CHAPTERII.

CHAPTERII.ISAID in mine heart, Go to now, I will prove thee with mirth, therefore enjoy pleasure: and, behold, this alsoisvanity.SAID then I in my heart, Come now, I will try thee with mirth, and so get a sight of a real-good; but see now, this is altogether an evanescent thing. Of laughter, I said Delirium:II.(1.)I said, even I(the personal pronoun is not redundant, it indicates that Koheleth is recording his own experience),in my heart(this formula usually introduces in this book a thought more specious than true),Come now, I will try thee with mirth and see into good(i.e.still addressing his heart, ‘to see a real good;’טובis used in this book as a technical word, likebonumin thesummum bonum);and behold(stating a manifest fact)also this(emphatic, signifying this same mirth) is avanity(an evanescent thing; joy or mirth then is too short-lived to be considered a real good).2 I said of laughter,It ismad: and of mirth, What doeth it?and of mirth, What willthatdo?(2.)To laughter I said, Madness(that which is made mad, see note to chapteri.17), andto pleasure(or mirth),What doth that do?(as this expects the answer No, it is very nearly equivalent to ‘Itdoesnothing.’) (The Syriac reads here(‡ Syriac word), ‘What is the usefulness,’ ‘gratification,’ or ‘delight’? It seems then as if the translators of this version recognised a play upon the wordsמה הולל, ‘what a folly,’ andמהולל, ‘befooled,’——this being one of those equivokes in which Koheleth delights. TheLXX.render verbatim, as is their custom,τὶ τοῦτο ποῖεις; ‘why doest thou this?’ but possibly with the same intention.)Koheleth next tries material enjoyment. The meaning of the following passage has been much disputed; we shall follow the rendering suggested by theLXX., which gives clear and intelligible sense.3 I sought in mine heart¹to give myself unto wine, yet acquainting mine heart with wisdom; and to lay hold on folly, till I might see whatwasthat good for the sons of men, which they should do under the heaven²all the days of their life.¹Hebrewto draw my flesh with wine.²Hebrewthe number of the days of their life.I tried with my heart to allure as wine does one’s flesh (that heart, however, being conducted with wisdom), and so get a hold overfalsewisdom, so that I might see thereby where lies the real good to the children of men, when they are working inthisworld, as the tale of their daily lives. [Accordingly](3.)I investigated with my heart(orinmy heart; but the former makes better sense. His heart was the medium through which the investigation was made. He wanted to see if material enjoyment would satisfy his heart,i.e.the emotional part of his nature)in order to a drawing with wine(theLXX.renderὡς οἶνον, ‘aswine,’ but they probably did not read otherwise than our present text, for thisasrepresents theאתwhich follows)as to my flesh(the meaning of the Hebrew is that he drew or enticed with wine with respect to his flesh, and that hence his object in using the wine was to entice the flesh. The rendering of theLXX.isad sensum, preserving also a rendering of each word),and my heart led(i.e.as a man leads an animal, Psalmlxxx.1, Isaiahxi.6. As ‘heart’ is repeated, we have the meaning ‘that same heart’)with wisdom(because unless he enjoyed wisely he would not enjoy at all)and(repeated inthe same clause, equal therefore to ‘and so’)to lay hold of false wisdom(סכלוּת, occurs chaptersii.3, 12, 13,vii.25,x.1, 13, and is peculiar to this book. TheLXX.renderεὐφροσύνην‘pleasure,’ which, howeverA²alters toἀφροσύνη, ‘folly,’ the reason of which will appear presently. The meaning of the rootסכלis to ‘play,’ or ‘act the fool,’ and in this respect differs fromכסל, which has the idea of ‘stupidity,’ and in the hiphil form, ‘made stupid,’ or ‘befooled.’ In all the ten places in which the rootסכלoccurs in other parts of Scripture, we find the meaning of elaborateness and subtilty as well as folly; compare 1 Samuelxiii.13, Saul’s burnt-offering in the absence of Samuel; 2 Samuelxxiv.10; 1 Chroniclesxxi.8, David’s numbering the people; 2 Chroniclesxvi.9, Asa’s reliance on Syria; 2 Samuelxv.31, Ahithophel’s counsel; similarly Isaiahxliv.25, where knowledge is said to be misused; so alsoסָכָל, occurs Jeremiahiv.22,v.21, has evidently the same shade of meaning. It is hard to find a single word which will render it; ‘foolish wisdom’ or ‘clever follies’ are the best combinations that occur. It will be seen also, in referring to the lexicon, that theLXX., who translate byεὐφροσύνη, apparently use the word occasionally in a sinister aspect, see Proverbsxxx.32,Siraxiii.8. The Syriac here reads(‡ Syriac word)(seei.17), ‘prudence,’ ‘intelligence,’ contrary to its interpretation in other places. On the whole, however, it is not difficult to see why theLXX.rendered as they did. That this pleasure was of a bad kind, or deceptive, the sequel shows, but it may be doubted whether their rendering preserved the meaning ofסכ״, even if, which is not impossible, they themselves understood it).Until Ishouldsee where(in the sense of whereabouts, see 1 Samuelix.8) isthis good to the sons of Adam, which(full relative, referring back to the whole idea, equivalent therefore to ‘whatgoodit is which’)they do under the sun the number of the days of their lives(this phrase occurs chapterii.3,v.18 (17),vi.12, as ‘the tale,’ or ‘account of the days,’ of their lives; an additional limitation to the words ‘under the sun’). In making this experiment he began toworkandtoilmore than ever.4 I made me great works; I builded me houses; I planted me vineyards:I increased my works.(1.) I built formyselfhouses.(2.) I planted formyselfvineyards.(4.)I increased my work, I built for myself(this emphatic ‘myself’ occurs eight times in the passage, and is therefore its key-word)houses, I planted for myself vineyards.5 I made me gardens and orchards, and I planted trees in them of allkind offruits:(3.) I made formyselfgardens and parks, and planted in them fruit-trees of every kind.(5.)I made for myself gardens and parks, and planted in them trees of every kind of fruit.It should have been mentioned thatפרדסis also considered to afford an indication of late composition. It is said to be a Persian word; it occurs, however, Nehemiahii.8;Canticlesiv.10. The word admits of Semitic derivation, fromפרד, ‘to divide,’ ‘cut off in portions,’ ‘lay out.’ If it be really an exotic, no date of introduction is more probable than that of Solomon. It is also to be noted that in the context itfollowsthe word ‘gardens,’ which is quite natural if it were intended to denote a foreign luxury recently introduced.6 I made me pools of water, to water therewith the wood that bringeth forth trees:(4.) I made formyselfreservoirs with which to irrigate meadows and growing copses.(6.)I made for myself pools of water to irrigate from them the meadows shooting forth trees.(This, which contains ‘for myself’fourtimes, the firsthalfof the seven, consists of an enumeration of immoveable objects, or what the law calls real property, the others which follow are moveables or personal.)7 I gotmeservants and maidens, and had¹servants born in my house; also I had great possessions of great and small cattle above all that were in Jerusalem before me:¹Hebrewsons of my house.(5.) I purchased slaves and maidens, and had formyselfhome-born servants, besides herds of great and small cattle, more numerous than any of my predecessors in Jerusalem.(7.)I obtained slaves and maidens, and sons of my house(home-born slaves, that is)werebelonging tomyself, besides possessions of herd and flock; manysuch were belongingto myself; more than all who were before me in Jerusalem.8 I gathered me also silver and gold, and the peculiar treasure of kings and of the provinces: I gat me men-singers and women-singers, and the delights of the sons of men,as¹musical instruments, and that of all sorts.¹Hebrewmusical instruments and instruments.(6.) I procured formyselfsilver and gold and precious objects of every kingdom and province.(7.) I obtained formyselfmen-singers and women-singers, every delight that man can enjoy, to the very ecstasy of ravishment.(8.)I gathered for myself, moreover, silver and gold, and the peculiar treasure of kings and the provinces. I made for myself(i.e.procured)men-singers and women-singers, the delights of the sons of men, outpouring and outpourers.