A commentary on Ecclesiastes

VII. (1.) Good is a name, above ointment good (there is an alliteration here which gives great pungency to the sentence. The Masorets commence this paragraph with a large letter. The Jews have discovered many mysteries in these letters, but here, perhaps, it is sufficient reason to allege that a new division of the subject begins); and the day (but without the article) of the death above the day of his birth (equivalent to one’s birth, for there is no nominative expressed. Some have remarked that the second clause being connected by a conjunction with the first, is to be looked upon as containing a consequence of the fact stated in the first; which is quite true if not pressed too far. Possibly the idea might be presented thus——

(2.) Good is it to go to the house of mourning, more than to go to the house of feasting, in which (full relative) is (emphatic) the end of all the man (the end of all humanity generally: every real biography is a tragedy and ends with a death), and the living one will give it to his heart.

(3.) Good is vexation (the vexation of disappointment——see chapter i. 18, references) above laughter; for in the evil (concrete, and therefore an evil or distortion) of the faces (plural, but פנים is so generally, as the face is double) is bettered (a pe. jud verb, with double jud) the heart. I think the equivoke here is, ‘the worse one looks, the better one gets.’

(6.) For as the voice of the thorns under the pot (there is both alliteration and equivoke here, the root סור having the meaning, ‘to turn aside,’ ‘be crooked,’ etc., and סר, ‘displeased,’ 1 Kings xx. 43, xxi. 4) so (the word ‘so’ is somewhat emphatic, as standing alone) a laugh of the befooled (generic), also this is vanity (i.e. an instance of evanescence).

(7.) For the oppression (generic, ‘the affliction of life’) makes mad (poel future, occurs Job xii. 7, Isaiah xlii. 5; compare also chapter ii. 2, which we have seen is the madness of false expectation) a wise man (hence the meaning must be, that the oppressions or afflictions of life put out the calculations of the wise, and make their expectation false) and destroys with respect to the heart (את לב, therefore emphatic; hence the LXX. render τὴν καρδίαν, and the meaning is, that affliction [compare chapter iv. 1] not only makes his expectations false, but disappoints his desires; which clearly, with the advantages of sorrow stated above, it ought not to do to a wise man) of his purpose. (Following the LXX., who derive the word from the root מתן, which exists in the Arabic, and also in the Syriac——see Bernstein, s. v., ‘moratus est,’ ‘tardus fuit;’ ‘that which is purposed or appointed’ would be quite a natural meaning, for נתן not only has the meaning ‘to give,’ but also ‘to settle or appoint.’ If we render with the Authorized Version ‘gift,’ we introduce an idea altogether new and strange, while with the rendering supported by the LXX. and unpointed text, the aphorism connects itself with what went before and follows after.)

(10.) Do not say (אל, the particle of prohibition being repeated, this second is equivalent to ‘neither say’) what was (how was it) that the days (with the article, and therefore generic), the former ones (again generic, in strict apposition) were good ones beyond these (the whole construction of the sentence shows that the Laudator temporis acti is here specially reprehended), because not from wisdom (i.e. the wisdom of such an inquiry is here negatived) thou askest (שאל is to ask in the sense of wishing to have——Exodus iii. 22) upon (or about) this.

(11.) A good is wisdom (the two nouns both abstracts or in strict agreement) together with an inheritance, and a profitable thing (וְיֹתֵר, which the Masorets point as a participle, not יתרון, which would give a different idea, i.e. a ‘profit generally,’ which, in the sense of this book, wisdom is not always, for it fails, through unforeseen accidents, of always attaining its end, and sometimes perishes like folly; but with an inheritance, wisdom to know how to use it is always a real advantage in some way even in this life, and hence the qualification) to those that see the sun (generic, as a sun which is light and warmth indeed, but also glare and heat).

(12.) For in shadow of the wisdom is in shadow of the silver. (The sentence, whichever way we take it, is enigmatical, as indeed the form shows. The LXX. render ad sensum, ‘Because in her shadow, wisdom is as the shadow of silver,’ but very probably not because they read differently, this rendering merely gives the equivoke; for the literal meaning of the sentence, as it stands in the text, is, ‘Because in the shadow of wisdom generically, is the same as to be in the shadow of money.’ The idea of shadow arises naturally from that of sunshine, spoken of above; for we must remember that in the East, shadow is always desired, and it is to the natives of southern Europe and Asia the symbol of pleasant refreshment. Shadow and sun are cognate ideas——see Psalms xci. 1, Isaiah xxxii. 2. Again, the root כסף has the meaning to desire earnestly——see Job xiv. 15, Psalms xvii. 12; hence the further play upon the words.) And a profit of a knowledge of the wisdom? (generic, this special wisdom, but the passage might also be rendered, and a ‘profit of knowledge, it is wisdom which,’ etc.) it enlivens its possessor. (The Masorets, by accenting דַּ֔עַת with zakeph, separate it from what follows, and so render as above. Thus the meaning is——‘and there is this advantage in the knowledge of wisdom, it makes its possessor live,’ or gives him life: but not absolutely so; this appears from what follows.)

