A commentary on Ecclesiastes

IV. (1.) Turned I, and I see (the present tense following the perfect is equivalent to our imperfect, ‘I was again regarding;’ because this point has been touched on before, though in another form, at ii. 22, 23) with respect to all (את כל, LXX. σύμπαντα) the oppressions (with the article; we must not restrict this to the oppression of one man over another, but take the word in its general sense, as from care, sickness, misfortune, etc.) which are done (the niphal has an objective sense, ‘submitted to,’ or ‘are done upon others’) under the sun, and behold (calling attention to a manifest fact) the tear (singular. This turn of thought, which looks upon each tear as a sorrow, a type and sample of all other sorrows, is very beautiful. Compare Revelation vii. 17, and xxi. 4, Isaiah xxv. 8, for the other side of this,——‘God shall wipe away every tear,’ etc.) of the oppressings (the same word as before, העשׁקים, which the LXX., rendering ad sensum, express by a passive participle; but the meaning of the passage really requires the same word in both clauses: as far as Koheleth’s argument here is concerned, the existence of the oppressor and oppressed are equally mysterious), and there is nothing to them of comfort (the LXX. render by a participle, ‘comforting,’ ‘no one comforts them’), and in the hand of their oppressors might (this means, no doubt, ‘that the power of the oppressors was so great,’ it was impossible to escape them; but hidden underneath is the thought——which again increases the mystery——that there is a mighty hand which could restrain these if it would), and nothing to them of comfort (repeated, and so emphatic).

(2.) Then I praised, I did (it was a personal matter, a mere opinion of Koheleth’s), with respect to the dead (with the emphatic את) which at present (כבר see chapter i. 10, references, which occurs in the same technical sense as before, ‘this present time or state’) are dead (hence the whole is equivalent to ‘which have finished their lives, and now are in the state of the departed’), above the living which they are living as yet (עֲדֶנָה occurs here only, and only differs in pointing from עֶדְנָה, which occurs Genesis xviii. 12 only, ‘pleasure.’ It will be seen that this unusual word leads to a strange equivoke, which yet helps the sense.)

(3.) And good above both (equals our ‘better off than either’) which as yet (עֲדֶן here only, differing again from עֵדֶן, ‘delight,’ ‘Eden,’ only in the pointing) have not been which (this being repeated, is equivalent to ‘even those who’) do not see the workings so evil which are worked (niphal, ‘suffered’) under the sun. It is remarkable that in both cases the sentence may be rendered, without any violence to its grammar, with each of these unusual words, translated ‘pleasantness’ and ‘pleasure’ respectively, as they ought to be thus, ‘Then I praised the dead which are now in the state of the dead, above the living, in so far as they are living pleasantly (Hebrew idiom, pleasantness), and better off than both to whom the pleasure is not, who is not seeing that evil work which is done under the sun.’ No one can, of course, for a moment doubt that the true meaning is given by the former rendering, while this latter is only an equivoke, but it is an equivoke which helps the sense, and gives a peculiar sarcastic tone to the whole. I have endeavoured to represent this in the paraphrase by an equivoke between the words ‘pleasant’ and ‘present,’ which I am almost inclined to withdraw, so feebly does it render the grave biting sarcasm of the original.

(4.) And I have seen myself (equivalent to ‘I have also observed’), with respect to the whole toil (in respect ‘of all toil whatsoever.’ Notice the twice-repeated emphatic את and σὺν), and with respect to all success whatever (that is, toil or pains which come to a successful issue——כשרון occurs ii. 21, here, and v. 11 (10), with the meaning ‘success.’ The verb occurs xi. 6, x. 10; and the only other place in which the root occurs is Esther viii. 5. It has been said in consequence to be a late word; but the force of any reasoning, derived from its occurrence, is much weakened by noticing that it is a technical term, and is used to signify the ‘successful issue’ which results. See chapter xi. 6, which is decisive. The LXX. render by ἀνδρείαν, ‘bravery,’ which is also the rendering at chapter v. 11) of the working (המעשה, in the usual sense of the working, or what is accomplished), for (or ‘how,’ rather) it is (feminine pronoun emphatic, see chapter iii. 13) envy (or jealousy) of a man (not אדם here, but איש, ‘any one,’ or ‘one.’ German, ‘man.’ The meaning then is, ‘one’s jealousy’) over his neighbour. (Thus the whole sentiment is, that Koheleth had observed that even when toil, the trouble attending labour, seemed to have a successful result, it produced more envy than pleasure, which Koheleth expresses by the pregnant words, ‘It is just the envy of a man over his neighbour.’) Also this is a vanity and vexation of spirit (i.e. is another instance of it).

(5.) The fool (i.e. the ‘befooled,’ הכסיל, doubtless by envy) folds (occurs iii. 5, 2 Kings iv. 16; or perhaps ‘wrings’) his hands and eats his flesh. (It has been much disputed what we are to understand by this figure; but Proverbs vi. 10, xxiv. 23——where the same formula occurs to express the idleness of the sluggard——seems conclusive as to the meaning of folding his hands, as also ‘flesh’ in this book has a technical meaning, ‘the sensuous nature’——see chapter ii. 3. We can best understand it of the self-mortification of envy: thus the connexion will be apparent both with what went before, and is to follow).

