The Project Gutenberg eBook of Job and Solomon; Or, The Wisdom of the Old Testament, by Thomas Kelly Cheyne

248. In the version known as the Græcus Venetus (14th or 15th cent.) xxx. 1a runs thus, Λόγοι ἀγούρου υἱέως ἰακώως τοῦ μασάου (Jakeh the Massaite). Delitzsch’s view, given above, is taken from his art. on ‘Proverbs’ in Herzog-Plitt’s Encyclopædia; he refers to Friedrich Delitzsch’s Paradies, p. 303; comp. 243.

249. On Isa. xxi. 11, 12, see The Prophecies of Isaiah, i. 129, ii. 152. Hitzig’s theory, originally stated in Zeller’s Theol. Jahrbücher, 1844, pp. 269-305, will be found in the well-known short commentary (Kurzgefasstes exeg. Handbuch, 1847) by Bertheau, who substantially accepts it.

250. This is a little too strong. We should certainly have expected melek Lemuel (or Lemoel) rather than Lemuel melek, on the analogy of melek Yārēb, Hos. v. 13, x. 6. As it stands in the text, melek (after Lemuel, and without the article) can only be a definition of class. The Lemuel spoken of was quite unknown to the reader, and therefore the editor appends the descriptive title ‘king.’ Comp. Ex. xxxii. 11, where Joshua, son of Nun, being introduced for the first time, is described as na’ar ‘a squire.’

251. Referring to Neue Uebersetzung der Denksprüche Salomo’s, 1791, p. 29.

252. The addition here is very poetical, and may, as Ewald says, have been extracted from an ancient anthology. But it disturbs the connection.

253. So we may venture to paraphrase ‘Wisdom’ in this connection.

254. Revelation, p. 365; Die Lehre der Bibel von Gott, i. 378.

255. Note the phrase in i. 1, ‘who in his life repaired the house,’ implying ‘now indeed he is dead.’ Grätz in fact is the only scholar who doubts the author’s contemporaneousness with Simon (Monatsschrift, 1872, p. 114).

256. See, besides the well-known passage in Pirke Aboth (i. 2), the legendary extracts from (Bab.) Yoma, 39b, translated by Wünsche, Der bab. Talmud, i. 1, pp. 368-9; and comp. Derenbourg, Hist. de la Palestine, i. 44 &c.

257. So we must paraphrase ἐν τῷ ὀγδόῳ καὶ τριακοστῷ ἔτει ἐπὶ τοῦ Εὐεργέτου Βασίλεως. See Stanley’s note in Jewish Church, iii. 235, and Abbot’s note in the American edition of Smith’s Bible Dict. (I am indebted to Bissell for the latter reference). Comp. Wright, The Book of Koheleth, p. 34 n.

258. The Mishna (Pirke Aboth, i. 2) ascribes this saying to Simeon the Righteous: ‘On three things the world stands—revelation (tōra), worship, and the bestowal of kindnesses.’

259. See Jos., Ant., xii. 4.

260. On the identity of the Ben Sira of the Talmud and our Sirach, see Horowitz in Frankel’s Monatsschrift, 1865, p. 181 &c. The ch in the form Sirach may be due to an old error in the Greek text.

261. Hist. of Israel, v. 263-4. Ewald includes xxxix. 12-35 in the portion belonging to the second (supposed) collection.

262. See the headings at certain points of the Greek version.

263. With vv. 21, 23 comp. St. Paul, Phil. iv. 11, 12.

264. See St. Jerome, Præf. ad Libros Salomonis, and comp. Lightfoot’s Clement of Rome, p. 164 &c.

265. Keerl, Die Apokryphenfrage (1855), p. 214.

266. Sketches of Jewish Social Life, p. 189.

267. Ewald, Revelation, p. 364 n.

268. Ewald (History, v. 263, n. 3) refers to iv. 15, x. 13-17, xi. 5 sq., xxxii. 17-19, xxxiii. 1-12, xxxvi. 11-17, xxxvii. 25, xxxix. 23, xlviii. 10 sq., but only for a vague Messianism (in the last passage the Greek seems to be interpolated). I would add xxxv. 17-19, xxxvi. 1-10.