(The different meanings given to these two last words,שדה ושדות, which occur here only, are various, scarcely a commentary or version agreeing. TheLXX.translate a ‘butler’ and ‘female cup-bearers,’ the Vulgate ‘pitchers and vases,’ Ginsburg ‘a concubine and concubines’; but the most probable etymology seems to give the idea of ‘overflowing’ to the word in some sense or other. It is possible then to take the words generally, and interpret them as referring to the overflow, not only of the generous wines, but of all the delights of which wine is a type, as in the words ‘The feast of reason and the flow of soul,’ or like Milton’s——‘Did ever mortal mixture of earth’s mouldBreathe such divine enchanting ravishment?’The arrangement of these different objects of pleasure is somewhat artificial, as will be seen on examining the grouping.)9 So I was great, and increased more than all that were before me in Jerusalem: also my wisdom remained with me.So I was great and increased more than all that were ever before me in Jerusalem, yet notwithstanding my wisdom remained fast withmyself,(9.)And I was great(rightly the Authorized Version,‘so,’ referring back to verse 4)and increased more than all(allnow becomes the key-word, which occurs seven times)which was(singular, giving the sense than ‘any was’)before me in Jerusalem; also(אף, affirms strongly, see Jobiv.19, ‘but beside,’ for without this provision of a wise enjoyment the experiment was necessarily a failure:)my wisdom remained(i.e.stood; it is usual to say thatעמדהis feminine to agree withחכמה; perhaps it would be equally correct to say that it was an instance of two abstract ideas in apposition, giving the sense ‘was still a thing standing’)with myself(emphatic, and the eighth repetition of this word).10 And whatsoever mine eyes desired I kept not from them, I withheld not my heart from any joy; for my heart rejoiced in all my labour: and this was my portion of all my labour.andallmy eyes desired I kept not from them, nor did I deny my heart even one ofallits joys: for this heart of mine did rejoice in my toils, and this was what I procured forallmy toil.(10.)And all which asked mine eyes I did not restrain(or keep back; see Genesisxxvii.36, Numbersxi.17, for the meaning, the only other instances where it occurs in Kal.)from them(emphatic),I did not deny my heart from all rejoicing, for my heart rejoiced from all my toil(i.e.there was a certain kind of pleasure derived from doing all this),and this was my portion(‘lot’ or ‘inheritance’ from all my toil; equal to our ‘this was all I obtained for my pains’).11 Then I looked on all the works that my hands had wrought, and on the labour that I had laboured to do: and, behold, allwasvanity and vexation of spirit, andthere wasno profit under the sun.So I turned to look onallmy work my hand had wrought, andallmy toil which I had moiled and done, and lo! thatALLwas——evanescent, and vexation of spirit, and nothing of profit in this hot work-day world.(11.)I turned myself(פנהdiffers fromסבב; the former is ‘to turn round in order to look,’ the latter is to ‘go round in order to do.’ The distinction is not without importance)in all my works which worked my hands, and in my toil which I had toiled to work(notice the occurrence of these words——work, work, toil, toil),and behold(a manifest and indisputable conclusion)the whole was vanity and vexation of spirit, and there was nothing of profit(i.e.over and above the slight amount of present pleasure which he obtained)under the sun.(It is especially worthy of remark that while Koheleth found some small pleasureinwork, he found nonefromit. Take, oh men, to your curse kindly, but a curse it is!)12 ¶ And I turned myself to behold wisdom, and madness, and folly: for whatcanthe mandothat cometh after the king?¹eventhat which hath been already done.¹Or, in those things which have been already done.Then I turned myself again to perceive wisdom in regard to [its power of detecting]falsehopes andfalseprudence, for how is any man to enter upon the results of that plan which he may have made beforehand?(12.)And I turned(this coming immediately after a similar expression, verse 11, rises into emphasis; it equals our ‘again I turned’),I myself(emphatic, it was, as above, a personal experience),to see wisdom and self-deceptions and also false successes(the meaning of this passage most probably is, that Koheleth desired to see wisdom in conjunction with those two kinds of folly which he denotes respectively byהוללות, false expectations or hopes, see chapteri.17, andסכלות, false wisdom, that kind of folly which is so either through ignorance or sin, but has to all appearance the semblance of wisdom, see chapterii.3. If he could succeed in accomplishing this, he might by his wisdom avoid the mistakes into which men fall).For(this must introduce a reason)what?(Genesisxx.10,מָה, Genesisiv.10,מֶה, both forms being similar in use) isthe man(with the article; generic therefore, and equivalent to ‘what is the man?’)who enters(but as this is the contracted relative, it is equivalent to ‘that he should enter’)after(but the word is strictly speaking a noun plural in regimen, and means ‘that which comes after,’ ‘the sequel of’)the king(this theLXX.render byβουλῆς, the reasons of which we will discuss presently).With respect to which(for theאתis emphatic, hence some of the recensions of theLXX.readσὺν τὰ ὅσα)the present(the present state of things,כברin its usual meaning, which it has everywhere in Ecclesiastes, see chapteri.10)they make itעשבהו, third person plural with the affix, which theLXX.refer back toהמלך. The meaning of this passage has been much disputed, and our difficulties are not diminished by the very strange rendering of theLXX., which is usually dismissed by commentators as erroneous; an explanation, however, of this rendering will probably clear up the difficulty. We must first notice the corrupt state of the present text of theLXX.The Alexandrine readsὅτι τίς ἄνθρωπος ἐπελεύσεται ὀπίσω τῆς βουλῆς τὰ ὅσα ἐποίησαν αὐτήν;E.X.readπάντα ὅσα;F.X.σὺν τὰ ὅσα;B.X.ἐποίησεν; andX.αὐτή; Aquila readsὃς ἐπιλεύσεται ὀπίσω τοῦ βασιλέως; Symmachus,τί δὲ ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἵνα παρακολουθήση βουλῇ; Theodotion,ὃς ἐλεύσεται ὀπίσω τοῦ βασιλέως; but, as Field remarks (Hexapla,p.384), it is doubtful whether the Syriac text reads(‡ Syriac word), ‘king,’ or(‡ Syriac word), ‘counsel.’ In the same way, Theodotion readsσὺν τὰ ὅσα ἐποίησαν αὐτήν.We must observe that all these versions, without exception, omit to noticeכבר, which everywhere else is noted byἤδη, being content withτὰ ὅσαorσὺν τὰ ὅσα. The explanation of these difficulties seems to be thatהמלךwas probably intended to be equivocal. It is, to say the least, not impossible that it had, even in Solomon’s time, the meaning of ‘counsel,’ which attaches to it as a usual signification in Aramaic; if so,המלךmeansthecounsel, and of course has the idea of rule as well. Castell gives as the meaning of(‡ Syriac word), ‘Intellectum, Consilium dedit,’ vel ‘inivit,’ ‘Consultavit,’ ‘Promisit,’ ‘Pollicitus est;’ thus we mustunderstand it to mean, ‘plans formed and intended to be carried out.’ The question then which Koheleth asks is this, ‘Who is the man who will enter upon——as we say,carry out——his plans with respect to that which in the present moment he makes them or devises them;’ in other words, can he carry out what he now devises, and cananyman do this out of the number of human creatures who make these plans? This is the reason of the distributive plural which the best recensions of theLXX.preserve. The equivoke involved in the meaning ‘king’ is obvious. Koheleth himself is, of course,theking: could any one do better than he? It must be allowed that this meaning makes excellent sense with the context, and violates no Hebrew grammar. If, however, I have failed in giving a real interpretation of this most difficult passage, I may be excused a conjecture which is as plausible as many that have been advanced on this point. The corruptions of the old versions may be explained by the fact that the equivoke was lost so soon as readers ceased to have the Hebrew text before them, and hence the attempt to better their text. This most obscure passage may perhaps receive some light from a further discussion of the wordכברand other forms derived from the same root. The feminine or abstract occurs Genesisxxxv.16,xlviii.7, and 2 Kingsv.19, joined withארץ, rendered in the Authorized Version a ‘little’ way. The verb occurs in hiphil, Jobxxxv.16,xxxvi.31, translated ‘multiplied,’ ‘in abundance;’ and in the hiphil form, with the characteristicjud̄inserted——Jobviii.2,xv.10,etc.; Isaiahx.13,xvii.12,etc.