinking pervade the book, 
 and designedly so. Yet it is far from being a second book of Proverbs. 
 Single and unconnected apothegms are rare indeed in it, and in fact never 
 appear, as has already been said, except for the purpose of illustration. But 
 to claim for it the regular series of a continuous logical process throughout, 
 would plainly be to make an extravagant and inadmissible claim. Such is 
 not the manner of Hebrew writing anywhere. Paul himself, though a master- 
 logician in fact, with few exceptions, never presents us with a regular and con- 
 tinued series of ratiocination. The times, the style, the genius of the Heb.people, 
 neither required nor admitted this. But Coheleth has a wide field before him, 
 which he explores in search of some solid and abiding earthly good. "When he 
 viewed some of the leading pursuits of men in one light, and dismissed them as 
 disappointing our hopes, on another occasion something brings them to his 
 view in another attitude, and he again contemplates them, and then decides as 
 before. It i^ in this way that seeming repetition occurs ; but, excepting his re- 
 peated final conclusions, it is rare to find the same thing looked at again in the 
 same attitude and in the same light as before. Free digressive remarks often 
 spring from ideas, associated with something which he mentions, and called 
 fortli by that something; and one must narrowly watch for this, who desire 
 to explore the course of thought and the connection of topics. He must 
 not think of binding him to the consecution of a Paley. or a AVhewell. He must 
 rather read the Consessus Hariri, or the Gnomes of some of the Oriental philoso- 
 phers, or the book of the Wisdom of Solomon, if he wishes to obtain light on the 
 question of method in the book before us. It is through and through Oriental, 
 and has some strong resemblance, in more than one respect, to some parts 
 of the Mishna. Withal, it is verilij Tlebreic, in its manner and method ; but not 
 Heb. history, or prophecy, or Psalms. It is Heb. philosophizing ; and at least as 
 intelligible as that of our cousin- Germans. Perhaps parts of it have been as little 
 understood as some of their works. But patience is said to master even their 
 works ; perseverance and a good knowledge of the Heb. idiom will make 
 most of this book, if not all, quite intelligible. — We now come to the detail.] 
 
208 Chap. VIL 1, 2. 
 
 (1) Better is a good name than precious ointment, and so the day of one's 
 death than of his birth. 
 
 The first 2i"J is predicate, and so (as usual for a predicate ad- 
 jective) it stands first, § 141. — cd , of itself, may mean good name, 
 by established Ileb. usage, Prov. 22 : 1. Job 30 : 8. — The second 
 niu qualifies "i^^ , and shows that it means perfumed or precious 
 ointment. But why does the writer introduce this ? Surely not 
 for the sake of establishing a proposition respecting a good 
 name, or good oil, but for the sake of throwing light, by com- 
 parison, on the sentence that follows ; i. e. that the day of one's 
 death is as much better than that of his birth, as a good name is 
 better than good oil. Doubtless illustrations as striking as this 
 might have been selected from other objects. But this bears every 
 mark of being a common apothegm ; and it Avas ^^robably chosen 
 on this ground. — 'i'i^^'7 , Niph. Inf. Nominas. of 'ib'^ , lit. of being 
 brought forth. The suff. here indicates that there is an implied 
 suffix after n'l^ri ; which I have given in the version. That com- 
 parisons in Heb. often omit the usual comparative particle '3 or 3, 
 and put 1, between the two members, is a matter well known and 
 established. In this case 1. is equivalent to and so, or and thus ; 
 see § 152. B. 3. The verse before us reasserts, in another form, 
 the sentiment of 6 : 3. New reasons for despair, exhibited in 6 : 
 4. — 12, have made Coheleth more sick at heart than ever. He 
 does not say merely that he would as willingly die as live, but 
 that death, the termination of life, is altogether better than birth, 
 the commencement of it. But if death be not at present attain- 
 able, (he never once speaks, and never appears to think, oi suicide), 
 then the next most mournful concern, attendance on the death or 
 burial of others, is most in unison with his then present feelings. 
 In point of fact, indeed, a man may be profited by resort to the 
 house of mourning. 
 
 (2) It is better to go to tlie house of mourning than to go to the house of 
 feasting, because this is the end of all men, and the living will lay it to heart. 
 
 The word Ti'nt-q , banquet, is often employed in the more gen- 
 eral sense given to it here, i. e. feast. — &<-n, this is, § 119. 2. — 
 qiD, the end, but the article required, is put before the Gen. noun 
 that follows, § 109. 1. — Dnxj, tncm, mankind, or every man, gene- 
 ric. — -inn , sing, generic, and designating a class, it tal^es the 
 
Chap. VII. 3, 4. 209 
 
 article ; § 107. 3. n.l.b. — Lat/ it or put it to heart is the familiar 
 phrase in Heb. to designate the consideration of a thing ; for this 
 meaning of ins , see Lex. It is placing the thing before the mind, 
 in order that it may be the object of consideration. Ilitzig says, 
 that there are two benefits designated here ; the one is the house 
 of mourning, where, if one cannot die himself, he has a pleasure 
 in seeing others permitted to die, or it is reviving to him ; the 
 other is, that sober reflection will be useful. The first of these 
 reasons appears strained and unnatural, too much so to be admis- 
 sible ; the second is enough to establish the better in the case, 
 which is asserted. — This is the end — what? The answer must 
 be, that the house of mourning is, i. e. represents, symbolizes, in 
 an expressive manner, the end or death of all men. 
 
 (3) Better is sorrow than laughter: for by the sadness of the countenance 
 the heart is made glad. 
 
 'O'J'D , aegritudo, moeror, grief or sorroiv ; often it means vexa- 
 tion, irritation, but not so here, as the antithesis shows. — pinb", 
 lit. laughter, but this is merely the expression, here, of merriment, 
 the opposite of sorrow. — l^'H, sadness, see Lex. — niJi'i , Imperf. 
 with Pattah, § 69. 1. — The heart is made glad ; Hitzig : is made 
 sound. But plainly soundness is not the opposite of sadness ; and 
 ni::, moreover, has all along the sense of enjoyment, gladness. 
 Usually, the countenance expresses the state of the heart, and 
 when that is sorrowful, we conclude the heart to be so ; see in 
 Neh. 2 : 2. But there the writer employs an Oxymoron, in order 
 to express himself with point ; (see this word explained in N. Test. 
 Gramm. p. 300). We might say, with something of the like point : 
 The look is sad, but the heart not bad. — i:j"'i need not be re- 
 garded as implying mere ordinary merriment here, but the pleasure 
 derived from sober reflection. The whole verse is only an exten- 
 sion of the thought in v. 2. In v. 4 we have an exhibition of the 
 part which ivisdom will act. 
 
 (4) The h^art of the wise is in the house of mourning: but the heart of 
 fools, in the house of merriment. 
 
 For the reasons above stated, we may anticipate what part the 
 wise will act. They will frequent the house of mourning, for the 
 solid profit which will accrue ; but fools, who love laughter, will 
 18* 
 
210 Chap. YIL 5, 6. 
 
 prefer the house of merriment. — Heart, in the text, means inclina- 
 tion, feeling, which prompts the course in question. 
 
 (5) Better is it to hear the rebuke of a wise man, than that one sliould hear 
 the song of fools. 
 
 This is partly digressive. The writer pursues the idea of the 
 difference between the fooHsh and the wise, beyond the matter of 
 mourning and rejoicing. So much more highly are the wise to be 
 held in estimation, that one had rather suffer even rehuhe from 
 them, than to hear the plaudit-song of fools. As song here is the 
 opposite of rebuke, so encomiastic or plaudit-song is plainly meant. 
 In other words : Rebuke from the wise is more tolerable than the 
 eulogy of fools. — r^ili, Part, auditurus, or it may merely express 
 the repeated act of hearing, i. e. what one habitually does ; which 
 is a special office of the participle. The Heb. runs thus, lit. : than 
 a man, the hearer of a song, etc. The plaudit-song of fools is, in- 
 deed, noisy enough, but very short-lived and insignificant. So 
 the next verse : — 
 
 (6) For as the noise of thorns under a pot, so is the laughter of the fool. 
 This too is vanity. 
 
 There is a kind of paronomasia or assonance in this verse. 
 The preceding verse has tsib^^DSi , and this d'^'Ti&ri (art. generic) ; 
 In V. 6 itself, l"'&n follows Di'n^&li ; words evidently selected for 
 the sake of assonance ; for this is often employed to give point to 
 a sententious saying. The state of Palestine, as to fuel, makes 
 plain the expression : thorns under the pot. No fuel but bushes is 
 to be had there ; and the thorn of the desert is often employed in 
 cooking food. It blazes and snaps fiercely, and makes much noise 
 for a little while, and then all is over ; it leaves few if any coals 
 behind. Of course something more substantial is needed for con- 
 venient use. So is it with the noisy merriment — the laughter 
 and song of fools. We have a vulgar proverb of nearly the same 
 tenor as that here quoted : Great cry and little wool. The fool's 
 merriment and noisy plaudits amount to nothing. — The '^3 at the 
 beginning of the verse, shows that the design is to give the ground 
 of the preceding declaration. — D^l , this too, i. e. this as well as 
 other things before mentioned. 
 
Chap. Vn. 7—9. 211 
 
 (7) But oppression rendereth mad a wise man, and a gift corrupteth the 
 heart. 
 
 Rendereth mad, i. e. foolish ; in other words, the practice of 
 oppressing will soon bring a wise man to act as a fool. The 
 author refers to the practice of the magistrates of that day, of 
 which he so often complains. As to making mad, comp. Is. 44 : 
 25. As to the character and effect of the gift (bribery), see Deut. 
 16:19. Exod. 23 : 8. — 'iss^'^ , in Piel, either leads astray, which is 
 the original idea, or corrupts, in the moral sense. — nb , heart, i. e. 
 mind or soul. In Arabic, Hakem (= Dzn) means magistrate, and 
 not improbably it does so in the passage before us ; for it is the 
 corruption of a judge, to which the gift (bribery) refers. In such 
 a case, there would be an exception to the value of a rebuke from 
 a Din , as mentioned in v. 5 ; and perhaps the writer means to 
 produce an oppressive tin here in the way of an exception to 
 the general principle. 
 
 (8) The end of a matter is better than its beginning: forbearance of spirit 
 is better than haughtiness of spirit. 
 
 The first part of the verse seems, at first view, to be a kind of 
 parallel to v. 1. But in v. 8 it stands in a different connection. 
 Both parts of the verse are doubtless proverbial sayings, applied 
 by the writer to the case in hand. What he means is, that the end 
 of this matter of oppressing will show at last the true state of the 
 thing ; and that it is better to wait — to exercise forbearance of 
 mind, than haughtily to resent the injuries received. We might 
 expect nn *TJp, hastiness of spirit, in contrast with nn T(")i<. 
 But haughtiness is the passion which most and quickest of all 
 resents oppression, being very sensitive to indignity. The caution 
 ^is, not to move too hastily in such a matter, but to wait, and see 
 how it will turn out in the sequel. That such is the indication, 
 may be seen by what follows. — Tj1i< is probably the const, form 
 of Tj'^x (adj.), according to the vowel-points. The sense is better, 
 at least more expressive, if pointed T|'^k (as a noun) ; and so nha 
 (Infin. noun) may be regarded as a parallel construction with 7^'nx . 
 
 (9) Be not hasty in thy spirit to be irritated, for irritation dwelleth in the 
 bosom of fools. 
 
 This repeats the sentiment of the preceding verse, with an 
 
 additional reason. Avoid an irritable temper of mind, for only the 
 
212 Chap. VII. 10, 11. 
 
 foolish indulge it. ' Embroil not yourself with the oppressive ruler, 
 by reason of hasty vexation or sudden passion' — is the substance 
 of the sentiment. — n^s^ , Imperf. of n^ii, indicating (as often) 
 habitude, § 125. 4. h. 
 
 (10) Say not: Why is it that former days were better than these ? for thou 
 dost not inquire wisely respecting this. 
 
 iT^n, was and still is. — ^, that. — n?33n^, Mt. from wisdom, 
 i. e. it comes noi from wisdom as its source = wisely. — ^)''^'^_ , con- 
 cerning this, Viz. concerning the superiority of former times over the 
 present. This has a bearing on the then present state of things. 
 Men are presented as groaning under oppression ; and present evils 
 are always magnified in the view of sufferers. Hence it is natural 
 to praise former times, as if they were exempt from evils, when, 
 in fact, their evils are merely forgotten. Every day, even now, 
 furnishes us with examples of this kind. All this is natural to men 
 in a suffering state. Coheleth means to say, that ' such compari- 
 sons will provoke the rulers as well as help to aggravate our evils, 
 and thus increase the difficulties which they occasion. Therefore 
 be ivise, and refrain from this.' That this is implied, seems to be 
 clearly shown from the next two verses, which speak in praise of 
 wisdom, i. e. discretion or sagacity. 
 
 (11) Wisdom is good as well as an inheritance, specially to those who 
 see the sun. 
 
 In other words : ' Act wisely in respect to rulers ; for wisdom 
 will protect you as much as money. It is of great benefit to 
 those who are in active life.' — nbm DSj as well as wealth ; for 
 that D^ may and does have such a meaning, is clear ; see 2 : 16 
 and remarks there, and also Lex. ds^ B. 1. d. The word inherit- 
 ance has here a more generic sense, meaning wealth of any kind. 
 Besides, in the next verse, wealth or money is made coordinate 
 with wisdom, not subordinate to it. The sentiment drawn by 
 many from this verse, viz. that ' wisdom is good if you have 
 money with it,' is both tame and untrue in its implication ; for 
 the implication would be, that wisdom is not good unless accom- 
 panied by wealth, which is not true. — ^nii an adverb here, viz. 
 very, very much, abundantly; see in 2: 15. Sentiment: ' Wis- 
 dom is good as well as wealth, and especially good for those on 
 
Chap. VII. 12—14. 213 
 
 the stage of action.' — Those who see the sun, means living men 
 abroad in the world of action; comp. 6: o. 11: 7. So the 
 Greeks : ' Oquv cpdo^ = ^ijv ; and so the Latins : Diem videre. 
 
 (12) For wisdom is a defence, and silver is a defence ; but a preeminence 
 of knowledge is wisdom, which preserves the lives of its possessors. 
 
 In b:^3 , the S is the so-called S essentiae, and therefore need 
 not be translated, indeed cannot be, so as truly to represent the 
 Heb. idiom. See Lex. s, D., and compare ^11:3 in v. 14 == niia . 
 See in Job 23 : 13. Gen. 49 : 24. al. in Lex. — h:s. , lit. shadow. 
 In the glowing East, shade is a most grateful and salutary protec- 
 tion. The Scriptures often employ the word as here : Is. 30 : 
 2, 3. 32:2. Num. 14:9. Lam. 4 : 20. — K preeminence or 
 excellence of knowledge is the predicate in the second clause ; and 
 so I have translated. It is put first, for the sake of emphasis. 
 ' That wisdom,' says Coheleth, ' which preserves life, must be 
 regarded as an excellent knowledge,' having the preeminence 
 even over money ; for this, although it may and does at times 
 shield us, is still liable to be lost ; for it is exposed to robbery, to 
 accident, and to ill success in business, etc. 
 
 All this looks back to the case of demeanor under the oppres- 
 sion of rulers, and is designed to show the importance of acting 
 discreetly, that our safety may not become endangered. Wisdom 
 here is truly a "ji^in^ . 
 
 (13) Consider the work of God; who can make straight that which he 
 hath made crooked ? 
 
 That is, in all these troubles and perplexities, remember that 
 there is an overruling Providence, whose arrangements cannot 
 be opposed or disturbed. When the will of God is ascertained, 
 bow to it in quiet and silent submission. — S'^ri'^Nii , like 0£oV in 
 Greek, used either with or without the article. Here emphasis 
 is intended, and the article becomes necessary. — '^3 (causal) 
 stands before a reason for considering well how much of present 
 trouble results from the unchangeable ordinance of the Power 
 above. — in^.:; , Piel with sufF., root ri^' with movable 1 . 
 
 (14) In the day of prosperity be joyful, and in the day of adversity con- 
 
214 Chap. VII. 14. 
 
 sidcr; moreover, God hatli arranged tliis in connection with that, in order 
 that man should not discover anything wliich will be after him. 
 
 Whatever may be the confusion and disorder of the times, 
 when good and evil alternate and are fluctuating, it is plain that 
 nothing forbids your enjoyment oi prosperity, when it is your lot ; 
 and when adversity comes, make good use of that by exercising 
 sober reflection and consideration. — niu:3 = Siia, with a essentiae; 
 see on hi'2. in the verse above. — Consider, instead of which we 
 should have expected "na n*;?! , he sad, as the opposite of niisa . 
 But nxi gives a more expressive and useful counsel. Men do 
 not need exhortation to sadness, when misfortunes come upon 
 them. God has arranged these alternations in such a way, and 
 so entirely are they under his own control, that we can never 
 predict the future with certainty. We know, indeed, that alter- 
 nations must needs take place ; but ' how and when, are beyond 
 our ken.' — ri^arb together luith, or in connection ivith. — !-;rr ar- 
 range, constitute, sl frequent meaning of this word ; see Lex. — h'j 
 tJ ri'nn'7 (const, form of ri'nn'n), on the ground that, in order that, 
 (not merely so that, as many translate). The sentiment plainly 
 is, that God has so arranged the alternations of good and evil, 
 that no man can know the future with certainty ; and in all this 
 he has a design. He does not mean to admit man to pry into 
 the secret thino;s which belono; to him alone. 
 
 The mass of commentators are content with this view ; but 
 Hitzig, ever watchful to detect, and bring out to view, any skep- 
 ticism in the Hebrews, finds a different sentiment, viz., ' To the 
 intent that he shall seek for nothing after death. God leaves good 
 and evil to alternate here, in order that nothing may be expected 
 or found after death.' At the close, he adds : " This sense of 
 the passage interpreters en masse have failed to discover." — But 
 it seems to me no matter of wonder, that they have failed to see 
 what was not to be seen. Hitzig gets his view by a Hinein- 
 exegesiren, and not by a Heraus-excgesiren. The writer has said, 
 again and again, that good and evil are not duly rewarded in the 
 present life. His greatest complaint is, that they are not. How, 
 then, can he be made to say now, that good and evil are awarded 
 here, and are so dispensed that no farther award is to be expect- 
 ed ? Ha})i)ily, this sharp-sighted critic does not often titubate so 
 visibly as in the present case. 
 
Chap. VIL 15. 215 
 
 (15) All this luivc I considered in the diws of my vain efforts ; there is a 
 righteous man who perislieth through his righteousness; and there is a wick- 
 ed man who prolongcth [his days] by reason of his wickedness. 
 
 b'sri-nx , lit. the all, which I have rendered all this. The arti- 
 cle makes bs refer to something which precedes, viz. what is 
 contained in vs. 13, 14. He means to say, that the suhject of 
 tlie mysterious ahernations of good and evil he has often con- 
 sidei-ed in the days of his bnn , i. e. of his vain efforts in trying to 
 solve the problem ; for bnn evidently relates to something that 
 was then past, and therefore to his vain efforts. As to the mere 
 fact of being vanity, personally considered, i. e. a frail dying 
 creature, that was as true when this was uttered as it ever had 
 been. This was not something which had passed, and therefore 
 this was not the kind of vanity meant in the text. But there is 
 a new attitude in which the subject may be placed, which will 
 show more fully still, that there is a mystery respecting the dis- 
 pensation of good and evil, which is more perplexing than their 
 mere alternations. This is, that the righteous sometimes perish 
 (instead of receiving a reward), for the very reason that they are 
 righteous ; while the wicked enjoy the benefits promised to the 
 righteous, by means of their wickedness. In other words : ' Right 
 fails, and wrong prospers.' How shall any one account for this ? 
 As to the fact, " persecution for righteousness' sake" has always 
 existed in some shape ; so that a man may perish ip'iiiJS , by or 
 through his righteousness — not merely in it. After Tp'^N^ the 
 word D"!^;^ is implied ; for the full expression of this see 8:13. 
 Deut. 4 : 26, 40. 5 : 30. Josh. 24:31. Prov. 8:16, al. For the 
 elliptical expression, as here, see Prov. 28 : 2. Long life is every- 
 where counted among the Hebrews as a blessing, Ex. 20: 12. 
 Deut. 11:9, 21. Is. 65 : 20. Ps. 49 : 10. Prov. 28 : 16, al. — 
 irr"]2 , by or on account of his wickedness, not merely while in it. 
 That is, the wicked often prolong their days by the acquisition of 
 various comforts and means of promoting health, through gains 
 wickedly obtained ; or it may be that they escape penal justice 
 by means of bribery. How Providence could permit this, was a 
 great mystery — and one which Coheleth thinks has not been 
 uncovered. Of" some attempts to account for this, he has indeed 
 a cognizance ; or it may be that he tells us what opce passed in 
 his own mind, in the days of his vanity. 
 
216 Chap. VIL 16, 17. 
 
 (16) Be not righteous over much, nor display thyself as being wise; why 
 shouldest thou make thyself to be forsaken ? 
 
 In other words, a course too exact, rigid, and severe, occasions 
 the misfortunes of the righteous. They overdo. And so also 
 they show themselves as wise, or demean themselves as claiming to 
 he wise, DSnnn Hith., i. e. wiser than others ; and so, by carry- 
 ing these things to excess, they cause themselves to be deserted 
 or forsaken, d^ai^Pi , Hithp. for dTsidrn , make thyself desolate or 
 lo7iely. Like Job in 16 : 7, (on which passage the writer perhaps 
 had his eye), friends forsake him, and leave him to his fancied 
 superior sanctity and wisdom. But the verse above speaks of 
 his perishing. This also may be involved in d'oiii'Pi , or at least 
 the consequence of it. — ^ni^ is evidently adverbial here, (see in 
 V. 11), and corresponds to !i3"iri in the first clause. The next 
 verse continues the comparison. 
 
 (17) Be not wicked over much, and be not foolish ; why shouldest thou die 
 before thy time 1 
 
 That is, great wickedness only leads to destruction, and makes 
 a man a fool. All men sin some, and sometimes act unwisely ; 
 but it is only when they become abandoned and turn fools, that 
 they perish. Excess in both cases destroys. Those who are 
 righteous in a moderate measure, may remain safe ; and so with 
 the wicked who observe moderation. — Tf]'j ikh^ , lit. i^i thy not 
 time, i. e. untimely. 
 
 This 17th verse evidently does not correspond exactly with 
 the last clause of v. 15, prolongeth his days by wickedness. It 
 merely maintains that excessive wickedness destroys instead of 
 preserving. But by implication it admits, that wickedness short 
 of this may consist with prolongation of days. In other words, 
 the statement in v. 15 is limited and softened down by vs. 16, 17; 
 for it is here suggested, that only excess in righteousness causes 
 the mischief complained of, and that prosperity in wickedness 
 cannot truly be affirmed of such as are very wicked. Verses 16 
 and 17 do not directly deny or contradict v. 15, but they qualify 
 and diminish the force of its expressions. The inference is, that 
 the objector in this case, (no matter whether the objection comes 
 from Coheleth's own deliberating mind, or is suggested by an- 
 other) — the objector intends to say, that the proposition of v. 15 
 
Chap. \T[L 18, 19. 217 
 
 cannot be admitted in its full latitude. There is evidently an 
 attempt to diminish the force of the objection against the mystery 
 of providential arrangements. What is said, in v. 1 5, is assumed, 
 as applicable only to cases of excess in righteousness, or to a low 
 or small degree of sin. 
 
 Nor has the objector yet done. He goes on to show the im- 
 portance of his suggestion, in the following verse. 
 
 (18) It is good that thou shouldest keep hold of this, and also not let go 
 thy hand from that ; for he who fears God, will make his way with all of 
 them. 
 
 Keep hold of this, refers to the precept he had given respectino- 
 excess in righteousness ; not let go thy hand from that, means that 
 he should also observe due caution in regard to excess of wicked- 
 ness. By a wary observance of these cautions, he will be safe. 
 And he who fears God, i. e. fears to incur his displeasure, will go 
 along the path of life associating these maxims with all his steps, 
 so as not to depart from them. It seems plain to me, that this 
 verse comes from the same quarter as the last two verses which 
 precede it. It is an attempted confirmation of what is there said. 
 — riT^a is put at the head of the second clause, in order to make 
 the contrast with nta more striking. — nsn , Hiph. apoc. of n^5 ; 
 see Lex. B. — Will make his loay with both, usually rendered: 
 Will escape both. But how can i<2C'i be made to govern the Ace. ? 
 It is an intransitive verb in Kal ; and the cases appealed to in 
 Gen. 44 : 4. Ex. 9 : 29, 33, etc., are not parallel with the present. 
 K the sense in question were intended, it would be followed by 
 "i^, from; see Jer. 11 : 11. As the phrase now stands, it desig- 
 nates the idea, that he who will go safely so as to avoid the 
 divine displeasure, will make his way as it were in company 
 with both the cautions given, or (in other words) he will take 
 them along with him. These cautions are expressed by d^5 all 
 of them, viz. all of the things he had just said. In the other 
 mode of rendering, the meaning of all of them must be, all of the 
 disasters. The sense would be well enough, if we could make 
 &<^'^ govern an Ace. As we cannot, we must adopt the other 
 method ; which Hitzig does in his Comm. 
 
 (19) Wisdom strengthens a wise man more than ten chieftains who are in 
 a city. 
 
 19 
 
218 Chap. VIL 19. 
 
 In V. 12 above he has said of wisdom, that it is a defence. It 
 cannot indeed overleap the bounds which Providence has set to the 
 achievements of man, but it can do more than riches, and be 
 available where they are not. The intermediate matter (vs. 
 15 — 18) is a partial digression from his immediate object, which 
 is to set forth the various advantages connected with wisdom or 
 sagacity. A seeming exception to its claims is, that the right- 
 eous and the wicked sometimes take each the other's place in the 
 award that follows their actions. After suggestions in the way 
 of opposition, that some abatement must be made from this state- 
 ment, or some qualification of its terms, and an assertion that 
 shunning all excesses will keep every man in safety, the writer 
 resumes the subject of wisdom, in the verse before us. It will 
 be seen, of course, that he does not immediately answer or oppose 
 the suggestions that had been made, although it would seem, 
 by the sequel, that he does not Avholly accede to the views ad- 
 vanced in those suggestions. For the present, he has further to 
 say of wisdom, that in the way of protection it often answers 
 purposes that power or force cannot answer ; yea, which even 
 piety itself cannot ; since all men, even good ones, commit more 
 or less of sin, and then they are exposed to its consequences. — 
 VJt\ , not is strong, but actively here, viz. gives strength, makes 
 strong, or strengthens. The \ before the object marks the direc- 
 tion, and so conveys the sense of imparting to. The vowel 
 (Seghol) belongs to the suppressed article. — '^7^'?'2 , noun of 
 number in the abs. state, see Parad. in § 95 ; also, for construc- 
 tion with the abs. noun that follows, consult § 118. 1. h, and 
 No. 2. — D'^i^'^Vr? ) here chieftains of troops, as the nature of the 
 case demands, for what is said refers to defence. '^""^"^^ is one 
 who rules in any way. {Sultan is an Arab, form from the root 
 of this same word). The chieftains include by implication the 
 forces which they lead. The noun of number is Nom. sing, in 
 form, but a collective plur. ; see Gramm. § 95. — ^ifi , are, § 124. 3. 
 What he means is, that there are times when sagacity is of more 
 avail than force of arms ; for the latter can be i^epelled by like 
 force, while the former makes calculations for safety, which 
 cannot always be anticipated or adequately met. Ten is not 
 here designed to mean just this number ; but (as often else- 
 where) for the designation of a considerable number. 
 