269. True, the Greek version of Sirach has, at xxi. 27, the words, ‘When the ungodly curseth the Satan, he curseth his own soul;’ but ‘the Satan’ may here be synonymous with the depraved will, the yéçer rā (this seems to have Talmudic authority; see Weber, System der altsynag. pal. Theol., pp. 228-9). In Baba bathra, 15a, Satan is not distinguished from the yéçer rā.

270. Chap. xxii. 11. Comp. xiv. 11-19 (correcting by the help of the Syriac), xvii. 27, 28, 30. Contrast the glowing language of the ‘Wisdom of Solomon,’ iii. 1-4.

271. The Syriac has, ‘Nevertheless he dieth not, but liveth indeed.’ The Greek version I have quoted farther on. Also the Latin, which probably corresponds most to the original. See Geiger, Zeitschr. d. d. morg. Ges., xii. 536. The false reading κεκοιμημένοι, adopted by A.V., for κεκοσμημένοι, in xlviii. 11a, is due to the same theological motive.

272. Antiquities, xii. 3, 3.

273. Ch. xi. 17; comp. ii. 7 &c.; xvi. 6 &c.; xl. 13, 14. There are, however, passages in which Sirach betrays some little feeling of the practical difficulties of the older form of the doctrine of retribution: see xxxv. 18 [xxxii. 18].

274. See Dukes, Rabbinische Blumenlese, pp. 29, 30; Grätz, Schir ha-schirim, p. 86. Grotius even supposed the author to be a physician.

275. καὶ μὴ ἐμποδίσῃς μουσικά. So xlix. 1. ὡς μουσικὰ ἐν συμποσίῳ οἴνου; comp. Ex. xxxii. 18 Sept. That Greek music was known in Palestine very shortly afterwards may be inferred from the Greek names of musical instruments in the Book of Daniel.

276. Wessely was one of the most eminent fellow-workers of the great Moses Mendelssohn. See Wogue, Histoire de la Bible et de l’exégèse biblique (1881), pp. 334-337.

277. The Mussaph prayer in the liturgy of the Day of Atonement (German ritual) contains a striking imitation of Sirach’s eloquent description of the high priest (see Delitzsch, Gesch. der jüd. Poesie, p. 21), every verse of which closes with the refrain mar’eh kōhēn ‘the appearance of the priest;’ Meshullam bar-Kleonymos is known to be the author.

278. Jos., Ant., xiii. 3, 4.

279. See Zunz, Gottesdienstliche Vorträge, p. 102; Delitzsch, Zur Gesch. der jüdischen Poesie, p. 204 (comp. p. 20, note 5); Dukes, Rabbinische Blumenlese, p. 67 &c. It should be noticed that among these Talmudic m’shālīm there are some, and even long ones, which do not occur in the Greek Sirach.

280. Præf. in libr. Sal. ‘Fertur et πανάρετος Jesu filii Sirach liber et alius ψευδεπίγραφος liber .... Quorum priorem Hebraicum reperi, non Ecclesiasticum, ut apud Latinos, sed parabolas prænotatum, cui juncti erant Ecclesiastes et Canticum canticorum.’ Nowhere since has Sirach been found in this position, nor with this title.

281. But is not a strophic division sometimes visible, e.g. ii. 7-17? See Seligmann, Das Buch der Weisheit des J. S., &c., p. 34.

282. See especially xlvi. 19, with which comp. the Septuagint of 1 Sam. xii. 3.

283. Vorstudien zu der Septuaginta (1841), p. 21, note w.

284. Wright, Koheleth, p. 48 n.; Strack, art. ‘Kanon des A. T.’ in Herzog-Plitt, Realencyclopädie, vii. 430, 431; Gratz, Kohelet, p. 48.

