A commentary on Ecclesiastes

♦VIII. (1.) Who is as the wise? (the LXX., rendering ad sensum, translate τίς οἶδεν σοφούς, ‘who knows wise men or things?’ which E. and X. alter to σοφίαν, ‘wisdom.’ ‘Who is as the wise?’ or, as מי stands first, ‘ah, who is really wise?’ There is a double meaning here——a lamentation over his own failure, and a natural reflection on the superior wisdom of the Wise One, or, as we should write, the Omniscient) and who (‘and who too’) knows a solution (פשר occurs Daniel ii. 4, 5, 6, etc., but in that prophet only, and is used to signify the interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, hence LXX. λύσις) of a reason: (who then is so wise that he knows how to solve the matter, or give it its true interpretation? The answer follows) that wisdom of a man enlightens (but as חכמה follows חכם, it rises into importance, ‘that wisdom of a man which enlightens’) his countenance (there is a manifest allusion here to Proverbs xvi. 15, and the meaning of ‘enlightens his face’ is, ‘gives him favour or satisfaction’), but the strength of his face (which has the meaning of sternness or wilfulness, see Deuteronomy xxvii. 50) is hated (the Masorets propose the alteration from יְשֻׁנֶא to יְשֻׁנֶּה; but this was because they did not understand the context; the LXX. render ἀναιδὴς ♠προσώπῳ αὐτοῦ μισηθήσεται, ‘but a man of shameless countenance will be hated,’ and also the Syriac, but strictly ישנא is impersonal, ‘one hates.’ The meaning then, read in the light of Proverbs xvi. 15, evidently is, that obstinacy is that which a king hates, and of course a fortiori the Divine King).

(2.) I (emphatic, none of the ancient versions take any notice of this emphatic pronoun, a reason for which will appear presently) the mouth of a king (not the king, thus the literal meaning is, ‘I, a king’s word’) keep it (the explanation is to be found in the equivocal use of the word ‘king,’ which has an undertone of reference to the Great King: compare also chapter ii. 12, and observe how excellently a word of counsel suits the passage. The meaning therefore is, I will give you a royal word to keep, or guard), and upon reasoning (על דברת, see chapter iii. 18, and with the same meaning ‘upon the reasonings about,’ the Masorets put a strong distinctive accent on וְעַ֕ל, thus separating it from the following words, but this was because they did not see the exact meaning) the oath of God (see Deuteronomy vii. 8, Jeremiah xi. 5; the oath of God then is that which God has determined on, and we are especially to regard this, and take care that we use no hasty words or expressions about it).

(3.) Do not hasten (this the LXX. and Syriac join on to the preceding verse, against the accentuation of the Masorets, and this makes better sense) from his face thou shalt go (but as ‘face’ is the emphatic word, it is clear that the clause is in the nature of a question, or rather with a note of admiration, i.e. ‘From his face are you going!’), do not stand (‘abide,’ or ‘stay’) in a reason which is an evil one for all he provides (יחפץ, the verb, of which חפץ is the root, and which invariably means ‘Divine providence’ in this book) he does (he always acts, therefore, according to the pleasure of his Divine providence).

(4.) In whom (or ‘in which,’ for it refers back to the whole idea of God’s providence) the matter of a king is powerful (i.e. a power, ‘matter,’ דבר as usual being taken in its technical sense of the matter reasoned about and the matter itself. The LXX. invert the order of the words——a very unusual proceeding with them: it is, however, to be observed that B. omits λαλεῖ, the word out of place), and who shall say to him, What doest thou?

(5.) One keeping the command (a participle, that which is commanded) does not know a matter (as above) which is evil, and time and judgment knows (repeated; thus the exact meaning is, ‘but time and judgment’) the heart of a wise man (‘does know’).

(6.) For to every providence there is a time and a judgment (that is, a proper season for its occurrence, and a time when it will be shown to be in the economy of providence), for the wrong of man (generic, with the article) is much upon him (the LXX. here read דעת, ‘knowledge,’ γνῶσις; Symmachus and the Syriac read as the Hebrew. On the whole, however, it appears that the text is fully entitled to stand undisturbed, as it makes better sense, and, supposing an error in the LXX., it might so readily occur from a misreading of letters so much alike as ד and ר. The older forms, however, of these two letters were not so much alike, as is shown by the Moabite stone, and hence caution is required in coming to a judgment; but further, γνῶσις has already been used in a bad sense, see chapter i. 18).