CiiAP. VII. 20. 219 
 
 (20) For there is not a just man on earth, wlio doeth good, and sinneth 
 not. 
 
 Apparently the sentence is causal, for it is preceded by "^3 . 
 But what reason is contained in it, to establish the validity of 
 the preceding remark? A question that has much perplexed 
 the commentators, who have answered it very variously. The 
 true exegesis of it, as it seems to me, has already been hinted, in 
 the remarks on the preceding verse. Apparently it amounts to 
 this : After saying that wisdom is a protection more to be relied 
 on than wealth, and even more than military force, he now 
 suggests, that even righteousness may sometimes fail its possessor 
 as a means of preservation, because it is not constant and uni- 
 form, but at times is interrupted in all men by sin ; when, of 
 course, its protective power for a time must cease. If "^S be ren- 
 dered truly, surely, the verse is then made into an apothegm, 
 true indeed, but irrelevant. If we interpret it as just proposed, 
 the relevancy of it at least seems to be discernible. 
 
 It is possible that Heiligs. may be in the right, who makes a 
 transition here in the discourse, and supposes the writer now to 
 be intent on chastising the spirit of those who are prone to find 
 fault with others, by suggesting to them, that they should keep 
 in view the fact, that no one is perfect, and therefore should be 
 kind and candid. Perhaps the next verse favours this, which, it 
 cannot well be doubted, has a reference to rulers, i. e. to the 
 reports of men respecting them. But as there is no particle at 
 the beginning of the verse which indicates a new turn of the 
 subject, but is indicative merely of the reason for what has been 
 said, and as the sentiment adopted by Heiligs. appears somewhat 
 abrupt without some indication of transition, the former method, 
 defended by Hitzig, seems rather preferable. It must be owned, 
 however, that some obscurity rests on the exact aim of the 
 author here. But the whole chapter has more of the apotheg- 
 matic character than usual. 
 
 Were it not for the "^S , we might give the verse another turn. 
 In vs. 7 — 12 above, he has introduced the subject of oppressive 
 magistrates, and cautioned against dealing hastily or haughtily 
 with them. He has commended the wisdom, which enables one 
 to steer safely without provoking them, or without coming into 
 offensive contact with them. If now he be viewed here (in v. 
 
220 Chap. VIL 21, 22. 
 
 20), as intending to soften down the irritated feelings of the 
 oppressed against their rulers, by suggesting that all men, even 
 the best, are liable to sin, and that therefore we should not be 
 too severe in our judgment of them ; then would the verse be a 
 good preparative for what follows, the design of which is to show 
 that hasty and exaggerated or slanderous reports should not be 
 readily admitted and believed. This would add to the cautions 
 already given above ; and with this the subject is here dismissed. 
 The reader can choose for himself. The ^3 in question seems to 
 stand in my way, with respect to adopting the view last sug- 
 gested; although I do not think it an insuperable obstacle, be- 
 cause it sometimes stands at the head of a new discourse, (see Is. 
 15:1. 8 : 23. Job 28 : 1), and then means verily, surely, immo ; 
 see on 4 : 1 6. 
 
 (21) Moreover, give not thy mind to all the words which are uttered, in 
 order that thou mayest not hear thy servant cursing thee. 
 
 That is, listen not to tale-bearers and slanderers. Magistrates 
 are specially exposed to assaults in this way. But if you indulge 
 the disposition to hear such things, you, who are a master, may 
 be very likely to hear them from your servants, who stand in a 
 relation to you like that in which you stand to your rulers. Men 
 in such a relation are apt to be hardly judged and talked about, 
 as experience shows. This is the reason why servants are here 
 mentioned as examples for warning. They are often prone to 
 tattle and to find fault with their master ; and such is the case of 
 others in respect to their civil rulers, who exact tribute of them. 
 Now as you dislike such slander against yourself, and often feel 
 that it is groundless and wanton, so may your civil masters feel 
 in respect to their detractors. — ii;i3^;' (in pause) is 3d Plur. 
 impers., there being no subject expressed. Of course it may be 
 translated as virtually a passive verb ; and so I have rendered it ; 
 § 134. 2. — Give not thy mind, means : ' Do not deem it an object 
 worthy of serious attention, nor one that ought to occupy the 
 mind.'— 'ntJX , that, so that. — ^hh^-Q,Fa.rt. Piel, with suff; Dagh. 
 omitted in the first h , as oftentimes, § 20. 3. b. — r\- suff. in 
 pause ; see p. 288. Par. col. A. 
 
 (22) For thine own heart also knoweth many times, when even thou thyself 
 hast cursed others. 
 
Chap. VH. 23, 24. 221 
 
 As a proof or ground of what he had just said, he now appeals 
 to the experience of the individual addressed. He suggests that 
 he himself must be sensible, that he has exercised the temper 
 which would lead him to curse others ; and why may he not 
 expect the like from them ? There is nothing strange in it. — 
 Di-crs fem. with a masc. form, as ms"i_ shows, § 105. 4. It means 
 here cases, or what we usually call instances ; and it is in the Ace. 
 governed by ^y^ . So Ilitzig. — l^5< = '^I?!^? > as the Qeri shows ; 
 see in Neh. 9 : 6. Ps. 6 : 4 al. Such being the proneness of human 
 nature to think and speak ill of superiors, one needs to be well 
 guarded ajrainst this vice. 
 
 (23) All this have I tried by wisdom. I have said : Let me become wise 
 now; but it was far from me. 
 
 He means to say, that he had made a discerning and sagacious 
 trial of the much-talked-of wisdom. He had applied practical 
 wisdom in order to search out and investigate the true nature and 
 essence of wisdom; for this seems to be the object now before us. 
 Already has he told what practical wisdom achieves. But now 
 he wishes to go deeper, to inquire into and search out its real 
 nature and essence. — i^^SHX , Imperf. hortative, § 48. 3, with 
 parag. n- . — i^^iri , this thing, viz. the becoming wise, fem. for neu- 
 ter, as usual. — Far from me, i.e. out of his reach, he could not 
 attain to it. Viewed in the light in which it is now placed, this 
 verse is not a contradiction of the asserted value of wisdom, 
 already made in various ways. It is designed to show, that be- 
 yond the point of that value, i. e. beyond its practical effects, he 
 could not successfully pursue inquiries so as to discover its real 
 nature or essence. The next verse shows how fully he was per- 
 suaded of this. 
 
 (24) That which is far off and very deep — who can find it out ? 
 
 Not with Ilerzf. : far-off remains, what was far off ; nor 
 with Ewald : far off — what is it 1 nor with Rosenm. : that is 
 far off which before was present (?) — n^ri'ij-n'a , that which is. 
 The predicate pirri is placed first for the sake of emphasis. — 
 pi-Q^ is made emphatic by repetition, § 106. 4. tis- verbal suff. 
 The whole hangs on the <i;^!'in"i, of v. 23. The gender of the adjec- 
 tives is changed in v. 24, because the proposition there assumes a 
 
 19* 
 
222 Chap. VIL 25. 
 
 more generic form. Indeed, it appears like a common colloquial 
 apothegm ; and here it is cited probably in the way that accords 
 with its usual popular form. Sentiment : ' What I sought was 
 exceedingly beyond my power to attain.' 
 
 But although he discovered thus much, as to the way in which 
 he had been investigating, yet he did not wholly abandon the pur- 
 suit. He tried the matter once more in the way of examining the 
 opposite or antithesis of wisdom, in order that he might thus, i. e. 
 in the way of antithetical comparison, discover something more of 
 the true nature of that which he was investigating. 
 
 (25) I turned myself, and my purpose was to acquire knowledge and to 
 investigate, even to seek out wisdom and intelligence, and to know wicked- 
 ness as folly, and folly as madness. 
 
 "izbi has been an offendiculum criticorum here. Knobel, Heiligs., 
 and even Hitzig, with others, make it the instrumental Ace, and 
 translate : with my mind, as if it were 'isbs , (as a number of 
 Codices have it). But '^sbi cannot be here translated with or hy 
 my mind. If this were the meaning, the 1 must of course be 
 omitted, and ^lih be taken as the Ace. of manner or instrument 
 (§ 116. 3), = intellig enter. But as the text is, 'lab must be the 
 subject of the clause ; the copula (n;^li or !S^n) is implied, and the 
 Infinitives (nominascent) that follow are the complement or predi- 
 cate. That nb may mean desire, purpose, wish, admits of no doubt ; 
 see Lex. misb , d. — ''i:\l '^J^ln^ forms a new clause, to distinguish 
 which, the b before the Inf. is omitted. The clause is epexegeti- 
 cal and supplementary, inasmuch as the first clause says nothing 
 more, than that he addressed himself to acquiring knowledge and 
 investigating, but without saying what it was which he investi- 
 gated ; while the second clause tells us what the objects of inquiry 
 were, and irj^a sums up and comprises the meaning of the two 
 preceding verbs. Hitz. puts nr'ib and nsinb in the Ace. after 
 d)5S , and of course translates thus : And with my mind to seek to 
 know and to investigate. The sense, in itself, is well enough, but 
 one of the two Vafs must be ejected, in this case, from the text, 
 either that before ^'^^ , or else that before \r;?S . It is unneces- 
 sary and inexpedient to do this. Heiligs. moves on without the 
 least notice of any difficulty in the text, and says nothing of the 1 
 in question. Knobel recognizes it, but ejects the first 1 sans cere- 
 
Chap. VU. 25. 228 
 
 monie. None of these plans admit and explain the text as it is. 
 But surely there is no necessity of changing it ; as the version 
 above shows. In the case of ^'^,'y\ , I have rendered 1 by even 
 (§ 152. B. 2), wliich is the proper translation before an epexegeti- 
 cal clause designed rather to explain than to add anything new. 
 — "jiabn is another term for wisdom, designating it as meditating 
 or excogitating. Both terms increase the intensity of expression zz; 
 wisdom in the highest sense. It is the nature of this which he is now 
 seeking out. — bC3 'S'C^^ , not the wickedness offoUy, (for this would 
 be bbSfi 'S'^^, ), but wickedness as folly. — And folly as madness, 
 the same construction as before, the latter noun having no article 
 and no i , and thus showing that it is subordinate and explana- 
 tory, and not a case of const, noun with a Genitive after it. In 
 nibrsn, the article merely points to the preceding b:D, and is 
 as much as to say : that folly. So that from both clauses we ob- 
 tain the sentiment, that wickedness is both folly and madness ; 
 which surely is a sound doctrine of the Scriptures. The word 
 n^baD is merely a variation in form (not in meaning) from the 
 preceding bsG . Thus much for the grammatical part of our inves- 
 tigation. 
 
 The occasion of what is here said, seems to have been taken 
 from V. 17 : Be not wicked overmuch, nor he thou foolish. It seems 
 to be there assumed, that it is only a high degree of wickedness 
 (rtS'nin) which makes a man foolish. That is, he may be some- 
 what wicked, and yet be wise. Coheleth is not satisfied with such 
 a view of the subject, although the sentiment which it conveys is 
 designed to apologize or account for the mysterious providence 
 described in v. 15. He thinks all wickedness to he folly, and that 
 this folly is, moreover, a lack of reason, or madness. He had 
 sought to discover the nature of true wisdom, contemplated by 
 itself; but this was far away and deep. He now makes another 
 effort ; and this is, to seek out what wisdom is by searching into 
 its opposite, or antithesis, viz. folly. This is equivalent to wicked- 
 ness, and also to madness. True wisdom stands opposed to all 
 three. All sin, then, in his view, is folly ; and not merely an 
 excess of wickedness is sin, but every degree of it. Consequently, 
 to be wise, is to refrain from all sin ; for the commission of it, in 
 any manner or measure, is folly and wickedness, so far as it 
 
224 Chap. VII. 26. 
 
 What follows, I regard as designed to exhibit how widely sin 
 and folly are diffused abroad. Examples on all sides are before 
 him, and he can easily discover what folly is, by observing and 
 examining these examples. And if folly can be fully seen, then 
 its opposite, viz. wisdom, may of course be better understood. 
 Withal, the reader should compare the verse before us with 1: 17 
 and 2: 12 — 15, where he speaks more despairingly of acquiring 
 an adequate knowledge, and thinks it to be n^i^ )'2yJ • 
 
 (26) And I found more bitter than death the woman whose heart is nets 
 and snares, whose hands are chains ; he Avho is pleasing to God shall be de- 
 livered from her, but the sinner shall be caught by her. 
 
 This is truly Oriental in its conception. Women, it seems, are 
 the examples most in point of the folly in question. The low esti- 
 mate in which females are held throughout the East, even down 
 to the present day, never associating in the company of men, nor 
 even eating with them, being moreover without education or any 
 true dignity of character, and reckoned as mere menial instru- 
 ments of man's pleasure, leads of course to degradation and depra- 
 vation of character. Here, then, Coheleth seeks his most striking 
 examples of folly, either in its mental or moral sense. How dif- 
 ferent is the case in those countries on which the light of the 
 gospel has dawned ! Indeed, the state of things is quite the 
 reverse. Were we now to make the same inquest which he did, 
 we should first betake ourselves to the male rather than the 
 female sex, in order to hght upon those where wickedness more 
 fully abounds. So much has Christianity done for women. But 
 still, I cannot assent, here, to those critics, who make Coheleth's 
 proposition a general or rather a universal one in respect to the 
 sex. Plainly, he does not speak of all women, but only of those 
 who employ their arts and charms to inveigle paramours. He 
 likens these arts to nets and toils, which inclose and secure their 
 prey ; and their clinging hands he calls chains, because they hold 
 fast the victim. Highly favored of God is the man who escapes 
 their enticements, and only those who are displeasing in his sight, 
 i. e. sinners, will be ensnared by them. This is a high, although 
 not directly designed encomium on chastity in men ; and it shows 
 that the writer was no mere voluptuary. What he says of women 
 bearing the character here described, we may fully accede to, 
 
Chap. VII. 27. 225 
 
 even at the present time ; and among them we might say, as he 
 afterwards says, that there is not one in a thousand, i. e. one 
 example of wisdom in its true sense. — mrxn-rx , Ace. after i<:£i^; 
 which last word is pointed, as to its final vowel, in the Syriac 
 fashion, instead of taking the usual Tseri; see § 74. VI. n. 21. a. 
 So i^'^in, in this same verse, is written xwin in 8 : 12. 9 : 18. — 
 There is some difficulty in the construction of s<^n-*i^i< here. 
 The most facile method of rendering the clause is to put together 
 Jnab . . . ^dx , and translate : whose heart. The only objection to 
 this, is that made by Hitzig, viz. that if inab were the subject or 
 Nom. of the clause, then the fem. &<ifn could not be employed, 
 but N^in must be inserted. But this rests simply on the ground 
 that s? is masc, and that consequently the pronoun must be of the 
 same gender. But this is far from being certain, ib makes its 
 plur. mzb ; which Fuerst says (Concord.) must come from nsb fem. 
 But why ? Are there not many nouns ofcomm. gender, which have 
 a masc. form for their singular ? E. g. \L'S3 , plur. ni;!;B3 , a word 
 of kindred meaning with nb . So the fuller form ^sb has masc. 
 and fem. forms both in the plural, indicating a common gender of 
 the singular. Adopting this view here, (Ges. Lex. says nothing 
 about the gender), then i<^n is in due order. But it is a mere 
 copula here = w, as often elsewhere in this book. In this way 
 the version above is justified. But we may take another way, 
 and yet arrive at a like conclusion. We may translate thus : who 
 is nets and snares as to her heart, i. e. '2h is in the Ace. of the man- 
 ner or the respect in which she is snares, etc. So Herz. ; although 
 he prefers making &<'iJ7"^r:iS; the Ace, and rendering it thus : in re- 
 spect to whom. — m'lJ , goodly, pleasing. — Caught by her, refers to 
 the nets and snares. The hands are called chains, for the obvious 
 reason that they are employed in fondling and embracing, and 
 thus bind the captive paramour. 
 
 (27) See! this have I found, saith Coheleth, [adding] one to another in 
 order to find out the computation. 
 
 h5<"i demards special attention, = look well to what follows. 
 It is stronger than nsn , ecce I — nt , this, viz. what follows in the 
 next verse. — Thrip JTi^x is, in all probability, wrongly divided. 
 The n should be attached to rbnp, as it is in 12 : 8. Being an 
 appellative it may take the article, if the writer pleases, for the 
 
226 Chap. VH. 28. 
 
 sake of emphasis ; and being used as a proper name, the article 
 may, as is usual, be omitted. It is without it in 1 : 1, 2, 12. 12:9, 
 10. But it is always masc, which speaks decidedly against S"."^ r^ j 
 and shows that the verb should be "i^x . — rnx? nnx lit. one to 
 one, without anything to connect or govern the phrase. It is em- 
 ployed adverbially therefore, (like our one hy one), and of course 
 implies before it a verb or Part, which signifies adding or joining, 
 e. g. Db. — i^^'ob, in order to fold, where b has a special signifi- 
 cance, indicating object or design. — "ps^^ri speaks for itself here, 
 by reason of the context. It means account, reckoning, or computa- 
 tion. This he has disclosed in the next verse. 
 
 (28) What my soul 1ms hitherto sought, and yet I have not found, (one 
 man of a thousand I have found), but a woman among all these have I not 
 found. 
 
 My sold hath sought, intensive, the inner man, differing how- 
 ever from /only in intensity of expression. — f^T^T^? ^^'^ Piel, but 
 the Dagh. in p is omitted, because of the vocal Slieva it would 
 make, § 20. 3. b. A rapid or abridged enunciation is the object 
 of such omissions, for the word is thus shortened ; as we say 
 honoured for honoured. — Instead of saying immediately what that 
 is which he has not found, he throws in the cutting or ironical 
 remark, in the way of parenthesis, which tells us what he has found, 
 viz. one man of a thousand. Of course, he means one upright 
 man, one who is not a fool. — But a woman, ) adversative, § 152. 
 B. 1. 3. Lex. 1 2. — Among all these, not among all these thousand 
 men, for there of course he would not look for the woman in 
 question, but among all this number, or suck a number, viz. among 
 a thousand. — As d'lx means a just man, by the exigency of the 
 passage, so niL'x (= ndDX fem. of dsx) means an upright woman. 
 Sentiment : ' Just men are exceedingly scarce ; just women still 
 more so.* 
 
 [That Coheleth means here to include all women, and to pass such a judg- 
 ment on all, should not be admitted unless his language obliges us to admit 
 it. He was too keen an observer not to know, that a sweeping proposition 
 of this nature cannot be true. Certain it is, that the women described in v. 
 26, are such as are given to amorous dalliance. And among these it would 
 be difficult, at any time, to find one cjood woman. Such, indeed, may become 
 penitent; but then they no longer belong to the class described. Who, then, 
 
Chap. VIL 28. 227 
 
 are the thousand? Specially, as applied to 7nen, to what sort or class of men 
 do the thousand belong ? Nothing is said to show this. Are they then, like 
 the women, of that class which are given to wantonness 1 If so, how could 
 even one just or good man be found among them 1 This consideration 
 seems to compel us to conclude, that the thousand men are such as belong to 
 ordinary men. We say in like cases : ' We must take them as they come.' 
 But still, this is not quite so certain here as it seems to be. In the East, 
 Avhere polygamy and concubinage have ever been practised, and ever stood 
 even in high repute, there might be men of strong sexual propensities, who 
 still did not violate any law of the land, or even law of Moses, in indulging 
 them somewhat freely ; for these allowed polygamy., and did not condemn, 
 except indirectly, the practice of even concubinage. It was not, therefore, in 
 the eyes of men, any sacrifice of character with them, when a man gratified 
 to a large extent his sexual propensities. Some among this class of men 
 might be found, of a character otherwise substantially good. But very dif- 
 ferent was the condition of icomen. They must adhere to one man, and could 
 not have intercourse with any others without a total loss of character and 
 standing. Among these, amorous dalliance with many showed an unspeak- 
 able debasement of character. It might be, then, a matter of course that 
 Coheleth could find no one of a good character among them. But with 
 men. to wliom variety of paramours was no reproach, (I speak only of inter- 
 course Avith wives and concubines by compact), his experience, or the result 
 of his investigations, was different. I do not see to what ,^^X"b!D can refer, 
 except to the women described in v. 26. Certainly they are the class who, of all 
 human beings, are the most conspicuous examples of folly ; and for examples 
 of tliis sort Coheleth is seeking. With the men too of similar propensities, 
 the case is not much better. One for a thousand is a small proportion indeed. 
 Of course, however, the exact number makes nothing here ; for the real idea 
 to be conveyed is simply, that examples of righteousness or goodness are 
 exceedingly rare among men ; and among women of a particular class, they 
 are not at all to be found. 
 
 Such, then, is the result of his 'rp53 , in order to find out the nature and 
 extent o? folly. Hitzig seems to represent him as expecting to find at least 
 some of a good character among women, and as being disappointed in not 
 finding them. Says he, more suo : "Er denkt zu fischen und krebst," i. e. he 
 designs to catch Jish, and catches crabs. But — levity apart — his disappoint- 
 ment could not be great, at not finding them among the class of women 
 whom he describes. He was grieved, rather than disappointed. Grievous 
 too the result of his search among men must have been. Yet if ivisdom can 
 be better known by comparing its opposite, he has found full scope in this 
 case for the investigation of it, for folly in abundance did he meet with. 
 
 The use which has sometimes been made of vs. 26—28, (by applying 
 them to all of the female sex in the way of reproach, or else for the purpose 
 of showing the extravagance and paradoxical character of the book before 
 us), seems to have no solid ground. The writer designs to say, tliat when 
 he searched ahar folly and madness, which is wickedness ("\L'^), lie found the 
 
228 Chap. YH. 29. 
 
 most complete exemplification in Avanton icomen, and that he met with little 
 better success as to finding any that were good and just among men. Some 
 refer the 1000 women to Solomon's 700 wives and 300 concubines, 1 K. 
 11:3. But then, who are the 1000 men in such a case ? Coheleth might 
 indeed look to the Harem of Solomon, with full confidence of finding folly 
 there in its highest measure, specially after what is told us concerning his 
 heatheii women, in 1 K. 11: 1 — 8. But I apprehend the use of thousand in 
 this case is only in the common way, often met with, of designating a large 
 and indefinite number. 
 
 But whence this overwhelming and universal extension of folly and prof- 
 ligacy ? Is this one of the arrangements of Providence, so often spoken of and 
 appealed to by him 1 This is a question which he meets by strong denial.] 
 
 (29) See ! this only have I found, that God made man upright, and they 
 have sought out many devices. 
 
 In the Heb., the order in the first clause is different from that 
 of the version. It runs thus : Only see ! this have I found, rtx"i 
 being a parenthetic interjection. — "inb seems to be placed first 
 here in the Hebrew, because of its emphatic meaning. — This 
 refers to what follows. — ci'ixfi , generic, mankind. — ^'&^ is truly 
 given by upright. It means Justus, prohus, integer. — They have 
 sought out, i. e. men, mankind have, etc. — ^ ^'ps , without Dagh. 
 in p; see above on v. 28. — niDh\L'ri , has probably a Dagh. diri- 
 mens or euphonic, as it is called ; for nouns of this form do not 
 elsewhere exhibit such a Dagh. e. g. nis'nst, etc. This Dagh. is 
 inserted, where a sharp tone of the preceding syllable is required, 
 so that Dagh. causes the final consonant of that syllable to be 
 more distinctly pronounced, § 20. 2, comp. Ewald, Gramm. § 92. 
 \. c. a. Gesenius (Lex.) has not noticed the Dagh., and of course 
 he regarded it as belonging to the proper form itself of the word. 
 It may be so ; but from analogy it seems hardly probable. — 
 Devices means of course here, evil devices, aries malae. To him- 
 self alone then must man look, as the source of all his follies and 
 sins. God has indeed arranged all things, and made them what 
 they are ; and one of these things is, that men should be free 
 agents, and therefore the authors of their own wickedness. How 
 it came that God created man peccable, is a question which 
 Coheleth does not bring to view, and probably one on which he 
 did not speculate. It might be well for the church, if there were 
 more who followed his example. It would be difficult to find in 
 him any fine-spun theories or speculations of such a nature. 
 
CiiAP. VIII. 1. 229 
 
 § 12. Men sin from a variety of causes ; punishment will not 
 always be delayed. 
 
 Chap. VIII. 1—17. 
 
 [If men arc not made sinners by their Creator, then how came men to sin ? 
 This question naturally arises at once, in the mind of tlie reader. There 
 seem to be three reasons given in the sequel, why they fall into sin ; (1) Men 
 often sin througli fear of rulers, by obeying their unjust commands, when 
 they know them to be so, vs. 1 — 5. (2) They sin because judgment and 
 punishment are delayed, v. 1 1, seq. (3) They sin because oftentimes the 
 wicked fare as well as the just, v. 14 seq. In regard to this last matter, 
 there is undoubtedly a mystery of Providence, which is beyond the limits 
 of our inquiries or knowledge, vs. 16, 17. 
 
 The course of tliought, more minutely investigated, runs thus : Truly 
 wise must he be, who can explain difficult matters, viz. such as he had been 
 stating. But there is a spurious wisdom. This bids unreserved submission 
 to the commands of rulers, whether they be good or evil. Resistance, it 
 suggests, is dangerous j prudence, therefore, dissuades from it, vs. 1 — 4. 
 But it should be remembered, that there is a judgment-period hanging over 
 all evil-doers, although no one can tell when it will take place. Death is 
 inevitable to all, and wickedness cannot rescue the sinner from it, vs. 5 — 8. 
 The wicked do indeed sometimes reign over and oppress the good Yet still, 
 they will die and be buried without the city, and will be soon forgotten. Op- 
 pression is grievous. But although judgment slumbers, and men grow bold in 
 sin because of this, yet, let the wicked do wickedly ever so long, it shall be 
 well with the righteous, at last, and to the wicked it shall be ill, vs. 9—13. To 
 this an objection immediately presoits itself: ' The righteous share the doom 
 of the wicked, and to the wicked Aills the lot of the righteous. There is 
 nothing left then for the latter, but to enjoy all they can of the good things of 
 life, vs. 14, 15. But in procuring the means of this erjoynient, much and 
 grievous toil is necessary, so that it is of little account, v. 16. This, the writer 
 concedes, must be acknowledged; and he allows that we can offer no 
 adequate solution of the mystery, because the ways of Providence arc beyond 
 our knowledge, v. 17.] 
 
 (1 ) Who is like the wise man ? Who understandeth the exphtnation of a 
 saying? The wisdom of a man makcth his face to shine, but haughtiness 
 disfigureth his face. 
 
