CHAPTERVI.

CHAPTERVI.THERE is an evil which I have seen under the sun, and itiscommon among men:THERE is another evil which I have observed in this work-day world, and a common one is it upon mankind:VI.(1.)There is(exists) anevil which I have seen under the sun, and common(literally ‘much’)it is(feminine emphatic)over the man(i.e.mankind in general).2 A man to whom God hath given riches, wealth, and honour, so that he wanteth nothing for his soul of all that he desireth, yet God giveth him not power to eat thereof, but a stranger eateth it: thisisvanity, and itisan evil disease.one who has appointed to him by the Almighty riches, possessions, and honour, and there is nothing lacking to him which he could possibly desire; and yet the Almighty Himself does not allow him to have any enjoyment of it; but some stranger or other enjoys it. This is an instance of evanescence, and an infirmity which is indeed an evil.(2)A man(איש, notאדם, for it is equivalent to our ‘one’ indefinitely),which gives to him(emphatic)the Deity(one to whom the Deity gives, that is)riches, and possessions(chapterv.19),and honour, and he is not lacking to his soul of all which he desires(the expression is peculiar, and is designed to bring into prominence the fact that to this person nothing at all is lacking; as we say, ‘he wants for nothing’)and not causes to him power, doesthe Deity to eat(in the usual sense of ‘enjoy’ or ‘use’)from it, for a man(againאיש, ‘one’),a stranger, eats it(equivalent to ‘some stranger or another really enjoys it’).Thisisvanityandsickness, whichis an evil, (indeed)it is.3 ¶ If a man beget an hundredchildren, and live many years, so that the days of his years be many, and his soul be not filled with good, and alsothathe have no burial; I say,thatan untimely birthisbetter than he.Suppose one were to beget a hundred children, and he should have many years, yes, many indeed may be the days of his years, and his soul not satisfied with good, and he have no burial,——I should say, that better off than such an one is an abortion.(3.)If is caused to beget a man(againאיש, ‘should one beget’)a hundred(children is to be supplied, but not prominently; begetting is used in its widest sense),and years many(plural, equivalent to ‘years,and many of them’)should live, and many(singular)which they are the days of his years(‘and the days of his years should be ever so many,’ his life being expressed both in days and years to give strong prominence to the fact of its duration),and his soul not satisfied from out of the good(the abstract with the article, hence equivalent to our ‘good,’ standing alone),and moreover burial(the abstract of the past participle, used, of course, as the place of burial——see Genesisxxxv.20,xlvii.30, but with a shade of difference fromקבר——compare Genesisxlvii.30 with Genesisl.5, for here, too, we notice thatקבורהis written full),is not to be to him(emphatic. To have no burial, no one to lament him or erect a tomb over him——to be worse off than Jehoiakim, Jeremiahxxii.19, who had the burial of an ass——is such a terrible failure to a man who had possessed a hundred children, of whom some at least might have shown him this last honour, that it may well be cited as an instance of failure of human felicity),I say a good better than his(emphatic)is the abortion(i.e.that abortion is a better lot).4 For he cometh in with vanity, and departeth in darkness, and his name shall be covered with darkness.5 Moreover he hath not seen the sun, nor knownany thing: this hath more rest than the other.For in evanescence it begins, and in darkness departs, and its name in that darkness is concealed;IThas not seen light;HEhas not known rest; the one is no better than the other.(4, 5.)For in vanity he comes, and in darkness he goes, and in darkness(repeated, equivalent, therefore, to ‘in that darkness’)his name is covered; moreover the sun not seen(which is the lot of the abortion), andnot knowing rest(the lot of the person here spoken of),to thisthere is nomorethanthat. The Masorets, however, by their accentuation, show that they understood the verse somewhat differently. They render, ‘a sun he does not see and does not know; the rest of this is more than that;’ but this rendering is obscure and clumsy, and makes the words ‘does not know’ superfluous, besides interrupting the argument. TheLXX.render verbatim:καίγε ἥλιον οὐκ εἶδεν καὶ οὐκ ἔγνω ἀναπαύσεις τούτῳ ὑπὲρ τοῦτον, which is clear enough with the Hebrew before us, but is quite unintelligible without it, hence the text has been attempted to be amended in various ways (see Stier and Theile’sPolyglot).6 ¶ Yea, though he live a thousand years twicetold, yet hath he seen no good: do not all go to one place?Suppose he had even lived a thousand years twice over, and seen no good in them, does he not arrive at altogether the same result as abortion?(6.)And if(this particle occurs Esthervii.4 only, equivalent toוְאִם לוֹ, but commonin later Hebrew and Chaldee. It is one of those words from which many critics infer a late date to this book; but is it not used for the sake of the alliteration withהלאbelow?)he lived a thousand years twicetold,and goodness not seen(as there is no nominative expressed, these verbs are in the nature of impersonals, and express the fact generally),is it not to a placewhichis the same(literally ‘one’)the whole(i.e.the totality of such persons)is going?7 All the labour of manisfor his mouth, and yet the¹appetite is not filled.¹Hebrewsoul.All the toil of humanity is for the gratification of appetite, and yet the desires are never satisfied.