——in the sense of ‘full of years,’ ‘overflowing,’ and the like. A diligent comparison of these meanings shows that ‘fulness,’ in the sense of ‘completeness,’ must be the root-meaning; and hence, when applied to time, theLXX.renderἤδη, ‘already.’ With this meaning agree also the Arabic and Syriac, see Fuerst, Lexicon,s. voc. The meaning then of the word is, the ‘completepresent.’ With regard to the use of the rootמלךin the sense of counsel, it occurs once in Hebrew,viz.Nehemiahv.7, and once in biblical Chaldee, Danieliv.27 (24). This meaning is common, as remarked in the note, in Aramaic. The fair inference from this is, that the root-meaning of the Hebrew word is ‘to counsel,’ just as the root-meaning of the word Apostle is ‘one sent.’ These senses are just what the context requires. Koheleth turns round to see wisdom in comparison with, or contradistinction to, false hopes and false prudence, and asks how the man, that is, humanity, can tell the one from the other. His words are ‘what is,’ not ‘whois the man,’etc., equivalent to——‘in what way can humanity enter upon the results of the counsel,’ ‘or the king,’——the equivoke being, we believe, intentional, and the contracted relative giving a conditional turn to the sentence——‘with respect to that which at present he performs it.’ It would have been better if the wordwithhad been printed in the notes with a small letter, as the division hardly amounts to a period, though the connexion is not close. The suffix of the verb refers back through the relative pronoun to counsel, and might be well rendered into English thus——‘In respect of which he at present takes that counsel.’ TheLXX., contrary to their custom, omitἤδη, because it is perhaps sufficiently included inἐπελεύσεται, or becauseτὰ ὅσα ἤδη ἐποίησαν αὐτήνwould not have been intelligible. It is evident this all squares with the context. Koheleth, as Solomon, discovered that with all his wisdom he could not practically discern the difference between this true wisdom and that false prudence which led him to accumulate only to be disappointed in his successor.13 Then I saw¹that wisdom excelleth folly, as far as light excelleth darkness.¹Hebrewthat there is an excellency in wisdom more than in folly,etc.Now, I have myself perceived that there must be a profit to wisdom over false prudence as great as the profit of light over darkness.(13.)And I have seen, Ihave (with the emphatic I again, as a personal experience)that there is(i.e.that there really is),a profit to wisdom above folly(these sameelaboratemistakes which look so like wisdom)as the profit of the light above the darkness. (Here profit is repeated, hence the meaning is ‘as great as the profit of light above darkness.’)The wise, his eyes are in his head, but the fool(i.e.the ‘deceived fool’——notice the hiphil form——equivalent to the befooled, but not necessarily by others——by himself also)in darkness walks(hence a wise man ought to be as much better off than a fool as a sighted man is better than one blind, but experience does not confirm this conclusion);and I know also, I(emphatic),that the hap(i.e.the result or what occurs)is one happening(present here as opposed to participial noun)to all of them(i.e.both wise and fools alike——equivalent in our idiom, ‘precisely the same result occurs to all’).14 The wise man’s eyesarein his head; but the fool walketh in darkness: and I myself perceived also that one event happeneth to them all.15 Then said I in my heart, As it happeneth to the fool, so it¹happeneth even to me; and why was I then more wise? Then I said in my heart, that this alsoisvanity.¹Hebrewhappeneth to me, even to me.The wise has eyes in his head, the befooled is wandering in the dark; yet I know, as the result of my own experience, that the event to which both attain is just alike, so I reasoned with myself thus: Exactly the same event as happens to one befooled has happened to me, and therefore why should I make myself wise? Then besides! Why, I said in my heart, even this is an instance of evanescence,(14, 15.)And I said, I did, in my heart(it was not a right thing to say, but, as we have already noticed, this formula introduces a suggestion more specious than true),Like the hap of the befooled, so have I happened me(i.e.made my own hap or result),and why did I make myself wise then in addition?(The Masorets accent so as to make this the main division of the verse, and consider these three last words to belong to what precedes. TheLXX., on the contrary——which adds a gloss afterκαρδίᾳ μοῦ (διότι ἄφρων ἐκ περισσεύματος λαλεῖ), ‘for the fool speaketh abundantly,’ which is an ancient one, for the Syriac has it also, and varies much in its different recensions——considers them to belong to the following verse. It is difficult on this account to come to a conclusion which is correct, theLXX.or the Masorets; the more that the Masorets themselves hesitate betweenיתרandיותר. On the whole, one would incline to the following explanation:——takeיֶתֶרin its ordinary acceptation, ‘the rest,’ the meaning would thus be ‘then the rest,’ or ‘what results is;’ and suppose the pointingיֹתֵר, a conjecture subsequently strengthened by writingיותר);and I said(it was possibly this difficultו, ‘and,’ which gave rise to the Masoretic conjecture——theLXX.take no notice of it; it is equivalent to ‘whyI said’)that this(the contracted relative withגםoccurs only chapteri.17,ii.15,viii.14, and has a tone of surprise and disappointment, giving the sense apparently that ‘eventhiswisdom itself! is’)a vanity(or an instance of evanescence or transitoriness).16 Forthere isno remembrance of the wise more than of the fool for ever; seeing that which nowisin the days to come shall all be forgotten. And how dieth the wiseman? as the fool.because there is no remembrance of the wise or the befooled either, in the future; because as time goes on the present will be forgotten, and fool and wise will perish alike together.(16.)For(an expansion of the above argument, and a corroboration of the conclusion)there is nothingofremembrance to a wise(person or thing indefinitely)with the fool(but the hiphil form is to be noted, as also the article, the befooled, generically, for a wise action perishes from remembrance amidst the class of fools)to the age(i.e.so far as the indefinite future is concerned)by which present(i.e.in the present of that future age or æon it will so happen that) duringthe days, the going ones(meaning, of course, the days as they are passing, or, as we say, ‘in the lapse of time’)the whole(the whole of these wise lives and works)is forgotten(niphal, ‘becomes a forgotten thing’)and how then dies the wise? with the fool(i.e.both perish together).17 Therefore I hated life; because the work that is wrought under the sunisgrievous unto me: for allisvanity and vexation of spirit.I was even disgusted with respect to life itself: for an evil tomeis the work at which I toil in this hot work-day world, since the whole is evanescent, and vexation of spirit.(17.)Then hated I, with respect to the lives(an emphaticאת, which theLXX.note by the adverbialσὺν, and meaning not exactly that he hated his own life, as that he felt a disgust with respect to life generally),because an evil to me(emphatic withעל, giving the notion of pressing upon)the work which I worked under the sun, because(כיfollowing in a sentence withכיat the commencement; this particle thus doubled I believe to be often nearly equivalent to our ‘for,’ ‘as,’)the whole is vanity and vexation of spirit.18 ¶ Yea, I hated all my labour which I had taken under the sun: because I should leave it unto the man that shall be after me.I for my part was disgusted with all my toil that I had moiled at it, in this work-day world, because I shall leave it to the man that succeeds me,(18.)I hated then, I myself(emphaticpronoun, because again we have Koheleth’s personal experience, as we should say, ‘I was disgusted’),with respect to all my toil which I(again strongly personal, meaning so far as it wasmytoil)had toiled at under the sun that I should leave it(close relative qualifying the verb, and giving the idea that the grievance was that he would have to leave this work)to a man(i.e.some man as a human person)which will be after me.19 And who knoweth whether he shall be a wisemanor a fool? yet shall he have rule over all my labour wherein I have laboured, and wherein I have shewed myself wise under the sun. Thisisalso vanity.and no one knows whether he will be wise or foolishly clever, and yet he will have power over all my toil at which I have moiled, and done so wisely in this hot work-day world: another instance this of evanescence.