285. Bishop Butler, who is fond of Sirach, quotes this saying in his 4th sermon.

286. The ‘many books’ spoken of in xii. 12 were probably less orthodox than Ecclesiastes, but in so far as Ecclesiastes, especially in its uncorrected state, is sceptical, it may be grouped with them.

287. In common with most interpreters, I regard Ecclesiastes as a Judæan work.

288. Following the precedent of the Epilogue (xii. 9), I designate the author by the name which he has invented for his hero.

289. There is a touch of humour in the expression, which can perhaps best be reproduced in our northern Doric, ‘Be not unco’ guid.’

290. I follow Sept. and Dr. Merx. The received reading is very harsh.

291. Geschichte des Volkes Jisrael, iii. 30.

292. Renan, L’Antéchrist, p. 228.

293. On the rhythm, comp. Bickell, Der Prediger (1884), pp. 27, 46-53.

294. Die alttestamentliche Literatur, p. 173.

295. ‘Dazu so ist’s wie ein Talmud aus vielen Büchern zusammengezogen.’ Luther’s Tischreden, quoted in Ginsburg, p. 113.

296. See Supplementary Chapter.

297. De rerum naturâ, i. 140 (appositely quoted by Mr. Tyler).

298. See the passage quoted from Chenery’s translation of Hariri by Dr. Taylor (Dirge of Coheleth, p. 55); comp. Rückert’s rhyming translation (Hariri, i. 104-5).

299. Renan’s list is i. 15, 18; ii. 2, 14; iii. 2-8, iv. 5, 14; v. 2; vii. 1-6; 7, 8; 9b; 13b; 24; viii. 1, 4; ix. 16, 17; x. 2, 12, 18; xi. 4, 7; xii. 3-5; 10; 11, 12. Bickell’s, i. 7, 8; 15; 18; ii. 2; v. 9; vi. 7; iv. 5; ii. 14; viii. 8; ix. 16-x. 1; vii. 1-6, vi. 9, vii. 7-9; vii. 11, 12; vii. 20; v. 2; x. 16-20; xi. 6; xi. 4; viii. 1-4, x. 2, 3; x. 6, 7; x. 10-15; ix. 7; xi. 9, 10, xii. 1a; xii. 1b-5; 6. (The order of these passages arises out of Bickell’s critical theory; on which see Chap. XII.)

300. See the fantastic legend to account for the past tense in Midrash Koheleth (transl. Wünsche), or Ginsburg (p. 268; comp. p. 38).

301. Dean Plumptre thinks Koheleth (like ἐκκλησιαστής), which is rendered by him ‘the Debater,’ means rather a member of an assembly, than a teacher or preacher, and compares Ecclus. xxxviii. 33, where the son of Sirach says of labourers and artisans that they ‘shall not sit high in the congregation,’ i.e. in the ecclesia or academy of sages. But judging from the parallel line the ‘congregation’ is rather that of the people in general (comp. Ecclus. xv. 5). The Dean’s view that the book embodies the inward debates of a Jewish philosopher may be to a great extent true, but for all that Koheleth is throughout represented as speaking alone and with authority. On the philological explanation of the word, see Appendix.

302. This seems a reasonable view. Bickell boldly maintains that i. 1, 12, 16, ii. 7, 8, 9 [12] are interpolations (made presumably to facilitate the recognition of the book as canonical). Observe however that the (fictitious) author is nowhere declared to be Solomon, but only ben-David (i. 1). He claims attention merely as a private person, as an interpreter of the complaints of humanity. Though he does once expressly refer to his royal state (i. 12), it is only to suggest to his readers what ample opportunities he has enjoyed of learning the vanity of earthly grandeur. So, very plausibly, Bloch (Ursprung des Kohelet, p. 17).

303. The passage indeed is obscure and possibly corrupt (so Bickell), but the above words probably do justice to the mood described.