(7.)Every toilofthe man(i.e.humanity) isto his mouth(remembering the meaning ofעמל, the sense is clear; the anxiety of men is directed to their mouths, to satisfy physical or moral hunger),and besides the soul(i.e.the self, the ego, as metaphysicians write)is not filled(i.e.satisfied, or fills itself).8 For what hath the wise more than the fool? what hath the poor, that knoweth to walk before the living?What profit then is there to the wise above the befooled? simply that which it is to a man in distress to maintain himself in the presence of the living.(8.)For what is profiting to the wise beyond the befooled? what(repeated, ‘even what’)to the poor(but ‘poor’ in the sense of oppressed or unfortunate)made to know to walk in the presence of the living ones?We must notice, in explaining this very obscure passage, thatהחיים, being with the article, must be looked upon as denoting lives generally; moreoverנגדhas the meaning of ‘in the presence of,’ ‘amongst,’ ‘in the midst of.’ Thus the advantage, or that which is really profitable to the wise, is to know how to walk, proceed, or act; to know which way to go in the presence of the living; in what way, therefore, to direct himself through life and amongst its pleasures and difficulties, so as to make no mistakes as the befooled does. Thus we obtain a connected sense. The anxiety is for enjoyment, but satisfaction is impossible. What, then, is the advantage or profit of wisdom, in the sense of knowing what is best to do under a given set of circumstances? and what advantage gives it over the man who is dissatisfied equally, but doesnotknow this? The answer is, Just the same as to a man in distress, who can manage to live. Existence itself is the struggle for life; but the wise rise to the top, and the fools sink.9 Betteristhe sight of the eyes¹than the wandering of the desire: thisisalso vanity and vexation of spirit.¹Hebrewwalking of the soul.Good is a sight with one’s eyes above a longing for one knows not what: another instance this of evanescence and vexation of spirit.(9.)Goodisthe seeingofthe eyes above the walking the soul(but the participleמראהis singular, and eyes are plural, hence ‘better is a sight with the eye than,’etc.But may not there be this equivoke?מהלךmight be a participle also, and then thewhole would read thus, ‘A real good, the seeing of the eye, the wandering of the soul’).Moreover, thisisvanity and vexation of spirit(this clause being in this case the answer to the above. So curt and enigmatical a sentence was no doubt in some way intended to be equivocal).10 That which hath been is named already, and it is known that itisman: neither may he contend with him that is mightier than he.What then is that which will be? The present state of things, called by its true name, and known what it really is——Old Adam, unable to obtain a decision in a cause with a Power superior to himself.(10.)What is that which will be? The present(comparechapteri.10, references)is called its name(to be called by its name is of course equivalent to our ‘accurately described’),and it is known(subjectively)what it is(emphatic),even man(but here without the article, an ‘instance’ then of ‘an Adam’ or human person),and not able to decide with the mightier than he(emphatic,לדין, Psalmsl.4, Isaiahiii.13; this the Authorized Version renders rightly ‘to contend with,’ becauseדוןhas the meaning of ‘judge’ in the sense of ‘decide in a court of justice.’שֶׁה֯תַּקִּיףoccurs Jobxiv.20,♦xv.24, and chapteriv.12, and as an adjective in the hiphil form here only. The Masorets notice that theהis superfluous; but this could only have been because they did not see, as theLXX.did [who add the articleτοῦ ἰσχυροῦ, ‘the strong’], that it means ‘the strong one’ generically; ‘what is stronger,’ as we say, or, noticing the hiphil form, ‘what ismadestronger,’ and which is clearly man’s destiny, decided by an overruling providence which he cannot escape).♦“xvi” replaced with “xv”11 ¶ Seeing there be many things that increase vanity, whatisman the better?For there are numberless reasons, and they only increase the demonstration of evanescence, and that there could be no profit to humanity.(11.)For there exist words(reasonings, in the technical use of the word in this book)the much(i.e.to the full)multiplying vanity, what is the profiting to humanity?The meaning seems to be that there could be adduced a still greater number of reasons, all of which would show that human life was evanescent; but what is the profit, or use, of stating them to humanity, or bringing them forward? and asיותרnaturally refers toדברים, the nearest nominative, it must be taken as a distributive singular; so that this interpretation is the simplest the grammar of the passage admits.12 For who knoweth whatisgood for man inthislife,¹all the days of his vain life which he spendeth as a shadow? for who can tell a man what shall be after him under the sun?¹Hebrewthe number of the days of the life of his vanity.For no one can tell whatisa real good to mankind in any life: that life being a number of evanescent days, which he spends as a shadow, and of which no one can tell to any man what shall result to him——in this hot work-day world.(12.)For(another additional reason)who knows whatis agood to maninhis lives(אדם, followed by plural, ‘lives,’ inanylife, therefore),the number of the days of his life(i.e.as he passes the days of that life),his vanity(that evanescent life of his),and he makes themas ashadow(theLXX.renderἐν σκιᾷ, but this may beadsensumonly, not because they read differently)which(full relative, because the whole idea is referred to, it may be best rendered ‘because’)who(repeated, and so giving emphasis)tells to man what shall be after him(i.e.what shall succeed him)under the sun.The limitation is necessary, and especially here, as this passage closes the argument thus far. What is to follow is in the nature of detached and paradoxical aphorisms, illustrating these truths: they are some of these many arguments demonstrating human evanescence and transitoriness, but stated less formally than heretofore.