(19.)And who knows(equivalent to ‘no-body does know’) whetherthe wise(with the article, meaning one who belongs to this class, and who will really act wisely)or a fool?(סכל——that is, a wisely-foolish person, one whose wisdom will prove a mistake according to the meaning of this word, seechapterii.3, references.; and will use this power provided to his hand either amiss, or so as to defeat the end the wise man had in view)and he has power(שלט, a favourite word of Koheleth’s; the exact meaning of this term may be found in Psalmcxix.130)in all my toil which I have toiled at, and which also I have made myself wise in(i.e.spent my pains wisely in)under the sun: besides this is vanity(or, as we should say, ‘moreover this is another instance of vanity or evanescence’).20 Therefore I went about to cause my heart to despair of all the labour which I took under the sun.So then I came round to the conclusion that I must bid farewell to any hope of satisfaction from anything I had toiled at in this work-day world;(20.)I turned round then, I myself, to cause to despair with respect to my heart(יאש, occurs 1 Samuelxxvii.1, where the word is used of Saul giving up the search for David in despair)over the toil which I toiled at under the sun.21 For there is a man whose labourisin wisdom, and in knowledge, and in equity; yet to a man that hath not laboured therein shall he leave itforhis portion. This alsoisvanity and a great evil.because it amounts to this: man, even when he toils wisely, prudently, and successfully, does so for some individual who has not toiled at all, and gives it to him to possess: an instance of evanescence, and very evil.(21.)For it is(this exists as the real state of the case)man(i.e.one specimen of humanity——this is what humanity is really doing)which he toils(= whois, or may be, labouring)with wisdom, and with knowledge, and with success(כשרון, occurs chapterii.21,iv.4,v.11, the root occurs Estherviii.5, chapterxi.6,x.10; it is a technical word——a ‘successful issue’ is the meaning; compare the passages. TheLXX.render byἀνδρείᾳ, ‘bravery,’ which is not a bad rendering, since it appearsfrom the above that this success was but temporary),and to a man whohasnot(emphatic; the contracted relative joined with the negative shows that hisnotdoing this is the point)toiled(i.e.taken any trouble)in it(emphatic, = ‘in that same’)he will give itashis portion; also this isavanityandan evilwhich isgreat. (There is a strange sarcastic tone given by the affix in the verb following the emphatic pronoun, ‘to one who has not toiled initat all will he give that same.’)22 For what hath man of all his labour, and of the vexation of his heart, wherein he hath laboured under the sun?For what comes to a man through all his toil and vexing his heart, which he himself toils at within this work-day world?(22.)For what is there(הוה, a peculiar form; but is it not possible that this word has been chosen for the sake of the equivoke?הַוָּה, ‘calamity,’ ‘perverseness,’ Jobvi.2, Micahvii.3, and which makes most pungent and admirable sense)to a man in all his toil, and in vexing(רעיון, notרעות; compare chapteri.18)his heart which hehimselftoilsatunder the sun?23 For all his daysaresorrows, and his travail grief; yea, his heart taketh not rest in the night. This is also vanity.Why, every day he spends is a trouble, and disappointment the result of his anxiety, so that even at night his heart gets no rest. So then this is an instance of evanescence itself.(23.)For(asכיis repeated, it becomes emphatic, ‘for now’)all his days are causing him pain(or painful——notice the force of theמ־)and disappointment his anxiety, (a pregnant sentence, denoting more than his anxiety disappoints, his anxiety is always painful and useless too)also at night does not rest(this clause is an additional proof that we have correctly determined the meaning of♦ענין; it is anxiety which causes wakefulness) evenhis heart. Moreover this a vanity it is(emphatic; so the meaning is, ‘this thenis indeedan instance of evanescence’).♦“עגין” replaced with “ענין”24 ¶There isnothing better for a man,thanthat he should eat and drink, andthathe should make his soul enjoy good in his labour. This also I saw, that itwasfrom the hand of God.There is no real good then to man in eating or drinking, or in supposing he will satisfy himself with his toil. Moreover, I must make this observation, that these things are all in the hand of the Almighty,(24.) The conclusion of this argument now follows,viz.:——This toil is useless, and the reasoning is set out at length.There is nothingof agood(notלאhere, butאין, the former would be required if the meaning were ‘it is not good that’)in a man(i.e.as an instance of humanity, and the whole isequivalent to ‘It is not to humanity real good that’)that he should eat and drink, and show his soul(i.e.himself)good(repeated, ‘that good’)in his toil. Moreover this(pointedזהֹ, feminine orneuter, which theLXX.confirm,τοῦτο)have I seen,evenI, now fromthehand(but ‘the’ is not emphatic at all, which would have required a different construction) ofthe Deity(on the contrary, ‘the’ is emphatic here, and, as will appear, the use of the article is significant)it is(emphatic).25 For who can eat, or who else can hastenhereunto, more than I?for who could eat or even drink apart from Him?(25.)For(repeated)who eats or whoevendrinks(because drinking is possible when eating is not)apart from him?(for we read with theLXX.חוץ ממנו, for clearly this makes good sense, and preserves the real meaning ofחוץ, which has the signification of ‘without,’ ‘on the outside,’ Genesisvi.14, Deuteronomyxxv.5, references.) The phraseומי יחוש חוץ ממניrequires further elucidation. The readingממנו, supported by theLXX., is also confirmed by HebrewMSS.The literal rendering is——‘and who hastens outside him.’ This theLXX.translateκαὶ τίς πιέται πάρεξ αὐτοῦ, ‘who drinks,’etc.There is a reading ofA²,φείσεται, ‘spares.’ The former is supported by Peshito, Arabic, and Theodotion——the latter by Aquila, Symmachus, and Jerome. If the Greek text alone had to be considered,φείσεταιwould, as the harder reading, be entitled to the preference. It is readily seen, however, that it arose from a conjectural alteration of the Hebrew text intoחוס, for which there is no authority; neither will the meaning to ‘spare’ make any sense in the context. As the root occurs frequently, we are driven to the conclusion that the rendering of theLXX.was by design. Schleusner’s conjecture thatπίεταιis used in the signification of ‘sensibus frui,’ is no doubt correct——compare Habakkuki.8, as also Isaiahxxviii.16. Considered asad sensum, this rendering gives the idea of the Hebrew text correctly.26 ForGodgiveth to a man thatisgood in his sight wisdom, and knowledge, and joy: but to the sinner he giveth travail, to gather and to heap up, that he may give tohim thatis good before God. This alsoisvanity and vexation of spirit.and so to man just as is right in His sight He gives wisdom and knowledge and gladness, but to the transgressor He gives the anxiety of accumulating and collecting what is to be granted to any, as also is good in the sight of God. So this is another instance of evanescence and vexation of spirit.(26.)For(repeated again, so that this word becomes emphatic and prominent. Accordinglyfourreasons follow, comprising as it were the whole cycle of the argument)to a man(still generic, as a specimen of the human race)which is good before him(not altogether with the meaning ‘a good man,’ but as ‘God thinks good’)He gives wisdom,andknowledge, and joy; but to the sinner(i.e.theerringsinner)he gives, on the other hand,anxious-travail to collect and to gather(♦כנס, occurs chapterii.8, 26,iii.5; the meaning is ‘to collect piece by piece;’ see also Psalmxxxiii.7, 1 Chroniclesxxii.2),to give it to the goodinthe sight of God(i.e.as God sees fit it should be given);so this also is vanity and vexation of spirit.♦“כנם” replaced with “כנס”Thus, then, the first part of the argument is completed. Man obtains nothing by his labour. It is the gift of a mysterious and inscrutable Providence which alone confers any happiness or gratification.