304. Among the many other interpretations of this difficult passage, two may be mentioned here. (1) ‘He has also set worldliness in their heart, without which man cannot understand the work that God does, from beginning to end.’ So Kalisch (Path and Goal, frequently). This is an improvement upon the translation of Gesenius and others, who render, not ‘without which’ &c., but ‘so that man may not’ &c. The objection to the latter rendering is that it gives ‘worldliness’ a New Testament sense (comp. 1 John ii. 15). Kalisch, however, in full accord with the spirit of Judaism, makes Koheleth frankly accept ‘worldliness’ as a good, understanding by ‘worldliness’ a sense of worldly duties and enjoyments. Had this however been Koheleth’s meaning, would he not have coined another of his favourite abstract terms (comp. the Peshitto’s ’olmoyuthō = αἰὼν in Eph. ii. 2)? (2) ‘Also he has put eternity into their heart, but so that man cannot’ &c. So Ginsburg and Delitzsch (desiderium æternitatis, taking ‘eternity’ in a metaphysical sense = ‘that which is beyond time’); so also Nowack (taking it in the popular sense of years following upon years without apparent limit). Ginsburg’s view is against the context, in which the continuance of the human spirit is doubted; but Nowack’s explanation is not unacceptable. Man has been enabled to form the idea of Time (for the popular view of ‘eternity’ comes practically to this), and has divided this long space into longer and shorter periods; what happens in one period or season, he can compare with what happens in another, thus finding all well-adapted and ‘beautiful.’ But he cannot grasp the whole of Time in one view. But I still prefer the explanation given in the text, as being simpler, in spite of the fact that ’ōlām nowhere else occurs in the sense of ‘world’ (or the present order of things), so common in later Hebrew.

305. This is the rendering of the four principal versions and of all the best critics, including Mercier, Ewald, Ginsburg, Grätz and Delitzsch; it agrees with the general tendency of Koheleth, and in particular with vii. 5, where the grave is called man’s ‘eternal home’ (see below). It is no doubt opposed by the vowel-points, which are followed in King James’s Bible. But it is more than probable (considering other parallel phenomena) that the authors of the points were directed by a theological and therefore uncritical motive, that, namely, of effacing as far as possible a trace of Koheleth’s opposition to the doctrine, by that time recognised as orthodox, of the immortality of the soul.

306. Swinburne, On the Verge.

307. Hitzig in his commentary refers to the history of the high priest Onias and his nephew Joseph. Afterwards he recalled this opinion; but we may be thankful to him for directing attention to this curious and instructive historical episode.

308. The mechanical juxtaposition of the two halves of ver. 1 is obvious. The proverb gains considerably, if read with Bickell’s very plausible supplements,

‘Better is a good name than precious ointment,
[but wisdom is still better than fame;
better is not-being than being]
and the day of death than the day of one’s birth.’

The ‘wisdom’ meant will be that of resignation and renunciation.

309. ‘Hereafter’ is, literally, ‘after him’ (for the meaning of which see iii. 22, vi. 12); ‘experience,’ literally ‘find’ (comp. Prov. vi. 33). For other views, see Wright, who objects to the above explanation that it ‘is opposed to the teaching of Koheleth respecting a future judgment.’ But the question is, Did Koheleth believe in a future judgment?

310. Eccles. Polity, i, 2, § 3.

311. There is a touch of humour here; comp. the wretch in the fable who called Death to his aid, but refused him when he came. Klostermann has done well in reviving this interpretation, which, in Germany at least, had been generally abandoned. (Delitzsch thinks the ‘angel’ is the priest whom the man who has vowed approaches with a request to be released from his vow. This is supported by Mal. ii. 7, where the priest is called ‘the messenger of Jehovah Sabáoth;’ but see the notes of Ginsburg and Kingsbury. Renan renders, à l’envoyé des prêtres.) The angel is the destroying angel, whose action is discerned by faith in the judicial calamities which, sometimes at least, overtake the wrong-doer. (So the Targum, but postponing the appearance of the angel to the future judgment.)