 Hitzig thinks, that the first clause is the language of exultation 
 
 over the discovery he had made, as announced in the preceding 
 
 verse. My convictions are of a different kind. It seems to me 
 
 more natural to suppose, that the ditiiculties which he had just 
 
 20 
 
230 Chap. YIII. 1. 
 
 been stating, and had left unsolved, moved him to exclaim as he 
 does. The questions seem to amount to this : ' Who, like a wise 
 man, can explain the difliculties, or solve the questions, that arise 
 in respect to wisdom V — -=nn2 , usually written in such cases, as 
 trrns , i. e. the article is usually dropped, and the 3 normally takes 
 its vowel, § 35. n. 2. See like cases of this punctuation in the 
 later books, (for in them only, almost without exception, is it 
 found), e. g. Ezek. 40: 25. 47:22. 2 Chron. 10:7. 25: 10. 
 29 : 27. Neh. 9 : 19. 12: 38. The article specifies a particular 
 man, viz. the man wise enough to make explanation. But of 
 what ? Of a nn'n , word^ maxim^ ajjothegm, etc. But what one ? 
 I see no answer to this but one, viz. the ^n-n exhibited in the 
 sentence or apothegm (such I take it to be) that follows. AVhat 
 follows this apothegm does not point us to any explanation of 
 preceding difficulties, namely, those in Chap. VII. Wisdom then 
 will be shown, in case a proper explanation of the apothegm can 
 be made out. In fact, it needs some wisdom to make it out ; as 
 the endless variety of opinions about the latter clause may serve 
 to show. — Makeih his face to shine, i. e. exhilarates him, makes 
 his face to glow with pleasure and satisfaction ; comp. like modes 
 of expression, in Num. 6 : 25. Ps. 4 : 7. Job 29 : 24. — r:E t3> 
 has been long debated. The Hebrews used d^db I'J to denote a 
 man of impudent face or of stern visage ; also Ci'^rs VJT} to signify : 
 he made up an impudent face, (as we express it). i'J is from the 
 same root (nr), and might have the same meaning also, if this 
 word and the next after it constitute a common case of const, 
 and Gen. after it. But this we cannot well admit, for v:q here 
 makes a relative meaning by virtue of the suffix, quite different 
 from that which c^rQ alone would have. The conclusion then 
 must be, that i'J is Nam. and subject, and that T^rQ is Ace. gov- 
 erned by the verb which follows. Then we take the two last 
 clauses as constructed alike, and we have a facile sense : llie 
 wisdom of a man enlightens his face, and Jtaughtiness or iinpudence 
 disfigures his face. — Nrd'^ , as pointed, is in Pual Imperf., the X 
 being used for n ; for so in 2 K. 25 : 29, we have xrJ for nrd , and 
 in Jer. 52 : 33 (the same expression). See § 74. vi. n. 22. The 
 Seventy translate faO/jntTai, shall be hated, and so must have read 
 NSi;^7 (in Niph. and with Si7i instead of Shin). The true point- 
 ing seems plainly to be i<3d';' (Piel of n3",r), with i< for n as above 
 
CiiAP. yill. 1. 231 
 
 stated. The comparison or rather the antithesis, shows that, as 
 in the first ease the action of the verb falls on V3S, so in the 
 second case the same is to be said, as to the second 1-^:5 . The 
 one bn'ff/dens, the other disfgures. The antithesis is not indeed 
 closely pressed, for then we should have, as the opposite of n^xn , 
 the verb T)^':3nn darkens. Nor is the meaning, as found above, to 
 be confined to a physical change of the countenance, although the 
 trope is borrowed from this. By the lujht which wisdom sheds, 
 we may well understand the light of life ; comp. Job 33 : 20. Ps. 
 56: 14; comp. also P^cc. 7: 12. On the other hand iv {haughty 
 disregard) destroys, see v. 8 below. So in Job 14: 20, ".'^ra rii"^^ 
 refers to the change of countenance which takes place after death; 
 and this is a striking illustration of our text, from a writer con- 
 temporary, or nearly so, with Coheleth. Sentiment : ' Wisdom 
 preserves life, or imparts the light of life, while haughtiness 
 brings on the disfigurement of death.' This gives to the whole 
 apothegm a spirited tone and significance far above the merely 
 physical sense. But it needs, as the author intimates, some 
 understanding in order to make out a irs . It has indeed a kind 
 of esoteric meaning, while the literal sense is merely exoteric, 
 and would present no mystery. The whole conception seems to 
 have sprung from Job 16 : 15, 16, q. v. 
 
 Knob, renders : the gloom (?) of his countenance is changed. 
 Ewald : the splendour of his countenance is doubled, making the 
 verb from nrr to repeat, (but splendour is a manufactured sense 
 for vj) ; Herzf. : his stern visage is changed ; all of them mis- 
 taking the relation of i" and C^^s . llitzig adopts the meaning 
 given above, and to him 1 owe the best arguments in its favour. 
 He has not, however, sufficiently indicated the bearing of the sen- 
 timent on what precedes, or its relation to it. If the reader will 
 look back to 7 : 11 seq., 19, 25 seq., he will readily perceive how 
 often and earnestly wisdom is discussed. In the verse before us, 
 at the close of these discussions, he will see that for wisdom is 
 still claimed a high place, like to that asserted in 7 : 1 2, but it is 
 here more v-vidly described. As the opposite of this is the Tb 
 (haughty perseverance) which refuses to receive and obey instruc- 
 tion. We might perhaps expect bro instead of i" , since it is the 
 direct antithesis of rr^zn . But iv better characterizes the tem- 
 per of mind, which leads men " to seek out many .evil devices." 
 
232 Chap. YIII. 2, 3. 
 
 To all this, the writer now subjoins the counsel which a timid 
 and counterfeit wisdom gives ; for this, by contrast, sets off true 
 wisdom to advantage. Let us hear this worldly-wise man : — 
 
 (2) I keep the commandniont of the king; nnd so, bccnu«e of tlic oath of 
 God. 
 
 •"3, const, of r:&, lit. mouth, then what the mouth utters, com- 
 mand ; see Lex. — *ibd , as pointed, is an Lnper. ; but then one 
 must of course supply ^^TTTu^ after "^sx . With Ilitzig, I would 
 point the word ^"qt , as in v. 5 below. — Vri , the 1 I have ren- 
 dered and so= and I keep it hccaiise of, etc. § 152. B. 23. — rrnn^ 
 = propter, when h'J stands before it, see Lex. — The oath of God, 
 means an oath in which God is named and called to Avitness the 
 transaction, so as to give to it the highest and most solemn sanc- 
 tion. Hitzig says that no such oaths to rulers are anywhere 
 mentioned in Hebrew antiquity. But 2 K. 11 : 17, mentions a 
 n"i"i3 (covenant) between the king and people ; could this be 
 made without the sanction of an oath? Ptolemy Lagi exacted 
 an oath from the vassal Jews, Jos. Arch. XII. 1. Oaths, we 
 know, were very common among the Jews, when great and sol- 
 emn transactions were engaged in ; see Gen. 24 : 2, 3, comp. 
 Gen. 47 : 29. 1 Sara. 12:5. I take it that the oath of fealty 
 and obedience to the sovereign is the oath here in question. The 
 oath of God, is that in which God is called to witness, that he who 
 takes it will be true and faithful to the kijig, v. 2. — Here, then, 
 religion is called in, to give colour to the obligation of obedience 
 and loyalty. But this view of the matter is repelled in v. 5. I 
 see nothing here to determine whether the king is a foreigner 
 or indigenous ; nothing either Persian or Egyptian. 
 
 (3) Do not hastily depart from his presence. Do not make delay in 
 rej^;!rd to a command which is grievous; for all -which he doircth, he accom- 
 j)lihhcth. 
 
 The two verbs bri3tn and r^r] are so united in the expression 
 and qualiticatioti of one idea, (there is no 1 between them), that 
 the first is used adverbially, and so I have translated it — hastily ; 
 see 139. 3.5. l^f^^ri is in Niph. Imperf , and is retiexive = </o 
 not hurry thyself — '^'^^^"9 -if'om his presence or his face. It is not 
 the same as Do not make revolt from Jam, or Do not nuke defec 
 
Chap. VIII. 4, 5. 233 
 
 iion. It applies to such as have personal intercourse with him, 
 and dissuailcs tlieni from testifying dislike or impatience at his 
 commands or orders, by an abrupt departure which will offend 
 him. — "I'it.r) , delay, stand still, not an unfrequent sense of ^^5 ; 
 see Josh. 10 : 13. 1 Sam. 20: 38. Ezek. 21 : 35, Lex. No. 2. So 
 Sept. also. — "nnn here is the same as ^3 in v. 2, viz. command. — 
 S"n means grievous, on whatever, or on any ground. Here the 
 implication, if we advert to v. o, seems to be, that the command 
 is both wrong and burdensome. Sentiment : ' Treat not lightly 
 any command of the king, and hesitate not to obey it forthwith, 
 let it be what it may.' Then follows a reason for prompt obe- 
 dience : ' The king has unlimited power to enforce obedience.' 
 See like descriptions of power applied to God, in Jon. 1 : 14. 
 Job 13: 12. 
 
 (4) Where there is tlie word of a king there is iiowcr: for who wi'l say to 
 him : What doest thou ? 
 
 This repeats, in another form, the sentiment of the preceding 
 clause. It reminds the reader, that when the king utters any 
 word, i. e. command or sentence, there is lodged with him power 
 to enforce its execution ; and therefore resistance or neglect would 
 be folly. For the last phrase, which challenges all opposition, see 
 again Jon. 1:14. Job 23 : 13. 
 
 Thus far the man of prudential wisdom. We shall now see in 
 what estimation Coheleth holds such reasonings. 
 
 (5) He wlio obcyetli the command, will iiave no concern about the grievous 
 word ; but the heart of a wise man wiil take cognizance of time and judgment. 
 
 "T^id, being a participle, supplies its own subject — he who, or 
 whoever, amj one who. — «^^^'2 , command, mandate, explains the 
 preceding nn-i. — 'j^2 means, in both clauses, to take knowledge of, 
 in the sense of caring for, having regard to, or looking well to ; see 
 Gen. 39 : 6. Prov. 27 : 23, wliich make this meaning very plain. 
 — nr", , ^ but, adversative, see Lex. i No. 2. Time means of course 
 some future time, which will bring judgment with it. See the 
 same declaration in 3 : 17 ; and virtually the same in 5 : 8. 11:9. 
 12 : 14. The wise man who anticipates this, will not yield obedi- 
 ence to commands which l)id him to sin, v^ -13- . He fears divine 
 displeasure more than a monarch's frowns. There is no true 
 20* 
 
234 CHAr. YIII. 6. 7. 
 
 wisdom in doing evil to please a king, avIio is but an erring man. 
 when that deed displeases the King of kings. 
 
 I forbear to discuss the various opinions in relation to this pas- 
 sage, which may be found in Knobel, Heiligst., and others. They 
 are too loose and conjectural to need confutation. Hitzig seems 
 to have hit the true mark ; at least, my own views coincide with 
 his. 
 
 (6) For to every undertaking, there is a tinie and judgment; for the evil 
 of man is great upon him. 
 
 vsn, in the same sense as in 3 : 1, viz. undertaking^ negotiiim. 
 The existence of an appointed time for judgment, assumed in the 
 preceding verse, is afHrmed here. But the latter part of the 
 verse presents some difficulty. — The evil of man, means here, that 
 which he commits or does ; for cognizance in judgment concerns 
 only this, and not the evils which befall him. — Is great upon him, 
 means, weighs heavily upon him ; for ns'n , in such a connection, is 
 explained in Gen. 18 : 20, by "li^^ '^'^t^j ^'* ^'^^'^ heavy; and so in 
 Is. 24 : 20, transgression rx^h-s "i33, is heavy on it, viz. the land. In 
 Gen. 4: 13, Cain says, that "his iniquity is greater N^'i': - , than 
 he can hear, or carryP All these phrases render the design of 
 our text clear. Sentiment : ' There will be a time of judgment, 
 because the evil which man commits is so great that it presses 
 heavily upon him.' rh'j indicates what is burdensome to one, 
 Lex. hv, I. y. The "^3 , at the beginning of the clause, is of course 
 aausal, i. e. judgment is necessary, because evil-doing is so frequent 
 and excessive. The scriptural idea of the appi'opriate time for 
 punishment is this, viz. that it is the period when iniquity is full, 
 or heavy ; comp. Gen. 14:16. f)an. 8 : 23. Matt. 23 : 32. 1 Thes. 
 2 : 1 6. It is the same in our text. 
 
 (7) For no one knov/etli wliat shall take ])lace; for who can tell when ir 
 shall take plaee ? 
 
 The ground of the connection with the preceding verse by the 
 causal "13 is not discerned at once, by the reader. But a little 
 consideration seems to show what that ground is. Evidently, the 
 Avriter means to show the sinner, that there is no chance of escape 
 from the judgment in question; for since no man can know the 
 .future, he cannot know that the judgment will not come ; and 
 
Chap. VIII. 8. 235 
 
 since he cannot know when the judgment will come, therefore he 
 cannot take any precautions to avoid it. The "^s before the last 
 clause is also causal, and may be regarded as coordinate with the 
 preceding one, or as growing out of the clause immediately pre- 
 ceding it. If we choose the latter, the sentiment would stand 
 thus: 'The future no one can foretell, ybr ("S) he cannot even 
 name a time when this or that shall happen.' But as this does 
 not run quite smoothly in respect to logic, perhaps the other 
 method of coordination is to be preferred. (So Ilitzig.) — *"*^!n2 , 
 when, which meaning is quite common; see Lex. — The next 
 verse asserts still more positively the punishment of the sinner. 
 
 (8) No man liath power over the wind, to restrain the wind ; and none hath 
 power in the day of death, for there is no discharge in this warfare, and wick- 
 edness cannot deliver tliose to whom it belongs. 
 
 nn here has more usually been rendered spirit. But if this 
 were meant, it must be written inn2, over his, i. e. his own, spirit^ 
 and must then mean either his vital hreath, or the spirit of life 
 which animates him. But if spirit mean, as is commonly sup- 
 posed, his immaterial soul, the passage must be understood to 
 apply only to his final departure, and to mean that power is want- 
 ing to keep back the soul, when it is about to take its flight ; for 
 in many other respects man has power over his spirit, for " he 
 ruleth it,'' Prov. 25 : 28. IG: 32. As to having power over the 
 wind, see in 11 : 5. Prov. 30 : 4. John 3 : 8. The same word 
 {rvn) means both wind and spirit ; which may be a reason for 
 fixing upon this object of comparison, viz. the wind. The course 
 of thought seems to be this : ' If you have no power over the 
 natural nil, how can you have any over the more subtile and 
 invisible HmI of a human being. If you cannot keep back the 
 former, how can you expect to restrain the latter ?' — V'^V^! is the 
 later form of 13"**!^ > ^"<i u^^^fl "^ the way of variety. — Day of 
 death means o^ decease, i. e. of natural death. So his day is used 
 in Job 15: 32. 1 Sam. 20: 10. — rx2n, lit. of the death == his 
 death, and being a particular specific day, it takes the article. 
 So the Greeks often substitute the article in place of a pronoun. 
 — No discharge in the warfare (lit.) = this or his warfare ; for so 
 the article makes it mean. In other wars, there are frequent fur- 
 loughs and dismissions ; here none. — The design of all this 
 
236 CiiAr. VIII. 9, 10. 
 
 figurative language comes out at last in plain words, at the close : 
 Wickedness cannot deliver its possessors, viz. those to whom it 
 belongs, or (in other words) those who commit it. 
 
 (9) All this have I seen, and I gave my attention to every deed whicli is 
 done under the sun; there is a time, when one man nilcth over another man, 
 to his own harm. 
 
 All this, viz. what is stated above, in v. 2 — 4, with res^ject to 
 rulers. — '^^^"^^5 "ins , to give or set, one's heart, i. e. mind, to a 
 thing. — The verb is Inf. abs. employed as a definite verb in the 
 Praeter tense, § 128. 4. b. — The "'n'^is'i here may be taken for 
 seeing in the natural sense, i. e. all this is what I have been 
 witness to with my own eyes. — n>; , 05 tiijie = sometimes ; of 
 course d"; is implied. — i^ , to the harm of the ruler, or (as in the 
 version) : to his oicn harm. In other words : ' He has seen rulers 
 insisting on obedience to evil commands ; and this, at last, to 
 their own hurt.' It is shown above, v. 5, that obedience to such 
 evil commands is sin, and that it brings evil upon him who 
 executes them. Now he subjoins, that such commands injure 
 those also who give them. — rn , in this case, means miscJdef, 
 harm ; as often elsewhere. 
 
 (10) And then I saw the wicked buried, for they had departed, even from 
 a holy place did they go away ; and then they were ibrgottcn in the cit}'' 
 where they had so done ; this too is vanity. 
 
 Of the numerous explanations (widely difl^ering) which are 
 before us, I need not give an account, as it would occupy much 
 time and space. Enough, if adequate reasons can be given 
 for the one which is here adopted. The subject of vs. 2 — 13 is 
 plainly one and the same, although different aspects of it are 
 presented to view. It is the one subject, which, as we have 
 already seen, lay very heavily upon the mind of Coheleth, viz. 
 the oppressive conduct of rulers. Here he blames men for flatter- 
 ing them, by readily executing their wicked commands. He 
 lets such men know, that this is a sin, and will certainly meet 
 with condign punishment in the end. But now, in vs. 9 seq. he 
 is turning to the rulers themselves, Avho enforce obedience to 
 such commands. His proposition (v. 9) is, that it will occasion 
 their own harm, as well as that of others. The verse before us 
 
Chap. VIII. 10. 237 
 
 gives a picture of the consequences which follow such conduct. 
 — '331 , lit. and in the so, i. e. and then, or in that state in which 
 he was wliile contemplating their conduct, as mentioned in the 
 preceding verse. See a clear case of such a meaning, in Est. 4 : 
 16, see also Ges. Lex. 's. 3. b. He sees the wicked rulers dead 
 and buried; which does not necessarily import (as some would 
 have it), " with funeral honours ; " for so Ileiligs. and others take 
 it. But it is said of all, of good men and evil men, of those hon- 
 oured and those dishonoured, that they are buried. So Ahab and 
 Jezebel, Gog and Magog, are buried. To lie unburied is indeed 
 dishonour ; but buried is not the necessary antithesis to this, in 
 such a way that it must mean honourably buried. It means 
 merely and simply inhumed, entombed. — "n:si , for they had de- 
 parted, gone away ; Pluperf. § 124. 2. i<'ia is frequently used 
 to designate the setting of the sun, and is so generic, that 'progress 
 or motion in any direction is occasionally designated by it. It 
 may be, that nb^:? ri"^3 (see 12: 5) is implied after it here, i. e. 
 the perpetual home to which they go ; but this is not necessary in 
 order to make out the sense. Like T\^r\ , it may sometimes mean 
 departure, viz. to another w'orld ; as is plain in the case of apply- 
 ing the word to the setting sun. The common idea of the vei'b 
 Nis , is that of entering into any house (for example), or city, 
 place, etc. ; and such an implication is probably designed for the 
 word here. The wicked had gone [to their final abode]. The 
 idea of entering into rest, (as in Is. 57 : 2), is not at all implied 
 here ; for there it is predicated expressly of the righteous, and 
 Dibui follows on after the verb JX"Ia . The whole phrase is exactly 
 like our buried and gone ; for we speak thus of a man who has 
 entirely and finally quitted all earthly scenes. I have rendered 
 the 1 before 1X3 by for, as standing in a kind of apodosis, and 
 being equivalent to nam or quia ; see Lex. ^ , No. 4. — Even 
 from a holy phice did they go. Not from the temple, for then we 
 should have ^'ijsn, but from a holy place, (the article being 
 omitted in order to avoid giving a wrong sense). The next 
 clause shows lioly -place to be the city, i. e. Jerusalem, (called, 
 down to the present hour, the Holy by all its neighbours). — 
 •iz^n^, (in pause), Piel, which, in actual usage, diflers, as to 
 sense in this case, nothing from the conjugation Kal ; generally 
 Kal and Piel are the same here, and there is only now and then 
 
238 Chap. VIIL 11. 
 
 a case of the latter, where hahilude or intensity h implied. Hitzig 
 proposes ^2'^n;^ (Kal), and to translate it perished. But there is 
 no need of this new pointing ; nor does the meaning seem to be 
 what he makes it here. The clause is a climactic one. Not 
 only did they depart^ but even from the holy city, where they had 
 lived, and reigned, and oppressed, they went away, i. e. their 
 departure was made from the city, by their being carried out of it 
 in order to be buried ; as indeed all the dead were. — And then 
 (^ and so, and then) they were forgotten in the city ; in other 
 words, no monument was erected to them, no lamentation made 
 over them, and therefore they were forgotten ; see 2 Chron. 35 : 
 24, 25, and comp. Jer. 22 : 18, 19. — ^'rt< may be rendered where 
 (Lex. s. V. No. 6), or wJio. I prefer the former. — rL"r-",3, with 
 a Maq., showing that the two words are closely united, and thus 
 deciding that "jS , in the view of punctators, is the particle so here, 
 and not '|3 right or just. The clause, tJiey had so done, refers to 
 what is said of them in vs. 2 — 4, where the subject commences. 
 In other words : Their oppression prevented the erection of a 
 monument to their memory, by the hatred which it excited, and 
 caused them to be huried in oblivion. " The triumphing of the 
 wicked is short." 
 
 This interpretation not only makes the whole passage plain 
 and perspicuous, but it falls in entirely with the tenor of the dis- 
 course. Hitzig and others render ^b^""')3 by had done rightly or 
 justly, and thus make two classes of men to be mentioned in the 
 verse. Nothing calls for this, and the tenor of the context is 
 clearly against it. Our Eng. version favours the meaning which 
 I have given. The writer designs to say that, even in Jerusa- 
 lem, he had found examples of oppression among rulers, and had 
 seen the consequences of it, in the dishonour and oblivion which 
 they brought upon their own name and memory. 
 
 (11) Because sentence iigainst an evil work is not speedily executed, 
 therefore the heart of the sons of men within them is fully set to do evil. 
 
 t^ns is rnasc. (see the foreign origin of this late word in the 
 Lex.), and therefore demands the preceding word to be pointed 
 nbr? , i. e. the Part., (and not a verb in the Praet. as ri'w"3 is). 
 As this word is preceded by 'i^x , it must be a participle, for -pj^ 
 stands not before definite verbs, and so it must be n"4:r3 . Then 
 
Chap. VIII. 12. 239 
 
 again, cjrs lias a pause-accent on it, and stands in the abs. form, 
 whereas the sense shows, that it is the connt. before the following 
 Gen. noun, and therefore should be written Dsrs , and of course 
 not have a pause-accent on it. — Sentence against an evil work is 
 our Eng. mode of expression ; sentence of a work of evil is the 
 Hebrew one here, which means of course what I have expressed 
 in the version. — riV^n is a noun in the Gen., and has the article 
 because it is an abstract noun, § 107. 3. c. Of course nb"?2 is of 
 the const, form, while it also is a Gen. after the preceding noun ; 
 for the const, form may be in the Num., Gen., or Ace, as the case 
 may demand. — The heart (33), i. e. the heart as the seat of 
 thought, will, or desire. It strengthens the assertion of proneness 
 to evil. — xb^ , Part, adj., lit. is full, i. e. full of inclination or 
 desire, or (as we say) fullg set. — r^ , the adj. neuter here, and 
 therefore used as a noun ; it is in pause, and its normal form 
 is "-1 . 
 
 The proposition in this verse is, to all appearance, general or 
 generic ; but under this lies special reference to oppressive and 
 tyrannical rulers. Because punishment is jj^otracted, they are 
 emboldened to continue their doings. What is said here of them, 
 however, is true of others also ; but this need not hinder a special 
 application of the words to them. And so of the sequel. 
 
 (12) AlthouL,^li a sinuLT (loc'th evil a hundred tiiin'S, nnd prolontrelli [his 
 days] for hinisilf. yet I certainly know tliut it shall be well to tliosc who fear 
 God, who eonfimially fear before him. 
 
 *i'rs; , although, wliich, however, is not a usual sense of the word, 
 when a case of concession occurs, (Lex. s. v. B. 4) ; yet it is suf- 
 ficiently vouched for by proximate meanings elsewhere. — H.zn , 
 (Seghol for final Tseri), see § 74. YI. n. 21. a; the same form is 
 also found in Ecc. 9:18. Elsewhere it is i<'^h. — rbi', Part, in- 
 stead of the verb, but in the same sense as the verb, and govern- 
 ing the Ace. after it, instead of being put in the const, state, § 132. 
 1. a. b. — rx^ has the const, form, and is an adverb. Some few 
 other cases occur of the like kind, e. g. r2'n etc. — fj'i'nx"!. Part. 
 Iliph. but absolute, i. e. without a complement. What then is im- 
 plied as its complement ? In the next verse, n"^:^ Tp'^N;^ would 
 seem to answer the question, and make the word mean the pro- 
 longing of life. But ib, it is said, stands in the way of this. 
 
240 Chap. VIIL 13. 
 
 Moreover, it is not by his own efforts that life is prolonged ; but 
 in this case it seems to be said that he prolongs something for him- 
 self, i. e. by his own efforts. Still, as the Dative is often used 
 after verbs (e.g. like ^'"7]'?, Gen. 12: 1) which have no comple- 
 ment, it may possibly come under this category, if the Hiphil sense 
 does not prevent it. Hitzig supplies, for the Ace. here, the 
 2>'n m'u:>! of the preceding verse. In favour of the other construc- 
 tion is the same elliptical use of ""''■J*^ in 7: 15, where w^iz"^ 
 must plainly be the supplement ; and the full form occurs here 
 in V. 13. Conceding this, ib must be regarded as a Daiivus corn- 
 modi. — "IS, yet^ still; see Lex. — ^i profecto, qualifies ^"ni'i (as 
 the Maqqeph shows), and renders it intense = / certainly or 
 truly know. — It shall he ivell, 3vj , lit. there shall be good. — Who 
 fear before him, repeats the idea of the preceding clause, for the 
 sake of intensity. The one is a participle, and the other a verb 
 in Kal. Imperf of X";;!^ . Both therefore denote continued, habit- 
 ual action. The repetition, then, must be for the sake of intensity. 
 Both phrases = those who truly and habitually fear God. 
 
 In other words : ' Whatever advantage oppressors may gain, 
 and however great the evils which they occasion, it remains true 
 after all, and it is a consolation for the oppressed, that those who 
 fear God shall, sooner or later, obtain their reward.' In this world ? 
 or in the next ? The tenor of the book is plainly against the first ; 
 for the idea is often repeated that " all things come alike to all," 
 and that " the wise man and the fool die alike." Is it in another 
 world, then ? That seems to be the necessary implication, although 
 it seems strange to us, that it is not spoken out more plainly and 
 frequently. How difficult it is to prescribe rules for those, who 
 lived at a time and in a country like those of Coheleth — is not 
 always duly appreciated. " The gospel [only] has brought life 
 and immortality to light." 
 
 (13) But to the wicked it sluUl not be well, nor sluill he prolong his days; 
 as a shadow is he who doth not fear God. 
 
 This is the antithesis of the closing part of v. 12. 'The wicked 
 shall be punished — they shall not prolong their days.' — The 
 accents join bas to the preceding clause, much to the injury of 
 the sense. Altogether preferable is it, to join (as I have done) 
 bSfS to the closing part ; and so Hitzig. The copula is of course 
 
Chap. VIIL 14, 15. 241 
 
 implied after this word, so that the sense is as the version above 
 expresses it. — As a shadow, means and designates the idea of 
 what is brief, and fugitive or evanescent, and also unsubstantial. 
 Shadows are constantly varying, and at most continue but a little 
 time. Such shall be the condition and destiny of the sinner, and 
 specially of oppressive rulers; for he has them still in his eye. 
 
 Here, then, seems to be a very full and firm conviction of the 
 doctrine of a retribution, both for the good and for the evil. To 
 this, however, an objection rises uj), when we come to the exami- 
 nation of actual occurrences. He goes on fully to state it. 
 