ISAID in mine heart, Go to now, I will prove thee with mirth, therefore enjoy pleasure: and, behold, this alsoisvanity.

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

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

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

and of mirth, What willthatdo?

(2.)To laughter I said, Madness(that which is made mad, see note to chapteri.17), andto pleasure(or mirth),What doth that do?(as this expects the answer No, it is very nearly equivalent to ‘Itdoesnothing.’) (The Syriac reads here(‡ Syriac word), ‘What is the usefulness,’ ‘gratification,’ or ‘delight’? It seems then as if the translators of this version recognised a play upon the wordsמה הולל, ‘what a folly,’ andמהולל, ‘befooled,’——this being one of those equivokes in which Koheleth delights. TheLXX.render verbatim, as is their custom,τὶ τοῦτο ποῖεις; ‘why doest thou this?’ but possibly with the same intention.)Koheleth next tries material enjoyment. The meaning of the following passage has been much disputed; we shall follow the rendering suggested by theLXX., which gives clear and intelligible sense.

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

3 I sought in mine heart¹to give myself unto wine, yet acquainting mine heart with wisdom; and to lay hold on folly, till I might see whatwasthat good for the sons of men, which they should do under the heaven²all the days of their life.¹Hebrewto draw my flesh with wine.²Hebrewthe number of the days of their life.

¹Hebrewto draw my flesh with wine.²Hebrewthe number of the days of their life.

¹Hebrewto draw my flesh with wine.

²Hebrewthe number of the days of their life.

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

(3.)I investigated with my heart(orinmy heart; but the former makes better sense. His heart was the medium through which the investigation was made. He wanted to see if material enjoyment would satisfy his heart,i.e.the emotional part of his nature)in order to a drawing with wine(theLXX.renderὡς οἶνον, ‘aswine,’ but they probably did not read otherwise than our present text, for thisasrepresents theאתwhich follows)as to my flesh(the meaning of the Hebrew is that he drew or enticed with wine with respect to his flesh, and that hence his object in using the wine was to entice the flesh. The rendering of theLXX.isad sensum, preserving also a rendering of each word),and my heart led(i.e.as a man leads an animal, Psalmlxxx.1, Isaiahxi.6. As ‘heart’ is repeated, we have the meaning ‘that same heart’)with wisdom(because unless he enjoyed wisely he would not enjoy at all)and(repeated inthe same clause, equal therefore to ‘and so’)to lay hold of false wisdom(סכלוּת, occurs chaptersii.3, 12, 13,vii.25,x.1, 13, and is peculiar to this book. TheLXX.renderεὐφροσύνην‘pleasure,’ which, howeverA²alters toἀφροσύνη, ‘folly,’ the reason of which will appear presently. The meaning of the rootסכלis to ‘play,’ or ‘act the fool,’ and in this respect differs fromכסל, which has the idea of ‘stupidity,’ and in the hiphil form, ‘made stupid,’ or ‘befooled.’ In all the ten places in which the rootסכלoccurs in other parts of Scripture, we find the meaning of elaborateness and subtilty as well as folly; compare 1 Samuelxiii.13, Saul’s burnt-offering in the absence of Samuel; 2 Samuelxxiv.10; 1 Chroniclesxxi.8, David’s numbering the people; 2 Chroniclesxvi.9, Asa’s reliance on Syria; 2 Samuelxv.31, Ahithophel’s counsel; similarly Isaiahxliv.25, where knowledge is said to be misused; so alsoסָכָל, occurs Jeremiahiv.22,v.21, has evidently the same shade of meaning. It is hard to find a single word which will render it; ‘foolish wisdom’ or ‘clever follies’ are the best combinations that occur. It will be seen also, in referring to the lexicon, that theLXX., who translate byεὐφροσύνη, apparently use the word occasionally in a sinister aspect, see Proverbsxxx.32,Siraxiii.8. The Syriac here reads(‡ Syriac word)(seei.17), ‘prudence,’ ‘intelligence,’ contrary to its interpretation in other places. On the whole, however, it is not difficult to see why theLXX.rendered as they did. That this pleasure was of a bad kind, or deceptive, the sequel shows, but it may be doubted whether their rendering preserved the meaning ofסכ״, even if, which is not impossible, they themselves understood it).Until Ishouldsee where(in the sense of whereabouts, see 1 Samuelix.8) isthis good to the sons of Adam, which(full relative, referring back to the whole idea, equivalent therefore to ‘whatgoodit is which’)they do under the sun the number of the days of their lives(this phrase occurs chapterii.3,v.18 (17),vi.12, as ‘the tale,’ or ‘account of the days,’ of their lives; an additional limitation to the words ‘under the sun’). In making this experiment he began toworkandtoilmore than ever.

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

I increased my works.(1.) I built formyselfhouses.(2.) I planted formyselfvineyards.

I increased my works.

(1.) I built formyselfhouses.

(2.) I planted formyselfvineyards.

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

5 I made me gardens and orchards, and I planted trees in them of allkind offruits:

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

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

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

(4.) I made formyselfreservoirs with which to irrigate meadows and growing copses.

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

7 I gotmeservants and maidens, and had¹servants born in my house; also I had great possessions of great and small cattle above all that were in Jerusalem before me:¹Hebrewsons of my house.

7 I gotmeservants and maidens, and had¹servants born in my house; also I had great possessions of great and small cattle above all that were in Jerusalem before me:

¹Hebrewsons of my house.

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

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

8 I gathered me also silver and gold, and the peculiar treasure of kings and of the provinces: I gat me men-singers and women-singers, and the delights of the sons of men,as¹musical instruments, and that of all sorts.¹Hebrewmusical instruments and instruments.

¹Hebrewmusical instruments and instruments.

(6.) I procured formyselfsilver and gold and precious objects of every kingdom and province.(7.) I obtained formyselfmen-singers and women-singers, every delight that man can enjoy, to the very ecstasy of ravishment.

(6.) I procured formyselfsilver and gold and precious objects of every kingdom and province.

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

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

‘Did ever mortal mixture of earth’s mouldBreathe such divine enchanting ravishment?’

‘Did ever mortal mixture of earth’s mould

Breathe such divine enchanting ravishment?’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

11 Then I looked on all the works that my hands had wrought, and on the labour that I had laboured to do: and, behold, allwasvanity and vexation of spirit, andthere wasno profit under the sun.

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

(11.)I turned myself(פנהdiffers fromסבב; the former is ‘to turn round in order to look,’ the latter is to ‘go round in order to do.’ The distinction is not without importance)in all my works which worked my hands, and in my toil which I had toiled to work(notice the occurrence of these words——work, work, toil, toil),and behold(a manifest and indisputable conclusion)the whole was vanity and vexation of spirit, and there was nothing of profit(i.e.over and above the slight amount of present pleasure which he obtained)under the sun.(It is especially worthy of remark that while Koheleth found some small pleasureinwork, he found nonefromit. Take, oh men, to your curse kindly, but a curse it is!)

12 ¶ And I turned myself to behold wisdom, and madness, and folly: for whatcanthe mandothat cometh after the king?¹eventhat which hath been already done.¹Or, in those things which have been already done.

12 ¶ And I turned myself to behold wisdom, and madness, and folly: for whatcanthe mandothat cometh after the king?¹eventhat which hath been already done.