(6.) Good (i.e. a real good) filling a hand (כף, ‘the open palm’) with rest, than to fill (which repeated twice is emphatic) the double hand (חפנים occurs only Exodus ix. 8, Leviticus xvi. 12, Proverbs xxx. 4, Ezekiel x. 2, 7,——the ‘two hands’ held together so as to hold the most they can) of a toil and vexation of spirit.

(10.) For if they fall, the one (singular, following plural, either one or other fall, that is) then is caused to stand his fellow (Judges xx. 11, Psalms xlv. 7), and woe to him (in this form at this place only, perhaps because of the play upon the word אֵי לוֹ ‘where is he?’ an equivoke which helps the sense) the single one which falls (contracted relative, ‘when or as he falls,’) and there is no second to make him stand.

(13.) Good is a child, poor (מסכן, occurs chapter iv. 13, ix. 15, 16 only; the root occurs in the sense ‘profitable,’ see Job xxii. 2; the idea seems to be, that kind of poverty which is economical and sparing) and wise from (‘above,’ that is; the ordinary מ־ of comparison;) a king old (זקן, the alliteration between miscan and zakan gives pungency. We have rendered this in the paraphrase by a corresponding alliteration) and befooled, who does not know how to be warned as yet. (The allusion here to Solomon is palpable, and this may account for the apparently redundant עוד, ‘as yet,’ at the end of the sentence.)

(14.) For from the house of rebels (הסורים is considered a contraction for האסורים, ‘prison;’ but, to say the least, this is a violation of the critical canon, which bids us prefer the harder reading. That the derivation from סור, ‘to turn aside,’ hence ‘revolters,’ is contrary to the pointing, is not a valid objection, because the Masorets pointed as they did to explain a difficulty; so also the LXX., who read δεσμῶν and δεσμίων. If possible, we ought to preserve intact the unpointed text. The exact and literal meaning is, as the text stands, ‘from the house of the turners-aside,’ i.e. those conspirators and wicked men, sycophants, who will be flattering him to promote their own interest, and this was exactly Solomon’s case) he goes out to reign, for (the second כי, with the meaning ‘so’) also (‘moreover;’ this particle, as we have seen, usually introduces an additional reason, confirming the one which went before) in his kingdom is begotten (♦נולד, noled, a play upon ילד, jeled, above) want (רש is poverty in the sense of indigence and meanness; compare 1 Samuel xviii. 23, and Proverbs xix. 1, 7, 22; as, however, רש has the form of a concrete, we must remember that it involves the idea of a poor man, hence there is a sarcastic ambiguity, heightened by alliteration. Take the LXX. and Masorets’ sense, which is merely to allow the obvious play between הסורים and האסורים, and the sentiment is true, and, curiously enough, equally corresponds with the history).

The following passage is one of great difficulty, but a very careful attention to its precise wording and the equivoke it contains, may perhaps afford a solution.

(15.) I have seen (‘observed as matter of fact’), with respect to all the lives (which the LXX. render σύμπαντας τοὺς ζῶντας), the proceeding ones (participle, piel plural with the article——LXX. τοὺς περιπατοῦντας——occurs here and Psalms civ. 3, Proverbs vi. 11; ‘as they are advancing’ must be the meaning, and hence the observation was made with regard to the progress of these lives), under the sun (that is, in this stage of their existence; the limitation here is excessively important,) together with the child (with the article, generic, and giving the meaning of that which is ‘begotten of them,’ of course children primarily, but not exclusively; the ‘heir’ or ‘successors’ would represent the idea), the second (i.e. the immediate successor) who stands in their stead (plural, which nevertheless the LXX. render ἀντ’ αὐτοῦ, and rightly, because it is an instance of a distributive plural, with regard to הילד).

(16.) There is nothing of an end (i.e. ‘result,’ occurs chapter iv. 8, 16) to all the people (with the article, τῷ παντὶ λαῷ, LXX.——and in this book it appears as a collective for the human race——see chapter xii. 9), to all (repeated, hence with the meaning, ‘that is to all those’) that (full relative) were before them (but ‘before’ in the sense of in their ‘presence,’ not in the sense of ‘before their time’), moreover (introducing an additional reason), the succeeding ones——(see 2 Chronicles ix. 29, xii. 15, which will give the exact meaning) not (rather emphatic from its position, ‘not at all’) will they (i.e. the people before them) rejoice in it (‘it’ is a singular following a plural, and hence a distributive, ‘any successor’) for also this is a vanity (an instance of evanescence) and vexing (not ‘vexation,’ because this comes from within) of spirit. Thus the sense is clear; it is the conclusion of the argument. Koheleth’s observation has regard to the progress of lives in relation to anything that may or is to be produced by them in the way of heritage——or, in other words, he asks how far the present state of things can be explained on the theory that it is a working for posterity, and he shows that this is not an explanation, for there is no result obtained by the collective people in the present, because each age is the same morally as that which went before it; while, of course, with regard to what is to succeed, the present generation cannot rejoice in that, because they will be all dead, and as the argument is limited to what takes place under the sun, so all so-called progress is but an instance of evanescence. The idea, if not that contained in the observation of one who selfishly observed, when requested to care for posterity, ‘that as posterity had done nothing for him, he did not see why he should do anything for posterity,’ rests on the same facts.