 (14) There is a vanity which is done on the earth ; there are lighteous to 
 whom it happens accord in*,'' to the doinp^ofthe wicked: and there are wicked 
 to whom it happens according to tlie doing ol' the righteous ; 1 said that this 
 surely is vanity. 
 
 tt;^ belongs to all numbers and genders. — 'jy^rq , Iliph. Part, of 
 rri5 , pervenit, advenit, comes, happens. The sentiment coincides, 
 with 2 : 19 — 21, and specially with 7:15. The fact itself cannot, 
 indeed, be denied. The writer does not attempt to deny or evade 
 it. Still, he does not take back what he has said in vs. 12, 13. But 
 if what he meant to say there was, to assert the doctrine of com- 
 plete retribution in the present world, then how could he speak 
 as he does here ? We are forced, then, to conclude, on the ground 
 of consistency, that he must have meant something more. — And 
 now, without denying the allegation made in the verse before us, 
 he goes on to prescribe what must be done, in order to obtain any 
 enjoyment in a world where such things are constantly occuri'ing. 
 He comes again to the oft-repeated conclusion, viz. that we must 
 seek for enjoyment in the sober and prudent use of such good 
 things as our toil may procure. After all, however, even this toil, 
 if rendered strenuous, may annoy us more than the good is worth 
 which it acquires. Moderation in this is necessary. He finds his 
 ultimate refuge, then, in implicit submission to an overruling 
 Providence, whose ways are utterly beyond our investigation. 
 This thought is expanded in the coming chapter. 
 
 (15) Tiicn I praised enjoyment, hecanse there i< no good to man under the^ 
 sun, hut to eat, and to drink, and he joyful ; for this will cleave to him for liis 
 toil, during the days of his life which God hath given hin) under the sun. 
 
 *i^x , because, as it often means, see Lex. — Under the sun, i. e. 
 21 
 
242 Chap. VIII. 16, 17. 
 
 in the present world. — tx "^3 , but, except, see Lex. s. v. B. 2. — 
 niTsb , neut. intrans. verb, as also the preceding verbs are, in this 
 connection. — -3'ib'; , Imperf. Kal of nib with sufF. ?i3_ , Gramm. 
 p. 289. The 1 is a consonant throughout. — ib^v'z , for /lis labour , 
 or in respect to or on account of his labour. We have seen (on 2 : 
 24), that 3 in this book, and in the later Hebrew, not unfre- 
 quently coincides witlib in regard to meaning. — 'its'; , Ace. const., 
 the Ace. of ii?ne, § 116. 2. Compare with this, what has before 
 been said on passages of the same tenor, viz. 2 : 24. 3 : 12, 13, 22. 
 5 : 18. The reasoning stands thus : ' Since virtue and wickedness 
 are both treated in a way that reverses their tendency and natu- 
 ral consequences, it follows that virtue does not afford the certain 
 means, at all times, to procure happiness in the present world. 
 But still, this does not forbid the enjoyment of all the comforts 
 that toil can procure. Of this, one can make sure.' Yet the next 
 verse throws in a caution against too much reliance even on this. 
 
 (16) When I gave my mind to know wisdom, and to consider the business 
 which is done on earth — that even by day and by night one enjoyeth no 
 sleep with his eyes: 
 
 The verse is a protasis to the next verse, and inseparably con- 
 nected with it thus : ' When I did so and so — then I perceived, 
 etc' — rir'nb , to know, here in order to know, i. e. acquire knowl- 
 edge of. — Tt".*^ j (^s before) negotiwn, business, i. e. whatever is 
 undertaken to be done. Specific here, and therefore it has the 
 article. — Before "^S the preceding verb nisfn is implied, but it 
 should be put in the past tense, viz. \_I saw'] that, etc. — ri3d Ace, 
 placed first in the clause on account of the stress here laid upon it. 
 — nxS , lit. seeth, but here experienceth or enjoyeth, as often else- 
 where. — But ivho seeth no sleep ? Plainly it is the man, who is 
 deeply engaged in the 'i^DS' {busi7iess) mentioned above. In other 
 words : ' Even the enjoying of the fruit of toil is often marred, by 
 engaging too earnestly in it.' 
 
 (17) Then I saw all the work of God — tliat man cannot find out the work 
 which is done under the sun; in that which a man may toil to find out, he 
 will still make no discovery ; and even if the wise man should say that he 
 knows it, he will not be able to discover it. 
 
 '^n'^X'ni , 1 then, here leading the apodosis or after-clause. — 
 Work of God, is what he does. In the second case, where after 
 
Chap. IX. 1—10. 248 
 
 worh, God is left out, it is still the same nb:*.^ , as the article 
 shows, which refers to the first nrr's . — Therefore nirr? , done, 
 means done hy God^ who doeth all things ; see 9 : 1. — Vr2 = 
 b "irx2 , but as it is followed by another ^I'iJx, the meaning is 
 somewhat embarrassed. Ewald and others read ^rx-bza , in- 
 stead of both words now in the text ; a more facile text, no doubt, 
 but not the true one on this account, bda is used twice in Jonah, 
 viz. 1: 7, r2,.comp. v. 8, where it is explained as = b *|';f^<2, and 
 means, in each case, because of, on account of. We might so translate 
 here, and the clause would run thus : because that whatever a man 
 may toil to find, etc. But it may also be rendered as in the version, 
 which runs somewhat easier. — "irx is Ace. governed by h'zv^ . — 
 Nb-i, 1 in the apodosis, yet, still. — Not eve?! csnn, the ivise man, 
 the article by way of eminence. 
 
 In other words, this matter of the righteous and the wicked, as 
 having their respective lots reversed, and the insufficiency of an 
 attempt to enjoy the fruits of labour — all this is a matter too 
 deep for us to fathom. God has kept the grounds of this myste- 
 rious dispensation to himself. ••' Who can by searching find out 
 God?" 
 
 § 13. Suffering and sorrow the common lot of all, both good 
 and bad. We should look at the brighter side of things, and enjoy 
 what we may. 
 
 Chap. IX. 1—10. 
 
 [The 9th chapter should not have been dissevered from tlie precedinc; one, 
 with the close of which it is most intimately connected. He had said, that 
 God's work is inscrutable, and to him mn^t be attributed tlie arrangement 
 of all events. lie now says, that the riji^htcous and the wise, and all their 
 doin<i:s, are at the divine disposal, and subjected to the will of God, v. 1. He 
 goes on to developc more fully the objection raised in 8: 14, ao:ainst the 
 declarations precedinji^ that passajre, respectin<,^ an adequate retribution to 
 the rifrhtcou.' and the wicked. It is now suiigested a.i;ain, that all have one 
 common lot. whatever their character may be. All men have more or less 
 of folly, and all die alike (vs. 2, 3), and when dead all enjoyment ceases, and 
 they know not anything more, vs. 4, 5. All sensation ceases, and they 
 have no more a part to act in life, v. 6. The only alleviation is. that one 
 should betake himself to enjoy all the innocent pleasures, he can, while Provi- 
 
244 Chap. IX. 1. 
 
 dence is smiling upon him, for this is all the earthly portion allotted to him, 
 vs. 7 — 9. Let him do this with energetic effort, for such and all action is 
 speedily to cease, v. 10. Neither strength nor skill will always command 
 success; that is at the disposal of a I'ower ahove, v. 11. Man cannot fore- 
 see his misfortunes, and is often and unexpectedly overtaken hy evil, v. 12. 
 There is one thing more, however, to which some ])re(jmincnce must be 
 given, viz. wisdom, v. 13. This sometimes contrives to prevent threatened 
 €vil, even when superior force is employed to inflict it, vs. 14, 15. Wisdom 
 then is better than power, aUhough some despise it, v. 16. The noiseless 
 persuasion of wisdom is better than the vociferous boasting of fools, v. 17. 
 Wisdom is better than weapons of war, and one unskilled in it may do much 
 mischief] 
 
 (1) For all this have I considered, and searched out all this; that the 
 i-ighteous, and the wise, and their works, are in the hand of God ; neither 
 love nor hatred doth any man know; all is before them. 
 
 The 'IS here Hitzig renders ja, truly, verily. Of course, he 
 disconnects this from the preceding verse. But it seems to me a 
 plain case of a causal meaning. In 8 : 17, it is said, that no man 
 can fathom the mystery of the exchange of lots by the righteous 
 and the wicked. The grievous part is assigned to the righteous. 
 Now, he gives a reason why this cannot be investigated by men, 
 viz. that all is at the divine disposal, which has so ordered matters, 
 that what happens is not an index of approbation or disapproba- 
 tion as to persons. — To put to heart, is to consider, to revolve in 
 one's mind; as often before. — ^^inb, Inf. const., but filling the 
 place of an Inf. absolute, which sometimes continues a discourse 
 after a finite verb, in the same manner as if it were itself finite. 
 For an example of the Inf. abs. so employed, see Is. 42 : 24, 
 coinp. with Ezek. 20 : 8. For the like of the Inf. const., see 1 
 Sam. 8:12, three Infinitives with 1? . In Is. 44 : 14, 28. 38 : 20. 
 10: 32. Jer. 19: 12. 2 Chron. 7: 17, we find the Inf. const, 
 with b , employed as a definite verb in discourse, l^nb is em- 
 ployed in the same way as if it were '^ri"i2 , i. e. / sought out or 
 explored, root ^^3 . — All this, in the second clause, is a repetition 
 designed to specify his entire investigation, and to add intensity 
 to the affirmation. It refers to what is said in vs. 14 — 17 of 
 Chap. VIII. — The righteous and the wise are the party for whom 
 the writer is most deeply concerned, and therefore they only are 
 mentioned here. — In the hand of God, i. e. they and all their 
 doings are in his power, and at his disposal. — Ncitlier love nor 
 
Chap. IX. 2. 245 
 
 hatred, Knobel takes in the passive sense, i. e. neither love nor 
 hatred on the part of another toward the rigliteous, etc., not that 
 which they themselves exercise. Ilerzf., Iloiligst., and Hitzig, 
 however, understand the latter ; which can make sense only by 
 interpreting it as meaning, that men do not know whether they 
 are hereafter to love or to hate, since God directs all. This 
 seems to me tame and insipid. The writer is labouring to show, 
 (at least the objector whom he here personates is doing so), that 
 as all is in the hands of God, who deals undistinguishingly with 
 the righteous and the wicked (see 7 : 14), so no man can tell 
 whether favour or disfavour is to be shown him in future. The 
 next verse fully confirms this view ; for he goes on to say, that 
 " all have one common lot." I have translated by neither love 
 nor hatred on account of the "pN {not) that follows. A direct 
 literal translation would be : both love as well as hatred no man 
 knoweth, which sounds rather awkwardly in our idiom. The true 
 sense is given in the version. — IVie whole is before them, Vsn , the 
 whole matter, viz. that which he is discussing, or rather all that 
 pertains to their future lot in regard to favour or disfavour. Be- 
 fore them, means that the matter in question, viz. the showing of 
 these, is yet future, or that the exhibition of these is to be during 
 the i)eriod that is before them, i. e. which is yet to come. In 
 other words : No man can tell whether good or ill fortune is to 
 betide him, because he cannot know the future. 
 
 (2) AH are like to all; there is one destiny to the righteous and to the 
 Avicked ; to the good and pure and to the impure; to him who sacrificeth 
 and to him who doth not sacrifice ; as is the good so is the sinner ; he that 
 sweareth is like to him that f'carcth an oath. 
 
 The Vsri in this verse becomes personal, viz. the whole or every ' 
 man is like to every man, or rather (as in the version) : all are like 
 to all. Doubtless it is a kind of apothegm, here applied to the 
 writer's purpose. Some have supposed that it might be translated, 
 everythirig is alike to every person, i. e. the same things happen 
 to all, as the context goes on to show. But the article prevents 
 this rendering by a specific individual sense ; for bsn , means the 
 totality, like to tdv. Each one must be bis . lite whole are the 
 parties mentioned in 8: 14 — 17 ; for a totality of things cannot 
 here be made out. The first version is more conformable to the 
 21* 
 
246 ' Chap. IX. 3. 
 
 original, and seems more easy and natural. — All are like to all, 
 (Vsn generic), gives us the sentiment, that every one is like to 
 his fellow, in regard to the events or evils of life. Like most 
 proverbial sayings, this will not bear minute scanning. We 
 ask : If all is one totality, then who are the others whom the first 
 resembles ? " Qui haeret in litera, haeret in cortice," a maxim 
 of jurisprudence says ; and it applies well here. The simple 
 meaning is : ' Every one is like to all the rest.' Lit. the phrase 
 would run thus : The whole [is] according to that which [is] to 
 the whole ; i. e. all share the same destiny, each one is subjected 
 to that which happens to all others. — P'^'7^^ , with the article ; 
 and so of all the names of whole classes that follow. — ^izih , 
 good in the moral sense here, although it seldom has such a 
 meaning in this book. — j^'^i^Ms opposed both to good and pure, 
 and was selected as being the opposite of the immediate antece- 
 dent, 'nilrj . — In rS'w^sn the construction is changed. If it fol- 
 lowed suit, it would be "3'J:3S3 . The change of construction is 
 doubtless for the sake of variety. — ns'^nd is placed before the 
 Part. 5<^"> which governs it, in order to give it emphasis. The 
 oath in question may be a civil one, (see 8:2); or, more proba- 
 bly, it is here a religious one. To sioear hy Jehovah is to a})peal 
 to him as the Supreme God, and is an express acknowledgment 
 that he is such. The characteristics of the classes are such here 
 in general, as designate moral and immoral, religious and irreli- 
 gious. The next verse presents to us fully the design of the 
 writer, in bringing these discrepant classes together, and placing 
 them side by side. 
 
 (3) There is an evil in everytliino- wliicli is done under the sun. that tliere 
 'is one destiny to all; and moreover, the heart of the sons of men is full of 
 evil, and madness is in their hearts while they live, and after that — to the 
 dead. 
 
 s'"i an evil, not with Rosenm. the most grievous evil. The evil 
 in question is described in the next clause. — "^S that, conj. — 
 fT^pis , occurrence, lot, luck, destiny. — 051 introduces an additional 
 evil, discrepant from that just described. — Full of evil is, in 
 8: 11, expressed by full to do evil. In the latter passage, this 
 fulness of evil is consequent on tlie delay of punishment; but in 
 our text, it seems to be consequent on the common destiny of all, 
 
CuAP. IX. 4. 247 
 
 as to suffering cand sorrow. — Madness, in this book, sometimes 
 denotes unreasonable and obstinate folly in refusing to obey or 
 submit to God. — While they live, i. e. during the whole of their 
 lifetime, this madness continues. And then what ? nirrn-?x , 
 to the dead, plainly elliptical, C^zVn {they will go) being implied. 
 The brevity adds to the energy of the representation, ""nx , 
 after that, viz. after suffering and doing evil all his days ; or it 
 may be simply adverbial, afterwards. 
 
 (4) Truly, whoever is joined to all the living — there is hope [for him]; 
 for as to a living dog, it is better than a dead lion. 
 
 The "IS at the beginning of the verse seems to be cavsal. But 
 the preceding clause — they go to the dead — appears hardly to be 
 so connected with this verse, as to call for or admit here a cause 
 or reason of going thither. The critics who call it causal (Kno- 
 bel, Hitzig), do not show how or why it is so. It seems prefer- 
 able, therefore, since this cannot be readily shown, to take ""S) in 
 its occasional affirmative sense, viz. profecto, (Germ, ya or aher 
 yd), truly ; Lex. ^3, No. 6. c. See on 4: 16, for ^3. Then the 
 connection of thought would stand thus : * They go to the dead 
 . . . truly a great evil, since there is hope only for the living, etc/ 
 — "173, although generally interrogative and meaning whol is also 
 at times used indefinitely to designate ivhoever, or he ivho ; see 
 Lex. s. V. No. 2. If we could join ^rs with it, and take both as 
 meaning whoever, it would make a facile sense. But I know of 
 no example to support and justify this. "VVe seem compelled, 
 then, to regard the Ileb. as running thus : whoever [there is], 
 that shall he joined, etc. If ""O be made an interrogative = who is 
 there that is joined etc. 7 then no tolerable sense can be made out 
 of the passage. — "inn*^ has vowels that belong to the Qeri ^sn^ . 
 If the Kethibh be retained, then it must be pointed *inD7 • ^^^ 
 the clause : who shall choose, (for this is the meaning of ^ns^), 
 will make no sense here. We feel obliged, therefore, to adopt the 
 Qeri ; as the ancient translators and most of the modern ones 
 have done. A further reason for preferring the Qeri is, that 
 *in2 does not take bx after it, as here ; while this particle appro- 
 priately follows ^sn^ . The latter moans : joined to or associated 
 with. — All the living, designates multitudinous living beings. The 
 whole expression wears a somewhat singulai* air — joined to the 
 
248 Chap. IX. 5. 
 
 mass of living beings, instead of sajing simply "sn Trx . The 
 phrase has, I believe, no parallel in the Heb. Scriptures. — 77tcre 
 is hope, i. e. amidst the vicissitudes of things, the bright side may 
 sometimes present itself as well as the dark one. There is hope, 
 then, of some enjoyment. Such a living man is much better 
 than a dead man ; for even a living animal, although contempti- 
 ble, is better than the king of beasts when dead. The "^3 here 
 is causal. The clause that follows is, no doubt, a proverbial 
 maxim. Knobel produces one from the Arabic, (in Golius's Adag. 
 Cent.), of just the same tenor as our text : " A living hound is 
 better than a dead lion." In the East, the dog is accounted as a 
 contemptible, unclean, detestable animal. The opposite to the 
 dog, is here the king of beasts. The antithesis is striking. If 
 what the proverb says of the dog be conceded, then how much 
 better of course is a living man than a dead one ! — ^^^b , with b 
 prefix, and yet it is the subject of the sentence. Cases of b 
 prefixed to the Nom. have been generally recognized ; e. g. such 
 cases as in Ps. 16 : 3. Is. 31 : 1. 2 Chron. 7 : 21. Without 
 appealing, however, to this somewhat doubtful principle, we may 
 solve the difficulty in another way. It is plain that h not unfre- 
 quently means in respect to, quod attinet ad; see Lex. No. 5. 
 We may, however, translate so as to preserve here the usual 
 sense of b when standing before a Dative : To a living dog there 
 is good, compared with a dead lion. Then all runs smoothly, and 
 the same sense comes out as before. In rr^'ii* , the n- is a parag. 
 formation, the simple word being I'lX . 
 
 (5) For the living know that they must die, but the dead know not any- 
 thing, nor is there any more a reward for them, for their memory is forgot- 
 ten 
 
 But what comfort is there in knowing that we are to die? 
 Specially, where there is no definite hope of future happiness ? 
 If death is so fearful as the writer (personating however the 
 objector) has just told us, it must be only a matter that harasses 
 the mind and causes dejection of spirit, whenever it is thought 
 of. What, then, is this advantage or reward of the living ? And 
 has not the writer said (7 : 1), that " the day of one's death is 
 better than the day of his birth?" Has he not "praised the 
 dead, which are already dead, more than the living which are 
 
Chap. IX. 5. 249 
 
 yet alive ?" Has he not said, that "better than both of those is 
 he that hath not been ? " 4 : 2, 3. Yes, all this has been said ; 
 but then it was in a despairing moment, and in a dejected and 
 gloomy state of mind. And even now, the speaker claims small 
 meed for the living — mei-ely the consciousness that they must 
 die. Is it better, then, to have such a painful consciousness con- 
 tinually, than, like the dead, to have none, or, as he says : " to 
 know not anything ? " I cannot, amid such embarrassments, do 
 otherwise than suppose his mind to be intent on what he has 
 said in 7 : 2, viz. that '' the living, who go to the house of mourn- 
 ing, will lay it to heart." The consciousness that they must die 
 may produce two important effects upon them ; the one, that in 
 prospect of death they will soberly, and gravely, and equitably 
 demean themselves, so as to be prepared for death ; the other, 
 that, knowing the shortness of life, they will make the best of it, 
 in a sober use of the good things they may possess or acquire ; 
 see vs. 7 seq. below. If this, or something like it, be not the 
 design of the writer, I know not what it is. Hitzig has shunned 
 the difficulty ; and Knobel and Herzfeld have merely " nibbled 
 at the bait," One must at least have a very gloomy view of 
 death, if he is willing to deem the mere consciousness that he 
 must die an impoutant advantage over a state of death. Yet 
 this would seem to be the literal and obvious meaning of our 
 text. Then again, that the dead kno\v nothing, and will not have 
 even the reward of being remembered, (one of the least of all 
 rewards, because they cannot participate in it), is spoken of as 
 the consummation of human misery. Must not language like 
 this come from a worldling, who indulges gloomy reveries, and 
 doubts of any future existence ? What Christian can speak so 
 now ? I must believe, then, that Coheleth has given us here 
 some of the most violent cases of doubt, which once passed 
 through his own mind, or else was suggested to him by some 
 objector. Chap. 8 ; 12, 13, discloses definitely his own views; 
 and they shine out again in 11: and 12: 7, 13, 14, and at least 
 gleam in 3 : 1 7. 5 : 8. It is impossible to harmonize both classes 
 of texts, except by filing away until all the strength and sub- 
 stance of the language is gone. Why may we not, therefore, 
 consent that the objector should speak his full mind ; as Paul 
 often makes hhn to do? AVith this position for our basis, we 
 
250 Chap. IX. 6, 7. 
 
 need be under no serious embarrassment in our interpretation. 
 Only a dissatisfied, doubting, gloomy mind engenders and broods 
 over such conceptions as these. — ^n^;^d , "d = -irx , and the verb 
 is Imperf. Kal, 3d plur. with ^i medial omitted, and - vicarious 
 put for !| i. e. in the room of it ; § 8 III. Class, h. ; the root is 
 TA'Q . — No reivard, i. e. no means of after-enjoyment. Even the 
 least of all comforts, that of being remembered, is denied to 
 them. 
 
 (6) Moreover their love, as well as tlicir hatred, and also tlicir jealousy 
 has already perished ; they have no more part forever in all that is done 
 beneath the sun. 
 
 The deep tone of gloomy and despairing sensitiveness here 
 speaks out, in respect to the supposed condition after death. 
 Neither love of friends, or hatred of enemies, or jealousy of the 
 more fortunate, agitates them any more. No more can they 
 engage in any worldly pursuit. This probably alludes to the 
 common popular notions about the shadowy n'^xs^i in the under 
 world, the umhrae of departed persons, deprived of all substantial 
 life and enjoyment, and action. Love of holiness, hatred of sin, 
 and jealousy (as we render rrxip?) for the honour of God, do all 
 exist in a future state. " The pleasures forevermore," which 
 David anticipated, (Ps. 16: 11) ; " the being satisfied with awak- 
 ing in the likeness of God," (Ps. 17: 15) ; " the awaking from 
 the dust to everlasting life," (Dan. 12: 2) ; must surely have been 
 out of the mind of him who uttered such complaints as our text 
 and context exhibit, at least for the time being ; and, like holy 
 (but not always consistent and submissive) Job, he was doubtless 
 ready to curse the day of his birth. Job 3:1. It seems to me 
 impossible to give any other account of this matter, if the lan- 
 guage be fully and fairly investigated, and left to speak for itself. 
 
 But what reply does Coheleth make to all this ? We shall 
 immediately see in the sequel. 
 
 (7) Go, eat with gladness thy broad, and drink with a joyful heart thy 
 wine, for God has long since favourably regarded tliy woi k. 
 
 Once more then, in this extremity, when it is urged that virtue 
 and vice both meet with the same reward, and that all have one 
 and the same inevitable doom, Coheleth betakes himself to the 
 
Chap. IX. 8, 9. 251 
 
 advice so often before repeated, (2: 24. 3: 12, 22. 5: 18), viz. 
 that one should enjoy the fruit of his labour, and accept what he 
 can enjoy with gladness of heart. But in the present case, he 
 goes more fully into this subject, and brings more particulars of 
 enjoyment to view ; as the following verses will show. — r^b 
 Imper. of ^h"^ . — ?]^nb , sufF. form of nnb (reg.) with T]- in 
 pause. — ni:: , glad, rather than merry. The latter, as Coheleth 
 thinks, belongs only to fools. — '^"''y'?'.^ , prob. sing, here, although 
 it has the form of the plural ; see § 91. 9, where it is shown that 
 the suffix state of nouns, from roots fib , is often the same in both 
 the sing, and plural. — T/ii/ ivork or thy doing is the thing done, 
 or to be done, in obeying the command as given above. God has 
 permitted and given his approbation to such doing, is what the 
 writer means to say. 
 
 (S) At all times let thy garments be white, and let not oil upon thy head 
 be lacking. 
 
 The Hebrews often employ r^'J (sing, number) in the same 
 way as we do the plural. I have translated in accordance with 
 our usual idiom. — Garments he white, because such were the 
 garments worn by those who were rejoicing, while sackcloth was 
 the usual costume of mourners, and of such as fasted. See 2 
 Sam. 12 : 20. 19 : 24, and the opposite of these in Ps. 35 : 14. 
 Mai. 3 : 14. 2 Sam. 14: 2. The anointing of the head with oil, 
 was another custom observed by those who were rejoicing ; 
 comp. Matt. 6 : 17. Ruth 3 : 3. Dan. 10 : 3. 
 
 (9) Enjoy life with the wife whom thou lovest. all the days of thy vain 
 life, which he hath given to tlice under the sun, all the days of thy vanity; 
 for this is thy portion in life, and in the toil which thou hast performed under 
 tlie sun. 
 
 nxn , see in 2 : 1 , enjoy. — "^"^^'ba , Ace. of time. — ina he hath 
 given ; who ? God of course is implied, as it has often been 
 already expressed ; see 5 : 17. — x^n , masc, but here used for 
 the neuter, it is or this is, viz. that which had been before en- 
 joyed. Ewald says, " that this is a ' schlechtes Kethibh ' (a sorry 
 orthography) of the Babylonian Jews ! " But see the same in 
 3: 22. 5 : 17. It is hardly correct to say, that only the fem. i<"<ln 
 is employed elsewhere as the neuter, although this is the most 
 frequent usage. In the Pent, both are usually written tfrt , but, 
 
252 Chap. IX. 10. 
 
 when fern., pointed t^in , in reference to a supplied Qeri in the 
 margin, 5<'^n . And besides this, i<!in is fem., or used as fern., in 
 1 K. 17: 15. Job 31: 11. Is. 30:33, see Lex. Tiie position 
 of Hitzig, then, does not seem to be quite firm. 
 
 In all this there is nothing Epicurean. It is plainly the sober 
 enjoyment of life which he commends, and nothing is mentioned 
 which is unlawful or forbidden. Such is the course to which 
 Coheleth advises, rather than to indulge in the gloomy views 
 and feelings that had just been expressed. Here again, we, 
 under the meridian sun of the gospel, are at a loss to see, why 
 he did not point the disconsolate complainer to a brighter and 
 better world. It would be spontaneous in us to do so. — But 
 this subject has already been discussed above, and the discussion 
 need not be repeated here. Beyond a doubt, the course advised 
 is better than gloom and murmuring ; and so far as this world 
 merely is concerned, to pursue this course would make us more 
 contented and happy than to turn from it or forsake it. 
 
 (10) All which thy hand findeth to do with thy niiyht, do [it] ; for there is 
 no work, nor planning, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the world beneath 
 whither thou art going. 
 