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

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

(12.)And I turned(this coming immediately after a similar expression, verse 11, rises into emphasis; it equals our ‘again I turned’),I myself(emphatic, it was, as above, a personal experience),to see wisdom and self-deceptions and also false successes(the meaning of this passage most probably is, that Koheleth desired to see wisdom in conjunction with those two kinds of folly which he denotes respectively byהוללות, false expectations or hopes, see chapteri.17, andסכלות, false wisdom, that kind of folly which is so either through ignorance or sin, but has to all appearance the semblance of wisdom, see chapterii.3. If he could succeed in accomplishing this, he might by his wisdom avoid the mistakes into which men fall).For(this must introduce a reason)what?(Genesisxx.10,מָה, Genesisiv.10,מֶה, both forms being similar in use) isthe man(with the article; generic therefore, and equivalent to ‘what is the man?’)who enters(but as this is the contracted relative, it is equivalent to ‘that he should enter’)after(but the word is strictly speaking a noun plural in regimen, and means ‘that which comes after,’ ‘the sequel of’)the king(this theLXX.render byβουλῆς, the reasons of which we will discuss presently).With respect to which(for theאתis emphatic, hence some of the recensions of theLXX.readσὺν τὰ ὅσα)the present(the present state of things,כברin its usual meaning, which it has everywhere in Ecclesiastes, see chapteri.10)they make itעשבהו, third person plural with the affix, which theLXX.refer back toהמלך. The meaning of this passage has been much disputed, and our difficulties are not diminished by the very strange rendering of theLXX., which is usually dismissed by commentators as erroneous; an explanation, however, of this rendering will probably clear up the difficulty. We must first notice the corrupt state of the present text of theLXX.The Alexandrine readsὅτι τίς ἄνθρωπος ἐπελεύσεται ὀπίσω τῆς βουλῆς τὰ ὅσα ἐποίησαν αὐτήν;E.X.readπάντα ὅσα;F.X.σὺν τὰ ὅσα;B.X.ἐποίησεν; andX.αὐτή; Aquila readsὃς ἐπιλεύσεται ὀπίσω τοῦ βασιλέως; Symmachus,τί δὲ ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἵνα παρακολουθήση βουλῇ; Theodotion,ὃς ἐλεύσεται ὀπίσω τοῦ βασιλέως; but, as Field remarks (Hexapla,p.384), it is doubtful whether the Syriac text reads(‡ Syriac word), ‘king,’ or(‡ Syriac word), ‘counsel.’ In the same way, Theodotion readsσὺν τὰ ὅσα ἐποίησαν αὐτήν.We must observe that all these versions, without exception, omit to noticeכבר, which everywhere else is noted byἤδη, being content withτὰ ὅσαorσὺν τὰ ὅσα. The explanation of these difficulties seems to be thatהמלךwas probably intended to be equivocal. It is, to say the least, not impossible that it had, even in Solomon’s time, the meaning of ‘counsel,’ which attaches to it as a usual signification in Aramaic; if so,המלךmeansthecounsel, and of course has the idea of rule as well. Castell gives as the meaning of(‡ Syriac word), ‘Intellectum, Consilium dedit,’ vel ‘inivit,’ ‘Consultavit,’ ‘Promisit,’ ‘Pollicitus est;’ thus we mustunderstand it to mean, ‘plans formed and intended to be carried out.’ The question then which Koheleth asks is this, ‘Who is the man who will enter upon——as we say,carry out——his plans with respect to that which in the present moment he makes them or devises them;’ in other words, can he carry out what he now devises, and cananyman do this out of the number of human creatures who make these plans? This is the reason of the distributive plural which the best recensions of theLXX.preserve. The equivoke involved in the meaning ‘king’ is obvious. Koheleth himself is, of course,theking: could any one do better than he? It must be allowed that this meaning makes excellent sense with the context, and violates no Hebrew grammar. If, however, I have failed in giving a real interpretation of this most difficult passage, I may be excused a conjecture which is as plausible as many that have been advanced on this point. The corruptions of the old versions may be explained by the fact that the equivoke was lost so soon as readers ceased to have the Hebrew text before them, and hence the attempt to better their text. This most obscure passage may perhaps receive some light from a further discussion of the wordכברand other forms derived from the same root. The feminine or abstract occurs Genesisxxxv.16,xlviii.7, and 2 Kingsv.19, joined withארץ, rendered in the Authorized Version a ‘little’ way. The verb occurs in hiphil, Jobxxxv.16,xxxvi.31, translated ‘multiplied,’ ‘in abundance;’ and in the hiphil form, with the characteristicjud̄inserted——Jobviii.2,xv.10,etc.; Isaiahx.13,xvii.12,etc.——in the sense of ‘full of years,’ ‘overflowing,’ and the like. A diligent comparison of these meanings shows that ‘fulness,’ in the sense of ‘completeness,’ must be the root-meaning; and hence, when applied to time, theLXX.renderἤδη, ‘already.’ With this meaning agree also the Arabic and Syriac, see Fuerst, Lexicon,s. voc. The meaning then of the word is, the ‘completepresent.’ With regard to the use of the rootמלךin the sense of counsel, it occurs once in Hebrew,viz.Nehemiahv.7, and once in biblical Chaldee, Danieliv.27 (24). This meaning is common, as remarked in the note, in Aramaic. The fair inference from this is, that the root-meaning of the Hebrew word is ‘to counsel,’ just as the root-meaning of the word Apostle is ‘one sent.’ These senses are just what the context requires. Koheleth turns round to see wisdom in comparison with, or contradistinction to, false hopes and false prudence, and asks how the man, that is, humanity, can tell the one from the other. His words are ‘what is,’ not ‘whois the man,’etc., equivalent to——‘in what way can humanity enter upon the results of the counsel,’ ‘or the king,’——the equivoke being, we believe, intentional, and the contracted relative giving a conditional turn to the sentence——‘with respect to that which at present he performs it.’ It would have been better if the wordwithhad been printed in the notes with a small letter, as the division hardly amounts to a period, though the connexion is not close. The suffix of the verb refers back through the relative pronoun to counsel, and might be well rendered into English thus——‘In respect of which he at present takes that counsel.’ TheLXX., contrary to their custom, omitἤδη, because it is perhaps sufficiently included inἐπελεύσεται, or becauseτὰ ὅσα ἤδη ἐποίησαν αὐτήνwould not have been intelligible. It is evident this all squares with the context. Koheleth, as Solomon, discovered that with all his wisdom he could not practically discern the difference between this true wisdom and that false prudence which led him to accumulate only to be disappointed in his successor.