(7.) For he is not knowing (that is, man is not a creature that knows) what will be (contract relative with the verb): for how it will be, who can tell him? (the particle כי is introduced four times, and each introduces an additional reason strengthening what went before. Thus the wise heart will not know a matter which is bad——will not allow, that is, that in its nature it is so, and he does know that there is an appointed time and judgment which will set all right. First, because to every providence whatever there is such a time and judgment; secondly, because there is so much evil amongst mankind, which of course needs rectification, and will have it, see chapter iii. 15; and because he cannot tell what will be, and so right may be discovered and providence vindicated in the future; and lastly, because as none can predict the result of any event, so he is an imperfect judge concerning it. This impotence of man is further set forth in what follows).

(8.) There is nothing in (that is, There is not a single) man caused to have power (LXX. ἐξουσιάζων) with the spirit (the LXX. render with ἐν, ‘in’) to the restraint of (כלא‎——1 Samuel vi. 10; Jeremiah xxxii. 3——is used of restraint in prison) with respect to the spirit (את with the article, and the noun repeated, making it exceedingly emphatic, which the LXX. note by their customary σὺν: ‘to have any restraint with respect to that same spirit’ is the meaning) and there is no power (that is, ‘power to rule or direct’) in the day of death, and there is no discharge (occurs Psalms lxxviii. 49) in the warfare, and not delivers (this standing first is emphatic; it is equivalent to ‘but this does not deliver’) even impiety in respect of its lord (or, as our idiom would put it, ‘but impiety will not deliver those who resort to it’).

(9.) With respect to all this I have seen, (i.e. ‘observed’), and setting myself (infinitive absolute. Zöckler says the infinitive absolute with copula prefixed indicates an action contemporaneous with the main verb; hence the LXX. render ἔδωκα ... εἰς), with respect to my heart, to all the working which (full relative) is done (niphal) under the sun, the time which (the LXX. apparently take no notice of עת, but render as if they had read את אשר; but if we take עת as in apposition to תהת ה״, and notice that אשר is repeated, we shall see that the sense is ‘I mean with regard to that time when,’ etc.) rules (or has power) the man (mankind generally) by a man to an injury to him (not exactly with the meaning of one man injuring another, but rather, that when humanity has any power over itself in the person of other men, it uses this power to injury for the most part, an instance of which follows).

(10.) And in this wise (ובכן, occurs only Esther iv. 16, in the sense of ‘in this way’) I have observed wicked ones (not the wicked, but continually instances of the impiously wicked) sepulchres (the Masorets point with ♣kubbutz, the ♦pual participle, the only other instance of which occurs 1 Kings xiii. 31; but there the participle is full: we cannot therefore accept the Masoretic pointing as authoritative; it really amounts to an alteration of the unpointed text. The LXX. considered קברים a noun plural, accusative to ובאו, and translate εἰς τάφοῦς ♠εἰσαχθέντας, ‘carried into the tombs’) and they entered (I would seek an explanation of the difficulty here in the occurrence of this conjunction ‘and,’ of which a similar instance is found at chapter ii. 15, ‘so they entered a place ... and they are going,’ etc.; i.e. ‘did this as a habit’) and from a place of the hallowed one (participle) they go. (The rendering of the LXX. is easily explained; they translate as they do, because we have a past tense joined with a present——יהלקו, thus giving the meaning of imperfects. As the wicked could not be said to go after death into the sepulchre, they rendered by a passive, ‘were taken,’ or because they wished it to be made plain that it was not a mere entering and departing, but that the wicked were buried, i.e. honoured, in their graves). And they were forgotten in the city in which (full relative, because it does not refer closely to the city only; they were forgotten, not as regards that particular city, but as a general proposition) thus they did (but twenty MSS. and all the ancient versions, except the Syriac, in place of וישתכחו, ‘were forgotten,’ read ישתבחו, ‘praised,’ which not only makes better sense, but accounts for the hithpael with its reflexive signification. Symmachus reads, ‘And when they had gone round in the holy place, they returned, being praised in the city where they had so done’—— καὶ ὅποτε περιῆσαν ἐν τόπῳ ἁγίῳ ἀνέστρεφον ἐπαινούμενοι ἐν τῇ πόλει.——See Field’s Hexapla, p. 396. He also gives the explanatory gloss, ὡς δίκαια πράξαντες, ‘as those who had done well.’ Hence, then, on the whole, we should prefer to take in substance the LXX.’s rendering, and look upon this as setting forth a salient example of successful hypocrisy. After all, the forced renderings of certain critics are in effect alterations of the text, or yield no sense at all. The remark) This also is vanity (equivalent to ‘this then is besides, an instance of evanescence or transitoriness,’ is very striking and appropriate at this point, as also what succeeds).