 Tiry hand findeth^ i. e. whatever thou canst grasp, or whatever 
 is at thy disposal; comp. Lev. 12: 8. 25: 28. — ^inba,^^ thy 
 power ^ i. e. with thy might or ability. — nb? , do [it], the pro- 
 noun being implied after the verb. Do it forthwith and energet- 
 ically. Why ? Because there is no work, etc. — The i prefix I 
 have rendered iior, because of the "px at the head of the clause. 
 The advice here given is adapted to increase the enjoyment of a 
 rational man, one of whose instincts iS, to be active and engaged 
 in something. To be and to do this, renders him more con- 
 tented and happy. — There is no luork, nor planning, etc., comp. 
 V. 5 above, where is the same sentiment. Does Colieleth say 
 this for himself? Or docs he merely recapitulate what the 
 objector had said ? I prefer the latter view. Then the matter 
 would stand thus : ' Enjoy thyself all that thou canst ; be ever 
 busy and engaged with something ; for this will help thee to for- 
 get thy gloomy forebodings. And this is sound advice, pro- 
 vided that all you say is true, viz., that there is no zvork, etc. 
 All this need not hinder the enjoyment that you may reasonably 
 
Chap. IX. 11. 253 
 
 have.' — b-^'xpa , in Sheol, i. e. the under-world, the world of the 
 dead. The connection in which v. 10 stands, does not well admit 
 of the language being ascribed directly to the objector. But his 
 objection seems to be indirectly introduced ; for, as we have seen, 
 the settled opinion of Coheleth himself (8 : 12, 13) was somethino- 
 quite different from this. It would be difficult to make out con- 
 sistency on any other ground than that here taken. Neoloo-ical 
 commentary points to this chapter with special confidence, as 
 showing that Coheleth neither knew nor believed anything of a 
 future state. But what if it mistakes an objector's words, and 
 ascribes tliem to Colieleth himself? The positive passages 
 which show his views of a judgment and of retribution, are too 
 strong to justify us in yielding to suggestions of this nature, 
 prompted and quickened by a spirit of skepticism. 
 
 § 14. Wisdom profits sometimes, and at other times not : Folly wiU 
 be sure to meet with due reward. 
 
 Chaps. IX. 11 — X. 20. 
 
 [Vs. 11, 12, bring before us again, on the part of the objector, the subject 
 of an overruling destiny, against which Avisdom is of no avail. Men are 
 caught as in a net, in spite of wi.sdom, when evil suddenly befalls them. — 
 To this Coheleth replies, that he has known some signal cases where wisdom 
 protected from danger; these he pioduces in vs. 13 — 15. He therefore eulo- 
 gizes wisdom more than strength, v. 16. The quiet words of the wise have 
 much more that commands attention in them, than the outcry of fools; wis- 
 dom is better than warlike instruments, and the want of it may do great mis- 
 chief, vs. 17, 18. Chap. x. Folly spoils everything, v. 1. A fool will disclose 
 his folly in all his actions, vs. 2,3. Wisdom directs to act prudently and not 
 foolishly, when rulers are angry, v. 4. Fools, when promoted to honor, show 
 their folly, vs. 5 — 7. There arc various ways in Avhich folly and imprudence 
 may be develojicd, vs. 8 — 15. Woe to the land that has foolish rulers, v.s.l6, 
 17. Gluttonous and slothful rulers occr.sion many evils, vs. 18,19. Take 
 good care how you utter anything ngain.-^t rulers, for they will be sure to find 
 it out, v. 20.] 
 
 (II) I turned and saw under the sun, that the race is not to tlie swift, nor 
 the battle to the strong; and moreover, tl.at bread is not to the wise, and also 
 that riches arc not to the discerning, and likewise that favour is not to the 
 knowing, but time and chance happen to all of them. 
 
 n>in , Inf abs. as a definite verb ; see cases under ^n^irib in v. 1. 
 22 
 
254 Chap. IX. 12. 
 
 — Si^n^'3 , victorious contest here. — dii stands before three par- 
 ticulars in succession. They are coordinate in Heb. ; but it is 
 difficult, with a negative, as here, to render them into English so 
 as to give the exact shape of the Hebrew, cr^ denotes accession^ 
 and is in its own nature climactic. But here, as all the particu- 
 lars are coordinate, we can hardly make out any climactic shape 
 or design of the clauses. There is no gradation in the importance 
 of them. — 0^51'-? , Niph. Part. adj. sing, "jiss , from "j-^a . — "jn , 
 favour. — rs^ , time, viz. seasons when this or that will occur. — 
 3>55 , chance, i. e. whatever happens to or befalls one. — n-iir"; , oc- 
 cur, meet, come upon. In other words : All are subject to the sports 
 of fortune, and neither strength, nor wisdom, nor intelligence can 
 prevent it. This is the old complaint against wisdom, viz. that it 
 is of no avail. An irresistible power orders all these things as it 
 pleases. All this is aggravated by the fact, that men can have no 
 previous knowledge of disasters, so as to shun them. So the 
 next verse : — 
 
 (12) Eor no man knoweth his time ; like fishes that are caught in a de- 
 structive net, or like sparrows which are caught in a snare, so they, the sons 
 of men, arc ensnared in an evil time, when it comes suddenly upon them. 
 
 ns) Hitzig explains by time of death. But the last part of the 
 verse shows that it is the time of misfortune. The '^3 at the be- 
 ginning is causal. The preceding verse declares that time and 
 chance come upon all. One reason here given for this is, that no 
 man can do anything to escape the evils of life, because he knows 
 not when they are coming, and therefore cannot do anything 
 effectual to prevent them. They come upon men as unexpectedly 
 as upon the fishes and the birds, who cannot anticipate them. — 
 D'lNln *i:s is added to explain cn , and is put in apposition with it. 
 
 — Qiu;;?^'! , Part. Pual of ^';^;^ , dropping its ^ preformative ; see 
 § 51. 2. n. 4 and 5. The Dagh. forte which would regularly be 
 in pis dropped, because of the preceding long vowel >. — " solvitur 
 ob vocalem longam." — ^iQlnc3 = bisn and ^irtts when. The 
 verb is fern. Imperf of bE3 , and agrees with TS which is fem. 
 
 — Such is the unhappy lot of man, in the view of the objector. 
 Let us hear the reply, which shows that wisdom ought not to be 
 so underrated. 
 
Chap. IX. 13—15. 255 
 
 (13) I too have seen this, [namely] wi^^dom under the sun. and it was 
 great to m •. 
 
 The MT is fern, and refers to the subsequent fi^sn . The He- 
 brew construction is involved. We should naturally expect 
 n) n^Dn . On this account, Ilitzig writes it nt , and translates : 
 That hare I seen : Wisdom, etc. This seems too hard. I should 
 prefer to repeat the verb Ti-'X'n mentally, and place it before Jr^^n . 
 
 I take riT as anticipative, and have so translated 5<'^n , was it. — 
 
 ^^x , to me, i. e. in my view, or to ray mind or apprehension ; 
 comp. Jon. 3 : 3. What the wisdom in question is, he is going to 
 explain by example. 
 
 (14) There was a little city, and the men in it were few ; and there came 
 unto it a great king, and he surrounded it, and built over against it large 
 towers. 
 
 There ivas is the necessary implication of the text, but is not 
 written. — ^y^p, fem. of 'ii:;^ a Pilel form with Dagh. implied 
 in the final "i , which makes its apj^earance in the fem. ; see § 91.8. 
 
 — 'JV'O , in pause, lit. fewness. — A great king, here so called 
 probably from his leading on many troops. — n*^^:^ against it, 
 but this preposition involves something more, viz. over against, 
 which means that the towers corresponded to the walls, and proba- 
 bly (of course) overtopped or overlooked them. Such towers were 
 movable, and could be advanced to the walls, or drawn back from 
 them, and so gave much advantage to besiegers. — c^bn^ , both ca- 
 pacious and lofty. 
 
 (15) And there was found in it a wise poor man, and he rescued the city 
 by his wisdom; and yet no one remembered that poor man. 
 
 The verb X'l^ is without any Nom. expressed ; and of course 
 we may translate thus : One found, etc., or in the Pass, as above. 
 
 — The two adjectives, Gsn ',2p^ , are coordinate, and both belong 
 to 'i'^x . The omission of the conjunctive "^^ denotes a close union, 
 like poor-wise, almost a kind of compound word. — ^t'n is em- 
 phatic, and therefore expressed. — Wisdom here means sagacity, 
 i. e. ir employing the means of defence or aggression. — x^nn, 
 that same, an intensive here. 
 
 Ilitzig refers this to matter of liistorical fact in tlie writer's own 
 day ; and that fact he finds in the besieging of the little town of 
 Dora, on the sea-shore, by Antiochus the Great of Syria, about 
 
256 Chap. IX. 16, 17. 
 
 218 B. c. He could not take it, with all his troops. So he repre- 
 sents the time of writing the book, to be that during the period of 
 Ptolemy Euergetes's reign. But in the first place, cases of this 
 kind are so frequent, that there is no necessity of supposing, in 
 the present one, that this or that individual fact is before the 
 writer's eyes, but only a vivid recollection of instances of the like 
 kind. Secondly, it will by no means follow, that we must come 
 so low down, and insist on finding an appropriate example that is 
 actually on record. Were there not many such cases, at an earlier 
 period, of which we have no existing record, although they may 
 have once been chronicled ? Enough that the example adduced 
 would be readily admitted as a fact, i. e. acknowledged to be true 
 and in point. 
 
 (16) Then I said: Wisdom is better than force; 3'et the wisdom of tlie 
 poor man is despised, and his words are not listened to. 
 
 The meaning is not, that he then said so and so, but now says 
 differently, but that he then said and still says. — mi^ fem. Part, 
 p ass., masc. '^^t2, from hts . — And his words etc., Heb. lit. and 
 as to his words (Nom. abs.) they are not, etc. But how, then, was 
 the city saved, if his wisdom was despised, and his counsel not 
 li stened to ? The answer is, that the writer is here characterizing 
 the man in a general way ; he is stating what usually happens, 
 and thus describing the neglect which such men usually have to 
 suffer ; and not telling us merely what happened in relation to 
 him, on the particular occasion now brought before us. He wishes 
 to show, that a poor and wise man, who commonly is looked 
 down upon, and to whom no one is disposed to listen, because he 
 occupies a low place, may still accomplish important objects, be- 
 yond the reach of mere force. 
 
 (17) The words of the wise, in a quiet w:iy, are hoard raih.er than the 
 shouting of a leader among fools. 
 
 The meaning clearly is, that the words of the wise are calmly 
 and modestly uttered, instead of their making a bluster and outcry ; 
 for this word, nn3^, is opposed to the hoisierousness (ri?"]) of 
 fools. Even a ^'iJi'S, a leader, prince, among fools, has less chance 
 of producing any effect by his vociferous addresses, than the wise 
 man quietly giving counsel. This prince, by the way, is himself 
 
Chaps. IX. 18— X. 1. 257 
 
 supposed to be ojie of ike fools ; for otherwise the point of the 
 discourse would vanish. A wise man might reign over fools, 
 and still act wisely. But the outcrt/ which this bdiTS makes, 
 shows that he belongs to the fools. 
 
 (18) Better is wisdom than instruments of war; and one sinner dcstroyeth 
 much good. 
 
 The meaning of the first clause is evident, from vs. 14, 15 above. 
 — i<'jirt , has final Seghol instead of Tseri, for which see § 74. 
 VI. n. 21. The word here evidently points to an offender against 
 wisdom, i. e. a fool. He wiio neglects the precepts and guidance 
 of wisdom, can do nothing but harm by his mismanagement ; yea, 
 in case he is a b^^in, he will do much harm, i. e. destroy 
 much good. 
 
 Chap. X. 
 
 (1) Dead flics make the ointment of the apothecary to stink — to ferment ; 
 more weighty than wisdom, and also than what is costly, is a little folly. 
 
 It is difficult, in the first clause, to account for the sinff. number 
 of the two verbs. There is a small class of cases where the verb 
 agrees, in case of a composite subject, with the noun that follows 
 the const, state, rather than with the const, noun itself, which is 
 the usual and natural Nom. or subject, § 145. 1. But most of these 
 cases are such, as that a kind of compound noun may be made of 
 the two nouns ; or, they are cases in which the const, noun, i. e. 
 that which comes first, is virtually an adjective, § 104. 1. n. 1. 
 Here neither of these principles will readily apply. We must 
 then either suppose this is an unusual extension of the principle 
 above noticed ; or that the "i in "l^i^iT is merely euphonic, as e. g. 
 p'niJ— sb^ , and the like. But these last forms are mostly com- 
 pound proper names only. To render 'insist by the singular, i. e.^y, 
 (which Ewald has done, and Hitzig seems to approve), is cutting 
 the knot, not untying it. Besides, to talk o? one fly, as corrupting 
 a parcel of unguent, seems to us very odd, to say the least. It 
 must be a very small parcel of ointment, at any rate, and a very 
 large fly. On the whole, I see no solution so promising as that 
 dead flies are considered en masse here, i. e. as a totality, and so the 
 apparently plural subject may take a verb singular. The principle 
 of severalty, or individuality, in the continuance of the sentence 
 
 22* 
 
258 Chap. X. 1. 
 
 after a plur. subject, cannot in this case be well admitted, for that 
 again would bring us virtually to the incredible assertion, that 
 each fly produces the effects that are described. On the whole, 
 hoAvever, Hitzig thinks it most feasible to adopt this solution, and 
 refers us for like examples to v. 15 below and to Hos. 4 : 8. But 
 both of these cases are of such a nature, that what is asserted of 
 the many, is specially and plainly true of each individual. But 
 this cannot be said here ; for it is only the many which can pro- 
 duce the effect asserted. On the contrary, he notes a case of the 
 opposite nature, where the writer goes from the singular over to 
 the plural (Zech. 14 : 12), th^sa . . . iDii:^ . But here again the 
 1 is a pronoun of multitude. If the grammar is not in his favour, 
 (and this seems to be the case), the sense thus made is still more 
 against him, because an individual fly could not produce the 
 effects in question. — As to the rendering : jomso?zo?/5 ov deadly 
 flies^ the words might mean this of themselves, but they cannot 
 do so here. It makes nothing to the writer's purpose to call 
 them deadly, for such would corrupt the mass no more than 
 others. Moreover, there would then be an imjDlication, that 
 other flies would not corrupt it, which is not true. — Hirn, of the 
 unguentarius, i. e. of the person who compounds the ointment for 
 sale. Of course, it was a composition which required skill in 
 order to make it saleable. Both words, T\pi'^ )^^:2_ , indicate pre- 
 cious ointment, viz. such as was compounded with skill and care. 
 ■np"^ has here its original sense, viz. weighty, heavy. The im- 
 agery is drawn from scales, in which the greater weight prepon- 
 derates. Both clauses here illustrate the latter clause of the 
 preceding verse, viz. one sinner destroyeth much good. The flies, 
 although small and contemptible animals, may do much mischief 
 to valuable substance. i:J"^n^ (liiph.), makes, or causes, an ill 
 savour ; r^s;; (Hiph. of >?2), makes to bubble up, i. e. ferments. 
 The two verbs are asyndic, i. e. joined without any 1 between 
 them, but we are unable to render either of them adverbially 
 here, or (as usual) to make one qualify the other (§ 139. 3. b) 
 as a kind of helping verb. But still, there is an intimate connec- 
 tion between them ; for a rendering fetid is accomplished by 
 causing fermentation. The effect is first named in our text, and 
 then the cause of it is described. This energic mode of expres- 
 sion is not unfrequent in Heb., but we can rarely imitate it in 
 
Chap. X. 2, 3. 259 
 
 English with much success, because the structure of the idioms 
 is so diverse. — In the latter clause, the preponderance which 
 only a little of folly has over wisdom and over whatever is pre- 
 cious, shows " how great a matter a little fire kindleth," or that 
 "one sinner may destroy much good." Such is the debasing 
 and corrupting influence of folly, that only a little of it will spoil 
 the most valuable and precious qualities or virtues. The object 
 of the verse before us, (to confirm what precedes), and the man- 
 ner of accomplishing this object, seem then to be quite plain ; so 
 plain, that the separation of chapters here is incongruous and 
 almost preposterous. It is not improbable, that both parts of v. 
 1 are apothegms, applied here to the writer's special purpose. He 
 might indeed have expressed his present views in plain and direct 
 words ; but he has chosen a method of doing it, which gives more 
 life and vivacity to the discourse. An ordinary reader mistakes 
 such passages for mere unconnected apothegms. But we have 
 seen how little ground there is for this. 
 
 (2) The heart of a wise man is on his right, but the heart of a fool on his 
 left. 
 
 The />%szraZ place of the literal heart is out of the question here, 
 for that would reverse the statement, the beating heart being on 
 the left side of the breast. Right and left are used metaphorical- 
 ly, for dextrous and ungained or unskilful. The right hand is 
 the usual one for action ; the left is more rarely and awkwardly 
 employed. Right and left, in the Heb. do not mean merely right 
 hand and left hand, but the words are more generic, i. e. right 
 side or quarter, etc. — b often marks the place where, as nnsb , at 
 the door, etc. — ^^ ? as often elsewhere, means understanding, be- 
 cause the heart was regarded as the seat of it ; not the hrain, as 
 with us. Sentiment : ' A wise man will use his understanding: 
 dexterously, so as often to profit himself; a fool employs his to 
 no purpose, or to a bad one.' Evidently, the same subject as 
 before is in the writer's mind. The superiority of wisdom to 
 folly is rendered more conspicuous still by what follows. 
 
 (3) And even when a fool walkcth by the way, his understanding is lack- 
 ing; and he saith of every one : He is a fool. 
 
 Further exhibitions of folly. There is an unusual inversion 
 
260 Chap. X. 4. 
 
 of order here, in the Heb. The sense demands an order in Eng., 
 such as the version above presents ; but the Heb. runs thus : 
 Even on the way, when the fool is walking, etc. The meaning is 
 the same as that above given. — T)'!^!!? , with the article, because 
 it is in such a case equivalent to the suff. pronoun i — his, i. e. it 
 is definite. — Inbs&nrs, the vowels are adapted to the Qeri, 
 which omits the t\ (article). But there is no need of this. IssO 
 is the same fool mentioned in the preceding verse, and therefore, 
 as a renewed mention, may claim the article. — )r3 = "ytyc^ , as 
 before. — Walks hy the way, the meaning is not while he is on a 
 journey, but while going about in the way of intercourse with 
 men is meant. In such a case, he leaves his heart (imdersiand- 
 ing) behind, (lOn)- — '^^J? j says, but here says internally = thinks 
 or supposes. — bsb , with the article, means each specific indivi- 
 dual in this case. When generic or signifying totality, it also 
 takes the article ; just as o ««rog means a particular eagle in dis- 
 tinction from other eagles, and also the genus eagle in distinction 
 from other genera of birds — &^in ^SD are the words which he 
 speaks, or rather, what he thinks, respecting every one that he 
 meets. It is a conspicuous proof of his folly, that he deems him- 
 self to be wise, and every one else to be a fool. This is another 
 dash of colouring, which makes the picture more glowing. 
 
 (4) If the spirit of a ruler risetli up against thee, forsake not thy standing, 
 for gentleness appeaseth great offences. 
 
 n^'n here means spirit, in the like sense that we give to the 
 word when Ave say : ' He replied with much spirit.' An excited 
 or indignant state of the mind is really meant. — But the ruler 
 — who is he ? The answer seems to be : The same ruler as the 
 ts'ib^pss ^'tyd above, in 9 : 17. Meaning: If then a foolish ruler 
 gets angry with thee, do not forsake thy steadfastness. — Forsake 
 not thy standing, ^^^ip'? , lit. station, place on ivhich one stands. 
 Here figuratively, i. e. it designates stability, sober consideration, 
 self-possession. — i<Q"i^ , means what is soothing, i. e. getitleness of 
 demeanor, in the present case, exhibiting no signs of anger or 
 excitement. — n'^S^ , Hiph. of T\^^ ; see Lex. to quiet, tranquillize, 
 or appease. — Great offences, i. e. such as the angry ruler deems 
 great. Even he, although foolish, may usually be appeased by 
 firmness and gentleness. 
 
Chap. X. 5—7. 261 
 
 (5) There is an evil I have seen under the sun. as an error -svliich proceeds 
 from a prince. 
 
 Furtlier confirmation as to what a foolish ruler may do, and 
 often does. Coheleth calls it an evil; and with good reason. To 
 designate his special meaning, he goes on to show from what 
 quarter the evil comes. It is such an error as can proceed only 
 from a ruler. After evil, the Heb. omits ^'rx as being of course 
 implied ; I have done the same in the version. — As the error, 
 the 3 , says Hitzig, is Kaph veritatis, and if so, we may render 
 thus : verily an error, etc. But I apprehend that this does not 
 give the exact meaning of the Hebrew. The writer means to 
 say, that the evil in question is such an error as rulers only can 
 commit. — N'^^r , contracted from the fem. Part. nx:i^ , and so 
 agreeing with the fem. nriy:: — ^22^^, lit. from the face of from 
 the presence of But this word is often used in the same way, at 
 least with the same meaning, as the simple "{c , which designates 
 the cause or source whence this or that springs ; see Lex. E. F. 
 2. We shall soon see what the error in question is. 
 
 (6) Folly is placed in many high stations, and the rich sit in degradation. 
 
 Folly is placed, the abstract for concrete, folly for fools. That 
 the plural is meant, is shown by the plur. : antithesis, f'n^^rS' . 
 By this last word is meant, not so much the wealthy merely, as 
 those in a flourishing and elevated condition. Comp. 1 Sam. 
 2 : 7, 8. — ^£1^3 , in a low place, in a state of degradation. The 
 sudden elevation of persons in a low condition to office, under an 
 eastern despot, is a transaction that occurs almost every day ; 
 and on the other hand, the degradation of those in office, for the 
 sake of confiscating their property, is equally frequent, in the 
 eastern world. This oppression and avarice and selfishness Co- 
 heleth deems to be a grave error, and the whole affords additional 
 evidence, that " one sinner can destroy much good." 
 
 (7) I have seen servants upon horses, and j)rinces walking as servants on 
 the ground. 
 
 This is only another method of illustrating what he had just 
 said. Servants are promoted to office, and ride forth in state ; 
 for horses are used, in the East, principally by the rich and 
 nobles. On the other hand ; they who once were princes, are 
 
362 Chap. X. 8, 9. 
 
 now cast down, and obliged to take the place and attitude of 
 servants, who walk on the ground, and hold the bridle of him 
 who rides. Everything is vgteqov tiqoteqov. 
 
 (8) He who diggcth a ditcli may fall into it^ he who breaketh down a 
 wall, a serpent may bite him. 
 
 This looks simply like something merely apothegmatic ; and 
 in fact it is somewhat difficult to discover its connection with the 
 context Merely to designate the ordinary business of digging a 
 ditch or pulling down a wall, we can hardly suppose this to be 
 intended. The meaning is, that when one digs a ditch or pit- 
 fall, for the annoyance or destruction of others, he may chance to 
 share himself in their intended fate ; not that he certainly will 
 fall into it, for this cannot be true in such a universal sense. 
 Accordingly I have translated by may fall — may bite, etc. So 
 the pulling down a wall, implies some unlawful destruction of the 
 hedge or fence. In doing this, the serpents which lodge in the 
 chinks of the wall may bite him. — y'B^^, , properly a participial 
 noun of Pual, so that the doubling of the middle radical (^) here 
 is normal. The ^ is merely orthographic, being short here by 
 reason of the Daghesh, and not a proper Shurey. — *i2r:^"!' ? ^^- 
 perf. Kal of '^•iJs , with suff. ^l-. ■ 
 
 (9) He who pluckcth up stones shall be annoyed by them, he who cleaveth 
 wood shall be endangered thereby. 
 
 I do not find any authority for Gesenius's excidit lapides, as 
 the meaning of tD^?nj< r'^S^ . The verb r&2 means to pluck up^ 
 e. g. trees, vines, tents, etc., and in connection with the last 
 meaning, to move from, an encampment, etc. The action here 
 which annoys, seems to be the pidling out of stones from their 
 beds in the earth, which often, being rough, and being laid hold 
 of incautiously in order to pull them out, annoy the persons con- 
 cerned in the labour. So the splitting of wood (ni:^:; , plur. in 
 Heb.) brings one into danger, who does not manage with skill. — 
 "ll^s^ is a doubtful word. Its meaning in Kal is to dwell with. 
 It is found in Niplial only in the case before us. It seems best 
 explained by the Chaldee "JSG , to expose to danger, nsSD , danger. 
 Hitzig and Ges. derive it from '■psb , coulter, and so they con- 
 eider it as a denominative verb, meaning to cut. Possible ; but 
 
Chap. X. 10. 263 
 
 hardly probable. The other method is more obvious and satis- 
 factory. 
 
 And now — to what purpose are the last two verses ? To me 
 they seem designed to show how numerous the dangers and 
 exposures to harm are, even in the common occupations of 
 life, and how important, therefore, that wisdom should be pres- 
 ent as a guide, in all of them. The cases here stated, are not 
 designed to be statements of things that uniformly and of neces- 
 sity occur, but such as need wisdom or dexterity to avoid all evil 
 consequences that might easily ensue. If so, they help to ele- 
 vate wisdom at the expense of folly ; and this stands in accord- 
 ance with the writer's aim. 
 
 (10) If one has dulled the iron, and there is no edge; he swings [it] that 
 he may increase the force; an advantage is the dexterous use of wisdom. 
 
 Here the object of the writer comes out fully, i. e. to show the 
 advantage of making a dexterous use of wisdom. The dexterity 
 here, in case of a tool that is dulled, consists in so swinging it 
 and increasing its force, as still to make it cut. — l-ifni^ is to he 
 dull ; nn^ , Piel, is to make didl or (as we say) to dull. The Nom. 
 then is the indef one, and ^psrn is in the Ace. — d'^SS-^b , no 
 faces, i. e. no edges, or without edge (see Lex. No. 4) ; like D'^S^'Jjib , 
 childless, 1 Chron. 2 : 30, 32. fiSS means the front part of any- 
 thing, which, in a cutting instrument, is the edge. — bj^bp , Pilpel 
 of bb;^, to move hither and thither ; see Ezek. 21 : 26, where this 
 is plain. The notion of polishing or sharpening has no etymolo- 
 gical ground of support. The other meaning is supported by 
 the Arabic and Aethiopic. If this be admitted, the pause-accent 
 should be placed on c:"^:5 , and not on bj^bp . This last is in the 
 Perf., which may be rendered as Pres. (§ 124. 3), he swings [it~\, 
 that he may increase the force or power. When the Ace. is placed 
 before the verb (as t:ib;^n] is here), then the 1, which belongs to 
 the verb and affects the sense of it, still has the same power that 
 it would have if the verb immediately followed it. So here : 
 that he nwy increase etc., 5 that, § 152. B. e. — ^'I'riri, Inf. abs. 
 nominascens, but retaining its power of governing the Ace. 
 n^:n . — By this last clause, we have the key put into our 
 hands, which will unlock vs. 8 — 10. In all cases of difficulty, 
 embarrassment, or danger, in the common business of life, a dex- 
 
264 Chap. X.l 1,12. " 
 
 terous use of wisdom is indispensable to safety and success. — To 
 the same purpose Hitzig explains our text, and, as it seems to 
 me, with satisfactory reasons. Whoever is curious to see the 
 variety of opinions that have^been given, may consult Knobel in loc. 
 
 (11) If tlie serpent bite without enchantment, then is there no advantage 
 to him who hath a tongue. 
 