We must observe that all these versions, without exception, omit to noticeכבר, which everywhere else is noted byἤδη, being content withτὰ ὅσαorσὺν τὰ ὅσα. The explanation of these difficulties seems to be thatהמלךwas probably intended to be equivocal. It is, to say the least, not impossible that it had, even in Solomon’s time, the meaning of ‘counsel,’ which attaches to it as a usual signification in Aramaic; if so,המלךmeansthecounsel, and of course has the idea of rule as well. Castell gives as the meaning of(‡ Syriac word), ‘Intellectum, Consilium dedit,’ vel ‘inivit,’ ‘Consultavit,’ ‘Promisit,’ ‘Pollicitus est;’ thus we mustunderstand it to mean, ‘plans formed and intended to be carried out.’ The question then which Koheleth asks is this, ‘Who is the man who will enter upon——as we say,carry out——his plans with respect to that which in the present moment he makes them or devises them;’ in other words, can he carry out what he now devises, and cananyman do this out of the number of human creatures who make these plans? This is the reason of the distributive plural which the best recensions of theLXX.preserve. The equivoke involved in the meaning ‘king’ is obvious. Koheleth himself is, of course,theking: could any one do better than he? It must be allowed that this meaning makes excellent sense with the context, and violates no Hebrew grammar. If, however, I have failed in giving a real interpretation of this most difficult passage, I may be excused a conjecture which is as plausible as many that have been advanced on this point. The corruptions of the old versions may be explained by the fact that the equivoke was lost so soon as readers ceased to have the Hebrew text before them, and hence the attempt to better their text. This most obscure passage may perhaps receive some light from a further discussion of the wordכברand other forms derived from the same root. The feminine or abstract occurs Genesisxxxv.16,xlviii.7, and 2 Kingsv.19, joined withארץ, rendered in the Authorized Version a ‘little’ way. The verb occurs in hiphil, Jobxxxv.16,xxxvi.31, translated ‘multiplied,’ ‘in abundance;’ and in the hiphil form, with the characteristicjud̄inserted——Jobviii.2,xv.10,etc.; Isaiahx.13,xvii.12,etc.——in the sense of ‘full of years,’ ‘overflowing,’ and the like. A diligent comparison of these meanings shows that ‘fulness,’ in the sense of ‘completeness,’ must be the root-meaning; and hence, when applied to time, theLXX.renderἤδη, ‘already.’ With this meaning agree also the Arabic and Syriac, see Fuerst, Lexicon,s. voc. The meaning then of the word is, the ‘completepresent.’ With regard to the use of the rootמלךin the sense of counsel, it occurs once in Hebrew,viz.Nehemiahv.7, and once in biblical Chaldee, Danieliv.27 (24). This meaning is common, as remarked in the note, in Aramaic. The fair inference from this is, that the root-meaning of the Hebrew word is ‘to counsel,’ just as the root-meaning of the word Apostle is ‘one sent.’ These senses are just what the context requires. Koheleth turns round to see wisdom in comparison with, or contradistinction to, false hopes and false prudence, and asks how the man, that is, humanity, can tell the one from the other. His words are ‘what is,’ not ‘whois the man,’etc., equivalent to——‘in what way can humanity enter upon the results of the counsel,’ ‘or the king,’——the equivoke being, we believe, intentional, and the contracted relative giving a conditional turn to the sentence——‘with respect to that which at present he performs it.’ It would have been better if the wordwithhad been printed in the notes with a small letter, as the division hardly amounts to a period, though the connexion is not close. The suffix of the verb refers back through the relative pronoun to counsel, and might be well rendered into English thus——‘In respect of which he at present takes that counsel.’ TheLXX., contrary to their custom, omitἤδη, because it is perhaps sufficiently included inἐπελεύσεται, or becauseτὰ ὅσα ἤδη ἐποίησαν αὐτήνwould not have been intelligible. It is evident this all squares with the context. Koheleth, as Solomon, discovered that with all his wisdom he could not practically discern the difference between this true wisdom and that false prudence which led him to accumulate only to be disappointed in his successor.

13 Then I saw¹that wisdom excelleth folly, as far as light excelleth darkness.¹Hebrewthat there is an excellency in wisdom more than in folly,etc.

13 Then I saw¹that wisdom excelleth folly, as far as light excelleth darkness.

¹Hebrewthat there is an excellency in wisdom more than in folly,etc.

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

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

14 The wise man’s eyesarein his head; but the fool walketh in darkness: and I myself perceived also that one event happeneth to them all.15 Then said I in my heart, As it happeneth to the fool, so it¹happeneth even to me; and why was I then more wise? Then I said in my heart, that this alsoisvanity.¹Hebrewhappeneth to me, even to me.

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

15 Then said I in my heart, As it happeneth to the fool, so it¹happeneth even to me; and why was I then more wise? Then I said in my heart, that this alsoisvanity.

¹Hebrewhappeneth to me, even to me.

The wise has eyes in his head, the befooled is wandering in the dark; yet I know, as the result of my own experience, that the event to which both attain is just alike, so I reasoned with myself thus: Exactly the same event as happens to one befooled has happened to me, and therefore why should I make myself wise? Then besides! Why, I said in my heart, even this is an instance of evanescence,

(14, 15.)And I said, I did, in my heart(it was not a right thing to say, but, as we have already noticed, this formula introduces a suggestion more specious than true),Like the hap of the befooled, so have I happened me(i.e.made my own hap or result),and why did I make myself wise then in addition?(The Masorets accent so as to make this the main division of the verse, and consider these three last words to belong to what precedes. TheLXX., on the contrary——which adds a gloss afterκαρδίᾳ μοῦ (διότι ἄφρων ἐκ περισσεύματος λαλεῖ), ‘for the fool speaketh abundantly,’ which is an ancient one, for the Syriac has it also, and varies much in its different recensions——considers them to belong to the following verse. It is difficult on this account to come to a conclusion which is correct, theLXX.or the Masorets; the more that the Masorets themselves hesitate betweenיתרandיותר. On the whole, one would incline to the following explanation:——takeיֶתֶרin its ordinary acceptation, ‘the rest,’ the meaning would thus be ‘then the rest,’ or ‘what results is;’ and suppose the pointingיֹתֵר, a conjecture subsequently strengthened by writingיותר);and I said(it was possibly this difficultו, ‘and,’ which gave rise to the Masoretic conjecture——theLXX.take no notice of it; it is equivalent to ‘whyI said’)that this(the contracted relative withגםoccurs only chapteri.17,ii.15,viii.14, and has a tone of surprise and disappointment, giving the sense apparently that ‘eventhiswisdom itself! is’)a vanity(or an instance of evanescence or transitoriness).

16 Forthere isno remembrance of the wise more than of the fool for ever; seeing that which nowisin the days to come shall all be forgotten. And how dieth the wiseman? as the fool.

because there is no remembrance of the wise or the befooled either, in the future; because as time goes on the present will be forgotten, and fool and wise will perish alike together.

(16.)For(an expansion of the above argument, and a corroboration of the conclusion)there is nothingofremembrance to a wise(person or thing indefinitely)with the fool(but the hiphil form is to be noted, as also the article, the befooled, generically, for a wise action perishes from remembrance amidst the class of fools)to the age(i.e.so far as the indefinite future is concerned)by which present(i.e.in the present of that future age or æon it will so happen that) duringthe days, the going ones(meaning, of course, the days as they are passing, or, as we say, ‘in the lapse of time’)the whole(the whole of these wise lives and works)is forgotten(niphal, ‘becomes a forgotten thing’)and how then dies the wise? with the fool(i.e.both perish together).

17 Therefore I hated life; because the work that is wrought under the sunisgrievous unto me: for allisvanity and vexation of spirit.

I was even disgusted with respect to life itself: for an evil tomeis the work at which I toil in this hot work-day world, since the whole is evanescent, and vexation of spirit.

(17.)Then hated I, with respect to the lives(an emphaticאת, which theLXX.note by the adverbialσὺν, and meaning not exactly that he hated his own life, as that he felt a disgust with respect to life generally),because an evil to me(emphatic withעל, giving the notion of pressing upon)the work which I worked under the sun, because(כיfollowing in a sentence withכיat the commencement; this particle thus doubled I believe to be often nearly equivalent to our ‘for,’ ‘as,’)the whole is vanity and vexation of spirit.

18 ¶ Yea, I hated all my labour which I had taken under the sun: because I should leave it unto the man that shall be after me.

I for my part was disgusted with all my toil that I had moiled at it, in this work-day world, because I shall leave it to the man that succeeds me,

(18.)I hated then, I myself(emphaticpronoun, because again we have Koheleth’s personal experience, as we should say, ‘I was disgusted’),with respect to all my toil which I(again strongly personal, meaning so far as it wasmytoil)had toiled at under the sun that I should leave it(close relative qualifying the verb, and giving the idea that the grievance was that he would have to leave this work)to a man(i.e.some man as a human person)which will be after me.

19 And who knoweth whether he shall be a wisemanor a fool? yet shall he have rule over all my labour wherein I have laboured, and wherein I have shewed myself wise under the sun. Thisisalso vanity.

and no one knows whether he will be wise or foolishly clever, and yet he will have power over all my toil at which I have moiled, and done so wisely in this hot work-day world: another instance this of evanescence.