312. As Plumptre well remarks, the vices thought of and the end to which they lead are those of sensual license (comp. Prov. vii. 25-27).

313. In Koheleth’s phrase, ‘that which is;’ comp. Wisd. vii. 17-21, where ‘the infallible knowledge of the things that are’ is equivalent to a perfect natural science. Here a similar phrase means rather philosophy.

314. So Klostermann. The ordinary interpretation is, ‘One man among a thousand (men) I have found, but a woman among all these I have not found;’ i.e. I have tested a thousand men and a thousand women; I have found one true man, but not one true woman. The objection is that ’ādām elsewhere (e.g. ver. 29) means human beings without distinction of sex.

315. Following Bickell. In viii. 10 it is the linguistic form, and in viii. 12, 13 the contents of the Massoretic text which excite suspicion. The former verse is thus rendered by Delitzsch, ‘And then I have seen the wicked buried, and they entered into (their ‘perpetual house,’ the grave): but they that had done right had to depart (into exile) from the holy place (Jerusalem; cf. II. Isa. xlviii. 2), and were forgotten out of the city: this too is vanity.’

316. The view expressed in ix. 10 is, I hope, very far from being the private belief of the many preachers who are accustomed to quote it. See the chapter on Ecclesiastes from a religious point of view.

317. Correcting the text in x. 6 with A. Krochmal.

318. Altering the points with Klostermann.

319. But Goethe may have thought of the Turkish proverb, ‘Do good, throw the loaf into the water; if the fish knows it not, the Creator does,’ or the story from the life of the Caliph Mutewekyil [Mutawakkil?] quoted, with this proverb, from H. F. v. Diez by Dukes, Rabbinische Blumenlese, pp. 73-74. Comp. also the stories in the Midrash Koheleth on our passage.

320. What judgment? Present or future (i.e. after death)? The latter gives a more forcible meaning (comp. iii. 17, xii. 14).

321. Essays and Reviews (1869), pp. 15-17.

322. Does the eastern sun blanch the ‘crimson broidery’ of the almond-blossom? From the language of travellers like Thomson and Bodenstedt it would seem so.

323. The Hebrew ’ōlām here expresses perpetuity (comp. Jer. li. 39, Ps. cxliii. 51, Ezek. xxvi. 20), not (as some moderns, after Aben Ezra) long continuance. It is true, that in the Targum of Isa. xlii. 11 an exit from the ‘eternal house’ is spoken of; but no one doubts that the belief in the Resurrection was general in the fourth century A.D.

324. Mr. Tyler interprets it in a Stoic sense of absorption in the World-Soul.

325. Nowack denies this meaning of rūakh altogether, but this seems a Gewaltstreich.

326. The title only belongs to pre-critical writers like Dr. John Smith, who, in his Portrait of Old Age (1666), sought to show that Solomon was thoroughly acquainted with recent anatomical discoveries. In revising my sheets, I observe that even such a fairminded student as Dean Bradley speaks of ‘the long-drawn anatomical explanations of men who would replace with a dissector’s report a painter’s touch, a poet’s melody.’ But the Dean only refers to ver. 6; I understand his language, though I think him biassed by poetic associations.

327. Namely, that vv. 3-5 are cited from an authorised book of dirges (comp. 2 Chr. xxxv. 25). There seems, however, no assignable reason for separating these verses from the context. And how can the supposed mourners have sung the latter part of ver. 5?

328. This supposes the approach of death to be described under the imagery of a gathering storm.

329. Namely, that the evil days of the close of life are described by figures drawn from the ‘seven days of death,’ as the modern Syrians designate the closing days of their winter. In a native Arabic rhyme, February says to March, ‘O March, O my cousin, the old women mock at me: three (days) of thine and four of mine—and we will bring the old woman to singing (another tune).’ Wright, Ecclesiastes, p. 271; Delitzsch, Hoheslied und Kohelet, p. 447.