THERE is an evil which I have seen under the sun, and itiscommon among men:

THERE is another evil which I have observed in this work-day world, and a common one is it upon mankind:

VI.(1.)There is(exists) anevil which I have seen under the sun, and common(literally ‘much’)it is(feminine emphatic)over the man(i.e.mankind in general).

2 A man to whom God hath given riches, wealth, and honour, so that he wanteth nothing for his soul of all that he desireth, yet God giveth him not power to eat thereof, but a stranger eateth it: thisisvanity, and itisan evil disease.

one who has appointed to him by the Almighty riches, possessions, and honour, and there is nothing lacking to him which he could possibly desire; and yet the Almighty Himself does not allow him to have any enjoyment of it; but some stranger or other enjoys it. This is an instance of evanescence, and an infirmity which is indeed an evil.

(2)A man(איש, notאדם, for it is equivalent to our ‘one’ indefinitely),which gives to him(emphatic)the Deity(one to whom the Deity gives, that is)riches, and possessions(chapterv.19),and honour, and he is not lacking to his soul of all which he desires(the expression is peculiar, and is designed to bring into prominence the fact that to this person nothing at all is lacking; as we say, ‘he wants for nothing’)and not causes to him power, doesthe Deity to eat(in the usual sense of ‘enjoy’ or ‘use’)from it, for a man(againאיש, ‘one’),a stranger, eats it(equivalent to ‘some stranger or another really enjoys it’).Thisisvanityandsickness, whichis an evil, (indeed)it is.

3 ¶ If a man beget an hundredchildren, and live many years, so that the days of his years be many, and his soul be not filled with good, and alsothathe have no burial; I say,thatan untimely birthisbetter than he.

Suppose one were to beget a hundred children, and he should have many years, yes, many indeed may be the days of his years, and his soul not satisfied with good, and he have no burial,——I should say, that better off than such an one is an abortion.

(3.)If is caused to beget a man(againאיש, ‘should one beget’)a hundred(children is to be supplied, but not prominently; begetting is used in its widest sense),and years many(plural, equivalent to ‘years,and many of them’)should live, and many(singular)which they are the days of his years(‘and the days of his years should be ever so many,’ his life being expressed both in days and years to give strong prominence to the fact of its duration),and his soul not satisfied from out of the good(the abstract with the article, hence equivalent to our ‘good,’ standing alone),and moreover burial(the abstract of the past participle, used, of course, as the place of burial——see Genesisxxxv.20,xlvii.30, but with a shade of difference fromקבר——compare Genesisxlvii.30 with Genesisl.5, for here, too, we notice thatקבורהis written full),is not to be to him(emphatic. To have no burial, no one to lament him or erect a tomb over him——to be worse off than Jehoiakim, Jeremiahxxii.19, who had the burial of an ass——is such a terrible failure to a man who had possessed a hundred children, of whom some at least might have shown him this last honour, that it may well be cited as an instance of failure of human felicity),I say a good better than his(emphatic)is the abortion(i.e.that abortion is a better lot).