(19.)And who knows(equivalent to ‘no-body does know’) whetherthe wise(with the article, meaning one who belongs to this class, and who will really act wisely)or a fool?(סכל——that is, a wisely-foolish person, one whose wisdom will prove a mistake according to the meaning of this word, seechapterii.3, references.; and will use this power provided to his hand either amiss, or so as to defeat the end the wise man had in view)and he has power(שלט, a favourite word of Koheleth’s; the exact meaning of this term may be found in Psalmcxix.130)in all my toil which I have toiled at, and which also I have made myself wise in(i.e.spent my pains wisely in)under the sun: besides this is vanity(or, as we should say, ‘moreover this is another instance of vanity or evanescence’).

20 Therefore I went about to cause my heart to despair of all the labour which I took under the sun.

So then I came round to the conclusion that I must bid farewell to any hope of satisfaction from anything I had toiled at in this work-day world;

(20.)I turned round then, I myself, to cause to despair with respect to my heart(יאש, occurs 1 Samuelxxvii.1, where the word is used of Saul giving up the search for David in despair)over the toil which I toiled at under the sun.

21 For there is a man whose labourisin wisdom, and in knowledge, and in equity; yet to a man that hath not laboured therein shall he leave itforhis portion. This alsoisvanity and a great evil.

because it amounts to this: man, even when he toils wisely, prudently, and successfully, does so for some individual who has not toiled at all, and gives it to him to possess: an instance of evanescence, and very evil.

(21.)For it is(this exists as the real state of the case)man(i.e.one specimen of humanity——this is what humanity is really doing)which he toils(= whois, or may be, labouring)with wisdom, and with knowledge, and with success(כשרון, occurs chapterii.21,iv.4,v.11, the root occurs Estherviii.5, chapterxi.6,x.10; it is a technical word——a ‘successful issue’ is the meaning; compare the passages. TheLXX.render byἀνδρείᾳ, ‘bravery,’ which is not a bad rendering, since it appearsfrom the above that this success was but temporary),and to a man whohasnot(emphatic; the contracted relative joined with the negative shows that hisnotdoing this is the point)toiled(i.e.taken any trouble)in it(emphatic, = ‘in that same’)he will give itashis portion; also this isavanityandan evilwhich isgreat. (There is a strange sarcastic tone given by the affix in the verb following the emphatic pronoun, ‘to one who has not toiled initat all will he give that same.’)

22 For what hath man of all his labour, and of the vexation of his heart, wherein he hath laboured under the sun?

For what comes to a man through all his toil and vexing his heart, which he himself toils at within this work-day world?

(22.)For what is there(הוה, a peculiar form; but is it not possible that this word has been chosen for the sake of the equivoke?הַוָּה, ‘calamity,’ ‘perverseness,’ Jobvi.2, Micahvii.3, and which makes most pungent and admirable sense)to a man in all his toil, and in vexing(רעיון, notרעות; compare chapteri.18)his heart which hehimselftoilsatunder the sun?

23 For all his daysaresorrows, and his travail grief; yea, his heart taketh not rest in the night. This is also vanity.

Why, every day he spends is a trouble, and disappointment the result of his anxiety, so that even at night his heart gets no rest. So then this is an instance of evanescence itself.

(23.)For(asכיis repeated, it becomes emphatic, ‘for now’)all his days are causing him pain(or painful——notice the force of theמ־)and disappointment his anxiety, (a pregnant sentence, denoting more than his anxiety disappoints, his anxiety is always painful and useless too)also at night does not rest(this clause is an additional proof that we have correctly determined the meaning of♦ענין; it is anxiety which causes wakefulness) evenhis heart. Moreover this a vanity it is(emphatic; so the meaning is, ‘this thenis indeedan instance of evanescence’).♦“עגין” replaced with “ענין”

♦“עגין” replaced with “ענין”

24 ¶There isnothing better for a man,thanthat he should eat and drink, andthathe should make his soul enjoy good in his labour. This also I saw, that itwasfrom the hand of God.

There is no real good then to man in eating or drinking, or in supposing he will satisfy himself with his toil. Moreover, I must make this observation, that these things are all in the hand of the Almighty,

(24.) The conclusion of this argument now follows,viz.:——This toil is useless, and the reasoning is set out at length.There is nothingof agood(notלאhere, butאין, the former would be required if the meaning were ‘it is not good that’)in a man(i.e.as an instance of humanity, and the whole isequivalent to ‘It is not to humanity real good that’)that he should eat and drink, and show his soul(i.e.himself)good(repeated, ‘that good’)in his toil. Moreover this(pointedזהֹ, feminine orneuter, which theLXX.confirm,τοῦτο)have I seen,evenI, now fromthehand(but ‘the’ is not emphatic at all, which would have required a different construction) ofthe Deity(on the contrary, ‘the’ is emphatic here, and, as will appear, the use of the article is significant)it is(emphatic).

25 For who can eat, or who else can hastenhereunto, more than I?

for who could eat or even drink apart from Him?

(25.)For(repeated)who eats or whoevendrinks(because drinking is possible when eating is not)apart from him?(for we read with theLXX.חוץ ממנו, for clearly this makes good sense, and preserves the real meaning ofחוץ, which has the signification of ‘without,’ ‘on the outside,’ Genesisvi.14, Deuteronomyxxv.5, references.) The phraseומי יחוש חוץ ממניrequires further elucidation. The readingממנו, supported by theLXX., is also confirmed by HebrewMSS.The literal rendering is——‘and who hastens outside him.’ This theLXX.translateκαὶ τίς πιέται πάρεξ αὐτοῦ, ‘who drinks,’etc.There is a reading ofA²,φείσεται, ‘spares.’ The former is supported by Peshito, Arabic, and Theodotion——the latter by Aquila, Symmachus, and Jerome. If the Greek text alone had to be considered,φείσεταιwould, as the harder reading, be entitled to the preference. It is readily seen, however, that it arose from a conjectural alteration of the Hebrew text intoחוס, for which there is no authority; neither will the meaning to ‘spare’ make any sense in the context. As the root occurs frequently, we are driven to the conclusion that the rendering of theLXX.was by design. Schleusner’s conjecture thatπίεταιis used in the signification of ‘sensibus frui,’ is no doubt correct——compare Habakkuki.8, as also Isaiahxxviii.16. Considered asad sensum, this rendering gives the idea of the Hebrew text correctly.

26 ForGodgiveth to a man thatisgood in his sight wisdom, and knowledge, and joy: but to the sinner he giveth travail, to gather and to heap up, that he may give tohim thatis good before God. This alsoisvanity and vexation of spirit.

and so to man just as is right in His sight He gives wisdom and knowledge and gladness, but to the transgressor He gives the anxiety of accumulating and collecting what is to be granted to any, as also is good in the sight of God. So this is another instance of evanescence and vexation of spirit.

(26.)For(repeated again, so that this word becomes emphatic and prominent. Accordinglyfourreasons follow, comprising as it were the whole cycle of the argument)to a man(still generic, as a specimen of the human race)which is good before him(not altogether with the meaning ‘a good man,’ but as ‘God thinks good’)He gives wisdom,andknowledge, and joy; but to the sinner(i.e.theerringsinner)he gives, on the other hand,anxious-travail to collect and to gather(♦כנס, occurs chapterii.8, 26,iii.5; the meaning is ‘to collect piece by piece;’ see also Psalmxxxiii.7, 1 Chroniclesxxii.2),to give it to the goodinthe sight of God(i.e.as God sees fit it should be given);so this also is vanity and vexation of spirit.♦“כנם” replaced with “כנס”Thus, then, the first part of the argument is completed. Man obtains nothing by his labour. It is the gift of a mysterious and inscrutable Providence which alone confers any happiness or gratification.

♦“כנם” replaced with “כנס”

Thus, then, the first part of the argument is completed. Man obtains nothing by his labour. It is the gift of a mysterious and inscrutable Providence which alone confers any happiness or gratification.

Back to Index Next