 UJnsri , with the article, because it refers to the serpent men- 
 tioned in V. 8. The idea conveyed by the verse, is built on the 
 universal belief of the East, (partly founded on fact), that ser- 
 pents can be charmed so as to render them harmless. It is done 
 every day at Cairo, and has been witnessed by Mr. Lane, a 
 most intelligent and recent English traveller. — T|^7, Imperf. 
 Kal. from 'r^rs . — Without enchantment, i. e. if a serpent bite 
 because he is not enchanted, (for if he were enchanted he would 
 not bite), then there is lack of wisdom, which might have pre- 
 vented the bite. The writer has also conveyed this last senti- 
 ment in another way : Then is there no advantage to him who hath 
 a tongue. That is, he who has a tongue, but not knowledge or 
 skill to use it on such an occasion, reaps no advantage from 
 having it. Wisdom is wanting to guide its action, where he 
 remains silent at such a crisis. It was only the ivisc, it would 
 seem, wlio were able to enchant ; comp. Ps. 58 : 6. Is. 3 : 3. 
 When a man had not wisdom to use his tongue so as to render 
 harmless the serpent, then no advantage accrued to him from 
 being "liiii^n b>'3 , the possessor of a tongue ; like r]D3 bra , Prov. 
 1 : \7, possessor of a wing = winged. In other words, even the 
 most distinguished members of the body are comparatively use- 
 less, without wisdom to direct their use. — This verse, therefore, 
 is of the same tenor as the preceding verses. That the tongue 
 was specially employed in enchantment, is evident from the fact, 
 that this mostly consists of cantillating certain forms of exorcism. 
 The Greeks called a man who performed this work, inaotdog, 
 cantillator. Although the serpent cannot understand the exor- 
 cism, he is, as experience shows, operated on by the power of the 
 music, for he will leave his lurking-place to come out and hear it. 
 
 (12) The words of the wise man's mouth are favour; but the lips of the 
 fool destroy him. 
 
 — Favour, in , i. e. are such as procure favour ; they are goodly 
 
Chap. X. 13—15. 2Go 
 
 words, such as conciliate favou)\ — T/te lips of a fool, not his literal 
 lips, but what they utter, i. e. the ivords. — ninsb , the reg. plur. 
 in const, state, instead of the dual "^rsb ; Ps. 45 : 3, for a like usage. 
 
 — Destroy him, need not be taken hi its full and literal sense, but 
 in that of doing much injury. 
 
 (13) The bco-inning of the words of liis moutli is folly, and the ending of 
 liis mouth is grievous madness. 
 
 This gives a reason for what was affirmed in the preceding 
 verse. From beginning to end, he plays the fool in all that he 
 says. What he utters is folly, and oftentimes even a madness 
 which is mischievous {^'{^) to himself Not until this mischief 
 overtakes him will he cease prating ; it will be well if he does then. 
 
 — IVie ending of his mouth, is an abridged form for the ivords of 
 his mouth, as in the preceding clause, which is in part omitted in 
 order to avoid repetition. 
 
 (14) The fool multiplies words, when no man can know what shall be; 
 for v.-hat shall be after him, who can tell 1 
 
 Although much speaking leads to the utterance of many foolish 
 things (5 : 2, 6), yet the fool indulges in it ; and this, even when 
 neither he nor any one else can tell what mischievous conse- 
 quences will follow. — For ivhen, there is no special word in the 
 original ; but the connection of 3-"n;^"5<b shows, that such a mean- 
 ing is implied. — ^rxi , /or whcd, § 152. B. c. — After him, or 
 after it, viz. the utterance of many words. There is no important 
 difference between the two. The first is the most simple and 
 obvious. The reasoning stands thus : He must be a fool, who 
 utters things that may have mischievous consequences which 
 none can foretell. 
 
 (15) The toil of fools wearies them, because they know not how to go to 
 the city. 
 
 But may not toil weary others, who do know how to go thither? 
 Assurci'ly it may, if there be much of it ; but here the case is sup- 
 posed of a man, who toils much in order to get to the city, and 
 does this because he is so foolish as not to know how to get there 
 in a direct way. — ^2:^!v!l^) "^ Piel, hut fern., whilst h'z's, the sub- 
 ject, is generally masc. Perhaps n here assumes the place of ■< 
 
 23 
 
266 Chap. X. 16. 
 
 prefix formative, which would regularly be ^s:r!?01 (see § 69. 2). 
 for the sake of a more euphonic pronunciation. So Hitzig. The 
 true solution doubtless is, that a large number of nouns in Heb., 
 with the masc. form, have a fem. gender ; and quite a consider- 
 able number are both masc. and fem., ad libitum scriptoris, as it 
 would seem. Ewald (Gramm.) has collected a great mass of both 
 these, in § 174. Cases of /em., like h^'i , are nd , trn , j^a^ , cans , 
 etc. Of course all difficulty vanishes by the aid of this considera- 
 tion, and ^Si^liOf^. is reg. Piel Imperf. fem. — The siyig. suff. here, 
 5)2- is either generic, and so can accord, ad sensum, with C'^b'^bS , 
 or else it individualizes, and signifies that each and every fool is 
 wearied in the manner described. — The same in respect to r"]^ , 
 which is sing. i. e. no fool knows, etc. — Knows not how to go into 
 the city, is doubtless a proverbial saying, descriptive of fools. So 
 we may say of a man : ' He has not wit enough to travel on a 
 broad, open highway ;' (for such are the ways leading to a city). 
 This is only a satirical but covert description of a fool. The 
 labour of a man, who has not wit or knowledge enough to keep 
 the broad thoroughfare to a city, may well be supposed to weary 
 him. Literally, the thing is not intended to be taken. What is meant 
 is, that when a man is a fool, he does a great many things that 
 weary him and worry him, in consequence of his being so. A 
 little sound wisdom would save such an one much trouble. Here, 
 again, the preference of wisdom oyer folly comes into view. 
 
 (16) Woe to thee, land, for tliy king- is a youtli, and tliy princes feast in 
 the morning. 
 
 The meaning of the word 'n^s is not limited by a particular year. 
 Any one short of some twenty-five to thirty years of age may be 
 so named. However, in the present case the probability is, that 
 one who is yet a child, a lad (as we say), is meant ; at any rate, 
 one who, through inexperience and a bad education, is inclined to 
 sensual indulgences. For tliy, in both cases, may be substituted 
 whose. This would make the meaning less specific ; whereas I 
 apprehend, from the tenor of the book, and the frequent and loud 
 complaints against oppressive rulers, that the author's design is spe- 
 cific. This is bold, then ; but not bolder than the Heb. j^rophets in 
 general are. — Princes feast in the morning, therefore at a very un- 
 
Chap. X. 17, 18. 267 
 
 timely and improper season ; see Is. 5 : 11, and comp. Acts 2: 15. 
 This shows what devotees to sensuality the shameless rulers were. 
 
 (17) All liail ! to tliee, land, when thy king is the son of nobles, and thy 
 princes feast in proper season, for streni^tli and not for banqueting. 
 
 As to Tp';;)'^'5< , since the pronoun is fern., the normal form would 
 be Tj';''!! r ^ ; ^ut t^iG first form is a mere contraction of the second ; 
 which is admissible in a case where the gender of the pronoun 
 cannot be doubtful, and no obscurity can arise from the contrac- 
 tion. However, if la7id be taken for people (which in fact it really 
 means here), we might take T\ as masc. ; in which case, however, 
 we must point it tj'^- . All hail/ gives well the sense of the word. 
 Hitz. : Heil dir / — G''"]"in, nobles, from 'I'^H, liber, ingenuus fuit. 
 So in the Arabic and Syriac. A king of high descent, the writer 
 seems to suj^pose, will act on a generous and noble scale, and will 
 not feel such temptations to extortion as a poor man does. — 
 nra , plainly means : at a proper time or season. This shows that 
 they are not such debased gluttons or drunkards, as to carouse at 
 improper seasons. The feasting (lit. eating) is temperate ; for, 
 first, it is in proper season ; and secondly, it goes not beyond the 
 measure of obtaining nutriment so as to acquire strength. — 
 ir'iJa , lit. for drinking, compotation. The banquet-drinhing, of 
 course, is meant here ; and so I have translated it : for banqueting. 
 That 2 , in the later Hebrew, is sometimes used in the same sense 
 as b , has before been noted ; it occurs twice here. See on 2 : 24, 
 for the use of 2 . In reality, the 2 stands before the thing obtained 
 by commutation with some other things ; see 2 : 24. The/ooc? is 
 exchanged to acquire, or is the price of, the strength . — '^r"i"2 with 
 the article, because it refers to what was included in the ^P^Jt"^, 
 which designates both eating and drinking, i. e. feasting. The 
 innumerable evils inflicted on a land by gluttonous and drunken 
 rulers, are too obvious to need specification. 
 
 (18) TIn-ougli idleness the timber decaycth, and ihrongh slackness of hands 
 the hou^c drizzleth. 
 
 l-i^lr^sn , lit. beam, but generic here, and so it means timber. — 
 tr^'rh^'l , lit. by two idle [hands] . — Ty^'^. , Imperf. Niph. of T|2^ , to 
 dissolve, pine away, decay. — Tj^n'^, drizzles, i. e. lets through the 
 rain, because it is not repaired. Ilitz, : it, rains into the house. 
 
268 Chap. X. 19, 20. 
 
 I take the house as the Nom. in this case, which makes a sense 
 nearer to the meaning of the Heb. verb, which is used in speak- 
 ing of the eye when distilling tears. So the house distils rain on 
 those within it, i. e. drizzles. 
 
 (19) Foi' merriment they celebrate the feast, and wine makes life joyfuh 
 and money procures everything. 
 
 pinbb , lit. /or laughter, i. e. boisterous merriment ; the b being 
 in the place of 3 , as, vice versa, Si is in the place of b ; see 2 Chron. 
 20 : 21. 1 Chron. 4 : 22. Ps. 102 : 6. Hos. 12 : 9, etc. — D^br, Part, 
 used as a verb, does not mean to make, i. e. to manufacture bread, 
 but to keep or celebrate a feast (6:12. 3:12), of which cnb , the 
 leading element (bread) is taken as a representative. — Life joyful, 
 viz. their life, i. e. that of the carousing rulers. — Money procures 
 everything, lit. silver makes everything respond. The usual coin was 
 silver. As to n;s^^ , it is in Hiphil Imperf., and so must be ren- 
 dered : makes everything respond, viz. respond to their wishes. 
 Money, of which the rulers had plenty, will procure everything 
 they wish. In other words : Nothing will be denied to their request, 
 but all will respond as they wish. Their golden key will open all 
 storehouses, and furnish them with the choicest means of revelling. 
 See on 5 : 19, where this word (tii?^) is particularly explained. 
 
 (20) Moreover, in thy thoughts curse not the king, even in thy bedcham- 
 ber curse not the rich, for the birds of the air will convey the report, and the 
 winged tribe will publish the matter. 
 
 That is, (after all that has been said in the way of exposing the 
 debauchery and folly of rulers and rich men), guard well against 
 indulging bitter feelings of indignation and vengeance toward 
 them. It is dangerous to do so. In some unforeseen way, what 
 is done in secret will be brought before them ; as if the birds of 
 the air could listen and make report. — The luinged tribe, lit. the 
 possessor of ivings. Both v]is^ and h^JJi are generic, and so they 
 have the article, M^hich of course must be placed on the following 
 words in the Gen. after a const, state, § 109. 1. — Here again 
 ivisdom or discretion is needed in order to restrain a just indigna- 
 tion, where the indulgence of it can do no good, and will almost 
 with certainty occasion harm. 
 
 It is evident that the rulers of Coheleth's time were very sen- 
 
Chap. XL 1. 269 
 
 sual, oppressive, and avaricious men, who made the land to groan 
 under their yoke. But whether they wavo, foreigners ov Hebrews, 
 nothing in the text indicates with entire certainty. Nothing is 
 said, or even hinted, respecting idolatry in the whole book. Is 
 not this an indication, that the book was written after the exile ? 
 All the bad kings, before the captivity, were idolaters ; but here 
 there is no reference to this subject, nor any complaint founded 
 upon it. It would seem that the rulers in question were not idol- 
 aters. 
 
 § 15. Counsel in regard to many inevitable evils of life; specially 
 in regard to old age and death. 
 
 Chap. XI. 1— XII. 8. 
 
 [Many trials and evils must come, and divine Providence has made them 
 inevitable. One should be prepared for them, as well as lies within his power, 
 vs. 1 — 5. One should be busily engaged in what is useful; and while he is 
 permitted to be joyful, he should never forget that the days of sorrow will 
 come, vs. 6 — 8. The season of youth is specially titted for enjoyment • 
 which, however, passes speedily away, and while it lasts, should be indulged 
 with reference to a future retribution, vs. 9, 10. The Creator should be re- 
 membered in yovtlifnl days; so tliat Avhen the infirmities and sorrows of old 
 age come, they may be borne with fortitude and cheerfulness, ch. xii. 1 — 8.] 
 
 (1) Cast thy bread upon the face of the waters; for after many days thou 
 shalt find it. 
 
 Not in the literal sense can this be taken ; for literal bread cast 
 upon the waters, soon disappears, being disintegrated. The 
 meaning seems to be : Give up the cherishing of definite and spe- 
 cific expectations of ample support, (^^n^ ? here, the image or 
 symbol of all needed good) ; leave the future to care for itself, 
 but still with a hope that in due time, although this time 
 may be protracted, you will experience what you reasonably de- 
 sire. He does not encourage those whom he is admonishing, to 
 hope always for immediate success or relief ; but only that after 
 many days, or (lit.) ivithin much of time, the expectants may come 
 to have iheir wishes satisfied. The amount of all seems to be 
 this : ' It is better to forbear the forming and cherishing of defi- 
 nite and confident hopes, since this will save us from harassing 
 disappointments. Leave all to Providence. In due time, what we 
 hope for may come to pass.' 
 
 23* 
 
270 Chap. XI. 2, 3. 
 
 (2) Make a portion into seven, and even into eiglit, for thou knowest not 
 the evil which shall be on earth. 
 
 h:^':;t^'i? p\'n~)'n means 7?ialce or constitute a -portion into seven 
 [portions]. See Gen. 32 : 8, 9. p'bn is not a part of a whole, 
 but a portio7i or appropriation more or less. Here the meaning 
 is, divide what you obtain or possess in such a way, as not to risk 
 all in one adventure ; or, as a seaman would say : * Risk not all 
 your goods in one ship.' — Into seven — seven what ? If men or 
 persons were meant, we should expect them to be named. As 
 the text now is, we must find a noun to agree with the adj. 
 number seven ; and what other does the text afford, except D'^pbri ? 
 Therefore "jin cannot here mean give, i. e. to another, but put, place, 
 constitute, etc. — Thou hnowest not the evil, etc. The Heb., as it 
 stands, seems to read thus : ' Thou knowest not what shall be, 
 [viz.] the evil on earth.' In this way, thou hnowest not must be 
 mentally supplied before n:^"n . Sentiment : ' I have advised against 
 definite and confident hopes ; I also advise, that you embark not 
 too much on any one pursuit ; for if this fails, then all is lost.' — 
 The addition of one to the seven, i. e. the mention of eigJd, is a 
 customary mode of speech among the Hebrews. This idiom is 
 peculiarly and forcibly exhibited in Amos 1 : 3 seq. 
 
 (3) When the clouds are filled with rain, they empty [it] on the earth ; 
 and when a tree falleth toward the south or toward the north, in the ])lace 
 where the tree falleth, there it will be. 
 
 That is, the great operations and events of nature are control- 
 led by a Power above, and cannot be hindered or changed by 
 the eiforts of man. It is useless to strive against them. Both 
 parts of the verse wear the air of proverbial sayings, which are 
 here applied by the writer to his particular purpose. — Clouds 
 are Jilled, etc. In Job 38 : 37, it is asked : " Who can stay the 
 bottles of heaven?" This gives the popular idea of the forma- 
 tion, or rather the collection, of rain-showers ; and on this view is 
 founded the expression before us of being jilled. — ^^i^^^' , Imperf. 
 Niph., rather than Praeter, because what is habitually done is 
 here designated. — tra Ace. after the verb of filling, § 135. 3. h. 
 — Jipi'n;^ , Iliph. Imperf. of p^^ . The pronoun it, corresponding 
 to rain, is of course implied here. — ^isst' ts< , lohen, etc., see Lex. 
 3. V. No. 4. — dn'ns , lit. in the south, i. e. in a southern direction. 
 
Chap. XI. 4— G. 271 
 
 We say toivard, in such a case. — dip^ Ace. of place, and in reg. 
 before d=^^^i<, § 114. 2. — ndx, where, Lex. s. v. No. 6.— 
 5<^!-i^ , apoc. Imperf. of i^^tn = n^n . The x is otiant and merely 
 orthographical, itr;' corresponds to "■T}'^ apoc. 
 
 (4) He who watchcth tlic wind, will not sow; and lie who observcth the 
 clouds will not reap. 
 
 That is, -what God has arranged, we cannot alter, nor can we 
 foretell what he will do. The husbandman, if he wait for the 
 wind to come into what he deems a favorable quarter before he 
 ventures to sow, may not sow in good time. If he depends on 
 the appearance of the clouds, and regards them as ominous of 
 evil, i. e. of bad weather, then, by delaying to sow in due time, 
 he will not reap a harvest. One must go straight forward in his 
 duty, and not make this dependent on slight circumstances and 
 uncertain omens. — nn, wind; we should expect the article, but 
 the word is here used in a kind of generic way, which would be 
 shown by striking out the in the version, but which corresponds 
 not with our mode of expression. In this case the Hebrew has 
 the advantage, rvn == any wind. — C'inrs , with the article, being 
 the name of a class of specific objects in nature. 
 
 (5) As thou knowest not what is the way of the wind, or tlie bones in 
 the womb of her who is with child, so thou knowest not the work of God, 
 who doeth all things. 
 
 As thou knowest not what is the way of the wind, thou canst 
 gain nothing by watching it. The next clause is elliptical, thou 
 knowest not being implied and mentally carried forward from the 
 preceding clause, and inserted after 3 . — The hones in the womh, 
 etc., i. e. the bones oi^ ihe foetus, which are in a state of formation 
 in the womb. — l^!;<^5?n , tlie pregnant, like the Latin gravida -plena, 
 and the Greek TiXtjQovv yvvalyia. — n:3 , even so, so so, intensive. 
 Sentiment : ' As thou art confessedly ignorant of such matters as 
 these, so thou art in reality ignorant of what God does, who does 
 everytiiing.' 
 
 (6) In the morning sow thy seed, and at evening withhold not thine hand, 
 for thou knowest not which shall prosper, whether this or tliat, or whether 
 they both shall be alike good. 
 
 That is, since these things are so, go on "in the regular way of 
 
272 Chap. XL 7, 8. 
 
 duty and activity, and leave the rest with God. Morning and 
 evening are mentioned as the times of sowing, i. e. the former 
 and hitter j^art of the day, because these are the labouring hours 
 in Palestine, inasmuch as the heat of the sun obliges labourers to 
 retreat, during four or five hours of the middle of the day. — nsn , 
 Hiph. of n^3 , see Lex. — nt "^x , strengthened sign of an interrog- 
 ative position of the pronoun, "^iii is const, of ^i< before t\\ , and 
 both of them merely make out a pronoun equivalent in this place 
 to which. — iTrn is nr with the interrogative ri before it, ivhether 
 this, viz. shall prosper ; and so as to the other Sit , although the 
 interrogative sign is omitted before it, as being unnecessary. — 
 irixs , as one, i. e. alike, equally, (so to speak) onely. — dx^ , in a 
 second disjunctive member of successive interrogative clauses, is 
 the usual interrogative sign after n in the first clause. See Lex. 
 B. The Hebrew construction in the last clause, if filled out, 
 would run thus : Or whether both of them shall he good as one [of 
 them is'], i. e. alike good. Sentiment : ' Do your duty, and trust 
 Providence for the issue.' 
 
 (7) For the light is sweet, and pleasant is it to the eyes to see the sun. 
 
 The ^ at the beginning introduces a species of causal clause, 
 and is often employed in like manner, § 152. B. c. This is a 
 reason, then, why one should industriously provide for life, as he 
 had just been advised to do. With all its evils, life intermingles 
 many enjoyments. As only the living can see the sun, it may be 
 taken here as " the light of life." Light stands connected with 
 enjoyment. So Eurip. Iphig. in Aulis, v. 1218 : ridv yaQ to q)(os 
 ^XtTzeir. 
 
 (8) But if a man should hve many years, let him rejoice in all of them ; 
 yet, let him remember the days of darkness, for they will be many. All that 
 cometh [into the world] is vanity. 
 
 DlJifi with the article, to designate an individual particular 
 man and not the genus, although what is said might apply to 
 all. We say a man, in such a case, i. e. any or every individual 
 man ; which in Hebrew would be D^JJ'^S • — ^'=^? ? hortative, let 
 him rejoice, not a7id should rejoice. The writer then is no gloomy 
 luckless wight, brooding constantly over the evils of life, and 
 never looking except upon the dark side of the picture. He 
 
Chap. XL 9, 10. 273 
 
 advises to enjoy all that we can rationally enjoy. But still, we 
 must never forget that we have to suffer, as well as to act and 
 enjoy. The days of darkness, i. e. of suffering and sorrow, will 
 come, and will be many. The reason of this is adverted to in 
 the last brief clause. All that cometh is vanity, i. e. all that come 
 into the world ; comp. 1 : 4, t<a "li^ , generation cometh into the 
 W'Orld. Or we may make t<2 a participial noun, every comer, 
 which of course means every one who is horn. Since this is the 
 case, viz. that all who come into the world are destined to a 
 course of trial by suffering and sorrow, there is reason or ground 
 for expecting days of darkness, even many of them. 
 
 (9) Rejoice, young man, in tliy youth, and let thy heart cheer thee in 
 the days of thine early life, and walk thou in the way of thy desire, and by 
 the sight of thine ejves; but know thou, that respecting all these God will 
 bring thee into judgment. 
 
 In V. 8 he had said, that one should rejoice during all the many 
 years that he may live. Here he specificates that portion of life 
 when enjoyment is most attainable. This, of course, is the earlier 
 period of life. Therefore the young man, (for such an one has 
 special ability to comply with his injunction), is particularly ex- 
 horted to do so. — Li thy youth, i. e. during thy youth ; not that 
 youth is the object to be rejoiced in, but the season for joy. Walk 
 in the ivays of thy desire, lit. of thy heart, which is the seat of de- 
 sire. — •'l^^'^^n^ , as written and pointed, would indicate things seen; 
 the Qeri reads njt'^^ii, i. e. the const, state of the sing., and mean- 
 ing sight or seeing. This is doubtless the correct reading ; for the 
 seeing of the eyes is what excites desire in man, and thus in- 
 fluences his whole conduct. In other words : ' Whatever thou 
 seest and desirest, which would increase thy happiness, enjoy it. — 
 But hioio ivell, i. e. remember in the midst of all thine enjoyment, 
 that God will bring thee into judgment for the manner in which 
 everything of this nature is accomplished.' The purport of the 
 last clause may be stated thus : ' Abuse not his blessings and thy 
 comforts or pleasures. He will surely call thee to an account 
 for all that thou doest.' — In this world ? — or in the next ? Hit- 
 zig says : In the first ; and so he refers to old age as the season 
 of judgment and retribution. The true state of this matter, in 
 
274 Chap. XL 10. 
 
 the book before us, I have endeavoured to investigate in my 
 remarks on 3 : 17 above. 
 
 (10) Put away vexation from thy heart, and remove evil from thy flesh, 
 for youth, like the morning-dawn, is vanity. 
 
 Put away from thy heart, because the heart is tlie seat or source 
 ofvexatio?i or incUg7iation at ^nfi'ev'm^. ~ Evil from thy flesh, that 
 is, thy corporeal physical frame. The first precept respects the 
 mind, the second, the body ; both of these make up self, or the 
 entire man. The two verbs are in Hiph. Imper. apoc, because 
 they are hortative. The paragogic forms in Hiph. belong only to 
 the 1st pers. sing, and plur. ; the others are contracted; see § 48. 4. 
 "i^ri from ^siD . — This is merely following on in the train of ad- 
 vice given in v. 9. There the command is, to do something posi- 
 tive in the v/ay of enjoyment ; here it is, to shun or avoid evil 
 and suffering. Taking both together the amount is : ' Enjoy all 
 that a sober, rational man, in view of a day of retribution, can 
 enjoy, and avoid all the evil and suffering that can be properly 
 avoided.' But why is this so strongly urged upon the young 2 
 Plainly, because that even they, although in the best estate of 
 man, hold life by a very frail tenure. " Man in his best estate is 
 altogether vanity." Therefore, as even youth is so frail and 
 evanescent, make the best of it that can be made, keeping a 
 retribution always in sight. It is almost as if he said : Then or 
 never. — m^n;i'ni , lit. and the early dawn ; but the "i here is one 
 of comparison, and hardly differs in meaning from 2. It might 
 be translated even. If the sentence were filled out it would run 
 thus : Youth is vanity, and so early dawn is vanity ; i, e. one is as 
 vain as the other. Hence the use of 1. in such cases, as the 
 connecting link between the two parts of a comparison. Both 
 the objects named are equal to a tertium quid, and therefore one 
 is like the other. 
 
 If a right view of vs. 8—10 has been presented, it follows of 
 course, that the exegesis is erroneous which assumes that v. 9 
 is sarcastic or ironical. Certainly this verse is only a comment 
 on y. 8, where it is said to every one, n^b^ t^ra , i. e. evermore 
 ^^ J^VM' No one thinks of irony here. Again, in v. 10, we 
 have a clear indication tliat tlie advice in v, 9 is serious and bona 
 
Chap. XIL 1. 275 
 
 Jide. Certainly there can be no objection to Coheleth's advice 
 here, associated as it is with all his cautions ; none except on the 
 part of mere strenuous ascetics. 
 
 Chap. XII. 
 
 (1) Remember thy Creator in the days of thy youth, before the dnys of 
 evil come, and the years draw nigli, when thou shalt say : I have no pleas- 
 ure in them. 
 
 ?]^>;"i^3 , plur. like other appellations of God, both nouns and 
 adjectives; see § lOG. 2. J. — ^i'^rH^ns, plur. fern., § 106. 2. a. 
 The plur. form comes from the idea of an extended period. — 
 Before the days of evil, etc., lit. until that the days of evil have not 
 come, which would sound harshly in English. The n^^^in with 
 the art. refers to the !-i^"i of 11: 10. Hitzig finds, in the men- 
 tion of days and years here, evidence that the time of retribution 
 is the season of old age, when evil is wont to come ; for, as he 
 avers, " the dead have no division of time." But is this his 
 philosophy, or that of Coheleth ? Not of the latter, surely ; for, in 
 the case before us, both days and years have the same meaning 
 for substance, i. e. both merely designate time. I am aware that 
 time so divided, and philosophically considered, is not strictly 
 predicable of a future state ; but still, the Scriptures speak every- 
 where more humano, or in the popular way, in regard to the 
 future. Ages of ages is a frequent designation of it. That the 
 writer has old age in view, in this verse, I should freely admit. 
 But I do not see how this would affect the meaning of 11:9: 
 God will bring thee into judgment. According to Hitzig, this 
 Avould be merely equivalent to saying: 'God will make thee to 
 become an old man.' But does not the O. Test, everywhere 
 reckon long life as a blessing 1 What saith the fifth command- 
 ment ? Ex. 20 : 12? And yet this, if Hitzig is in the right, is 
 held up in terrorern here, as an indication of a penal period or 
 process. This will hardly do. Old age has indeed its sorrows, 
 and the} are in some respects aggravated by increasing bodily 
 weakness, and inability to endure or resist them. — But it has its 
 comforts too ; for ""the hoary head is a crown of glory, when 
 found in the way of righteousness." The orthodox, then, are not 
 the only class of critics, (as Hitzig sometimes insinuates), who 
 
276 Chap. XII. 2, 3. 
 
 practice the Hineinexegcsiren upon tlie sacred text. It needed 
 some resolution, at any rate, to make up and j^roduce sucli an 
 argument as that of Hitzig now before us, to show that Coheleth 
 neither knew nor thought anything of a future judgment. 
 