4 For he cometh in with vanity, and departeth in darkness, and his name shall be covered with darkness.5 Moreover he hath not seen the sun, nor knownany thing: this hath more rest than the other.

4 For he cometh in with vanity, and departeth in darkness, and his name shall be covered with darkness.

5 Moreover he hath not seen the sun, nor knownany thing: this hath more rest than the other.

For in evanescence it begins, and in darkness departs, and its name in that darkness is concealed;IThas not seen light;HEhas not known rest; the one is no better than the other.

(4, 5.)For in vanity he comes, and in darkness he goes, and in darkness(repeated, equivalent, therefore, to ‘in that darkness’)his name is covered; moreover the sun not seen(which is the lot of the abortion), andnot knowing rest(the lot of the person here spoken of),to thisthere is nomorethanthat. The Masorets, however, by their accentuation, show that they understood the verse somewhat differently. They render, ‘a sun he does not see and does not know; the rest of this is more than that;’ but this rendering is obscure and clumsy, and makes the words ‘does not know’ superfluous, besides interrupting the argument. TheLXX.render verbatim:καίγε ἥλιον οὐκ εἶδεν καὶ οὐκ ἔγνω ἀναπαύσεις τούτῳ ὑπὲρ τοῦτον, which is clear enough with the Hebrew before us, but is quite unintelligible without it, hence the text has been attempted to be amended in various ways (see Stier and Theile’sPolyglot).

6 ¶ Yea, though he live a thousand years twicetold, yet hath he seen no good: do not all go to one place?

Suppose he had even lived a thousand years twice over, and seen no good in them, does he not arrive at altogether the same result as abortion?

(6.)And if(this particle occurs Esthervii.4 only, equivalent toוְאִם לוֹ, but commonin later Hebrew and Chaldee. It is one of those words from which many critics infer a late date to this book; but is it not used for the sake of the alliteration withהלאbelow?)he lived a thousand years twicetold,and goodness not seen(as there is no nominative expressed, these verbs are in the nature of impersonals, and express the fact generally),is it not to a placewhichis the same(literally ‘one’)the whole(i.e.the totality of such persons)is going?

7 All the labour of manisfor his mouth, and yet the¹appetite is not filled.¹Hebrewsoul.

7 All the labour of manisfor his mouth, and yet the¹appetite is not filled.

¹Hebrewsoul.

All the toil of humanity is for the gratification of appetite, and yet the desires are never satisfied.

(7.)Every toilofthe man(i.e.humanity) isto his mouth(remembering the meaning ofעמל, the sense is clear; the anxiety of men is directed to their mouths, to satisfy physical or moral hunger),and besides the soul(i.e.the self, the ego, as metaphysicians write)is not filled(i.e.satisfied, or fills itself).

8 For what hath the wise more than the fool? what hath the poor, that knoweth to walk before the living?

What profit then is there to the wise above the befooled? simply that which it is to a man in distress to maintain himself in the presence of the living.

(8.)For what is profiting to the wise beyond the befooled? what(repeated, ‘even what’)to the poor(but ‘poor’ in the sense of oppressed or unfortunate)made to know to walk in the presence of the living ones?We must notice, in explaining this very obscure passage, thatהחיים, being with the article, must be looked upon as denoting lives generally; moreoverנגדhas the meaning of ‘in the presence of,’ ‘amongst,’ ‘in the midst of.’ Thus the advantage, or that which is really profitable to the wise, is to know how to walk, proceed, or act; to know which way to go in the presence of the living; in what way, therefore, to direct himself through life and amongst its pleasures and difficulties, so as to make no mistakes as the befooled does. Thus we obtain a connected sense. The anxiety is for enjoyment, but satisfaction is impossible. What, then, is the advantage or profit of wisdom, in the sense of knowing what is best to do under a given set of circumstances? and what advantage gives it over the man who is dissatisfied equally, but doesnotknow this? The answer is, Just the same as to a man in distress, who can manage to live. Existence itself is the struggle for life; but the wise rise to the top, and the fools sink.