(13.) See (as the verb stands first, this is the emphatic word in the sentence, equivalent, therefore, to ‘observe, however’) with respect to the working of the Deity, for who is enabled to set in order (occurs chapters i. 15, xii. 9 only, and is a word peculiar to Ecclesiastes; it is used in the technical sense of ‘resolve,’ or ‘account for,’ a providential mystery) with respect to that which (the LXX. give the force of this את here by the rendering ὃν ἂν ὁ Θεὸς) He hath involved it? (עות, in hithpael, occurs Job xix. 6, chapters i. 15, and xii. 3. The cognate עוה occurs nearly as often, and with the same signification, which is the exact opposite of תקן, ‘to involve,’ ‘make complex.’ ‘Who can resolve that with respect to which He has determined that it shall be involved?’ is the precise meaning given by the suffix to the verb.)

(14.) In a day of good (טובה, the abstract here having the meaning of ‘prosperity’) be in good (which the LXX. render, ‘live in good,’ and as the root is repeated, we must render, that good), and in a day of (with the meaning, ‘and in a time also of’) evil (abstract as above) see (emphatic, not only from the alliteration of רעה and ראה, but from its being the same word at the end as at the beginning, verse 13). Moreover, with respect to this, to the counterpart (לעמת, see chapter v. 16 (15), where this word is discussed) of that makes (i.e. so works) the Deity, for the reason (על דברת occurs chapters iii. 18, vii. 14, viii. 2, and in the same sense ‘to the intent that’) he might not (contract relative, with the negative, and involving its usual subjunctive meaning) find even humanity, his future (i.e. that which comes after him or succeeds, whether this be due to his own labour or otherwise) anything (which is reserved to the end of the sentence, and is equivalent to ‘anything at all.’ Thus, then, the transition to the next clause is quite manifest. It follows of course that this uncertainty as to the result applies even in the case of virtue and vice: this, therefore, is the topic next discussed).

(15.) With regard to the whole (with את and the article, ‘with regard to the whole of life’ is therefore the meaning, as so often in this book——see chapter i. 2) I have observed in the days of my vanity (with the idea, therefore, ‘so far as my short experience goes’) that there is (a person or thing) made right, yet perishing in his righteousness, and that there is (as יש is repeated it becomes emphatic, and thus we must render ‘there also is’) an impious caused to be prolonging (himself) in his mischief (i.e. the hiphil participle gives the idea that this prolongation of life by evil means, or the like, is due to the wickedness itself: it is again the problem of successful impiety; for the word מאריך compare Exodus xx. 12).

(16.) Do not be made right too much, and do not (repeated, ‘do not also’) make thyself wise (the hithpael occurs only Exodus i. 10, and has a sinister meaning. Pharaoh’s policy with the children of Israel was for the time dealing wisely, but also a ‘prolonging in wickedness’) to excess (‘or over and above what is reasonable,’ expecting a ‘profit,’ יותר, from it, in that sense in which this word is used in this book). Wherefore shouldest thou be desolated? (but the hithpolel occurs Psalms cxliii. 4, Isaiah lix. 16, lxii. 5, Daniel viii. 27, and in all cases with the idea of ‘consternation’ at an unexpected and afflictive occurrence. Thus the meaning must be, ‘that this righteousness overmuch, and wisdom beyond what is reasonable, will disappoint.’ We must not then, in the days of our vanity, expect too much from right actions; they may to all appearance prove as disastrous as the most impious could be. In the same way impiety, that is, high-handed and presumptuous rebellion against right, may succeed so well that it may cause a prolongation of itself; the very word is sarcastic, as pointing to an end of wrong at last. The inference naturally seems to be——If this be so, what is the use of doing right at all? but a deeply sarcastic refutation is given to this thought in the succeeding clause).