(11.) Which (standing at the beginning of a period is emphatic, and thus the subject of the whole. ‘It amounts to this’ would render it well) there is nothing done as a sentence (occurs Esther i. 20) of doing the evil speedily, therefore full is the heart of the sons of man in them to the doing of an evil (that is, ‘It amounts to this, there is nothing inflicted as a penalty of doing the evil [i.e. evil generally] speedily; on that account filled is the heart of men within them in order to do that evil, the word evil being repeated’).

(12.) Which (repeated at the beginning of a clause, equivalent therefore to ‘And it also amounts to this’) a sinning (חטא, which the Masorets point as a participle, and the LXX. confirm, rendering by a verb) doing an evil a hundred (so stands the text at present, but it clearly was not so in the text which the ancient versions used, all of which read differently, except the Syriac, which follows the Hebrew. The LXX. read either מאן or מעת. Symmachus, Aquila, and Theodotion read מות. Jerome remarks the difficulty; and the Syriac Hexapla shows that the text needed emendation at an early time. We believe the LXX. have preserved the right reading; moreover, that they took אריך as a noun in the sense of ‘prolongation,’ like אסיר, ‘a prisoner,’ Genesis xxxix. 20, 22; זעיר, ‘a little,’ Job xxxvi. 2, Isaiah xxviii. 10 and 13; for ומאריך is not a participle hiphil, but is really the substantive אריך with מ. When, however, this word was taken as a hiphil, מעת became unintelligible, and was altered by conjecture to מאת, or מות; hence the meaning is not) caused to be prolonged (as it stands in the text, but rather ‘and from the prolongation’) to him: (emphatic, hence the sense of the passage is, noticing the repetition of the מ, and the fact that אשר also stands at the head of the verse, ‘And it amounts to this as well: a wickedly mistaking one does evil from the time and from the prolongation of it to HIM,’ i.e. ‘to the other above cited;’ and hence the LXX. render αὐτῶν, also referring us back to the hypocritical sinners spoken of above. Then follows a reason introduced with) for in addition (besides its being a wicked mistake, a sin which it is always folly to commit) knowing am I (i.e. ‘I do know, notwithstanding appearances’) this also, it will be a good to the fearers of God who (but full relative repeated, and so with the meaning ‘because they are those who’) fear (emphatic, with double jud) before him.

(14.) There exists a vanity done (i.e. which occurs or happens to men) under the sun (the LXX. render by a perfect, πεποίηται), which is, that there exists righteous (full relative) which (persons or acts) it reaches (hiphil participle, Genesis xxviii. 12) to them (emphatic) according to the doing of the wicked ones, (generic; they attain the same ends as the wicked ones do, in this world at least, for ‘under the sun’ is put in as a qualifying clause), and there are wicked ones which it reaches (here we have the contract relative instead of the full one above. So accurate a writer as Koheleth could hardly have done this without reason. We have already noticed the subjunctive sense the contract relative gives to the verb it joins——possibly he intends a limitation; it is an occurrence which sometimes happens, the rule however is after all the other way) to them according to the working of the righteous ones, I said which also (שגם——see chapter i. 17, ii. 15, the only other two instances in which this combination occurs; it clearly gives an interrogatory force, with a tone of surprise) is vanity?

(15.) And I praised, I myself, with respect to (which the LXX. note by σὺν adverbial) the gladness (which is both generic and abstract, ‘I came, that is, to a strong conclusion as to the value of present happiness’), because there is no good to a man under the sun, except to eat, and to drink, and to rejoice, and that (emphatic) to abide with him in (or by means of) his toil during the days of his life (i.e. no other real good except this gratification immediately arising from the toil) which is a gift to him (emphatic) of Divine Providence (and so not the result of his labour, but a mercy for which he ought to thank God) under the sun (which is in this case reserved to the end of the sentence, and indeed the period, for the next clause is a summing up).

(16.) As then I have given with respect to my heart (with את) to the knowledge of wisdom, and to the appearances (וְלִרְאוֹת; this infinitive with וְ is peculiar to Ecclesiastes——occurs chapters iii. 18, v. 17, and here; see the peculiar shade of meaning given by the conjunction) with respect to the anxiety (see chapter i. 13; generic with את, of which, however, the LXX. take no special notice) which is done on earth (but we must write ‘endured upon earth’ to express the meaning, which amounts to this, ‘As, then, I have given my heart to the knowledge of wisdom, i.e. a scientific knowledge, with regard to the spectacle of that anxious uncertainty which is suffered on the earth’), for also by day and by night sleep (the Masorets with great taste put ‘sleep’ in a clausule by itself) with his eyes he is not seeing (i.e. this uncertainty is incessant).