9 Betteristhe sight of the eyes¹than the wandering of the desire: thisisalso vanity and vexation of spirit.¹Hebrewwalking of the soul.

9 Betteristhe sight of the eyes¹than the wandering of the desire: thisisalso vanity and vexation of spirit.

¹Hebrewwalking of the soul.

Good is a sight with one’s eyes above a longing for one knows not what: another instance this of evanescence and vexation of spirit.

(9.)Goodisthe seeingofthe eyes above the walking the soul(but the participleמראהis singular, and eyes are plural, hence ‘better is a sight with the eye than,’etc.But may not there be this equivoke?מהלךmight be a participle also, and then thewhole would read thus, ‘A real good, the seeing of the eye, the wandering of the soul’).Moreover, thisisvanity and vexation of spirit(this clause being in this case the answer to the above. So curt and enigmatical a sentence was no doubt in some way intended to be equivocal).

10 That which hath been is named already, and it is known that itisman: neither may he contend with him that is mightier than he.

What then is that which will be? The present state of things, called by its true name, and known what it really is——Old Adam, unable to obtain a decision in a cause with a Power superior to himself.

(10.)What is that which will be? The present(comparechapteri.10, references)is called its name(to be called by its name is of course equivalent to our ‘accurately described’),and it is known(subjectively)what it is(emphatic),even man(but here without the article, an ‘instance’ then of ‘an Adam’ or human person),and not able to decide with the mightier than he(emphatic,לדין, Psalmsl.4, Isaiahiii.13; this the Authorized Version renders rightly ‘to contend with,’ becauseדוןhas the meaning of ‘judge’ in the sense of ‘decide in a court of justice.’שֶׁה֯תַּקִּיףoccurs Jobxiv.20,♦xv.24, and chapteriv.12, and as an adjective in the hiphil form here only. The Masorets notice that theהis superfluous; but this could only have been because they did not see, as theLXX.did [who add the articleτοῦ ἰσχυροῦ, ‘the strong’], that it means ‘the strong one’ generically; ‘what is stronger,’ as we say, or, noticing the hiphil form, ‘what ismadestronger,’ and which is clearly man’s destiny, decided by an overruling providence which he cannot escape).♦“xvi” replaced with “xv”

♦“xvi” replaced with “xv”

11 ¶ Seeing there be many things that increase vanity, whatisman the better?

For there are numberless reasons, and they only increase the demonstration of evanescence, and that there could be no profit to humanity.

(11.)For there exist words(reasonings, in the technical use of the word in this book)the much(i.e.to the full)multiplying vanity, what is the profiting to humanity?The meaning seems to be that there could be adduced a still greater number of reasons, all of which would show that human life was evanescent; but what is the profit, or use, of stating them to humanity, or bringing them forward? and asיותרnaturally refers toדברים, the nearest nominative, it must be taken as a distributive singular; so that this interpretation is the simplest the grammar of the passage admits.

12 For who knoweth whatisgood for man inthislife,¹all the days of his vain life which he spendeth as a shadow? for who can tell a man what shall be after him under the sun?¹Hebrewthe number of the days of the life of his vanity.

12 For who knoweth whatisgood for man inthislife,¹all the days of his vain life which he spendeth as a shadow? for who can tell a man what shall be after him under the sun?

¹Hebrewthe number of the days of the life of his vanity.

For no one can tell whatisa real good to mankind in any life: that life being a number of evanescent days, which he spends as a shadow, and of which no one can tell to any man what shall result to him——in this hot work-day world.

(12.)For(another additional reason)who knows whatis agood to maninhis lives(אדם, followed by plural, ‘lives,’ inanylife, therefore),the number of the days of his life(i.e.as he passes the days of that life),his vanity(that evanescent life of his),and he makes themas ashadow(theLXX.renderἐν σκιᾷ, but this may beadsensumonly, not because they read differently)which(full relative, because the whole idea is referred to, it may be best rendered ‘because’)who(repeated, and so giving emphasis)tells to man what shall be after him(i.e.what shall succeed him)under the sun.The limitation is necessary, and especially here, as this passage closes the argument thus far. What is to follow is in the nature of detached and paradoxical aphorisms, illustrating these truths: they are some of these many arguments demonstrating human evanescence and transitoriness, but stated less formally than heretofore.

Back to Index Next