 Thus much is true, viz. that tlie clays of evil here mentioned, 
 are the days of declining life, the infirmities and sorrows of which 
 are most vividly painted in the sequel. Accumulated infirmities, 
 with a certain prospect of their increase, are sufficient to account 
 for the exclamation of the sufferer : / have no 2yleasure in them ! 
 — ^r^^-nni , Hiph. Perf. of ":3 . — j'sn . . . "j^i^ , here the const, "px 
 has two intervening words between itself and the Gen. following 
 and governing it. But any intervention of this kind must be of 
 circumstantial words only. Otherwise, the const, and Gen. must 
 be placed in immediate proximity. 
 
 (2) Before the sun and the light sliall grow dark; and the moon and the 
 stars; and the cU)uds return after the rain. 
 
 The first part is imagery to portray the joyous season of life. 
 Light is the symbol of joy. ' Before this light is withdrawn, 
 do thou remember thy Creator' — is the sentiment. But what 
 is it to remember him ? It is to fear, to love, and to obey him, 
 ever keeping in mind that he will bring thee to judgment. — 
 After moon and stars '^'::>'^'r^'^, {shall grow dark) is implied, from the 
 preceding clause. I have joined the light with the sun, because 
 the accents do so, and because there is ground to suppose, that 
 the writer means to present two couplets. — The clouds return^ 
 etc., this happens only in the winter or rainy season, in Pales- 
 tine. The summer showers are short and violent, and are suc- 
 ceeded by a blazing sun. But in winter, day after day, the 
 clouds return, and rains are incessant during much of the 
 time. This season then, is the image of old age, the winter of 
 life. We of the present time call youth its sjmiig, manhood its 
 summer, and old age its winter. Sentiment : *■ Be mindful of 
 God, before the days of aggravated sorrow come, before the 
 declining period or winter of life sets in.' — The imagery is vivid 
 and beautiful. 
 
 (3) In the day when tlic keepers of the house sliall \)e trenudous, and the 
 strong men bow tliemselves, and the grinders pause because tho}' arc become 
 few, and those that look out of the windows are darkened. 
 
Chap. XII. 0. 277 
 
 This verse is subordinate to the preceding one, t'>3 being 
 used instead of repeating nrx "iv. — ^irr , from r^iT, Imperf. Kal, 
 t for !iT. But who are the keepers of the Jioiise ? Evidently, the 
 physical frame of the old man is here compared to a house — a 
 comparison of the human frame often made in the Old Test, 
 and in the New, Job 4:19. 2 Cor. 5 : 1. 2 Pet. 1: 13, 14. The 
 keepers of this house are the arms, specially the hands and fore- 
 arms, which often become tremulous in old age. They are 
 called keepers, because they are more specially employed in 
 warding oft' evil or assault. These keepers are here regarded as 
 being out of the house, not in it ; just as the arms are separate 
 from the body of a man, and extraneous to it. — And the men of 
 strength bow themselves, seems to mean the legs, which are strong 
 in their structure, being formed both to support the body, and to 
 convey it hither and thither. It needs strength to bear such a 
 burden and perform such a task. The boicing is the usual crook- 
 ing at the knees, which takes place in old age, because the mus- 
 cles are relaxed, and will not support the weight of the bodj 
 without bending. In war, to be swift in the race of pursuit or 
 flight, and persevering in the march, required great strength in 
 the lower limbs ; and he who was orAvg ttoScov was accounted 
 among the best warriors, i. e. among the b'^n '^■^'SN . To say the 
 least, if the appellation is not altogether congruous for the legs, 
 it is difficult to find any part of a man to which what is said so 
 well applies. — And the grinders cease or pause ; the latter is the 
 better translation, for the pausing seems to be in order to take 
 rest, since they are overtasked in grinding because of their 
 fewness. The teeth are doubtless meant by the grinders; and 
 we apply this word in the same way to the teeth. When a few 
 of these have to do all the work of a full set, some pause in the 
 labour is occasionally necessary. — ^"^''J'-. •, verb denom. from 'j;v-o , 
 in Piel and in pause (which occasions the Tseri), meaning grow 
 few, become few, not simjjly are few, which would be Kal. — 
 Those which look out etc., are plainly the eyes. The ejnj-socket 
 is like to a perforation for the window ; the eije-lashes may be 
 comi)ared to lattices in the window, which, in oriental windows, are 
 employed instead of glass. Latticed windows would be an exact 
 literal version. But nothing would be gained by such a transla- 
 24 
 
278 Chap. XII. 4. 
 
 tion. It would rather mislead the reader, because it would seem 
 to point him only to some peculiar kind of a window, when the 
 idea is in fact generic. The weakening of the sight, or darken- 
 ing of the eyes, in old age, is too well known to need description ; 
 see in Gen. 27 : 1. 1 Sam. 3 : 2. 1 K. 14.: ^. — Eyes arid teeth 
 are both fem. in Hebrew, hence the fern, participles agreeing 
 with them. 
 
 (4) And closed are the doors on the street, while the noise of the mill is 
 low, for it rises to the voice of a sparrow, and all the daughters of song are 
 brought low. 
 
 Doors of thy mouth or lips, are expressions in Ps. 141: 3. Mic. 
 5 : 7. The doors of his face is employed in Job 41: 14. There 
 can be no doubt, then, that the lips are designated by the doors on 
 the street, i. e. like the outside double or two-valved door of a 
 house, the way of entrance into it, as the lips are the entrance to 
 the mouth. On the street serves merely to show that the en- 
 trance or outside door is meant. — Are shut or closed, expresses 
 the position of the lips, when the teeth are gone. They are 
 shut or compressed closely together. — Noise of the mill is low — 
 but what is the mill ? Not the teeth, for they are called grinders 
 above. There seems to be no tolerable explanation of this, 
 excepting that it is intended to designate the mouth, in which 
 the grinders are. The noise is that made by the voice, as Hitzig 
 and Heiligs. interpret it. In the aged this is weakened and 
 low. This too is a trait of old age, which is further developed in 
 the sequel. To interpret the clause, (which some do), as mean- 
 ing the noise made hy chewing, is said to be incongruous. But 
 may it not be said in reply, that old people rarely undertake to 
 eat hard substances, and the chewing of soft ones will make only 
 a low noise ? If niinbri , the grinders = mill-stones, is employed 
 (in v. 4) to designate the teeth, then n^f^L^n may be the mill-house^ 
 in which the grinders are, i. e. the mouth. Shall the bip , noise, 
 be referred, then, to the cheioing of soft food, such as the aged must 
 take, because the noise in question in such a case is bs":3 , quite 
 low ? Or must it refer to the voice of the aged, as stated above ? 
 Neither of the alternatives is very inviting. However, as 
 eatitig seems to be despatched in the third verse, there is some 
 
Chap. XH. 4. 279 
 
 incongruity in supposing it to be again introduced here. But a 
 greater difficulty in the way of this, is, that the noise of eating 
 cannot well be a subject or Nom. to the next clause ; it must be 
 the voice of the mouth. In a case so doubtful and obscure, this 
 would seem to be a sufficient reason for giving this latter exe- 
 gesis the preference. 
 
 For it rises to the voice of the sparrow, i. e. attains unto the voice 
 of a sparrow ; comp. n^p in Zeph. 3:8. 1 Sam. 22 : 13. Mic. 2 : 
 8, for a like sense. Translated thus, the last two clauses give the 
 grounds for the assertion in the preceding clause, or at any rate 
 furnish illustrations of it. — 1. , for, § 152. B. c. The voice of a 
 sparrow is a very slender one ; and a voice not louder than this 
 may well be called low. Some intei-pret this as meaning : ' He 
 (the old man) rises up from his couch very early, as soon as the 
 voice of the sparrow is heard.' But where is the proof that the 
 sparrow is an early matin-bird ? — or that the old rnan would be 
 apt to hear his tiny voice ? If it were the crowing of the cock, 
 the exegesis would seem more probable than it now does. And 
 last, but not least: Where is the proof that aged and infirm 
 people are wont to be early risers ? Early they may wake ; but 
 they are not wont to rise as soon as they wake. Then again, 
 Diip"^ is not the word for such rising ; we should expect nis?;^ . 
 
 All the daughters of song is a locus vexatas. Still, some things 
 are plain. Sons of men are men ; daughters of men means women. 
 Why may not daughters of song mean songs'? Daughters of 
 Tyre — Babylon — Philistia, etc., means Tyrians, Babylonians, 
 Philistines, etc. So in the Talmud : ^ip na , simply voice, (prob- 
 ably = echo). All songs or singing, in old age, usually becomes 
 low-toned; inv^"';', Nipli. Imperf. from nn'r with a Dagh. in the 
 form. Lit. are depressed ; but I have translated by brought low, 
 because there seems to be a kind of personification in the use of 
 niD3 , which is best carried out by translating brought loio. Sen- 
 timent : ' All song-singing or music is low-froned, or witli a de- 
 pressed voice.' When the teeth are gone, and the lips cave in, 
 as before stated, singing must necessarily be of the sort here 
 described. If the two last clauses are not properly grounds or 
 reasons for tlie preceding one, they at least help to establish it 
 by illustration. 
 
280 Chap. XII. 5. 
 
 (5) Moreover, they are afraid of that which is high, and tenors are in the 
 way, and the almond disgusts, and the locust is burdonsoine, and the kn))per 
 lias no force ; for man is going to his cverUi^ting home, and the mourners go 
 around the streets. 
 
 Afraid of that which is high, because mounting a lieiglit makes 
 the aged pant for breath. The action of the lungs is constringed 
 by age, which contracts the muscles of the breast. To mount a 
 narrow height, e. g. a tower or precipice, would also create sensa- 
 tions of dizziness. They shun both. In the latter case, the terror 
 of falling lies in the way,- and constantly besets them. — And the 
 almond disgnsfs, not the almond-tree blooms, deriving Viss^ from 
 Y^z , and making it = -j'r , and so, as the almond-tree blooms in 
 the winter, this class of critics say that it represents tlie hoary head 
 of the old man. But then — the almond-blossom is not ivhite, but 
 pink-colored, or of carnation hue. Besides, yii)^'^ for yz'^ has no 
 parallel in Heb. orthography. The root, then, must be "N5 , 
 which means to despise, contemn, treat icith disgust. In Hiph., 
 then, it would mean : causes disgust ; and there, it seems to me, it 
 should be reckoned, and pointed y^}"^ ; • unless, indeed, with Ge- 
 senius, we admit a Syriasm in the present pointing, viz. "■j'Ni;|' 
 more Sgrorum for 1'^5D^" This, however, would not alter the 
 meaning of the w^ord. The almond, once a favorite fruit, now 
 only creates disgust, for want of power to masticate it. There is 
 no need of an Ace. case after the verb, for to cause disgust, is in 
 itself intransitive. Still, if c- stiff, were supplied, then we should 
 translate thus : makes them to loathe. But this is quite superfluous. 
 Hitzig proposes to read j'Xp, , and translates thus : The almond- 
 tree despises [them]. Of course he takes the tree as a mere sym- 
 bol in this case ; like as the palm-tree (in Cant. 7 : 9) is the symbol 
 of the bride, on account of its slender tallness and its sweet fruit. 
 In Cant, the fruit is represented as accessible ; but here the fruit 
 of the almond-tree is inaccessible to the old man, who cannot 
 ascend tJiat luhich is Jdgh. This, as lie avers, is re})resented in a 
 kind of poetic manner, viz. the almond-tree looks down with con- 
 tempt on the old man, who cannot climb it, and mocks his etibrts 
 to obtain its treasures. A congruous sense, this may well be called, 
 when we compare it as related to the first part of the verse — 
 afraid of heights. But in this case, the verb becomes so far active, 
 that it seems to need a complement or object, while none is sup- 
 
Chap. XII. 5. 281 
 
 plied. On this account I must incline to the preceding view — the 
 almotid occasions disgust. I am the more inclined to tliis, on 
 account of the next following clauses, which stand connected 
 with the failure of appetite ; so that both are congruous with 
 each other. 
 
 a:n is a species of the locust tribe winged and edible (see Lev. 
 11: 22) ; which passage allows the Hebrews to eat four kinds of 
 the locust. Some species of them are generally eaten in the P^ast, 
 and brought into the markets for sale, even at the present time. 
 The hard-shelled ones resemble a crab-fish in point of taste. 
 Some of them are even regarded as a great delicacy. Hence the 
 sentiment in the text : ' Even the most delicate viands — among 
 which is the eatable locust — become a burden to the aged man, 
 whose appetite fails.' This is perfectly natural. Delicate and rich 
 viands disgust an enfeebled stomach, which cannot digest them. 
 The most simple food is the only food that can be safely taken, 
 in these circumstances. Hence the locust bsnp^ (Hiph. ofbno, 
 § 53. 2), makes itself a burden, i. e. becomes burdensome, being 
 difficult of digestion and occasioning nausea in the stomach. 
 Hitzig gives the passage quite another turn, referring it, by vir- 
 tue of a resemblance between ^^n and njy {voluptuous delight), to 
 sexual intercourse, which becomes forced rather than voluntary. 
 But this seems quite unsatisfactory, when a plainer and more 
 facile meaning presents itself. Heiligs. is still more imaginary. 
 "As the locust, when its wings are grown, attempts to fly, but 
 does this at first with great effort ; even so the old man, about to 
 'shift off this mortal coil,' laboriously attempts his flight." — 
 Altogether invitd Minerva. The most simple meaning is nearly 
 always the preferable one ; and here it is altogether the most con- 
 gruous. — And the kapper (in vulgar usage spelled caper) is inert, 
 or has no force ; so Van der Palm, De Wette, Gesenius, and 
 others. Hitzig supplies an implied rr^^^ after 'nsn , and supposes 
 the allusion to be made to an implied agreement, that the kapper 
 should aid the n^n = ns^" amatory pleasure, which agreement, in 
 this cas( , is frustrated or annulled ; ingenious, indeed, but too 
 forced and far-fetched. The kapper was used as a stimulant for 
 all the natural appetites, inasmuch as it gave life and animation 
 to the system. Specially was it regarded as a venereal stimulant. 
 In this last sense it may be taken here. Food disrelishes, even 
 
 24* 
 
282 Chap. XII. 5. 
 
 the delicate viands are a burden. With the appetite for this, the 
 other natural appetites decline, so that venery becomes rather dis- 
 gusting than alluring ; at any rate, in extreme old age it becomes 
 mischievous in most cases. The meaning of nsi^nxr: seems to be 
 well settled ; (see Buxt. Lex. Chald., and Ges. Thesaurus s. v.). 
 "iBn comes from I'nQ , and is 3d Praet. Hiph., and one of its 
 meanings is, irritum fecit. It Avould seem to demand an Ace. of 
 object after it, at least an implied one. It usually connects with 
 such objects as covenant^ laiv, promise, voiv, etc. Ges. (Lex.) 
 makes it intransitive in our text ; and so it may be (§ 52), for 
 Hipliil is often so. But if we insist on the active transitive here, 
 then n'^'nz , or some equivalent word, may be supplied, the verb 
 being taken as a constructio pregnans, § 138. So : the kapper 
 hreaketh promise. It was expected, from its qualities, to rouse by 
 excitement ; and this is what it usually does ; but now it frustrates 
 Wishes or expectations. It becomes inert, i. e. produces no effect. 
 This, indeed, is not a literal translation, but it is, in effect, giving 
 the sense of the passage, which, like those that precede it, is 
 elliptical. 
 
 The failure of these powers and appetites is indicative of what 
 must speedily follow. — For man is going to his eternal home, 
 TjVn, ahiturus, about to depart. Not has gone, for his death is after- 
 wards described in vs. 6, 7. As yet it is a future occurrence. — 
 Eternal home occurs nowhere else in the Scriptures ; but the Tar- 
 gum on Is. 42 : 1 1 mentions eternal houses or homes, i. e. sepulchres ; 
 the book of Tobit (3 : 6) calls the grave i;ono^ lUMViog ; and the 
 Egyptians called their catacombs didiovg oi'xov^'. Comp. the senti- 
 ment in 3 : 20, 21, and 9 : 3 — 6. Such a name for the grave, 
 does not necessarily imply a disbelief of a future resurrection 
 (Dan. 12 : 2), but only that those who are laid in the sepulchre 
 have a habitation that will never be exchanged, as houses among 
 j(he living are. A final Jiome is a familiar expression even with us. 
 We cannot defend it philosophically or theologically, but it is still 
 in popular use. Just that is meant here by the Hebrew. — And 
 the mourners go around the streets, Ilitzig refers to mourning in 
 anticipation of evil ; as e. g. 2 Sam. 12 : 16. Ps. 35 : 13. Esth. 4: 
 3. Jer. 48 : 38. But why not render iHl ^^s&l , the mourners loill 
 surround or go around, etc. ? Then the one occurrence is as much 
 future as the other. This is certainly the more natural. The 
 
Chap. XII. 6. 283 
 
 only difficulty is, that 1 convcrsive before a verb is seldom indepd 
 to be seen, in tlie book before us. The marching around in the street, 
 looks much like the funeral procession, accompanied by artificial 
 or hired mourners, as is usual in the P^ast. In all the cases of an- 
 ticipated mourning referred to above, there is nothing that indicates 
 £^ny procession. On this ground, I must refer ^nno to the Pres., as to 
 sense (§121. 3), in the same manner as if a Pres. verb preceded it. 
 The dead man, going to cm endless home, i. e. the grave, is accom- 
 panied by a procession winding through the streets. For such pro- 
 cessions, see 2 Sam. 3:31. Jer. 9 : 1 G — 20, where is a full account ; 
 also 2 Chron. 35 : 25. Matt. 9 : 23. 11: 17. Mark 5 : 38. Luke 7 : 32. 
 The same custom of hired mourners in procession, is kept up, in 
 the East, at the present time. For p^ii'2, see Is. 15 : 3. It charac- 
 terizes a public mourning by procession. The last verb, in the 
 Perf., denotes what is usual, oft repeated, etc., § 1 24. 3. h. 
 
 (6) While the silver cord is not broken, nor the cup of .qoklcn [oil] crushed, 
 nor the pitcher dashed in pieces at the fountain, nor the wheel crushed at the 
 cistern. 
 
 At the beginning of the verse is a resumption of the particles 
 in V. 2, showing that the same subject is still continued. — pn-n;; 
 has a substitute proposed in the Qeri (pn'^.'^), probably because 
 the meaning of the first verb {to remove to a distance^ seems in- 
 congruous. But pn'n means to bind, and it has no Niphal, unless 
 this in our text be one. There is no evidence, however, even if a 
 !Niph. form be admitted, that it would be privcdive in its meaning, 
 viz. to unbind, to sever, (the sense here demanded) ; nor can this 
 be deemed probable in respect to a Niph. conjugation. The proba- 
 bility then is, that here, (as in the case of "'•nn-; , 9:4), the n is 
 transposed, and therefore that the word should be written p"*-;! . 
 In Arab, p'^n means laceravit, an appropriate meaning as applied 
 to the silver cord or chain, in the present case, and so appropriate, 
 that we need not hesitate to adopt it. — Silver cord must mean the 
 silver chain by which the lamp is suspended. — "j'^ip , Imperf. Kal. 
 of "•J'n, (see § 6G. n. 9, for the "i instead of '->), and is intransitive 
 with a passive meaning. — T;^?^? conit., usually trarislated as 
 meaning the knob or bowl of the lamp, which holds the oil. But 
 n^Mri can hardly mean gold here. In Zech. 4 : 12 it means oil ; 
 and tropically so in Job 37 : 22, i. e. something of golden colour. 
 
284 Chap. XII. 7. 
 
 Here, if silver cord represents the thread of life, then the bowl 
 would seem to symbolize the body, and the oil (a liquid) the liquid 
 air which fills the lungs. But to make the life-principle silver, 
 and the body gold, would seem to be incongruous. We may 
 rather acquiesce in the more general symbol, viz. the lamp of life 
 may have the cord by which it hangs broken, and the lamp be 
 dashed in pieces, which holds the oil that sui3plies the fiarae 
 of life. — '13 the pitcher, let down to draw up the water. This 
 may be easily dashed in pieces, ('^3T^"n = our Eng. w^ord shiver), 
 at the fountain or source of the water. — Wheel crushed, viz. the 
 wheel which raises the water by the winding up of the draw- 
 rope upon it. When such things befall the water-apparatus, water 
 ceases to be had. So, to compare the air we breathe with the 
 water which we drink, when the apparatus for breathing is broken 
 and disabled, the breath of course must cease. Beyond this 
 general comparison we cannot well go ; and this is sufl&cient, and 
 is also striking. 
 
 (7) Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was, and the spirit to God 
 who gave it. 
 
 That man is made of dust is often recognized in the O. Test., 
 and the representation takes its source from Gen. 3:19. See 
 Ps. 104: 29. Job 34: 15. — As it was, viz. before it was made 
 into man. On the subject of the spitnt, and its return to God, I 
 must refer the reader to the discussion connected with 3 : 21. 
 What God gave, he takes back. But he gave the body, as well 
 as the spirit. The body, however, he does not take hack to him- 
 self; nor can he any more be supposed to take back the mere 
 breath of life, in such a sense as that it returns to him. If this 
 meaning be given to n^n , we must acquiesce in the more general 
 meaning of merely giving and taking aw^ay, without attaching to 
 this any idea respecting how that is disposed of, w^hich is taken 
 away ; which can hardly be reconciled with the idea of nrdn , 
 shall return. Is there any emanation-philosophy to be discovered 
 here? Does the spirit (nn) emanate from God, as a particle 
 (so to speak) of his beings ; and when man dies, does this particle 
 become absorbed again in his immensity? for this the philosophy 
 in question teaches. If there w^ere any evidence at all in the 
 Heb. Scriptures of the emanation-philosophy, we might explain 
 
Chap. XII. 8. • 285 
 
 the passage before us by the aid of it. But tlie whole tenor of 
 these Scriptures make against this view. God and man are 
 beings widely and essentially diverse in their nature. The He- 
 brews brought God down, in his great condescension, to watch 
 over and to aid and bless man ; but they never dreamed of ele- 
 vating m:ui into the i)lace of God. A moral resemblance man 
 might have, and had, to his Maimer; but his ontological nature 
 admitted of no comparison ; for how can created comi)are with 
 uncreated, finite with infinite ? To see his face, to awake in the 
 resurrection and put on liis likeness — are the utmost to which 
 the thoughts of the Hebrew extended or aspired. Then what is 
 returning to Godl Returning to dust, we understand. The body 
 becomes united to it, or absorbed in it. But in what sense does 
 vital hrcath {Tyn) return to God ? This question still remains, 
 after all that has been said about n^-i , and is more difficult to be 
 answered than Knobel and Hitzig seem to imagine. If return 
 has the like meaning in both clauses, (the verb in both is the 
 same in the Hebrew), then must the emanation-doctrine be recog- 
 nized here. But w^e have seen that there is no ground for suppos- 
 ing this to have been held by the Hebrew^s. What is it then, we 
 ask again — what is it that returns'^ And what becomes of it after 
 its return ? In case Ti^'i here means spirit, in our usual English 
 sense of the word, then w^e have a>tangible meaning. The soul 
 returns to the peculiar and immediate presence of God, there to 
 be judged, (according to v. 14). In what other way can we 
 make out a consistent Hebrew sentiment from this passage? 
 That God gave the spirit of man, is a sentiment often repeated ; 
 e. g. the God of the spirits of aU flesh; the Father of our spirits, etc. 
 
 (8) Vanity of vanities, saith tlie prcnclier, all is vanity. 
 
 Thus end the discussions of th5 book, with the same sentiment 
 which was made its thesis at the beginning. The writer has 
 gone through the whole round of human employment and enjoy- 
 ment ; and he comes out at last fully with the sentiment, which 
 he anrounced at the beginning as the thing to be examined. 
 Solid, lasting, and unchanging happiness is not to be found in 
 any worldly occupation, or in any worldly circumstances. God 
 has impressed this truth on everything, and made it visible 
 everywhere. 
 
286 Chap. XII. 8. Remarks. 
 
 But the other side of the picture, which presents man's future 
 condition and destiny, he has only glanced at. It was not his then 
 present purpose to aim at developing this. We feel it indeed to 
 be strange, that he stops where he does. We should not do so, 
 with our present views. But before we condemn him, we should 
 at least become well acquainted with his special design and pur- 
 poses. We should know what questions of the time were press- 
 ing upon him ; what Epicureanism he was called to encounter on 
 its own ground, and what sensuality needed a powerful check, by 
 reasoning within its own circle. The book is an argiimentum 
 ud hominem, a refutation from the worldling's own stand-point. 
 The writer certainly accomplishes one thing ; and he does this 
 effectually. Christianity would lead us to go farther; but this, 
 when Coheleth wrote, was yet to " bring life and immortality to 
 light." He stops where Moses stopped in the Pentateuch ; and 
 if we censure him, must we not also censure Moses ? God did 
 not reveal everything, not even every important thing, under 
 an imperfect and preparatory dispensation. The world has had 
 its childhood, is having its youth, and is yet to arrive at complete 
 manhood — and then, perhaps, have its old age. Why need we 
 confound all these stages of human progress with each other ; or 
 why think it strange that the author, living under the first stage, 
 has not written and spoken as if he lived under the second or 
 third ? Ouique suum ; a maxim as true in respect to revelation, 
 as it is in regard to the business and concerns of life. Many a 
 striking view has Coheleth given of the vanity of mere worldly 
 pursuits ; many a sound precaution has he uttered, in respect to 
 incurring dangers and temptations. Above all, he has through- 
 out maintained and inculcated the most profound submission as 
 to the mysterious and afflictive dispensations of a holy Provi- 
 dence. With him, God is all in all ; and there is no way of 
 obtaining safety or comfort left for "man, excepting that of abso- 
 lute and unqualified submission to God. Whatever he does is 
 right ; and therefore it should be acquiesced in by all the crea- 
 tures of his power. With all the doubtings and struggles of mind 
 which he develops, it is quite evident, that at the bottom of his 
 heart lay a deep substratum of pious, submissive, obedient — holy 
 feeling. In the midst even of a paroxysm of despair, when he is 
 gazing intently on some gloomy aspect of the destiny of man 
 
Chap. XII. 8. Remarks. 287 
 
 until life becomes a burden, he never utters one disrespectful or 
 murmuring word toward God. Indeed, he everywhere appeals 
 to his rightful sovereignty in order to hush every tendency to 
 complaint. So firm, so solid was his persuasion that God is wise 
 and good, that it is enough, in his view, to hush every complaint 
 and silence every murmur, to call to mind that this affliction or 
 that was dispensed by his hand. What, now, shall we say to all 
 this ? We must feel ourselves humbled by such an exhibition. 
 We often murmur or are discontented, when we are called to 
 suffering and sorrow, notwithstanding all the light and love which 
 the gospel has diffused around us, and in spite of all our cheer- 
 ing hopes as to the future. What then should we have done, if 
 placed in Coheleth's condition — bowed down, and in darkness, 
 and merely catching some glances of the twilight that was begin- 
 ning to gleam ? The comparison would operate strongly to humil- 
 iate us, even in our own view. If those men of God, who lived 
 many centuries before the gospel was revealed, could think and 
 act as they did ; could bow before God with the deepest rever- 
 ence, amid the deepest gloom, and never utter one murmuring 
 word, or indulge one repining thought ; could believe with un- 
 shaken faith in his justice and goodness and wisdom, when the 
 dealings of his Providence were utterly inexplicable ; then may 
 we not well say : Shame ! shame ! on us for all our doubts and 
 repining, and coldness and wavering ! If they could feel and act 
 as they did, in circumstances such as theirs were, they might 
 indeed have had far less knowledge than we have — in fact, they 
 had far less — but must they not have had a more stable and ardent 
 piety, and a more firm and enduring faith, than we can justly 
 attribute to ourselves ? " He that doeth righteousness is righteous." 
 We do indeed possess far more advantages than they had ; but 
 if, with all these, we indulge in sin, our guilt and condemnation 
 are highly aggravated. Instead of indulging in self-gratulation, 
 when we look at them in their struggles, we ought to be pene- 
 trated with the deepest humility. Little to a good purpose has 
 he read the O. Test, who, like Schleiermacher, believes that it 
 is very little in advance of the Greek pliilosophy, and who casts 
 it aside as among the things which belonged to the merest child- 
 hood of mankind. All the philosophy of Greece, and of the 
 whole heathen world, never made one such' man as Coheleth ; 
 
288 Chap. XII. 9—14. 
 
 nay more, it never inspired any individual with such views of the 
 Godhead as he exhibits. Where philosophy doubts, and despairs, 
 and has recourse to inexorable destiny, and to fate which is supe- 
 rior to the gods, Coheleth may doubt indeed for a time, and for 
 the moment even despair ; but he never fails to find a refuge at 
 last in the supremacy and wisdom and goodness of God. He 
 philosophizes in a very different way from the heathen, and 
 comes to very different results. 
 