(17.) Do not be impious to excess, and do not be (the quadruple repetition of the particle of prohibition gives emphasis to it, especially at the close of the sentence——(1.) Do not be over right, and (2.) do not be over wise either, (3.) nor impious either, nor (4.) still less either a clever fool, are the four stages of the argument; the emphatic תהי is reserved to the last clause here in this member; in the former clause it stands first, giving it thus a still further sarcastic emphasis, something like our ‘whatever you are do not be’) an elaborate fool (סכל, compare chapters ii. 19, x. 3, 14; and see the meaning of this term discussed there. This wickedness then, it seems, is wise folly, or false prudence). Wherefore shouldest thou die in what is not your time? The sarcasm is surely deep and cutting which, covertly reminding the impious that he has yet to die, advises him not to die before his time.

(18.) Good it is that (full relative, referring to both the following clauses) thou layest hold of this, and, moreover, from that do not withhold with respect to thine hand (the root ינח occurs chapters ii. 18, x. 4, xi. 6; see also Genesis ii. 15, xix. 16, etc.——the precise meaning being, in all these cases, ‘to lay up.’ The LXX. translate this word by μιαίνῃς, ‘defile;’ and hence consider the word to refer to the second clause of the verse above; but it may be doubted, as Schleusner points out, whether the rendering of the LXX. is not a misreading of Symmachus’ μὴ ἀνῇς, which was successively altered to μίανῃς and μὴ μίανῃς, so that with this before us we may well reject their reading as not entitled to disturb our confidence in the Hebrew text; observing also that it is את ידך, i.e. do not rest, or do not lay it up, with respect to thy hand; the conclusion is, do not touch either the wickedness or the false prudence. The rendering of the Authorized Version is ambiguous; it is not clear what the second ‘this’ refers to, but evidently admits of the meaning above. The whole drift then of the aphorism is, ‘lay hold of right notwithstanding, and have nothing to do with wickedness’). For he who fears God goes out of (or ‘gets free from,’ as את follows) with respect to all of them (i.e. the whole four difficulties here mentioned; he will neither be over-expectant of an immediate result from his righteousness, nor of his prudence; on the other hand, he will not be either impious, or an elaborate fool).

(21.) Moreover (an additional reason), to all the words (הדברים, in the usual sense, and very emphatic as followed by the corresponding verb) which they speak (reason about) do not give thine heart (because they are not worth thinking about: the reason follows), which (repeated, equivalent to ‘they are such that’) not dost thou hear (‘as thou wouldest not listen to if’) with respect to thy servant he was cursing thee.

(22.) For moreover, times many knows (but the LXX. read ירע, κακώσει, ‘afflicts,’ that is, the servant does so. Symmachus also reads ὅτι πρὸς πλεόνακις καιροῦ πονηρεύσεται καρδία σου, supporting the LXX.; the Syriac, on the other hand, reads as the Hebrew. If, therefore, ירע was the real reading, the change took place in ancient times) thy heart (which is nominative to ידע) which (the third repetition of the relative; it ought therefore to be taken in the meaning of ‘and this,’) also thou (which is emphatic if we follow the Masorets, who point אַתָּ in which apparently they are supported by both the LXX. and Symmachus) hast cursed others.

(23, 24.) All this (the Masorets point זֹה feminine, equivalent to neuter) have I tried with wisdom; I said I will be wise (with ה paragogic, and Taylor in his note observes that this form is optative, and expresses a strong desire [Lange, Commmentary on Old Testament, American edition]; might it not with truth be said that it is the abstract idea of which the verb is the concrete, ‘I shall be wisdomed’?), but that was far from me (but notice again רחוקה, agreeing no doubt with חכמה understood, but not the less an abstract on that account: it was farness or distance itself from me——‘beyond my reach’ is the meaning), a distant thing, what is it which it will be (that is, that he could not reach by wisdom to discern what the future might be), and deep, deep (‘doubly deep,’ very emphatic), who will find it out? (as these questions expect the answer, No, they are equivalent to ‘a distant thing! is not it, the future, indeed? and a vast depth which none can discover.’)