330. Shabbath, 151b, 152b (Wright, Ecclesiastes, p. 262). The anecdote is given in connection with an allegoric interpretation of our poem.

331. Dean Plumptre and Dr. Wright, however, make this the opening verse of the Epilogue. But between ver. 8 and that which follows there is no inner connection.

332. The object of the article is perhaps to suggest that Koheleth is not really a proper name. In vii. 27 we should correct ām’rāh qōheleth to āmar haqqōheleth. Probably these words are an interpolation from the margin. They are nowhere else used in support of Koheleth’s opinions. The author of the interpolation may have wished to indicate his disagreement with Koheleth’s low opinion of women.

333. So Aquila, Pesh., Vulg., Grätz, Renan, Klostermann (v’kāthab).

334. I.e. the assemblies of ‘wise men’ or perhaps of Soferim. Surely ba’alē must refer to persons. The meaning ‘assemblies’ is justified by Talmudic passages quoted by Grätz, Delitzsch, and Wright.

335. So Klostermann. ‘Shepherd’ must, I think, mean teacher (comp. Jer. ii. 8, iii. 15 &c.); the expression is suggested by the ‘goads.’ ‘One shepherd’ (the text-reading) might mean Solomon; and we might go on to suppose the Solomonic origin of Proverbs as well as Ecclesiastes to be asserted in this verse. But the author of the Epilogue apparently considers Koheleth to be merely fictitiously Solomon, but really a wise man like any other. If so, he cannot have grouped it with Proverbs as a strictly Solomonic work.

336. So Klostermann, regarding this verse down to ‘commandments’ as an additional note on this difficult saying of Koheleth’s, which was liable to give offence to orthodox readers. The word ‘(is) vanity’ is supposed to have dropped out of the text. The object of the note is to show under what limitations it can be admitted that ‘all is vanity.’ Then the writer continues, ‘For this (concerns) every man; for every work’ &c., to show that the limiting precept is not less universally applicable than Koheleth’s melancholy formula.

337. Thus Delitzsch, who takes the ‘words of the wise’ and the ‘collections’ in ver. 11 to refer at least in part, the former to the detached sayings, and the latter to the continuous passages, which together make up Ecclesiastes. The ‘one shepherd’ is held to be God, so that the clause involves a claim of divine inspiration.

338. De Jong’s discussion of the Epilogue deserves special attention (De Prediker, p. 142 &c.); comp. however Kuenen’s reply, Onderzoek, iii. 196 &c.

339. Krochmal died in 1840, but his view on the Epilogue first saw the light in 1851 in vol. xi. of the Hebrew journal Morè nebūkē hazzemān (see Grätz, Kohelet, p. 47). His life is to be found in Zunz, Gesammelte Schriften, ii. 150 &c.

340. See Jost (Gesch. des Judenthums, i. 42, n. 2). Derenbourg too seems to tend in this direction (Revue des études juives, i. 179, note). Reuss, Bickell, and Kleinert too agree in denying that ‘Koheleth’ composed the Epilogue. So also apparently Geiger (Jüd. Zeitschr., iv. 10, Anm.)

341. L’Ecclésiaste, p. 73.

342. Meditations, ii. 3.

343. I designedly refer to the great work of Epictetus, as its adaptation by Christian hands to the use of Christian believers to some extent furnishes a parallel for the editorial adaptation of Ecclesiastes.

344. Delitzsch, Hoheslied u. Koheleth, p. 215.

345. For the Jewish traditions and theories, see further Schiffer, Das Buch Kohelet nach der Auffassung der Weisen des Talmud und Midrasch und der jüdischen Erklärer des Mittelalters, Theil 1, Leipzig, 1885; and to complete Dr. Ginsburg’s survey of the literature, see Zöckler’s list in Lange’s Commentary and the additions to this in the American edition; also the preface to Wright’s treatise on Ecclesiastes.