 Many other interesting topics stand connected with the sub- 
 ject before us ; but they belong more properly to an Introduction 
 to the book, and will be found there. We proceed to the 
 Epilogue or Conclusion of the book. 
 
 § 16. Conclusion of the hook. Summary of results. 
 Chap. XII. 9—14. 
 
 [Since Coheleth was a Ildkdm, i. e. a man devoted to study and writing, 
 or a ao(pug, he occupied himself with practical views of human life. He has 
 come to many results, which he commits to writing as truths to be depended 
 on, vs. 9, 10. His words may help to stimulate others to do their duty, for 
 he has brought together what may be regarded as firm and established, v. 
 11. What he has written is sufficient for admonition ; to make man}' books 
 with labour and weariness, would be to little purpose, v. 12. The conclusion 
 of all is, that we should fear God. and obey him ; and this admonition extends 
 to all men, v. 13. Men should do thus, because all that they do, and say, 
 and think, and feel, will, at some future period, be brought into judgment, 
 V. 14. 
 
 Doderlein, Bertholdt, Knobel, and others, have assailed the genuineness of 
 this Epilo2:ue ; but. as Ewald and Hitzig well declare, without any good 
 reason. The language and style is the same as elsewhere in the book : the 
 conclusion is natural, and is naturally looked for by the reader. Their main 
 reasons are altogether on a priori ground. " The epilogue is not genuine," 
 they s;iy, '' because the author did not know or believe what it contains." — 
 But what is the evidence of tliis ? Has he not repeatedly urged elsewhere 
 to the fear of God, and ti) ol>edience 1 This cannot be denied. Has he not 
 repeatedly brought to view, the truth, that there is a time appointed for the 
 judgment of what men do ? He who examines 3:17. 8 : 11, 12. 11: 9, with 
 care, and then compares with these passages the many which speak in con- 
 currence with them, will be slow to say that there is anything specially new 
 in V. 14 here. '"But the particularity of the assertion, viz. that evcrij icork 
 and every secret thin() shall be brought into judgment, makes it certain," says 
 Knobel, " that ii future jiid>j^ment is meant, and of this Coheleth knew nothing, 
 and therefore could not have written the passage." But the assumption that 
 he knew nothing of all this, is without proof, and,, as we have seen, without 
 
Chap. XIL 9. 289 
 
 any good foundation. If we concede all that Knobel asserts in his premises. 
 we might follow him in his conclusion. I say mi(jht follow, not vinst ; for 
 even if the other parts of the book develope nothing of such a knowledge, this 
 would not decide that there can be no new truth in the epilogue. At all 
 events, the objections to the genuineness rest on grounds which are too 
 slender to support them ; and the great body of critics have failed to concede 
 that they have any force. This question may be regarded, on the whole, as 
 a settled one, and one that will soon cease to be seriously debated any 
 more.] 
 
 (9) And further [I say], that Coheleth was a wise man; moreover, he 
 taught the people knowledge, and he weighed and searched out — he set in 
 order many parables. 
 
 ^n'll , and further^ with an implication of I'^k, I say. This is 
 indicated by the d == 'rrx, that, which follows. So: And 
 further [I say], that etc. So Ewald, Hitzig, and others ; and 
 rightly. — Coheleth was a wise man, Drn , not the wise man, but 
 one belonging to that class, a Hakim, as such an one is still called 
 in Arabia. It was the business of such to make investigations. 
 He speaks of himself in the third person here ; as often else- 
 where. — "lYJ , further, introducing a clause which stands as coor- 
 dinate with was a wise man, giving an account of what such a 
 man's employment was. — He taught the people knowledge, two 
 Accusatives after a verb of teaching, viz. the one describes those 
 who were taught, the other the thing that was taught. — Weighed 
 and sought out, he weighed d'^bd'^ already known, and sought out 
 new ones. The Ace. is not supplied here, viz. that which he 
 weighed and sought out ; but the next clause supplies it, which 
 is subordinate to the present one. It is of course c^b^^^a . — The 
 verb 'li^n means to arrange, to set right or in order. It has no 1. 
 before it, which shows that it is subordinate and epexegetical ; 
 see the like in 1 K. 13: 18. Gen. 48 : 14. Jer. 7 : 26, al. The 
 seeking out and weighiyig are first in time ; then 'putting the result 
 in order is the next subsequent process. For this sense of ',;^n , 
 see also 1: 15. 7:13. — ^'^^'^'O , similitudes, resemblances, a kind of 
 composition in which comparison by reason of resemblances or 
 of contrast frequently takes place. Hence parables, in the sense 
 of the Greek naQa^oXal, which denotes that things are brought 
 together and compared. Whether similitude or contrast be the 
 result, both are called parables. So the book of Proverbs, D'^bdp , 
 where this species of composition so much abounds. But our 
 25 
 
290 Chap. XII. 10, 11., 
 
 word proverb is not coextensive with the meaning of t"^^^^'^ j 
 which the Hebrews applied to any species of composition where 
 comparisons or similitudes abound. So the book before us is 
 filled with cases of contrast and of resemblance. That Coheleth 
 set these in order, was a subordinate work ; and so our text makes 
 it, when the grammatical construction is well understood. It is 
 worthy of note, that all the three verbs are here in Piel, in order 
 to denote continued and repeated effort. 
 
 (10) Coheleth sought to find agreeable words, and correctly to write down 
 words of truth. 
 
 y'Sn , of arjreeahleness, of 'pleasantness. Altogether appropriate ; 
 for a book like Coheleth's needs pains-taking with the diction, in 
 
 order to render it spirited and attractive n^n^ , pointed as a 
 
 Part. pass, here, but erroneously. It should plainly be inins Inf. 
 abs., for it is, as it were, in apposition with the preceding iiis^b , 
 Inf. const. This is nothing strange. See in 1 Sam. 22 : 13. 25 : 
 26, 33, comp. 31. Ex. 32: 6, al., examples of the same nature, 
 where the Inf. abs. continues the discourse after the Inf const. — 
 niT'i , lit. correctness, but it is adverbial Ace. of manner z=. cor- 
 rectly. The second clause is rather coordinate with the first, 
 than subordinate. The writer does not mean merely, that he 
 first sought for proper words, and then proceeded to write the 
 same down, but he means to convey the additional idea, that he 
 wrote words of truth, as well as acceptable words. 
 
 (11) The words of the wise are as goads, and as nails driven in are those 
 who make collections, which are communicated by one shepherd. 
 
 'jiS'Ti, (read dor-bdn, although Dagh. lene is not inserted 
 in the n, as we might expect), is the ground-form of risb'i^ . 
 But we have other examples of the like kind ; e. g. I^'^p in 
 Ezek. 40: 43, and 'i^35< in Esth. 8: 6. The Methegh after '\j 
 in two of these three cases, would seem to indicate a long a 
 sound for Qaraets ; but etymology is against it in these forms, 
 (they being Pual derivates, and so with the first vowel short), 
 and Methegh is not put here for the sake of the ( ), but in 
 accordance with a principle which frequently admits it on a 
 pemdt syllable when it is short and closed, § 1 6. 2. n. c. In the 
 plural form in our text, the (J supplies the place of the Methegh 
 
Chap. XIL 11. 291 
 
 in the ground-form. — The meaning of the word is goad, but not 
 exckisively ox-goad, as Ges. (Lex.) seems to imply. The goad 
 may, indeed, be used for oxen, but so it may also for any other 
 beast that needs to be urged on. Of course the sense \s> figurative 
 here. Stimulant is the meaning, or that which excites, or which 
 pricks so as to make a vivid impression. The reference here is, 
 not to all the words which the wise may utter, but to those which 
 have a sententious form, to the cV'V'r of v. 9, adapted to seize the 
 attention and impress the memory ; in a word, the reference is to 
 such sayings and precepts as this book contains. — r:1"T:b^ is 
 formed from 'r^o , to bristle, but it is here written with ♦S'm (b=t:), 
 7iails or spikes. The image is essentially of the like nature with 
 that of goads ; i. e. both are sharp-pointed instruments, and there- 
 fore make a lively impression. But in this second case, there is 
 another circumstance added, viz. the nails are driven in, as it were 
 fast 'planted, they are xi'"JT^': , i. e. made fast and sure. This 
 either marks the impression as both deep and abiding, or (so Hitz.) 
 designates the stable and permanent nature of the writings (v. 10) 
 in question. But what is it which is like to the nails thus driven in ? 
 The answer is, mBpi< "^^^S, i. e. the collections of the D'^^rn. For 
 *ib"S, see jSrstthe use of Isrs in Lex., and comp. Ecc. 10 : 11, 20, 
 (comp. 7 : 12. 8 : 8). It is manifest, from a comparison of all the 
 peculiar uses of b:>'a , that the idea of possessor, (which of course 
 follows in the train of lord, master, etc.), enters into all the cases 
 where it occurs in the const, state. Thus I'^rn ^brs , lit. possessors 
 of the city, means its inhabitants, Judg. 9 : 51; el's;!) hv'2,poss. of 
 wings, i. e. wiiiged, Ecc. 10 : 20 ; Abraham and his neighbours 
 were ni'nz ^bra , poss. of a covenant, i. e. leagued together. Gen. 
 14:13; ;rE3 hv"^, poss. of desire, i.e. greedy. Pro v. 23 : 2 ; 
 even in d^i^s'ns Vjji , the name of a town (2 Sam. 5 : 20), the mean- 
 ing of br2 is still retained, viz. possessor of breaches, i. e. a town 
 on which breaches have been made. In this last case we see it 
 applied to things, as well as to persons ; the latter, however, is 
 the most common usage. So in Is. 41: 15, ni'^£'^5 b:'3, poss. of 
 edges, i. e. sharp, is applied to a new threshing drag. Any person 
 or thing, having any quality, or marked by any attribute or pecu- 
 liarity, is (or may be) named hvii in respect to that quality, etc. 
 This seems to render plain the meaning of r"istpx "^^".^ . The 
 word n'*,Sp^^ (plur. of nssx) is a Pilel formation from ?]DX, and 
 
292 Chap. XII. 11. 
 
 means simply collections, collectanea. Hitzig has rendered the two 
 connected words merely by Gesammelten, i. e. collectanea. But 
 then what becomes of the modification made by '^\'^^ ? Clearly 
 persons are here concerned ; for what says the previous parallel 
 clause ? It says, that the words of the wise (d'^TSSn ) are like goads. 
 A class of perso7is, who utter the words in question, are hereby^ 
 designated. So in the next clause (now before us), the nietpx "'b^S 
 designates such of the wise men as made collectanea of wise and 
 prudential sayings. The first cl^ss utter these ; the second collect 
 writings (-'irs in v. 10), which contain them. Both are goads 
 and nails, to the careless and indifferent. The first quicken and 
 stimulate by their addresses ; the second do the same thing, but 
 also fasten the impressions made more lastingly, because they 
 are not only nails, but nails driven in, firmly planted or fixed, 
 since, in consequence of the maxims being reduced to writing, 
 they take an enduring or permanent form. It seems plain, then, 
 that the nature of the parallelism here demands persons as agents 
 in both its parts. The explanation now given meets that demand. 
 If, with some critics of note, we translate here : masters of assem- 
 blies, i. e. of literary consessus, then we must incur the difficulty, 
 not to say absurdity, of these masters' being given hy one shepherd. 
 It is things which this nsj'"i shepherd, i. e. teacher, gives, and not 
 persons. 
 
 They are given hy one shepherd. What are given ? Clearly, the 
 things just mentioned. So plainly is this the case, that even ^ttx 
 before ^srni is dispensed with as unnecessary. Nor is there any 
 serious difficulty here. The words of the wise are given, and the 
 collectanea of one class of them, i. e. maxims and monitions already 
 reduced to writing and collected by them, are both given by 
 Coheleth. For what says he, in the context ? He says that ' he 
 sought out, and weighed, and arranged tib'^TS , and that he re- 
 duced to writing what he found to be true.' He is the man, then, 
 the n3;H , whose object it is to feed others with knowledge. As to 
 the first two clauses of v. 11, where the plural number is used, a 
 mere general fact or truth is here stated. The writer says, that 
 the wise (the Hakams) speak words that are as goads, and that 
 their associates, who collect writings of this sort, are as nails. 
 He takes it for granted that this will be conceded, in the general 
 form in which he states it. If so, then he, who has sought out, 
 
Chap. XII. 11. 293 
 
 and weighed, and duly arranged, all of these matters, and now 
 brings them forward, is entitled to a hearing. Nay, he boldly 
 intimates, in the next verse, that his book contains the essence of 
 all, and moreover that it comprises all which is needed. The 
 whole of vs. 9 — 1 2 is one consistent and connected view of what 
 he had done, and of the credit which he thinks is due to it. 
 
 We can now easily dispose of the last clause. sirriD is plur. 
 Perf. of Niph. ; its Nom. is "ndx implied ; and nrx refers of course 
 to the words and writings just mentioned. Coheleth has searched 
 thoroughly, and written down whatever he judged to be true, 
 and important to his purpose. And now, in his book, are given 
 to the w^orld the results of his labours. — ^nx fc^-q , hy one shep- 
 herd. This word Hitzig points n^n^ and renders it pasture, that 
 is, as he avers, the writer has collected all the scattered particu- 
 lars, and thrown them into one pasture, where his readers may 
 feed. But ^sn? (as plur. Niph.) said of the writer would be 
 abnormal ; for the sing, active Kal, -(in: , would in such a case be 
 required. In the passive, then, the verb must be made. He 
 renders thus : ivhich are presented as a united pasture ; which at 
 least wears the air of something far-fetched and outre. It has no 
 like, in all the Scriptures. His objection to rendering nnx nr'i^ , 
 hy 07ie shepherd is, that -,p does nowhere else stand before the 
 efficient cause, when connected with the passive. But in this he 
 is mistaken ; see Gen. 9:11. Ps. 76 : 7 ; and iJistrumentalities are 
 not unfrequently preceded by "(q {-c) , as in Is. 28 : 7. Ps. 28 : 7. 
 Ezek. 28 : 18, al. There is no difference between these two classes 
 of cases, in regard to the principle concerned in the grammatical 
 constijuction. Then again, he suggests that " the one (^nx) makes 
 an insuperable difficulty here. Why one shepherd ? And what 
 difference is there, whether the gift is from one, or from manyV 
 Yet to my mind this difficulty does not seem weighty. Of whom 
 had the writer just been speaking ? Of wise men, and of the 
 possessors of collectanea. These are many, and what they have 
 given^ lies in many scattered portions. Coheleth has made a 
 selectio 1 and a summary from them, and instead of being obliged 
 to consult the many n^:22n and mSDNt -^isJs , learners find in one 
 teacher all that they need. The o^ie n^nis plainly in contrast 
 with the many c-^rn . The next verse fully confirms this view of 
 the subject. — But Avhy does the writer call himself n5?n ? This 
 25* 
 
294 Chap. XII. 12. 
 
 word literally means feeder, e. g. of cattle, sheep, etc. Tropically 
 it is very significant, and designates rector, curator, governor, 
 king, prince, (like Homer's TioifJij'p Xacov) ; and in Prov. 10 : 21, 
 the verb !i:-n means feedi?ig with knowledge. Of course ris?'", (the 
 Part.) tropically designates a teacher, an instructer. He tells us 
 expressly (v. 9), that he taught the people hioiiiedge ; and also 
 that he searched out and arranged and wrote down words of 
 truth, such as the wise utter, vs. 9, 10. He, then, is the nrn . He 
 feeds the flock with knowledge. In this view of the subject, all 
 the difficulties seem to vanish. 
 
 I do not deem it necessary or expedient to recount and refute 
 the almost endless varieties of opinion, that have been given 
 concerning this hitherto difficult verse. It would be time spent 
 to little purpose. Where conjecture takes the place of grammat- 
 ical investigation, and random guessing for sober exegetical ex- 
 amination, opinions may be endless and discrepant : but the 
 history of them is not always worth preserving. The whole 
 passage is undoubtedly unique in its style and tenor, and analo- 
 gies cannot well be summoned to our aid. Hence the many dis- 
 crepant and erroneous opinions in regard to the verse. But I 
 am not disposed to be over confident, in such a case, in my own 
 opinion. I have aimed to get out the meaning by a simple gram- 
 matical and philological process. If I have not succeeded, I hope 
 that others will be more fortunate. Failure here, where so many 
 have failed, is scarcely to be put to the account of disgrace. 
 
 (12) And further: by these, my son, be thou admonished ; to make books 
 abundant — without end. and much eagerness of study, are a wearijiess of 
 the flesh. 
 
 To translate, with Herzfeld : To make many hools would admit 
 no end; or with Knobel and Ewald: admits no end — has no end, 
 gives an irrelative and incongruous sense ; or at least, one that 
 cannot be true without much allowance for hyperbole. "I'l^ "px 
 seems to be added merely for the sake of intensity to J^Si^iln. 
 Hitz. to malce endlessly many hooks; and this, no doubt, gives 
 substantially the true idea: 71^ ■p^^ here = ^^-o, which last, by 
 the way, is never employed in this book. Doubtless there is 
 hyperbole in the expression, even thus considered ; but still, only 
 such as is very common in animated discourse. To make very 
 
Chap. XIL 13. 295 
 
 many books gives the real meaning ; while the form of expression 
 in Heb. is thus : To make books, many, icithout end. The last 
 two words are merely a circumstantial addition, qualifying what 
 was before said. Thus far we have only one subject or Norn, of 
 the sentence. But a second subject follows: and much eager- 
 ness of study. For '^Th , found in Hebrew only here, see Lex. 
 But the word is found in Arabic, and corresponds there with the 
 meaning given in the version. Both of these subjects are now 
 followed by the predicate : viz. is a weariness ofthejlesh or body. 
 Much study would be requisite to make very many books, at 
 least if they were worth reading. And such books as are worth 
 it, Coheleth has in view, for they are such as are goads and nail$ 
 — not trecentos versus in hora, stans pede in uno. V. 9 shows, 
 that he had made strenuous exertion to write one book. The 
 character of this, as it stood in his view, we have yet to consider. 
 
 For the rest, my son, be thou admonished, or get for thyself ad" 
 monition, from them or by them, viz. froin the things that are com- 
 municated by the one shepherd, ?^^i^'3 refers to those things, 
 and we may render -q either /ro/?i or by, as the particle is capable 
 of either sense, and either will fit the passage. — "^aa, my son, is 
 the familiar address of a teacher to his pupil; Prov. 1: 8, 10, 15. 
 2:1. 3:1, 11, 21. 4: 1, 10, 20. 5: 1, 20, etc. — n win maybe 
 interpreted either by the simple passive, or the reflexive, as 
 Niph. is often employed in the latter sense ; and in accordance 
 with this I have translated above. 
 
 Sentiment : ' Reader, be dihgent to learn, from the things that 
 I have communicated, all needful admonition. Many books are 
 unnecessary for such a purpose, and the labour which they 
 would cost is severe, and would now be little more than useless.' 
 
 (13) The conclusion of tlie wliolc matter let us hear: Fear God, ami keep 
 Ids commandments ; yea, this every man [should do]. 
 
 riiD is not summary, sum, nor exenfnal residt here. It means 
 the concluding part of the whole discussion, and so that which 
 the wrier has most of all at heart. "Finis coronat opus." — 
 The whole matter, where Vin has the article, but -in^ , in apposi- 
 tion, is without it. V's is not an adjective, but a noun denoting 
 the whole, the totality. Lit. a conclusion of the matter, of the whole 
 [of the matter]. The ai'ticle, in this case, where there is a 
 
296 Chap. XII. 14. 
 
 speciality of emphasis on the second word, is designedly added ; 
 see § 109. 2. a. The accents give the following sense : Conclu- 
 sion of the whole; all is heard ; Fear God, etc. The punctators 
 were misled, by not comprehending the true design of the article 
 in bisn . — Yea, this shoidd every man \do'\. With Hitzig, I have 
 rendered ^^ as an intensive here, as it often is in this book, and 
 in the contemporary (?) book of Job, e. g. 11: 6. 30: 11. 31: 18, 
 23. 39: 19. But it may be causal, for, i. q. fear — keep, etc., 
 because it is every man's duty to do so. Our translation runs 
 thus : The whole of man, and is against the Heb. idiom, and 
 without any tangible sense, for D'lX-bs cannot mean the whole 
 of man, but every man. All that is lacking here is the verb, which, 
 however, the context supplies, viz. ^ai^^ ; and then the clauses 
 run thus : Keep his commandments ; yea, for this every man 
 [should keep]. If filled out entirely it would run thus : For this 
 [last commandment] every man [should keep]. This (fit) refers 
 to the commandment, or to each commandment, just given. In 
 other words : ' When I command you to keep the commandments 
 of God, obey this my command.' As to supplying a verb in such 
 obvious cases, there are examples enough; see in 2: 12, comp. 
 Deut. 20 : 19. Such ellipses are nothing strange, where the 
 verb is so easily supplied. 
 
 (14) For every work will God bring into the judgment concerning every 
 secret thing, whether it be good or whether it be evil. 
 
 With every secret thing (so our version), the Hebrew does not say. 
 The word ^>^ does not mean m^A. The simple fact is, that iHl 'bv 
 defines and qualifies the word judgment, without making (as our 
 version does) every work one thing, and every secret thing another. 
 DQui'o should, plainly, be written with the article, 1251^533, as it is 
 in 11: 9. I have followed the accents, in my pointing of the first 
 clause. So we have, by this well-authorized change of the vowels, 
 the judgment, viz. the one which God has appointed, 11: 9. 3: 17. 
 But what kind of judgment will that be, or to what extent will 
 it go? It will extend oi^er (^?), or unto, even every concealed 
 thing, i. e. concealed from men ; it will take cognizance of 
 all actions whether good or evil. The word ::5'l3^ is mentally 
 repeated or implied, before "b'J — [the judgment] concerning or 
 having respect to, every concealed thing, etc. 
 
Chap. XII. 14. 297 
 
 No wonder that Knobel here finds a future judgment. "If," 
 says he, " one considers this passage without prejudice, he must 
 acknowledge the idea of a formal judgment, occurring, as men 
 suppose, after death." He then states two reasons for this con- 
 clusion ; (1) "Evenj work is brought into judgment. (2) The 
 expression, every secret thing, is always employed with reference 
 to a judgment after death ; " for which he refers to Rom. 2:16. 
 1 Cor. 4 : 5. 1 Tim. 5 : 24, 25. Other passages might be added. 
 He considers this so plain and certain as a result of the language, 
 that he denies the genuineness of the verse, because, as he says, 
 Coheleth had no knowledge of such a judgment, or belief in it. 
 How much there is of sound argument in this last conclusion, 
 has already been examined, in the remarks above made on the 
 closing part of the book. That his philological conclusions 
 are sound, it would not be difficult to prove. The writer plainly 
 believes in a future judgment. Hitzig (on 11: 9) endeavours to 
 show, that all the judgment which is spoken of there, is the evils 
 which attend old age, or which come upon it. He tacitly ex- 
 tends this same view to the verse now before us ; but he is silent 
 in regard to the matter, in his commentary upon it. I have (in 
 remarks on 11: 9) already examined his views, and found good 
 reason, as it seems to me, to differ from them. 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 § 1. General nature of the book 7 
 
 § 2. Special design and method of the book 10 
 
 § 3. Unity of the book 52 
 
 § 4. Diction of the book 55 
 
 § 5. Who was the author ? 67 
 
 § 6. Credit and general history of the book 79 
 
 § 7. Ancient Versions of Coheleth 85 
 
 [Septuagint, p. 85. — Vulgate, p. 89.— Syriac, p. 91. — Targum, p. 92.] 
 
 § 8. Modern Versions 100 
 
 § 9. Commentators 101 
 
 COMMENTARY. 
 
 § 1. Title and theme of the book, Chap. 1. 1—11 105 
 
 § 2. EiForts to obtain happiness by the acquisition of wisdom, 
 
 1. 12—18 118 
 
 § 3. Efforts to obtain happiness by the pursuit of pleasure, 11. 1—1 1.123 
 § 4. Limited advantages of wisdom ; it exempts not from the 
 
 common lot of suffering and sorrow, 11. 12 — 26 131 
 
 § 5. All depends on Providence. Man cannot change the course 
 
 of things, m. 1—15 143 
 
 § 6. Objections against the idea, that God has made everything 
 
 goodly. III. 16—22 151 
 
 § 7. Obstacles to enjoyment ; toil and frustrated hopes of those 
 
 who seek to be rich and powerful, IV. 1 — 16 163 
 
 § 8. How one should demean himself in present circumstances, 
 
 ly. 17— V. 1—6 • 176 
 
 § 9. Various supplementary reflections, V. 7 — 19 183 
 
300 CONTENTS. 
 
 § 10. Disappointments frequent, both of the wise and foolish ; pro- 
 vidential arrangements cannot be controlled, VI. 1 — 12 . ... 194 
 
 §11. Alleviations of evil; caution as to one's behaviour toward 
 rulers ; many miseries come from our own perversion, 
 Vn. 1—29 205 
 
 § 1 2. Men sin from a variety of causes ; punishment will come, 
 
 sooner or later, VIII. 1—1 7 229 
 
 § 13. Suffering is the common lot ; we should look at the brighter 
 
 side of things, IX. 1—10 243 
 
 § 14. Wisdom sometimes fails to profit ; folly vdW be duly re- 
 warded, IX. 11— X. 20 253 
 
 § 15. Counsel in regard to unavoidable evils ; specially old age 
 
 and death, XI. 1— XII. 8 269 
 
 § 16. Conclusion of the book ; summary of results, XII. 9 — 14 .... 288 
 
 EXCURSUS. 
 
 (1) On the empty pursuit of knowledge 140 
 
 (2) Is future retribution taught in Coheleth ? 153 
 
 (3) Why does Coheleth say no more about a future state ? 202 
 
 (4) Discursiveness of Coheleth in some cases 205 
 
 (5) His peculiar views of women 226 
 
 (6) Remarks on Coheleth's method of argument and state of feeling. 286 
 

 DATE DUE 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 r- Atitfi 
 
 
 
 m'' 
 
 5 Wi 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 GAYLORD 
 
 
 
 PRINTED IN U.S.A. 
 
BS1475.S932 ^ , . , 
 A commentary on Ecclesiastes. 
 
 Princeton Theological Seminary-Speer Library 
 
 1 1012 00050 2072