(25.) I turned round (to do something, as this formula always implies), I and my heart (for we have here a confession) to know and to investigate (that is in order to know, etc., the prepositions being repeated) and seek (without a preposition; the distinction seems to be that the seeking is to be the consequence of the above investigation) wisdom and device (חשבון is exclusively a Koheleth word, and occurs verse 27, ix. 10, only, it is thus not easy to determine its precise meaning, but it is probably, as Moses Stuart points out, the opposite of הללות; and if so, it will be something reasonable, in the sense of wise or well-formed and successful plan, as its opposite is an ill-formed and disappointing one; thus השבונות——occurs only here, verse 29, and 2 Chronicles xxvi. 15, where it is used to denote Asa’s engines of war——is evidently ‘efficient contrivances.’ To know wisdom and a device, then, in this sense, is ‘wisdom how to obtain a reasonable or proper result; and, on the other hand, to discover the opposite.’ With this accords what follows), and to know (as this is repeated it is equivalent to, and so to know) wickedness (as) folly (כֶסֶל——the only instance of the occurrence of this form in Ecclesiastes——compare Job viii. 14, xxxi. 24, where we find that ‘expectation’ is the meaning, though not necessarily in a bad sense, yet clearly so here. The LXX. render ἀσεβοῦς ἀφροσύνην [which E. X. alter to εὐφροσύνην], ‘the folly of a wicked person’) and the false wisdom (plural form in ות——with the article) follies (הוללות, as we have seen, compare chapter i. 17, of the disappointing kind. The LXX. render here ὀχληρίαν, ‘trouble,’ and περιφοράν, ‘madness,’ with καὶ ‘and,’ which is so far wrong, as there is no conjunction in the original. The meaning of this passage it is no doubt difficult to discover, but if we are right in the above analysis the interpretation must be as follows: ‘I turned myself round, I and my heart——(or, my own personal experience) to know and to investigate, and so seek, wisdom and well-formed plans: and so to recognise a wicked folly; and [a series of] falsely-wise acts, [which were] disappointing follies.’ The punctuation represents the accents, the larger distinctive accents being represented by the longer pauses. The Syriac reads , ‘to know the wickedness of the fool, and folly and adultery,’ which coincides with the above; a reason for the peculiar rendering ‘adultery’ will appear presently).

(26.) And finding (a participle written full, giving a peculiar emphasis to this word) am I a bitterness above death with respect to the woman (את with the article, which the LXX. note by σὺν, as usual; thus ‘woman’ is generic, hence the precise idea seems to be ‘and a discovery of mine more bitter than death——is with respect to woman;’ and, again, this follows the accentuation, which makes a pause at ‘death,’) who (but the relative is full, and so refers back to the whole clause, ‘when she’) is snares (masculine plural, and hence distributive, ‘in the nature of an ensnarer’ then, see Proverbs xii. 12, chapter ix. 14, where this form alone מצודה in the feminine occurs, chapter ix. 12, Isaiah xxix. 7, Ezekiel xix. 9, and with shurek at Job xix. 6; there is a slight difference in meaning in these forms) and allurements (the root חרם is to destroy, and the noun signifies ‘a cursed thing’ as often as a ‘net;’ see Deuteronomy vii. 26, Joshua vi. 17) her heart (singular following plural; her heart then is in the nature of things which allure to destruction, a whole armoury of them, as it were, in her love) and bonds her hands (or ‘powers’); good in the sight of Divine providence (‘a real good is it in the sight of Divine providence’ is the meaning) is deliverance from her (emphatic), but the erring one (a full participle, which the LXX. note) is taken by her (emphatic).

(27, 28.) Observe this, have I found the speech of Koheleth (it is usually said that אמרה is a feminine agreeing with קהלת, but קהלת was a king, and so certainly masculine. It has been proposed to write אמר הקהלת, but this is another instance of the attempt to cut the knot by altering the text, besides in that case Koheleth would be generic. We must therefore fall back upon the usual meaning of feminines as the abstract of the masculines. Now, אמר is ‘to say,’ to ‘announce,’ and therefore the abstract will be ‘the announcement;’ this abstract, however, stands by itself, and is not joined closely to קהלת, as in that case it would have been אמרת. Attending then to these principles of grammar, the meaning will be, ‘observe this, I have found it, and announce it as Koheleth,’ an additional proof that here we have a personal experience of Koheleth’s) one to one to find a wise result, (that is collecting instance after instance, or trying one method after another so as to find the wise result, in contrast to the disappointing folly mentioned above) which yet seeks my soul, and has not found (the ‘not’ is emphatic, and denies that he has discovered it: experimental science did no more for him than moral); a man (אדם; we should have anticipated איש from the context, but אדם includes both sexes, so that we have a sarcastic equivoke) a single one from a thousand have I found, but a woman in all these have I not found (that is, that he could come to no general conclusion; only in his experience he had met with one man but not with one woman, the allusion being evidently to his thousand wives and concubines. From this individual history we are allowed to make our own conclusions. In the case of Solomon, it was his numerous wives which turned away his heart. He had apparently one or two male friends, such as Zadoc and Nathan, that he could trust. The word ‘found’ occurs seven times in its different forms——it is all he could discover).